Apartheid
Apartheid Apartheid
118 introduction of demographic war must have amounted to a serious collective trauma, although interethnic violence must have been far from widespread at the early stages of Greek rule. We will return to the patriarchal aspect of Graeco-Roman apartheid, in the following sections, especially in the realms of repopulation, citizenship, and access. For female members of the ethnic elite, however, apartheid can be collectively beneficial, at least in the short term. The gruesome tradition of infanticide was brought along by Greeks and Romans from their home countries to Egypt. Most of the victims were female. The Egyptians themselves did not practice it, and they often rescued Greek and Roman babies from certain death. (The most popular method was exposure: unwanted babies were placed, usually by their parents, on a garbage heap or somewhere similar, and were then abandoned there.) However, the Egyptians were punished, at least according to the Roman law for Egypt, if they rescued these Greek and Roman babies to bring them up as adopted children. They were not punished if they enslaved them. We will consider some wider aspects of this in Chapter II.9.1. Apparently, there were vicissitudes, but the practice continued, possibly unabated, among Greek and Roman families until an imperial decree against infanticide was issued by Valentinian in 374 CE. And even then, it took a while before the practice subsided. 201 The practices of femicide in Graeco-Roman Egypt, on both sides of the apartheid divide, may also be correlated with large numbers of male fatalities, on both sides, linked with interethnic apartheid violence. This is conjecture, but both in apartheid South Africa and in Israel/Palestine the fighting by the indigenous groups so far was predominantly a male affair, and it is not likely to have been much different in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Thus, both sides would have re-established a numerical balance between the sexes through femicide. The extremely low number of white apartheid casualties in South Africa, and the more genderbalanced casualty rate among the Israelis, where women are conscripted along with men to do military service, could then explain why there was no or very little femicide within the invader groups in the modern apartheid societies. Of course, other factors play even more important roles here. In Graeco-Roman Egypt women and babies (also mainly female) had nothing even approaching human rights, even if they were members of the elite ethnicity, whereas all white and Jewish lives were particularly protected by apartheid South African and Israeli laws and other institutions and practices. With regard to cycles of interethnic violence, Graeco-Roman Egypt and South Africa have more in common than what first, perhaps, comes to mind: the millennium that lies between the Arab conquest of Roman Egypt and the establishment of the Cape Colony. In both cases, two European military superpowers shared resources and power in a rich, subtropical part of Africa. The first waves of Europeans – the Greeks and the Dutch, respectively – declared independence from their European mother countries (though the Dutch descendants did so later, i.e. during the 19 th and 20 th centuries). Throughout the period of oppression, they also remained the majority of European settlers. The Europeans fought one short major war between each other, the end of which established the new, even smaller minority as (colonialist) rulers. The subjugation of a great majority of indigenous Africans provoked several armed uprisings, all of which were suppressed by means of physical violence. The respective differences in military technology are also similar. The Egyptian army under indigenous rule used mainly bronze weapons. The Egyptians enjoyed little access to iron ore, and even less to fuel, i.e. firewood, to smelt it. The Greeks – like the Assyrians and the Persians, the previous conquerors of Egypt – used superior weapons and armaments made of iron. Black South Africans also had iron weapons, notably stabbing spears, with which the Zulu nation was able to repel an invading British army consisting of 8,000 soldiers as late as 201 Tyldesley: Daughters of Isis: Women of Ancient Egypt, 1995 (1994): 69; Lewis, N. 1983: 54
119 1879. Only three years later, however, the British returned victoriously to KwaZulu, this time with machine guns. The British, as well as the Dutch, and the ‘Afrikaners’, as the more independenceminded Dutch descendants came to call themselves, had firearms since their first arrival in South Africa. Thus, they were one step ahead of the Africans they subjugated in terms of military technology, again corresponding to Graeco-Roman military superiority over the Egyptians (firearms over iron, and iron over bronze, respectively). 