Apartheid (and slavery)

I had a feeling that the analysis of the undefeated generations would appear. It just doesn't strike me as particularly materialist.

From Trotsky's autobiography

He was writing about a desperate moment in the civil war. Of thousands of folks willingly giving up their lives to defend the revolution. I just wonder if our undefeated generations would do the same. Basically I wonder if their unwillingness to be enthralled with nationalism is simply an unwillingness to be enthralled with any ideal whatsoever.

You'll have to elaborate here. First of all, was there a major historical defeat of the working class in the 1920s which spanned at least a generation?

Testing, testing

Catch says honestly that he knows very little about apartheid and the ANC. MJ, after initially derailing the discussion, is ambiguous. Terry's position is that the end of apartheid was a "victory" (28.6).
The position I put forward is essentially that of the ICC: the end of apartheid was no gain for the working class. While the class struggle was a factor (how could it be other?), the overriding concern was for a better managed capitalism, integrating a black bourgeoisie, and its nationalist poison, into a superficially "friendlier" apartheid state. This task was mainly undertaken, overseen and implemented by the US administration in the overall interests of American imperialism.
This position has been called "weird", "shite", "nuts", "decadence" (decadence is now a swear word, the idea that capitalism could be moribund and rotten strikes many of our "revolutionaries" as outrageous). Terry says that no one should be interested in the positions of the ICC, but suggest that 'everyone on here' has no illusions in post-ararthied South Africa. Once again I refer him to information already given and urge him to do his own research. In the latter years of apartheid and the emergence of the US backed ANC, the class struggle was diverted onto openly black nationalist ground and into support for the ANC. As soon as the class struggle went from basic concern about liviing conditions to mobilisation behind the ANC and a revamped South African capitalist state, the workers were hammered, not only with greater attacks on the ground, but a long term ideological campaign from above.
I was a bit disturbed to see how a discussion on the struggle of workers who happened to be black, in a secondary but important capitalist metropole in the late 20th C could so easily be equated with slavery. Is it because they're black?
Slavery was a particular mode of production that had its rise and definitive fall in the epoch of imperial Rome - indeed as an outworn form of production it was responsible for the collapse of the latter. Slavery is not just a morally repugnant system but economically ineffective (as Catch says). Pockets of it survived through capitalism, like other pockets of history's garbage, but this time slaves were a commodity in the capitalist world and though profitable for individual capitalists was a drain on capital overall, ie, it doesn't contribute to the accumulation of capital, only wage labour (wage slavery) does that. For what little pockets of slavery there are today, China, India, Latin America for example, they represent not the appearance or persistence of a different mode of production, but the decomposition of capitalism - and that is the business of workers everywhere (even if that concept causes further outrage).
Slavery is a different question from apartheid, and for Catch who says he is not clear on the issue (and for others who say they are) we should continue the discussion on apartheid.

Yes you're "disturbed," and this is "interesting," interesting." I already very clearly explained this earlier:

Sorry to "derail" this again, but you completely fail to address my central argument that chattel slaves in the US were proletarians, yet insist on again trotting out your implication that I brought chattel slavery into the discussion because I am racist.

No. This is completely historically inaccurate. Transatlantic chattel slavery didn't "survive" as a "pocket" within capitalism, it was developed along with the rise of capitalism and was one of the primary pillars holding it up for four hundred years.

This is sheer, utter, despicable bullshit. Chattel slavery drained capital of its value for four hundred years? From the fifteenth to the nineteenth century capital was bleeding accumulation through the (edited:) American east coast and the islands? This would be laughable if you didn't actually agree with it. Atlantic chattel slavery was a key element of the accumulation of capital on a global scale, and only came to be a drag on the system late in the game, especially in the period after the Haitian revolution, when the cost of containing and preventing slave revolts, insurrections and strikes in the form of escaping and marooning became too much for the local capitalists to properly manage.

You're blinded by your ideology if you believe that. I suppose unwaged housework doesn't contribute to capitalist accumulation either.

You can't say slavery in the mid-19th century US was essentially precapitalist and that slavery in late-20th century Brazil was essentially postcapitalist. That's just arbitrarily retrofitting everything into your pat cartoon timeline of historical progress.

I'm only "ambiguous" to the extent that what I'm saying doesn't fit into the argument as you wish it were developing. You wish I would simply argue that (edited:) the movement against apartheid and the rise to power of the ANC embodied historical progress, at which point you would demonstrate that the era of the progressive function this or that bourgeois faction is over because verily we are now in the time of decadence. But I don't say that; instead I have a much more pessimistic understanding of both the history and the alternate history:

Looking at this from a different angle, I don't think that this or that defeat for capital automatically means victory for the proletariat.

(sorry about all the edits, wrote that one before breakfast)

The revolutionary wave was defeated, yes. There was a period of counterrevolution, yes. The counterrevolution lasted several decades, yes. The ICC's analysis, as I see it, is about defeated and undefeated generations. After all is it not roughly the same generation that rushed to "defend their fatherlands" in 1914 who then made the revolutionary wave a few years later? All I see is a willingness to fight and die for some ideal: first, in '14 it was la patrie, then in '17-23, la revolution, then in '39, the fatherland/democracy/the socialist motherland etc. Anyway let me stop rambling; none of this seems particularly materialist.

Catch,

Upon further reading it seems that some labor organizing took place among southern blacks during and perhaps after Reconstruction, but the "Colored National Labor Union" fell under the sway of excessive loyalty to the Republican party, and so over time morphed into something of a political action committee that was largely moribund by, say, 1875. (Fredrick Douglas, a black abolitionist and former slave who I have long admired, is said to have written an article in opposition to trade union organizing).

Elements within Northern white labor apparently recognized the importance of bringing black Southern labor into the movement, but never moved beyond appealing to blacks to link struggles. The former slaves were intent upon claiming the land they had traditionally worked; when support for that aim was not forthcoming from the progressive elements within the (white Northern) National Labor Union, they threw their lot in with the Republicans (with the results that typically follow when workers place their faith in political parties).

Source: Allen, Reconstruction, The Battle for Democracy

MJ, I don't think you're racist but I think your posts about slavery, very quickly into a discussion about apartheid and the ANC are a diversion from the history and lessons of the experience of this section of the working class in Africa and further afield. Terry is clear that the issue is class struggle. My disagreement with him is the extent of the dominance and manipulation of the bourgeoisie over the class struggle in South Africa, ie, its derailment onto nationalist and democratic terrain, alien to workers interests everywhere.
Slavery on the issue is, at the very least, a diversion from the real lessons of the struggle and the bourgeoisie's (mainly the US and its ANC puppets) manoeuvres.
If we were discussing the state's manoeuvres or the struggle around the 1976 Glasgow dustcart driver''s strike would an enquiry into slavery be appropriate? Of course it wouldn't. Both are interesting subjects but one has nothing to do with the other. The same goes, even more so in the circumstances, for the struggle of workers in South Africa and the issue of slavery.
"1976 Glasgow dustcart driver's strike and Asiatic Despotism"?

Randy, glad you're still here.
By 1862 hundreds of thousands of Lancashire cotton workers were out of work or on short time as Britain's raw cotton stocks were at low levels. An important part of the British government openly favoured an intervention to lift the Northern blockaged and help establish Confederate independence. Despite this, the British worker's movement, including the cotton towns of Lancs, overwhelmenly opposed intervention and stood for "Lincoln and Liberty". This was the working class at its most magnificent, solidarity and real, as opposed to the hypocritical bourgeoisie, morality.
Marx wrote to Engels in April 1863, describing this as "an act almost without precedent" in the history of the working class and Marx documented how, during the Civil War, a series of mass meetings from Newcastle to London, including pro-Confederate Liverpool, passed resolutions denouncing slavery and promising resistance to the British threat of military support to the Confederacy.
This action and movement was one of the pillars on which was built the first international or the International Workingmen's Association, the founding rules of which stated, "It was not the wisdom of the ruling class, but the heroic resistance to their criminal folly by the working class of England, that saved the west of Europe from plunging headlong into an infamous crusade for the propagation of slavery on the other side of the other side of the Atlantic.
Source Workers' Liberty, "when British workers stood against slavery"

Fascinating stuff, Baboon, wasn't aware of this. (Though I did know the Confederacy anticpated more assistance from Britian than was actually forthcoming, I didn't know of the working class's role in that).

