Well, since I posted there before, it’s not really the same thing.
To the extent that I was willing to waste precious seconds of my life by wading through Janl’s rant, his main thesis appears to be that “racism” is propaganda because most of the positions and ideas usually labled as racist are actually objectively true. In other words, he seems to be saying that it is unfair to call someone a racist who believes “blacks” are incapable of creating a just and prosperous society because “blacks,” in point of fact, are incapable of creating a just and prosperous society. Correct me if I’m wrong, Janl
Why did so many Blacks immigrate into South Africa then, under White rule, if the White government was just going to oppress them? Just curious.
I’ve read about 2/3 of janl’s post. I’ve never used the “add to ignore list” button on the profiles, but janl is a definite candidate.
Why?
Well, the first part of his post lectured us about US racism. And then he hauls off and says that all of his experience has been in Africa. Who needs that?
Why doesn’t BS do a little fucking reading? It perhaps might be ungenerous to observe that few evils in this world have been as well-documented in the English language as the perversions of the Southern African Apartheid states. Some materials do have a tedious leftist slant but there are fine works by the non-ideological and the non-racists on this issue.
Well, leaving badly hidden agendas aside, we’d have to get specific about what you’re refering to in re migrant labor and the time period.
Historically the origins of migrant labor derived from an explicit policy of generating labor for major industrial/mining concerns.
Land expropriations throughout the historical period combined with tax regimes designed to force blacks into the Whites’ cash economy on the latter’s terms created labor supply and demand in the colonial period.
Further, racist residency restrictions intended to “insure” that such laborers were not “spoiled” – read urbanized and eventually ‘infected’ with the idea of equal rights and all that ensured the migrant labor system emerged wherein regional workers to pay for cash obligations left their families to go to mines etc.
Certainly no real freedom of contract or other genuine market mechanisms were in actual operation in this period, rather we have a quasi-directed economy for labor. It’s hardly any wonder that anti-capitalist movements took hold among Black and other non-white workers given the fundamentally unfree and abusive nature of the system.
Now, we have labor flows continuing afterward independence from Great Britain, above all from ‘Rhodesia’ where the old system actually got rather nastier under the control of Janl’s types, filthy racists that they were. Then there were the ‘Bantustans’ set up by the Apartheid government in SA under the fiction of giving blacks their own land, in fact herding them into unwanted lands and declaring them indepedent for the purpose of shifting burden off of the Apartheid state for even the most basic social services.
Of course, there also lesser flows from frontline states like Mozambique, which was the site of civil war and SA sponsored destabilization.
One could go on, but I rather suspect there is very little education seeping in in this case.
So, BS, do you have any more non-questions to futher illustrate your agenda? Perhaps you might be more comfortable with our guest’s message board in all its stunning intellectual integrity and depth of knowledge.
If the material is accurate and is fighting injustice why is a “leftist slant” necessarily bad? But they shouldn’t be “tedious.” That is inexcusable.
And, of course, janl’s post proves beyond all doubt that you don’t have to be “leftist” to be tedious.
I’ll believe this when an Asian-American citizen is the U.S. President.
If I didn’t keep checking the URL while I was reading this, I would have thought that I had mistakenly stumbled on a white supremacist site. :x
I don’t know if Janl is a racist, or if he is just extremely inept at getting his point across in a way that doesn’t imply that he is. But hidden inside what he says there are some good points, which most of you seem to be ignoring.
Jan is saying that the idea of racism has been championed by certain people (he says communists, left wing, etc) in order to further their agendas. In reality, slavery was based more on the fact that it was possible to buy or steal cheap labor from Africa (economics), than it was based on the belief that blacks were inferior and therefore deserved to be slaves (racism). The belief that blacks were inferior was a result of conditions in Africa and the conditions of slaves, not the cause of those conditions or the cause of slavery. By championing the idea of racism as the most important factor in everything involving race, you almost completely ignore the most important factors which is not good for anyone involved.
Colonialism is used by the same people who promote an all-pervasive racism to show just how racist and evil the white colonizers were. Now, the same awful things that were done by white people were done by many others of every race. Everyone here is aware that black people captured and sold other black people to be slaves, and that most societies used slave labor, it was not an American peculiarity (of course it existed long before America). Now, there is some reason why all these things were done. Some selfishness, some weakness in human nature, I can’t completely define what has allowed such terrible things to happen. But I do know that to present white racism against blacks as even a majority of the reason behind it is just wrong, and hurts everyone immensely.
