brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/23/85)
As deplorable as the slavery-like conditions in South Africa are, it's shocking to learn that blacks are lining up to get *in* to South Africa. Simply put, it's because slave or no, there are jobs in free-market SA and none in the neighbouring dictatorships. It's not up to us to debate this issue from afar. They clearly choose to work at $40 per week instead of $0. With luck, the white supremacy will end soon, and we can make further examination of the situation. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (10/25/85)
> As deplorable as the slavery-like conditions in South Africa are, it's > shocking to learn that blacks are lining up to get *in* to South Africa. > > Simply put, it's because slave or no, there are jobs in free-market SA > and none in the neighbouring dictatorships. SA a "free-market"?! Adam Smith will be turning in his grave. How on earth could an economy based, to use your own words, on slavery-like conditions be a "free" market. What's free about the economy of a country that banishes the overwhelming majority of its population in restricted wastelands (so-called batustans)? What's free about an economy that can "offer" starvation wages at gunpoint? As for the economic state of what you call "neighbouring dictatorships", that is primarily due to the legacy of centuries of colonialism and, to no small part, to SA's policies itself. One of these countries, Namibia (from where many of the workers "lining up" to get in SA are coming), is illegaly occupied by SA troups. To suggest that the economy of SA is in good shape because it is a "free market" while the economy of the neighbouring countries are in bad shape because they are "dicatorships" is just wishful thinking to fit preconceived notions. It has nothing to do with reality. > It's not up to us to debate this issue from afar. They clearly choose > to work at $40 per week instead of $0. This is obvious enough. But the dillema should-black-workers-get- $40-per-week-or-should-they-get-$0 is bogus. Why are these the only two alternatives? Why aren't these people entitled to decent wages as well as to freedom and dignity? > With luck, the white supremacy will > end soon, and we can make further examination of the situation. White supremacy will not end "with luck". It will end with the struggle of the people fighting against it. One can choose to help their struggle or one can choose to turn one's back to them. One way of doing the latter is to appeal to "luck" as a way of putting an end to their predicament. --Vassos Hadzilacos.
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (10/25/85)
In article <1534@utcsri.UUCP> vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: >What's free about an economy that can "offer" starvation wages >at gunpoint? Please explain how the South African economy offer starvation wages at gunpoint. Apart from the fact that the wages are not offered at gunpoint, they are much better than in most of the rest of Africa. (Which still does not make it acceptable, but that is not the point I am arguing.) > >As for the economic state of what you call "neighbouring dictatorships", >[ ] One of these countries, >Namibia (from where many of the workers "lining up" to get in SA are >coming), is illegaly occupied by SA troups. Namibia can by no stretch of the imagination be called a dictatorship. Not with a multi-party system and representatives elected by a large proportion of the population (both black and white). And as far as "occupied by SA troops" is concerned, I guess that is true if you are willing to say that West Germany is occupied by American troops. > >[ ] the dillema should-black-workers-get- >$40-per-week-or-should-they-get-$0 is bogus. Why are these the only two >alternatives? Why aren't these people entitled to decent wages as well >as to freedom and dignity? They sure are (entitled to...), but they definitely won't get decent wages if the rest of the world boycott the products they produce or the companies/institutions they work for. The same results, decent wages, freedom (whatever that means in the African context - do you regard Ugandans as "free"?) and dignity can be obtained (and sooner) without sanctions and boycotts from the outside world.
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (10/25/85)
In article <1534@utcsri.UUCP> vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: > >White supremacy will not end "with luck". It will end with the struggle >of the people fighting against it. One can choose to help their struggle >or one can choose to turn one's back to them. One way of doing the latter >is to appeal to "luck" as a way of putting an end to their predicament. Are you just against white supremacy or against the supremacy of one group over the other, regardless of the colour/race of the groups involved? If the former, I don't even want to argue with you. If the latter, I would like to know what you are doing to help the struggle of all the other oppressed peoples in Africa, or the world for that matter. If it is not the same as what you are doing for the oppressed in South Africa, I would like to know why. Why so selective?
