> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:20:29 +0100, Bing Trotsky
>
gmail.com> wrote:
> >>So that's the deal then. You were in the military killing to defend
>>apartheid, and you don't have the guts to face the possibility that might
>>have been the wrong thing to do.
>
> How very presumptuous of you. You would probably be very surprised
> what I did and how I felt.
>
Then how about you explain rather than simply claim to have knowledge
that nobody else has without backing it up by describing your
experiences, sources, and supposedly unique insights.
>>Look toward? I've been to Zimbabwe and Zambia. Both a mess. But both
>>where you won't find many people demanding a return to colonial rule.
>
> Wrong. Almost all of the ordinary blacks in Zimbabwe would like to
> return to the life they had under Ian Smith. The vast majority don't
> understand and couldn't care less about the politics - they just want
> their old life back whatever it takes. Zambians don't know anything
> other than what they have now.
>
Actually my experience of Zambians was that they are quite outward
looking. Their country is a mess, but it's avoided a lot of the worst
things that have happened in Zimbabwe. So the lesson here is that the
supposed intermediary stage of the Smith government in Zimbabwe hasn't
led to a better long term situation.
I've met Zimbabweans who have suffered under the Mugabe regime. I've
heard some of the say that life for them was better under Smith. I have
yet to hear any black Zimbabwean say they want to return to white rule.
What many want is Mugabe and his cronies gone, not a Smith equivalent
back. I have however heard a number of white Zimbabweans and South
Africans (especially those who took the gap and who see themselves as
both) claim that they know that many black Zimbabweans want to return to
white rule. Yet they never seem to get around to saying in precisely what
circumstances they heard such a statement from a black Zimbabwean.
>>>> I've also
>>>>yet to hear a black South African tell me anything other than that life
>>>>is better than it was under apartheid.
>
>>> And where did you meet those blacks?
>
>>In London, in Liverpool, and in Zambia (quite a few South Africans on
>>the train from Lusaka to Ndola, and a LOT of time to talk).
>
> So none that are actually living in the country. Strange that the
> people who you say are telling you how much better the country is have
> chosen to live elsewhere.
>
During apartheid, no. Since then several.
>>So mostly in exile up to apartheid fell.
>
> Apartheid fell quite some time ago. Why have they not returned?
>
Many have.
>> I know a few black South Africans still,
>>though all currently based in London.
>
> Exactly. Better to look at the country from afar with rose-tinted
> glasses than actually live there.
>
It's simply that I no longer work for an organisation that has a branch
in South Africa.
>>On the other hand I also know quite
>>a number of white South Africans. Some have gone back to make a life in
>>SA, and some have settled over here (all rock spiders with one
>>exception). I also used to work closely with the South African branch of
>>the Samaritans up until a few years ago. It's a fair range.
>
> No it isn't. It is a self-selected sample of people who have the
> means to emigrate and have chosen to live elsewhere. That is *far*
> from being a representative sample. The vast majority of black South
> Africans do not have the means to leave the country even if they want
> to do so. I bet that you have not spoken to a single rural black, yet
> they make up the majority of the population. It's a pity, because I
> think it would really open your eyes to the reality of the situation.
> Your contacts have been with Westernised blacks - who admittedly got
> the roughest end of the stick under apartheid.
>
Read what is written rather than what you assume is written. Some of the
SA Samaritans are from rural areas, they are also a racially mixed group.
So whilst the majority of my contacts are with urban black South
Africans, that isn't the full extent of it.
>> So have you
>>actually been told directly by any black South African that they would
>>prefer to return to apartheid?
>
> Black Zimbaweans. Yes. South Africa has not yet degenerated to
> anywhere near the same extent, and life there is presently reasonably
> OK. Though as you yourself have noticed, the cracks are very evident.
>
So actually you are claiming it would be better for them on their behalf,
despite them wanting something else. I think that pretty much ends the
case for the defence.
>>>>I think I have at least some understanding of the issue. I'm not
>>>>convinced that you have the slightest understanding of it.
