Robert's Virtual Soapbox

(or, The Sanctimonious Professional Leftist's Blog)
FEBRUARY 28, 2012 12:00AM

Anarchists attack white supremacists. Hell, yeah!

Rate: 5 Flag

Updated below (on February 29, 2012) 

CHP officers hurt by Occupy protestors

Sacramento Bee/sacbee.com photo

Members of the apparent white supremacist group “South Africa Project” arrive at the California State Capitol today. The group very apparently is using real and/or fabricated killings of whites by blacks in South Africa as a cover to push a white supremacist agenda. The sign with the apparently PhotoShopped image of the injured little white girl reads, “Genocide cannot be justified” — something that is awfully interesting to hear a group of white people proclaim. But today, it’s white people who are the victims, you see.

I work near the California State Capitol building here in Sacramento, and I noticed during my lunch break today that there was a decent-sized group of people demonstrating on the Capitol grounds. This is common at the Capitol; protests, demonstrations and gatherings there are so common there that they’re easy to ignore. California is, after all, the nation’s most populous state and there are a million causes and issues, and throngs of people often travel to the Capitol for their causes.

A co-worker of mine told me as I was returning from my lunch break that members of the Occupy movement were protesting some white supremacists at the Capitol. I should go check it out, he said. My lunch break was over, so I couldn’t, but all the same, where there are white supremacists gathered it’s probably volatile and therefore your safety might be put in jeopardy, so even if I’d had the time to check it out, there is a good chance that I wouldn’t have.

But I read the headlines afterward.

Reportedly, some members of the Occupy movement threw bottles and other objects at the white supremacists as the white supremacists were leaving the Capitol grounds. (Unfortunately, I missed all of this.) Reports The Associated Press today (text in bold is my own emphasis):

Sacramento, Calif. — At least two law enforcement officers were injured [today] during a clash with members of the Occupy movement who were at the state Capitol to counter a rally by a group protesting violence by blacks against whites in South Africa.

The clash erupted in the afternoon as California Highway Patrol and Sacramento police officers were escorting about 35 members of the South Africa Project to a parking garage after their protest outside the Capitol building.

About 50 members of Occupy Oakland began throwing cans and bottles at the South Africa group and at the officers. The Occupy members then clashed with the officers as people with the pro-whites group hurried into the parking garage.

“It was the activists across the street engaging the officers,” said CHP officer Sean Kennedy.

Two officers suffered minor injuries and were taken to a hospital. CHP Capt. Andy Menard said one officer who was struck in the face by an object was released from the hospital. The second officer was getting X-rays after apprehending a person suspected of throwing objects, Menard said.

Kennedy said the officer who was struck by an object was showing signs of possibly being affected by some type of chemical or pepper spray.

The CHP arrested three members of the Occupy group on suspicion of disobeying an officer.

The violence abated after a large contingent of law enforcement arrived at the scene, about a block from the Capitol.

The clash followed a tense afternoon during which peace officers kept the two groups separated outside the Capitol.

Members of the South Africa Project were trying to draw attention to what they said is black-on-white violence in that country. Organizers said similar demonstrations were planned in other states and elsewhere in California.

The group was mostly male and white, some with shaved heads and prominent tattoos.

Many of the Occupy protesters, some wearing hoods or masks, said they came from the San Francisco Bay area to counter what they called a racist group affiliated with former Louisiana Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

Occupy protesters had been cursing at the South Africa Project rally and at officers keeping the two sides apart.

Ryan Stark, 26, who said he is part of Occupy Sacramento, said he joined the protesters challenging the South Africa Project protesters because there needed to be a showdown.

“I didn’t throw anything … but these sorts of demonstrations need to happen,” he said, referring to the counter protest. “They do have the right to say what they want, but we’re not going to let it fly.” …

“South Africa Project” apparently is new. There is no entry for it in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has an entry for fucking everything. However, the group’s shitty website gives me the impression that the group indeed is a white supremacist group that is using the real and/or fabricated killings of white South Africans by black South Africans (because white South Africans never have killed or otherwise oppressed any black South Africans) not only as a cover for pushing white supremacism, but as a tactic to stir up hatred — and probably violence — against blacks by whites here in the United States.