I wonder how long the support of the British worker's for the slaves and former slaves continued-- in other words did they (unlike the white upland, non-slave-owning farmers of the US South) continue to support the former slaves once they were "free" and making claims on their former owners land (as well as passing legislation to tax property to pay for public schools and the like), and while the Klan and other, similar groups were terrorizing the countryside? That seems to have been the critical juncture at which the US gov't pulled out, the former political allies (like the upland farmers) realigned, and the blacks found themselves largely alone. Probably wasn't a whole lot on a practical level that British workers could do at that point...

Edit- if I recall correctly, slaving was already abolishing in Britain by this point (I suspect it was always more a feature of the colonies than the Isles anyway?)

I think it was the Hammer who introduced me to the argument that Southern slaving was a pre-capitalist mode of production. MJ, If it wasn't, than why was so much bloodshed necessary to end US slaving relative to, say, Brazil, where massive plantations also existed, but slavery was abolished and cotton manufacture integrated into the wage labor system with considerably less loss of life (so I am told)?

The reason I went "further afield" is that when I tried to imagine the end of apartheid as simply a bad thing, merely a bourgeois manipulation, and wholly responsible for the situation the South African proletariat faces today, I realized it required understanding the potential paths a struggle can take in a completely one-dimensional way (either straight toward communism, or straight away from it). And this didn't mesh well with my understanding of human history in a broader sense.

If we're talking about the Glasgow dustcart drivers of 1976 and we have to go to a larger historical scale to understand just how different our assumptions are about some of the words we're using, then that's a perfectly reasonable sidetrack for the conversation to take. There isn't a post limit to threads on this forum, so please stop complaining about the above "diversion." Whether or not you consider a particular mass of workers one and a half short human lifetimes ago "proletarian" and why helps highlight by counterexample just which qualities of the South African proletariat you believe put them in the special condition of only being able to work directly toward or directly against communism.

I've had to proceed by counterexample because between the lot of you, you've really provided very few clues despite my continued direct questioning:

Once again. PLEASE elaborate on these. What material conditions made communism particularly attainable to the apartheid-era South African proletariat? When has the proletariat demonstrated its capacity to actually overthrow the capitalist state? What do you imagine would have happened if the state were simply broken? How would the relationship of white workers to black workers have transformed in that process, and why? How would the relationship of South African workers to the rest of the world's workers have developed? How would the revolution proceed from there?

I don't follow your argument -- you don't think capitalism is capable of producing that much bloodshed all by itself?

MJ I don't think there was that much of an issue with division of the South African working class on black/white lines - whites are a fairly small section of the population there, the working class is black or coloured in South Africa with small exception (ok some technical workers - there was a shortage in the 70s cause they didn't eductate the blacks so they got migrants from Europe - and white collars).

Randy I think this was a conflict between two groups with two differing sets of economic interests for control of state policy and expansion into the west, both were parts of capitalism, the same criteria wouldn't apply if a change from straightforward slavery (I'm sure they still had plenty of debt peonage in Brazil) didn't make for a change in the direction of the state's economic policy. What I mean is this was more like a conflict between comprador and developmentalist factions in the Third World, the Southerners being dependant on trade of raw materials to Britain, the Northerners industrialising.
Not sure when slavery was abolished in the British Empire, they still had forced labour in the French and Belgian empires into the C20th, and of course in the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1833. There were still forms of indentured servitude after this though.

Not my argument, really, rather someone else's that I accepted without questioning until recently. The argument (as i recall) ran that in the US, capitalism took the field against one of the last holdouts of feudal culture, and that was why it was a fight to the death (the "Civil War as a bourgeois revolution" thesis) . Unlike elsewhere, where slave labor was incorporated into capitalism already, and so slavery was abolished by means of simple legal reform (I think). I was hoping you were already familiar with this line of thought, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to advance it adequately.

