andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (10/31/85)
Whenever I see certain names in the author line, I get ready for high
bogon flux. I suspect that all these picky little semantic points are being
argued because either (a) some people are just feeling pedantic or (b) some
people don't believe that the political situation in S.A. has to change.
The real issue is not how arable the homelands are or what label one puts
on the S.A. troops in Namibia. The issue is why the Blacks living within S.A.
proper have no political control over their own lives. As long as there are
areas where apartheid is the rule, there will be institutionalised racism in
southern Africa.
I can appreciate (just barely) the argument that the S.A. Blacks do not
have enough political sophistication at this time to elect a government, though
that is of course due to their recent history, not any innate factors. And
I would support the course Botha is taking if he were making any more than the
feeblest attempt to improve the lot of Black S.Africans. But Blacks are still
undereducated, underpaid, and underprivileged there, and it seems Botha -- and
by the looks of the recent byelections, the majority of White S.Africans -- are
uninterested in changing that.
The issue is institutionalised racism, and any government or people that
perpetrates that deserves to be punished. If the punishers are not those more
enlightened peoples of similar ethnic, cultural, and linguistic background, who
will they be? I'm not suggesting that S.A. is the only place where this goes
on; but there are some who seem to be suggesting, through tangential arguments,
that S.A. shouldn't be punished at all. This is completely bogus.
--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"I am thinking of aurochs and angels, of the secrets of durable pigments"dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (11/04/85)
In article <80@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > The real issue is not how arable the homelands are or what label one puts >on the S.A. troops in Namibia. The issue is why the Blacks living within S.A. >proper have no political control over their own lives. Uh-huh. And how many of the Blacks in the rest of Africa have political control over their own lives? Dave Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (11/04/85)
>In article <80@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (that's me) writes: >> The real issue is not how arable the homelands are or what label one puts >>on the S.A. troops in Namibia. The issue is why the Blacks living within S.A. >>proper have no political control over their own lives. In article <894@lsuc.UUCP> (Dave Sherman) writes: >Uh-huh. And how many of the Blacks in the rest of Africa have >political control over their own lives? In this article I write: Not as many as we would like, I suppose. What does that mean, that we shouldn't protest S.African treatment of Blacks because Black governments treat their own people badly? I'm against any government that treats its people badly (including the current one in B.C. :-)). The fact that S.A. is now the fad news item which everyone is involved in does not mean that we shouldn't do in this case what ought to be done in many cases. If you tilt at every windmill that looks bad to you, you're going to find that you don't have enough lances to go around (to extend a metaphor). Now is the time to put sanctions on S.A., if only because the whim of the media has turned to it as it turned to, say, Ethiopia as opposed to the rest of the Sahel, or the TWA hostages as opposed to the other American hostages in Beirut. When we've cleaned that area up to our satisfaction (:-), maybe we'll be able to have a crack at the other African dictatorships. <all proper acknowledgements for metaphors used, etc., to Marc Majka and the other participants in the Friday beer garden discussion on this very topic> --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "A great king should be as a dog that killeth clean"
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (11/04/85)
In article <80@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > I suspect that all these picky little semantic points are being >argued because either (a) some people are just feeling pedantic or (b) some >people don't believe that the political situation in S.A. has to change. If I am sounding pedantic, I am sorry, but if one constantly find that people make pronouncements and form opinions based on half-truths at best, it is sometimes difficult not to become pedantic. It is because of my experience of having lived in South Africa and reading here what the press and others sometimes preach as gospel about SA, that I do not believe half of what I read about the Soviet Union any more. > The issue is institutionalised racism, and any government or people that >perpetrates that deserves to be punished. [ ] > I'm not suggesting that S.A. is the only place where this goes on; >but there are some who seem to be suggesting, through tangential arguments, >that S.A. shouldn't be punished at all. This is completely bogus. > I am not arguing against punishment, rather, I am arguing for actions that will lead to the abolishment of apartheid with the least amount of violence, pain and upheaval for ALL concerned, and with the greatest potential of resulting in a stable, racially harmonious (is there such a place on this earth?), completely democratic society. If punishment in the form of sanctions and boycotts (also of the innocent) is the only way, then I will support even that, but I am by no means convinced that, at this point in time, it is the only nor the best way. I am also arguing for more consistency. I would like to see the same kind of ferver for punishment of other countries that do similar (and worse) things than South Africa (and if anyone is not willing to do that, then let him/her put up and shut up).
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (11/05/85)
In article <84@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > Now is the time to put sanctions on S.A., if only because the whim of >the media has turned to it as it turned to, say, Ethiopia as opposed to the >rest of the Sahel, or the TWA hostages as opposed to the other American >hostages in Beirut. When we've cleaned that area up to our satisfaction (:-), >maybe we'll be able to have a crack at the other African dictatorships. That would be a reasonable approach if there were any chance of us "having a crack at the other dictatorships". What's more likely is that if the current efforts succeed in destroying S.A. (which I doubt), we'll have created another such dictatorship. Would that be better? I don't know, but I don't think so. Dave Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) (11/05/85)
In response to Jamie Andrew's: >>The real issue is not how arable the homelands are or what label one puts >>on the S.A. troops in Namibia. The issue is why the Blacks living >>within S.A. proper have no political control over their own lives. Dave Sherman (dave@lsuc.UUCP) writes: >Uh-huh. And how many of the Blacks in the rest of Africa have >political control over their own lives? Right on Dave! I think we should all congratulate S.A. on the fine job it is doing in protecting black South Africans from the inevitable disaster that awaits them should they ever achieve political self-determination. You know, the white race get's a lot of bad rep for its noble efforts to shelter these primitive, child-like people from themselves. It's high time the truly altruistic motives of S.A.'s racial policies were recognised and praised. S.A. is another amazing example of the lengths "defenders of democracy" will go in apologizing for the brutal and totalitarian actions of their political friends. The government in S.A. makes the Nicaraguans look like a bunch of boy scouts. Yet on the one hand (the right one) we have the Americans making lame excuses and talking about the need to consider the dreadful impact of economic sanctions on the blacks themselves. On the other, we have a virtual economic embargo coupled with funds for the contras - and damn the consequences. Bogosity is too kind a word for this kind of two-faced hypocrisy.