jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (08/15/86)
In article <353@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >[Don't worry about Jim Robinson, he and I are sparring-partners from way > back and he's mostly harmless. :-)] Harmless, eh? Good thing we're separated by the Rockies. :-) >In article <2368@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >>Not only do they sell South African wines, but also Russian vodka!!!! >>When will these horrors cease :-)? > > I would believe JBR's comments along these lines (of which he's made >many before) if he truly believed in doing anything about *either* South >Africa *or* Russia. In fact he uses this feeble line of argument to >support taking no action at all. Not true. I merely find it ironic that after watching the Soviet Union treat its 275 million citizens in a decidedly undemocratic manner for decades, I am suddenly supposed to get all worked up over 25 million South Africans. If Canada is going to impose economic sanctions against S.A. because Apartheid is wrong, then it has a moral obligation to do likewise with the S.U. To claim that that the Soviet system is any less repugnant is to insult those who were: a) killed in the 1956 Hungary uprising b) killed trying to cross the Berlin Wall c) sent to asylums for the insane because they did not voice the "correct" ideology. d) etc, etc, etc. Ontario no longer sells S.A. wine, but, it still imports S.A. manganese. Why this hypocritical situation? Because, by refusing to sell S.A. wine the gov't gives the appearance of doing something about S.A. *and* gets to help the local wine industry to boot; manganese, on the other hand, is needed by the Ontario steel industry and would thus actually cause some economic pain if no longer imported. When push comes to shove votes are the only things that count - even in Ontario. So, to put it bluntly, what is the justification for a ban on S.A. wines but allowing Russian vodka free run of the liquor stores? [While we're on a role here, why don't we impose sanctions against those countries in the Middle East that treat women only somewhat better than furniture? - that's actually just a trick question since we all know what the answer is] >>Actually, there is something to be said for keeping the socialists (note >>the lack of quotation marks) out. Also, in my opinion it would be more >>fair to compare the NDP (Canada's socialist party) to Britain's Labour >>party. If for no other reason than both parties are basically the political >>arms of the labour unions. > > Which shows that JBR has not much understanding of either the NDP or >Britain's Labour party. We can excuse this since he's basically an American. >Most NDPers say they're "social democrats". What's ironic is that the >coalition of right-wing opportunists which is now in government calls >itself the "Social Credit" ("Socred") party. And I have heard/read many NDPers describe themselves as socialists. Just out of curiosity how do the NDP and Britain's labour party differ. Are both not beholden to the labour unions? Are both not non-militaristic to the point of pacificism? Do both not believe in the nationalization of the major industries of their respective countries? Do both not strongly disdain capitalism? J.B. Robinson
apak@oddjob.UUCP (Admiral Dorothy Lamour) (08/18/86)
In article <2375@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >> I would believe JBR's comments along these lines (of which he's made >>many before) if he truly believed in doing anything about *either* South >>Africa *or* Russia. In fact he uses this feeble line of argument to >>support taking no action at all. >Not true. I merely find it ironic that after watching the Soviet Union >treat its 275 million citizens in a decidedly undemocratic manner for >decades, I am suddenly supposed to get all worked up over 25 million >South Africans. If Canada is going to impose economic sanctions against >S.A. because Apartheid is wrong, then it has a moral obligation to do >likewise with the S.U. That's not true. There are many variables which affect the morality of sanctions, of which the repugnance of the relevant government is only one. The Soviet government is not going to be brought down by economic or military force, and it would be both dangerous and counter-productive to try. The South African government is going to be overthrown; the only questions are when? and at what human cost? If you believe, as I do, that the participation of the West in removing the present system will make it happen quicker and with less suffering, then you should support economic and military action to that end. >Just out of curiosity how do the NDP and Britain's labour party differ. >Are both not beholden to the labour unions? Are both not non-militaristic >to the point of pacificism? Do both not believe in the nationalization >of the major industries of their respective countries? Do both not strongly >disdain capitalism? >J.B. Robinson I can only speak about the British labour party. No, though there are certainly organic and emotional links. No: don't confuse a policy of *nuclear* disarmament with a policy of pacificism. Partially; depends on the industry. As for `disdaining capitalism', what do you mean? If you mean that they don't regard pure capitalism as a desirable way of running a society, I'll give you that one - but who does? -- ihnp4!oddjob!apak | oddjob!apak@lbl-csam.arpa oddjob!apak@UChicago.bitnet This is not a pipe apak%uk.ac.cambridge.phoenix@ucl-cs.arpa
jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) (08/19/86)
> There are many variables which affect the morality of >sanctions, of which the repugnance of the relevant government is only >one. The Soviet government is not going to be brought down by economic >or military force, and it would be both dangerous and counter-productive >to try. The South African government is going to be overthrown; the only >questions are when? and at what human cost? If you believe, as I do, that >the participation of the West in removing the present system will make it >happen quicker and with less suffering, then you should support economic >and military action to that end. Over and over again I am amazed by the selective myopia that exists among folks that believe that we should boycott South African apartheid out of existence but yet not do the same to the Soviets for their own violations of human rights. If we are going to be idealistic, then let's go all the way. If we are going to be laissez faire, then let's leave people alone. Let's stop landing rights, no selling of grain, no purchasing of vodka, wine, or gold, etc... The previous article seems to suggest, though, that we should modify our enthusiasm by doing this only to 1) Countries that are weaker than we are, thus eliminating any possibility of successful retaliation; 2) Countries that are already in bad shape (hit them while they're down). In these cases, it is "morally" right to support economic and militaristic action to force these countries to do our bidding. I'm sorry... I am not impressed. This is as cowardly a policy as I have seen in a long time. At least be consistent in your idealism. I have much more respect for someone that believes in an idea and takes it to its logical conclusion despite the fact it will make them "uncomfortable" than someone who does it only when it can't hurt them or it's convenient. -- Jeff Lee CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (08/20/86)
Re: boycotting South Africa but not the USSR >The previous article seems to suggest, though, that we should modify >our enthusiasm by doing this only to > > 1) Countries that are weaker than we are, thus eliminating > any possibility of successful retaliation; > > 2) Countries that are already in bad shape (hit them while > they're down). Exactly. But if the goal is noble, what is wrong with doing what you can? Certainly if the outcome is to end Apartheid there is nothing wrong with that, even if -you- happen to be aware of other, perhaps even larger, problems in the world. You border here on playing off the current regime in South Africa as some sort of underdog, worthy of pity. What crap. Would you refuse food to one hungry person simply because there are so many other, hungrier people in the world? Of course not, that's not hypocrisy, that's just pragmatism, you do what you can. >I'm sorry... I am not impressed. This is as cowardly a policy as I >have seen in a long time. At least be consistent in your idealism. Wrong. Yours is a policy of cowardice, moral cowardice. The inability to concentrate on a worthwhile goal in the face of other goals. You choose to refuse to do anything until you can solve everything, or worse, to criticize with unrealistic, lofty demands that one cannot condemn the horror in South Africa without making an equal effort against other horrors. Every effort has the potential to help a lot of people, what in the hell is exactly wrong with that?! No one is arguing with your point about the USSR denying human rights to people. They are simply doing what they can, and what they think will be effective to relieve some suffering in this world. There are plenty of people working on problems in the USSR (I know, your mind will suddenly go blank in defense and say 'oh yeah, who?!', ok, the USA [massive nuclear and conventional military deployment to contain Russian expansionism], Voice of America, Voice of Freedom, people who have been working on and succeeding in getting Jewish emigres out, Amnesty International, efforts by international scientists to free people like Sakharov, the arms talks in Geneva, other European countries, NATO etc etc, not good enough for you? maybe nothing is.) What are you doing? Nothing probably, except weaving rationalizations for your indecisiveness. -Barry Shein, Boston University
jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) (08/22/86)
