Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : CONSPIRACY THEORIES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (199)	9/12/2005 11:23:39 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 418

Re: ...the conditions for most slaves were not too bad at all. Sure, the concept of being able to own someone is abhorrent but because they were owned they were looked after. Indeed, they were looked after (I know you don't like the idea of paternalism either) far better as slaves than when they were freed and had to work for a pittance and live under the most abysmal conditions. Talk about "the most abysmal conditions".... Could South Africa be next? Liz McGregor analyses crucial differences which mean the current land dispute in Zimbabwe is unlikely to be replicated in its southern neighbour Tuesday April 18, 2000 White farmers in Zimbabwe today, white farmers in South Africa tomorrow? The question is a fair one, given the similarities in land distribution between the two countries. In both, whites own most of the best land and their ownership is rooted in wars of conquest. Even land that has changed hands subsequently remains largely in white hands. Blood was shed to create the current territorial configuration so it is unsurprising, if deeply disappointing, that blood is being shed to create a new one. In both South Africa and Zimbabwe, whites hold land individually: one man (and invariably it is a man) is lord of thousands of arable acres. Blacks' claims to land tend to be collective: thousands of people, nominally from the same tribe, herded into what is usually arid, mountainous or rain-starved territory. And in both countries, the amount of arable land amounts to a very small proportion of the total. Most of it is infertile. Hostile climates - years-long droughts followed by flash floods - further confound any efforts at cultivation. Increasingly, land in South Africa is being given over to wild animals, which were born to its inhospitable conditions and thrive in them. They are now being profitably farmed for hunting, tourism and meat. In both countries, land ownership has always been highly political. In South Africa, as well as seizing vast tracts of arable land from blacks to give to whites, the apartheid government handed out huge subsidies to the Afrikaner farmers who made up the heart of the ruling National party. Most black workers were treated like dirt but those on the farms were invariably the most abused. Workers were not infrequently beaten to death by their bosses; they were paid barely enough to feed their families; education and health care were rudimentary. Ditto in Zimbabwe. And in both countries, the tables are now turned: black farmer workers back the government of the day, which in turn courts their votes. Attachment to land is visceral and highly emotional. Tribal religions embrace ancestor worship. Ancestral graves are usually in tribal homelands and are sacred. Afrikaners, the white tribe of South Africa, also tend to be rural people, with a fanatical attachment to the land. But there are differences between the whites of Zimbabwe and their southern neighbours which make the latter more secure. Zimbabwean farmers form a small, discrete, racially homogenous group who generate envy by their comparative wealth. Whites have been in South Africa much longer; they form a much bigger proportion of the population and are far more integrated. Many identified with the black struggle against white supremacists and fought alongside their black countrymen. They are part of the new government. And, crucially, Nelson Mandela, unlike Robert Mugabe, instituted a programme of land reform as soon as he came to power. In fact, the land minister responsible for carrying it out was a former white activist, Derek Hanekom. A substantial proportion of land appropriated from blacks by the South African apartheid government has been bought back from white owners and given back to the original black owners, who were also given grants to buy the tools and seeds they needed to make a success of it. It was a fraught process, involving much painstaking negotiation. But if the mess in Zimbabwe is any indication, the effort was infinitely worthwhile. guardian.co.uk

To: sea_urchin who wrote (199)	9/12/2005 11:52:17 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 418

Re: In other words, [Affirmative Action] is socialist and, being philosophically a libertarian, is something I, personally, am opposed to. And, of course, this leads to what we are now seeing in SA, which is the result of putting incompetent people into jobs which they cannot do -- major administrative and performance failure, especially in the public sector. LOL... But one doesn't have to travel as far as South Africa to watch "incompetent people" screwing around. I can see it every day right here in Belgium --a 99.99% white-ruled country. I think you bring up the issue of "meritocracy" and today's wishful notion that meritocracy is an objective concept.... I've myself mulled over that idea lately and I've come to the conclusion that, somehow, throughout History, in every civilization, under every latitude, ALL social fabrics were deemed meritocratic. Be it Ancient Greece's metropolian elitism (Athens/Sparta vs the rest), Medieval Europe's nobility, or today's American pseudo-free-for-all... Indeed, it's the definition of "meritocracy" that has continuously changed over time. Today, for most people, a meritocratic society means a society whose workplace (enterprises, professions, arts,...) is open to the "best and brightest" as certified by school/university certificates/diplomas --that is, broadly speaking. Yet, such a definition is itself arbitrary, not universal, much less eternal.... In the past, say, in Medieval Europe, "merit" was not earned --it was a birthright. Yet, eventually, the birthright turned into an "objective merit" because most wellborn nobles attented universities, learned Latin, theology, law, and travelled across Europe to accumulate "culture". All of which raising them well above the commoners whose daily drudgery kept them uncouth and illiterate. So, my point is that yours is a naive notion of meritocracy. I contend that, whatever its shortcomings, today's South Africa is a genuine "meritocracy". You are run by South Africa's best and brightest --however, South Africa's meritocracy differs from its European counterpart in that it's not enough to be white for the wannabes to make it.... The mere fact that you and other whites cry foul at the South African criteria (of meritocracy) doesn't make any difference. Likewise, non-white minorities in Europe (and the US) protest at the reverse meritocracy that favors whites.... In both cases, it's up to the ruling class to define their meritocratic criteria.Like it or not, merit will always be a changing, evolving, concept. Gus