Your point is well taken though, power struggles amongst capitalists can be quite bloody in themselves. And Terry's analysis sounds reasonable enough. In Brazil i suppose the plantation owners had abolition forced on them, which they probably didn't like, but didn't feel the need to go to war over; presumably the power struggle between agriculture and industry was absent, or was less intense (and perhaps the geographical segregation of the two was less stark?) Whereas in the US it was a fight for ultimate control, pure and simple (with abolition a mid war tactic employed by the north to alienate Britain from the South, as well as striking at the heart of the plantation owner's capital).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Brazil

Brazil was the last place the slavery of the Atlantic plantation system was "abolished," and the monarchy ended the next year.

As you can see in wiki in the Brazilian context there was a major drought in the north-east and rebellions, slavery was becoming less viable, - indeed folk were desperatly trying to sell off their slaves, landlords ruined in the drought that is, in any case how 'abolished' it was is questionable, as debt peonage would have continued. An important factor not mentioned is the ending of the slave trade in the British Empire and hence the pressure put on other states by the British Empire, which otherwise would have lost competitiveness.

I'm not sure why there needs to be major violence to move from a pre-capitalist mode of production to a capitalist one....but then I find the whole 'bourgeois revolution' thing very questionable.

... in 1888, while "since the 1880s the country began to work with European immigrant labor instead." Not clear if this is because chattel slaving was already being phased out, or due to other economic or social factors. Still leaves the question in my mind why one nation's abolition was the occasion of so much death and destruction, and not the other.

But yeah, the continued existence of the monarchy certainly appears to invalidate the whole "Dixie was more feudalistic than elsewhere" argument.

There was a massive El Nino drought in the north east of Brazil that went on for several years - it is Mike Davis book 'Late Victorian Holocausts', this fucked up the slave plantation economy, also it was very much more difficult to import slaves once the British Empire had banned the African slave trade. Monarchy and capitalism is perfectly compatible. Germany was a monarchy until 1918, Japan until 1945, Britain had the House of Lords veto over legislation until 1911, and 'constitutionally' it was the greater say of the monarch that allowed the removal of that veto.
Another relevant wikipedia page is the one on coolies, as it shows what the British Empire moved over to after the ending of African chattel slaves - indentured servitude. The United States is the place that is different in that there the ending of slavery was brought about by civil war.

The drought appears to have been localized, affecting (certain portions of?) the cotton growers more than sugar plantations. Rebellions (and fear of rebellions) was also a prominent feature to the north. As for debt peonage continuing, something similar took place in the US, with sharecropping and the like-- and yet we recognize that an important advance took place. Yes, Britain seems to have played a large role in abolition in both locales (their failure to support the Confederate states as expected, has already been touched on. Ah, those progressive limeys )

Do you not agree that there were a series of revolutions (when one class displaces another) that took place over a common time span, that tended to end or emasculate the monarchy, bring the bourgeoisie in power in place of the old landowning aristocracy, and mark the passing of feudal culture and the predominance of bourgeois mores (as the mode of production was changing accordingly)? I'm interested to know what part(s) of this you take exception to. It was explained to me as a historical axiom, that one class never cedes power to another without a fight.

edit: Terry, we are posting simultaneously, I'll take a break now. Appreciate your input.

Well in France in the C18th in the port towns that were linked in with international trade you had rich merchants there, most of which would have been either made noble, or whose offspring would have married into nobility, an awful lot of the nobility in France was of recent origin, made nobles for their service in the state bureaucracy or their wealth, not being nobles cause their ancestors fought along side Charlemange or something. Other nobles down the country would have had that heritage, but actually been quite impoverished and irrelevant.

The state was modernising, it had attempted to create a customs union for the whole of France in the 1770s, ie that the place wouldn't have internal trade barriers, it fought several conflicts with Britain that were mercantile ie around controlling trade in the West Indies, India, etc.... There was totally a free market influence over the state.

So there wasn't a clear cut thing of a feudal state, plus nobility, versus a 'third estate' which was bourgeois.
Words like 'nobility', 'bourgeois', 'peasant', then didn't have the same meanings as we give them now.

In addition the revolution actually retarded the development of capitalism in France because it partly prevented the dispossession of the peasantry and made for a long predominance of inefficient small holdings.