>>The previous article seems to suggest, though, that we should modify >>our enthusiasm by doing this only to >> >> 1) Countries that are weaker than we are, thus eliminating >> any possibility of successful retaliation; >> >> 2) Countries that are already in bad shape (hit them while >> they're down). > >Exactly. But if the goal is noble, what is wrong with doing what you >can? Certainly if the outcome is to end Apartheid there is nothing >wrong with that, even if -you- happen to be aware of other, perhaps >even larger, problems in the world. You border here on playing off the >current regime in South Africa as some sort of underdog, worthy of >pity. What crap. This seems to be the second response that says that I am implying pity for the current South African government. I evidently did not express myself clearly enough as this is not my intention. When the neighborhood bully gets beat up by someone and someone else comes along and gives him an additional kick, it doesn't mean that I have any more sympathy for him. It means that I just think that some other bully came along and kicked him too. I do not defend Apartheid or the South African governments application of it. I just think that it is hypocritical to apply it selectively when we are perfectly capable of performing exactly the same sanctions on others of those whom we recognize as being abusers of human rights. >Would you refuse food to one hungry person simply because there are >so many other, hungrier people in the world? Of course not, that's >not hypocrisy, that's just pragmatism, you do what you can. No but if you make up your mind to feed hungry you spread what you can as far as it will go. In this case we are not talking about an expendable resource (such as food) but sanctions which can be spread evenly across all abusers. >>I'm sorry... I am not impressed. This is as cowardly a policy as I >>have seen in a long time. At least be consistent in your idealism. > >Wrong. Yours is a policy of cowardice, moral cowardice. The inability >to concentrate on a worthwhile goal in the face of other goals. You >choose to refuse to do anything until you can solve everything, or >worse, to criticize with unrealistic, lofty demands that one cannot >condemn the horror in South Africa without making an equal effort >against other horrors. Every effort has the potential to help a lot of >people, what in the hell is exactly wrong with that?! I disagree (obviously :-)). I just think that to choose a certain country (goverment, corporation, child down the street...) simply because they can do very little in retaliation and avoiding another because they might do something "bad to us" is no better than the neighborhood bully. I have not said that I opposed doing anything. My posting is simply in response to all those individuals who see apartheid as "the absolute worst evil in the world and this should be the absolute highest priority of anybody in the civilized world... or else they are the slime at the bottom of the barrel". I don't go for that. >No one is arguing with your point about the USSR denying human rights >to people. They are simply doing what they can, and what they think >will be effective to relieve some suffering in this world. There are >plenty of people working on problems in the USSR (I know, your mind >will suddenly go blank in defense and say 'oh yeah, who?!', ok, the >USA [massive nuclear and conventional military deployment to contain >Russian expansionism], Voice of America, Voice of Freedom, people who >have been working on and succeeding in getting Jewish emigres out, >Amnesty International, efforts by international scientists to free >people like Sakharov, the arms talks in Geneva, other European >countries, NATO etc etc, not good enough for you? maybe nothing is.) > >What are you doing? Nothing probably, except weaving rationalizations >for your indecisiveness. > > -Barry Shein, Boston University Like I said before, I do not oppose doing things. I just oppose folks who really seem to get their priorities out of whack (which is fine with me) but then put me down for not having their same priorities. This South African thing is great for people who like to yell and picket. As far as what I am doing, I vote for people whom I think will attempt to limit the abuses. This is the bare minimum that anyone should be doing and (sadly enough) we had less than 25% of registered voters vote in my county. Of the blacks that were registered and voted in the election 2 years ago, they figured that only 11% voted in the primary and that they will be a limited factor in the outcome of the election. This is sad, and is about the only thing that I liked about Jesse Jackson. He could sure stir people up to vote. The other things I take part in are getting food to people in my local area and (during shortages) sending food to Poland. Politics doesn't mean much to you if you're hungry. Not that any of this is important, but you asked... -- Jeff Lee CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff