h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi there Dmitri, this is my first posting on the new site!

I agree with you of course. What is at stake is a principle: you don't just kill people, not even if you're the king, or the government.

But many people today no longer understand what a principle is. I mean something truly important like this. Principles are often seen more like guidelines. The same with laws. Especially here in my own country.

A traffic policeman was recently fired from his job, for stopping a speeding high-profile politician ... who as far as I know had no good reason for speeding.

In many ways members of the ruling party already are de facto above the law. But now they want to make it de jure as well.

'The Constitution cannot be permitted to stand in the way of the National Democratic Revolution', they say, while pressing for a law to prevent newspapers from publishing any facts about them that they consider to be embarassing.

'The Constitution is there to prevent *any* governing party from abusing its power', we counter.

'You don't trust us because you're white,' they say.

And that shuts us up of course.

To which I reply, 'Isn't it wonderful to have the luxury of a conversation-stopping piece of non-information like that?'

Good point, Willem. The reason for making up rules that can't be broken is to stop ourselves from doing something wrong on the grounds that it seems like a good idea at the time.

'The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.' Yeah, but if we are really outraged about the crime, and don't want to wait for the satisfaction of revenge...? Scroll up. Stick to the rules.

It is because we do *not* always agree that we need ground rules.

And people need constitutions that stick. Whether in the US or South Africa, or anyplace else.

Hi there again! Your reply would go over most politicians here's heads. The thing is, I don't trust the politicians here because of their or my skin colour, but because they are politicians. I have a pretty strong impression that power really does corrupt ... you need a person of extraordinarily strong principle to resist the abuse of such power if other people and/or laws/principles aren't there to make sure s/he doesn't.

I don't know if we assassinate our own citizens over here. I don't think it's happening at the moment. Of course in the apartheid days, people did get killed, but not by this kind of targeted strike that was approved by the president. There was good old police brutality, and there were some shady organisations the activities of which perhaps the top politicians were not quite aware of, but they had given them money and a fairly free rein, and they did assassinate some people, sometimes people who were quite innocent of anything. But I don't know if any of our presidents actually approved of this or even knew that it was going on. 'It was the cold war' is an excuse currently going round among people who served the Apartheid state and in the process did some pretty terrible things.

Ah, yes. The Cold War.

Which was one of many times in human history when people used assassination as a political tool. Of course, back then, most of time, they couldn't admit it.

As opposed to announcing it publicly.

Yeah they're getting quite brazen-faced about it. But I think people today are so confused by so many things few of them can as I say recognise the principle of a principle being something that is rigorous and inviolable. How many people could explain what 'justice' means, for instance? As in, treating people as equally worthy of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' and not discriminating against anybody *as a matter of principle*.

Your own country practised slavery ... even while it had the above principle as part of your declaration of independence! And it took a war to make almost half of your people see that there might have been a problem with it!

Over here there is still no recognition of racism being wrong *in principle*. Rather: racism was wrong when it disadvantaged *my people* but if I do it to benefit my own people, then it's right. But there are exceptions of course! Bishop Desmond Tutu really does believe that discrimination is wrong no matter what side practices it. I think Nelson Mandela does the same. But there is a perception among many of those now in power that it is now their turn to discriminate against those who discriminated against them, or 'their people' as they see it, in the past. "It's our turn now: they stole from us, so we will steal from them. They disadvantaged us, so we will disadvantage them." Now I am saddened by this ... not because I am white but because I actually do care about everyone in this country! And the people with the 'it's now our turn' mindset ... are actually doing their own people *harm*. The way us Afrikaners actually caused harm to our own people *by* espousing apartheid. We harmed our own souls! We separated ourselves from others in our minds, we starved the warmth and compassion that could have been in us and that could have enriched our lives. We chose the desert of enmity over the paradise of friendship. The harm we did to ourselves is terrible beyond what most people could imagine. I am looking at my own society and I see walking dead people. This is what discrimination does, this is what the 'us vs. them' mindset does. The wheel shall turn. Those who suffered in the past may enjoy prosperity today but if we don't look at the causes of suffering then the wheel keeps turning and those who enjoy prosperity today may suffer again tomorrow.