And The Associated Press’ description of the “South Africa Project’s” demonstrators – “mostly male and white, some with shaved heads and prominent tattoos.” Hmmm. Does that sound like anyone we already know and love?

(Hey, if you think I’m being inaccurate or unfair, look at the group’s own pictures of its little dog and pony show at the California State Capitol today on its own bad website and then draw your own conclusions.)

That is not free speech, the incitement of race-based violence, even if such incitement is communicated in code (as the white supremacists, including Repugnican Tea Party presidential contenders, like to communicate these days).

Therefore, in my book, white supremacists who are trying to spread their disease of race-based hatred in public don’t deserve personal protection in public.

The cops who got mildly hurt today got hurt because they were protecting, shielding — dare I say, thus even aiding and abetting — the white supremacist scumbags. (And if the cops now are being pepper-sprayed back, as the AP news story seems to suggest, well, maybe that’s what you call karma…)

Also, let’s be clear: The description of the Occupy/“Occupy” protesters who threw the objects — “some wearing hoods or masks” — sounds to me like a description of anarchists, who are a group that is distinct from the Occupy movement, and a group that pre-dates the Occupy movement by years.

Hey, if you don’t trust me, here is photographic evidence of the Occupy/“Occupy” protesters who counter-protested the white supremacists at the Capitol State Capitol today:

CHP officers hurt by Occupy protestors

Sacramento Bee/sacbee.com photo

“WHITE POWER IS HORSE SHIT.” I love that sign. Anyway, with the exception of a few, including Captain America, which is a hoot (really — I think that someone wore that costume to counter-protest white supremacists is pretty fucking funny), those “Occupy” protesters are wearing black and they have their faces covered, which is the garb of the typical anarchist — and not the garb of the typical Occupy protester.

Anarchists often infiltrate left-leaning gatherings and raise hell. That’s their thing; peaceful protests that don’t change anyfuckingthing because they don’t threaten the status quo are not the anarchists’ cup of tea.

I can’t say that I blame them for not demonstrating “nicely,” in a way that does not offend the powers that be – and thus in a way that is utterly ineffectual. We claim that we have free speech in the United States, but such “free” speech in reality often if not usually means only speech that cannot jolt the status quo. And the status quo sure the fuck needs jolting.

I have nothing against the anarchists. Anyone who goes after white supremacists who dare to spew forth their filth in the public square is fine with me, and the imagery of a bunch of supposedly bad-ass white supremacists fleeing from a mob of Occupy/“Occupy” protesters (most if not all of them actually anarchists) – the way that blacks have had to flee from mobs of white supremacists — is gratifyingly amusing.

And who knows? When/if the shit really hits the fan, I might join the anarchists’ ranks. (Black is slimming anyway…)

But, for the time being, it’s unfair and inaccurate that the corporately owned and controlled mainstream media continue to refer to fairly obvious anarchists as members of the Occupy movement when, in fact, these anarchists might not claim the Occupy movement and/or the Occupy movement might not claim them.

Your typical member of the Occupy movement does not pelt plutocrats or white supremacists or their witting or unwitting protectors, cops (many of whom are white supremacist themselves, or who at least protect and serve the white power structure), with objects.

Not yet, anyway.

P.S. Does any of this remind anyone of the American Civil War? Is this what we are headed toward — a rematch of the Civil War? Might we be presented with the opportunity to crush the white supremacists once and for all?

Update (February 29, 2012): “South Africa Project’s” home page has been updated since I first wrote about it. Now, there is a video that prominently features notorious white supremacist David Duke on the hate group’s home page. (I guess that they’re not bothering to pretend anymore.) The hate group’s home page also now features an image of a little white girl praying, accompanied by this text: “Dear Lord, please protect my big brother and my daddy and my uncles and my oupa [grandfather?] from those savages that are raping and murdering us.”

