Re: On the Settler Question

On May 7, 12:19 am, dave.walt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On May 6, 12:22 pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> This question, of course, is not poised by anyone historically in
> Bolivia. So it's sort of an academic question being poised.
> "Expelling" anyone is totally irrelevant and avoids the question of
> political power. The key issue in the democratic revolution *as poised
> by the OLIGARCHY* is holding the Bolivian nation together. The m*****
> of the country have responded with a resounding YES TO BOLIVIA. So it
> is now poised, like Permanent Revolution programmatically calls for,
> the working class to take power as the head of the revolution and
> assume control of the entire nation. The Oligarchs and their followers
> can stay or go but the Dictator****p of the Proletariat implies *class*
> rule over the bosses class. That's all that is being poised.
>
> But poising proletarian, and therefore democratic control over the
> country, such a state passed power *POWER* the indigenous majority
> excluded from power. Thus, the "settler" question is not even raised
> since Bolivia claims all of it's borders (and then some with Chile)
> *and it's inhabitants* as Bolivian.
>
> David

"My family is voting for autonomy because the Indians want to dominate
us," said Olga Tordolla, a woman in a largely indigenous quarter of
Santa Cruz city known as Plan Tres Mil. "They are racist, they hate
white people."

The above passage is from the above article.
So one assumes the Indians aren't racist as they dont hate white
people?
They hate white people and aren't racist?
They are racist as they hate white people?

Which one is it? Those seeking autonomy will do it under the banner of
'anti-racism'.
This aims to split Bolivia up. For Bolivia to remain united they have
to be expropriated.
The process of expropriation will lead to expulsions/voluntary
departure.
Either which way the decendants of white settlers if they want to
reside in Bolivia will have to do so on new terms.
vngelis