AK Press allegations against Michael Schmidt

1024 posts / 0 new
Last post
S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 14 2015 03:52
Red.Black.Writings wrote:
Ocelot says as "the class enemy; unlike the Boers and Schmidt who are the class itself." Then in another post "The Boers as a land-owning classing; expelling by force the indigenous peoples? Exploiting them mercilessly, under the authority of apartheid? The Boer ideology as wrapped up tight with fascism?"

You sound like one of those people who claim all white American Southerners were slave owners, when only a minority were, and of that minority, an even smaller minority owned the majority of saves.

Fact is, round 80,000 white farmers owned all the arable land in the 87% of South Africa that was reserved for whites by the end of apartheid. The white population by then was well over 5 million, the Afrikaner/ Boer section around 60% of that. So, 80,000 out of around 3 million were farm owners, and not all those farm owners were ethnic Boers/ Afrikaners.

So, Boers / Afrikaners are not a class, but an ethnic group. Most were working class, which is why the apartheid government bought votes (as did the segregationist government before it, 1910-1948) by legislating job colour bars. There was a long tradition of trade unions with Afrikaner members, some even Communist-led, e.g. the Garment Workers Union led by the Jewish Communist (Stalinist, really), Solly Sachs (later banned and exiled).

The third biggest union federation in South Africa right now is Solidarity-MWU, which is basically an Afrikaner nationalist outfit that makes a lot of noise about opposing affirmative action.

Why am I explaining on libcom that class matters?

Ocelot:
> "Do you know anything about the history of South Africa?"

I think I do. And I can see you don't.

First off, I wrote that; not Ocelot. Secondly, you are the one who know nothing about the history of the Boers in South Africa. You don't know for example that grievances the Boers held against the British started when British missionaries started to defend the rights of black Africans against the abuse by the Boers; that the "grievances" accelerated when the British outlawed slavery in Britain, and pushed against slavery in South Africa, eventually outlawing it there in 1834.

Dissatisfied with the compensation provided for emancipation, the Boers were positively outraged by the British determination that there should be equality between black and white, and embarked on their "Great Trek." This rejection of racial equality is fundamental to the "Volk" identity of the Boer's and their ideology as a "tribe" not a settler, colonizing formation. The rejection of racial equality was enshrined in the constitution of South Africa.

Secondly, I was referring to the historical role of the Boers as a social formation, as the word coming from the German for peasant but morphing to mean free farmers. The expulsion of black Africans from the land was first a precondition for the development of capitalism in South Africa, and became essential to its maintenance, providing a dispossessed labor force for rural and agricultural employment. That much of the Boer population moved into cities is part of that development, just as it is in every capitalist society. Nothing special about that; and nothing that shreds the legacy of Boer ideology and activity.

The power of the Boer ideology was predominant in South Africa, regardless of the numbers involved in actual farming; just as the ideology of the "happy, pre-Civil War South" was, and still is, dominant in the South That ideology is white supremacy, and it reflects the very real material relations of the Boers to the black Africans.

That white nationalist Afrikans speakers are in labor unions no more changes the historical relations between black labor and the Boers than the fact that white-supremacist workers are employed in auto plants in Michigan. So what? Back in the day, when I was in Michigan, there were KKK cells inside UAW locals. No shit.

Nope, I don't think all white Southerners in the US were slaveholders, but I do think all those who proclaim that the "South" was vandalized, or victimized by "Northern aggression," Radical Reconstruction, or the Freedmen's Bureaus are apologists for slavery.

I think Schmidt is just such an apologist for the Boer "national" or "Volk" ideology.

subcomandante_juan
Offline
Joined: 4-12-15
Dec 14 2015 13:53

I'm betting Red.Black.Writings is Lucien van der Walt. If it is, he should tell us.

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Dec 14 2015 14:23

Just because he's trying so hard to distract people by focusing on the most minuscule details instead of looking at the broader context of the intersections of Boer nationalism/separatism Eurosupremacism, and the requirement of statist institutions to maintain them? Nah, couldn't be another pro-Boer apologist pretending to be an anarchist... No way...

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Dec 14 2015 14:31

S. Artesian #752

‘Dissatisfied with the compensation provided for emancipation, the Boers were positively outraged by the British determination that there should be equality between black and white, and embarked on their "Great Trek."’

