6 ms·

There is a fine line between collaboration and dialogue. In South Africa, there were a significant percentage of oppressed people who tried to get along with th

by buyx 9y ago

There is a fine line between collaboration and dialogue. In South Africa, there were a significant percentage of oppressed people who tried to get along with the (white supremecist) apartheid government. They participated in the sham elections that gave them political scraps. They governed the Bantustans that were used to deprive black people of citizenship by driving them into a tiny proportion of the country. The apartheid government ultimately was a creature of greed masquerading behind an ideology. It enabled a part of the population to loot the wealth of South Africa for its own gain, using others as a pool of cheap labour. It deliberately, as a matter of state policy, gave blacks an inferior education, so they could be “hewers of wood and drawers of water”. Yet it was always open to dialogue, as long as that dialogue enabled it to survive on its own terms. The apartheid government did finally capitulate, but only after it realised that it was utterly alone and isolated and almost universally reviled, and the collapse of world communism meant that it wouldn’t be shielded by its erstwhile allies. FW De Klerk, the then leader of South Africa, boldly ended apartheid, but has tended to equivocate about its evil. And many white South Africans remain somewhat ambiguous, at best, about the evil it wrought. Would white South Africans have eventually seen the light if they weren’t isolated and treated as pariahs for much of the 1970’s and 80’s? I expect not. Although I can admire the subject of this article for trying to reach out to individual racists, care needs to be taken to not read too much into his message. Evil ideologies still need to be condemned, unequivocally, since they crave legitimacy, and are often not just “idealistic but misguided concepts in the marketplace of ideas” but well thought out mechanisms for the exploitation and oppression of others.

