From: varvel@plains.NoDak.edu (Andrew Varvel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Lots of things
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:21:52 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network


Some politics, some home-grown philosophy, and a little bit of stream-of
-consciousness essay follow.

It's funny.  Life must be pretty good in South Africa for those who seem more
interested in whether people should sing Die Stem at a rugby game than
talking about good education for all South Africans, or an end to township 
violence, or the guilded cage F.W. de Klerk is in.  Too bad more people don't
have the leisure time to argue over a song.

It certainly would be nice if S.A. could have a political economy that is an
example to the world.  It would also be nice if S.A. would have mighty space
and Antarctic programs.  Now how can that be arranged.....?

A political economy based on mutual suspicion, hatred, condescension, fear,
snobbery, envy, and/or the herd mentality of sheep flocks won't be viable.
While a preference for Holsteins or Ereshires may make sense in dairy farms,
it does not follow that preferences or quotas (including the 100% quotas of
the apartheid state) make sense for humans "breeds".  People aren't cattle,
and besides, job performance usually dependent on environmental factors. 

The only way S.A. can stop bickering is if South Africans can have a common
mission.  If it doesn't have a common heritage now, it can get a common
heritage in the future.  Unity?  If Hardy Hulley stands in the way, his
prophecy of no unity will come true.  But there is probably more to be
gained by him if there is some consensus in South Africa that includes him
than a unity he excludes himself from.

Here is an idea:
The enthusiasm South Africans have for rugby and soccer can be harnessed
into an national goal.  Perhaps a South African space program.  Perhaps
unbeatable soccer and rugby teams.  Other people may come up with better
ideas.

On a different subject, I peceive a clash of two different democratic
traditions in South Africa.  One is based on the nation-state.  The other is
based on territory.  While they sound the same, they are not.  I have real
problems with the concept of "self-determination of all peoples".  This
usually implies that every ethnie needs its own plot of land.  The other
scenario is territorial (the basic form of government in North Dakota (don't
I sound like Pygmalian?:-))) in nature.  The residents of an *area* elect 
their own government.

Also, I wonder if too many people in Yugoslavia are taking the wrong lesson
from South Africa.  If oppressing a majority is evil, one wouldn't be doing
that anymore if the majority were sloughtered.  It is very hard to oppress a
dead man (or negotiate with one, for that matter).  Fortunately, most people
seem to abhor this genocidal logic.  Also, the worst of the commentary
originating on soc.culture.african compares favorably to some of the blood
curdling nastiness about the balkans on other newsgroups.  Let's hope it
stays that way.

On an ending note, I have noticed the recent history of Argentina and
Greece.  Please, folks, analyse the actions of the Greek junta of 1967 and
the Argentine military of the 1970's (and note the "disappeared" people)
following their respective coups.  I certainly would not wish this on South
Africa.

I like the plains.  The plains are my home.  I have been elsewhere, but the
cracking thunderstorms, the sunsets, the clouds, the fields, the rolling
hills -- there are among the reasons I live here.  While Bach and Beethoven
and other music are nice, I also like flute music of the plains.  Ahhhhh!  
Oddly enough, one of my main reasons for being interested in S.A. are pictures 
of rolling veld.  May the veld resound in the spirit of freedom and the 
blowing wind.  (As long as it isn't a dust-storm, I love the wind on the 
prairie.)  

Cheers

Andrew Varvel
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african,sanet.talk.politics