I am no expert on South African history though I suspect this statement to be an exaggeration of the truth. Having several relatives who lived in India between the first and second WW and in post war Nigeria, I understand the native people were never treated with anything like equality. For example: in India when a white woman walked a pavement the Indians were expected to get off to let her pass.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 14 2015 14:35

For those of you who haven't read the Schmidt article on Terre'Blanche, there's this gem of obfuscation, distortion, and apologism:

Quote:
But who are the Boers, truly, beyond the cartoons of black-bearded back-countrymen, scarecrows in the corn, leaning on ancient muskets? Afrikaners today are often are the sons, daughters, granddaughters and grandsons of the tens thousands of women who were deliberately starved to death in British concentration camps a century before as their farms were put to the torch. Do not brush aside this key fact because of the whiteness of their skin: their women-folk and children were deliberately exterminated in an imperialist war that generated so much global opposition at the time that it was the Iraq of its day: Scandinavians, Irishmen and Russians gave their lives on the far-away veld; angered Québécois burned down public buildings; and awed anti-American guerrillas in the Philippines learned their tactics by night. Scratch a highveld Boer and you will likely find a bitter hatred of British imperialism – based on living-memory family experience of the camps. And that war was provoked by the imperialists because Britain lusted after and finally burgled the goldfields of the highveld from a frontier people who had progressively retreated into the African interior away from the claws of the bankers, into the spears of the Bantu.

True, they were and often remain an austere, narrow people: one of their Calvinist sects, the Doppers, is deliberately named after the tin cap or dop used to extinguish a candle, the message being the need to extinguish the Enlightenment. And true, they often beat “their blacks” with an offhanded cruelty, and at best established a paternalistic overlordship over them known as baasskap (boss-hood). But in their warfare with, suffering at the hands of, and eventual enslavement of the Bantu, a strange relationship developed: alone among all white settlers on the African continent, they self-identified en masse as Afikaners, as Africans, not Europeans, and severed their ties to their distant motherlands. The they and their black neighbours lived, ate, thought and died, merged and became inextricably intertwined: well over 10-million more black South Africans today speak Afrikaans, the slave’s idiom-rich, story-telling pidgin-Dutch of old, than do whites; while platteland (big-sky farmland) Afrikaners are fluent in African vernacular languages. For the British-backed English-speaking elites, the mining bosses and big land-owners, this closeness was worrisome; something had to be done to divide and rule them. Racialised divisions worked successfully among the working class until multiracial revolutionary syndicalism mounted a challenge from 1917 – a challenge undermined and dissipated within five years by the black nationalist mystifications of the aspirant bourgeois party that became the ANC. It may be that despite their progressive approach to the racial question, the syndicalists lost their grip on the labour movement because of the allure of politics of racial polarity that pitted whites and blacks against each other, a politics seized on with fervour by the NP on its ascension to power in 1948.

Brilliant, huh? The British-backed English elites had to "do something" to "divide" the "inextricably intertwined" "black neighbors" from their African-identifying slave masters. So racial divisions were introduced. What crap. Boers as a "Volk," as an identity was born, depends not simply upon racial division, but upon racial supremacy and racial subjugation.

Doesn't this sound a whole lot like the ideology that proclaims that the white Southerner, despite slavery, despite the ideology of white supremacy, truly "understands" and is the "friend" of, is inextricably "merged" with the black people subjected to racial discrimination?

Anybody want to defend that? The poor little Boer thesis? The cannon-fodder thesis? (As opposed to the canon-fodder thesis).

That the British waged a brutal war against the Boers-- triggered by the drive to gain control of the territory and resources the Boers had carved out in the Great Trek, is not in dispute. The Spanish used similar tactics in their struggle against the Cuban revolution. But Kruger was not Antonio Maceo, and the Boers weren't no Mambises.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 14 2015 14:47
Auld-bod wrote:
S. Artesian #752

‘Dissatisfied with the compensation provided for emancipation, the Boers were positively outraged by the British determination that there should be equality between black and white, and embarked on their "Great Trek."’

I am no expert on South African history though I suspect this statement to be an exaggeration of the truth. Having several relatives who lived in India between the first and second WW and in post war Nigeria, I understand the native people were never treated with anything like equality. For example: in India when a white woman walked a pavement the Indians were expected to get off to let her pass.

From Ransford's The Great Trek:

Quote:
For years the eastern province had suffered from droughts which are the curse of Africa and everyone who has experienced the successive failure of the annual rains will know how disappointment will at last drive a man to leave everything he has laboured for and move off to a new country where the rainfall may be more reliable. Then there was the creeping advance of the English tongue, especially in official circles, at the expense of the taal. Worse was the emancipation of the slaves which had been ordained throughout the British Empire in 1833; it was accompanied by what the Boers, with a good deal of justification, considered to be inadequate compensation to the owners, and as though to irritate them more it was timed to take effect during the harvest season. There was, too, the chronic mortification at the way the Boers' actions were so freely criticised by the missionaries: indeed the explorer, Cornwallis Harris, who visited the Cape in 1835, considered that this grudge particularly rankled among the trekboers for, after enumerating all the other reasons for the farmers' unrest, he wrote, `Far greater than these, however, are the evils that have arisen out of the perverse misrepresentations of canting and designing men, to whose mischievous and gratuitous interference veiled under the cloak of philanthropy, is principally to be attributed the desolate condition of the eastern frontier.'

But perhaps what most embittered these early Afrikaners was the official recognition of the equality between coloured men and whites. As one Boer woman, Anna Elizabeth Steenkamp, wrote later, she considered the emancipated slaves `being placed on an equal footing with the Christians, contrary to the laws of God and the natural distinction of race and religion' and added, `wherefore we rather withdrew in order thus to preserve our doctrines in purity'.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Dec 14 2015 20:14

‘Official’ British policy is one thing its implementation another. The British Empire was always racist - the reason why Indians were imported to Africa for the tasks blacks were considered too dull to perform. All books are selective on their interpretation of the facts.

I’ve often more faith in talking to people who have experienced colonialism than the usual propaganda/half-truths that gets peddled in much printed matter. The mass media is even more unreliable, today the BBC informs us that the British security services have always deplored the use of force in interrogation. Only a few months ago the same media reported the British atrocities in Kenya during the ‘Mau Mau emergency’.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 14 2015 15:37

Yes, indeed, "official" is one thing, implementation is the other. But the issue isn't how effective or sincere the British were, but what the "official" policy meant to the Boers; how the Boers reacted to the formal affirmation of equality.

That's the issue: the Boer motivations, not the hypocrisy of the British.

No one is claiming that British imperialism was not racist, did not use force etc. The argument is about the crap ideology of Boers as poor workers divided from their black African class brothers that Schmidt flogs.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Dec 14 2015 17:01

I agree.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 14 2015 17:14

Thank you. That's the gist of my "beef" with/about Schmidt. I have no idea if he infiltrated anarchists on behalf of the rightists; maybe he infiltrated Stormfront on behalf of his anarchism, but I doubt it given his "creeping Boer-ism."

I just think anybody who plays that card-- "the poor little oppressed, victimized white supremacists" card should be shunned , no matter what the skin color of his/her friends, lovers, partners.

Sharkfinn
Offline
Joined: 7-11-13
Dec 14 2015 20:27

I read the original article. I don't think Schmidt is doing, "poor little oppressed, victimised white supremacists", at all. The article doesn't really argue what you read into it and the part you quote doesn't really do it either. The original point of the article - I think - was to argue how relatively diminished the Boer-nationalist far right is today in comparison to the danger it was in the past. Not knowing much about SA politics, I don't know whether to agree or disagree with Schmidt on that. The text argues that many murders of Boers are racialised not class struggle oriented violence, as many of the killed are not particularly wealthy, in capitalist terms, of course its all relative. The idea that ethnic divisions are fostered by capitalist states in order to divide the working class is pretty standard libcom politics. There's nothing particularly outrageous about it.

subcomandante_juan
Offline
Joined: 4-12-15
Dec 14 2015 21:15

The Schmidt Terre'Blanche article is besides the point. Ross-Stephens should have left the extraneous details alone. We should be asking about Lucien van der Walt by now.

What matters is things like Schmidt creating a racist Stormfront account he claims was fake that supposedly one single person knew about it, his newspaper editor, Seery. Yet this supposed witness has three times denied Schmidt's alibi, not only on grounds that he would never forget Schmidt's Stormfront proposition (in response to Schmidt's claim that Seery "forgot" about it), but also on grounds that he would never sanction such a proposal, which he views as an unethical journalistic practice.

So Schmidt has zero evidence anyone knew about this and his one alibi denies it. And Schmidt lied repeatedly, including about his racist remarks, the Black Battlefront website, about the NIA working with "Ardent Smith", and the Nazi tattoo. These are unambiguous lies.

Before we handle Red.Black.Writings on the Nazi tattoo, first we should be asking: where is Lucien van der Walt on this? Red.Black.Writings "knows" him: is he Van der Walt? Will he ignore this question?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 14 2015 21:20
Sharkfinn wrote:
I read the original article. I don't think Schmidt is doing, "poor little oppressed, victimised white supremacists", at all. The article doesn't really argue what you read into it and the part you quote doesn't really do it either. The original point of the article - I think - was to argue how relatively diminished the Boer-nationalist far right is today in comparison to the danger it was in the past. Not knowing much about SA politics, I don't know whether to agree or disagree with Schmidt on that. The text argues that many murders of Boers are racialised not class struggle oriented violence, as many of the killed are not particularly wealthy, in capitalist terms, of course its all relative. The idea that ethnic divisions are fostered by capitalist states in order to divide the working class is pretty standard libcom politics. There's nothing particularly outrageous about it.

Maybe you read a different article-- because Schmidt sure does talk about some sort of mystical "merging" of the Boers with the black Africans, something that the Boers explicitly rejected and opposed. Schmidt sure does gloss over the real origins of the Boer "identity," of the Boers real historical relations with black Africans. Schmidt surely does argue that "something is killing" our "poor" Boer farmers at an excessive rate.

If you don't think that Schmidt is glossing over the fundamental elements of the Boer "Volk" ideology with his "scratch a Boer and find an enemy of British imperialism"-- then I can only ask you to study a bit more into the history of the Boer encounters with the indigenous Africans, and the ascendancy of the Boer "ideology"-- white supremacy-- before and after WW1 .

Nobody had to foster "ethnic divisions" between Boers and black Africans-- the entire identity of "Boer" requires ethnic division in the service of racial supremacy...and the most brutal exploitation of black labor.

Do not forget that one of the "original" cases of "resistance" by the, or a, Boer to British imperialism was the refusal of a Boer farmer to appear before a British inquiry into charges of his physical abuse of black Africans he had working for him. IIRC, the British sent an armed detail to force him to appear, and he opened fire against them-- declaring he would never appear alive in front of a British authority to account for his treatment of the "Kafirs." He didn't appear alive. He was killed, along with certain members of the British detail.

The "Boers"-- the victimized Boers, which is precisely what Schmidt is arguing-- would have to renounce their identity as Boers, oppose apartheid, oppose the dispossession of the black Africans, the establishment of the homelands, the attempt to impose Afrikaans as a language of requirement on the students of Soweto, to be considered any sort of allies of black labor. Did the Boers as Boers ever do any of that? Did they, as an organized social formation protest the pass-policy, the system of racial classification? Any of that.\? My research shows that no Boer organization, organized by Boers claiming to be for the advancement of the "interests" of the Boers ever did any of that.

Now if there's a history of Boers doing any of that, I'd sure like to see it, and I'm sure Schmidt or Red.Black. Writings., with their superior knowledge of South African history, can produce the evidence, can't they?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 14 2015 21:55

Just one more thing (until somebody else comes up with another one more thing). I don't much care to get into a general argument about whether white workers are oppressed or exploited or "natural" allies of black workers in South Africa, or the US for that matter.

I'm specifically objecting to the "history" of the Boer settlers as rendered, massaged, obscured, distorted, ignored, and mythologized by Schmidt in that article. I think his distortion is absolutely an apology for white supremacy and an attempt to forge some sort of, not class unity, but rather an appeal to those who think the Boers, THEN, and the Afrikaans-supporters NOW, were in some sense, ANY SENSE, "anti-capitalist."

They were, and ARE, precisely not that, no more than "national Bolshevism" is anti-capitalist; no more than any of the bizarre, and berserk, iterations of "red-browns" are anti-capitalist.

