> imperialist corpos and their
>state sponsors had better be careful about propping up
>dictatorships, because the bill will come due, just as it did for
>Jewish Holocaust victims.
I can't comment on the specifics of the South African campaigns that Patrick Bond and Russell Grinker debate, but this quoted here is an indicative error on Patrick's part.
Far from being a 'blow against imperialism', the restitution made 'to holocaust victims' was a blow for imperialism. As so many excellent studies, such as Barkan's, Norman Finkelstein's and Michael Novack's have shown, group restitution served
1. to rehabilitate German imperialism 2. to give respectability to the Zionist state in Palestine
The payments that Germany made from the 1950s onwards were made to the Israeli state, directly or indirectly financing the settlement of Palestinian land.
Far from inhibiting German imperialism, restitution was a vital moral justification for its re-admittance to the imperialist club. In all of this, how much money was ever re-paid to holocaust survivors. Precious little says Norman Finkelstein. More than that, many Jews protested at the acceptance of German guilt money - so vigorously that Knesset members have to be protected by police from violent holocaust survivors.
Certainly Barkan's survey of world restitution movements (and don't forget that Barkan is a supporter of restitution) persuades me that he is right when he says that restitution is not a blow against what he calls neo-Enlightenment values (read: the market). On the contrary, it is a reassertion of the norms associated with private property.
So when Queen Elizabeth II apologises to the Maoris, or Bill Clinton to former slaves, or Tony Blair for the Irish famine, I feel sure that they are not seeking to overthrow imperialism, but to defend it. No need to fall on our knees in gratitude.
-- James Heartfield