bills@persci.UUCP (08/28/85)
alright, kiddies, since it seems that South Africa is to be this year's fad
(last year it was Nicaragua, year before El Salvador; what'll it be next
year?!), here's a little more information on the situation:
People are spouting a lot of garbage lately about why the white government of
South Africa so adamantly sticks to its policy of apartheid. This falls
into three categories: 1. The whites fear a communist takeover, 2. They
fear being completely overrun ("pushed into the sea") by blacks, or 3. The
wealthy ruling elite fear a loss of privilege and wealth.
What is rarely noted is that Pretoria is really concerned about a white
civil war if apartheid is suddenly abandoned. About 2/3 of South Africa's
white are blue-collar, and many of them are what would be termed "po' white
trash" in the American South, poorly educated, semi-literate, with few skills.
These are the people that have the most to lose from apartheid, from any form
of equality with the blacks of the country, and these are the people that
consistently vote against any changes in apartheid. What little status these
people have is achieved mainly through "baaskap", or "white boss"-ism. It is
the fear of losing that privilege, the basis of their survival, which motivates
their demand for apartheid.
The problem for the government (which is quite moderate by South African
standards, the most willing to concede on apartheid that South Africa
has ever seen), is the numbers of these people, and their strategic placement.
THEY are the ones working in the essential industries, THEY are the ones out
on the borders on their poor farms, THEY are the ones making up the security
forces, wielding the weaponry of South Africa.
They are also the people that gave the British such a fight in the Boer War.
They effectively invented modern guerilla warfare (and gave us the term
"commando"). Their government knows how violent they can be, and how determined
about maintaining baaskap and apartheid they are.
This is what the government of South Africa fears: the enemy within, their
own flesh and blood, who are holding the gun to their heads. They fear these
much more than U.N. sanctions, disinvestment, and black rioting.
Understanding the problem is the first step towards fixing it. Demonstrations,
no matter how much fun they are to hold, are not going to change the attitudes
of the Afrikaaner "po' white trash". Neither will disinvestment.
Disinvestment in fact reinforces the "laager" (round up the wagons!) mentality
of these people, since it strikes first and hardest at the poorer white
element, in a way to most increase their fear and hatred of the blacks.
It is the one policy most guaranteed to lead to civil strife in South Africa,
and the least effective in promoting a truly free state for all its people.
--
These opinions are not intended to be representative of my employer,
nor of any site or company involved, wittingly or otherwise, in the
dissemination of the foregoing opinions.gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (08/30/85)
While there is some truth in some of the statments made by Bill Swan (bills@persci), I'd like to make a few comments. > About 2/3 of South Africa's >white are blue-collar, and many of them are what would be termed "po' white >trash" in the American South, poorly educated, semi-literate, with few skills. >These are the people that have the most to lose from apartheid, Yes, they might have the most to loose, but they do not form 2/3 of the white South African population, at least not any more. In the first half of this century maybe, but the vast majority of white SA is quite well off and well educated. There was a time when whites could drop out of school in grade 10 or even grade 8 and still be assured of a job, just because they were white. Those days are long gone and most whites realise it and accept it. That is also why I think many young blacks in SA are now cutting their own throats (horrible figure of speech). They boycott schools (partly because of complaints about quality of education), don't get any education and therefore just get further behind. Even if they "take over the country" they are still going to need that education and it would by no means be easier to get then than now. The way I see it (and yes, I am an Afrikaner, although that says about as much as saying you are a Canadian of Irish extraction), there are two big hurdles in getting apartheid dismantled: a political one and a social one. There is not really an economical one (in fact economics are more likely to be the driving force behind the dismantling process). Political: If you are part of a minority in a country, and your minority have just about all the political say in that country, would you be willing to relinquish that power to a majority that you perceive as being hostile to you, especially if you have seen what happened to other groups in similar situations in the rest of your continent? I doubt it. Yet that is exactly what is being asked from the government of South Africa - not an easy request to satisfy; no wonder they are dragging their feet. (If only they would realize that by dragging their feet they are only making matters worse.) That is why perceptions have to be changed. But since all is not just a matter of perception, a fairly unique political solution is also required. One in which minorities (because it is to a large extent true