Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!duke!rjn From: rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: South Africa terrorizes Souther Message-ID: <8703@duke.duke.UUCP> Date: Sun, 12-Oct-86 22:10:13 EDT Article-I.D.: duke.8703 Posted: Sun Oct 12 22:10:13 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 07:32:48 EDT References: <8674@duke.duke.UUCP> <117200220@inmet> Reply-To: rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) Organization: Duke University, Durham NC Lines: 66 Only the points I wish to argue are reprinted here. I agreed with most of what Jan had to say. In article <117200220@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[rjn@duke.UUCP ] [/* ---- "Re: South Africa terrorizes Souther" ---- */] >>How quick you all are to criticize the ANC, and how slow to cri- >>ticize the white government. What about the school children shot >>in the back by security forces? I question the ability of many >>people on the net to equate a very small number of white lives >>with the thousands of blacks of all ages and sexes who have been >>killed over the years. > >(3) The white victims (however few) do not offset the black victims >but are added to the toll. If killing an innocent white *saved* >one or more blacks - that would make some argument for the terror - >though I think unacceptable. But you did not argue that. > >(4) On the contrary, it is probable that terrorizing the whites will >cause more blacks to be killed. What is even worse, it may make >killing a way of life in SA, and any eventual stable regime to >emerge from this (white, quite likely) may institutionalize it. > >(5) As means of extracting concessions, terror has apparently >been counterproductive, but strikes and boycotts quite effective. > >Terror does *not* advance the cause - it only advances the more >extreme *people* within the movement. > >There is *no* reason to justify the terror. What I want to point out here is that I do not think the whites are being terrorized. My intention has never been to argue for the use of terror, it was to argue that the ANC has not used terror against the general population as their means of forcing change. I don't see any evidence that white South Africans are terrorized. On the other hand I think the South African government makes liberal use of terror against the blacks. To the best of my knowledge (note disclaimer here, my knowledge is based on the media, which some claim is biased) the ANC has not claimed responsibility for those acts which can clearly be labeled terrorism. In fact I clearly remember the ANC speaking out against one incident that appeared to be obvious terrorism. I do not think the ANC has made terrorism its strategy. I have seen no one give solid examples proving that the ANC is involved in what I would consider terrorism. A solid example would be an incident for which the ANC claims responsibility, where obvious innocents were obviously killed on purpose. Terrorist acts have taken place in SA, but I have seen no real proof that these acts were condoned, planned or executed by the mainline ANC. If someone wants to give such proof, please clearly cite the source. I will then check it out and if I am wrong I will admit it. My knowledge and recollection may be faulty, or I may have been hearing biased reports. On the other hand, some people may be starting out with a bias against black Africa in general. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay