Apartheid

Apartheid Apartheid

media.manila.at
from media.manila.at More from this publisher
21.07.2013 Views

42 Roma and Sinti (‘Gypsies’), the Communists and the homosexuals. 42 Nazi ideology was also partly and loosely based on an irrational anti-immigrant platform, which referred to ethnic ‘immigration’, or rather ‘infiltration’, that had presumably gone on since the Middle Ages at the latest, whereas South African Whites would mostly rather forget about who had immigrated in what temporal order to what was to become their country. It should be added that Nazi Germany – like the USA, Australia and New Zealand, the USA with regard to its indigenous population as well as its imported one 43 – was essentially a genocidal system, whereas South Africa was essentially apartheid. There are, however, many instances of overlapping between these two realms of systematic human rights violations. As we shall see, especially South Africa and modern Israel display many documented genocidal features, although they are (so far) basically and substantially ‘only’ apartheid systems, i.e. second-rate – but by no means last-rate – crimes against humanity. We turn now to the somewhat less genocidal instances of comparison with apartheid South Africa. Comparisons with Other Apartheid Societies: From Zimbabwe to Rhodesia, and Back Again In 1890, Cecil Rhodes and his British ‘pioneer column’ invaded and conquered the 42 One could just as easily have started this list with Jews, Slavs, Communists, or with Soviet citizens. Twentyseven million Soviet citizens were killed in Hitler’s war. Many of the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis were the victims of unprecedented industrialized mass murder. There are several dimensions to evil. People with certain mental and physical disabilities, however, were the first group to be slaughtered systematically by the Nazis. For further arguments in favor of mentioning first the ‘handicapped’ and ‘retarded’ as victims of the Nazis, see Ofstad: Vårt Förakt för Svaghet: Nazismens Normer och Värderingar – och Våra Egna (‘Our Contempt for Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values – and Our Own’), 1987. For arguments placing Nazi genocides squarely within an already quite well-established western European tradition and thus contradicting an often falsely assumed uniqueness in kind and absolute incomparability, see Lindqvist: Exterminate All the Brutes! One Man’s Odyssey into the Heart of Darkness and the Origins of European Genocide, 1998 (1992). The title of this book refers to a central statement in Joseph Conrad’s novel, ‘The Heart of Darkness’, and reflects a common attitude about the supreme goal of white or European civilization among Belgian colonialists in the Congo around the last but one turn of the century, during which around ten million Congolese lost their lives mainly due to white policies and practices, and among many other white colonialists and their supporters during the pre-Nazi era. Although the Germans were not quite as genocidal in deed as their western neighbors had been until the Second World War, they did practice genocide before the Nazi era, namely from 1904 to 1908 in South West Africa (today’s Namibia), especially during the 1904 slaughter of an estimated 65,000 members of the rebellious and heroic Herero people. See Zimmerer & Zeller (eds.): Völkermord in Deutsch-Südwestafrika, 2003. One could easily go even further back in history and point out the genocides carried out by western Europeans and their descendants in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere as precursors of Nazi crimes. According to Churchill 2001: 214, Hitler did indeed “explicitly anchor his concept of [L]ebensraumpolitik (‘politics of living space’) directly upon U.S. practice against American Indians.” Other inspirations for the Nazis included ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato (see Chapter II.9.1) and the Stalinist purges in the Soviet Union. See also Podur: Letter to a Zionist, 2003. These remarks are not meant to trivialize Nazi crimes against humanity, they are meant to help us understand them in order to contribute towards preventing anything similar from happening again. 43 With a mere one per cent minority left of the current total US population, and an estimated mere 16 to 42 per cent of the number of indigenous American people who had been alive when the Whites first landed on North American shores, Native Americans were finally given some rights and privileges during the course of the 20 th century. For instance, they were now finally allowed to leave their reservations, to vote, etc. By then, Whites and other non-indigenous groups had long made up a crushing majority in the US. See footnotes 33-34, above. The result was a broken nation of broken people, victims of a singularly brutal genocide who simply will not be able to bounce back. During the last few centuries, nearly half of all languages of the indigenous North Americans have become or been made extinct. See John: Native American Families, 4 1998 (1988): 382f; Churchill 1997. The Nazis, if successful in the Second World War, might have done something similar with their victims, i.e. left a tiny minority of Jews, Roma, Sinti, Slavs and others alive, e.g. for propaganda and research purposes. Based upon some knowledge that we do have of senselessly brutal experiments, often designed to prove some kind of genetic or organic inferiority of the victims, one shudders at the thought of what kinds of research that might have been. Fredrickson 2002: 4, and Churchill 2001: 214, even assign part of the blame for the origin of Nazi practices and thought to the older obsession with race purity and to racial discrimination in the USA and the preceding and co-existent western European colonies in the Americas, respectively. See also footnote 42.

