Apartheid

Apartheid Apartheid

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

8 stage of the invasion has taken several different forms – from legal to illegal land purchase, to the loose imposition of administrative rule (colonial, i.e. essentially undemocratic, in style) over military occupation, further to aggressive repopulation and settlement, ethnic cleansing and genocide. In South Africa, the invasion went on, in fits and starts, for more than three centuries. It reached as far north as Angola in the 1980s. Roughly coinciding with the first invasion – in Israel and Graeco-Roman Egypt earlier, in South Africa slightly later – the immigration of a substantial number of civilians of the same ethnicity as the invaders is arranged by the actual or prospective apartheid elites. Partly in order to make room for these immigrants, many indigenous people are eventually exterminated or expelled from the country or from their land. Their other belongings are often also stolen, along with the land. In the Dutch Cape Colony, the theft of Khoikhoi cattle by the Europeans led to the extermination of this ethnic group. Large numbers of indigenous survivors, however, are kept alive or are allowed to stay alive – if only barely – as an exploited work force and as an abused reserve work force, and they are also kept as separated from the ethnic elite as possible, especially the ‘reservists’. A host of excuses and remarkably flexible, yet often successful strategic reasons are invoked for recurrent decimations of the indigenous population, as its birth rate is higher than that of the oppressive ethnic minority – mainly because of the high child mortality rates and low average life expectancy of members of the indigenous majority, and also due to peculiar cultures of resistance, which are acted out mainly at the expense of indigenous women, and which include killings of women (and some men) who will not – or may encourage other women not to – participate as producers of large numbers of indigenous babies. Nonetheless, despite these horrific conditions and their resultant huge indigenous death tolls, population growth as a whole is much faster in the oppressed apartheid populace than it is in the ethnic elite community, despite racist immigration, naturalization, and citizenship laws or hi-tech fertility boosters for female members of this minority. At some point in time during these developments, an independent, sovereign state is declared by the dominant ethnic minority, whose members thereby become its most privileged citizens or nationals. (The privileges of members of the oppressive minority, however, are not only consequences of the independence of the apartheid state. Both legal and practical conditions of ethnicist discrimination can, of course, also characterize pre-apartheid, postapartheid, colonialized, racist slave-labor-based, and yet other kinds of societies. Moreover, the condition of independence is only absolute in a formal sense. Political independence and especially economic and military independence are all matters of degree in practice. In at least one practical sense, only the USA is today an independent country, owing to the unrivalled economic and political power of its industrial-military complex and its embeddedness in a globalized capitalist economy. All other countries in the world are, in this important sense, dependent of the USA.) As if all of this oppression were not enough, certain essential aspects of the invaders’ culture, including language and religion, are more or less forced upon the abused and toiling indigenous masses in apartheid societies. Many members of the indigenous group eventually come to believe, at least occasionally, that their cultures and they themselves are worth less than ‘European’, ‘white’, ‘western’, or ‘Jewish’ cultures and people are. Due to these conditions, their implications and consequences, my widened concept of apartheid represents no less a crime against humanity than the narrow concept. It is in fact even more of a crime; among racist crimes it could indeed be seen as second in severity only to genocide. However, when racist slavery is viewed as an independent system of racism – separate from both apartheid and genocide – the crime of racist slavery that was perpetrated over 400 years in the ‘Atlantic System’ may perhaps be counted as the one exception to the ranking of apartheid as second worst only to genocide.

Yet, slavery in general is a classist crime (slaves always make up a distinctive economic class) as much as it is a racist one, whereas genocide and apartheid are generally more racist than classist (or sexist or anything else). For instance, under South African apartheid Whites and Blacks would sometimes do the same work, which was paid unequally to the vast benefit of Whites, whereas Blacks in the Americas did slave work, while the Whites were the only ones to get paid. Though in both cases divided ethnically, the economic classes were thus even more separate, in an economic and social sense, under slavery than under apartheid. And, because of that, there was less direct competition between them during slavery. Even more importantly, the Atlantic system of slavery must also be seen as essentially genocidal. As such, it could be considered as the worst genocide, the worst known crime in human history. In my opinion, only the genocides of Native Americans perpetrated by western European invaders and their descendants and the Nazi genocides of Jews, Roma, Sinti, Slavs and others could match those horrors. Apart from the actual violent deaths of many tens of millions of Africans and African Americans during capture or captivity, during transport or unpaid work, the Whites who authored the crimes that make up the 400 years of the transatlantic slave industry also intentionally and systematically robbed tens of millions of Africans of their languages, their religions, their music and other essential aspects of their culture and humanity by forbidding them to practice any of them. Moreover, they purposely and systematically broke up families and cultural groups, especially in North America and the Caribbean. The latter are in fact all crimes that have been classified by the United Nations as genocide, albeit of a different kind than what we usually understand under that term, namely as ‘cultural genocide’. I will return to these issues in the course of the investigation. * * * Although not as devastating as genocide per se, the wide concept of apartheid involves even more serious human rights violations than those taking place under apartheid in the narrow sense. In more than one way, the traditional concept of apartheid, created by white supremacists, implicitly treats Whites as being no less indigenous to South Africa than Blacks, since it does not refer to events prior to 1948. It therefore ignores and exonerates most of the invasions and confiscations by white conquerors of land previously owned and tenured by Blacks in South Africa or its predecessor states and polities. It also ignores the most complete cases of ethnic cleansing and physical and cultural genocide of Blacks by Whites and their assistants and allies in South Africa, which all occurred prior to 1948. Outside of South Africa’s state borders, however, the South African apartheid regime committed unprecedented atrocities during the last three decades of its existence, especially in Angola and Mozambique, as we shall see. When the concept of apartheid is applied to present-day Israel, as seems to be happening now on a daily basis in the realm of somewhat marginalized publishing and in unpublished communication, the initial de facto invasion of Palestine by immigrant, refugee, and Zionist Jews during the course of the last century is often implied, but seldom, if ever, explicitly compared to the white invasion of South Africa. One of the main reasons behind this is of course that many of the Jews in Palestine before 1948, the year of the creation of the modern state of Israel, were law-abiding immigrants and refugees rather than invaders. Yet, some were not, and they were later to become the new country’s elites. Another, no less important, reason is that South African Whites invented the term ‘apartheid’ to refer to policy and practice after 1948 only, in effect sweeping their initial crimes and ill-gotten gains under the carpet. I hope to have dug a level deeper with my analysis, exposing the necessity of an initial invasion, or at least a de facto invasion – that is, the violent or ‘peaceful’ takeover of the land by one group of foreigners from another – for the establishment of apartheid. Egypt was conquered by the Greeks in a manner more similar to Palestine by the Jews than to South 9

