From: linda@frcs.Alt.ZA (Linda Jacobson)
Subject: Re: >>Theft of land
Organization: Onderstepoort School of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 10:11:37 GMT

Thus spake hllhar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za:

[stuff deleted]

> 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.

> 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.

So you are suggesting that apartheid actually improved the situation.

> (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.

> (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.

> 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.

> 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 know roughly what you are trying to say. But I get emotional about
this because it is an emotional issue. It comes across as trivialising
a huge social evil; in the same vein as "the Holocaust didn't really
exist". You simply cannot sweep the consequences of apartheid under
the carpet; you can't say, let's forget about it and look to the
future. It's a grim legacy that needs to be digested and understood,
if only to teach something to future generations. Its consequences
should also be recognised and analysed so that some rational way of
compensating people, where possible and if necessary, can be found.
You can't just pat people on the shoulder and say, it's all over now,
let bygones be bygones, when they and their children are still
suffering the effects of the system.

Linda
 
       
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african