Wingnuts, not known for their subtlety, are fine with exploiting children to try to advance their ignorance and hatred — this little girl never asked to be exploited like this, and could not agree to such use of her image, since she is too young to consent, is too young to understand racism and white supremacism, but is at the total mercy of adults — and it strikes me that a child in the Middle East certainly might pray to God that the killings and maimings and other violent abuses and the wrongful incarcerations of their family members by white occupiers comes to an end. (Ditto for Palestinian children…)

At any rate, after Apartheid* in South Africa, I just can’t feel sorry for the white people there. Anything that might be happening there now that disfavors whites probably would be what you call karma, and karma is always just.

*Wikipedia notes of Apartheid:

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced by the National Party governments of South Africa between 1948 and 1994, under which the rights of the majority non-white inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and white supremacy and Afrikaner minority rule was maintained. Apartheid was developed after World War II by the Afrikaner-dominated National Party and Broederbond organizations and was practiced also in South West Africa, which was administered by South Africa under a League of Nations mandate (revoked in 1966), until it gained independence as Namibia in 1990.

Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times. However, apartheid as an official policy was introduced following the general election of 1948. New legislation classified inhabitants into four racial groups (“native”, “white”, “coloured“, and “Asian”), and residential areas were segregated, sometimes by means of forced removals. Non-white political representation was completely abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, beaches, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of white people.

Apartheid sparked significant internal resistance and violence as well as a long trade embargo against South Africa. Since the 1950s, a series of popular uprisings and protests were met with the banning of opposition and imprisoning of anti-apartheid leaders. As unrest spread and became more violent, state organisations responded with increasing repression and state-sponsored violence.

Reforms to apartheid in the 1980s failed to quell the mounting opposition, and in 1990 President Frederik Willem de Klerk began negotiations to end apartheid, culminating in multi-racial democratic elections in 1994, which were won by the African National Congress under Nelson Mandela. The vestiges of apartheid still shape South African politics and society.

So: According to the hate group “South Africa Project,” we are to feel sorry for whites in South Africa today, despite their long history of depriving black South Africans of their equal human and civil rights, based upon their race. We’re to cry in our beer for these white supremacists. We are to focus on their more recent woes and totally ignore the crimes against humanity that they perpetrated upon others over a very long period of time.

Again, one word comes to mind:

Karma.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
While I personally have a great deal of sympathy for the anarchists, I am extremely wary of their presence in the Occupy movement. Many anarchists' real intentions are to mess it up with the cops, and nothing more. In those cases, there's little difference between American anarchists and European soccer hooligans.

And the soccer hooligan faction of the anarchist movement is something that I am more than willing to fink to the cops on when it comes to OWS.
What has peaceful protesting gotten us, old new? We protested the Vietraq War, we protest the war machine, we protest the plutocracy and the system that sustains it -- and nothing fucking changes. We vote -- and nothing fucking changes.

Therefore, I, for one, don't rule out violence or the credible threat of violence. Indeed, the cops use violence or the threat of violence to protect the interests of the plutocrats. Why can't we, the people, fight fire with fire? Why should we, the people, unilaterally disarm?

Agreed, though, that violence or the credible threat of violence should be intelligently wielded, and not just for someone's own personal little adrenaline rush. It needs to serve a larger political purpose.

Indeed, if violence or the credible threat of violence didn't work, we wouldn't have the cops or the U.S. military, which exist primarily in order to keep the plutocrats in power and to expand their corporate global empires.
South Africa Project -- they've got to be kidding! Are you sure The Onion wasn't behind this? I mean who the hell would adopt a name with the acronym SAP? I guess a bunch of saps.
1. Anarchists are undisciplined scumbags. Lenin hated them. They can seriously disrupt a well-planned progressive agenda and strategy and throw all your tactics into the wind. MLK was terrified of the anarchist branch of the American socialist tradition, and thought they would seriously destroy his chances for Civil Rights. This is why the Church-based approach that he used was far more useful. Church folk are more disciplined. As are Bolsheviks. Anarchists, while they are violent and brave, as well as intelligent, tend to be an impetuous rabble without an ability to win big victories. Kind of the like the Celts when they fought the Roman Legions.

2. Black on white violence in South Africa is, actually, a growing problem. It is one that most mainline, moderate and responsible black african leaders in South Africa, including Nelson Mandela, are addressing. Many of the rural Afrikaaner whites in South Africa are poor whites and lead isolated lives. From what I've read, quite a few are being slaughtered in their homes by Black Nationalist groups. These families have been here for hundreds of years and Mandela says they are just as South African as the blacks.

