Re: On the Settler Question

On Apr 28, 3:16 pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:11 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
> > On Apr 27, 2:44 pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Someone may be brought there initially as a slave but then if they
> > > become the foreman they cease to be a slave.
> > > It happens amongst workers every so often when they seek management
> > > positions. The cease to be in the class they started out in or were
> > > born into.
> > > vngelis- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > I had missed this posting, which largely answers my last question. I
> > think you are saying they become settlers upon their integration into
> > the settler social stratum. That makes more sense than others are
> > ready to grant, although it requires that there _be_ a distinct
> > settler stratum, as in South Africa.
> > srd
>
> It makes no sense what so ever. YOu are letting V use his "settler
> smoke and mirrors" on you and you are falling for it. First, the
> overwhelming majority of Indian immigrants became working class. There
> was a small stratum that became..."foreman" as V puts it, mostly this
> stratum were petty-bourgeois and at not point in S. Africa were they
> ever 'ruling class', which is the real issue, like the Boers, who
> became grafted onto the Anglo ruling class with the rise of the
> national party after WWII.
>
> The idea that you are brought over, a whole people,  as workers, then
> you 'become a settler' defies logic and history.
>
> David

I gave an example of two-three countries in Africa none of which were
mentioned in any counterreply apart from S. Africa.

The post-colonial period which went from direct colonialism to
indirect led to the expulsion of settlers in countries ranging from
Egypt, Zimbabwe, Congo, Algeria etc. This is a natural evolutionary
process whereby the newly independent state seeks to survive in
hostile conditions whereby the old rules of control and rule have
changed. When the British left Africa directly (not indirectly) a
vacuum was created and the Indians became defacto prominent in many
roles. Idi Amin following on from Kemal, Nasser expelled them. That is
the correct thing to do as they played the role of the transmission
belt for imperialist control.

If Morales means anything he has to expel the Santa Cruz descendants
of Europeans, send them to Argentina at least if not back to Europe.
They have to leave the political scene.

Now the PAC used to have a slogan One Settler One Bullet. This will
eventually be actualised as whites will end up leaving S Africa as
they have been Zimbabwe. They aint African even if they have been
there 10 generations. Black Athena is a book it aint real, like Rambo
and one cant justify their presence because we allegedly all descend
from ...Africa hence we are all Africans. Masking over the class role
of settlers and their descendants is justifying the role of 'divide
and rule' which creates pseudo-nations ie Prots in N. Ireland and then
all the left does is spend time justifying their continued presence in
those areas. A boat, a ****p, a plane can move any descendant anywhere
on earth to anywhere again and back again if so desired. But they have
to go. Like the zionists in Israel have to leave, the Arabs have to
unite for any problems to be solved. These are necessary steps which
all oppressed countries have to go through, if the revolution doesn't
occur prior to it. How many Brits, French, ****tuguese remained in
China after WW2? Waiting for the numbers? They were there for around
100 years, 2/3 less than their presence in S Africa. They were given
the boot though. Anyone who defends their presence in these ex-
colonial countries, is an imperialist lapdog, ie Sparts, Walters, SWP-
UK etc.