berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) (09/01/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR DIATRIBE *** ----------------------------------------- >I see. We are going to defeat the communists in the African National >Congress by being nice to them. This, I take it, is the REAL constructive >engagement. >-- >Gene Mutschler ------------------------------------------- Time to reassess your line Gene. Two days ago the US State Department called for negotiations including the ANC and called for the release of Nelson Mandela, imprisoned leader of the ANC (source: NYTimes Aug 28-29, '85). (It is admittedly curious that the State Department does this while President Ronnie makes a speech on how segregation has disappeared in South Africa!) White busness leaders including the South African Chamber of Commerce are now demanding that the government negotiate. A dozen US Senators have just given money to ANC leader Winnie Mandela to rebuild her house and clinic destroyed by the Apartheid regime. The ANC officies in Zambia have, in fact, begun negotiation with some white businesses over the means by which Apartheid will be dismantled. (NYT, same dates). The Apartheid system in South Africa is on its deathbed. The ANC is a leading force in the struggle against apartheid, and speaks for a considerable number of people in South Africa. Realistic persons in the US State Department, the US Senate, and the South African business community now recognize that and are trying to come to terms with that reality. Give up the ghost of past illusions, Gene. A political line denying the immenent changes in South Africa serves no one. We either deal with the future leaders of South Africa or a self-fulfilling prophesy of a hostile government will come to reality. Andy Berman ...ihnp4!ihlpg!berman
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (09/04/85)
Here we go again... Berman quotes me wrt the absurd notion that being nice to the blacks will stop the ANC in its tracks: > ----------------------------------------- > >I see. We are going to defeat the communists in the African National > >Congress by being nice to them. This, I take it, is the REAL constructive > >engagement. > >-- > >Gene Mutschler > ------------------------------------------- Berman then goes off on a tangent: > Two days ago the US State Department > called for negotiations including the ANC and > called for the release of Nelson Mandela, > imprisoned leader of the ANC (source: NYTimes Aug 28-29, '85). > > (It is admittedly curious that the State Department does this while > President Ronnie [sic] makes a speech on how segregation has disappeared > in South Africa!) Not curious at all. The civil service positions, which is probably where that drivel came from, are not subject to control by the White House. Foggy Bottom, as it is known, has long been the last redoubt of the appeasers and world-government crowd. They do what they want and cannot be fired. For anything. They do not speak for me or for the real State Department--the Reagan appointees. As to Reagan's statement, it is more nearly true at a factual level than you might think. The SA government has eliminated many of the segregation features as we knew them here in the South not so long ago. These consisted of separate facilities for blacks and whites at train stations, stores, etc. The SA government has gotten rid of much of this 'petit apartheid', although it has not got rid of the more pernicious apartheid itself. > White busness leaders including the South African Chamber of Commerce > are now demanding that the government negotiate. If you can bestir yourself to go back and read the very first posting I ever made on this subject, I predicted that that is just what would and should happen. I called it a "revolution of rising expectations". When blacks realize their economic power, they will use it. The unfortunate thing for you is that they will eventually realize what would happen to their economic well-being if the likes of Mandela were to take over. Your ignorance of what I said is typical of the American Left-- you never seem to be particularly interested in what I or anybody else has to say, unless it hits one of your "hot buttons" so that you can launch into a left-wing diatribe. This is typical of you leftists--you only hear what you want to hear. I guess this is where the term "knee-jerk liberal" comes from. The Soviets use your selective hearing to manipulate you people like putty. > A dozen US Senators have just given money to ANC leader Winnie Mandela to > rebuild her house and clinic destroyed by the Apartheid regime. 1) Your claim as to the perpetrators has not been proven so far as I know. 2) If a bunch of Senators want to grab some headlines and votes by paying blood money to a Communist that is their privilege. Just remind me not to vote for them next time. > The ANC officies in Zambia have, in fact, begun negotiation > with some white businesses > over the means by which Apartheid will be dismantled. (NYT, same > dates). This proves nothing except that desparate men do desparate things. > Give up the ghost of past illusions, Gene. A political line > denying the immenent changes in South Africa serves no one. > We either deal with the future leaders of South Africa or a > self-fulfilling prophesy of a hostile government will come > to reality. > > Andy Berman ...ihnp4!ihlpg!berman To repeat: if you think you can "deal" with the likes of the ANC and Mandela, I pity you. They eat people like you for lunch. Think of yourself as a big chocolate eclair--black (in spirit at least) on the outside, white on the inside, and squishy-soft all through. -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/06/85)
In article <175@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: >Your ignorance of what I said is typical of the American Left-- >you never seem to be particularly interested in what I or anybody >else has to say, unless it hits one of your "hot buttons" so that >you can launch into a left-wing diatribe. This is typical of you >leftists--you only hear what you want to hear. I guess this is where >the term "knee-jerk liberal" comes from. The Soviets use your >selective hearing to manipulate you people like putty. Try the following experiment: replace all occurrences in the above paragraph of the syllable 'left' with 'right,' the word 'liberal' with the word 'conservative,' and the word 'Soviets' with the phrase 'ultraconservative Christian right.' Aren't sweeping generalizations fun? ;-) What you say is true of many people on the left side of the political spectrum. For example, a few months ago "The Nation" printed an article by someone (I think the name was Manning) that suggested that maybe the Sandinistas might not be entirely the Good Guys so many people on the left want to think they are. The screams of outrage at this suggestion have to be read to be believed. And we all remember the naive elevation of the Viet Cong to a position of untouchable