One of the things the left needs to do is learn how to find a rhetoric and ideology that integrates whites and blacks rather than blame whites for all the world's problems. This just plays into the hands of the radical right wing. In South Africa, Mandela has spoken about how this sort of violence hurts the nation's reputation for tolerance, progressivism. It also may cause a white backlash and capital outflow, which could hurt the nation. Nelson Mandela is very big on trying to integrate the groups, Afrikaaners and blacks. I think it will work, but non-South Africans need to understand more about the situation as well.
The anarchists' actions that we have seen here in California as of late have been rather mild -- some relatively minor property damage, some cops sustained minor injuries. When the state causes death and destruction on a major scale (usually to other countries and to other peoples), that's perfectly fine, but should any citizens engage in even very minor property destruction or violence, we compliant, brainwashed sheeple are quick to condemn them. The powers that be have us do this -- keep each other in line so that they don't have to -- and they love it when we do. Even so-called progressives and liberals are give the state a pass on violence and destruction but are quick to condemn individuals' petty crimes/"crimes." (Similarly, white-collar crime, in which billions and billions of dollars are stolen, often goes entirely unprosecuted, but should the little guy steal even $20, he's likely to experience the "criminal" "justice" system.)

So -- as long as the state continues its illegal and unethical death and destruction with impunity, you know what? I'm not going to be that hard on the anarchists, and I don't want to be a stupid fucking tool of the plutocrats, helping them maintain the status quo by protecting them from losing their lofty, overprivileged status.

Anyone killing anyone anywhere (except in cases of actual self-defense, I suppose) is a problem, regardless of the race of the individuals involved. However, it's fucking obvious that this group is using black-on-white killing as a front for its white supremacism. And when they carry signs about how horrible genocide is, clearly they believe that it's fine for whites to commit genocide on other races, as whites have been doing for at least centuries now, but that whites never should be the victims of genocide themselves -- because whites are the superior race. (And I certainly have not heard of any actual "genocide" of whites in South Africa. "Genocide" seems like a huge exaggeration.)

So, congratulations: You defend the plutocrats and the white supremacists but probably consider yourself to be fairly progressive, or at least somewhat enlightened. Sucks to be you.
P.S. The fact of the matter is that whites and white Americans ARE responsible for so many of the world's problems. It's called HISTORY. But now that demographics are changing, and it's harder for whites and for white Americans to be the oppressors, they suddenly actually are claiming to be the victims, as evidenced by your assertion that we shouldn't "blame whites for all the world's problems." That insinuates that whites aren't really responsible for any of the world's problems at all. Karma is a bitch, though, as whites are discovering today.

As far as South Africa goes, it was fucking colonized by whites. But when the colonized fight back against whites, suddenly all of the things that the whites used to do to the colonized are BAD! This is blatant fucking hypocrisy. You whine about what's happening to whites in South Africa without a mention of what the whites did to the native South Africans.

And not long ago I saw a documentary about white Brits in Zimbabwe, whose families have owned farms there for generations, who now are being pushed out by natives of the nation. The documentary shows that these farmers are being attacked and sometimes even killed by the natives, and that Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, very apparently is perfectly OK with this.

While I don't condone this, I also can see why it happens. There is a historical context to it. While it certainly seems unfair that anyone should lose his or her family farm, at the same time, we cannot ignore the backdrop of the colonization of Africa by whites.

And again, for whites to be so indignant about black-on-white violence when history is rife with white-on-black violence to me shows an underlying, if not a blatant, white supremacist belief, specifically, that white lives are more valuable than other lives, so that violence against whites is a worse crime than violence committed by whites against others.

Racism can be so subtle that the individual isn't aware of his or her own fundamentally racist beliefs...
P.P.S. "It also may cause a white backlash and capital outflow, which could hurt the nation."

REALLY?

Aren't you basically asserting that native Africans are the white man's burden?

The native Africans must have the white man's "capital outflow"? What if they don't WANT the white man's "capital outflow"?

