gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (10/25/85)
I have said this before (in net.politics), but some people might have to hear it again... In article <1534@utcsri.UUCP> vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: > What's free >about the economy of a country that banishes the overwhelming majority >of its population in restricted wastelands (so-called batustans)? Ever been to one of these "restricted wastelands", or do you blindly believe the propaganda against them? I have been to most of them and some of them 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 the homelands being "wateland". Yes, their are homelands that could be termed "wasteland" (e.g. Bophutha- tswana), but they were not arbitrarily declared homelands and then all the blacks shipped off there. The nations/tribes/ethnic groups (whatever term you wish to use) living in those "wastelands", have been doing 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 people are now asking for a homeland in what some people would describe as "wasteland". Furthermore, the biggest part of South Africa is "wasteland", at least by North American (especially Canadian) standards. The Karoo (the largest part of the largest province) is a semi-desert, and who farms there? - mostly 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 such a homeland, and forcefully moving them there, well that is another story.
vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (10/29/85)
In <1534@utcsri.UUCP> I said: >> What's free >> about the economy of a country that banishes the overwhelming majority >> of its population in restricted wastelands (so-called batustans)? To which Riel Smit replied: > Ever been to one of these "restricted wastelands", or do you blindly believe > the propaganda against them? I have been to most of them and some of them > contain some of the most beautiful areas and some of the best > agricultural land in Southern Africa [...] No I have not been to SA. But I can use my brain. Fact: Only 3% of SA's GNP is produced in the bantus (1975 figure) (1) Fact: 70% of the bantus' GNP comes from migrant workers' wages (1976 figure) (1) Fact: Only 13% of the bantus' GNP is generated within their boundaries, *including* funds from the central government. (2) Fact: 2/3 of the people in the bantus are landless. (3) Fact: 1,400,000 black workers work on white-owned farms in the "white areas".(4) A paradise they surely must be, these bantustans, since they can sustain such mind-boggling economic activity. > Yes, their are homelands that could be termed "wasteland" (e.g. Bophutha- > tswana), but they were not arbitrarily declared homelands and then > all the blacks shipped off there. The nations/tribes/ethnic groups > (whatever term you wish to use) living in those "wastelands", have been > doing so for the past 100-300 years (some even longer). It is their > "anchestral lands". The bantus were not created out of SA government's concern for black peoples' "ancestral lands". They were created to control the movement of black people and to ensure that they could not sustain independent economic development and would therefore have to supply their labout dirty cheap to white employers. > At least a large proportion of the people living > there have asked for it to be their homeland I challenge you to substantiate this. > - just as some Indian > and Inuit people are now asking for a homeland in what some people would > describe as "wasteland". This sort of lets the cat out of the bag. Native people are not asking for a homeland in "wasteland" areas because these were their "ancestral lands" -- the entire North America was their homeland -- but because these are the only areas their conquerors were/are willing to "concede". --Vassos Hadzilacos. References: (1) C. Simkins, SA Labour and Development Research Unit, Working Paper, Cape Town, Sept. 1981. (2) *South Africa Digest*, Aug. 1981. (3) Rand Daily Mail, Johanesburg, 17.9.82 (4) *Apartheid: The Facts*, International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, London 1983.
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (10/30/85)
[ I am not sure that this discussion should continue in can.politics as it is not Canadian politics, so I will shutup if someone tells me to. ] In reply to <1551@utcsri.UUCP> from Vassos Hadzilacos: Minor point: Call the homelands bantustans if you want to, but please don't call them bantus. Bantu means "people" and is used to refer to (usually black) people, not to where they live. >A paradise they surely must be, these bantustans, since they can sustain >such mind-boggling economic activity. > I did not intend to imply (and I do not think I did imply) that the homelands are rich and have vigorous economies. My point is just this: Statements like your original one ("...banishes [..] its population in restricted wastelands..."), leaves the (false) impression that all homelands in SA are arid, barren, at the best semi-desert wastelands not fit for humans to live in. It is against this image of the homelands that I am protesting. When looking at the GNP figures you quote, one has to keep in mind that a comparison is made between an (almost) first-world economy and a third world economy. For example, you quote the figure >Fact: Only 3% of SA's GNP is produced in the bantus (1975 figure) In 1975 SA's GNP (excluding that of the 4 homelands of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Ciskei and Venda) was $31590 million (the highest in Africa). 3% of that ($947.7 million) was more than the GNP of 30 out of 53 African "states". (I say "states" only because the homelands mentioned above are included in the 53.) The GNP of the four homelands placed as follows in the list of 53 African "states": Transkei ($810 million) 26th, Bophuthatswana ($540 million) 34th, Ciskei ($170 million) 48th, and Venda ($120 million) 50th. Taking the GNP per capita figures, they rank Bophuthatswana ($490) 11th, Transkei ($330) 21st, Venda ($320) 22nd, and Ciskei ($310) 23rd. [source: Africa Insight, Vol.11, No 3, 1981] Yes, the homelands are poor in comparison with the rest of South Africa, yes, they cannot provide a decent life to all the people that the SA government says belong there, BUT with the right economic development, better and more education, and a stable population (without the upheaval of forced resettlements), the majority of the homelands indeed have the potential to become small paradises. >The bantus were not created out of SA government's concern for black >peoples' "ancestral lands". They were created to control the movement >of black people ... I did not say anything about the motives behind the creation of the homelands. Sure, they were created to control the movement of black people, but my point was that they were created in the areas where a large proportion of the people have been living already. > ... and to ensure that they could not sustain independent >economic development and would therefore have to supply their labout >dirty cheap to white employers. > Care to substantiate that ? >> At least a large proportion of the people living >> there have asked for it to be their homeland > >I challenge you to substantiate this. Sorry, I should have put the statement as follows: "The leaders (most of them tribal) representing (in the African sense of "represent", i.e. leaders not necessarily elected by vote) a large proportion of the people living there, have asked for it to be a homeland." Unfortunately I do not have access to a library with back issues (10-15 years) of SA newspapers (and it does not have to be pro-government ones), otherwise I could have given you names, dates and places of statements made by these leaders. Judged by the festivities attended by a not insignificant number of blacks during the "independence" celebrations of the homelands, at least at least a large group had no objection.