The moral high ground for 40 bucks?

Last 25 Visitor Comments
Name	Email	Subject	Date
Tammie Dean	tvcvknv_at_fpmcz.com	SQBAFzdVxI	1/11/2009
hi mv313d97stb5t71n good luck
Becky Rich	ixadfh_at_wyzpp.com	QDqgwIKfBvGm	1/9/2009
hi mv313d97stb5t71n good luck
karooseun	bossinvestigate_at_yahoo.com.au	TO REGISTER	11/20/2008
How do I REGISTER
Cynic	cynic-101_at_hotmail.com	History always uncovers truth	6/10/2007
Weeeeelllll....... some time has no passed since Mr. MCFarlane and his odd couple of apologists graced this forum with their visionary, unadulterated brilliance, objectivity and pure nobility to expose Jaco here as a poepol. Problem is, as the saying goes - "Time will telll..." and indeed it has because between 2005 when these posts were posted and now, 10-06-2007, it's Jaco and the truth behind the African debacle that emerge the winners of the day. As for all the seriously pious references posted by Shaun M - ummm..there's egg on your face - China!!
vipsticks	vipsticks_at_filmssdvd.com	Hey friends..	2/17/2007
Hey guys, there's another English person about, :) I'm a new on www.strauss.za.com looking forward to speaking to you guys soon
mlaq@yahoo.com	mlaq_at_yahoo.com	mlaq@yahoo.com	6/23/2006
Tolle Seite! Hat mir sehr gefallen. Weiter so!
melchor b	king_of_chowtime_at_yahoo.com	hahahhhaah	2/27/2006
how sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shaun M	shaunssm_at_fastmail.fm	Comment	4/11/2005
Thomas Wertheim’s comment below is a ridiculous attempt at shifting the blame for Apartheid on the British. Segregation policies that existed since 1910, the establishment of the South African Union, were implemented by Louis Botha and Jan Smuts, Afrikaners leading the United party. Although South Africa was a British dominion, we had self-government and Britain could not interfere in our internal affairs. Before that, during the colonization of South Africa, the British were no angels (which nation has ever been?) but they were more liberal than the Afrikaners. Afrikaners and Afrikaner nationalism could not accept the political enfranchisement of the native population. Before the Boer War, non-white landowners could also vote in the British Cape Colony, even they though weren’t allowed in parliament, and enjoyed more rights than in the future Apartheid years of Afrikaner-rule over a South African. I agree with Brian. As an 18-year old white South African, I also do not feel responsible for Apartheid, but I do know that coming from an upper middle-class family, I have been born into a life of privilege and advantage. I feel privileged that I do not have to be brought up in a shack, share a bedroom with the whole family, attend school in a hungry state, study by candlelight and live off scraps. This is what most blacks are born into, in shrill contrast to whites, mainly because of Apartheid’s cheap labour policies, Bantu education and segregation. Whites will still be the economic and business elite of South Africa for generations. Strauss and Reader state, correctly, that these conditions of poverty and underdevelopment are common across Third-World Africa, Asia and Latin-America and that therefore blaming Apartheid for black poverty in OUR country is erroneous. So while whites can live and work in first-world infrastructure, is it acceptable for most blacks to live in third-world squalor? Apartheid’s socialist welfare-for-whites state is to blame for this social and economic inequality. Yes, even without Apartheid, there would have been unavoidable class inequalities, but to a lesser extent and without racialism. Here is an essay I wrote for Matric History about Apartheid and its collapse: President F.W. de Klerk's `opening of political space' speech on the 2nd of February 1990, which initiated negotiations between the white minority regime and the disenfranchised black majority, was the `beginning of the end' for the Apartheid state. The National Party's Apartheid policy of segregation and white supremacy could no longer be sustained, politically, economically, ideologically and militarily. This was already foreseen in 1979, when P.W. Botha warned NP members that “Apartheid as you have come to know it is dying and dead”. Economically, the Apartheid policies of demoting black urbanization, by enforcing pass laws and maintaining `bantustans' (homelands), and discouraging the development of skilled labour, by separate education standards for non-whites (so-called Bantu Education), caused low productivity, high labour costs and dependence on capital commodity imports in the manufacturing sector, the leading sector of the economy. The disadvantage of an unskilled majority only became apparent in the 1970's, when the manufacturing sector's contribution to the economy exceeded that of the mining and agricultural sectors, for which the cheap labour policy has been devised, combined. By limiting the black majority's incomes, these policies have caused the consumer market for manufactured products to be restricted to mostly the white minority. South Africa's domestic situation changed dramatically during the 1970's, when the 1976 Soweto riots, in protest of Bantu Education's Afrikaans instruction policies, instigated protests and violence across the country. This led to the revival of the anti-Apartheid resistance movements, who have been subdued for decades due to the police state's effectiveness in repressing dissent and the banning of resistance parties, such as the