Re: On the Settler Question

On May 1, 10:42 pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 1, 1:41 am, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> OK...let us examine these assertions...
>
> > A much larger response occurred further up which you must have
> > missed...
>
> Uh...can't find it. My fault probably.
>
> > Nations may not develop mono-racially or mono-culturally but when they
> > mature that is what they become.
> > There is no multi-cultural nation. Language which is centralised,
> > consciousness which becomes socialised by living and existing in a
> > specific nation implies that the Chinese for instance are a specific
> > race of people with a language and a common history. China hasn't as
> > yet matured to have one language to be dominant like Russia or Germany
> > or France.
>
> So...according to your definition, China is NOT a nation. My
> definition...it is. You definition then would argue that Northern
> Ireland is part of some made up articifical "British" nationality? If
> China hasn't 'matured' to have on dominant language..it's not a
> nation? Interesting. Yet, we have economy that is certainly something
> that ties the country together. We probably agree on this fact. Yet
> the languages are completely different (spoken, not completely
> written). Mandarin is the strongest language, the language of business
> (capitalist and state) and gov't. All other languages are legal and
> spoken officially.
>
> > You would like to state alongside the Sparts and the New World Order
> > crowd that there was no Iraq it is made of of Sunnis and ****as or
> > Yugoslavia as it is made up of Croats and Serbs when in reality the
> > distinction between the different peoples is a technicality much in
> > the same was as Cretans consider themselves different to Athenians and
> > vice versa.
>
> I'll just speak to Iraq. I don't know of any left group that sup****ts
> breaking up Iraq into religious sub-catagories. 80% of the people are
> ARAB. Even more so if you include Kuwait, pulled from Iraq by the
> Brits decades ago. One can argue that "Iraq" as such was created
> during the first waves of nation-splitting by imperialism, first after
> WWI then in the post WWII period. There is ONE Arab nation. All Arabs
> oppose splitting up Iraq.
>
> > But their history is common and their break-up is
> > engineered. Their nation is under attack by the forces of globalist
> > imperialism which seeks the pre-history of nations in its ideological
> > arsenal to attack them using the remnants of the left which adopted
> > the mantra of no borders at the same time as the emergence of the
> > transnationals as a specific form of economic development.
>
> You really gotta read the Lambertist stuff on this. They explain it
> much better.
>
> > Thus you seek to override the role of settlers and their specific
> > history with imperialism. History though has no such qualms.
> > Historical wrongs will be put right if nations want to exist with a
> > modi*** of independence and territorial integrity. That means
> > specifically as the crisis of imperialism gets worse the settlers or
> > their descendants the world over will be ejected from the body politic
> > of the societies they are in, whether you like it or not, whether you
> > want to describe it as 'ethnic cleansing' or any other such new world
> > order speak.
>
> You and I disagree what a 'settler' is. You think it goes out 10
> generations. If I said it goes out 200 generations you'd have to pack
> you bags for Africa. At a certain point nations are BUILT from all
> those who inhabit a region, regardless of how they got there. In your
> definition then MOST American workers are what exactly?
>
> > Fleeing or being expelled are two sides of the same coin much in the
> > same way that a white farmer being shot by a lum*****ed hoodlum is
> > part of the class struggle whether it is political or not as it is
> > economic, the economics of mass impoverishment amidst splendour.
>
> So you are a "settler" in London? There were 1 million refugees from
> Franco's Spain who 'settled' in France. I've met them (basically the
> 2nd generation are French in every way, but not all, add Catalan to
> the southern French culture), fit you definition of "Fleeing =
> settlers". The 900,000 Germans who fled Hitler? Do you understand why
> the vanguard of the Mexican working class and peasantry are demanding
> a right NOT emigrate because they are being forced out of Mexico?
>
> > Class conflict isn't suspended because the ANC is in power. It may be
> > tem****arily arrested but 'crime' takes its place. The class doesn't
> > wait for parties to get their act together in a neat revolution prior
> > to taking direct action. Zimbabwe is currently the future of S Africa.
>
> ??? You ought to read what Marx wrote about crime. The class on acts
> when it's a CLASS...lumpenized criminal elements represents a
> degeneration of the class struggle. What "revolution" is going on is
> S. Africa? Since when have Marxists *ever* defended "Crime"? 99% of
> crime in SA is urban. 99% of the victims are Black. Crime is 100%
> economic brought on by the ANC policies of capitalism.
>
> > But because S Africa is semi-industrialised it will be better
> > organised there and more worker orientated to its core and the 4
> > million white settlers will have a hard time as many are doing now. As
> > far as I am concerned the white farmers are good game literally just
> > like the blacks were for them for over a few centuries.
>
> I wonder if the bushman of S. AFrica have claims over the Xosha and
> Zulu "SETTLERS" who came into displace them while the Dutch were
> arriving? Just curios. BTW...do you want to see the 1 million
> Zimbabweans expelled from S. Africa? How about the Nambians who habite
> the western region of SA who have lived there forever? BTW...What does
> the PAC think, actually?
>
> Here the view of the PAC on what a "settler" is:
>
> "In the ideological terminology of the Africanist PAC during its fight
> against apartheid, a settler was defined as a white person
> participating in the oppression of indigenous people, and did
> therefore not include white South Africans in general. White South
> Africans whose "sole allegiance was to Africa" were considered part of
> the African nation and therefore excluded from the settler category"
>
> In other words...settlers are those who *identify* as such and/or who
> *ACT* as settlers. These are the only "settlers" there are. Period.
> Anyone who says different is essentially playing into the hands of
> imperialism.
>
> D.

Black Zimbabweans are African and they are in their own continent.
White and Indian settlers do not originate from there and never did.
Now the whites have declared for autonomy in Bolivia is it time to
expel them?
Or should we keep them all in in order to ensure 'ethnic cleansing'
does not develop...
vngelis