land that had been the Empire of Zimbabwe during the European Middle Ages. In less than one hundred years, the Whites caused havoc in the country. It still has not recovered. Old Zimbabwe had dwarfed all contemporary European states in both size and importance at that time. It had become powerful and wealthy due to gold and ivory exports, which were mostly traded across the Indian Ocean. Arab traders, Indians and even the Chinese had sent ships to trade directly with Zimbabwe prior to the Portuguese destruction of the extensive Indian Ocean trade networks in the 16 th century, and their replacement by a eurocentric one. Today, Zimbabwe has an ethnic Shona majority, an Ndbele minority, as well as other smaller minorities, including Whites, who are disproportionately wealthy, as elsewhere in the world. The historical background is complicated. The indigenous South African 19 th -century Zulu Wars were prompted by white invasions of the South African Cape regions and northwards, and by white European and (illegal and covert) US American slave raids in what is today Mozambique, as well as the Afrikaner invasions of the lands that would become Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The Zulu Wars led to further turmoil in the Munhumatapa state, which covered almost all of present-day Zimbabwe, when the Ndebele people migrated northwards, partly out of what is today South Africa, and subjugated the Shona, who had inhabited Zimbabwe since ancient times. Rhodes, an English diamond magnate who came to economic and political power in South Africa, then turned on the former Zimbabwe in search of gold, and also in order to counteract and pre-empt German expansionism on the colonialized continent. The new British colony was named after its creator, and later split into Northern Rhodesia, which was to become Zambia, and Southern Rhodesia, which is now, again, known as Zimbabwe. Only a little gold was found in Rhodesia by the British (it seems that most of it was mined during ancient Zimbabwean times), and they instead started to settle on the land and to use it for commercial farming above all, but also for mining other minerals, a certain amount of industrialization, and for hunting, fun, and games, as well as for almost whatever else the oppressors wished to use the land. As in South Africa, Rhodesia’s neighbor in the south, the Whites seized most of the arable land, much of the cattle, and forced, directly and indirectly, many or most of the indigenous to become sharecroppers, labor tenants or migrant miners. They also demanded colonial taxes as well as periodic unpaid labor from the indigenous. The cities and towns were segregated ethnically, into White, Indian, Coloured and Black zones, just as in South Africa. Only servants and ‘garden boys’ were allowed into the plush white areas, and they had to carry passbooks with ethnic and professional identification, as well. There was both resistance to the conquest and several subsequent uprisings against the British, but none of them ultimately successful. As British decolonialization in Africa gathered steam, the Southern Rhodesian Whites, who numbered around a quarter million at the most, felt bold enough to declare independence from Britain in 1965, as ‘Rhodesia’. (Tens of millions of white Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians never worked up such an audacity.) An estimated six and a half million indigenous Africans in Rhodesia were now facing even more severe human rights violations under an even more discriminatory system than colonialism, i.e. even more similar to that of Rhodesia’s main remaining ally, South Africa. After having cut their ties with Mother England, white Rhodesians faced a corresponding, new situation. Yet, they had support not only from South Africa, but also from the USA. Then, the liberation war erupted. It intensified as Mozambique gained independence from Portuguese rule and joined on the side of the liberation forces in 1975 and was concluded in 1979 with a negotiated settlement, as in South Africa in 1994. Zimbabwe became an independent state again in 1980. Britain promised to compensate white settlers for the land they had together stolen from the indigenous people, but the former colonial ruler has so far to live up to its promise, as do many of the white settlers who challenged the 1979 peace agreement in courts in order for them to hold on to the land, thus violating the British- 43

land that had been the Empire of Zimbabwe during the European Middle Ages. In less than<br />

one hundred years, the Whites caused havoc in the country. It still has not recovered.<br />

