|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The ANC and the end of Apartheid
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
I have got into a discussion on the Iran Deal thread about the ANC and Apartheid. Because its so far off topic I thought I'd start a new thread on this topic. Here are the posts I made on that topic
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think the UK government of the time were right to vote against sanctions. The Apartheid system would have been on its way out anyway. As well as its cruelties it was also becoming increasing economically inefficient. It did not, for example, allow for the kind of labour market flexibility needed for South Africa's growing economy.
The main thing keeping Apartheid in place was a fear that South Africa would follow a number of other post colonial African states in falling victim to communist dictatorship. (I appreciate that you probably think that a communist dictatorship would have been an improvement on apartheid but you will appreciate that not everyone will have agreed). Once the Cold War ended there was no reason for the South African government to go ahead with the full abolition of Apartheid, which they then did and would have done without sanctions.
To the extent that sanctions and economic boycotts did damage the South African economy they would have had the most negative impact on the poorest in society rather than those in government.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The ANC were calling for sanctions and boycotts, knowing full well the economic impact it would have on them and their members.
But don't let the facts get in the way of you having to consider other people's views.
I am fully aware of what the ANC policy was. There were other anti-Apartheid parties at the time in South Africa who were against the sanctions, in particular the Progressive Federal Party/Democratic Party and the Inkatha Freedom Party. My point is that those that supported the ANC line on sanctions at the time are being hypocritical if they claim to be opposed in principle to the hardships caused by sanctions.
[edited thread title]
[ 28. July 2015, 20:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Who said they "opposed in principle to the hardships caused by sanctions"? Generally IME, people who call for sanctions or boycotts do so knowing that there will be hardship as a result, but that that hardship is recognised as a necessary step to end a greater hardship. Is it so hard to believe that black South Africans were prepared to endure the hardship of a boycott if it helped end the greater injustice and hardship of apartheid?
Well those black South Africans who supported the ANC supported sanctions and those that supported the IFP would have opposed them. For the most part they were, through no fault of their own, not highly educated or informed about these kinds of issues. They would have followed the lead of their political leaders.
The question is why the largest anti-apartheid party supported sanctions whilst two others, the PFP and the IFP opposed sanctions. Why did they produce such different analysis about the same problem? Well the obvious answer was that they had different self interests. The ANC was a party of the left whilst the PFP and IFP were on the center-right. Policies that increase poverty will tend to benefit parties of the left as people who are in poverty or economic dependency are more likely to support parties of the left and less likely to support parties of the center right.
By the eighties at the latest the ANC would have had a further reason to support the strengthening of sanctions. By that time it was quite clear that apartheid was on the way out and that the ANC had established itself as the dominant political party amongst the black majority. This meant that they knew that an ANC dominated government was just a matter of time. In this situation economically damaging sanctions would have had a further benefit for the ANC. It would mean that a lifting of sanctions coinciding with the coming to power of an ANC government would cause an artificially induced economic boom that the ANC cold then take credit for, further consolidating their power.
Of course you could say that the positions of the PFP and the IFP were just as much motivated by self interest in the other direction. My point is don't assume that any of these parties, including the ANC, took the positions they did on this issue because of pure motives.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I would add that that is what the 'armed struggle' was about. It wasn't about speeding up liberation, it was militarily rather ineffective and indeed it may have slowed it down by increasing white fears of Congo-style massacres and dictatorship. Its primary purpose was to establish the ANC's reputation as a 'liberation party', to help it gain power after apartheid ended. In the 1980s, during the so called township war it served as an excellent pretext for violence against other political groups to establish psychological domination of the black population through intimidation and propaganda.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
My point is that apartheid would have come to an end anyway with or without the ANC.
This seems like it's assuming your conclusions rather than demonstrating it. While it may be possible that Apartheid would have ended without the ANC specifically, its fall doesn't seem like the kind of thing that can just "happen" without a lot of efforts by a lot of different people and groups, which gets back to your argument about sanctions.