Fuck. Like the native Africans benefit from the white man's capitalism anyway! Like they ever have or ever will! No, their labor and their natural resources are exploited by the white man, who takes the profits for himself. Africa has been used and abused by the white man for centuries. But we're supposed to feel so sorry for the WHITES who are still there, who don't have the sense to leave when they clearly are not wanted by the majority (as was clearly evident in the documentary I saw on Zimbabwe).

I, for one, don't support the continued colonization or exploitation of Africa or any other nation by whites.
I'm reminded of a piece I saw concerning NA treaty claims to about 7/8ths of the state of NY. A white woman claimed her family had owned her farm for more than two-hundred years -- you can't just run us off. At which point, the NA American woman involved in the discussion threw her a look of utter incredulity that this white woman simply didn't comprehend how her defense was much more applicable to NA.

I'm afraid a similar lack of perspective dominates the debate in Palestine. Jews, of all people, ought to know better than to ignore the lessons of history. But alas, for some people history has only one side. And for others who are even worse, history begins with their own birth.
Mr. Crook: I'm not defending the white supremacists or the Establishment. LOL

I'm only saying that Nelson Mandela opposes the attacks on white farms and that, in of itself, is a legitimate issue. Using it, the way the Nazis are using it, as a pretext for racial hatred is wrong. Of course, the methods behind Afrikaaner usurpation of the land were immoral and unjustified. That said, the murders don't seem to have a political motivation or be about land redistribution. It seems that the right and left are politicizing the murders and the ANC (and I agree with the ANC) says they are just about rural folks being targeted because there aren't any police in the countryside and urban street gangs see countryside homes as easy pickings. Its a law enforcement issue.

As for OWS, I am not an anarchist, and I despise them. This doesn't make one support the Establishment.

If you were more well read, you would probably know that the Bolsheviks, Stalinists and Communists were on the left, and they hated the Anarchists.

I support OWS' ends. I just don't support the tactics of the anarchists.
So basically, you think Nelson Mandela is a tool of white colonial racists, because he and the ANC want to stop violence against whites in the countryside, and prevent South Africa from losing money?
I am on the side of Mandela here. You basically said you oppose him. So I am trying to figure out where you stand.
And let's face it. The money issue is the least of it. The major challenge for South Africa is to integrate and synthesize a very diverse nation. You still have Black Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, white Anglos, French Hugenots, Dutch Boers, etc... all living together. And they need to make a successful home.

Regarding the "stealing land issue." I have actually studied South African history in depth. When Cape Town was first settled, there was very little Black African presence there. A few tribes, but they were not numerous. The Afrikaaners purchased land from them and soon had a numeric majority in South Africa within a few hundred years.

What changed things was the major migration of Bantu/Swahili (such as the Zulu) speakers from central/Western africa, southwards, who then found themselves brushing up against pre-existing Dutch settlements, that had existed there, along the coasts, 200 years prior.

The vast majority of the blacks who live in South Africa today do not trace there ancestory to tribes that lived there prior to the first Dutch Settlement at Cape Town and Johannesburg.

This is not said to justify subsequent Boer and Afrikanner treatment of the blacks. Their behavior was unjustifiable. The Boer elite was racist and classist to boot. Indeed, I remember reading about how they stopped importing European labor, and resorted to Chinese, Indonesian and Indian labor, because the latter couldn't inherit property or own land, whereas Europeans could, and they didn't want the legal/economic competition.

Anyway, the whole "whose land is this" argument is a weird one, at least in so far as coastal settlements are concerned.

Further, the Zulu and Bantu speakers of South Africa are just as foreign to the region as the Dutch are, since they originate in central africa. They both tried to conquer empires in the region, and to oppress the native tribes of South Africa.

Are you trying to say that the Zulu invasion and subsequent imperialism of/in South Africa was somehow more acceptable than the Dutch, based purely on racial considerations? If so, why?
This is an interesting article from wikipedia that discusses ethnology in South Africa. Again, I'm not supporting Apartheid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu-speaking_peoples_of_South_Africa
And listen here, dude. I never, ever, ever support state violence within the USA or abroad. NEVER.

