On May 7, 3:22=A0pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 7, 9:26 pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 10:46 am, Daniele Futtorovic
>
> > <da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On 2008-05-07 00:31 +0100, Vngelis allegedly wrote:
>
> > > > The racialist Walters who originally argued there were no settlers
> > > > then argued there were using as a point of reference what I stated
> > > > about the PAC in S Africa (in other words backpeddling like a
slimy
> > > > politician) seems to assume that what characterises a settler is
wha=
t
> > > > =A0others believe they are. In other words when I stated that
despit=
e
> > > > the whites being in S Africa for 3 centuries makes them no more
> > > > African than an Albanian becomes Greek because he is in Greece for
> > > > one and a half decades. The whites in Bolivia consider the
indigenou=
s
> > > > to be Indian and seek to distance themselves from them in a
racialis=
t
> > > > =A0manner. Why shouldn't they be expelled by the =A0indigenous
India=
n
> > > > nationalists?
>
> > > Because it would be their (the indigenous nationalists') undoing.
>
> > > A racist with a gun is dangerous. A racist without a gun is just a
> > > pathetic loonie.
>
> > > Racism is an ideology. You should know as well as I do that
ideologies=
> > > don't drive the world. Economics (and their more sophisticated form,
> > > class struggle) do. A racist ideology can at best ever be a tool to
> > > provide moral justification for an existing social inequality.
Remove
> > > the inequality (expropriation), the ideology will fart itself out.
>
> > > --
> > > DF.
>
> > DF, you are trying to give a rational(ist) argument with a
> > fundementally irrational person, someone who isn't even political. For
> > example, he *projects* onto the PAC a "throw the settlers out"
> > position they never had. The irrationality of his view...that
> > "settlers" (as only defined by himself) have to leave every country
> > they reside in even if the m***** don't call for this shows how such
> > irrationality (and a bizzare form of racialism) he's sunk to.
>
> > Further he delibertly falsifies my position by a false reductionist
> > argument "The racialist Walters who originally argued there were no
> > settlers..." rather a pathedic lie. He further lies when he writes
> > "...what characterises a settler is what
> > others believe they are." He refuses to look at the totality of a
> > discussion to draw conclusions. That the PAC defines what a settlers
> > is is good enough for me. For V, who now casts himself as the
> > consiousness (I know, a joke if there ever was one) of the PAC (and
> > other BC groups I suppose) by seeking to be the arbritor of
> > "settlerism". Irrational.
>
> > I accept the PLO Charter version as well: Jews who accept Palestinian
> > rule and stop seeking Jewish exclusiveness can stay, those that
> > percist in Zionist practices are to leave.
>
> > So...DF, "settlerism" is not what they say, but the way they ACT.
> > (something I've stated about a dozen times now).
>
> > An Albanian who lives in Greece for 15 years (or a Greek who lives in
> > Albania for the same period) is still Albanian, but he's part of the
> > Greek working class, whether British and Greek Citizen Vngelis
> > believes it or not. Same is true for the Polish worker in London.
> > Niether are "Settlers" because they are not trying to colonize the
> > country to the exclusion of the "native" populations. That ****tends a
> > "settler state" mentality.
>
> Lets start from back to front once more.
> If a working class is overrun by a majority of 50% by overseas workers
> whose aims are foreign to the nation they are living in then they
> become setters de facto. You seem to freeze the process to a point in
> time not what it leads to as always. A worker is a worker but a worker
> may also be a scab. Workers aren't workers solely because they are
> workers but they are judged to be so on the basis of what they are
> engaged in when the time comes.
>
> I aint PAC or PLO both bourgeois/stalinist outfits. They dont
> represent my line. I would expel the white Bolivians and then allow
> them to return if they renounced their past and worked for a better
> Bolivia against Wall Street and the Multinationals. Above you said no
> one has raised the issue of the white settlers of Bolivia...
>
> Even bourgeois liberals writing in the Guardian no the difference...
> PS
> I may have changed it after all that is Holmes latest 'big' issue...