It ended because it was increasing economically antiquated as it did not allow for labour market flexibility. That what weakened apartheid. The campaigns against apartheid were the result of the weakening of the system not the cause of it.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
I would also point out that part of the reason for the huge dominance of the ANC amongst the black population was the use by the ANC of murder and intimidation against rival parties such as AZAPO, the PAC and, of course, the IFP which degraded their ability to function and intimidated their supporters. By combining this violence with propaganda blaming the rival parties themselves for starting the violence this combination helped cement their psychological domination of the population. [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The campaigns against apartheid were the result of the weakening of the system not the cause of it.
[citation needed]
quote:
as the white skilled-labor shortage worsened, the government became ever more impatient with white trade unions which were hampering the training of blacks and thus blocking black advances into skilled jobs. In 1973 it was announced that blacks, including Africans, could do skilled work in the white areas. The government did not rigorously adhere to its promise that it would consult with white trade unions before making this decision. In 1975 the defence force announced that black soldiers would enjoy the same status as whites of equal rank, and that whites would have to take orders from black officers.
(Giliomee and Schlemmer 1989, p. 124)
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Apartheid.html (do read the full article linked to)
These happened before any major sanctions had been implemented, before the Soweto uprising and all the events that followed it.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As a matter of simple curiosity, what's actually the question?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think that the idea that the former colonial power was better placed to make decisions on behalf of the black South African majority about how to achieve their liberation than were black South Africans themselves is spectacularly obnoxious.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a matter of simple curiosity, what's actually the question?
Well it started as a discussion about the issue of sanctions but then the discussion moved on to the role of the ANC in the ending of Apartheid. I know its a subject that a lot of people have a view on so I thought I'd start a new thread on the topic.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think the assertion is that Apartheid would have fallen without the efforts of the ANC to push it over. And Bibliophile is inviting further discussion of that assertion.
Am I right?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think that the idea that the former colonial power was better placed to make decisions on behalf of the black South African majority about how to achieve their liberation than were black South Africans themselves is spectacularly obnoxious.
Apartheid wasn't abolished in order to liberate black South Africans. Apartheid was abolished for economic reasons. See essay here
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Apartheid.html
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In this situation economically damaging sanctions would have had a further benefit for the ANC. It would mean that a lifting of sanctions coinciding with the coming to power of an ANC government would cause an artificially induced economic boom that the ANC cold then take credit for, further consolidating their power.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
It ended because it was increasing economically antiquated as it did not allow for labour market flexibility. That what weakened apartheid. The campaigns against apartheid were the result of the weakening of the system not the cause of it.
Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways. Sanctions are "economically damaging" and removing them would cause an "economic boom", but have no effect on the stability of the Apartheid state. What really did it in was a lack of "labour market flexibility", something which you'd think would be inherent in such a system from the start and should have caused problems, if it was going to cause problems at all, long before the actual collapse. So let's look at the actual performance of the South African economy. 1984 seems to be when the sanctions movement really started to pick up steam, so how did the South African economy perform from 1978 to 1983 compared with its performance from 1985 to 1990?
Well, from 1978 to 1983 the South African GDP grew from $139 billion* to $158 billion*, which comes out to an annual real growth rate of about 2.7%. The five years prior to that (1973-1978) saw an annual real GDP growth rate of 2.6%. Not great, but not that bad for a multi-year period. For the sake of comparison the UK's real GDP growth for the same periods was 1.4% and 1.0% respectively, so whatever negative effects South Africa's unfavorable "labour market flexibility" had seem to be less of a disadvantage than being British.
So what does South African real GDP growth look like from 1985 to 1990? It comes in at 1.7% per year, so it looks like the sanctions regime cost the South African state about a percentage point of real GDP growth per year. That's pretty big and can really add up over the long haul. UK real GDP growth for the same period was 3.5%. For the rest of the Apartheid period (1990 to 1993, the last full year of Apartheid government) real South African GDP actually shrank (-0.7%/year), something you'd expect from an extended period of sanctions as stockpiles were slowly exhausted.
After the end of sanctions, the South African economy seems to have returned to its original real GDP growth baseline, increasing by about 2.8% per year from 1995 to 2000. (Our comparative UK real GDP growth rate is 1.7% for the same time period.)