8<br />

stage of the invasion has taken several different forms – from legal to illegal land purchase, to<br />

the loose imposition of administrative rule (colonial, i.e. essentially undemocratic, in style)<br />

over military occupation, further to aggressive repopulation and settlement, ethnic cleansing<br />

and genocide. In South Africa, the invasion went on, in fits and starts, for more than three<br />

centuries. It reached as far north as Angola in the 1980s.<br />

Roughly coinciding with the first invasion – in Israel and Graeco-Roman Egypt<br />

earlier, in South Africa slightly later – the immigration of a substantial number of civilians of<br />

the same ethnicity as the invaders is arranged by the actual or prospective apartheid elites.<br />

Partly in order to make room for these immigrants, many indigenous people are eventually<br />

exterminated or expelled from the country or from their land. Their other belongings are often<br />

also stolen, along with the land. In the Dutch Cape Colony, the theft of Khoikhoi cattle by the<br />

Europeans led to the extermination of this ethnic group. Large numbers of indigenous<br />

survivors, however, are kept alive or are allowed to stay alive – if only barely – as an<br />

exploited work force and as an abused reserve work force, and they are also kept as separated<br />

from the ethnic elite as possible, especially the ‘reservists’. A host of excuses and remarkably<br />

flexible, yet often successful strategic reasons are invoked for recurrent decimations of the<br />

indigenous population, as its birth rate is higher than that of the oppressive ethnic minority –<br />

mainly because of the high child mortality rates and low average life expectancy of members<br />

of the indigenous majority, and also due to peculiar cultures of resistance, which are acted out<br />

mainly at the expense of indigenous women, and which include killings of women (and some<br />

men) who will not – or may encourage other women not to – participate as producers of large<br />

numbers of indigenous babies. Nonetheless, despite these horrific conditions and their<br />

resultant huge indigenous death tolls, population growth as a whole is much faster in the<br />

oppressed apartheid populace than it is in the ethnic elite community, despite racist<br />

immigration, naturalization, and citizenship laws or hi-tech fertility boosters for female<br />

members of this minority.<br />

At some point in time during these developments, an independent, sovereign state is<br />

declared by the dominant ethnic minority, whose members thereby become its most privileged<br />

citizens or nationals. (The privileges of members of the oppressive minority, however, are not<br />

only consequences of the independence of the apartheid state. Both legal and practical<br />

conditions of ethnicist discrimination can, of course, also characterize pre-apartheid, postapartheid,<br />

colonialized, racist slave-labor-based, and yet other kinds of societies. Moreover,<br />

the condition of independence is only absolute in a formal sense. Political independence and<br />

especially economic and military independence are all matters of degree in practice. In at least<br />

one practical sense, only the USA is today an independent country, owing to the unrivalled<br />

economic and political power of its industrial-military complex and its embeddedness in a<br />

globalized capitalist economy. All other countries in the world are, in this important sense,<br />

dependent of the USA.)<br />

As if all of this oppression were not enough, certain essential aspects of the invaders’<br />

culture, including language and religion, are more or less forced upon the abused and toiling<br />

indigenous masses in apartheid societies. Many members of the indigenous group eventually<br />

come to believe, at least occasionally, that their cultures and they themselves are worth less<br />

than ‘European’, ‘white’, ‘western’, or ‘Jewish’ cultures and people are.<br />

Due to these conditions, their implications and consequences, my widened concept of<br />

apartheid represents no less a crime against humanity than the narrow concept. It is in fact<br />

even more of a crime; among racist crimes it could indeed be seen as second in severity only<br />

to genocide.<br />

However, when racist slavery is viewed as an independent system of racism – separate<br />

from both apartheid and genocide – the crime of racist slavery that was perpetrated over 400<br />

years in the ‘Atlantic System’ may perhaps be counted as the one exception to the ranking of<br />

apartheid as second worst only to genocide.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!