In other places like Germany and Britain in C19th sure there was a difference between landed wealth and industrial wealth, but the landed wealth was also capitalist - it was employing people and producing for a market.

In any case absolute monarchy and feudalism is not the same thing. In feudalism the monarch is just the first among equals, feudalism is geared to met military needs (see for instance it persisting in the British context - in the north of England, Wales and Ireland - the border territories).

The French revolution was more pushed forward by the peasantry and the san culottes who were restricting not facilitating free trade, the market, capital accumulation and the like. The crisis for the elites was more around the fact they kept loosing to Britain, the state was in financial crisis, and both taxation and access to position within the state bureaucracy was determined by status. Different from the development of capitalism necessitating the overthrow of the regime (which as we have seen favoured free trade and mercantile conflicts) something brought about by a defined class with a common interest in a new mode of production (on that score some nobles, bourgeoisie, peasants, san culottes could have all been considered ‘bourgeois’, others not).

But as we've learned so acutely, a fight is not itself a sign that a class is ceding power.

I wasn't trying to argue that the plantation system in Brazil was particularly more feudal or less capitalist itself than the US, but rather that the simplistic "bourgeois revolution" analysis would seem to apply double there.

Of course.

And i was taking exception with Du Bois' simplistic take on Reconstruction as a D of the P, more than advancing an alternative thesis (I just mentioned some arguments i had heard elsewhere, out of curiosity).

As for bourgeois revolutions: I don't hold with mechanistic applications of such analysis, such as "the former slaves could never have hoped to achieve a communistic redistribution of land, because they had not yet achieved bourgeois democratic rights." The stages of history theory. At the same time, there would seem to have been a revolutionary period that preceded the labor movement, in which certain tendencies were in common, and I see no harm in referring to these with the bourgous revolution shorthand. (Exceptions to these tendencies duly noted).

EASY MATHEMATICS:

YOU CANNOT MULTIPLY WEALTH BY MULTIPLYING YOUR NUMBERS.
YOU CANNOT MULTIPLY WEALTH BY DIVIDING IT.

...UNLESS YOU THINK YOU CAN FOOL GOD AND DISGRACE YOUR ANCESTORS!

Raise awareness of South African farm murders by brutal torture https://www.facebook.com/SAVESOUTHAFRICANFARMERS hereby responds to this audio propaganda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUd_Kc0ZUS4

Notice the Communist Marxist-Leninist indoctrination in Mr. Lukhona Mguni's libelous interview. Here is a video which shows VERY typical thinking of our black South African Communist youth today. This thinking has been indoctrinated into black and also into the minds and hearts of many minority South Africans from birth and school age, by parents, school teachers, community, media and politicians and Communist backed Hollywood movies and documentaries, repeated over and over and over on South African televisions and in cinemas.

This thinking is false and Communist. When I last looked Communism used to be considered evil and dangerous and a model failure by most intellectuals? Lukhona Mguni's way of thinking is the DIRECT cause of minority stage 6 of stage 8 genocide in South Africa, is the DIRECT cause of South African farm murders by brutal torture, and it is the DIRECT cause of South African minorities virtually all under siege in their own homes today, due to black on minority terrorism in the name of "Oops sorry, a little too much crime, if you don't like it then go back to wherever you came from".

Never mind that most minority South Africans were born and bred in South Africa, are indigenous South African products, and "came from" NOWHERE ELSE, and their ancestors settled in the South of Africa long before Mr. Lukhona Mguni's black ancestors came down from the North - That's assuming Lukhona Mguni is not an immigrant to SA himself, legal or illegal.

Rampant HIV AIDS over many decades does not make the slightest dent, in black overpopulation due to rape, polygamy, and legal/ illegal black immigrants from Northern African countries billowing into South Africa daily. Minority economic support cannot keep up with such black population explosions. Mr. Lukhona Mguni forgets how many minority South African farmers and businesses employ blacks and raise funds for black South Africans & how many minority South Africans fought against apartheid so that HE, Mr. Lukhona Mguni, can benefit from AA and BBEEE and everything else he still gets for free, courtesy of Apartheid and the new regime combined.

Mr. Lukhona Mguni is oblivious of the billions of South African Rands which come out of minority South African pockets in the form of our monthly church tithes, of which 99% goes directly towards black enrichment and black empowerment. Google minority (mostly white and Indian) South African charities and orphanages for blacks and start counting them all down the page, then start counting the endless online pages full of them. Then consider the billions of Dollars and Euro's in foreign investment for blacks only, whether intended for blacks only (Oprah) or not.

Mr. Lukhona Mguni talks about "taking back what was rightfully ours", and tries to justify that, by starting his sentence with what is clearly about to become some threat, and the video sound is muted exactly at that point where the threat on white South Africans was presumably uttered.

White South Africans never took anything from blacks. Google “On Land Ownership in South Africa - myths debunked”:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.south-africa.afrikaans/GKe7nKtJxUQ

This is a myth that perpetuates, and perpetuates, and perpetuates and will not come to an end so long as the "New Born's" Communists can help it .... so much so has this lie turned into a myth, that even minority South Africans now believe is true because they are taught this in their schools, by their indoctrinated teachers. Yes, whole chunks of SA history have been tampered with or removed from South African syllabuses to suit liberal Communist agendas.

The Communist "New Borns" - black descendants of Communist terrorists born after Apartheid ended two decades ago - stand to gain from spreading this lie and their parents are helping them to do so today. Communist New Borns, have become more and more impatient to reap the so-called spoils from their Communist terrorist parent's "struggle" to "liberate" themselves. Yet there are not enough spoils to hand down to such ever increasing masses, other than minority developed, schools, hospitals, HIV AIDS induced orphanages, infrastructure, Affirmative Action, BBEEE, minority church tithes, minority charity funds, foreign investments, religions, culture.

No, these black youths are open about waiting to "take" (even by force) from half the minorities, whatever they own, regardless that they worked hard for generations to legally pay for and build up whatever they may own today. The other half of minorities are living in ever growing legal shanty towns all over SA due to AA and BBEEE, and they are being attacked and murdered daily by black new Born gangs, and their food, donated by the other half of the minorities, is often deliberately stolen in heists. Google Censorbugbear or Farmitracker and learn more.

To this very day, I still don't know what the black South African wants to be liberated from? I grew up during apartheid and I can assure you they have always been given everything for free, by their so-called "oppressors", whom I have never seen.

They were never oppressed, so that is just another lie. Minorities never forced them to live in huts and walk miles to fetch their water and live without electricity - No, that has always been their own self-imposed traditional culture. Electricity, brick houses, plumbing and technology is something minorities brought to them. Yet they are the first to use their own self-imposed lack and destruction of whatever we gave them, (their parents burned down schools we built for them) to garner favor in front of foreign cameras, and train their children to beg. It is tradition for them to go barefoot in the rural areas, but this of course is not made known to foreigners who see this and immediately label them as "oppressed", when in reality it is nothing of the sort, but has always been used against SA minorities none the less. And that is just one way in which, SA Communists won world sympathy. You won't have enough time for me to list all the other ways.

SA Commie "Comrades" have always been as free as free can be physically, and contrary to their own propaganda, there was never slavery during Apartheid - I know this because I was born and bred in SA during Apartheid - Unless the meaning of "slavery" keeps changing it's definition? But the problem is that this group has always mentally enslaved themselves, and this has always been self-imposed. And the only thing they were ever truly "struggling" against were themselves. Using Communist phrases, calling their acts of terrorism on innocent civilians of all races, a "struggle for liberation" when they were always free and trying to romanticize Communist acts of terror in order to make their disgusting deeds palatable enough for raising foreign funds and sanctions and using terror to bring down an excellently run government, no matter what anyone tries to say - is beyond slippery. No these people got training from elsewhere or from foreigners who came from elsewhere. This is obvious. They would never have done this without outside influence. Their Commie jargon is not indigenous or traditional to this country or to the heritage of the black South African. We regularly browse their social network pages, and it is so clear from their conversations that they have been schooled in a strong Marxist-Leninist Communist discipline. This is not African. Sometimes their terminology looks like it came straight out of a political science text book.