The thing is that there are many people in my country who *cannot believe* that a white person like me could really care deeply about people who are not white. This is part of the horror! This is such a twisted view of reality ... we are believing ourselves and others to be incapable of true love and compassion and this already demonstrates a barrenness of the soul! It's not the fault of the people who are like that because they have been *made* to be like that by various horrors they have experienced. People have stunted souls because they've been traumatised and battered by so many blows they've received to their very souls. But we have to recognise that and realise that that is not the natural and right way of things!

I always think the beginning of the problem is accepting the false idea of 'race'.

There is no such thing.

If people accept 'race', rather than ethnicity (meaning shared culture, that anybody can share) there will always be a divide.

I totally agree ... especially with the idea that culture can be shared. You can't change your skin colour but you can learn a new language and you can adopt any practice that interests you. Dmitri, do you think it could be an interesting entry if I wrote just how apartheid was justified? In other words how people who you should think would have known better, were convinced that it was in fact quite a wonderful concept?

Sorry, but as Dmitri hasn't replied yet (asleep, d'ye think?), I feel I should butt in - and I will.

Yes, Willem. Rod, at least, thinks you should write that.
No gentrification, either. A warning at the top, maybe, then tell it as it was ... er ... is.


Rod

Hey, thanks, Rod, for noticing this - I'm sorry for not replying, I missed it. Asleep, indeed.

Yes, yes, yes...I totally want you to do this, Willem. We'll gladly wrestle with the moderation issues on this one.

In the last couple of years, I've had to figure out how to teach US high school history students how in the world anybody ever invented the ideas of 'race' and 'racism'. It isn't fun, and it isn't easy. But if we don't see what happened, we can't get rid of it. And it's harder to eradicate than cockroaches.

Oh, and Willem - right on. The more we confuse 'em by learning each other's languages and cultures, the faster we get this done.

Like the young woman from western North Carolina (Scots Irish) who worked in a Chinese restaurant, learned Chinese, married a Taiwanese fella...they had a baby, opened their own restaurant...my mother adored that baby, whose name is 'William'. I asked my friend, the husband, 'Why didn't you name him something you can pronounce?' He laughed.

Like my anger in 1970 at being told I wasn't welcome in the Swahili class because this was about 'consciousness' rather than linguistics. So I went off and studied Hebrew, Dutch, and Yiddish instead...nobody there ever told me I had the wrong complexion or religion...

The only language I'm genetically 'qualified' to learn, besides English, is Irish...very funny little old lady in Bonn, Germany...I walked into the classroom for beginning Irish, and she asked me my name. I told her she would be disappointed, because the name is Anglo-Saxon. She laughed, and told me it didn't matter, I was obviously Irish. 'Das ist die Erbmasse,' she said - 'That's the genetic heritage.' Freckles as an entrance requirement?

But I speak German, and I don't speak Irish, I just dabble at it.

Okely Dokely then, as Ned Flanders would say! I don't think we'll have moderation issues.

Learning languages is huge fun. I really do wish we can get something set up here to speak in something other than English! Even if not Afrikaans ... I certainly would like to learn Spanish and Danish. (Why don't those two rhyme? English makes no sense!)

How Apartheid was justified is different than for instance how slavery was justified. There are some basic things that are the same of course, such as the concept of race. I will mention just how cockeyed that concept was though. For instance we classified Japanese people as white and Chinese people as non-white. Why? Because the Chinese were communists.

From my youth I knew some very nice Chinese people who had a restaurant at the bottom of the building where my grandfather was the superintendent. They came to South Africa to flee communism and landed in apartheid, but still, they made do quite well.

I get your anger at being denied to attend Swahili class! I can't understand that at all.

Did I tell you yet about the German teaching over here? One of my best friends is professor Gigi Gottwald, she's taught German at the University of the North (now University of Limpopo) since the early eighties. The University is practically 100% non-white, but I studied there for a couple of years. There were also schemes for exchanging students ... we received a few every year from Germany, and we sent some of ours over there. I always thought this kind of cultural exchange to be a very positive thing. I took around the Germans and showed them some of the sights and explained many of the things they would have found weird. We took them to some local events, even got them to meet with royalty (since we have so many peoples and tribes, there are quite a few 'kings' and 'queens' over here), took them to archaeological sites and so on. On the other end, our students got to see snow, and the bustling life of European cities ... and an actually *efficient* and high-tech public transport system. But really we learn that people are people everywhere.

I also think the Germans find it interesting that people over here are interested in their language and culture.