Loukanikos
Offline
Joined: 29-10-15
Dec 15 2015 00:43
Red.Black.Writings wrote:

Please provide a single bit of evidence showing that "Scythian chieftain tattoos" (no, not vague online references to "Scythians" generally) are symbols of white pride in fascist circles."

You're very good at muddying the waters Red.Black.Writings, and at subtly missing people's central points.

If you read my post, I suggested that you search for the term "Scythian" on Stormfront. Better yet, use Google advanced search, the results are easier to sort through. You will find 575 separate discussions about the ancient Scythian people as proud white warrior ancestors—discussions among fascists and white supremacists. Nothing "vague" about it. And nothing vague about the fact that they also discuss Scythian tattoos on Stormfront. Take a look at https://www.stormfrontDOT.org/forum/t256629/, where "KREWIHONOR" conveniently provides images of the same tattoos Schmidt has. Or read the thread where the boys discuss whether or not it is "trashy" for white women to get tattoos (spoiler alert: Scythian chieftain tattoos are not trashy).

But the point that you somehow chose to avoid was not simply that fascists enjoy constructing Scythian origin myths and recommend Scythian chieftain tattoos when discussing which tattoos have a solid white-race pedigree, but that Schmidt clearly understood this when he described his tattoos on Stormfront. However, when he describes them in his response to Ross and Stephens, he says they "cannot be construed as racial tribal tattoos." It's a pattern of lying that permeates his defense.

admin: broke link to Stormfront

Shorty's picture
Shorty
Offline
Joined: 13-06-05
Dec 14 2015 23:30

Shouldn't that link be broken!?!

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Dec 15 2015 00:33

i get the impression that he could have denied having any tattoos at all and people would still be defending him and telling us something like "not all tattoos are fascist"

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 15 2015 01:10
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i get the impression that he could have denied having any tattoos at all and people would still be defending him and telling us something like "not all tattoos are fascist"

especially the tattoos he claims not to have!

liberalibro
Offline
Joined: 15-12-15
Dec 15 2015 04:35

I haven't seen this posted - neither here nor in Reid Ross and Stephens's articles. This is from an interview with Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt, originally published for the book "Von Jakarta bis Johannesburg: Anarchismus weltweit", with the original English version posted on the Alpine Anarchist website here: http://www.alpineanarchist.org/r_i_africa_english.html

Quote:
MS: It is possible that, should more working class and underclass whites get involved in anarchism, they may feel the need to develop race-specific organisations to deal with their specific minority circumstances. I foresee that any such move would be condemned and misunderstood both here and abroad, because of the projection of Western social norms onto Africa’s very different conditions, and because of the false assumption that white South Africans are automatically wealthy (sometimes a version of the “white privilege” argument which, as indicated, the ZACF rejects) – but I don’t expect any such development is imminent. It is also not a tactical or strategic line that the ZACF would endorse.

Sharkfinn
Offline
Joined: 7-11-13
Jan 6 2016 12:46

I would agree with your summary of Boer history but I don't think its really incompatible with Schmidt's article either. What I got from what Schmidt wrote about the formation "Boer" identity was that early Dutch-speaking settlers and locals adopted cultural practices from each other, as is vernacular languages, cooking, ext. Thus Boers became culturally distinct from other white settlers, that's the "merging" part. I don't think there are "fundamental elements" to any ethnic groups. Ethnicity is about constantly renegotiated identities. The article is not about historical Boer identity per se, so it can consider an aspect of it, without a century spanning summary. It doesn't mean its pushing an ideological line. Its an afternoon opinion column with personal reflection not academic writing.

Suggesting that British imperialism sought to divide people and reinforce racist cleavages isn't downplaying indigenous racism of the Boers.

Quote:
I’m not saying that outright racism was not their motivating factor; in fact every NP leader until PW Botha had been pro-Nazi during WWII. But white supremacism was more than a motive for the Broederbonders and the elites: it was a divide-and-rule tool, a class-war tool

Neither should suggesting that Boers where historical opponents of British imperialism be interpreted as saying that they were goodies. Most historical opponents of British imperialism (opponents with military strength) were reactionaries, local nationalist or religions fundamentalist. My understanding on why the text doesn't talk about historical role of Boer nationalism in detail is that it is taken as given. The text concentrates on specific sociological aspects of the Boer identity that are not commonly mentioned (the sub heading is called Demystifying the Boers), doing that shouldn't be confused with apologism or historical revisionism. If we did that with all research on fascism, we couldn't form any kind of historical interpretation beyond, they were racist in jackboots that appeared out of nowhere. Is the text good from an academic or topical point of view is another question entirely but it is not white supremacist or apologist.