Old Zimbabwe had dwarfed all contemporary European states in both size and<br />

importance at that time. It had become powerful and wealthy due to gold and ivory exports,<br />

which were mostly traded across the Indian Ocean. Arab traders, Indians and even the<br />

Chinese had sent ships to trade directly with Zimbabwe prior to the Portuguese destruction of<br />

the extensive Indian Ocean trade networks in the 16 th century, and their replacement by a<br />

eurocentric one.<br />

Today, Zimbabwe has an ethnic Shona majority, an Ndbele minority, as well as other<br />

smaller minorities, including Whites, who are disproportionately wealthy, as elsewhere in the<br />

world. The historical background is complicated. The indigenous South African 19 th -century<br />

Zulu Wars were prompted by white invasions of the South African Cape regions and<br />

northwards, and by white European and (illegal and covert) US American slave raids in what<br />

is today Mozambique, as well as the Afrikaner invasions of the lands that would become<br />

Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The Zulu Wars led to further turmoil in the<br />

Munhumatapa state, which covered almost all of present-day Zimbabwe, when the Ndebele<br />

people migrated northwards, partly out of what is today South Africa, and subjugated the<br />

Shona, who had inhabited Zimbabwe since ancient times.<br />

Rhodes, an English diamond magnate who came to economic and political power in<br />

South Africa, then turned on the former Zimbabwe in search of gold, and also in order to<br />

counteract and pre-empt German expansionism on the colonialized continent. The new British<br />

colony was named after its creator, and later split into Northern Rhodesia, which was to<br />

become Zambia, and Southern Rhodesia, which is now, again, known as Zimbabwe. Only a<br />

little gold was found in Rhodesia by the British (it seems that most of it was mined during<br />

ancient Zimbabwean times), and they instead started to settle on the land and to use it for<br />

commercial farming above all, but also for mining other minerals, a certain amount of<br />

industrialization, and for hunting, fun, and games, as well as for almost whatever else the<br />

oppressors wished to use the land.<br />

As in South Africa, Rhodesia’s neighbor in the south, the Whites seized most of the<br />

arable land, much of the cattle, and forced, directly and indirectly, many or most of the<br />

indigenous to become sharecroppers, labor tenants or migrant miners. They also demanded<br />

colonial taxes as well as periodic unpaid labor from the indigenous. The cities and towns were<br />

segregated ethnically, into White, Indian, Coloured and Black zones, just as in South Africa.<br />

Only servants and ‘garden boys’ were allowed into the plush white areas, and they had to<br />

carry passbooks with ethnic and professional identification, as well.<br />

There was both resistance to the conquest and several subsequent uprisings against the<br />

British, but none of them ultimately successful. As British decolonialization in Africa<br />

gathered steam, the Southern Rhodesian Whites, who numbered around a quarter million at<br />

the most, felt bold enough to declare independence from Britain in 1965, as ‘Rhodesia’. (Tens<br />

of millions of white Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians never worked up such an<br />

audacity.) An estimated six and a half million indigenous Africans in Rhodesia were now<br />

facing even more severe human rights violations under an even more discriminatory system<br />

than colonialism, i.e. even more similar to that of Rhodesia’s main remaining ally, South<br />

Africa. After having cut their ties with Mother England, white Rhodesians faced a<br />

corresponding, new situation. Yet, they had support not only from South Africa, but also from<br />

the USA. Then, the liberation war erupted. It intensified as Mozambique gained independence<br />

from Portuguese rule and joined on the side of the liberation forces in 1975 and was<br />

concluded in 1979 with a negotiated settlement, as in South Africa in 1994. Zimbabwe<br />

became an independent state again in 1980. Britain promised to compensate white settlers for<br />

the land they had together stolen from the indigenous people, but the former colonial ruler has<br />

so far to live up to its promise, as do many of the white settlers who challenged the 1979<br />

peace agreement in courts in order for them to hold on to the land, thus violating the British-<br />

43

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!