State sponsored crime

[IrishEyes]

We (the whites) were told for years that everything the State did, is good and right. We were blasted with propaganda to such an extent that we never saw the suffering of the non-whites in this country. What we did see, was bomb attacks, limpet mines, land mines on farm roads, and all of these went to discredit the black masses. They didn't have a choice - we didn't give them a political voice to raise their issues. My father's office in Natal province was blown up with a limpet mine in 1987, his interpreter (a black guy) blown to shreds, bits of the poor guy lying all over the show. My dad only lost his hearing for a couple of months. We lived through it. Academic instruction was sidelined in schools to teach kids how to discern between different bombs. We had plastic models of different Russian and Chinese-made bombs and rifles hanging in every public space so we can recognize them. Nowhere were we told that the Blacks were suffering, and an armed struggle was their last resort. We were living in a fool's paradise, much like your average German was in the late '30s and early '40s.

Hey, B-

How old were you when this was going on?

Did you have any association with blacks?

Did you have access to international television or newspaper articles?

 

When the stuff hit the fan, how old were you? Did you feel betrayed by your government? Were you angry that you'd been lied to, or did you see the 'bombardment of propaganda' as lies?

 

I'm asking because I've always wondered what the typical South African thought and felt during this time, yet I've never had the chance to ask one. So if you don't mind your brain being picked a bit, I'd really appreciate the insight. Thanks!

[Qfwfq]

In what sense am I projecting? The politicians and military couldn't have quite the same understanding, simply because they weren't physicists. It's also obvious that the pols and mils weren't going to so easily give up the idea of using the new toy whenever it could be handy. They were responsible for the decision. Even if Grove was as dumb as you say, his head was saved by the fact that they didn't really want to be informed better, they preferred to think the new weapon could be used.

because no one *really* knew how bad it was.

The physicists knew. Radioactivity wasn't a new thing to them, they had been working withit for a few decades in the lab and knew they had to watch out.

 

I agree that civilians were targeted, but the genie was way out of the bottle by 1945, and the Axis *did* start it, both with Coventry/London Blitz as well as the Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March and other well-known Japanese atrocities against civilians in combination with the very apparent lack of opposition to the Japanese military government among the populace made it very easy to justify--at least at the time.

The Nipponic mentality was clearly different from that in Europe and America, it always has been and still is somewhat. It was easier to train soldiers not to surrender, to blind faith and even to be kamikazes.

 

Discussing alternatives is a very subtle matter, but I'm sure the pols didn't put much of an effort into avoiding it and the mils were certainly eager to use their new toy.

[Qfwfq]

I'm asking because I've always wondered what the typical South African thought and felt during this time, yet I've never had the chance to ask one.

Although I wasn't there, I know there was a lot of repression against those white people that were against apartheid. Activists were persecuted, imprisoned as subversives and called Communists, causing social isolation.

 

Of course, this happened in the framework of an ingrained local mentality which made it possible. When you are born and grow up in a place, it isn't easy to see things differently.

[Boerseun]

Irish, in response to your post:

 

I grew up through it, and when it finally came to an end, I was 18 years old.

 

At the time of the bombing, I was 11 years old. Who did it, is anybody's guess, seeing as my father was being investigated by the Security Police because he spoke out against the system, and being a State Prosecutor, he was seen as 'rotting the system from the core'. It was either an assasination attempt against him by the State, or and ANC bombing of a government installation. We'll never know.

 

We never had any dealings with the blacks. They had their towns and schools and universities and churches and shops. They had their own beaches, trains, taxis, any thing you can imagine, was segregated and duplicated. There was literally a seperate country for every race, within the borders of one physical country. Because of this rigid segregation, there wasn't much contact between the races. The topic was avoided in civilized company, everybody knew it was an injustice, until you get to Church on Sunday and hear it being said from the pulpit that Apartheid was God's will.

 

White South Africa had one of the highest living standards in the world. It was literally a well-advanced Western country living side-by-side with a desperately poor Third World country. And I think that's what blew it - not the altruistic 'equal rights' issue, but more the harsh but simple fact that so much wealth and so much poverty simply can't exist side-by-side. The pressure was simply to great.

 

The fact is that a lot of people were traumatised in living through it, whites were under the impression that blacks were slightly less human, but mostly blacks were invisible to whites. I think there's a lot of suppressed anger amongst the black community in SA, and I think social pressure will force the government to lean even further towards Socialism.