Unfortunately languages are not a priority at universities these days. The Afrikaans department has been shut down, the French too, and the German department is just barely scraping by ... Gigi has retired and there's only one person I know left there to teach.

But I consider language to be absolutely tremendously important. How can we understand each other if we can't *understand* each other?

Amen, Willem. Also, there's much attraction in merely understanding a few words or concepts. You don't have to be fluent to develop an appreciation of another culture. But a willingness to learn helps.

Nobody thinks it's important. Nobody. Why do I run around looking for work? Because they shut down the language departments all the time. At one college, because they wanted to expand the athletic programme...we said, 'for what we cost, they can buy one volleyball...'

Definitely explain apartheid to us. I would never have guessed that anti-communism turned you white. (Although I should have.)

I had all these problems when I was a kid. I sort of got that African Americans weren't 'white'. Because they had different pigmentation. Not a value judgement, they were prettier, anyway, and didn't need suntans.

But...my mom said she had a problem with our assistant pastor and his wife as a couple. She said, 'Mr P. is from the Philippines. He isn't white.' Now, for the life of me, I couldn't see why Asian people weren't white. Most of them were as pale as I was...well, almost, anyway.

Now, the idea that the amount of melanin in your skin is linked to your tendency to hold certain political opinions...

All I can say is, wow. It must be those sneaky Red Indian ancestors I've been trying to document...

Man, us humans just don't seem to know what's good or bad for us! Language vs. volleyball indeed ...

OK I'll start on the apartheid thing. I'll write off h2g2 as well ... but for now I think I can start by mentioning that *of course* it was designed to be of benefit to white as well as non-white people. It was with the best of intentions. It was based on the Bible. It was God's will, and it was politically the smartest and most sophisticated thing to do.

When Europeans came to south Africa ... Portuguese first, then Dutch ... they found folks here, those we called the Hottentots but now are better to be referred to as Khoikhoi. These were an African people ethnically related ... but rather distantly ... to others. They weren't as dark-skinned as most sub-Saharan Africans are. To the Europeans they seemed very primitive. One early observation (that I am not at all sure is true) was that they ate the intestines of animals with dung and all ... this horrified the Europeans. They had a completely unintelligible language featuring clicking sounds that an adult European could in no way imitate. (Some authors of old describe this language as being like the noises of beasts rather than the speech of humans.) And of course they didn't wear the elaborate kinds of clothes the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth century Europeans (at least those of the high class) did. Nor did they have the kind of social etiquette that was prevalent in Europe. Nor did they have high technology such as big sailing ships, guns and rifles. And basically that was the biggest problem. It would seem that the first meetings between Khoikhoi and Dutch were on amicable terms, but soon there were conflicts and in these the firepower of the Europeans gave them the edge.

Is it a reasonable supposition that if one people has the tech to easily slaughter another, that this indicates superiority ... not just superiority of means, but a *moral* superiority? It may seem strange to think of it like that ... but it was thought of like that a lot in history. "Weak peoples deserve to die" ... social darwinism? I'll come to that thought again. Like I said I'd like to think of every angle ... this is such a complex issue, and the ideas and attitudes I mention here still persist, even though people don't always clearly recognise them or understand what's wrong with them.

To be continued ...

Oh, just a current example: exactly like the speech of the Khoikhoi were equated with the noises of beasts, to this very day immigrants to SA from other African are called 'Kwerekwere' by locals, this being to indicate their speech is like the chirping (Afrikaans 'kwetter') of birds. It is a very demeaning sort of thing to say, and again illustrates the importance of language in how we view each other.

OK I'll have to go to bed now!

I'm looking forward to this.

un
Yes, me too.

I haven't the depth of experience or thought that you two have, but do have some small experience.

In post 9, Dmitri, you said
>>We'll gladly wrestle with the moderation issues on this one.<<
What support I can give, I will give - should it be necessary. This is one of those things that we're about, eh?
re

Indeed, Rod. Indeed it is.

Not everything's about smileys, A-spaces, and 'can I say [expletive deleted]'?

Thanks, guys, for reminding a tired editor that sometimes it's about discussing the real questions.

Hi again Rod and Dmitri! To continue: while there were physical clashes between the Dutch and the Khoikhoi, a much more serious problem was the Pox the Dutch brought with them, and most of the Khoikhoi died; the ones who survived were gradually driven away and went to the north and west. The Northern Cape still contains lots of descendants of the Khoikhoi, albeit with a bit of admixture of other groups.

