Society/Culture Apartheid

[JeffDunne]

I'm not using "terrorism" as a moral label.

You're not? Could have fooled me.

TBH, I have no idea what you're debating. I don't think you do either.

 

[jonoman89]

You're not? Could have fooled me.

TBH, I have no idea what you're debating. I don't think you do either.

Not my problem you don't understand how to seperate action from morality.

By the logic you're proposing any founder of any armed force is responsible for any of their actions in perpetuity.

They are factually responsible. Cause and effect.

The communsit Vietnamese forces are responsible for facilitating Viet Cong terrorism. The rich oil barrens in the Middle East are responsible for facilitating Islamist terrorism. There are many other examples.

The shift from Mandela inspired "civil disobedience" to full blown terrorism was a slippery slope with the amount of weapons the ANC had and it's ideological fervour, two things Mandela provided. In their "good" days they were blowing buildings up....personally i don't see much of a dramatic jump between blowing up buildings and blowing up people. Both were acts of violence in pursuit of political aims, one was just more extreme than another.

His efforts in the 60s facilitated terrorism. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. I consider someone who arms people who then kill others as directly responsible in fact. The morality behind those decisions, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish.

You're lawyer, you of all people should understand causation.

 

[Caesar]

That's a statement so broad as to be devoid of all meaning. You may as well say that the establishment of the ANC in the first place was a slippery slope to armed resistance, so therefore any form of organised opposition to apartheid facilitated terrorism.

I really think you have descended into logical absurdities now.

 

[jonoman89]

Not at all.

The setting up of a political group and the adoption of violence is a very, very remote connection to make. Only a minority of political groups pursue mass violence.

The connection between an armed group of resistance and acts of violence however, is a very common occurance. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find such "freedom fighting" movements which do not destroy property or life.

And again, the morailty behind those actions is not what i'm touching on.

 

[Caesar]

The setting up of a political group that represents a systemically oppressed and disenfranchised group and the adoption of violence are much more closely linked. One could even argue that it is an inevitable progression in the face of a lack of legitimate political recourse.

There is no substantive difference in the causality of what we're talking about, which in both cases is utterly tenuous. The more you post on the topic the more I become convinced this is little more than an attempt to save face.

 

[jonoman89]

The setting up of a political group that represents a systemically oppressed and disenfranchised group and the adoption of violence are much more closely linked. One could even argue that it is an inevitable progression in the face of a lack of legitimate political recourse.

Are you suggesting a supressed political group has a closer affinity with violence than an armed guerilla group?

Guerilla groups largely exist to committ acts of violence in pursuit of a political agenda. Political groups on the most part do not seek to use violence as a method. Only in certain circumstances does that eventuate.

There is no substantive difference in the causality of what we're talking about, which in both cases is utterly tenuous.

If you can't see the difference in remoteness between a political group adopting violence, and a guerilla group adopting violence then you should read some more history books. Guerilla groups, by their very nature, are violent. Political groups are not.

The more you post on the topic the more I become convinced this is little more than an attempt to save face.

I am giving facts, you are sitting on the sidelines taking pot-shots against basic logic. I'd rather be in my position.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Here is something for both sides of this debate to ignore. Its a quote from Tutu with some context to begin with.

Mandela has not been outspoken about his Christian faith. However, in his autobiography, he notes that he has always been and will be a Christian and that his actions and conviction stem from his Christian faith. Desmond Tutu, his fellow South African Nobel Peace Prize laureate, called Mandela "God's gift to South Africa" and South Africa's "gift to the world." Tutu comments that Mandela underwent a transformation on Robben Island. When he was first imprisoned, he was "forthright and belligerent" but in jail he "mellowed." He "began to discover depths of resilience and spiritual attributes that he would not have known he had." He allowed the suffering to ennoble him, and found himself "able to be gentle and compassionate towards others". When Nelson Mandela walked out of prison, his dignity, restraint, spirit of reconciliation, and desire for national unity were so apparent that the millions around the world who watched his walk to freedom could all but reach out and touch it. Tutu described Mandela as a Christ-like figure who has a "capacity to draw out the good that is in others." He describes Mandela, alongside the 14th Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr., as "spendthrifts of themselves" who discovered what "true power" is through "serving the weak." He was not President of a "particularly impressive country, certainly not a military power" but what the world recognized was his "moral power."

 

[dan warna]

If not for armed resistance, the racist apartheid government would have continued for every.

I fully endorse the armed resistance against oppression.

 

[Caesar]

If you can't see the difference in remoteness between a political group adopting violence, and a guerilla group adopting violence then you should read some more history books. Guerilla groups, by their very nature, are violent. Political groups are not.

Silliness. We're not talking about a guerilla group adopting violence, we're talking about the armed wing of a party shifting their philosophy to targeting civilians from a position initially and specifically diametrically opposed to that, incrementally and over the period of several decades. It is not particularly different from an oppressed political party making the move from non-violence to armed resistance in the first place.

There is zero meaningful causal link between Mandela and later terrorist acts and you know it. If the linear nature of history is all you have to rely on for causality then we may as well hold Robert Blake responsible for the Battle of Jutland.

 

[jonoman89]

Silliness. We're not talking about a guerilla group adopting violence, we're talking about the armed wing of a party

And this is where i'm going to stop posting. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The group Mandela formed was a miltary organisation with affiliation to the ANC, the "Umkhonto we Sizwe". It had little do with the ANC in practise - it was a paramilitary organisation which followed the same ideology but used incredibly different methods to the traditional ANC. The traditional ANC often criticised and condemned the UWS and their tactics. Look it up.

It was set up as a guerilla group and advocated violence from day dot. Not a guerilla group indeed

Mandela armed them, filled them with ideological fervour, and thus facilitated their actions. Directly.

And no, that Jutland analogy is completely off the mark for the purposes of this discussion. Mandela was responsible for the creation and arming of a guerilla group who's manifesto advocated violence. Guerilla groups aren't in the same league as conventional national armies. If you cannot see a correlation between his activites and facilitating of later violence then i'm afraid you're beyond saving.

He was an idiot if he believed he could arm a group of disenfranchised peoples and not expect negative repercussions. Especially with the ideological fervour he and his fellow patriots expressed.

There is zero meaningful causal link between Mandela and later terrorist acts and you know it.

Then in that case an arms dealer has no link from the guns they sell and their future use. Mandela armed a group in the same manner a gun dealer does. He did it with political aspirations however, rather than profit seeking.

End result was exactly the same. People died, many of them civilians.

He didn't pull the trigger, but the trigger existed in the first place partly due to his efforts setting up the UWS. He has blood on his hands.

I'm leaving it at that: we clearly have opposing views and i don't think any measure of discussion is going to bring about any (even vague) mutual agreement.

 

[JoondalupJ]

*takes breath*

Do you know anything about the history of this country in regards to the indigenous population? Why would you need to look to Germans or Americans for an answer?

The South Africans at least had the excuse they'd have been slaughtered without such a policy. Maybe you missed that part of their history? Apartheid was as much about creating safe enclaves as it was anything based on race (and no doubt that was a large part of the continuing justification in later years).

In this country we simply slaughtered and persecuted for the hell of it.

Nonsense. Apartheid was a thing that people at the time thought would allow different races to live in close proximity to each other without causing terrible friction by allowing equal living rights but with separation . It didn't work because humans have a natural tendancy to be unsure or afraid or feel superior to other types of humans, especially the types of humans who have the power at the given time, as happened in South Africa, the whites had the power and the technology to be more powerful, so they used it and Apartheid favoured the more powerful and it steam rolled and just got worse.
It got worse because humans of totally different kinds cannot live in close proximity it always as history has shown , never works completely.
As the thread starter has said South African white people may not be racist in the least but they may feel more comfortable with there own kind.
I,m sure you don't have to be white to feel more comfortable with your own race, the Matabele people thought Magabe's Shona people were quite inferior to them in the 19th century, because they were an off shoot of the Zulu tribes, who thought they were better than every body.
Politics gets involved and money and power always rule . The average Joe in the street black /white or brown or yellow or red,in a personal situation gets along with anyone if they are just decent normal people.
But if Mr White doesn't want to mix his family up with Mr Black say in marraige or if Mr Black doesn't want his culture changed by Mr White does that make them racist.
No to me it makes them DIFFERENT, thats all.

 

[J_Moore]

Joondalup, it's been said before, but you need to stop projecting your discomfort around other races onto everyone else. Your experience of something isn't necessarily universal.

 

[dan warna]

zomg, what a justification for institutionalising racism.

