quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon Scarrow

I came up bang on Nelson Mandela, which is comforting. An interesting test, but some of the questions did not allow for a more qualified argument, or a more nuanced expression of an issue. Still, a nice rough guide. Also good to see that they have dumped the polarity model in favour of the increasingly popular, and useful, quadrant model of intersecting polarities. I often used this when I was teaching to help students come up with more a more precise understanding of classification of texts. I also used it recently, and tongue-in-cheek, to come up with a market segmentation system which will never catch on simply because it is too cynical. Now, if I can find euphemisms for my new categories I might just make a living as a consultant (what a doss).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Delayer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon Scarrow

I came up bang on Nelson Mandela, which is comforting. An interesting test, but some of the questions did not allow for a more qualified argument, or a more nuanced expression of an issue. Still, a nice rough guide. Also good to see that they have dumped the polarity model in favour of the increasingly popular, and useful, quadrant model of intersecting polarities. I often used this when I was teaching to help students come up with more a more precise understanding of classification of texts. I also used it recently, and tongue-in-cheek, to come up with a market segmentation system which will never catch on simply because it is too cynical. Now, if I can find euphemisms for my new categories I might just make a living as a consultant (what a doss).

---

Mandela tends to get an easy ride over here. He perosnaly is not bad (Although his support of Mugabe/Zuma etc shows he is not perfect) but the ANC itself is a very corrupt tribalistic party with a hatred of white people (Arphtied in reverse?)

As for that poll just completed it but how can you put Mugabe and Ghandi in the same sentence and level like they do there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon Scarrow

As a former campaigner against Apartheid I don't think I really did it to feel good about myself actually, Delayer. I happened to vehemently disagree with the notion that one racial minority should hold sway over another. It was't democratic. I'm aware that other regimes aren't democratic, and I have no truck with any of them. Either you believe in democracy, or you don't, simple as that. I wasn't too keen on the events of Tianamen Square either, or the subjugation of Tibet so I am no apologist for China. I hardly think there is a deafening silence on Mugabe's regime. You'd have to be blind and/or deaf not to be aware of the well-documented abuses he has carried out. On that charitable basis, I have to assume you are being ironic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon Scarrow

Oh, and democracy is the rule of the people. Nothing else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon Scarrow

I think we will have to disagree Warren. That said, I understand what you (and Ankhsy) are arguing. I think there is a difference between the Philippines and South Africa in that the former was granted independence and the latter democracy, which are not necessarily the same. Corruption is endemic in many societies, and needs fighting. South Africa, in common with many countries, has a long way to go to achieve its potential. The fact that it has got so much going for it, as you say, should give it a decent chance.

On a wider issue, I have every sympathy with your objection to the views of those who preach without the benefits of relevant experience. (Not that it has stopped generations of religious leaders). I had a similar experience when I first arrived at university and was very wary of becoming involved in the anti-apartheid movement. Having been born and raised in Africa, and having seen some of the corruption of many nations as I grew up I was a little cynical, to say the least, about the idealism of many of the blow-hard students who turned up at union meetings. However, I took the chance to speak to south african students, as well as a range of visiting speakers (including the south african ambassador) and came to the judgement that it was wrong to support a system of government based upon racial enfranchisement, regardless of intelligence, moral probity or any other factor.

As for the granting of independence to other African countries, the issue is less clear. I don't think that there is any doubt that the people of many countries are worse off under independence than they ever were under the empire. The practical difficulty here is that once a nationalistic head of steam is built up by the ringleaders of an independence movement, it is very hard to resist. Such men will always trumpet about the iniquity of foreign rule and how things will be improved once the natives have taken over (often ignoring the fact that the very nationalism they are so fervent about is often a creation of the very power they protest against, e.g. Indian nationalism. Before the Raj there was no India, merely a hotch potch of warring principalities and confederations). The appeal to nationalism, or more accurately a kind of nativism, is hard to counter regardless of the historical facts.

On the other side of the coin we should not forget that the imperial powers did not seize land for altruistic reasons. The imperialist generations were every bit as nationalistic and selfish as those who later argued and, in some cases, fought for independence. Two sides of the same coin, you might argue. But that’s not strictly accurate. It’s more the case that this is all simply the inevitable passage of history, one form of nationalism begets the next and so on. And where nation isn’t the issue, then some other form of group identification.

South Africa is interesting case. I often had disagreements with other students who said it should be given back to the black natives from whom it had been 'stolen'. I argued that those who had been born there were all South Africans, whatever their skin colour and that it was just as wrong to confiscate property from the whites to hand to the blacks as it was for the whites to have appropriated land from the natives in the first place. The fact is, they are all natives now. I also had to point out to some fellow students, that the arrival of the first white settlers was hardly an invasion of some pacifist paradise. The Zulus were as an aggressive a bunch of imperialists as ever lived.

The argument that land should be handed back to the people to whom it once belonged is fairly pointless in principle. It should never be the foundation of any process of reconciliation, but rather a pragmatic device in negotiations for settling grievences. Restitution should not be a right, and instead the situation should always be based upon the optimisation of the present circumstances. People have a greater right to peaceful coexistence in the here and now than they do to notions of past property rights, in my view.

---