Janl also argues about how white people have helped the Africans to improve their lives, and how kicking the whites out has made their lives worse. I don’t think many here can understand the horrors that have happened in Africa, both related and unrelated to whites, the point of view is just so different from what you are used to. You automatically assume the laws of America are the standards by which everyone judges themself, but in Africa throughout history that is just not the case. Rapes, mass murders, tribal wars… these things not only happened, but there was no underlying societal guilt or dislike of these actions that could stop them. That is just how it was. When the whites went in they brought with them the customs, the laws, the technology of their societies, thus causing an increase in quality of life. You do not have to embrace the color of the colonizers in order to realize that they had things that would be very helpful to Africa. It is not a racial question, it is a fact.
That is really what the issue boils down to. There are people who are trying to make a personal gain by promoting the idea of racism. By promoting the lie that racism is resposible for all the things that are wrong in Africa (and America, for that matter). This (how many times can I say this?) is horribly wrong. They try to make a racial issue out of something that is just a fact. Saying that blacks in Africa have not made a good government, have not stopped the violence and rape, is not racism. It is stating a fact that will allow us to try and help them. Sending aid will not help them. As Janl said, colonialism or something related to it can help. The reason that we are unable to help them, therefore, and the reason that so many are suffering, is that some people use the magical word “racism” to make us stand down and just give them what they want. Racism is an idea used by those who want an entire group to be seen as victims, who indeed want that entire group to remain at the level of victims in order to feed off of the benefits of victimhood.
Think of any kind of problem. You look at all the circumstances, you find out what is happening, and you find a reasonable solution, that will be good for everyone. Now a small group of people tell you that you have to follow their solution instead, and support them, even though you can see that their solution is really just a grab for personal power and influence at the expense of everyone else. And that small group wins. How? They just called you a racist. Well, you know what, we aren’t. And we need to stop falling for that line. We need to just do what we know is right.
Finally, I have one last thing to ask. If I can look at the situation in Africa, and any other possible situation, and be ready to help, and still be ABSOLUTELY assured that everyone is created equal… And you look at the situation in Africa, and are compelled to blame it all on outsiders because you cannot believe that anyone who is equal to YOU could ever allow such things to happen, unless it was all forced on them… then which of us, maybe even unintentionally, is being racist?
Nightime
Welcome to the boards. If you play around with the search function a bit, you’ll see that there have been several GD thread discussing Africa, its problems and the reasons for those problems. I do not recall “racism” being mentioned in a single one. Colonialism came in for its fair share of criticism. However, IIRC, there was a consensus that, while colonialism, especially because of the nonsensical borders it bequeathed, does have an impact on modern Africa’s problems, it is far from being the main cause of those problems.
In any event, I don’t read his post as arguing against playing the race card. On the contrary, as you observe,
**
Given that it is Janl who keeps harping on the idea of racism, he appears to be one of them. Indeed, he keeps using it to push a book he is writing.
Do you have any realistic references to support the notion that these actions differed in any serious way from the manner in which Europeans behaved? (You have heard, I would suppose, of the Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, and the Cromwell suppression of Ireland, to say nothing of the ventures of Cortés and Pizzaro, and, later, the various acts associated with the French Revolution or Napoleon’s efforts in Spain and elsewhere?) Where in the world did you come up with the notion that whites brought any sense of ethics or morality to Africa–and can you point out any genuine reference that would support such a notion?
(To the contrary, there is ample evidence that the variety of slavery imposed on Africans by Africans was of a much different quality than the slavery imposed on Africans by Europeans, Americans or Arabs.)
And you need only the most basic understanding of history to realize that most of the “things” (basically, technology) that the colonizers could have brought to Africans, they chose, instead, to withhold from Africans, either by barring imports or by segregating the native populations from the opportunity of ownership.
If you are going to suggest that the colonizers brought “order” or “law” or “morality” to Africa, I will suspend my laughter only long enough to allow you to attempt to find any realistic support for such an absurd notion. (The wait will be short and the laughter long.)
