>What if Black people want to at some point create an
>exclusively "Black" society, whatever that means. Will any
>of you stand in our way? Will we have to fight you as well?
Would there be blood or genealogy tests for prospective citizens? What'd 'black' be? How 'black' would you have to be? Would 'mixed marriage' be allowed? Would non-blacks in visiting sporting teams be accorded 'honorary black' status for the duration of the tour? Would integrationists be deemed traitors?
It just can't be done, Art. South Africa had a well-funded, coercively backed, security-tested and technically highly skilled bureaucracy with which to try something like this, and it looked fatally ridiculous for every minute of every decade. And lots of trauma and killing was necessarily involved.
>What if Black people kicked all the white people out of
>Africa? Would that be bad? It wouldn't be to me, but I
>want to know what you white folks think.
Well, I was once a white boy in Africa, but I was not quite a white African (as my Afrikaner classmates liked violently to remind this 'bleddy rooinek commie kaffir-boetie'). My classmates belonged to a language made in Africa, a canon made in Africa, and aspirations wholly to do with Africa. They're not a colonial occupation, and there's nowhere for them to go 'back' to. Truly, I submit, they are 'the white tribe of Africa'. Of course, one could point to other aspects of their history to justify an expulsion, but that's history all over, isn't it? Legitimating appeals to history/identity always open up contradictions, and it could be argued that to deny the Afrikaner her claim to Africa is to deny you yours to America. And, of course, 'white' America's claim to same. But that logic could take us all the way back to Eve, couldn't it?
Learning to enjoy each other - pathetically '60s though it may sound, is all there is, for mine. Perhaps easier for a white boy to say than another right now, but that doesn't mean it ain't so ...
>I hope people understand what I'm getting at. I'm trying
>to figure out what SELF-DETERMINATION really means, and is
>there a difference in what oppressed people think it means,
>and what the typical bourgeois leftist or Marxist thinks it
>means. I'm concerned that there is a disconnect somewhere.
We do need a base unit for 'self-determination', so a problem of categories/identities is always complicit. States, ethnic groups, religions, sexualities, etc. Members of many of each, ascribed or avowed or both, can point to outrageous oppression. But a cosmopolitan internationalism seems our species' only realistic hope to me, comrade.
>One settler, one bullet. :-)
Is a Xhosa south of the Fish River a settler? If memory serves, they only got that far south around 1706, where they met whites coming north to escape the British. Now, these whites had annihilated or chased off most of the people who lived there before them, sure, but what exactly does 'settler' mean in the southern Cape today?
Not the way to go, for mine.
Comradely blue-eyed boojie regards, Rob.