Is South Africa going the way of Zimbabwe?

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Hahaha. I was right. Socialism is failing in S Africa

Post by cassowary » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:12 am

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:45 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:48 am
cassowary wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:36 pm
Cassowary's law: When a people still complain about colonialism, it is a sign that they are a failure. Successful people no longer blame colonialism for their failure; nor do they raise the bogeyman of colonialism as what the S African government is doing here. In fact, successful people don't mind acknowledging the good that some colonialists have done. Singapore is going to celebrate the 200th anniversary of its Founding by Sir Stamford Raffles next year.
I've observed this in the West Indies. The more people talk about "reparations", the less they seem to be doing for themselves. I'm not saying the British didn't going around the world shafting people everywhere they went, but still, if one's goal is prosperity, then focusing on the past isn't the way to reach it. Instead, the model of tiny countries places that used to be economically marginal but became successful, including Bermuda, the Caymans, Singapore, Liechtenstein, etc., is the one the rest of us in the region should follow.
You may be underestimating the destructive effect of colonialism as it seeks to destroy the colonized's identity, by imposing a strange language, foreign religions and customs, and by destroying traditional institutions. When you rob a people from everything upon which its identity is built, the results are catastrophic. Loss of self confidence, loss of social cohesion, loss of productive capacity. The availability of alcohol or drugs (like opium, in China), will contribute to the degradation of the colonized society. Coming from a colonial power myself, I have seen how serious these issues may be, even if aculturation by the Portuguese colonizer was of the soft kind and thus less destructive.
What a load of rubbish. I come from a country that was colonialized and no such damaging effect happened. The British may have been annoying with their superiority complex. But they gave us rule of law and many people grew rich. In fact, a visitor in early colonial Singapore remarked that the homes cum offices of Chinese merchants were opulent. But the office of the East India Company, which colonialized Singapore was dilapidated. At this stage of Singapore's history, it seems, the colonised benefited more than the colonizer.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Hahaha. I was right. Socialism is failing in S Africa

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:50 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:12 am
At this stage of Singapore's history, it seems, the colonised benefited more than the colonizer.
GDP per capita seems to bear that out. Same with Bermuda.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1835
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Hahaha. I was right. Socialism is failing in S Africa

Post by Sertorio » Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:15 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:12 am
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:45 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:48 am
cassowary wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:36 pm
Cassowary's law: When a people still complain about colonialism, it is a sign that they are a failure. Successful people no longer blame colonialism for their failure; nor do they raise the bogeyman of colonialism as what the S African government is doing here. In fact, successful people don't mind acknowledging the good that some colonialists have done. Singapore is going to celebrate the 200th anniversary of its Founding by Sir Stamford Raffles next year.
I've observed this in the West Indies. The more people talk about "reparations", the less they seem to be doing for themselves. I'm not saying the British didn't going around the world shafting people everywhere they went, but still, if one's goal is prosperity, then focusing on the past isn't the way to reach it. Instead, the model of tiny countries places that used to be economically marginal but became successful, including Bermuda, the Caymans, Singapore, Liechtenstein, etc., is the one the rest of us in the region should follow.
You may be underestimating the destructive effect of colonialism as it seeks to destroy the colonized's identity, by imposing a strange language, foreign religions and customs, and by destroying traditional institutions. When you rob a people from everything upon which its identity is built, the results are catastrophic. Loss of self confidence, loss of social cohesion, loss of productive capacity. The availability of alcohol or drugs (like opium, in China), will contribute to the degradation of the colonized society. Coming from a colonial power myself, I have seen how serious these issues may be, even if aculturation by the Portuguese colonizer was of the soft kind and thus less destructive.
What a load of rubbish.
Unfortunately not. You come from a society which, because of its age, was immune to any attempt at acculturation by the colonizers, who were a lot less civilized than the colonized. But the situation was quite different in Africa and in America. Afro-Americans, for instance, have lost about 99% of their culture through the process of enslavement and transportation to North America. No wonder they are poorly equiped to succeed in the cultural environment of those who enslaved them. A raped people, like a raped person, seldom has the strength to overcome his/her humiliation. The same thing with the aborigenes in Australia. They were culturally and psychologically overwhelmed by the colonizers, and weren't even allowed to preserve their dignity. Similar examples - although maybe less extreme - can be found in Africa and in Latin America. We have no right to ignore these realities of the colonial process.

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Is South Africa going the way of Zimbabwe?

Post by Jim the Moron » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:45 pm

Your comments kinda reminds me of Frantz Fanon, Sertorio, and I don't mean that negatively.
Last edited by Jim the Moron on Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

neverfail
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: the loss of Australia to Western colonisation: a fatalistic view..

Post by neverfail » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:09 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:15 am

Unfortunately not. You come from a society which, because of its age, was immune to any attempt at acculturation by the colonizers, who were a lot less civilized than the colonized. But the situation was quite different in Africa and in America. Afro-Americans, for instance, have lost about 99% of their culture through the process of enslavement and transportation to North America. No wonder they are poorly equiped to succeed in the cultural environment of those who enslaved them. A raped people, like a raped person, seldom has the strength to overcome his/her humiliation. The same thing with the aborigenes in Australia. They were culturally and psychologically overwhelmed by the colonizers, and weren't even allowed to preserve their dignity. Similar examples - although maybe less extreme - can be found in Africa and in Latin America. We have no right to ignore these realities of the colonial process.
A sensitive, succinct assessment of the varied effects of colonialism, Sertorio.

In Singapore the Brits probably found the Chinese easy to tolerate because in some way they were useful to them. Perhaps the Chinese, not being native to the region either, provided them with a useful local ally in that part of their imperial adventure?

In the case of Australia and the aborigines; whilst acknowledging that you are broadly correct in the effects, I am somewhat more philosophical about their fate. Australia, prior to the beginning of British colonisation in late 18th century, was the last stronghold of palaeolithic man: in an era when the rest of humankind had moved well beyond palaeolithic conditions. Politically fragmented into over 250 tribes along with innumerable subtribes; 16 major language groups and innumerable local dialects; the indigenous Australians were incapable of even conceiving of, let alone organising, a united defence of their island continent home.

I doubt whether any were even aware that they dwelled on an island continent. Australia is so vast it swallows its human inhabitants whole in its fastness.

They were, in other words, sitting ducks for the first determined seaborne invader to come along and take an interest in their formerly obscure landmass.

Just over a year ago I attended a special event at our Australian National Gallery in Canberra. it was a display of art treasures on loan from The Palace of Versailles, France. One painting, dated 1786, was of special interest to me because it depicts their King Louis the XVI briefing his esteemed maritime explorer, the Comte La Perouse and pointing to a map of Australia as far as its coastline had been charted at that point in history. The meaning of the gesture was clear: "go out and explore the coast of this mysterious southern continent and see whether there is anything there that might be of interest to France." La Perouse subsequently entered our history as the french skipper whose 2 ships turned up in Botany Bay just 3 days after the inaugural British colonising fleet arrived there.

By no means were the British were not the only ones in the game of empire building abroad. Indeed, the 19th century developed into an age of competitive imperialism. Towards its end even places like the United States, Imperial Germany and Italy were annexing bits of overseas territory far from their natural geographic domains.

I cannot see how, even if the British had not got here first, Australia and its native people could have survived the onrush of Western colonisation.

In summary, the lost of Australia and its indigenous inhabitants of their accustomed way of life was inevitable.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1835
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is South Africa going the way of Zimbabwe?

Post by Sertorio » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:26 pm

Jim the Moron wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:45 pm
Your comments kinda reminds me of Frantz Fanon, Sertorio, and I don't mean that negatively.
I am ashamed to say I was not aware of Fanon's work, or even his existence. From an early age I have preferred to develop my own reflexions on any subject, to reading what other people had written about it. As a result I may have had to reinvent the wheel quite a few times, but my thinking is very much freer than it would have been, had I simply made an effort to follow the arguments of recognized authors. I am not free of outside influences - nobody is - but my thinking, my writings and my arguments are very much my own, and thus tend to be a bit heterodox. All of which may be of some benefit to my students, as I tend to prod them into using their own heads. Merely repeating what other people have said or written is a sure way to getting poor grades in the subjects I teach...

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1835
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: the loss of Australia to Western colonisation: a fatalistic view..

Post by Sertorio » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:37 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:09 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:15 am

Unfortunately not. You come from a society which, because of its age, was immune to any attempt at acculturation by the colonizers, who were a lot less civilized than the colonized. But the situation was quite different in Africa and in America. Afro-Americans, for instance, have lost about 99% of their culture through the process of enslavement and transportation to North America. No wonder they are poorly equiped to succeed in the cultural environment of those who enslaved them. A raped people, like a raped person, seldom has the strength to overcome his/her humiliation. The same thing with the aborigenes in Australia. They were culturally and psychologically overwhelmed by the colonizers, and weren't even allowed to preserve their dignity. Similar examples - although maybe less extreme - can be found in Africa and in Latin America. We have no right to ignore these realities of the colonial process.
A sensitive, succinct assessment of the varied effects of colonialism, Sertorio.