And criticizing a protest's random tactics, doesn't mean I don't support the protests and a more strategic use of the same tactics, mind you.
Isn't that what Black Bloc typically wears? They have been the group who has repeatedly created violence at the Occupations held in the Bay area. But you know what they showed up for the counter demonstration, where oh where were the Occupiers who state they are a multicultural group speaking for the rights of all? My experience with the Occupy movement in DC wasn't one that seemed very inclusive, but the one here in SC had more of a multiracial presence when I marched with them. Are they confusing what is going on in Zimbabwe with South Africa they aren't the same place? But what would a bunch of dopes whose headquarters is in Louisiana know anyway. Thanks for this story wouldn't know about it from watching MSNBC. rated
On the other hand, on second thought, you DO have a point here:

There is probably much more violence in South Africa's cities, black on black violence, and this gets far little press, domestically and internationally. That said, the international media focuses on a few isolated instances of whites being killed, and makes it seem like a race war is being waged.

The real violence in South Africa have to do with urban crime, yet the white media elite is ignoring this in the media. So, I understand what you mean about racism, even subtle racism, clouding our paradigm about the issue.
The most effective demonstrations against racism in American history were organized by Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. All of which were non-violent. Malcolm and a hundred men from the Nation of Islam surrounded a New York Police Station and simply stood on the sidewalk in silence. King marched and sang and gathered hundreds of thousands on the mall in Washington D.C. where he spoke from the mountaintop.

'Nough said.

OMoM
My father went to South Africa before he died he told me upon his return he didn't expect it to last because per the West agreement to help end Apartheid all the wealth and land remains with Whites while political power is with Blacks. Not sustainable in a country that has 3x more Blacks than Whites.
Rwoo5g dude, I am quite well read, thank you. Speaking of which, try reading Wikipedia's entry on anarchism. You sound like the wingnuts calling Democrats "Commies" when you compare today's anarchists to the anarchists of yore. Please join us in this millenium, sir. And even among today's anarchists, there are plenty of factions. Some anarchists are OK with violence and property destruction and others are not. Some lean leftward while others even lean rightward. The anarchists are not -- pretty much by definition -- a monolithic group.

I have nothing against Nelson Mandela, and the ideal of everyone just getting along is a fine ideal (emphasis on IDEAL). However, think of how it sounds to non-whites for whites to basically propose: "OK, let's have racial equality -- starting NOW!" when there is a long, long history of inequality that benefitted whites at the expense of non-whites. It is quite convenient for whites for all of this ugly history to be forgotten starting now, isn't it?

It is disingenuous to imply that any native Africans who move from one part of Africa to another part of Africa are essentially no different from whites who came/come to Africa from another continent, don't you think?

Yes, it's a touchy subject as to whether or not a certain race "owns" a continent. But that said, do native Asians "own" Asia? We probably would say that they do. So why would it be so out of line to assert that native Africans "own" Africa?
But if all people originally come from Africa, couldn't one argue, albeit from a highly attenuated perspective, that Dutch settlement in an unpopulated area of South Africa was merely a form of "returning home?"

I don't think this is a very good argument, but it shows the weird logic we get into when we say that different groups "own" different lands, or that, as the Nazis said, "blood and soil are inextricably linked." It makes me nervous. For example, what if Germans say that German land should be German, forever, and all non Germans should be removed?

According to your logic above, you just said that land and race/ethnicity are linked. So how do you argue against removal?

I would argue that the free migration of peoples is fine, and whites living in Africa are fine. My problem is oppression and exploitation. Not presence, per se.

I will read up on modern anarchism. I admit, my readings are focused on the first half of 20th century and last half of the 19th. Do you have any books to suggest?
Desnee, I don't know much about South Africa and what's going on there. I did see the documentary on black-on-white-farmer violence that has been happening in Zimbabwe. I'm sure that black-on-white violence happens all over Africa, just as does white-on-black, white-on-white and black-on-black.