 

It's all very complex, and I think it'll take years for the worst of the damage to be undone. I am getting out of here, though, because even though I was never actively involved in it, there's severe discrimination against whites today. Can't find work, because of affirmative action, and such. Today, whites are suffering under 'Apartheid' in reverse. And I suppose it could be justified, but seeing as I had nothing to do with it, I'm going to move either to Australia or New Zealand where I can be appreciated for my skills and contribution, and not the colour of my skin. It will be a sad day, though, 'cause this is the most beautiful piece of land on Earth, where my ancestors first landed in 1652. But after 350 years, we're still seen as Europeans, and not regarded as natives of the land. We're the colonists. And the natives took a big dislike in us.

[IrishEyes]

Thanks for that, B. I really appreciate you taking the time to share that.

It sounds both horrible and fascinating at the same time. Horrible that anyone would have to live through it, but fascinating to finally hear from someone that did.

Whole separate systems for each race? Sounds like the South in the 60s, with the blacks. And the Southwest in the 50s, with the NAs. In some places, I don't think it's a whole lot different now, but that seems to be more of a choice. Of course, I'm just a mostly white chick living in the rural outskirts of the capital of the country, so what do I know, really?

I've never been black. But I've dealt with discrimination when I lived in Georgia. I moved there from Arizona in my 8th grade year. My best friend was black in AZ, and I had no idea that there was still such a problem between races in this country. I'd spent most of my life on the west coast, and didn't really encounter it. But I was white, at least to the people in Georgia, so I was in the minority at my school. And that kept me from most of the kids. But the bigger thing was that I didn't automatically hate black people, so that kept me separated from the white kids. The only friends I had through that year were other transplants that didn't really get it either. Very lonely year for me.

Anyhow, I'm certain it was nothing compared to what you went through, but it still seems similar to me.

And I doubt many indiginous peoples will ever truly consider colonists as natives. I now I still hear the talk about 'pale skins' whenever I visit my father, who lives very near to a reservation. There is still talk about all of the old injustices done to 'our people', and hopes for reparations.

Was what the US did to the Native tribes 'state sponsored crimes'? Well, I certainly think so. But then again, I think it's well past the time to get over it, get off the Res, and make something better of the life you've been given.

As you might guess, i don't visit my father very often...

[Boerseun]

Sorry for flogging a dead horse and bumping a dead thread, but....

 

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/

 

Read the above article in the National Geographic, almost a year old. And then tell me that Dubya's attempt at telling the world that 'nobody could foresee a catastrophe of this magnitude' isn't an attempt to pass the buck, and attempt to make the US guilty of the topic of this thread?

 

The tragedy in New Orleans panned out exactly as foretold in the National Geographic, and exactly as the hurricane center said. To the 'T'. So much so, that reading the above article sounds more like a current news report than a prediction. They have warned the gov't long before it happened, that it will happen. Yet, the gov't did nothing in preparation.

 

Is this a 'State Sponsored Crime'?

[bartock]

Sorry for flogging a dead horse and bumping a dead thread,

People suffering in New Orleans will not think it is an old thing to talk about.They are just waking up and realizing that they are victums of a state crime.

 

 

 

Read the above article in the National Geographic, almost a year old. And then tell me that Dubya's attempt at telling the world that 'nobody could foresee a catastrophe of this magnitude' isn't an attempt to pass the buck, and attempt to make the US guilty of the topic of this thread?

Every state be it US or China,who know the facts ,and then start thinking how to make fast money out of a tragidy, are guilty of crimes against humanity.

 

 

The tragedy in New Orleans panned out exactly as foretold in the National Geographic, and exactly as the hurricane center said. To the 'T'. So much so, that reading the above article sounds more like a current news report than a prediction. They have warned the gov't long before it happened, that it will happen. Yet, the gov't did nothing in preparation.

Is this a 'State Sponsored Crime'?

yes it is a STATE SPONSORED CRIME.I would not be surprised if all the new business created by ketrina is given to THE FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES OF .......you know who :lol:

I have a lot of questions on my mind....

1.Like Colin Powell said that the gov only forgot those who did not have enough resources(i.e who were not rich enough) to get out of the city.

So not planing ahead for the poor is also a state sponsored crime?

2.To have the worlds state of the art military(not to forget the bigest part of the budget goes to the military :evil: ) enganged in another VIETNAM :) in the name of oil; while all of the resources going into the military could go into EDUCATION, HEALTH, UNEMPLOYMENT,WELFARE; does not make sense to me.