I would say that he is both. More exactly, I would say that he doesn’t have the maturity that we expect from people on these boards.
What Jan argues is that all Black people everywhere should be subservient to him because of something that one White person who’s not even related to him did. That’s racism.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nightime *
But hidden inside what he says there are some good points, quote]
Not very many ( I don’t want to even get into that extremely dubious assertion about Indian sailors and Zimbabwe, for example ).
Certainly happens from time to time and it is by no means limited to the “left-wing”. It’s just that “right-wing” ( very loosely termed - I don’t want to tar any of the excellent conservative posters on this board ) is more likely to appeal to racist thought to further their agendas.
Agreed this was originally the case. Just as the Slavic slave pool of the early Middle Ages was economy mediated, rather than purely racial. However the nature of American ( both North and South in this case ) chattel slavery was such that it led to an evolution of a pervasively racist mindset, certainly no later than the18th century and probaby earlier. 19th century “scientific racism” then grew out of that milieu.
Hmmm…I frankly haven’t seen a lot of championing of the notion that slavery originated in some climate of inherent racism on this board. But it is certainly a fact that the development of racist thought helped in the persistence of slavery, at least in the United States.
Well the 19th colonizers, were, for the most part, racist. It is a historical fact. Believing another “race” is inherently inferior is racist. It’s how you define the word. And certainly most of the Europeans at that time were of that belief.
Now, evil? Some. Some of the excesses in the Belgian Congo in particular are hard to label as anything but. But more commonly the proper terms would probably be parochial, paternalistic, and/or amoral ( rather than immoral ).
Sure. So?
Sure. Although American ( again, both continents, though the Antebellum South is the classic example ) chattel slavery was somewhat unusual compared to most historical examples.
Your last sentence is confusing. You’re saying that blaming the history of African slavery on modern-day racist thought is counter-productive? If so, I don’t whole-heartedly agree, because modern-day racism grew out of latter-day racism as I mentioned above. There IS a connection. We just have to make sure to look at things in their proper historical context.
On that, I’ll agree.
Ah, here is where we start entering cloud-cuckoo land. That is an argument from extreme bias, but we’ll get into that.
Bullshit. Cite? And by cite, I don’t mean lists of atrocities - I can pull one of those out of my ass for any part of the world you care to mention. I mean scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals that make the claim that overall sub-Saharan Africa was appreciably more brutal and inhumane relative to any other area at their equivalent level of development and with equivalent resource constraints.
Frankly casting all of sub-Saharan Africa as part of one society or even “race” is an intellectual sin of monumental proportions to begin with.
Depends how you add up your facts. Was introducing European technology, or even aspects of European culture, a positive? Yes. One of Africa’s great disadvantages historically was its ( relative) isolation from the great belt of cultural exchange that linked Europe and Asia. Cultural diffusion is a good thing. Diffusion.
The problem was the way European ideas were introduced - It was haphazard, frequently brutal, and it wasn’t done in a manner calculated to advance natives. If you’re going to argue that Africa was much better off as a result of the 19th century European colonial drive I’m afraid I’ll have to vigorously disagree. Africa would have been much better off if native polities had survived and been allowed to absorb European culture via trade and exchange. In point of fact much of the “Scramble for Africa” in the 1880’s-1890’s was not inevitable. It would have been interesting to see what would have resulted if it had never occurred.
Like JanL? Couldn’t agree more 
.
.
Saying that whites in Africa have not made a good government, have not stopped the persistant inequality, is not racism. Or is it? If you can say tell me with a straight face that the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa under white rule were “good” governments ( not stable, not prosperous - good - i.e, concerned equally with the welfare and success of all of their citizens of every color ), then I’m afraid we have very few points of congruency. They were disasters and they led to disaster. Now was that due to “lack of capacity” among whites? :rolleyes:
Bullshit. Sending aid might not help in every case. It surely saves lives in some.
Bullshit. It will only trigger repression and/or violence. Even if we were to assume you were right about the positives of colonialism ( and I assert there were damn few ), do you really think that African blacks are going to embrace the resultant lack of freedom? I sincerely doubt it.
I see. Like the U.S. “gave” Mozambique FRELIMO in the 1970’s and earl 80’s ( a most charming organization )?