202 During the centuries that these societies lasted, the respective armies were leading the world, or nearly so, in terms of the development of military technology. This included siege towers, ramming devices and catapult artillery in Ptolemaic Egypt, which for a while was the world’s undisputed leader in military technology. Most of applied science under the Ptolemies was in fact in the service of the military (see Chapter II.7.1). The Roman Empire developed these and other martial inventions further and eventually became by far the most formidable military power the world had ever seen. 203 A very high level of military technology in relative terms is something that both Egypt and South Africa under European and white rule also share with modern Israel. The ethnic minorities in power in all of these societies based their power on their jealously guarded military superiority – yet they seldom admitted this simple and very obvious fact. They preferred the ideological explanations of basing their power on their alleged overall biological, spiritual, or cultural superiority, so much so that they mostly believed it to be true and often even persuaded considerable portions of the oppressed majority to believe it to be true, as well. 1.2. Firearms, Stabbing Spears, the ‘Medical Battalion’, and ‘Witch’-burnings In at least one important sense, the Whites introduced war into southern Africa. Of course there had been armed conflicts before they ever appeared there, but only very few people ever died in these ‘wars’. They were mainly cattle raids, which were more of a ‘manly’ sport than armed conflict. Whatever the role of commitment to peace among the indigenous may have been, we also know that the low population density throughout southern Africa played an important role in keeping the region relatively peaceful. That changed radically with the coming of the Whites, and not only because of their own direct raids, their monopoly on firearms, and their wars of conquest. As elsewhere in Africa and in the Americas, volatile indigenous migrating pressures mounted due to the white invasions and brought the natives into unprecedented bloodshed between each other, often hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the white frontier. In South Africa itself, moreover, the demographic pressure initiated by the Whites in the south of the country unhappily coincided with the slow migratory movement of Bantu-speaking peoples from the north, which had been ongoing for at least two thousand years. An explosion of violence, almost certainly unprecedented in southern Africa, was the result, as the shockwaves of the opposite mass migrations met, for instance in the indigenous Zulu Wars during the 19 th century, which saw the invention of stabbing spears in southern Africa. The Zulus were remarkably successful due to military discipline and ethos and to the introduction of the 202 Oliver: The African Experience, 1991: 169; Reader 1998 (1997): 188; McEvedy: The Penguin Atlas of African History, 1995 (1980): 109. In the Soweto and other township uprisings, and especially in the Intifadas in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the difference became much more marked and extreme. Palestinian civilians, mostly armed with nothing but rocks, like their South African township forebears, were pounced upon by the most modern ‘counterinsurgency’ tools and methods, including machine guns, tanks, helicopter gunships, F-16 bombers, and the offensive uses of hyper-modern airborne and ground missile launchers. Many bystanders and totally uninvolved civilians, miles away from the action, were also killed and injured by the Israeli use of high-powered, high-speed and high-impact ammunition. See Ashrawi: Anatomy of Racism, 2000. 203 3 Walbank 1992 (1981): 194f. On Ptolemaic military technology, see also Chapter II.7.1. For South Africa and Israel, see Chapters II.1.2 and 1.3, below.
- Page 67 and 68: closer to each other in an overall
- Page 69 and 70: This independence also has profound
- Page 71 and 72: Brazil. 91 There are of course exce
- Page 73 and 74: sovereignty and strength of the sta
- Page 75 and 76: especially Tasmania, Namibia under
- Page 77 and 78: colonies, which may also give rise
- Page 79 and 80: difficult method of turning themsel
- Page 81 and 82: under Byzantine rule was a continua
- Page 83 and 84: During the 19 th century, over 152,
- Page 85 and 86: Alex and Stephen Shalom: More than
- Page 87 and 88: Israel has constructed over 200 ill
- Page 89 and 90: eflection of how far propaganda can
- Page 91 and 92: Today’s volatile situation in Pal
- Page 93 and 94: In fact, as we shall see, every fou
- Page 95 and 96: were neutral as well as ignored cou
- Page 97 and 98: does not mean, however, that Europe
- Page 99 and 100: human rights violations, that they
- Page 101 and 102: counterpart. Thus, with the rapid s
- Page 103 and 104: II. A System of Gross Human Rights
- Page 105 and 106: 105 ‘Palestinians’, Israel has
- Page 107 and 108: 107 by orders or even laws from abo
- Page 109 and 110: 109 though it also saves lives and
- Page 111 and 112: 1. Violence 111 The use of physical
- Page 113 and 114: 113 In each of the three apartheid
- Page 115 and 116: 115 Later (and possibly earlier) le
- Page 117: 117 The first example of systematic
- Page 121 and 122: 121 handcuffed into the back of a p
- Page 123 and 124: come out but it was probably put in
- Page 125 and 126: 125 (UNITA in Angola) and Rhodesia
- Page 127 and 128: 127 the equality of rights have ero
- Page 129 and 130: 129 an entity capable of self-deter
- Page 131 and 132: 131 rights violations, especially o
- Page 133 and 134: 133 gas grenades (in size and color
- Page 135 and 136: 135 Palestinian children in Israeli
- Page 137 and 138: 137 Between 1987 and 2003, the IAEA
- Page 139 and 140: Times: ‘There is hardly a single
