On Apr 27, 3:17 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 10:43 am, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Apr 25, 2:35 am, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > Each state which has been created out of settlers except the USA
eg
> > > > Bolivia, S.Africa, Zimbabwe etc will naturally go through an
> > > > indigenous phase ie the settlers will at some point in time either
be
> > > > thrown out or victimised. Once that happens they can then return
if
> > > > they do under different conditions.
> > > > This can be seen to have occurred in a series of African
countries,
> > > > from Egypt, to Uganda now in Zimbabwe.
> > > > Settlers by their very nature are alien to the weak nation states
they
> > > > live in. They dont stop being settlers because they have been
there
> > > > for centuries. An indian in South Africa remains an indian despite
and
> > > > against all those who profess he isn't one in order to justify
> > > > 'multicultural' settler states.
> > > > That is why eg the Sparts do not seek the independence and
separation
> > > > of the Blacks in the USA. They see this as undermining US
imperialism
> > > > and do not want to go down that route. After all they are the ones
who
> > > > characterise resistance based on what comes next not what is
occurring
> > > > now. As if the future determined the present and not the other way
> > > > round.
> > > Well that was interesting. Hmmm....so...you see Indians in S. Africa
> > > as "settlers"?
> > > If they were brought as indentured servants (as they were in places
> > > like S. Africa, Fiji, etc) how can they be settlers?
> > > David
> > You need to explain how third generation Indians were expelled with
> > such ease and with such popular sup****t in Uganda under Idi Amin Dada.
> > They left with only a suitcase. But then again I assume because they
> > were third generation they now became indigenous?
> > So in Bolivia today the European descendants who want to break the
> > country up shouldn't be expelled back to Europe?
> > vngelis- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Is the issue here merely the factual one as to whether the Indians
> came as indentured servants, which David says every political person
> knows, but you challenge, and I know nothing about. (Then, I probably
> don't count as 'political.') This should be easy enough to resolve. Or
> are you saying that regardless of how the Indians got there, expelling
> them was justified, based on mass sup****t for the expulsions?
> srd
The problem is that 'nationality' tends to be fluid. Combine with this
the idea that of Vngelis that anyone not native, in his view, having
*evolved* indigenously, is a "settler". In fact, the Turks were very
late comers to the area they now occupy, as Vngelis knows full well.
The Trojans were *Greeks*, not Turks...Turks didn't even exist this
side of Armenia. So who is the "settler" and why is relevant...or does
Vs definition include the original ionians who settled Greece...before
Greece? At what point do people stop being "settlers" and start being
a member of the nation (ALL of whom are only few hundred years old)?
John H. pointed out (I think it was him) that even now one can argue
that all the descendent's of Europeans/Asia/Africa in the Western
Hemisphere were "settlers"...what does this mean in terms present day
politics and how does this help us organize the class?
He argues (as NO ONE else does) that the 100% Europeans (there are
none, actually, but let's step into Vngelis fantasy for ****s and
giggles) in the eastern prefectures of Boliva (Santa Cruz) should be
expelled "back to Europe". [Does this include people like Guillermo
Lora, the founder of Bolivian Trotskyism?].
The left in Bolivia, the working class and peasantry specifically,
understands the absurd *distraction* that someone the likes of Vngelis
would play in Bolivia today. They know, as they have expressed it,
that the issue is *control* by the indigenous majority over the mixed-
and "blanco" oligarchy. Of course for V to *seriously* raise it, which
he does not, except in the virtual reality world of APST, he would
play the role of AGENT for the Oligarchy which would love to try to
incite race-hatred against them so they can try to capture the moral
high ground as an argument to bring in peace-keepers and to raise the
cry of "autonomy" but backed up by international sentiment (or,
rather, excuses).
To my knowledge, no whites have been "expelled' from South Africa,
period. Why should they? They still run the place but with cronies
from the ANC in their stead. Even here, the Black Consciousness
movement in AZAPO, PAC and SAPO do not call for anyone to be
"expelled" to my knowledge, rather again, it's "Black majority rule"
something they still don't have because of the Meach Lake Accords that
granted "privileges" to the white minority.
D/
|