So your claim about lack of "labour market flexibility" seems like a Just So Story built to accommodate a pre-existing ideology. While it's true that the South African labor market was fairly inflexible during the Apartheid years, there's no real evidence that this hurt the economy, let alone hurt it enough to topple the government.
--------------------
*All values given in inflation-adjusted year 2000 U.S. dollars.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the assertion is that Apartheid would have fallen without the efforts of the ANC to push it over. And Bibliophile is inviting further discussion of that assertion.
Am I right?
You are right. I am also inviting discussion about what the purpose and results of both sanctions and the 'armed struggle' were.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Apartheid wasn't abolished in order to liberate black South Africans. Apartheid was abolished for economic reasons. See essay here
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Apartheid.html
I see no reason to take anything said by that website seriously.
It definitely has an ax(e) to grind, which has to be taken into account when reading anything connected to or supported by the Liberty Fund, Inc (note that it isn't a charity/non-profit).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Apartheid wasn't abolished in order to liberate black South Africans. Apartheid was abolished for economic reasons. See essay here
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Apartheid.html
I see no reason to take anything said by that website seriously.
Ad Hominem is a nice easy way to answer points isn't it.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Apartheid wasn't abolished in order to liberate black South Africans. Apartheid was abolished for economic reasons. See essay here
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Apartheid.html
I see no reason to take anything said by that website seriously.
Ad Hominem is a nice easy way to answer points isn't it.
When the evidence is so obvious it is foolish to disregard it.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Given that the majority was non-White and the majority of those supported the ANC stance on economic boycotts - which directly affected them - then I think it is entirely reasonable for the rest of the world to take notice. In fact blatantly ignoring their wishes would have been bloody rude.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Apartheid wasn't abolished in order to liberate black South Africans. Apartheid was abolished for economic reasons. See essay here
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Apartheid.html
I see no reason to take anything said by that website seriously.
Ad Hominem is a nice easy way to answer points isn't it.
So is posting links to huge screeds of text and expecting others to do the debunking for you.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Pointing out that a source is obviously untrustworthy is not an ad hominem argument.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
One would like to believe that whatever the proximate causes, the reason why apartheid eventually collapsed and ended was because it was morally wrong, indefensible and its time had long since run out.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Pointing out that a source is obviously untrustworthy is not an ad hominem argument.
The source is Thomas Hazlett. Here is his bio
quote:
Hazlett earned a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1984 and taught economics at the University of California at Davis and the Wharton School. In 1991–92, he served as Chief Economist of the Federal Communications Commission. He was a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute 1998–2001, and a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute 2001–2005. From 2005–2013 Hazlett was Professor of Law and Economics at George Mason University. In 2014, he moved to Clemson University in South Carolina where in addition to his duties as Director of the Information Economy Project he teaches classes on Law and Economics and the Economics of Regulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hazlett
Now I know you may not be a fan of the AEI or the Manhattan Institute but the UCLA, University of California at Davis, Wharton School, the FCC, George Mason University and Clemson University are all considered perfectly respectable institutions, including by liberals. Why would you think that someone who was associated with the study of economics at all those places was 'obviously untrustworthy'?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The same reason I'd consider anyone whose work is hosted by Stormfront untrustworthy.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Apartheid wasn't abolished in order to liberate black South Africans. Apartheid was abolished for economic reasons. See essay here
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Apartheid.html
I see no reason to take anything said by that website seriously.
Ad Hominem is a nice easy way to answer points isn't it.
So is posting links to huge screeds of text and expecting others to do the debunking for you.
I'm not expecting anyone to do any debunking for me. I'm providing a link to supply the background facts. When I don't do this I'm critised for not providing a citation.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm providing a link to supply the background facts. When I don't do this I'm critised for not providing a citation.
So if we're discussing alien life, and I supply a link to the Raelians, we're all fine and dandy?
No. The quality of your link is so poor, it's not a citation in any way, shape or form. But we've been around this block before. Do better.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The same reason I'd consider anyone whose work is hosted by Stormfront untrustworthy.