In Singapore the Brits probably found the Chinese easy to tolerate because in some way they were useful to them. Perhaps the Chinese, not being native to the region either, provided them with a useful local ally in that part of their imperial adventure?

In the case of Australia and the aborigines; whilst acknowledging that you are broadly correct in the effects, I am somewhat more philosophical about their fate. Australia, prior to the beginning of British colonisation in late 18th century, was the last stronghold of palaeolithic man: in an era when the rest of humankind had moved well beyond palaeolithic conditions. Politically fragmented into over 250 tribes along with innumerable subtribes; 16 major language groups and innumerable local dialects; the indigenous Australians were incapable of even conceiving of, let alone organising, a united defence of their island continent home.

I doubt whether any were even aware that they dwelled on an island continent. Australia is so vast it swallows its human inhabitants whole in its fastness.

They were, in other words, sitting ducks for the first determined seaborne invader to come along and take an interest in their formerly obscure landmass.

Just over a year ago I attended a special event at our Australian National Gallery in Canberra. it was a display of art treasures on loan from The Palace of Versailles, France. One painting, dated 1786, was of special interest to me because it depicts their King Louis the XVI briefing his esteemed maritime explorer, the Comte La Perouse and pointing to a map of Australia as far as its coastline had been charted at that point in history. The meaning of the gesture was clear: "go out and explore the coast of this mysterious southern continent and see whether there is anything there that might be of interest to France." La Perouse subsequently entered our history as the french skipper whose 2 ships turned up in Botany Bay just 3 days after the inaugural British colonising fleet arrived there.

By no means were the British were not the only ones in the game of empire building abroad. Indeed, the 19th century developed into an age of competitive imperialism. Towards its end even places like the United States, Imperial Germany and Italy were annexing bits of overseas territory far from their natural geographic domains.

I cannot see how, even if the British had not got here first, Australia and its native people could have survived the onrush of Western colonisation.

In summary, the lost of Australia and its indigenous inhabitants of their accustomed way of life was inevitable.
I am probably a hopeless romantic, but why couldn't Australia have reserved - and isolate - a sizable bit of their large country for the aborigines? Letting them live there as they wished as long as necessary until they started to evolve?...

neverfail
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: the loss of Australia to Western colonisation: a fatalistic view..

Post by neverfail » Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:35 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:37 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:09 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:15 am

Unfortunately not. You come from a society which, because of its age, was immune to any attempt at acculturation by the colonizers, who were a lot less civilized than the colonized. But the situation was quite different in Africa and in America. Afro-Americans, for instance, have lost about 99% of their culture through the process of enslavement and transportation to North America. No wonder they are poorly equiped to succeed in the cultural environment of those who enslaved them. A raped people, like a raped person, seldom has the strength to overcome his/her humiliation. The same thing with the aborigenes in Australia. They were culturally and psychologically overwhelmed by the colonizers, and weren't even allowed to preserve their dignity. Similar examples - although maybe less extreme - can be found in Africa and in Latin America. We have no right to ignore these realities of the colonial process.
A sensitive, succinct assessment of the varied effects of colonialism, Sertorio.

In Singapore the Brits probably found the Chinese easy to tolerate because in some way they were useful to them. Perhaps the Chinese, not being native to the region either, provided them with a useful local ally in that part of their imperial adventure?

In the case of Australia and the aborigines; whilst acknowledging that you are broadly correct in the effects, I am somewhat more philosophical about their fate. Australia, prior to the beginning of British colonisation in late 18th century, was the last stronghold of palaeolithic man: in an era when the rest of humankind had moved well beyond palaeolithic conditions. Politically fragmented into over 250 tribes along with innumerable subtribes; 16 major language groups and innumerable local dialects; the indigenous Australians were incapable of even conceiving of, let alone organising, a united defence of their island continent home.

I doubt whether any were even aware that they dwelled on an island continent. Australia is so vast it swallows its human inhabitants whole in its fastness.

They were, in other words, sitting ducks for the first determined seaborne invader to come along and take an interest in their formerly obscure landmass.