So putting a big portion of resources for the entertainment of the ELITE at the expence of the masses is a state sponsored crime?

3.Taking away the freedom of speech is the first step towards an opperessive system of state.So any thing taht takes us toward opperession is a crime.

So changing :hihi: the law/constitution that takes away the civil liberties is also a state sponsored crime?

[C1ay]

Sorry for flogging a dead horse and bumping a dead thread, but....

 

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/

 

Read the above article in the National Geographic....

One should also read the following articles to help aid in who's to blame.

Louisiana Officials Indicted Before Katrina Hit

Brown speaks up un=hypography pw=hypograhy

FEMA Pilot: Rescue Began Just Hours After Flood

 

And this one from the Saturday after the hurricane.

Many Evacuated, but Thousands Still Waiting:

Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday...

 

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said...

 

I also feel the need to point something out about the structure of US government for non-US citizens to aid their understanding.

 

The US is a federation of individual states, each, in and of itself, a sovereign nation. One could think of the federation being like the European Union and the state's being the individual countries of Europe. The governor's of each state do not work for the federal government and are not accountable to such, they work for the people of their state. Each state has state rights that trump federal government. In an emergency such as Katrina it is up to state officials to request federal assistance and even then the state controls the flow of that assistance.

 

When FEMA is called in, FEMA manages the use of resources which are supplied by the state. FEMA has no assets. It uses state transportation for evacuations, state supplies of food and water, state troops for manpower. It is up to the state to provide these, FEMA cannot simply wrest them from the control of state officials.

 

The state failed it's people miserably in this disaster.

[infamous]

 

The state failed it's people miserably in this disaster.

All very good points C1ay; It is ironic how people want the federal government to stay out of their business untill they get themselves in trouble. The authorities in New Orleans have known for many years that the system of levees were insufficient to the task but instead of investing money in this wall of protection they chose to pour money into the corrupt gambling enterprize. Unless you want the government to control every facet of your life, don't expect it to be responsible for every problem that comes along.

[Mr. Potato Head]

All very good points C1ay; It is ironic how people want the federal government to stay out of their business untill they get themselves in trouble. The authorities in New Orleans have known for many years that the system of levees were insufficient to the task but instead of investing money in this wall of protection they chose to pour money into the corrupt gambling enterprize. Unless you want the government to control every facet of your life, don't expect it to be responsible for every problem that comes along.

 

Louisiana is a democratic state. Apparently they do want the federal government to be big and take care of them. It's just that when the govt does send money, they waste it. When they have the opportunity to take full advantage of what their political doctrines call for, they do not take it. Both the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana should be on trial for gross negligence resulting in death. Maybe not for the death of all who died, considering there was a hurricane, but the death for those who died as a result of their inaction. Surely, one is enough, although there are hundreds (or thousands?).

 

I also applaud Bush for taking responsibility considering the only spine in Louisiana leadership seems to exist solely in the pointer finger.

[C1ay]

Both the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana should be on trial for gross negligence resulting in death. Maybe not for the death of all who died, considering there was a hurricane, but the death for those who died as a result of their inaction.

No. Louisiana specifically received over $60 million from FEMA since 1998 to retrofit property, improve flood control facilities and buy out flood prone homeowners because of National Hurricane Center warnings that New Orleans would eventually face a catastrophic hurricane. Those at the level of local government that misused these funds are directly guilty for the murder of those that died. They should be charged with a minimum of manslaughter.

[Mr. Potato Head]

No. Louisiana specifically received over $60 million from FEMA since 1998 to retrofit property, improve flood control facilities and buy out flood prone homeowners because of National Hurricane Center warnings that New Orleans would eventually face a catastrophic hurricane. Those at the level of local government that misused these funds are directly guilty for the murder of those that died. They should be charged with a minimum of manslaughter.

 

I don't disagree. Do we know specifically who those people are?

[C1ay]

I don't disagree. Do we know specifically who those people are?

Yes, many are already under indictment for misuse of these funds. I think the mayor and governor should be examined for impeachment as well.

[Mr. Potato Head]

Is this after the catastrophe or was it already in progress?

[infamous]

Yes, many are already under indictment for misuse of these funds. I think the mayor and governor should be examined for impeachment as well.

Absolutely, and I think that a lot of the initial finger pointing at the federal government was an attempt to distract the attention away from the true culprits, the mayor and governor to reiterate what you have already said.

[C1ay]

Is this after the catastrophe or was it already in progress?

It was already in progress. See Louisiana Officials Indicted Before Katrina Hit.