Not very open minded are you. Someone might have all kinds of academic credentials, they might have all kinds of facts to back up their case, their argument might be entirely logically sound but if its published on a site that you don't agree with ideologically you dismiss it out of hand.
On the 'Iran Deal' thread I backed up a point I was making about US arms sales to Iran with a quote from an article by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh in the New York Times. Now I noticed that not only did absolutely no one object to this but I was told that I had proved my point. Now why was that? A Pulitzer prize is not an academic qualification. The New York Times is neither an academic institution nor is it unbiased. And yet that article was accepted by people whereas an article by someone with a long and distinguished academic career is dismissed out of hand.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The same reason I'd consider anyone whose work is hosted by Stormfront untrustworthy.
Not very open minded are you. Someone might have all kinds of academic credentials, they might have all kinds of facts to back up their case, their argument might be entirely logically sound but if its published on a site that you don't agree with ideologically you dismiss it out of hand.
On the 'Iran Deal' thread I backed up a point I was making about US arms sales to Iran with a quote from an article by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh in the New York Times. Now I noticed that not only did absolutely no one object to this but I was told that I had proved my point. Now why was that? A Pulitzer prize is not an academic qualification. The New York Times is neither an academic institution nor is it unbiased. And yet that article was accepted by people whereas an article by someone with a long and distinguished academic career is dismissed out of hand.
That was the New York Times, a reputable newspaper. The source you provided in this thread is a different creature entirely.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The same reason I'd consider anyone whose work is hosted by Stormfront untrustworthy.
Not very open minded are you.
Could you expand on why you find Stormfront to be a trustworthy source?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
OK lets look at a discussion paper published by Yale University written by Philip Levy who was then one of the faculty members of their Department of Economics
http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp796.pdf
quote:
The apartheid regime against which sanctions were targeted had been in place since the National Party took power in 1948. Prior to the episodes of the mid-1980s, the United Nations adopted an arms embargo in the early 1960s and OPEC nations applied an oil embargo starting in 1973.[removed wall of text]
Now you might say that makes the point about sanctions but it also says that the political disruption and violence practiced by the ANC were effective at bringing pressure to bear on the government. But lets look at the timeline. Apartheid rules started to be relaxed in the early 70s. Demonstrations started to flare up in 1976, afterwards. Botha introduced some reforms and unrest intensified afterwards. In 1989 De Clerk aannounced that he intended to bring an end to apartheid and Mandela was released the next year. Political unrest and violence then reached its height from 1990 to 1994 before things settled down in 1995.
So the pattern always was that Apartheid was weakened and political violence and unrest increased afterwards. That would suggest that the unrest, and the economic damage it caused, were the result of the weakening of the apartheid system not its cause. The unrest then, more or less, ended in 1995 when the new ANC government was able to impose its new order.
[ 28. July 2015, 18:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Bibliophile, the aim of Purgatory is to present your own ideas in your own words, with suitably brief allusions to external sources via links.
Hosts have the discretion to remove any quoted material that looks too long (to them) to qualify as fair use and/or judged so long as to be detrimental to the flow of debate. Which I just have.
Excerpts of a reasonable length to support your argument are fine. Walls of text from third-party sources are not.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The paper you quote very clearly says that protests and resultant instability discouraged lenders and caused economic problems. The sanctions were late to the party but sanctions are about psychology as much as economics. They represent a refusal to have anything to do with a vile regime, they aren't wholly about putting an economic gun to a country's head. This is why the ANC wanted a sporting and cultural boycott too. It's the diplomatic equivalent of refusing to serve someone in a bar.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
Bibliophile, the aim of Purgatory is to present your own ideas in your own words, with suitably brief allusions to external sources via links.
Hosts have the discretion to remove any quoted material that looks too long (to them) to qualify as fair use and/or judged so long as to be detrimental to the flow of debate. Which I just have.
Excerpts of a reasonable length to support your argument are fine. Walls of text from third-party sources are not.
/hosting
I see your point. The article I linked to had a minor economic impact and far more significant was the negative economic impacts of the apartheid labour restrictions and the economic disruption caused by internal political unrest and violent. The article linked to provides statistics and footnotes to detail this.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Apartheid rules started to be relaxed in the early 70s. Demonstrations started to flare up in 1976, afterwards. Botha introduced some reforms and unrest intensified afterwards. In 1989 De Clerk aannounced that he intended to bring an end to apartheid and Mandela was released the next year. Political unrest and violence then reached its height from 1990 to 1994 before things settled down in 1995.
So the pattern always was that Apartheid was weakened and political violence and unrest increased afterwards.
Hold on a sec. Where exactly does Sharpeville fit into your "Apartheid was weakened and political violence and unrest increased afterwards" pattern that you claim is universal? Claiming that "Apartheid was weakened" in 1960 seems very anachronistic.
For that matter, why don't the various disappearances and political murders committed by the Apartheid government count as "political violence"? It might be more accurate to say that under the late-stage Apartheid regime political violence became much harder to conceal, not that it became more prevalent.
[ 28. July 2015, 18:59: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The paper you quote very clearly says that protests and resultant instability discouraged lenders and caused economic problems.
See my point above about the timeline, Unrest and violence was the result of the decline in apartheid rather than its cause. When apartheid had been at its height it had been able to quieten down unrest without too much difficulty
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The sanctions were late to the party but sanctions are about psychology as much as economics. They represent a refusal to have anything to do with a vile regime, they aren't wholly about putting an economic gun to a country's head. This is why the ANC wanted a sporting and cultural boycott too. It's the diplomatic equivalent of refusing to serve someone in a bar.
However as we have seen in places like Cuba and Iran the psychological results of sanctions can often be the reverse. People can 'rally to the flag' against unjust attack from outsiders. Sanctions can strengthen an authoritarian government.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
However as we have seen in places like Cuba and Iran the psychological results of sanctions can often be the reverse. People can 'rally to the flag' against unjust attack from outsiders. Sanctions can strengthen an authoritarian government.
But not when they're requested by a mass movement representing a majority of the population, as in this case. If they though the apartheid regime was being strengthened then the ANC would have called for them to be lifted. You're also underestimating the amount of investment the apartheid government had in their public image and perception of themselves in the world. Cuba relished its status as the little guy standing up to the almighty US, as did Iran (not least because the US had a history of propping up despots in both countries). South Africa wanted to be see as a modern western state, and tried to ally itself with the west. Totally different situations. Even if you think the ANC take on things was wrong, surely black South Africans had the right to call the shots as far as how to deal with their oppressors, barring things that are morally wrong in any situation?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The same reason I'd consider anyone whose work is hosted by Stormfront untrustworthy.
Not very open minded are you.
No-one should have a completely open mind by the time they're old enough to open an account on an internet message board.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The same reason I'd consider anyone whose work is hosted by Stormfront untrustworthy.
Not very open minded are you.
No-one should have a completely open mind by the time they're old enough to open an account on an internet message board.
What is your objection to open mindedness?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The same reason I'd consider anyone whose work is hosted by Stormfront untrustworthy.
Not very open minded are you.
No-one should have a completely open mind by the time they're old enough to open an account on an internet message board.
What is your objection to open mindedness?
The main objection is that too often it's code for a lack of analysis. Or failure to rule out ideas that should be ruled out.
As Terry Pratchett put it, "The problem with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and putting things in it."
Someone rejecting something as false or unreliable is not evidence of a closed mind. It could just as equally be evidence of having analysed evidence and come to a decision on that evidence.
[ 28. July 2015, 22:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The same reason I'd consider anyone whose work is hosted by Stormfront untrustworthy.
Not very open minded are you.
Could you expand on why you find Stormfront to be a trustworthy source?
Martin Heidegger was a supporter of the Nazis when they were in power. Does that mean that his books should be removed from university philosophy departments? Obviously not.
What matters is not where are article is published but whether it is based on facts and well argued.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The same reason I'd consider anyone whose work is hosted by Stormfront untrustworthy.
Not very open minded are you.
Could you expand on why you find Stormfront to be a trustworthy source?
Martin Heidegger was a supporter of the Nazis when they were in power. Does that mean that his books should be removed from university philosophy departments? Obviously not.
What matters is not where are article is published but whether it is based on facts and well argued.
If this supposed to mean that where something is published is irrelevant information, then you're wrong. Where an article is published is one factor that can be relevant to the probability it is based on facts and well argued.
Or are you telling me that you don't adjust your expectations depending on whether you are reading Nature or MAD Magazine?
[ 28. July 2015, 23:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The main objection is that too often it's code for a lack of analysis. Or failure to rule out ideas that should be ruled out.
As Terry Pratchett put it, "The problem with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and putting things in it."
Someone rejecting something as false or unreliable is not evidence of a closed mind. It could just as equally be evidence of having analysed evidence and come to a decision on that evidence.
However I'm not using 'open minded' as code for lack on analysis. Arethosemyfeet commented that he did not wish analyse the content of the essay (written by someone with a very respectable academic career in economics) because is was published by a website he didn't like.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If this supposed to mean that where something is published is irrelevant information, then you're wrong. Where an article is published is one factor that can be relevant to the probability it is based on facts and well argued
Well certainly one way to judge the probability of something being based on facts and well argued without reading it is to see where it is published. An even better way, if you are able to read and understand the work, is to actually read it yourself and form your own judgement.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The main objection is that too often it's code for a lack of analysis. Or failure to rule out ideas that should be ruled out.
As Terry Pratchett put it, "The problem with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and putting things in it."
Someone rejecting something as false or unreliable is not evidence of a closed mind. It could just as equally be evidence of having analysed evidence and come to a decision on that evidence.
However I'm not using 'open minded' as code for lack on analysis. Arethosemyfeet commented that he did not wish analyse the content of the essay (written by someone with a very respectable academic career in economics) because is was published by a website he didn't like.
That's not the comment. That's your gloss on the comment.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
As for the article you're arguing about, here's my briefest analysis: there are flashing lights all over the place that the author has an axe to grind and will interpret things accordingly.
The most obvious one is that in the opening paragraph he declares that apartheid was "socialism with a racist face". Buried in the second-last paragraph, though is a reference to "Right-wing (proapartheid) support".
It's not an article about apartheid. It's an article 'proving' another reason why socialism is bad. The baddies must be socialist.
[ 28. July 2015, 23:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Apartheid rules started to be relaxed in the early 70s. Demonstrations started to flare up in 1976, afterwards. Botha introduced some reforms and unrest intensified afterwards. In 1989 De Clerk aannounced that he intended to bring an end to apartheid and Mandela was released the next year. Political unrest and violence then reached its height from 1990 to 1994 before things settled down in 1995.
So the pattern always was that Apartheid was weakened and political violence and unrest increased afterwards.
Hold on a sec. Where exactly does Sharpeville fit into your "Apartheid was weakened and political violence and unrest increased afterwards" pattern that you claim is universal? Claiming that "Apartheid was weakened" in 1960 seems very anachronistic.
Ah but there was a trigger for the upsurge in unrest and violence of the early sixties, Cato Manor, Sharpeville and the formation and early activity of MK and that was decolonisation. Decolonisation had been largely completed in South and South East Asia and was getting underway in Africa, with Ghana having achieved independence three years earlier. Harold Macmillan had made his 'winds of change' speech in South Africa. People in the PAC and ANC may have felt that apartheid was in a weakened position and it was time to make their move. Apartheid, of course, hadn't weakened at that point and was able to suppress the unrest quite effectively.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For that matter, why don't the various disappearances and political murders committed by the Apartheid government count as "political violence"? It might be more accurate to say that under the late-stage Apartheid regime political violence became much harder to conceal, not that it became more prevalent.
It is generally agreed that the majority of deaths from political violence under apartheid were towards the end of the apartheid era and were so called 'black on black' violence between different black political groups, notably between the ANC, IFP and PAC.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The main objection is that too often it's code for a lack of analysis. Or failure to rule out ideas that should be ruled out.
