Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!spar!baba
From: baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: South African solutions anyone?
Message-ID: <455@spar.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 00:01:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.455
Posted: Thu Aug  8 00:01:43 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 06:32:57 EDT
References: <245@SCIRTP.UUCP> <151@batman.UUCP> <442@spar.UUCP> <154@batman.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 56

> > > > How valid are assertions that because South African blacks are
> > > > better off (Standard-of-living-wise) they should think twice
> > > > about revamping the status quo?
> 
> > > This one isn't covered there--the list of African states where
> > > a black person can go to bed at night without worrying that the
> > > henchmen of the local (Black) despot will make a midnight courtesy
> > > call is a short one indeed.  Besides South Africa, I can think of maybe
> > 
> > But the issue in South Africa is not one of prosperity nor one of
> > personal security.  The issue is the unequal apportionment of prosperity
> > and security (among other things), enforced by law on the basis of race.
> > 
> > 					Baba
> You will please note that 1) I was responding to the original question
> regarding living standards; you are just looking for an excuse to
> throw this year's trendy phrase: "racism". 2) Your evasion of the
> original question implicitly excuses a bunch of tinpot despots all
> over black Africa.  Not holding black rulers to the same standards
> as their white counterparts is just as racist as the KKK.
> -- 
> Gene Mutschler             {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene

You will please note that:

	1a) Your response said nothing whatever about standards of living,
	    only that most black regimes in Africa are despotic and attack 
	    citizens in their homes at random.  This is only relevant if
	    you believe that you can infer from it that blacks are unfit 
	    to govern South Africa.  Is that what you were trying to say?

	1b) I rather pointedly did not use the word "racism" in my article.

	1c) Trendiness does not make oppsition to racism any less valid,
	    unless you can demonstrate that said opposition is dictated
	    by fashion rather than reason or conscience.  Can you?

	1d) Lack of trendiness does not make support of racism any more
	    valid, though I suppose there is less of a question of 
	    sincerity.  But it is not for me to judge how firmly you
	    hold your beliefs (any more than it is for you to judge
	    how firmly I hold mine), only how well you argue them.

	2)  I fail to see how the assertion that black South Africans
	    are upset over systematic racial injustice, rather than
	    poverty and police terror per se, in any way excuses anyone 
	    else anywhere of anything.  Please explain.

It will be a real shame if South Africa goes up in revolutionary flames
and leaves everyone (except the revolutionary leadership) worse off than
they are now.  But it does look as if the Africaaners are so addicted
to the benefits that apartheid confers (cheap housing, cheap labor,
high pay for positions that can only be filled by whites), that it
will take remarkable leadership for them to avoid precisely that.

					Baba