Quote: (11-06-2011 06:16 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:
You demand I prove and substantiate claims that communism in South Africa would have failed, yet you cannot prove either that it would have worked can you?
I am going to deal with this particular argument later.
Quote:Quote:
You prefer to operate in the realms of "what if" and base your views not on what we know to be patently true, but what you believe was a possibility. How you can ask for a logical, rational discussion when you resort to this constantly is beyond me. How can you demand I substantiate something like that when you cant even substantiate the alternatives you are convinced where viable?
I'm sorry, but what exactly is it here that we know to be patently true that I am supposed to be basing my views on? That there were no viable alternatives to apartheid and that said system of institutional racism had no primarily racist aims?
You have not established this as a fact at all, which is why I am not basing any of my argument on it.
Quote:Quote:
In summary:
1. You believe that South Africa would have been better off as a communist state than have to suffer Apartheid.
Quoting myself:
Quote: (11-06-2011 04:32 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
There is no evidence that Smuts supported the provision of equal political rights to blacks at that point in time, so your scenario was not in play. Blacks would have received many other fundamental rights that would have bettered their condition significantly, but the full vote is not one of them. Your genocidal communist nightmare would still not have come about.
A gradual transition could have been accomplished without instant communism (a scenario that only would have come about if Smuts had advocated for the immediate provision of equal political rights, which he did not). To do it, however, you would have had to have shown blacks the full benefits of capitalism (as Smuts proposed, allowing them to live in nicer areas and become a proper consumer base over time with more in the way of human rights). Apartheid leaders were unwilling to do this, because the vast majority of them (not the least of which was Verwoerd) shared a fundamental belief in black animalism and inferiority. Living next to them and sharing wealth was not an option.
^That would have been a far better alternative to apartheid, and I have seen no evidence of its lack of viability even by your own standards as it did not require the complete and immediate provision of political rights to non-whites (which you have constantly insisted in this thread would have been the gateway to communism). At the same time, the provision of other fundamental rights would have put the black-white relationship in a much better position (whites would not have been the only ones to see the benefits of capitalism), making a full political transition more practical in a shorter time down the line.
As for the merits of self-determination, quoting myself again:
Quote: (11-06-2011 04:32 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
Prove it. I'd like some substantiation (academic or otherwise) for this one. Apartheid was an act of cultural genocide which, as I've already shown earlier, is not looked upon favorably in any academic or legal circles.
Show me conclusively that self-determination would have been substantively worse.
I did ask you to present substantiation for your claim regarding the demerits of self-determination (which, as I established above, was not the only alternative to apartheid in either case).
Nowhere in that statement above did I claim that self determination would have necessarily been superior, or attempt to present any evidence to that end. I assigned no morality or amorality to that outcome. It could have been equally bad, for all I know. I simply requested that you substantiate your claim to the contrary, and prove that apartheid was better in spite of its status as an act of cultural genocide (which, again, is not considered a lesser kin to any other type of genocide).
This should be easy for you to do if the answer is as obvious as you say.
Quote:Quote:
I personally do not give a continental fuck about what is accepted in academic circles. The vast majority in academic circles prepose the endless benefits of feminism too, but I dont see you batting for woman under their blessing.
That's a convenient cop-out.
"I will not substantiate my claims, this is what feminists do!"
As if academia is some monolithic block.
So what, I should just trust you?
When I bring about broad, macro claims about the merits/demerits of a given concept (ex: cultural genocide earlier in this thread and its relation to institutional racism/physical genocide), I attempt to substantiate it. Don't try to slander me for holding you to the same standard.
Quote:Quote:
After all, it was their country in your view and they should have the right to dictate the direction the country took, particularly as they were the majority. This despite the fact that SA was the worlds largest gold producer AND communism would have led to a humanitarian crisis that made Apartheid look like a Sunday picnic. Better to be free and starving to death. If this is something you believe, we have no need to go any further whatsoever. I take marxists as seriously as I do 6 year old children discussing the merits of ice-cream.
Lovely.
What I actually said:
Quote: (11-06-2011 04:32 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
Now, it appears as though we've gotten to the meat of the matter.
I think the interesting question here is this: how come blacks, being a majority, don't get a chance to determine their own future in their own land (which, as we've discussed, belonged as much if not more so to them than any European)?
Why the implicit assumption that only whites had the right to decide what was really right for South Africa politically (even if it meant Apartheid for blacks or the rise of other legislation at black expense)? You say "blacks were the majority" as if it were a mere mitigating factor/frustration, and as if that fact entitled them to no agency of their own in determining South Africa's direction.
Don't you think that perhaps, as residents of the South African nation (in fact, as 80% of the South African nation), they should have gotten a say in their own future? Even if it was a say whites(or yourself) did not agree with, their opinion wouldn't matter less, would it? Why not count it?
^What you will notice in the above statement is the conspicuous absence of any ringing endrsement of communism/marxism. HH has decided to claim the presence of one anyway, creating a red herring/strawman in the process.
His conjecture not withstanding, I did not say that communism was a good or bad thing. That is not why I wrote what I wrote above. The morality of the concept is irrelevant to me.
What I simply want to know is this: why is it that only whites got to receive a say in the direction South Africa would take in the future? Why is it that a few white opinions counted more than the far more numerous black ones?
I have assigned no positive or negative endorsement for the potential outcome of the black opinion (which you insist is Marxism)-
that is irrelevant to the question at hand, no matter how much you pontificate to the contrary.
What is relevant is an answer from you telling us why black opinions regarding the direction of the country counted less than white ones.
This is all I want to know, Harry. Why don't blacks get a say as to whether or not they should endure 50-60 years of systematic racialist oppression(apartheid)? Why is it that only whites get to make that choice for them?
Just answer the question and we can wrap this up.
Quote:Quote:
7. As for your disgusting comment about black South Africans having more right to South Africa because they were there a little longer?
I pointed out the length of black existence in SA as evidence of why they perhaps should have been heard a little, not as some underhanded attempt to justify shipping Afrikaners back to Europe. The point was to show that their claims to the land were no less legitimate than those of their white peers, who
were heard.
Why weren't blacks heard too, Harry? This is all I want to know.