mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (05/04/85)
>From: tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (T J Jardine) >The last thing that one would want is to make the condition of the non-white >worse than it is now. Yet those who suggest that the US companies doing >business in South Africa pull out would do just that. Perhaps only a small >percent of the non-white population is directly benefited by the policies >of the US companies, but at least that shows what can be done and more than >anything it provides HOPE. I have personally seen what US companies in >Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban have done to improve wages, working >conditions, and opportunities for non-whites. This reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently in a newspapers. It showed a black ghetto in South Africa, with a man looking in puzzlement at the banjo he's holding. Walking down the street is Uncle Sam with a sackful of banjos. The man is saying to his wife, "He said he just couldn't stand to see black folks so miserable." I'm glad that IBM, GM and the rest are in South Africa to better the lives of blacks; and here I had always thought it was because they made so much money there. Mike Kelly
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/05/85)
>/* mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) / 5:10 pm May 3, 1985 */ >>From: tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (T J Jardine) >>The last thing that one would want is to make the condition of the non-white >>worse than it is now. Yet those who suggest that the US companies doing >>business in South Africa pull out would do just that. Perhaps only a small >>percent of the non-white population is directly benefited by the policies >>of the US companies, but at least that shows what can be done and more than >>anything it provides HOPE. I have personally seen what US companies in >>Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban have done to improve wages, working >>conditions, and opportunities for non-whites. >This reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently in a newspapers. It showed >a black ghetto in South Africa, with a man looking in puzzlement at the >banjo he's holding. Walking down the street is Uncle Sam with a sackful >of banjos. The man is saying to his wife, "He said he just couldn't stand >to see black folks so miserable." > >I'm glad that IBM, GM and the rest are in South Africa to better the lives >of blacks; and here I had always thought it was because they made so much >money there. > >Mike Kelly Thanks for showing all of us how to ignore an argument when you (ostensibly) don't like its conclusions -- you do it quite well!
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (05/07/85)
[comment on U.S. corporations helping S. African blacks] > > I'm glad that IBM, GM and the rest are in South Africa to better the lives > of blacks; and here I had always thought it was because they made so much > money there. > > Mike Kelly A common mistake. Chief Buthelesi (sp?) of the Zulu tribe, one of the most respected black leaders in South Africa, has said something to the effect of "It is commonly believed that investment in South Africa is extremely profitable, but morally indefensible. The opposite is true: investment is a moral imperative, even while the business aspect may present problems." (I can get the exact quote if you'd like). It's no wonder that a poll of South African industrial laborers showed 75% opposed to a U.S. pullout. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (05/07/85)
> ...It's no wonder that a poll of South African industrial > laborers showed 75% opposed to a U.S. pullout. If you're referring to the same poll that I heard about, it was revealed to be another example of "creative polling": the question was put in terms something like, "Would you like it if U.S. companies pulled out of South Africa and you lost your job?" The commentary I heard reported that, under the circumstances, the remarkable thing was that as many as 25% of the respondents answered "yes". --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle --- riddle@ut-sally.UUCP, riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sally
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (05/10/85)
>From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) >Chief Buthelesi (sp?) of the Zulu tribe, >one of the most respected black leaders in South Africa, has said >something to the effect of "It is commonly believed that investment >in South Africa is extremely profitable, but morally indefensible. >The opposite is true: investment is a moral imperative, even while >the business aspect may present problems." (I can get the exact quote >if you'd like). It's no wonder that a poll of South African industrial >laborers showed 75% opposed to a U.S. pullout. > Well, Bishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Prize, favors divestment. Fine, so opinion is divided in South Africa. (By the way, the New York Times ran a story about five weeks ago on that poll, pointing out the major flaws in methodology. The questions were phrased to obtain the answer the pollster wanted, i.e. that divestment is wrong. The issue, though, isn't what South Africans believe. The issue is what Americans believe. It is undeniable that the technology, hard currency and international respectability U.S. corporations provide the South African government with helps maintain that government. Those who don't want that government supported with American money should pressure to end that support. That's what's happening. I doubt that a U.S. pullout will make conditions "better" for the majority of South Africans. Only the abolition of the apartheid government will do that. It is also ironic that many of those so concerned about the effect of divestment on South Africa are whole-hearted supporters of the Reagan *embargo* against Nicaragua. Does anyone *dare* to compare the internal policies of those two governments? Does anyone *dare* suggest that there is massive repression against the majority of Nicaraguans by their government on the scale that the South African government squashes the black majority in that country? Are there internal passports in Nicaragua? Are people "banned" just for speaking their opinions? The differences are like night and day, as are U.S. policies. How about a little "constructive engagement" with Nicaragua and an economic embargo against South Africa? Mike Kelly
vip@philabs.UUCP (V. I. P.) (05/17/85)
Sorry but...