ANC, PAC and SACP. The `armed struggle' conducted by the ANC's armed wing, MK, gained momentum. This was complemented by an ideological struggle, domestically, such as the Black Consciousness movement's fight against submissiveness and inferiority among black people. Internationally, the white minority's right of rule was also being undermined by rising liberalism across the world, promoting democracy and human rights. Western nations' governments were critical of Apartheid, while very few Third World countries were `friendly' toward the South Africa. Exiled ANC leaders received support, especially in the campaigns for Nelson Mandela's release, and foreign investment was discouraged The Apartheid state's regional security came under threat when white minority and colonial governments in Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe were replaced by Marxist and pro-ANC states. Claiming to be fighting communism, the South African government armed and assisted anti-communist movements, such as UNITA in Angola, and fought SWAPO's independence struggle in Southwest-Africa, which was being administered as a South African mandate. To maintain its military capacity, expenditures for the development of domestic arms, because of the international arms embargo, and the drafting of white school-leavers into the armed forces, South Africa's economic growth had further drawbacks. Faced with growing insecurity, P.W. Botha's government of the 1980's instituted major reforms and ended `petty' Apartheid, but their combined attempts to liberalise an authoritarian state and to sustain white supremacy at the same time, only strengthened the opposition. Increased violence led to a `state of emergency' and police state repression. Faced with civil war, the National Party's hopes of continued white supremacy diminished and the government instigated negotiations with moderate ANC leaders and the end of the Apartheid state. Bibliography: Linz, J. “Transitions to Democracy”, The Washington Quarterly, Summer 1990, pp. 143-164. Price, R. (1991) “Cracks in the Monolith”, The Apartheid State in Crisis. Berkeley: Oxford University Press, pp. 28-78. Sisk, T.D. (1995) “The Uncertain Interregnum”, Democratisation in South Africa. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 88-126. Price, R. (1991) “Cracks in the Monolith”, The Apartheid State in Crisis. Berkeley: Oxford University Press, p. 28.
Jacques le Roux	sajlr_at_hotmail.com	Shocked	1/21/2005
A quick comment regarding Phemelo's message. You ended of your message with "not all whites are bad!". As I see from your e-mail, you work for the government. Jaco's argument had no racial conflicts, he merely pointed out that, after a decade of ruling the ANC, has made no change, and if they did make a change it was not for the better, to the state of the country. If you, as a worker for the government, thought that all white men are bad, there is no hope. We are living in the "New South Africa"; yet look at your outlook towards your fellow South Africans, which are white.
Phemelo	pkegakilwe_at_perm.ncape.gov.za	apartheid	12/6/2004
As a black South African I was under the impression that good things are happening in our country. Everyday we hear how well the economy is doing and how optimistic people are. It, therefore came as a shock to read Jaco Strauss's attack on Norman. It was only when I read Brian's general comments that I realized not all whites are bad!
Thomas Wertheim	thomaswertheim_at_yahoo.com.au	APARTHEID	11/27/2004
BEFORE 1910 TO 1930 PERIOD THE PERIOD OF BRITISH SEGREGATION, WAS A CLEAR INDICATION,OF THE FUTURE PLATFORM OF APARTHEID, IT WAS JUST A CONTINUATION OF WHAT THE BRITISH DID.NOW THAT IT IS ALL IN THE PAST, LET SOUTH AFRICANS TRY AND IMPROVE THE PLIGHT OF ALL,SOUTH AFRICANS. IT IS A GREAT AND BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY, WITH A GREAT FUTURE. KEEP UP BUILDING THE FUTURE. AND AS I CAN SUM UP THE SITUASION, BY THE LETTERS IN THIS DEBATE,THERE ARE GREAT PEOPLE,ALL TRYING, BY DEBATE TO INPROVE THE BELOVED COUNTRY. REGARDS THOMAS
Kobus	kobus_at_millions.cjb.net	McFarlane	10/17/2004
Norman, you must get your facts straight. I travel extensively around the country, and I assure you that most of the squatter camps did not exist before 1994. The ANC just use the squatter camps to achieve their political goals. They feel nothing for the people living there.
Brian	sreudianflip_at_iafrica.com	General Comment	9/1/2004
Well this is a pleasant surprise to have found such an active and varied discussion forum in my area. There are so many fascinating points in this topic that I don’t believe I can cover them all, so instead I am going to pick up a few of my favourites and in the process share a few of my opinions. Of course the apartheid issue is one that has been overworked by its very nature it will forever be a dead end discussion. After all we have a regime that worked on discrimination and allowed a small percentage of the population to prosper. Unfortunately as an emerging democracy facing the trials and tribulations left behind by an unjust political system we suddenly find ourselves in a country were despite its 40+ year supposedly prosperous rule, we have no apartheid supporters. So much like the current government we are always so happy to bemoan we are unable to take any responsibility. In our case for the present and history of a country we now proclaim should be shared equally. Despite absolutely