>
>>> I'm sure you genuinely believe that your picketing outside the South
>>> African embassy and exposure to distorted and one-sided propaganda
>>> gave you a far better insight into the situation than my 30 years of
>>> living in the country and regular conversations today with friends who
>>> are still there. It is highly unlikely that your belief is correct.
>
>>Right. So a wide range of people of different races, religions, and
>>political beliefs is distorted and one-sided propaganda, and somebody who
>>is ex-South African military and is an apologist for apartheid is
>>claiming to have the open mind.
>
> Your contacts have not been with the people who are living in the
> country. As for being an apologist for apartheid - I have stated that
> it was an imperfect but unfortunately necessary system. Events have
> proved that the only alternative that was put in its place simply does
> not work in that culture - which was 100%% predictable by anyone who
> lived in the country for any length of time. Do you really think that
> it is a good thing to get rid of an unfair poliotical system *at the
> expense of making everyone far worse off and destroying the country*?
>
Just to finish off. If you bothered to read what I wrote rather than rely
on your prejudices to imagine what you want me to have written, then you
would see that some of my contacts are people who live in South Africa,
both black and white.
As for predicting that apartheid was the only option that would work,
many South Africans would disagree with you. Do you really think Nelson
Mandela has been operating under the assumption that apartheid was a
necessary evil?
As for how disastrous real democracy has been for South Africa then
perhaps the best figure to look at is per-capita GDP based on purchasing
power parity. According to the IMF, that was 4766.741 in 1983, 5365.045
in 1993, 7408.751 in 2003, and is 10233.996 at present. Far from it being
an economy completely collapsing, according to the IMF it's not doing
badly. That doesn't mean there aren't pockets of worsening poverty, but
it means that overall the cake is getting bigger not smaller.
> Yes, under apartheid as it was practised the blacks only had half a
> loaf whilst the whites had a full loaf (but only by Western
> standards). But now they have *nothing*.
Now they have loaves that are almost double the size. At least according
to the IMF. Not that there won't be some people who have nothing. However
per capita the loaves are much bigger.
>>So, pray tell. Have you actually had any black South African claim that
>>they would rather apartheid had continued?
>
> See above. And I don't think you actually understand the concept of
> apartheid (as opposed to the way it turned out in practise). The
> system is not designed to treat any group better or worse than any
> other. It simply allows two cultures to co-exist in the same
> geographic area whilst maintaining separate cultural identities -
> neither group must necessarily be treated worse than the other. It is
> carried out in many situations without anyone geting upset about it.
> There is apartheid between the Westerners and the natives in Saudi,
> for example. Different living areas, effectively different laws.
> Minimal social interaction. There is also a self-imposed apartheid in
> the UK, with various cultural groups deciding to stay apart from other
> cultural groups.
>
Firstly I have a very clear understanding of apartheid as concept and
apartheid in practise. It fails in its basic concepts let alone as it was
practised in SA. Apartheid as practised in Saudi Arabia (which I have
experienced) has many very unpleasant aspects. To an extent for
Westerners who fall foul of local officialdom, but far worse for the many
South Asians, Phillipinos etc who are treated as little better than
animals sometimes. I don't think you can point to Saudi as an example of
apartheid being anything other than institutionalised bigotry. As for the
UK, there are areas of the country where different cultural groups keep
themselves to themselves. I happen to live somewhere that isn't the case
(Brixton), and I can only say that I really wouldn't want to live
somewhere that I'd only deal with people just like me.
Apartheid is built on shaky logic and even shakier premises. For a start
the concept of race as it is normally used makes no biological sense.
Secondly there is plenty of evidence that static cultures perform far
worse than dynamic culture, and the best way of ensuring a dynamic
culture is cultural cross fertilisation. So there is no basis for wanting
apartheid, there is also no logical way to impose it on the basis of
race.
What it boils down to is bigots enforcing their views on everyone else
despite there being no logical basis for them. That can be done with laws
as it was in SA, or it can be done by peer pressure as it is in some
places in the UK, either way it's downright stupid.
--
eric
The alternative to seeing things in black and white
is to see them in full colour.