moral correctness during the Viet Nam sadness. However, I also believe the right is responsible for a lot of 'knee-jerking' of its own. For example, the Sandinistas are frequently called 'thugs' by the right, which they very well may be. The right takes great glee in pointing out the many sins of our Boys From Managua. But I've yet to have anyone explain to me exactly WHY the Contras are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers, as the Great Communicator tells us. I mean, why shouldn't I consider them thugs too? I much prefer Harry Truman's honesty when referring to one of our more dictatorial allies: "He may be a sonofabitch but he's OUR sonofabitch." (Note: I *think* it was Harry Truman, but I don't have a source handy to check it out) Oh, you tell me it's true because the Great Communicator sez so? Sorry, I forgot that I should believe everything he tells me without question because if I don't it proves I'm not a good American. I guess my liberal knee's jerking the way it sometimes does distracted me for a second. :-) And if you don't think the right has its own set of 'hot buttons,' consider any one of a number of issues sure to rile up the most staid conservative: abortion clinics, school prayer, the Panama canal treaty, welfare moochers, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Your claim of superior objectivity on the part of the right is hardly convincing. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
helmsoid@scirtp.UUCP (the helmsoid) (09/11/85)
> Not curious at all. The civil service positions, which is probably where > that drivel came from, are not subject to control by the White House. > Foggy Bottom, as it is known, has long been the last redoubt of the > appeasers and world-government crowd. They do what they want and cannot > be fired. For anything. They do not speak for me or for the real > State Department--the Reagan appointees. And certain hard-working former racist senators! > As to Reagan's statement, it is more nearly true at a factual level than > you might think. The SA government has eliminated many of the segregation > features as we knew them here in the South not so long ago. And as we'll see again wth any luck! > These consisted of separate facilities for blacks and whites > at train stations, stores, etc. That's right! We let 'em get near whites. That's pretty darn generous! What are the coloreds complaining about now? > The SA government has gotten rid of much of this 'petit > apartheid', although it has not got rid of the more pernicious apartheid > itself. Picky, picky! > > White busness leaders including the South African Chamber of Commerce > > are now demanding that the government negotiate. Sissy negro-lovers is what I call 'em! > When blacks realize their economic power, they will use it. Which is why we shouldn't give 'em economic power! > The unfortunate thing for you is that they will eventually realize what > would happen to their economic well-being if the likes of Mandela > were to take over. That's right! Then where would 'merica get her metal to make nucl'r deevices? Answer that, you pinkos out there! > Your ignorance of what I said is typical of the American Left-- > you never seem to be particularly interested in what I or anybody > else has to say, unless it hits one of your "hot buttons" so that > you can launch into a left-wing diatribe. This is typical of you > leftists--you only hear what you want to hear. I guess this is where > the term "knee-jerk liberal" comes from. The Soviets use your > selective hearing to manipulate you people like putty. A good argument for monitoring the leftist-press, if you ask me! > > Give up the ghost of past illusions, Gene. A political line > > denying the immenent changes in South Africa serves no one. > > We either deal with the future leaders of South Africa or a > > self-fulfilling prophesy of a hostile government will come > > to reality. Not if our Minuteman missiles have anything to say about it! That's goes for you too, Gorbajerk! > > Andy Berman ...ihnp4!ihlpg!berman Now I got your name in our big 'ol commernist database! Good luck with your impending IRS audit! Haw haw haw! -Jeshee These are the views held by all right-thinking 'mericans. If these views ain't held by an individual or organization, they must be Godless commernist agitators and will be dealt with appropriately. Amen. {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!helmsoid
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (09/13/85)
In article <704@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >What difference do small changes in "petit apartheid" make when the >gran apartheid policies which do not even allow blacks *into* white >areas in the first place continue in effect? The same difference that those first hesitant steps of a child learning to walk, makes. Yes, I think they could (and should) learn (and do) faster, but yelling all the time "Dammit, you fool, you can't walk, you are BAD, BAD, BAD. WALK NOW, you sonaofabitch or you won't get another meal", won't help much - just retard the process even more. And by the way, blacks are allowed in white areas, they are just not allowed to stay there (*). They may work there (if they have the right pass, but fortunately that - the pass laws - is also on its way out). Given time and encouragement and a little not-in-the-open pressure even the group areas act will go the way of "petit apartheid". (*) Note, I am not saying this is not bad, just that it is not as bad as you make it out to be. > In South Africa blacks do not even have this most >fundamental democratic right. This is what makes ridiculous Falwell's >attack on Nobel Peace Prizewinner, Desmond Tutu, as not being an >"elected representative" of blacks. OF COURSE NOT! Blacks cannot vote! >They have NO elected representatives. Blacks can vote, just not in the "right" places. They can vote for representatives on community or town councils. They can vote for their own "government representatives" in the homelands. So, in a sense they do have "elected representatives". Whether this is a meaningful vote, well that is a whole different story. >Moreover a division of Gallup from London found that 77% of blacks polled >in South Africa supported divestment I am wary of a poll done in Africa by a company in Europe. There are many factors that come in play when polling. While Gallup is a respected polling agency in the Western world, it does not mean that the same techniques can be applied in a completely different culture, and a Third World one at that. (I don't say that is what they did, but before I know the details of how the poll was taken, I take it with not just a grain of salt.) >In fact in Zimbabwe right now Ian Smith is still in the Parliament. And if you listen to what Mugabe has to say, it won't be for long, and should never have been in the first place. Zimbabwe is to become a one- party state. Where will that leave the "shining example of democracy" as some people have termed Zimbabwe?