>
> Latin America is preparing to settle accounts with its white settler
> elite
>
> The political movements and protests sweeping the continent - from
> Bolivia to Venezuela - are as much about race as class
>
> =A0 =A0 * Richard Gott
> =A0 =A0 * The Guardian,
> =A0 =A0 * Wednesday November 15 2006
> =A0 =A0 * Article history
>
> About this article
> Close
> This article appeared in the Guardian on Wednesday November 15 2006 on
> p33 of the Debate & comment section. It was last updated at 00:13 on
> January 12 2008.
> The recent explosion of indigenous protest in Latin America,
> culminating in the election this year of Evo Morales, an Aymara
> indian, as president of Bolivia, has highlighted the precarious
> position of the white-settler elite that has dominated the continent
> for so many centuries. Although the term "white settler" is familiar
> in the history of most European colonies, and comes with a pejorative
> ring, the whites in Latin America (as in the US) are not usually
> described in this way, and never use the expression themselves. No
> Spanish or ****tuguese word exists that can adequately translate the
> English term.
>
> Latin America is traditionally seen as a continent set apart from
> colonial projects elsewhere, the outcome of its long experience of
> settlement since the 16th century. Yet it truly belongs in the history
> of the global expansion of white-settler populations from Europe in
> the more recent period. Today's elites are largely the product of the
> immigrant European culture that has developed during the two centuries
> since independence.
>
> The characteristics of the European empires' white-settler states in
> the 19th and 20th centuries are well known. The settlers expropriated
> the land and evicted or exterminated the existing population; they
> exploited the surviving indigenous labour force on the land; they
> secured for themselves a European standard of living; and they treated
> the surviving indigenous peoples with extreme prejudice, drafting laws
> to ensure they remained largely without rights, as second- or third-
> class citizens.
>
> Latin America shares these characteristics of "settler colonialism",
> an evocative term used in discussions about the British empire.
> Together with the Caribbean and the US, it has a further
> characteristic not shared by Europe's colonies elsewhere: the legacy
> of a non-indigenous slave class. Although slavery had been abolished
> in much of the world by the 1830s, the practice continued in Latin
> America (and the US) for several decades. The white settlers were
> unique in oppressing two different groups, seizing the land of the
> indigenous peoples and appropriating the labour of their im****ted
> slaves.
>
> A feature of all "settler colonialist" societies has been the
> ingrained racist fear and hatred of the settlers, who are permanently
> alarmed by the presence of an expropriated underclass. Yet the race
> hatred of Latin America's settlers has only had a minor part in our
> customary understanding of the continent's history and society. Even
> politicians and historians on the left have preferred to discuss class
> rather than race.
>
> In Venezuela, elections in December will produce another win for Hugo
> Ch=E1vez, a man of black and Indian origin. Much of the virulent dislike
> shown towards him by the opposition has been clearly motivated by race
> hatred, and similar hatred was aroused the 1970s towards Salvador
> Allende in Chile and Juan Per=F3n in Argentina. Allende's unforgivable
> crime, in the eyes of the white-settler elite, was to mobilise the
> rotos, the "broken ones" - the patronising and derisory name given to
> the vast Chilean underclass. The indigenous origins of the rotos were
> obvious at Allende's political demonstrations. Dressed in Indian
> clothes, their affinity with their indigenous neighbours would have
> been apparent. The same could be said of the cabezas negras - "black
> heads" - who came out to sup****t Per=F3n.
>
> This unexplored parallel has become more apparent as indigenous
> organisations have come to the fore, arousing the whites' ancient
> fears. A settler spokesman, Mario Vargas Llosa, the Peruvian-now-
> Spanish novelist, has accused the indigenous movements of generating
> "social and political disorder", echoing the cry of 19th-century
> racist intellectuals such as Colonel Domingo Sarmiento of Argentina,
> who warned of a choice between "civilisation and barbarism".
>
> Latin America's settler elites after independence were obsessed with
> all things European. They travelled to Europe in search of political
> models, ignoring their own countries beyond the capital cities, and
> excluding the majority from their nation-building project. Along with
> their im****ted liberal ideology came the racialist ideas common among
> settlers elsewhere in Europe's colonial world. This racist outlook led
> to the downgrading and non-recognition of the black population, and,
> in many countries, to the physical extermination of indigenous
> peoples. In their place came millions of fresh settlers from Europe.