Sometimes, yes. A lot of the time it is real. Unless I’m just imagining my mother for being shunned by her family for re-marrying a Black man.
The problem with this in practical terms, is that I refuse to conceed that colonialism or “something like it”, is either “reasonable” or “good for everyone”. Therein your argument flounders for me.
A small group like the overwhelming majority of Souh Africa’s population ( including a sizeable chunk of the Cape British )?
Sad to say ( perhaps ), I think a solid majority of the board will back me in saying that JanL is. Comments he has made in this thread and others are pretty unequivocable, however much he may deny the label. Once again, if you believe a substantial portion of the world’s population is inferior to you based on perceived ( and never once proven ) traits with the outward identifier of skin color, you are a racist, ipso facto.
- Tamerlane
Stupid coding. grumble
- Tamerlane
basically, yopu can condense Janl’s comments into one easy to swallow capsule
Right Wing White governments should rule everywhere, in order to save society from the evils of the left wing and blacks from themselves.
Which is, basically, a load of cock.
I didn’t know people still believed in the whole White Man’s Burden thing. It’s less of an outright racism such as that of David Duke. It’s more a patronizing bigotry-we have to save these poor, stupid savages from themselves.
I thought those ideas died out in the 19th century. It’s frightening to see that mindset still out there.
A quote from the book The Natural History of Nonsense by Northwestern Universy Professor Bergen Evans:
“Nothing is more vital than error. Controversies rarely if ever die. They merely sink beneath the surface of literate attention and continue a submerged existence in the dark, unfathomed caves of the popular mind. City folk were mightily amused in 1925 to discover that Special Creation was still an issue in Dayton, Tennessee. But their amusement was a little supercilious. On that issue a man can get a bloody nose … in New York, right on Fifth Avenue, any day in the week he wants to raise it and in Cleveland and Chicago as well, and in every other city in America.”
Evans then went on to cite example after example as evidence, starting with controversies about Adam’s Navel.
One idea held by some political conservatives that is long lasting, and which reappears several places in the thread, is that if “leftists” support something (such as the idea that racism exists in the US) then that “something” must be worthless.
Well, when I wrote that I was thinking of those kinds of work which are a bit too common on SA where one learns that Capital was responsible for Apartheid, etc. Hackneyed quasi-Marxist semi-history. Now, that is not to deny the clear acceptance and exploitation by capitalist investors of the system, but to write that the driver of the system was Capitalism rather than racism is silly.
Poorly phrased, my comment, I admit. I by no means meant to say that anything written by someone from the political left was to be dismissed, quite the contrary. --indeed I think very out of character for me-- Rather I meant to indicate there is a bunch of tediously ideological lit. on the issue. I presume given the context and questions which are not questions, the poster I replied to is of course well acquainted with the neo-Nazi and racist end of the spectrum for the ideologically driven literature.
As to our nightmare fellow: well Tamerlane and Tomndeb have really covered it. Let me simply add my support for their analyses.
It is far too clear that colonial states, built on racist exclusion of the subjected populations and cosntracuted around extractive models of economic activity, were singularly the worst way to bring technology to anyone.
The argument that ‘natives’ should be ‘grateful’ for decades of forced labor and tax regimes intended to break their economies by force to the colonial regimes’ needs is morally bankrupt.
One can easily see a trading based model of history wherein indegenous states developed along healthier lines without colonial impositions. No need for the violence of colonial rule.
Of course there are people who make the argument, a genuine reverse racism, that the violence of colonial rule was uniquely ‘European’ – only true in the trivial sense only Europe ever got the technological one up on others in making warfare enough to engage in it. The further item of scientific racism originating in European thought is another black eye, but again is nothing specifically European but really a sort of waste product of the progress of scientific thought. Polluting by product.
You know, I was going to write a well-reasoned counterargument, but when I saw that janl listed this show as a reference, I had an epiphany, not unlike Saul on the road to Damascus, and realized there was no way I could argue against him.
What an amazingly (nay disturbingly) narrow view of oppression. B S, if Bill Clinton had given to every American sufficient funds to buy a nice three bedroom home, two SUV’s, and enough money so they wouldn’t have to work any more, but at the same time suspended the Bill of Rights, would you consider your self “oppressed”? What if George W. Bush did the same?
Wait for it…
:rolleyes:
Sua