 

[cancat]

I guess my question is, how did they reconcile their views on apartheid living under the regime? I'm not naive enough to think that all my friends were secret opponents of apartheid. They all lived under the regime and most of them prospered a great deal during it.

Were the majority of white South Africans really racist, or did they have some sort of logic that helped them rationalise the way things worked? Did they really believe in the system, or did they acknowledge that it was fundamentally unfair and merely suppress the cognitive dissonance?

I realise that this is not a question with a single or simple answer but it is something that has bugged me for a long time. I am sure similar questions could have been asked of Germans in the wake of the Nazi regime, or Americans in the wake of segregation, but this is a bit more personal and real than most. I'm interested in any insights that anyone has.

Just to come back to another aspect of the original post.

The human mind does not suppress cognitive dissonance, it resolves it - by adopting beliefs so there is no mental conflict. For example, if you thought of yourself as a good person who believed in fairness to people, but lived and prospered in a society where racism was normal - you might resolve that by finding ways that apartheid was good for black people. Other people might resolve it by finding ways that black don't deserve to be treated in the same way as whites. It would be unusual to resolve it by thinking of yourself as a bad person.

It comes under the general heading 'how good people can do bad things'. The Germans of the Nazi regime were not the only ones who carried out attrocities. Every nation involved in WWII did - the winners in war get to write history and feel good about themselves.

The influences on our attitudes can be quite subtle and complex - and often unknown to us. We each like to think or ourselves as rational creatures - we are not. But what we are extremely good at is rationalising our opinions and behaviours. We construct an elaborate and logical belief system to support views that we may have arrived at by tricks of the mind.

 

[Monniehawk]

Nonsense. Apartheid was a thing that people at the time thought would allow different races to live in close proximity to each other without causing terrible friction by allowing equal living rights but with separation .....

Could you please revisit this statement? It is so wrong as to be completely delusionary.
It was set up by an elite to advance the elite at the expense of the disadvantaged.
It was NEVER concerned with 'equality', nor was it concerned with 'close proximity'.

It got worse because humans of totally different kinds cannot live in close proximity it always as history has shown , never works completely.
As the thread starter has said South African white people may not be racist in the least but they may feel more comfortable with there own kind.

They do prefer their own. That is almost a truism. Every group has strains of racism, not just whites. That is no justification for it. Neither can humans live apart because we migrate by nature and necessity. If you try to enforce travel embargoes you also cause friction... and history shows THAT to be the case! EVERY time!

....Politics gets involved and money and power always rule . The average Joe in the street black /white or brown or yellow or red,in a personal situation gets along with anyone if they are just decent normal people.
But if Mr White doesn't want to mix his family up with Mr Black say in marraige or if Mr Black doesn't want his culture changed by Mr White does that make them racist.
No to me it makes them DIFFERENT, thats all.

Hmmmm... There is a lot unsaid in the above.
Politics is actually human behaviour. Humans get involved and their prejudices interact. You are trying to absolve human behaviour from responsibility and it seems disingenuous.
Your 'average joe' analogy may be heartfelt, but it is laced with desperate argument that contradict the very basis of your earlier statements. The rider you inserted - "if they are just decent normal people" (sic) - is clearly at odds and.....

Joondalup, it's been said before, but you need to stop projecting your discomfort around other races onto everyone else. Your experience of something isn't necessarily universal.

If not for armed resistance, the racist apartheid government would have continued for every.
I fully endorse the armed resistance against oppression.

Armed resistance was one factor, but the trade embargos, diplomatic, strategic and economic sanctions were arguably more effective, albeit externally.
The resistance, armed or not, did focus international attention that led to the external pressures. It just took too bloody long and we have to live with that.

zomg, what a justification for institutionalising racism.

Unfortunately, the attitude that bred Apartheid is still well and truly extant in our international society. Its attraction is its superficiality: it assumes the solution is to simply keep people apart!
I'm sure the black Africans would have some sympathy with that. If the Europeans had stayed where they belong, it would have been very different for everyone.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

While I think Mandela is overated as a leader there's no way he's a terrorist. A Communist sympathiser yes, terrorist no.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Joondalup, it's been said before, but you need to stop projecting your discomfort around other races onto everyone else. Your experience of something isn't necessarily universal.