that, as the government likes to point out, SA is a country of minorities) will not be "lost" amongst the majority. As the SA ambassador to Canada has recently said: "Africa has not been kind to its minorities" (and that, believe me, is an understatement). Social: For many white South Africans (and they are not only Afrikaners), the black people and their culture are foreign, "different", and for some even menacing. This despite the fact that they have lived beside them/it for all of their lives, but that is the result of apartheid which literally means separation). They are afraid that somehow they will lose their identity (whatever that is) and culture if they "mix" with the blacks socially and culturally. That is why constructive engagement has a better chance of (peaceful) success than sanctions and disinvestment. Those people/companies that operate in SA and go about their daily business the way any decent human being should expect, create microcosms of non-racial environments inside SA. People working there and dealing with them see "Hey, what is so bad about this non-racial stuff - I share the office, lunch room, even toilet with a black person and nothing happens! This black person is even an interesting, educated and intelligent human being. He has basically the same feelings, desires, fears and dreams that I have despite the fact that we are from completely different cultural backgrounds." And barriers go down and attitudes change and people start to trust each other. The Afrikaners is generally a proud and obstinate tribe - keep shouting and yelling at them and beat them and tell them what to do and the less they will listen, even if they know what you say is right. They want to do things because THEY decided to do it, not because someone else told them to do it. (A very common human trait I am afraid; Afrikaners just got an extra measure of it.) One can influence them, but not (or at least only with great difficulty) through confrontation. That the British (and to a lesser extent the Dutch) learned the hard way in the past. >Understanding the problem is the first step towards fixing it. Demonstrations, >no matter how much fun they are to hold, are not going to change the attitudes >of the Afrikaaner "po' white trash". Neither will disinvestment. > >Disinvestment in fact reinforces the "laager" (round up the wagons!) mentality >of these people, Except for the "po' white trash" I could not agree more. Well, I can say lots more, but have probably said too much already. If you have read till here, thanks for the perseverence! Regards Riel Smit +1 519 888 4004 UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,decvax,allegra,clyde,utzoo}!watmath!watrose!gdvsmit CSNET: gdvsmit%watrose@waterloo.csnet BITNET: rs@watcsg
jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) (08/30/85)
I doubt (from your tone) that we agree on much re. South Africa, but I'll give you credit for an interesting analysis. If you've described accurately the bind in which the Botha government finds itself, then what would you suggest that Botha do in order to assuage the Afrikaaners if he comes to accept the idea of power sharing with blacks--even to the extent of "one man, one vote." I am serious in this request. If the anti-South Africa groups in this country can be more effective, I would like to know how they might change their tactics. Not just "don't press for dis- investment," but positive suggestions that we can press on the Reagan administration to in turn push on Botha. Looking forward to your reply.
bill@persci.UUCP (09/05/85)
In article <200@kepler.UUCP> jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) writes: >I doubt (from your tone) that we agree on much re. South Africa, >but I'll give you credit for an interesting analysis. If you've >described accurately the bind in which the Botha government finds >itself, then what would you suggest that Botha do in order to >assuage the Afrikaaners if he comes to accept the idea of power >sharing with blacks--even to the extent of "one man, one vote." > I am serious in this request. If the anti-South Africa groups >in this country can be more effective, I would like to know how >they might change their tactics. Not just "don't press for dis- >investment," but positive suggestions that we can press on the >Reagan administration to in turn push on Botha. > Looking forward to your reply. John (and others), I don't have any suggestions to offer. I'm not even sure (I rather doubt it) that the situation described is the whole picture, but I believe that it is a factor to be considered. The concern I have is that there seem to be an awful lot of people quite ready to tinker with the situation, without understanding what's holding it together, especially since they don't have have to suffer *anything* if they are wrong! I don't consider this as being responsible. All I'm asking is that people really study the situation before acting. I know it's hard, especially when, in the words of one netter, "It's so much fun for us all to get together". I am hoping somebody can come up with a constructive idea that I can support, since I do not like the situation in S.A., and would like to see it properly and peacefully resolved. Bill -- These opinions are not intended to be representative of my employer, nor of any site or company involved, wittingly or otherwise, in the dissemination of the foregoing opinions.