From: hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: >>Theft of land
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:40:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: uctvax.1992Jul30.044036.202152
Organization: University of Cape Town

Linda comes out, both guns blazing:

> Thus spake Zarathustra@uctvax.uct.ac.za:
> 
>> 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).
> 
> It's only tedious if you don't give a damn. And if you don't
> understand the effects it has had on you.

Actually there is nothing inherently stale or tedious about the topic of
Apartheid (it makes for very sexy debate when the participants know something 
about it and can make an informed contribution). Unfortunately, in this 
newsgroup, a large number of participants don't seem to be capable of writing 
much interesting on the topic (a cursory glance through back-issues of your own
contributions will support this). When it comes to dealing with Apartheid on 
"soc.culture.african", few people seem capable of doing anything other than:

(1) Parading their guilt feelings on the net - as if this were a virtue, or as
    if somebody should take note of it. (I sometimes wonder whether these
people aren't really just closet exhibitionists - the illustrious Henk does
spring to mind).

(2) Demanding that all white South Africans should acknowledge that they are
    guilty of any number of atrocities and unspeakable racial crimes, and that
they should claim to feel genuinely sorry for this - as if doing so will make a
difference, or as if all white South Africans are guilty of racism.

Both of the above styles of Apartheid article are boring, boring, boring! 
 
>> (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.
> 
> So you are suggesting that apartheid actually improved the situation.

Perhaps you should read the above extract again. I said that there was a vast
shortage of land for blacks by the turn of the century (i.e. before
Apartheid), and that this situation would probably have become worse had
Apartheid never been. Thus I claimed that black landownership would probably
have declined without Apartheid, subsequently putting blacks in a worse
position than they were in *1910*. I didn't say that blacks would have been in a
worse position than they are in *now* (i.e. I never claimed that Apartheid was
an improvement for them).

Caught with your knickers off....al weer!

>> (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.
> 
> That's carefully phrased. Nonetheless, I think you are completely
> mistaken. Of course apartheid was of major economic benefit to a
> significant number of whites; that was a large part of the reason
> behind it.

Well, that's a fair enough opinion. Why don't you go ahead and illustrate the
economic benefits which whites derived from Apartheid. You should also explain
how Apartheid legislation was in fact designed to benefit whites (all that I've
read so far indicates that the fathers of Apartheid were primarily concerned
with preserving their national identity and self-autonomy).

The basis of the extract you quoted from me above is that since whites owned
the vast majority of the land in South Africa before Apartheid (remember that
before 1905 blacks weren't allowed to own land outside of their reserves in
both Natal and the Transvaal, and black landowners were very scarce in the
Orange Free State) they didn't really derive any benefit from the Land Act. So 
I think that my statement that a significant number of whites derived no real 
economic advantage from Apartheid still stands (you see, they had all the
advantage they wanted long before Apartheid legislation saw the dawn of day).
 
>> (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.
> 
> No, it didn't cause it, but it exacerbated and cemented it, and caused
> the development of a sick, schizophrenic society which will take a
> long, long time to heal.

Yes, I certainly agree with you that Apartheid secured and enforced racial
inequality in South Africa. It isn't clear to me, however, that even without
Apartheid, this wouldn't have happened anyway.

>> Now, please note that I am not saying anything like "Apartheid was not *that*
>> bad".
> 
> Sorry, but that's how it reads. It's one thing to say "apartheid
> didn't cause all our problems", which I agree with. It's quite another
> to suggest that it didn't really make a [quote] substantial [unquote]
> difference to the wealth gap and to the face of the country.

Yes, but neither is equivalent to saying that Apartheid isn't beyond redemption.
If I claim that without Apartheid, blacks in South Africa would still have
occupied an economically inferior position by virtue of the fact that, even 
before enforced economic measures against them, whites already had such a 
head-start that they couldn't have caught up, I am in no way inferring that 
these economic measures were justified.

By the way, I never mentioned the "face of the country", only the "wealth gap".
The economic implications and the social implications of Apartheid are quite
different. Personally, I don't believe that Apartheid made a substantial
difference to the division of wealth in this country, but it most certainly
made a very profound impact on society.

>> I find the perception common to many people that all South Africa's problems
>> find their origins in Apartheid very disturbing.
> 
> Not ALL. MANY. That's not to deny that ethnic and other problems also
> exist.

I'm actually thinking of problems which we inherited long before Apartheid -
like the wealth gap for example. It's very dangerous to think that this is just
a distortion caused by Apartheid. Whites have been much richer than blacks in
South Africa for a very very long time.

> I know roughly what you are trying to say. But I get emotional about
> this because it is an emotional issue.

Well, spare me from your emotions - I don't need them. Perhaps you can read
something instead of biting your nails in anguish and frustration, it would be
quite good for your composure I think. I'd try "The Right To The Land" edited
by T.R.H. Davenport and K. Hunt (I think), if I were you. It provides a very
good insight into the political issues surrounding land ownership prior to
Apartheid, and everything is based upon written documents which are actually
contained in the book. 

Perhaps our next encounter could be friendlier, more securely rooted in fact 
and supported to a lesser extent by emotional tantrums. You know I'd dearly
love that, Linda - after all, I'm just a nice guy looking for friends like you.

....and so Linda rides off into the dark red sunset, both guns still smoking.
Well, she fought bravely, but she still can't find her knickers.

(Lights fade, tissues handed out to the audience).

Hardy