Just over a year ago I attended a special event at our Australian National Gallery in Canberra. it was a display of art treasures on loan from The Palace of Versailles, France. One painting, dated 1786, was of special interest to me because it depicts their King Louis the XVI briefing his esteemed maritime explorer, the Comte La Perouse and pointing to a map of Australia as far as its coastline had been charted at that point in history. The meaning of the gesture was clear: "go out and explore the coast of this mysterious southern continent and see whether there is anything there that might be of interest to France." La Perouse subsequently entered our history as the french skipper whose 2 ships turned up in Botany Bay just 3 days after the inaugural British colonising fleet arrived there.

By no means were the British were not the only ones in the game of empire building abroad. Indeed, the 19th century developed into an age of competitive imperialism. Towards its end even places like the United States, Imperial Germany and Italy were annexing bits of overseas territory far from their natural geographic domains.

I cannot see how, even if the British had not got here first, Australia and its native people could have survived the onrush of Western colonisation.

In summary, the lost of Australia and its indigenous inhabitants of their accustomed way of life was inevitable.
I am probably a hopeless romantic, but why couldn't Australia have reserved - and isolate - a sizable bit of their large country for the aborigines? Letting them live there as they wished as long as necessary until they started to evolve?...
Australia was settled by immigrants, predominantly from the British Isles and they most likely had other ideas.

Even after the non-aboriginal population of Australia became predominantly locally born (around about 1890: it took a full century from the time of first settlement before the first generation locally born outnumbered the immigrants - such was the scale of immigration that came about because of our mid-19th century gold rush ) and therefore felt more at home with the country their forebears adopted than the immigrants would have; even then the "cultural baggage": a belief in material progress at all costs; pride in being a part of the glorious British Empire; a fierce pride in being of British heritage (the best way a person can possibly be) all combined to compound the tragedy with policies that permitted the remaining aboriginals to survive but not to be part of the wider community as full citizens.

Imperialism is rarely, if ever, altruistic.

Having stated that; with the efflux of time policies gradually became more humane and some corners of Australia were reserved for that very purpose. The biggest one was Arnhem Land in the far north of our Northern Territory. When I was a boy growing up in the 1950's the local aboriginal tribes up there were still living their old hunter-gatherer way of life. Since then they seem to have abandoned that in favour of finding better ways to ensure a decent livelihood.

https://www.australiantrainingawards.go ... orporation

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Hahaha. I was right. Socialism is failing in S Africa

Post by cassowary » Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:34 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:50 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:12 am
At this stage of Singapore's history, it seems, the colonised benefited more than the colonizer.
GDP per capita seems to bear that out. Same with Bermuda.
Singapore and Bermuda are very much alike then.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Hahaha. I was right. Socialism is failing in S Africa

Post by cassowary » Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:57 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:15 am

Unfortunately not. You come from a society which, because of its age, was immune to any attempt at acculturation by the colonizers, who were a lot less civilized than the colonized. But the situation was quite different in Africa and in America.
Since they Africans were not more civilized than the Europeans, then it might be better for them to acquire European culture.
Afro-Americans, for instance, have lost about 99% of their culture through the process of enslavement and transportation to North America.


Losing 99% of their African culture might be good for them. Are Afro-Americans better off than Africans? I would say "yes". If they were better off in Africa, they would have migrated back to Africa. I think while their ancestors were unlucky to be enslaved, their descendants today are the lucky ones because they are better off in America.

If they still retained African culture, they will be subject to the negatives of that culture. For instance, they would still be very tribal. If they are unlucky to belong to the minority tribe, they would be subjected to tribal discrimination and violence. Black Americans are descended from slaves taken from West Africa. So they might be from Nigeria. There was a horrendous Civil War in the 1970s where the minority Igbos were brutally killed. Today there is violence between the Northern tribes and Southern tribes.

And if you are a black woman, they would not be as equal in African society as in America. In may parts of Africa, polygamy, for example, is still practised.
No wonder they are poorly equiped to succeed in the cultural environment of those who enslaved them. A raped people, like a raped person, seldom has the strength to overcome his/her humiliation.

You are thinking people are like sissies. Don't underestimate the power of the human spirit. Japan was nuked in WWII and they have recovered.
The same thing with the aborigenes in Australia. They were culturally and psychologically overwhelmed by the colonizers, and weren't even allowed to preserve their dignity. Similar examples - although maybe less extreme - can be found in Africa and in Latin America. We have no right to ignore these realities of the colonial process.
You forget that Singapore and Bermuda have also been colonized. But today, they are prosperous. How can something that happened so long ago still be holding back their progress? By the 1960s, colonialization was mostly ended. That was more than 50 years ago.

Post Reply