- Page 141 and 142: 141 were complete. Due to this, Whi
- Page 143 and 144: 143 the state of Israel’s in-vitr
- Page 145 and 146: 145 murders are thus often given fu
- Page 147 and 148: 147 as a majoritarian democracy is
- Page 149 and 150: 149 Authority, which does not prose
- Page 151 and 152: 151 Demography (ICD) and its polici
- Page 153 and 154: 153 Egypt today by one of its forem
- Page 155 and 156: 155 human shields during Israeli ar
- Page 157 and 158: 157 hand’. This is precisely the
- Page 159 and 160: 159 suffering from dementia. 305 Th
- Page 161 and 162: 161 the creation of Bantustans in S
- Page 163 and 164: 163 were quite obviously not to be
- Page 165 and 166: 165 Moreover, as we shall see in Ch
- Page 167 and 168: talent and principle this must incl
118<br />
introduction of demographic war must have amounted to a serious collective trauma, although<br />
interethnic violence must have been far from widespread at the early stages of Greek rule. We<br />
will return to the patriarchal aspect of Graeco-Roman apartheid, in the following sections,<br />
especially in the realms of repopulation, citizenship, and access.<br />
For female members of the ethnic elite, however, apartheid can be collectively<br />
beneficial, at least in the short term. The gruesome tradition of infanticide was brought along<br />
by Greeks and Romans from their home countries to Egypt. Most of the victims were female.<br />
The Egyptians themselves did not practice it, and they often rescued Greek and Roman babies<br />
from certain death. (The most popular method was exposure: unwanted babies were placed,<br />
usually by their parents, on a garbage heap or somewhere similar, and were then abandoned<br />
there.) However, the Egyptians were punished, at least according to the Roman law for Egypt,<br />
if they rescued these Greek and Roman babies to bring them up as adopted children. They<br />
were not punished if they enslaved them. We will consider some wider aspects of this in<br />
Chapter II.9.1. Apparently, there were vicissitudes, but the practice continued, possibly<br />
unabated, among Greek and Roman families until an imperial decree against infanticide was<br />
issued by Valentinian in 374 CE. And even then, it took a while before the practice<br />
subsided. 201<br />
The practices of femicide in Graeco-Roman Egypt, on both sides of the apartheid<br />
divide, may also be correlated with large numbers of male fatalities, on both sides, linked with<br />
interethnic apartheid violence. This is conjecture, but both in apartheid South Africa and in<br />
Israel/Palestine the fighting by the indigenous groups so far was predominantly a male affair,<br />
and it is not likely to have been much different in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Thus, both sides<br />
would have re-established a numerical balance between the sexes through femicide. The<br />
extremely low number of white apartheid casualties in South Africa, and the more genderbalanced<br />
casualty rate among the Israelis, where women are conscripted along with men to do<br />
military service, could then explain why there was no or very little femicide within the<br />
invader groups in the modern apartheid societies. Of course, other factors play even more<br />
important roles here. In Graeco-Roman Egypt women and babies (also mainly female) had<br />
nothing even approaching human rights, even if they were members of the elite ethnicity,<br />
whereas all white and Jewish lives were particularly protected by apartheid South African and<br />
Israeli laws and other institutions and practices.<br />
With regard to cycles of interethnic violence, Graeco-Roman Egypt and South Africa<br />
have more in common than what first, perhaps, comes to mind: the millennium that lies<br />
between the Arab conquest of Roman Egypt and the establishment of the Cape Colony.<br />
In both cases, two European military superpowers shared resources and power in a<br />
rich, subtropical part of Africa. The first waves of Europeans – the Greeks and the Dutch,<br />
respectively – declared independence from their European mother countries (though the Dutch<br />
descendants did so later, i.e. during the 19 th and 20 th centuries). Throughout the period of<br />
oppression, they also remained the majority of European settlers. The Europeans fought one<br />
short major war between each other, the end of which established the new, even smaller<br />
minority as (colonialist) rulers. The subjugation of a great majority of indigenous Africans<br />
provoked several armed uprisings, all of which were suppressed by means of physical<br />
violence.<br />
The respective differences in military technology are also similar. The Egyptian army<br />
under indigenous rule used mainly bronze weapons. The Egyptians enjoyed little access to<br />
iron ore, and even less to fuel, i.e. firewood, to smelt it. The Greeks – like the Assyrians and<br />
the Persians, the previous conquerors of Egypt – used superior weapons and armaments made<br />
of iron.<br />
Black South Africans also had iron weapons, notably stabbing spears, with which the<br />
Zulu nation was able to repel an invading British army consisting of 8,000 soldiers as late as<br />
201 Tyldesley: Daughters of Isis: Women of Ancient Egypt, 1995 (1994): 69; Lewis, N. 1983: 54