When the article mentions "poor" Boers it means poor as in not having much money. Its all relative of course but compared to Schmidt or other urban white professionals, I can accept that lot of rural white farmers are poor. Independent farming just isn't a huge business.

I agree with S. Artesians reading of history, but its just not relevant to his argument on what is supposedly said in the Tierre'Blanche piece.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 15 2015 20:07

I think the history is relevant to the argument that Schmidt is trying to make. He certainly thinks it's relevant as he introduces it, and distorts it. I mean it's more than an oversight, or even revisionism, when somebody writes....

Quote:
Racialised divisions worked successfully among the working class until multiracial revolutionary syndicalism mounted a challenge from 1917 – a challenge undermined and dissipated within five years by the black nationalist mystifications of the aspirant bourgeois party that became the ANC. It may be that despite their progressive approach to the racial question, the syndicalists lost their grip on the labour movement because of the allure of politics of racial polarity that pitted whites and blacks against each other, a politics seized on with fervour by the NP on its ascension to power in 1948.

....and omits, with obvious deliberation, what indeed happened "within five years" of 1917, (as a friend has reminded me, and thanks for that), namely the Rand Rebellion, in which the slogan "workers of the world unite and fight for a white South Africa" was raised, and then supported by the infant Communist Party, and attacks on black workers by whites have been described as "pogroms." Instead Schmidt would make it appear that the alliance of black and white workers fell apart because of black nationalist mystification, rather than identifying such black nationalist mystification as the result of material condition of racism.

xx
Offline
Joined: 26-06-15
Dec 18 2015 17:46

I don't have a problem with MS' writing on Boers to be honest, from what I know he is mostly spot on - they are a dispised culture that no one accept for them, have a vested interest in protecting.

The bit he has said which are problematic are around the ZACF position paper and the lack of discipline of Black activists.

Everything else so far is accounted for, or there really is no need to respond.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 18 2015 23:16
xx wrote:
I don't have a problem with MS' writing on Boers to be honest, from what I know he is mostly spot on - they are a dispised culture that no one accept for them, have a vested interest in protecting.

The bit he has said which are problematic are around the ZACF position paper and the lack of discipline of Black activists.

Everything else so far is accounted for, or there really is no need to respond.

Yeah, right. "Despised" culture, like those who fly the Confederate Battle Flag in the US.

From what you know?? Clearly that's the key. It's what you don't know that is so painfully clear

What interest could anyone have in protecting a culture built upon racial subjugation?

You don't have a problem with that? How about this, that during the "General Strike" of 1922, when the great revolutionary slogan-- Workers of the World Unite For a White South Africa-- was raised, the Smuts government, besides using the army, the infant air force against the white workers, called in the Boer Commandos from the countryside to suppress the workers. You got a problem with those poor, despised, Boer Commandos shooting at striking workers?

This crap is enough to gag a maggot.

xx
Offline
Joined: 26-06-15
Dec 19 2015 10:18

So - British workers have behaved in reactionary ways in the past. What about Protestant workers in Northern Ireland?

Does that mean we can't recognise other elements within them?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 20 2015 20:27

Sure thang. What other elements would you like to recognize? God-fearing? Religious? Disciplined? Thrifty? Blue-eyed? Good horsemen? Crack shots? Brewers of good beer? Handy?

OK, on the one hand we have racist, enslaver, anti-working class, anti-communist, vigilante, night-riders. And on the other hand, a bunch of regular boy scouts, with good lager.

Clearly without a full understanding of Hegel's dialectic, we can never appreciate the full, many-sided nature of the Boer "tribe" and their social interactions.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Dec 20 2015 22:10

I guess, at this point, the questions related to this are:

1) Will those with doubts on the allegations continue or establish formal relationships with MS?

2) Will those who are convinced of the allegations 'no-platform' MS and any groups/individuals with formal relationships with MS?