However I'm not using 'open minded' as code for lack on analysis.
Then why the lack of analysis? Not to be too narcissistic, but there wasn't even a peep out of you in response to a fairly lengthy explanation about why your favorite economic fairy tales don't hold up. If you're so enthusiastic about analysis, how about some accounting for the fall-off in South African real GDP in the wake of sanctions?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
However as we have seen in places like Cuba and Iran the psychological results of sanctions can often be the reverse. People can 'rally to the flag' against unjust attack from outsiders. Sanctions can strengthen an authoritarian government.
If they though the apartheid regime was being strengthened then the ANC would have called for them to be lifted.
Ha, you're very trusting.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Even if you think the ANC take on things was wrong, surely black South Africans had the right to call the shots as far as how to deal with their oppressors, barring things that are morally wrong in any situation?
Ordinary South Africans followed the lead of parties like the ANC. They were not forming its policy there were following it. Black South Africans who followed parties that took a different view, specifically the IFP, followed the lead of that party.
A government's first duty is to responsibly govern its own people and maintain order. It is not obliged to have a political party in another country dictate its trade policy with that country.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The main objection is that too often it's code for a lack of analysis. Or failure to rule out ideas that should be ruled out.
However I'm not using 'open minded' as code for lack on analysis.
Then why the lack of analysis? Not to be too narcissistic, but there wasn't even a peep out of you in response to a fairly lengthy explanation about why your favorite economic fairy tales don't hold up. If you're so enthusiastic about analysis, how about some accounting for the fall-off in South African real GDP in the wake of sanctions?
Except that it wasn't in the wake of sanctions
quote:
If those sanctions were to have played an important role in undermining the apartheid economy, one would expect the imposition of sanctions to mark a break in economic performance. In fact, the break for South Africa occurred much earlier. In the decades leading up to 1974, real GDP in South Africa grew an average of 4.9 percent per year. From 1974 to 1987 it averaged 1.8 percent per year.
In the immediate aftermath of the mid-1980s sanctions, GDP growth accelerated: it was 0.5 percent in 1986, 2.6 percent in 1987, and 3.2 percent in 1988.
http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp796.pdf
As for the economy shrinking from 1990 to 1993 that period not only coincided with a world recession but also with the hight of the political violence in South Africa, something which may have had a bigger impact on the economy.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm providing a link to supply the background facts.
Nope. You provided a link to supply a background opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Policies that increase poverty will tend to benefit parties of the left as people who are in poverty or economic dependency are more likely to support parties of the left and less likely to support parties of the center right.
This is hilarious.
Policies of the right tend to negatively benefit those of poor and moderate means and so the left should get more support from them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A government's first duty is to responsibly govern its own people and maintain order. It is not obliged to have a political party in another country dictate its trade policy with that country.
You don't think there was a moral obligation to oppose the apartheid regime?
quote:
Ha, you're very trusting.
If you're making an allegation against the ANC, come out and make it. You've danced around it in a number of posts, try saying what you mean. It's either that they're black or that they're socialist, so which is it?
[ 29. July 2015, 06:14: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
He can't stand the fact that the SA communists were involved in the anti-apartheid struggle.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you're so enthusiastic about analysis, how about some accounting for the fall-off in South African real GDP in the wake of sanctions?
Yes. I wondered about that in my review of the thread this morning.
Bibliophile, you are under no obligation to respond directly to any post, but Crœsos' detailed economic analysis does get to the heart of your assertion and provides evidence that it is flawed.
I'd also be interested if you have a considered response.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you're so enthusiastic about analysis, how about some accounting for the fall-off in South African real GDP in the wake of sanctions?
Yes. I wondered about that in my review of the thread this morning.
Bibliophile, you are under no obligation to respond directly to any post, but Crœsos' detailed economic analysis does get to the heart of your assertion and provides evidence that it is flawed.
I'd also be interested if you have a considered response.
I do have a considered response and I gave it in my last post, four posts above yours.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