I haven't read net.politics for a long time, and haven't had a chance to
pick up all the articles that I'm sure I haven't read on this subject,
but any of you out there who have any questions about how to solve the
problems of Apartheid in South Africa need only ask a Black man, who
hasn't grown up with the delusions so many of our young Black people
populating various liberal (and misguiding/brainwashing) academic
institutions like Columbia University have. (phew! was that a sentence
or what?)
First of all, the whole idea of divestiture destroying the lives of
the Blacks who work for the big multinationals in S.A. is a big scam. (Don't
you suppose that there were lots of people who opposed the abolition of
slavery in this country for the simple reason that by destroying the ability
of the whites in the south to exploit blacks that the lot of blacks might be
worsened?) The multinationals are there for one reason and one reason only,
and I can assure you it is not to employ Black people. (Guesses, anyone?)
Furthermore, for all you white, liberal, mealy-mouthed, well educated,
BMW driving, quiche-eating (get the picture?) bleeding hearts out there,
the only way to get rid of racism is to destroy the source of racism.
You cannot reform a racist government, it didn't work here it won't work
there.
What divestiture (and the divestiture movement) is all about, is
maintaining the status-quo while easing your consciences. Pull
American capital out of S.A. and allow the other racist/capitalist
powers of the world where public opinion is not quite so
important to move in and replace that capital.
If anyone has any questions as to what the United States should be doing
in South Africa, it is arming the Black majority to repel the hostilities
of the white slave-masters there. The United States should immediately
stop giving lip-service to the cause of civil liberties and non-violent
reform so long as there are Black people in South Africa being exploited
and killed every day for the very purpose of denying them their civil
rights.
Brian Day
) (
((
) ) )
( ((
)) )
) (())
( ))(
) ( ()))) ( (
) (( )) ))(( )( ))
() ))) ( ( (())) )))) (()
))) (((( ) ))))(((( ))))
) ((() ) ))))) ( ) )) ))XXXX(X)( ((((
( ) )XXX(( ))XX)( ( ) () ((( ((X((())))) )))) (
) ))))X))(( ))))XX)))( ((( )X) (((())XXXX((X)((()))) ))
(( ))X))X)X())))XXXX))(((((((( ))XX)))X))))(()X(XX())(XX))(((((
))))))XXXX(XX(())XXXXXXX((())))) (((XXXX)XXX)(XXXX)XXXX))(X))))((()
Death by *FLAME*, Racist Reactionaries!!ughenry@sunybcs.UUCP (Henry Neeman) (05/29/85)
From postnews Tue May 28 16:35:53 1985 References: <1102@cbosgd.UUCP> <694@ssc-vax.UUCP> <168@ttrdc.UUCP> <329@philabs.UUCP> > Furthermore, for all you white, liberal, mealy-mouthed, well educated, > BMW driving, quiche-eating (get the picture?) bleeding hearts out there, > the only way to get rid of racism is to destroy the source of racism. > You cannot reform a racist government, it didn't work here it won't work > there. > Brian Day [Note: since I'm only addressing this one point, I deleted 2-3 paragraphs of other stuff.] What do you mean, "it didn't work here"? Did I miss a revolution in the 1950's-60's? (I admit I wasn't born until 1965, but I have read a few books.) It seems to me that, prior to the Brown v. Topeka (?) Board of Education, there were "Jim Crow" laws in this country which allowed for "separate but 'equal'" facilities for blacks and other minorities. It seems that this is no longer the case. It seems that there are no more poll taxes, poll reading tests,etc., in this country (although there are people who would like to see them come back). It seems that racial discrimination by any branch of any government in the U.S.A. (federal, state, local) is ILLEGAL, to say nothing of frowned upon. It also seems to me that all of this was accomplished primarily by two means: changes in social perceptions (on the part of the citizenry) and legislation (on the part of the federal you-know-who). Perhaps you've heard of the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '65 (I believe); are these manifestations of a violent overthrow of the U.S. government prior to my birth? It seems, then, that you can reform a racist government. By the way, I am white (Jewish, no less), liberal, but I don't drive a BMW (I don't even own a car), I don't like quiche, and, as to whether I'm "mealy-mouthed" or a "bleeding heart", well, I'll leave that up to the reader, as they say. So there. "Are Jews white? Well, technically yes, but..." -- NatLamp -- Henry J. Neeman (ughenry@buffalo) Mail, mail, send me mail!