glaring evidence, I have yet to come across a white squatter encampment of any size, I notice that the majority of poverty stricken people are of color. None of us can debate these simple glaring imbalances. When one honestly acknowledges the above there are really only two explanations left. Either the countries past has left a huge void and imbalance in the distribution of wealth and skills. Or the “blacks” are incapable of hard work, literacy and middle class aspirations? Some how to me the latter seems a tad unrealistic how ever it possibly goes a way to clearing up my initial quandary about were the apartheid supporters went. I appreciate that the fact that not planting bombs does not make one a supporter. How ever idly standing by is also known as condoning. By condoning something I am also responsible for its out come. Responsibility is something more than admission of guilt, as a 22 year old south African I cannot personally feel responsible for apartheid my experience of it was minimal and my ability to be a part of it was even less. However I have been educated in a school with decent facilities, which were in no small part paid for by the wealth of the community I was born into. So I feel no less than morally obligated to make use of the advantages afforded me to be an active part of the growth of this country. The true shame I feel is that in the face of human suffering and sharp reminder of our countries legacy so many people run for cover and the moral high ground. Being sure they have swept any sense of responsibility under the carpet assigned blame and generally made sure it has nothing to do with them. I have tried to maintain a relatively open viewpoint and reframed from attacking any particular personal views on this page however there are a few that urk me in the extreme. The idea that giving out a bit of money is an attempt to gain any moral ground is an unfair analogy. It is clear upon reading the article that the money was only mentioned to illustrate the sense of dignity and community these people maintained under other wise barbaric circumstances. In the face of starvation the willingness of people to share what little there is no less than amazing to me. I could no doubt go on but I believe I am done, In closing you can blame who ever you wish for the squatters being there. We can theorise and make up a 101 and justifications for there presence there. However how do we begin to escape the responsibility for letting them starve there? Which I believe was the initial point of the letter in reality. Brian
Mark	squirrel_at_imaginet.co.za	"With us ... or against us"	8/31/2004
I feel that the merit worthy debate sparked by McFarlane's initial letter is being clouded by personal attacks and GW Bush type logic as enshrined in his post 9/11 speech "You are either with us or against us." I fail to see how Strauss' argument that under Apartheid, blacks in SA had the highest levels of literacy, income, education etc on the African continent immediately (in McFarlane's eyes) renders him a supporter of, or even an apologist for Apartheid. Extend the logic... During Apartheid there were many years of good rains and bountiful harvests .... therefore Apartheid causes rain .. therefore Apartheid is a good thing. A prime example of the economic "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy of logic. The crux of Strauss' initial critique of McFarlane's letter was that the impoverished squalour witnessed at the Macassar squatter camp was not caused by 46 years of Apartheid. The proof of this is the fact that similar squalor probably exists in every country in Africa - none of the rest of which were ever burdoned (except arguably maybe for South West Africa and Rhodesia). It also exists in South and Central America and all over Asia. What Strauss does point out is that DESPITE Apartheid, South African blacks still managed to have the highest literacy blah blah blah, etc. This is a normative, factual statement - it makes no reference to his like or dislike of the system. The cause of this squalour is not Apartheid per se, but restrictive social engineering and state control in whatever format it is manifested. The dire poverty and starvation in North Korea (what little their enlightened government allows us to see anyway) is probably the most poignant current example of this. On the other hand, does Hong Kong and Switzerland have squatter camps? The other old bogeyman - colonialism - is often touted as a reason why the rest of Africa suffers a similar problem. But not all countries in Africa were colonised - and others were colonies for relatively short periods. Yet the image of children picking through rubbish tips could probably be photographed in any country in Africa of your choosing. Toss a few coins into the dump (or hand out R40) - and you could probably take those pictures anywhere in the world! What has the ANC government done to bring those kids into the education system - to start equipping them with healthy minds - ultimately the tools of economic liberation? Precious little I surmise. What will McFarlane's R40 do towards teaching them to provide a service to mankind in future that mankind will gladly pay them for? Even less. It gave McFarlane a warm feeling for a day, and maybe fed the kids for two. Thereafter, nothing. Perhaps - as Strauss points out - the ANC secretly desires a mass of angry, impoverished young voters it can persuade to support it in droves by continually harping on Apartheid as the root cause of their ills. McFarlane's seeming desire for whites to don sack-cloth and flagellate themselves forever for Apartheid is as useless in solving the problem as it is bizarre. Fix the illness, Norman - stop tampering with the thermometer. In looking at the poverty Apartheid and other evil social engineering experiments have caused, one would do well to remember Milton Friedman's words (I think): "If it raineth on the just and unjust alike - how come the socialist countries are routinely singled out for bad weather?"