And yes, my understanding is that the anarchists who dress like those in the news photo call themselves the "Black Bloc." I think they kind of rock, but I don't know an awful lot about them.

jmac1949, I'm still not settled on the issue of violence vs. nonviolence. At this point I still believe that violence or the credible threat thereof should not be removed from the leftist toolbox. Why handicap ourselves like that? There are, in my book, legitimate uses for force, especially in self-defense. And I stand by my assertion that most of the time, nonviolence changes nothing.
The "South Africa Project" is a self-described white nationalist organization, so I applaud anyone who stands against them. Regarding anarchists, I'm not a big fan, but at some point they'll be useful allies in the coming fight against US corporate security state repression, a.k.a. fascism.
Drew-Silla: My sentiment exactly. The anarchists are our allies, at least up to this point, and those who bash them, in my book, are only helping our plutocratic overlords/enemies.

Rwoo5g: I'm not in the book-recommending business, and I certainly don't have the time to read entire books about the anarchists. However, there is plenty about them online. Surely you are intelligent enough to conduct your own research.

I am not defending the widespread human belief that a race "owns" a certain continent. If it were up to me, there would be no nations and no borders. However, that obviously isn't the reality, is it?

American whites certainly feel that they "own" the United States. I mean, look at white American wingnuts' crusade against the "illegals." The primary problem that these whites have with the "illegals" isn't their legal status, but their race. Clearly, the white supremacist denizens of Arizona and other states believe that the U.S. belongs to whitey.

Therefore, it's pretty fucking hypocritical of us to find fault with native Africans believing that they "own" their continent, isn't it?
I reckon most of us here aren't qualified to speak authoritatively about the troubles in South Africa. That's why I harken back to a similar situation with whites and NA's in this country.

While it's true, as Rw suggests, NA tribes often encroached on the territory of other tribes, such encroachment never rose to a determined effort on the part of a powerful state to systematically destroy a race. But since before the founding of the country, it was the plan of some Founders to exterminate or relocate NA's. That might sound like hyperbole; it's not.

One reason for the Louisiana Purchase was to have a place to relocate Indians who refused to become citizens of the United State, citizens who would have suffered "taxation without representation. For those who are unaware, here's Jefferson on the matter in a letter he wrote to Wm Henry Harrison in 1803:

"To promote this disposition to exchange lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries, which we have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading uses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands.... In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us a citizens or the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be foolhardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation."

That leaves little doubt as to the aim of the Founders. Poetic justice that slavery in the territories west of the Mississippi became the final straw that led to the Civil War.

After the Civil War, General Sherman was put in charge of "the Indian problem", and it was he, not the Nazis, who coined the phrase The Final Solution. He also proposed the extermination of Indians and helped popularize the phrase "the only good Indian is a dead one".

These things aren't ancient history; they are recent history relatively speaking. But they were not taught in any American History classes when I was in HS or College. But they certainly put the lie to "American Exceptionalism", unless one wants to argue American's have been exceptional hypocritical about this nation's past.

What does our sordid past have to do with South Africa? At lest this much: Occasional Indians raids -- frequently justified -- on white settlers were used as an excuse for all manner of atrocities by white folks. And the Army that was sent west ostensibly to protect Indians and Indian treaty rights from privations by whites -- often after gold or the best farm lands -- too often instigated trouble with Indians as an excuse to carry out The Final Solution.

It will be interesting, tho certainly not hoped for, to see if history repeats itself.
Robert Crook: A group, per se, cannot be hypocritical. A person/individual can. So can a government. I don't like to attribute beliefs/motives or collective will to given groups.

Not all whites claim to "own" America. Many whites, particularly working class whites, or ethnic whites, or whites who don't drink the Kool-Aid, certainly don't think so. But just because a white person thinks that racial ownership of land is bad, does this preclude him from saying the same thing to a member of another race, just because his own race once did the same thing? I.e., just because whites once practiced Lebensraum, does this mean whites have no right to criticize China, for example, for their treatment of Tibetans, and their policy to replace Tibetan culture with a Han Chinese one?

Just because whites did this in the past, does this mean whites are forever precluded from learning from their own history and applying these lessons to their "own people" as well as to other groups as well?