Meanwhile the Dutch population in the Cape expanded, and they were soon joined by the British as well. And then the Dutch also brought slaves mainly from their East Indies colonies. Some of the Khoikhoi also took jobs as labourers on Dutch farms.

At the same time, some Dutch burghers took non-white wives ... sometimes Khoikhoi, sometimes Southeast Asian. Abundant inter'racial' procreation soon led to the emergence of a new group called the 'coloureds', with its own culture and language ... a language that took elements from Dutch, native African languages, and Malay and other East Indies languages. That was the start of the language called Afrikaans ... my own language. It originated as a result of this interaction and mixing of cultures. This is so ironic when we think of how Apartheid was intended to keep the 'Afrikaans people' pure ... we had the *origin* of our language as a result of people *not* keeping 'pure'!

As the Dutch expanded towards the East they came into contact with different people ... this time the Xhosas, who originally came from much further North in Africa, along with numerous other African peoples like the Sotho and Zulu. This had actually been a process going on for centuries; the original inhabitants of the hinterland where the Khoikhoi and the San (bushmen) but they got squeezed further and further southward, and towards the dry western regions. San are legendary for how well they managed to survive in the Kalahari Desert, until quite recently. But the bottom line is, the KhoiSan peoples got squashed between the hammer of the tropical African peoples coming from the north, and the anvil of the Dutch colonising the south.

But as for the Dutch, when they encountererd the Xhosas in what is now the Eastern Cape, it was the start of the really violent clashes between Black and White.

But there were clashes between white and white as well. The British seized the Cape at the end of the eighteenth century. They brought with them the idea of British superiority. Meanwhile many of the Dutch had started going 'native'. These were the 'trekboers' or migrant farmers ... my own ancestors. They were migrating into the hinterland, severing ties with the colony, and mostly not thinking of themselves as Dutch any more ... exactly like the American pioneers who moved into the west stopped thinking of themselves as British. They also adopted words from other languages and practices from other native cultures. At this point the Afrikaans language was not yet recognised but these trekboers would speak something more similar to the speech of the 'coloureds' at the Cape than to the Dutch of the ruling class. The Trekboers resented Dutch interference with their way of life, and also did not like the English. The English became the elite ... businessmen, administrators, sophisticated city folks, industrialists ... while the the Boers were mostly simple farmers. The Dutch presence at the Cape waned while the British mostly took over.

Now here's another thing. Britain abolished slavery in 1834 and this also came to effect in the Cape. The Boers believed slavery to be proper and right. They were very religious, but also interpreted the Bible in a rather naïve way, and according to that the black people were ordained by God to be 'wood-choppers and water-carriers', so that slavery was the right and just condition for them. So here we have the first *religious* justification. The earlier prejudice of considering the natives to be 'primitive' was a weaker one; the Boers did not so much concern themselves with that as they were a rather primitive bunch themselves. But they believed with absolute certainty that the black peoples were descendants of Ham, and thus under God's curse.

OK I'll stop here for now ...

Yeah, that dumb Bible excuse got trotted out over here, too. Why don't people read any of the rest of the Bible?

And where in the world did people get the idea of applying an ancient legend about the Ark to modern groups of people? Oh, forget it.

Thank you, Willem. A nice summary of things that one should, perhaps, have been told of but which haven't stuck.

Dmitri, no I won't forget it - just yet.
I'm only my mother's generation away from peasant farming and probably my paternal grandparents' away from similar.
There are still (or were, 3 years ago!) places in far-flung England where people haven't yet caught up with their education and where the church man is the authority and where that church man's education was sidestepped/corrupted by the church, before he caught up with it.

As for the colour thing and related prejuduces:

No, later maybe.

I know what you mean, Rod. There was always a similar kind of ignorance in the rural South. Only, nobody regarded the preacher as an authority, because he was unlikely to have much more education than the other farmers.

Instead, they all argued it out with the idea that they had an equal say in interpreting the Bible. You should have heard some of my uncles get started - one was Jehovah's Witness, one was Church of Christ (a tiny mountain splinter group), one was Baptist, and my aunt Seventh Day Adventist. Now get them all started on predestination...

I told them to shut up and sing, while I had the hymnbook open and we had enough for four-part harmony.