Black South African Communist terrorists will never be mentally liberated, until they stop being dependent on minorities for everything, until they stop self-loathing, until they stop destroying everything that is given to them by minorities, until they stop teaching their youth that crime is the only way to gain what successful people earned, until they stop looking for pity when they themselves have no mercy, until they stop blaming their childhood or others for their own shortcomings, and of course until they stop training their children to murder.

Polygamy, teen pregnancies and substance abuse, together with superstition, causes rape, which causes HIV AIDS and orphans who are brought up by ancestor worshiping grandmothers who are too old to discipline children, who become criminals, who pass on that way of life to the next generation, who in horror looks outside his own tribe or group for another tribe or group to blame (minorities). When you look again you have a recipe for disaster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17m8OnHC7dQ

Most of those who murder, even by drowning our children in boiling water, have baby faces! Look at the faces of these accused - Babies themselves!!!:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179171/Walkerville-family-murders-Horrific-death-boy-12-drowned-boiling-water-robbers-raped-mother.html

In 1300 - c. 1500, the Khoisan were established as the dominant power in the southern and south-western Cape regions. But they were never a proper enemy to our ancestors. The Zulu's were.

White navigators/ explorers arrived in Southern Africa in this order:

1487 Portuguese
1580 English
1595 Dutch

When our ancestors arrived in South Africa from Europe we became African, with our own South African flag, government and culture.

Today White South Africans are often wrongly accused by black South Africans of settling on, or colonizing "THEIR" land in Southern Africa, whether we were born here or not. Even white South Africans fall for this myth, a myth that was originally taught to the ANC and PAC by Jo Slovo. If ever there were a traitor to minority South Africans, it was this man: Jo Slovo.

Yet the forebears of Bantu-speaking people, in c. AD 200 established themselves, south of the Limpopo River, which is north of Southern Africa towards Mozambique.

Not that it should matter who settled in South Africa first, except for the fact that today black South African Communists (first influenced by Jo Slovo), are using this particular myth as an excuse to murder whole South African farmer families, including black farmer families, using the most atrociously cruel methods. These murders have extended to Indians, Chinese and Colored South Africans also. They are demanding land "redistribution without compensation", but the fact is that there were no Zulu’s at all on Southern African soil when whites settled here.

Read more about this here:

Land reform: why SA farmers are being murdered
http://praag.org/?p=5307

On Land Ownership in South Africa - myths debunked:

There is a common belief in South Africa that the Natives Land Act of 1913 shoved blacks on reserves (‘7% of the land’) and ‘prohibited them from buying land in white areas’. That ‘whites forcibly removed blacks to these reserves and that these reserves were on the worst land in the country with no mineral riches and that whites kept all the best land and minerals for themselves’. Now if I was a black man, I would probably also want to believe that myth, because it would ensure me eternal victimhood status and compensation for generations to come. Unfortunately, it is a blatant lie - Read why here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.south-africa.afrikaans/GKe7nKtJxUQ

Mike Smith Political Commentary: Where the Truth Hurts

http://www.alphastate.co.za/ebooks/SmithMike__Pandoras+Apartheid+Box.pdf
http://mikesmithspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.de/2011/06/opening-pandoras-apartheid-box-part-32.html

Today the race is on between the growing black South African majority and the ever decreasing South African minorities, to see which of these basic South African groups can convince as many voting South Africans as possible, including the international community, and UN, that their perspectives, surrounding these land myths and economic gap is the truth, thereby hopefully garnering real support. The difference is, that the (black) majority group are not being threatened by SA minorities with their very lives, physically, for economic gain. Whereas the absolute reverse IS true. ALL minorities, particularly the farmers and white groups, and other minority groups like the SA Indians, ARE being threatened in this way daily by Communist elements within the majority group.

Insert from London Times: "South Africa is the only country in the world where affirmative action is in the favour of the majority who has complete political control. The fact that the political majority requires affirmative action to protect them against a 9% minority group is testament to a complete failure on their part to build their own wealth making structures, such that their only solution is to take it from others."

Dr. Rogers is quoted:
“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.”

http://www.lwf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lis_quote