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/25/85)
In article <1534@utcsri.UUCP> vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: >> As deplorable as the slavery-like conditions in South Africa are, it's >> shocking to learn that blacks are lining up to get *in* to South Africa. >> >> Simply put, it's because slave or no, there are jobs in free-market SA >> and none in the neighbouring dictatorships. > >SA a "free-market"?! Adam Smith will be turning in his grave. >How on earth could an economy based, to use your own words, >on slavery-like conditions be a "free" market. What's free >about the economy of a country that banishes the overwhelming majority >of its population in restricted wastelands (so-called batustans)? >What's free about an economy that can "offer" starvation wages >at gunpoint? Yes, Smith would turn in his grave, but SA is a fairly free nation for the whites, supported to some extent by the pool of semi-slave labour. In comparison to Namibia and other surrounding economies, it is relatively free. I apologize for the somewhat abosolute sounding statement of my previous article. To be fair, many white there don't feel that great either, but then I've only been able to talk to whites who deliberately left SA. > >As for the economic state of what you call "neighbouring dictatorships", >that is primarily due to the legacy of centuries of colonialism >and, to no small part, to SA's policies itself. One of these countries, >Namibia (from where many of the workers "lining up" to get in SA are >coming), is illegaly occupied by SA troups. To suggest that the >economy of SA is in good shape because it is a "free market" while the >economy of the neighbouring countries are in bad shape because they are >"dicatorships" is just wishful thinking to fit preconceived notions. >It has nothing to do with reality. To suggest that the economic troubles of these countries is primarily due to colonialism smacks of wishful thinking to fit preconceived notions. Canada, the U.S., Hong Kong, Australia and many other prosperous nations are all former colonies. Almost all highly free nations have strong material success. Who has more evidence and reality at the bottom line? > >> It's not up to us to debate this issue from afar. They clearly choose >> to work at $40 per week instead of $0. > >This is obvious enough. But the dillema should-black-workers-get- >$40-per-week-or-should-they-get-$0 is bogus. Why are these the only two >alternatives? Why aren't these people entitled to decent wages as well >as to freedom and dignity? > These are the current alternatives. We should work to make more. But we should not curse the South Africans for creating a $40/week job where there was none. Instead we must convince them (using their need of us) that there is an even better way. It is the attitude that $40 per week is worse than nothing that has directly caused the deaths of millions in the drought-ridden parts of Africa. Even "left" reports coming out of Ethiopia have been unable to deny this. Interfering in other people's lives through force, even with the best of intentions, seems to often result in more death. Humans are very good at overcoming death if you take off their chains. >> With luck, the white supremacy will >> end soon, and we can make further examination of the situation. > >White supremacy will not end "with luck". It will end with the struggle >of the people fighting against it. One can choose to help their struggle >or one can choose to turn one's back to them. One way of doing the latter >is to appeal to "luck" as a way of putting an end to their predicament. > >--Vassos Hadzilacos. This is why I don't buy South African goods. If there were enough of me around it would be much easier. I use the need South Africans have for me to exert influence on them, not laws and guns. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/26/85)
In article <1534@utcsri.UUCP> vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: >As for the economic state of what you call "neighbouring dictatorships", >that is primarily due to the legacy of centuries of colonialism >and, to no small part, to SA's policies itself. It would appear that there is more to the situation than merely the legacy of centuries of colonialism. The (former) British West Indies were also British colonies for centuries, yet these independent island nations are now, for the most part, thriving democracies. J.B. Robinson
dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson) (10/26/85)
In article <7635@watrose.UUCP> gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) writes: >In article <1534@utcsri.UUCP> vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: >>[ ] the dillema should-black-workers-get- >>$40-per-week-or-should-they-get-$0 is bogus. Why are these the only two >>alternatives? Why aren't these people entitled to decent wages as well >>as to freedom and dignity? > >They sure are (entitled to...), but they definitely won't get >decent wages if the rest of the world boycott the products they produce >or the companies/institutions they work for. >The same results, decent wages, freedom (whatever that >means in the African context - do you regard Ugandans as "free"?) >and dignity can be obtained (and sooner) without sanctions and boycotts >from the outside world. The trouble I have with the opinion in the last sentence is that (at least as far as I can judge from what makes the news) it seems that most of the South African proponents of this point-of-view are white. Black spokesmen seem to be almost always in favour of sanctions and boycotts. I really find it difficult to believe that white South Africans care more about "decent wages, freedom and dignity" for blacks than the blacks themselves do. -- Dennis Ferguson ...!utcsri!utecfc!dennis
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (10/28/85)
In article <44@utecfc.UUCP> dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson) writes: >In article <7635@watrose.UUCP> gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) writes: >>The same results, decent wages, freedom (whatever that >>means in the African context - do you regard Ugandans as "free"?) >>and dignity can be obtained (and sooner) without sanctions and boycotts >>from the outside world. > >The trouble I have with the opinion in the last sentence is that (at >least as far as I can judge from what makes the news) it seems that >most of the South African proponents of this point-of-view are white. >Black spokesmen seem to be almost always in favour of sanctions and >boycotts. ...because the blacks opposed to sanctions etc. just do not get the "press" the others do. Why, I do not know - because they are perceived as "puppets" by the media (or is labeled as such by other blacks and the media is then reluctant to talk to them) ?? Buthelezi "represents" 5 million blacks and his Inkhata movement (with >1 million members) certainly opposes sanctions - and he is certainly not a supporter of the SA government. I can give you names of more black leaders who oppose sanctions and the government, people that you just don't hear about on TV, radio or in the newspapers.
vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (10/29/85)
In <1534@utcsri.UUCP> I said: >> What's free about an economy that can "offer" starvation wages >> at gunpoint? To which Riel Smit replied: > Please explain how the South African economy offer starvation wages at > gunpoint. Apart from the fact that the wages are not offered at gunpoint, > they are much better than in most of the rest of Africa. (Which still > does not make it acceptable, but that is not the point I am arguing.) Well, in that case let's stick to the point you *are* arguing: How does SA's economy offer starvation wages at gunpoint. I must admit that was a poorly stated sentence. What I meant is: The apartheid system forcibly creates the conditions that enable white employers to offer starvation wages to black workers. Substantiation: Wage differentials between blacks and whites are extraordinarily high in South Africa: On the average they are 1:4; in mining they are 1:5.5; in manufacturing 1:3.7; in construction 1:5.4. [1981 figures. Source: *Bulletin of Statistics*, Department of Statistics, Pretoria, March 1982.] I assert that it is impossible to sustain such wage differentials in the absence of force. If you have any alternative explanations I shall be happy to hear them. Maybe some concrete examples are in order: Blacks in South Africa have no political rights. This is being imposed on them by violence (including, quite literaly, "gunpoint") and is certainly relevant to the issue of why black workers get such low wages. A more direct example: Black strikers are summarily fired and forcibly removed to the bantustans. I know of at least two such occasions. --Vassos Hadzilacos.
vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (10/29/85)
In <1534@utcsri.UUCP> I said: >> To suggest that the >> economy of SA is in good shape because it is a "free market" while the >> economy of the neighbouring countries are in bad shape because they are >> "dicatorships" is just wishful thinking to fit preconceived notions. >> It has nothing to do with reality. To which Brad Templeton replied: > To suggest that the economic troubles of these countries is primarily due > to colonialism smacks of wishful thinking to fit preconceived notions. > Canada, the U.S., Hong Kong, Australia and many other prosperous nations > are all former colonies. Almost all highly free nations have strong material > success. Who has more evidence and reality at the bottom line? To which I now reply: Comparing Canada, the US and Australia to Namibia, Mozamique, Angola and Zimbabwe, even *as colonies*, amounts to the proverbial comparison of apples and oranges. (So does the comparison of either set of countries with Hong Kong, but that's a different story altogether.) The differences are so blindingly obvious they hardly need to be mentioned. Consider: How long have the countries in the respective sets ceased being colonies? How much had their economies been dominated, and more importantly *shaped*, by their respective colonial powers? And so on. The scientific method requires concrete examination of each situation, not arbitrary comparisons. I can't and won't try to make my point regarding the true causes of the economic difficulties of the aforementioned Southern African countries in the space of one net posting. I am, nonetheless, convinced that the concrete analysis of the economic problems faced by said countries, bears my claim of colonialism's decisive responsibility for the problems they are facing today. --Vassos Hadzilacos.
vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (10/29/85)
From postnews Mon Oct 28 18:12:50 1985 Subject: Re: South African Blacks Newsgroups: can.politics Distribution: can In <1534@utcsri.UUCP> I said: >> [...] Namibia [...] is illegaly occupied by SA [South African] troups. To which Riel Smit repied: > Namibia can by no stretch of the imagination be called a dictatorship. > Not with a multi-party system and representatives elected by a large > proportion of the population (both black and white). And as far as > "occupied by SA troops" is concerned, I guess that is true if you are > willing to say that West Germany is occupied by American troops. To which I now reply: A short history of Namibia: -------------------------- - In 1915 the German colonial rule ends. - In 1919 the League of Nations confers to South Africa the mandate of preparing Namibia for independence. - In 1966 the United Nations terminates SA's mandate on the basis the latter had failed to fullfill its obligations. - In 1969 the United Nations Security Council declares SA's occupation of Namibia illegal. - In 1971 the International Court of Justice, also declares SA's occupation of Namibia illegal. - In 1977 the United Nations General Assembly recognises SWAPO as the authentic representative of the Namibians. - In 1977 SA apoints an "Administrator General" in Namibia. - In 1979 SA having rejected UN-supervised elections, installs the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance in power, creates a National Assembly (1979) and a Council of Ministers (1980). - By 1982 SA has 100,000 troops in Namibia. - In 1983 SA formally resumes direct control over Namibia, dissolving the Council of Ministers and the National Assembly. I am not aware of any UN or Int'l Court decision declaring the presence of US troops in the Federal Republic of Germany "illegal". Nor have I heard of the US apointing anyone as Administrator General, banning the most popular political party, and dissolving the government and parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany. I think you will agree with me that your comparison was, er..., exaggerated. And I don't think I could be accused of narrow mindedness if I added that the situation revealed by the above facts does not meet my standards of a democratic state. --Vassos Hadzilacos.
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (10/30/85)
In article <1552@utcsri.UUCP> vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: > >Well, in that case let's stick to the point you *are* arguing: How does >SA's economy offer starvation wages at gunpoint. I must admit that was >a poorly stated sentence. What I meant is: > > The apartheid system forcibly creates the conditions that enable > white employers to offer starvation wages to black workers. > Re-stated like that (and you must agree there is a big difference between the two statements) I do not have a quarrel with you. However, allow me to make two observations: 1) The "starvation wages" are still much higher than what is earned by the majority in the rest of Africa (which, again, still does not justify it), and 2) all employers are not white, and yes, the black employers do not necessarily pay better wages. (I have had black people tell me that they would rather work for a white boss than a black one because the black ones pay so bad.) Note that there are exceptions, both black and white.