Norman McFarlane	norman_at_redpoint.co.za	Jaco and Simon's dog and pony show	8/29/2004
How can Jaco Strauss seriously expect the present government to redress in 10 years the damage done by 350 years of injustice and 46 years of Apartheid misrule in particular? His perspective clearly indicates just where he spends most of his time - in cloud cuckoo land. In noting that South Africa had "the highest black literacy, per capita income, life expectancy, lowest infant mortality, etc of pre-1994 RSA in the African context" is as simplistic as he accuses me of being. My question is how did these statistical measures compare with the White community during the Apartheid years? Well, they just did not, as we all know. Jaco Strauss’ comparison between South African Blacks and the rest of Africa positions him clearly, as he attempts to justify Apartheid by demonstrating that "Blacks were better of here than the rest of Africa". I recall that other pillar of moral rectitude, Dan Rood, attempting to do just that in a discussion on Cape Talk a few weeks ago. He appeared as pathetic and self serving as Jaco Strauss does in his pursuit of moral expiation. Jaco Strauss’ haranguing of the present Government needs to be put into some sort of perspective. It is a fact that the ANC Government has done more for the victims of Apartheid in ten years, with critically scarce resources, than the Apartheid Government did in 46 years. I think the difference must revolve around the ANC Government’s clear intention of doing the right thing, whereas the National Party Government had the clear intention of doing the wrong thing, a pursuit at which it excelled, actively encouraged by the White community. He also accuses me of not taking the present Government seriously. On the contrary, I take it very seriously, as it is the first effective Government that we have had since 1948. But I guess it depends on where you’re coming from when you assess the effectiveness of a Government. Whereas Jaco would probably say that the National Party Government did a good job during Apartheid, in my book it did nothing but bad. And finally Jaco, your respect is something that I shall never need, as I have enough of my own. I now turn to the epistle of our self-styled philosopher Simon Reader. Unfortunately for you Simon, neither a) nor b) apply. I am a third generation South African and spent a good portion of my young life in the Transkei. I’ve always known that the vast majority of South African’s live in penury, and I also know why, as do you, although you do not want to admit it. But then again, with your evident arrogance, should I expect anything other than the shallow analysis that you have rendered. Your “rational” points of argument refer: 1) The ANC Government has delivered enormously in ten years, and that with a very limited resource base. Perhaps providing potable water, safe sanitation, electricity, primary health care and education to millions who were denied these basic rights under Apartheid is a sign of incompetence to you. To me they are sign of competence in the face of extreme odds. 2) If you are alluding to the system of Government under the National Party as a “democratic management system”, which I do believe you are, then perhaps I should not be surprised at your analysis. 3) The excesses perpetrated by both sides during the Apartheid war (and it WAS a war) are one of the direct causes of the rifts that exist in our society to this day. Whilst the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did much to heal the wounds, it is evident from your little diatribe that not all of us have forgiven. Your inexplicable insistence that I must be Jewish, or have family who were tortured or starved, or have visited the Holocaust Museum in order to compare it to the Apartheid Museum puzzles me greatly. I simply do not see the connection. But perhaps I do not operate on the same intellectual plane that you do. Incidentally, you might recall the name Donald Woods, the editor of the Daily Dispatch, and close personal friend of Steve Biko. Donald Woods was my uncle. Two of Donald’s children, Duncan and Mary, to whom the SA Security Police sent sweaters impregnated with acid, are my nephew and niece. After the family fled the country, I did not see any of them for thirteen years. I never saw Donald face to face again. Don’t preach to me, Simon. You have no right. And perhaps the fact that none of these scholarly missives have garnered enough votes for a realistic average shows just how well visited this little site actually is... Norman McFarlane

P L E A S E   P A R T I C I P A T E

No active contact accepted

Name

E-mail Address

Subject

Comment

---

Previous Article	The ICC bringing cricket into disrepute
Next Article	The Argus's anti-Afrikaner racism

HOME	Top	Back	Print	E-Mail Page	E-Mail us	Guestbook