Your correct . My view is my view, but what I've seen is, in most cases, on a tiny scale when families inter mix personally it works fine , I've experienced mixed race marraige and I guess thats what I mean when talking about individual situations, and "the average "joe" gets along with every one" whatever race, I think thats right , I think that happens in most cases unless one family member has a serious problem with an individual new to the household because of the race difference.
I probably explain myself wrong . I would see that South Africa was a generalised mix of totally different types of people put together by many different circumstances , exploration by other races for example, and conquests, it happens but it doesn't mean everyone is going to get along, and history has shown that on a large scale the human race prefers its own type, I'm making an observation and trying not to sound like a racist,
but would that type of thought pattern, by the people with the political and military power, have been what was behind the separation of races in SA by law. Other countries did it as well, USA for one in the south.
I am not saying right or wrong I'm involving myself in the conversation because I have no idea, but evidence over centuries would suggest that if you want peace perhaps you should stick to your own , you tell me ?

 

[Monniehawk]

Your correct . My view is my view, but what I've seen is, in most cases, on a tiny scale when families inter mix personally it works fine , I've experienced mixed race marraige and I guess thats what I mean when talking about individual situations, and "the average "joe" gets along with every one" whatever race, I think thats right , I think that happens in most cases unless one family member has a serious problem with an individual new to the household because of the race difference.

Consider the difference in interactions.
Racism is divorced from the individual. It is about classification of a specific group and the racist views them dispassionately. There is no personal contact. That helps with the dehumanising.
You have eloquently explained your direct experiences within a family. It is easier fro you to make a judgement of a person from closer range. Race becomes irrelevant because you are confronting an individual.
Racism is concerned with the masses and bad generalisations.

I probably explain myself wrong . I would see that South Africa was a generalised mix of totally different types of people put together by many different circumstances , exploration by other races for example, and conquests, it happens but it doesn't mean everyone is going to get along, and history has shown that on a large scale the human race prefers its own type, I'm making an observation and trying not to sound like a racist, but would that type of thought pattern, by the people with the political and military power, have been what was behind the separation of races in SA by law.

Partly. But that would be one reason - and is not an excuse!
Apartheid was introduced by the powerful to increase its power, protect itself from repercussions of its oppression and because it was bigoted. That suited some opinion makers. Remember who were the invaders and who was fighting back. In the process Apartheid allowed greater brutalisation of others and increased the injustices buy enshrining it in law.

Other countries did it as well, USA for one in the south.
I am not saying right or wrong I'm involving myself in the conversation because I have no idea, but evidence over centuries would suggest that if you want peace perhaps you should stick to your own , you tell me ?

It didn't work then, either. It never will - and it is likely that integration will always have its conflicts, until we educate and sensitise our communities to respect others.
Racism exists because it was educated into us, and it has not been educated out. Racism is not innate. It is a construction of adults.
You are not in dispute with most people when you mention that we prefer our 'own kind'. I notice the social divide between different supporters at a footy match. Quite the expected thing. Because we gravitate to like does not mean we should surrender to all our urges. It is natural to have sex, to have disputes and to be selfish but a civilised society accepts that we need some restraints in order to maintain a fair and peaceful community. Civilised societies re-educate and constrain aberrant behaviour to maintain order. Sensible, eh?
The trick is to determine whether should we relate to the person we see or to the stereotype.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I am not saying right or wrong I'm involving myself in the conversation because I have no idea, but evidence over centuries would suggest that if you want peace perhaps you should stick to your own , you tell me ?

No two people are completely monochrome though are they. There would always be some difference of opinion, over some issue - if not over race then something else.

What history, personal experience etc tells us is that there is something deeply flawed within humanity that allows us (or even encourages us?) to twist an ideology (racism, religion, secularism, atheism - anything) for our own ends - power, money, etc.

It isn't practical to just stick to your own race is it? But even if it were, there would be another ideology we would latch on to that would separate and bring conflict.

 

[medusala]

It is conveniently overlooked by many that the attitude of those of British ancestry in SA was rather different to that of the Boers (IIRC blacks were allowed to vote in the Cape under British rule).

Many South African's worries are based on what has happened next door under Mugabe.

 

[cannot]

The authors of this report, examining whether Israel has established an apartheid regime that oppresses and dominates the Palestinian people as a whole, fully appreciate the sensitivity of the question.1 Even broaching the issue has been denounced by spokespersons of the Israeli Government and many of its supporters as anti-Semitism in a new guise.


https://web.archive.org/web/2017031...inian-people-apartheid-occupation-english.pdf