Or are the only people that are allowed to criticize racism, those who belong to the same group? I.e., are the only fellow members of the same group allowed to critique racism when it occurs in said group? I certainly hope not.
Tom Cordle: I actually know more about South Africa, than I do about America's experience with Native Americans, because I have read a great deal about South Africa.
Of course, I'm not precluding that many working class whites DO in fact hold racist beliefs. I'm just saying that many do not. At least those who have attained "class consciousness."
Many doesn't mean most
I much prefer the term "libertarian socialist" to anarchist. Anarchy in and of itself is a non-violent movement although I'm sure some will violently disagree with that definition.
Although I'm a practicing pacifist of nearly five decades, there is no place for white supremacy and they should be shown no mercy.

Schenck v. United States in 1919 showed that the courts DO believe there are limits to free speech.

Also, kudos, to the brilliance and incisiveness to the always cogent gentleman from Tennesse, Tom Cordle for drawing the analogy of the Palestinians in his comment.

No quarter, nor mercy for white supremacists.

Thanks for informing us of this, Robert.


-R-
@Rw 0059 The Dutch took 75% of the land leaving a quarter of their country to Black South Africans. Those areas were the most desolate of course and it was illegal for Black South Africans to have street names, house numbers, or any way to designate this is so-in-so's house. The reason being it would be harder for the majority population to organize and win back their nation. During Apartheid Blacks were not allowed to travel freely they had to have "papers" on them at all times and they also had sunset laws, so they had to be home by a certain time.
@Tom, Ronald Reagan ensured that all the wealth and land would remain in White hands. So that anything that was taken from Black South Africans they still had no right or title to it. He was their Sherman.
Desnee: correct, that is what eventually happened over the course of a few hundred years. Yes.
And ironically, as the Dutch moved inland, they displaced the tribes. Yet, when the British diamond interests under Cecil Rhodes moved in during the 1800s and when the Zulu moved in from the north, the Boers and Afrikaaners used arguments about their "native right to the soil" as justification for their resistance. The Afrikaaners were hypocritical here, because they used similar displacement strategies previously. I'm not defending them.

But I am saying that when the first settlements were established in the 1600s, they were not very highly populated by black africans. Indeed, they were seen as wastelands.

Its what came afterwards, the colonization of the interior and the Voortrekker movement into the Orange Free State and Transvaal, that caused much of the hardship, I believe. At least this is what I have picked up from my readings. Correct me if I am wrong. I have no dogs in this fight.
Its very similar to classic cases of colonialism. That said, Modern South Africa is trying to become POST COLONIAL.

This doesn't mean killing all the Whites, Indians and Chinese, Jews and Pakistani Muslims in South Africa and making it a Black Nationalist Republic.

Mandela was explicit when he said he wants the nation to move forward and become multicultural, multiethnic and inclusory.

I agree with Tom Cordle that other factors may be at work here. South Africa is very resource rich. We also can't forget that large South African white mercenary companies work on the international stage, and have made billions of dollars in privatized warfare contracts, since the fall of Apartheid. Blackwater has hundreds of South African mercenaries.

South Africa also still has massive gold and diamond deposits in the interior.

It could very well be that Establishment folks are trying to instigate a conflict between commoners on the basis of race, so as to send the military, mercenaries and companies into the interior and privatize it, and cordon it off from settlement, so as to secure it for development under corporate stewardship.

Indeed, the companies may be trying to "depopulate" the interior by encouraging anarchy and forcing people to flee into the cities, so that they sell the land cheaply to developers.
Desnee: we also need to make sure we're on the same page and discussing the same century. South Africa has a long history and the facts you are discussing pertain more to South Africa after the Boer War, and especially after WW2, no?

There were different, albeit equally bad policies, previously, but these had their basis in a different, more agricultural economy and attendant social organic.
I mean, legally speaking, Apartheid only began as a de jure system in 1948, following British withdrawal.
White supremacitsts? They just look like regular white folk to me. Whats with all the judging? Oh, yea the Left has Smarter Morons.
DAVID DUKE is featured on the home page of their website, you incredibly fucking stupid, spelling-challenged dipshit.

I'll let your comment stand. It speaks for itself.
I'm completely confident that white supremacists just look like regular white folk to Campo. (Unfortunately to many of the rest of us too, since they cleverly hide the 666 tattoos...)