Anti-Zionism Is Racism

[Forstater, Mathew]

"Bantu" was an apartheid associated category that tried to separate
African peoples from one another (from Khoisan peoples, e.g.--'colored')
and de-Africanize African peoples (the Boer were "Afrikaners", no one
else). "Bantu-speaking" is acceptable, 'Bantu' is not--it became
something like 'native' in the derogatory sense. This anyway is what I
learned from my South African (and other African) teachers and through
involvement in the anti-apartheid movement. I know there are probably
Africans who use the term 'Bantu' at times to refer to Bantu-speaking
peoples, but from my reading I am convinced that its only real sensible
use is with reference to language.  As all colonized/Enslaved peoples
learned, language is politics, and so if my language reflects my
politics, fine. I prefer to try to figure out how historically-oppressed
peoples choose the define (and name) themselves, and humbly follow that
terminology. I understand that this is not always so cut and dry, but it
is the best I know how to do.

I never said the white South Africans should leave South Africa. Neither
did I say that Jews should leave Palestine. What I said was that
Europeans living outside of Europe as a result of European Capitalist
Colonialist Imperialism should not expect special privileges and should
support democracy for all. They (we) should show a little humility.
Certainly not continue to colonize, make others second class citizens,
etc.  I don't see what is so controversial abot it. My view is that of
recognizing the historical specificity of
violence/colonization/Enslavement/etc that was the direct or indirect
result of European Capitalist Imperialism. It doesn't mean I think that
other bad stuff people do to one another isn't bad. But I don't buy the
"well everyone did it to everyone and so ECI is just one of a long list
of more or less comparable bad struff humans have been doing to one
another." If that's someone else's view, then fine, let's argue it out,
that's why were here.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Schaap [mailto:rws at comedu.canberra.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 2:21 PM
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Subject: RE: Anti-Zionism Is Racism


>by 'experience' i simply meant the migration from north to south to
>which you referred, implying they were as much (or, in your version,
>more) newcomers to "modern South Africa" as the Boer.

What's your problem with it, Matt?  If you don't like 'Bantu', well,
I'll
admit categories are ever a problem, but not all Africans were Bantu.
And,
as I understand it, the Cape had never been inhabited by Bantu.  As I
don't
personally go along with historical primacy arguments when it comes to
the
rightful pairing of peoples and territories (which is not to say I
oppose
'landrights' - there are good and practical reasons for that at times),
I
don't think this matters, other than to highlight the fact we can end up
with a different history, depending on how far back we go, and on what
our
categories are.

If our categories are 'black' and 'white', rather than, say, 'Bantu' (of
which, just to complicate things, Zulu, Xhosa, Basutu and N'debele are
all
subsets - and there were no Zulus before Chaka instituted them in the
late
18th century, and no N'debele before Mzilikase deserted Chaka's Zulus to
start an alternative society - all of this long after the Cape was
firmly
in white hands, and a distinct Afrikaans culture had developed),
'Hottentot', 'Bushmen', 'Afrikaner' and British 'rooinek' South African,
well, we'd have very different histories, wouldn't we?

And why is 'boer' (and not all Afrikaners are farmers) a better category
than 'Afrikaner' (which, unsurprisingly, they all are)?

Oh, and if you favour expelling Afrikaners from the continent, where
would
you prefer them to go?

Cheers,
Rob.