From: hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: >>Theft of land
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:58:04 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Jul22.191806.13176@frcs.Alt.ZA>, linda@frcs.Alt.ZA 
(Linda Jacobson) writes:

> Thus spake hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za:
> 
>> Again, I have no problem with all this, except that it doesn't
>> interest me. [..]  I am not making any attempt at protecting
>> Apartheid legislation, I'm merely pointing out that it didn't make
>> such a large difference on a grand scale. [..] Apartheid didn't cause
>> racial inequality in this country, it just made it visible to the
>> rest of the world. 
> 
> I know you were talking about land. So you must forgive me on two
> scores: for quoting you out of context, and for changing the subject.
> If you argue that apartheid did not _create_ discrimination, class
> distinction, racism, then I agree with you.

I can't remember if I did actually say this, but yes, Apartheid did not create 
all these things.
 
> If you argue that it did not dramatically damage a huge number of people in 
> all kinds of ways - physically, economically, psychologically, then you are 
> sadly mistaken.

If I said this, I agree, I would be mistaken. 

> You seem to be using the argument that "because apartheid didn't cause
> the bomb to fall on Hiroshima, therefore it isn't as bad as everyone
> says it was/is." Not fair, not rational, and (to my jaundiced eye)
> unacceptably cynical.

Hmmm...By the responses to my postings in this thread, its quite obvious to me
that somewhere along the line I have been misunderstood. Perhaps I wasn't very
clear, so here goes again.

Firstly, it has never been my intention to defend Apartheid. Thus I wasn't
saying anything like "Apartheid isn't as bad as people say it is (and then give
a reason)". As a matter of fact, I don't think I once addressed the question of
the morality and immorality of Apartheid and its effects on black South
Africans (simply because the topic has become stale and tedious).

I was trying to address the question of economic inequality in South Africa, and
specifically the great difference between white and black landownership. In
this respect I was saying the following:

(1) Apartheid didn't alter black vs. white landownership very much because the
    discrepancy was well established long before Apartheid, and without
Apartheid would probably have become even more extreme.

(2) It is a mistake to think that Apartheid was of any real short- or long-term
    economic benefit to a significant number of whites.

(3) South African society is inherently divided and uneven. Apartheid didn't
    cause this - it was the case long before Apartheid, and as far as I can
see, it will be the case long after Apartheid.

Now, please note that I am not saying anything like "Apartheid was not *that*
bad". I am not denying that a large number of black people suffered great ills
because of it. I am, however, denying that white South Africans really
benefitted economically from it in any substantial way and, in terms of
what South Africa would have looked like today without it, that it changed
much.

I find the perception common to many people that all South Africa's problems
find their origins in Apartheid very disturbing. This is especially dangerous 
when addressing ethnic conflict in this country, because it trivialises the 
problem, making a solution impossible. The rivalry between South Africa's 
various ethinic factions and the difference between white and black wealth have
far deeper historical roots than Apartheid.

> Try "Move Your Shadow" by Joe Lelyveld, if you want to know more about
> the human costs of apartheid.
> 
> Linda

Hardy 
FACCS-Lab.
UCT

  
        
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african