berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) (08/09/85)
How refreshing it is to see a naked defense of the racist South African regime on the net. The Reaganites usually mumble some hypocritical lies about disliking apartheid, but continue to support the regime through trade and commerical investment. But Gene Mutscher bares it all in his recent remarks on South Africa: >The principal reason so many African countries are in a pickle is because >their farmers have acted rationally when faced with markets distorted by >a bunch of tinpot dictators and tinhorn politicians. A four-hundred year legacy of emasculation by slavery, estimated to have killed 100 Million Africans is conveniently ignored. A legacy of European colonialism that denuded the wealth of the African contident is ignored. >[The ANC] believes in violence as a means to solve the problem, Here Gene gives us the old hypocrisy, condemning the violence of the oppressed when they fight the violence of the oppressor. No act of force by the ANC or by the brave African people now standing up to oppose Apartheid can match the violence of the Racist regime in South Africa. Where is Mutcscher's comdemnation of the daily violence of Apartheid? There is violence in a regime that comdemns 80% of its citizens to 3th class status. There is violence in a regime that denies Black families the right to live together. There is violence in a regime that comdemns most of it's citizens to a marginal economic existence in the service of a minority. There is violence in a regime that forces Black women and children onto arid and unproductive "homelands" to face starvation and disease. The ANC was a non-violent organization for 50 years. Apartheid did not change. They have now accepted the sad reality that the racist regime will not change without armed resistance. Let those who are shocked by that examine their own standards of judgement. > The South African government has offered to free [ANC leader] > Nelson Mandela if he would > pledge to eschew violence. He refused. He can rot. The racist regime is now scurrying. They recognize their own end is coming. Mandela has offered to negotiate a peaceful end to the conflict. He will not give up a lifetime struggle against Apartheid. He will not "rot." His victory is near! >It is a never-ceasing source of amazement to me that when the propaganda >switch is thrown in Moscow, left-wingers all over the world start >dancing to the tune. Last year it was the freeze, now its Apartheid. >What's it going to be next year? >Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene >Burroughs Corp. The last refuge when arguments fail: bring out the old "Communist Conspiracy" theory. In the noble battle against Moscow, everything is permissible: Apartheid, killing peasants in Central America, you name it. Sorry Gene, folks just ain't buying that crap like they used to. The days of the Apartheid regime are numbered. The African People have decided that. The future is theirs. People of good will around the world support their just struggle. andy berman ...ihnp4!ihlpg!berman
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (08/13/85)
In article <1053@ihlpg.UUCP> berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) writes: >The ANC was a non-violent organization for 50 years. Oh yea?! Tell that to those (innocent, black and white) people killed and maimed for life during those 50 years by bombs planted (and responsibility claimed for) by the ANC. They are as non-violent as the IRA, the PLO, Black September, <add your favorite terrorist organization>. The SAY they are non-violant, but it is DEEDS that disprove it.
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (08/13/85)
In article <1053@ihlpg.UUCP> berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) writes: > a regime that >forces Black women and children onto arid and unproductive >"homelands" to face starvation and disease. > Ever been to one of these "arid" homelands? Or do you blindly believe the ANC propaganda about them? I have been to most of them and have seen ANC films about them and either the ANC is mostly lying through their teeth, or world maps are all wrong. Some of these homelands contain some of the most beautiful areas and some of the best agricultural land in Southern Africa (e.g. Transkei, KwaZulu, Gazankulu, Venda and parts of Lebowa) - to such an extent that many white farmers will give an arm and a leg to be able to have their farms there. Please do not misunderstand me - I am not defending the South African government's homeland policy (for the most part it is indefensible), I am just correcting a widely held misconception about "arid" homelands. Yes, there are homelands that are arid (Bophuthatswana for example), but these homelands were not arbitrarily declared homelands and then all the blacks shipped off there. The nations/tribes/people living there have done so for the past 100-300 years (some even longer). It is their "anchestral lands". At least a large proportion of the people living there have asked for it to be their homeland - just as some Indian and Inuit peolpe are asking for a homeland in what some people would describe as arid areas. Furthermore, the biggest part of South Africa is "arid", at least by by North American (especially Canadian) standards. The Karoo (the largest part of the largest province) is a semi-desert, and who farms there? - the whites (and some whites want it to be a white homeland!). The whole idea of homelands is in itself not bad - all over the world various groups are asking (and some even fighting) for a homeland of their own. Forcing people to be associated with a homeland, and forcefully moving them there, well that is another story.