>
> Yet for a brief moment during the anti-colonial revolts of the 19th
> century, radical voices took up the Indian cause. A revolutionary
> junta in Buenos Aires in 1810 declared that Indians and Spaniards were
> equal. The Indian past was celebrated as the common heritage of all
> Americans, and children dressed as Indians sang at popular festivals.
> Guns cast in the city were christened in honour of Tupac Amaru and
> Mangor=E9, famous leaders of Indian resistance. In Cuba, early
> independence movements recalled the name of Hatuey, the 16th-century
> cacique, and devised a flag with an Indian woman entwined with a
> tobacco leaf. Independence sup****ters in Chile evoked the Araucanian
> rebels of earlier centuries and used Arauco symbols on their flags.
> Independence in Brazil in 1822 brought similar displays, with the
> white elite rejoicing in its Indian ancestry and suggesting that Tupi,
> spoken by many Indians, might replace ****tuguese as the official
> language.
>
> The radicals' inclusive agenda sought to incor****ate the Indian
> majority into settler society. Yet almost immediately this strain of
> progressive thought disappears from the record. Political leaders who
> sought to be friendly with the indigenous peoples were replaced by
> those anxious to participate in the global campaign to exterminate
> indigenous peoples. The British had already embarked on that task in
> Australia and South Africa, and the French took part after 1830 when
> they invaded Algeria.
>
> Latin America soon joined in. The purposeful extermination of
> indigenous peoples in the 19th century may well have been on a larger
> scale than anything attempted by the Spanish and the ****tuguese in the
> earlier colonial period. Millions of Indians died because of a lack of
> immunity to European diseases, yet the early colonists needed the
> Indians to grow food and to provide labourers. They did not have the
> same economic necessity to make the land free from Indians that would
> provoke the extermination campaigns on other continents in the same
> era. The true Latin American holocaust occurred in the 19th century.
>
> The slaughter of Indians made more land available for settlement, and
> between 1870 and 1914 five million Europeans migrated to Brazil and
> Argentina. In many countries the immigration campaigns continued well
> into the 20th century, sustaining the hegemonic white-settler culture
> that has lasted to this day.
>
> Yet change is at last on the agenda. Recent election results have been
> described, with some truth, as a move to the left, since several new
> governments have revived progressive themes from the 1960s. Yet from a
> longer perspective these developments look more like a repudiation of
> Latin America's white-settler culture, and a revival of that radical
> tradition of inclusion attempted two centuries ago. The outline of a
> fresh struggle, with a final settling of accounts, can now be
> discerned.
>
> =B7 This article is based on the third annual SLAS lecture, given to the
> Society for Latin American Studies in October. Richard Gott is the
> author of Cuba: A New History (Yale University Press)
The description in the Guardian is interesting, a little overdrawn on
the race question, IMO. Racism, like racism in the US, is tied to
class. Without meaning to, this is the lesson the Guardian draws. And
it's true. Little has to do with 'expelling' anyone, this is beyond
the pale of Marxism, something you travelled a long time ago. It is
wholly your own creation..."What I'd do" (which I applaud for your
honesty in stating this, once and for all)..."You'd do", but Marxists
would do, and have, done something else, and that's organize the
working class against the mostly white, rich, oligarchies of Latin
America.
Venezuela is interesting because, like Argentina, only a small single
digit percentage is "Indigenous", the 'racial composition' which so
infatuates both yourself and the Oligarchy, is relevant ONLY because
the working class and peasantry, proud of their AFRICAN and indiginous
roots BUT who are also totally mixed with the original white settlers
from Spain, represent a non-indineous but sythesis of white, Indian
and Black blood...essentially what all Andean peoples are. So...who is
the settler? Chavez poises it correctly: those that are with the
Revolution, *regardless of their racial background* who fight for
Venezuela against Imperialism are "Bolivarian", the oligarchy, mostly
white, but not all, are the *class* enemy. I agree 100% with this.
Chavez is particularly proud of his Black/African mixture and I don'
blame him since it's a slap in the face for the Euro-oriented rich
****s who've robbed Venezuela for the last 200 years. The issue then
is REMOVING the power of the oligarchy, not "expelling them". But of
course you are a one-man band on this.
David
|