Personally, I would probably leave a group who did '1'.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 20 2015 23:31

I'll take an unpopular view here.

I still would like to hear from both LvdW
and the ZACF on their take. Their continued
silence makes me wonder why it should take these folks who had an intimate working relationship with MS so long to reply. Yet they are certainly allowed the comradely cortesy of allowing them to reply.

rooieravotr
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Dec 21 2015 02:33

Very small quibble. From Artesian 's comment 752:

Quote:
the word coming from the German for peasant but morphing to mean free farmers.

.
The word 'Boer' had Dutch, not German, origins (like that other contribution to world 'civilisation', the word Apartheid itself...). The original, 'boer,' can be translated both as 'peasant 'and as 'farmer' .Dutch language does not distinguish between the two.

On the controversy itself: I find the silence of people like Lucien van der Walt puzzling. If he considered his co-writer above criticism, if he considered all the attacks on Schmidt as being a racist or apologist for Boer nationalism or whatever, totally unfounded, unreasonable, he could easily say so and explain. Somehow he does not. Not very comforting for anybody who wants to give Schmidt the benefit of the doubt. I am getting more and more convinced that Schmidt is, indeed, racist, and uses the pretense of being just researching fascism on internet as a smokescreen, to confuse others and maybe even himself. And when even his close friends don 't come up with a serous defense, that conviction grows. No, this is not 'proof', in any juridical sense... But it is my opinion.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 21 2015 12:26
syndicalist wrote:
I'll take an unpopular view here.

I still would like to hear from both LvdW
and the ZACF on their take. Their continued
silence makes me wonder why it should take these folks who had an intimate working relationship with MS so long to reply. Yet they are certainly allowed the comradely cortesy of allowing them to reply.

while I agree with you with regard to LvdW, I disagree with Zabalaza. As I understand it is currently a majority black organisation, with little or no members still around from when Schmidt was part of it. They are also under attack from government thugs, so probably have bigger things to be dealing with at the moment.

Just to add, agree with the comments from Artesian about the Boers. As for Schmidt's argument that Boers and black South Africans have something in common because more black South Africans speak Afrikaans than whites, it's terrible but I just had to laugh. So many black South Africans speak Afrikaans because lots of them were forced to! That's what the Soweto uprising was about. That's like saying that British imperial occupiers in India had so much in common with the native population, because we had made so many of them speak English

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 21 2015 12:27
xx wrote:
So - British workers have behaved in reactionary ways in the past. What about Protestant workers in Northern Ireland?

Does that mean we can't recognise other elements within them?

First of all, he's not 'recognising elements' he's flat-out re-writing history to try to make a group notorious for racism seem non-racist. In terms of the Brts I think when someone mentioned British opposition to slavery the idea that that meant that the British Empire was committed to equality was called into question within a few posts.

Kingsmill massacre:
"On 5 January 1976 just after 5.30 pm, a red Ford Transit minibus was carrying sixteen textile workers home from work in Glenanne to Bessbrook. Five were Catholics and eleven were Protestants. Four of the Catholics got out at Whitecross, while the rest continued on the road to Bessbrook. As the bus cleared the rise of a hill, it was stopped by a man in British Army uniform standing on the road and flashing a torch. The workers assumed they were being stopped and searched by the British Army. As the bus stopped, eleven masked gunmen with blackened faces and wearing combat jackets emerged from the hedges. A man "with a pronounced English accent" then began talking. He ordered them to line-up beside the bus and then asked "Who is the Catholic?". The only Catholic was Richard Hughes. His workmates—now fearing that the gunmen were loyalists who had come to kill him—tried to stop him from identifying himself. However, when Hughes stepped forward the gunman told him to "Get down the road and don't look back". The lead gunman then said "Right" and the other armed men immediately opened fire on the workers"

The green sectarian shits that can shoot down a bunch of protestants who refused to hand over a catholic, the orange sectarian shits who'd been murdering people for a year to try to provoke an attack like this, those are examples of the culture we fight against. The workers refusing to hand over a colleague to those they think will murder him are the ones we can respect. It wasn't because they were protestants, Irish, British, Northern Irish, it's in spite of all of that.

If someone says that protestant workers or catholic workers are not all bad then I'll agree, if someone writes a defence of orange culture then I'll not be in the same organisation of them.