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/20/85)
[berman (again)] > How refreshing it is to see a naked defense of the racist South African > regime on the net. The Reaganites usually mumble some hypocritical > lies about disliking apartheid, but continue to support the regime > through trade and commerical investment. You are (as usual) laboring under several misapprehensions: 1) I am neither defending the South African government. In the first place, it needs no defending, and in the second (as you and your ilk love to point out with respect to Viet Nam and Nicaragua) this is an internal affair and none of anybody else's substantive business. I have an opinion-- P.W. Botha should cut a deal with Buthelezi to give the Zulus the Natal province and partition the country--but that's just my opinion. What I have been trying to do is show a bunch of well-meaning but naive leftists just what the real situtation is over there. 2) Although I voted for RR in 1984, I did not vote for him in 1980. In general, I think he has been a great disappointment. I am not really a Reaganite. 3) I don't go around naked, at least not outside of my house. > >The principal reason so many African countries are in a pickle is because > >their farmers have acted rationally when faced with markets distorted by > >a bunch of tinpot dictators and tinhorn politicians. > A four-hundred year legacy of emasculation by slavery, estimated > to have killed 100 Million Africans is conveniently ignored. By whom? If the Europeans had kept it up for another few centuries, they just MIGHT kill as many as Mengistu did in Ethiopia last year. > A legacy of European colonialism that denuded the wealth of the African > contident is ignored. They didn't denude it--they just moved all the chromium, gold, and diamonds to South Africa (-: :-). What it amounts to is that as soon as an African Socialist state gets its hands on something, they turn it to sh*t. It's the "Marxist Touch", definitely NOT to be confused with the "Golden Touch". I don't think I need to mention that resources are not necessary to economic well-being--example: Japan. Further, it is possible to be a colony and still be well-off--example: Hong Kong. > >[The ANC] believes in violence as a means to solve the problem, > Here Gene gives us the old hypocrisy, condemning the > violence of the oppressed > when they fight the violence of the oppressor. No act of force > by the ANC or by the brave African people now standing up to > oppose Apartheid can match the violence of the Racist regime in > South Africa. Where is Mutcscher's comdemnation of the daily > violence of Apartheid? Which violence are you referring to--the violence wherein a black woman was stoned and then burned alive by a black mob? Or the black policeman? Or the black civil rights lawyer probably killed by the ANC to create a martyr? You want a condemnation--you got it. I condemn the violence of the South African government. They are incredibly stupid for using it because they are playing right into ANC hands, if for no other reason. My whole posting was to indicate that 1) the US should be using constructive engagement to help the SA government change and 2) if the situation for blacks is bad now, the experience of the rest of Africa's flirtations with Marxism shows that things could be much much worse. > He [Mandela] will not "rot." His victory is near! > The days of the Apartheid regime are numbered. The African People > have decided that. The future is theirs. People of good will > around the world support their just struggle. Please, spare us. We know that you leftwingers are so burdened with Liberal Guilt that you want to show solidarity with whatever tinpot Marxist who cloaks himself in the "oppressed", but you should know that "One Man, One Vote", means "One Election" to the likes of Mandela and the ANC. > The last refuge when arguments fail: bring out the old > "Communist Conspiracy" theory. We only keep using it because it continues to demonstrate the truth. > In the noble battle against > Moscow, everything is permissible: Apartheid, killing peasants > in Central America, you name it. Sorry Gene, folks just ain't buying > that crap like they used to. In the noble battle against freedom, everything is permissible: Slavery (in the building of the Trans-Siberian pipeline), germ warfare (in Afghanistan), forced relocation of the Miskitos in Nicaragua, you name it. Sorry, Berman, you are destined for the ash-heap of history, because we are starting to fight back--in Afghanistan, Angola, and your beloved Nicaragua, just for starters. Eastern Europe is next. -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
riddle@im4u.UUCP (08/20/85)
>> I am neither defending the South African government. In the first place, >> it needs no defending, and in the second (as you and your ilk love to point >> out with respect to Viet Nam and Nicaragua) this is an internal affair and >> none of anybody else's substantive business. Nonsense. White minority rule in South Africa is an artificial arrangement created under colonialism and maintained with the implicit and explicit support of the Western powers, our own included. Were the South African government not dependent on our continued arms and investments, the "internal affairs" argument might hold some water, and our proper course of action might be limited to moral indignation; as it is, we contribute directly to the continuation of apartheid every day we pretend to pursue a policy of "constructive engagement," and our responsibility to stop doing so is clear. As to the cases of Viet Nam and Nicaragua, there is one crucial distinction you fail to mention: no one that I know is suggesting that we intervene militarily in South Africa, a course we pursued in Southeast Asia and are pursuing now in Central America. Military intervention raises us immediately to a level of involvement in the internal affairs of a country which we are almost never prepared to competently handle. I happen to favor democracy in South Africa, which ultimately means black majority rule, but I have no illusions as to our ability to impose democracy on South Africa by force -- if we were crazy enough to try such a stunt, we would almost certainly botch it. Unfortunately, that is exactly the stunt that we tried in Viet Nam and which the Reagan administration claims to be trying today in Central America (even though it's fairly easy to see that real democracy appears nowhere on their true agenda). Democracy, peace and justice are difficult goals that people can only reach by their own efforts. Our chief responsibility is to stop shoring up the obstacles (like the racist regime currently running South Africa) that we have put in their paths. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@ut-sally.UUCP --- riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sally, riddle%im4u@ut-sally