krastanov 9y ago
You are completely right, but as you condemn the ideology you need to also give a way out (hopefully not a humiliating way out) to those who have been indoctrinated (or those who have gotten used to dehumanizing the "others"). The subject of the article seems to have succeeded in this.
JacobJans 9y ago
> There is a fine line between collaboration and dialogue. I think this is a very important point that a lot of people don't quite get. For example, I am a pacificist. When I tell this to people, they sometimes assume I would stand aside and do nothing if a loved one was threatened with violence. In fact, the opposite is true: I would act aggressively and assertively (or I hope I would). Pacifist != Passive Acting with compassion for those who hate you does not disarm your ability to aggressively support and defend your rights. Really, in such a case, one should strive to be increasingly effective. The author of this article found a point of leverage that was effective in achieving his goals. I don't think I'd call what he was doing "dialogue," even though talking was part of it.
- m_mueller 9y ago
  > The author of this article found a point of leverage that was effective in achieving his goals. I don't think I'd call what he was doing "dialogue," even though talking was part of it. Exactly. It's like using the feather as a replacement to the sword, figuratively speaking. It's essentially brainwashing people, but in a positive sense of the word, i.e. washing out tribal thoughts that are cancerous to a wider open society.
- ggreer 9y ago
  > For example, I am a pacificist. When I tell this to people, they sometimes assume I would stand aside and do nothing if a loved one was threatened with violence. This seems like an own-goal, as the popular perception of pacifism is just that: never using violence. I recommend not using the term on yourself, as it paints the wrong picture in people's minds. If you define pacifism as "only using violence in defense of self or loved ones", then that's totally compatible with getting a concealed carry permit and carrying a gun in public– not exactly most people's idea of pacifism.
  - 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
    The error is in equating "doing something" with "using violence".
    - ggreer 9y ago
      A cryptic response. Besides running away (which is often not possible) what other options are there?
      - e12e 9y ago
        Perhaps somewhat inaccurate wrt a direct threat against family, but this image comes to mind: http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Tiananmen-man-tank.jpg http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Tia...
  - JacobJans 9y ago
1053r 9y ago
This is the difference between individuals and organizations. At no point did the author attempt to "respect" or "open a dialog" with the KKK as an org. (I'd argue his talks were aimed at individuals.) Instead, he opened a respectful dialog with individual Klansmen. The LGBTQ rights movement shows us the same thing. Look at how politicians who used to advocate discrimination modified their stance when family members came out to them. It didn't stop institutions from discriminating against LGTBQ rights directly, but enough brothers, mothers, sisters, sons, best friends, etc. coming out on a one-on-one basis eventually took the wind out of some of the institutional discrimination. The idea that a group of people are less than human because of a particular characteristic is what enables this kind of institutionalized hatred. However, if we open enough one-on-one respectful dialogs across the lines that propose to divide us, the institutions that support those divisions will lose their support and melt away. There is a long way to go. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are rampant not just in the western world, but globally, and institutions reinforce these boundaries daily. However, with enough mature dialog by individuals, we can wear down hatred with respect.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- m_mueller 9y ago
  I hope this doesn't come across as trivializing what you say (if so that's not my intent), for the AoEII players here it's basically the difference between a Monk-rush (where you convert enemies one-by-one and let them turn on each other) and a direct attack. Both are valid strategies - the choice, which to choose is more related to the in-game economics, so not really applicable here. But one shouldn't underestimate the effect it has on the wider 'KKK brotherhood' (or whatever they call themselves) when even a Grand Dragon gives his rope to a black man. One thing though, I recommend everyone interested in this topic to watch the documentary about D. Davis on Netflix: Accidental Courtesy. It shows other (AFAIK failed) dialogs with other extremist groups, particularly a Neo-Nazi as well as rather extremist members of the BLM movement. Other examples, particularly Jews befriending Neo-Nazis, seem to show a pattern: You really have to be a member of the centrally hated target to be able to convince members of such extremist groups. Almost like how antidotes work - a black person can be the antidote to KKK while Jews can be that for Neo-Nazis. Maybe BLM members need to talk with white policemen and vice versa? I'm thinking, as long as it's not someone whose group you really hate, there's always a central pillar left that keeps your belief system up. "Oh well, I guess black people can be pretty smart, but still, those Jews are what's the real danger to society, so I'd better stick to the plan."
tim333 9y ago
>And many white South Africans remain somewhat ambiguous, at best, about the evil it wrought A lot of people involved with South Africa are ambiguous about that. The white government and people made the country much richer than it's surrounding black governed countries and the problem at the borders were always stopping too many africans moving from the surrounding countries to SA rather than visa versa. I had a coloured girlfriend from Jo'berg for a while and she was ambiguous too - no love for apartheid but no desire to live in one of the black governed counties either.
- buyx 9y ago
  The white government and people made the country much richer than it’s surrounding black governed countries I think you’ll find that South Africa’s enormous mineral wealth did much of that. And until the 1960’s or later, the surrounding countries were also white governed. If anything, the money wasted by segregation and the deliberate suppression of human potential[1] held the country back, and is the cause of many of the problems it faces today. I had a coloured girlfriend from Jo'berg for a while and she was ambiguous too - no love for apartheid but no desire to live in one of the black governed counties either. As I alluded to in GP, many mixed-race (“Coloured”), and Indian people were co-opted by the apartheid system, and indoctrinated to feel superior to black Africans, and inferior to whites, as a part of a well-executed divide-and-conquer programme. It isn’t surprising that a visceral fear of blacks is pretty pervasive in many, considering how much effort was explicitly put into making them feel that way. [1] It was logically inconsistent that many racists claimed that blacks were naturally inferior, yet simultaneously sought to deprive them of opportunities to succeed or fail on a meritocratic basis. One wonders if they really believed their own propaganda.
  - ufmace 9y ago
    > I think you’ll find that South Africa’s enormous mineral wealth did much of that I never thought this argument rang true. Many countries with great mineral wealth are quite poor and dysfunctional, and many with little such resources are wealthy and successful anyways. I don't agree with the apartheid racial theories, but it does seem plausible that the white side inherited and followed a successful and long-established culture of good governance (well, at least good for themselves...). Meanwhile, the transitions out was abrupt enough that the culture of the government was removed and replaced with a different culture that was less experienced with government. I suppose in an ideal world, a gradual transition which gave plenty of time for the majority blacks to absorb the same government culture would work better. I know that isn't so easy to do in an environment where there has been such strong discrimination and racism for decades, though. And there's quite a bit of truth to the argument that it's easy for the side that's on top to want their transition out of always being on top to be slower.
danieltillett 9y ago
Apartheid is much more complex than just pure racism and much is tied up in the history (and especially the mythology) of the Afrikaans. As for your question if white South Africans would have seen the light is an interesting question. Certainly the international isolation added to the pressure to change, but Apartheid would have collapsed anyway as demographics doomed it. A good example is Algeria where French rule was always doomed given the demographics on the ground.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
observation 9y ago
And yet... The new rulers are far less effective than the Apartheid government. The cost of bad government is so influential it's nearly hard to imagine. I strongly suspect the moral accounting does not favour your position in the long term, the same argument is expressed here but in the abstract since this is of course an emotive subject. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/ It moves!
- buyx 9y ago
  The new rulers are far less effective than the Apartheid government Are they really? Access to water, sanitation, electricity and housing are far better than they were under apartheid. The AIDS epidemic which started in the last years of apartheid has been tamed through decisive government action. Despite a stubbornly high unemployment rate, blacks have made major economic strides. The macroeconomic situation is more stable than it was in the last years of apartheid. Even crime, as measured by the murder rate, has actually dropped. And the apartheid government was hardly a paragon of competent economic management, running up massive debts to keep itself going, and to wage war on its neighbours and oppress its black population. There are serious issues: education (a legacy of terribly educated teachers perpetuating their ignorance) and public healthcare are awful, and high level corruption represents a risk to the economy, but the idea that the apartheid government ruled benevolently is pretty much discredited everywhere except the darkest corners of the internet. PS. The biggest difference between the apartheid era and the democratic one was just that: in 2016, during local elections the ruling ANC was kicked out of power by voters in some of the largest cities in South Africa. It went quietly and respected the will of the people, with no squads of secret police murdering opponents of the ruling party. Could you have said the same about the apartheid government?
  - observation 9y ago
    We are talking about something very big. It's bad enough this is an emotive political subject, but it's also a complex one. If I can continue to harp on my 'dust mote' fable. The life expectancy was 64 under the previous regime, and is 56 in the current one. Some back of the envelope arithmetic. 8 years x 40 million = 320000000 person years. Let us call that, assuming the higher life expectancy: five million dead. That's the cost of bad government. Silent. Insidious. Real. Now it's complex, because you'll say: "It couldn't be helped, we don't really know if the previous regime would have done better", and I'll agree with you. Then it becomes subjective because nobody can really know the answer and it's impossible to test. I strongly suspect improper rule has led to at least several million avoidable deaths. As I see it, if a government does 99/100 things right, but 1/100 things wrong, and those 1/100 things have a greater impact than the other 99... I think you see what I'm getting at. Good intentions, some gains morally, it's all kind of worthless if the big things aren't got right. To use a Comp Sci analogy, governments have their own version of Big O notation.
ycombinete 9y ago
I don't think this comparison holds up. There's a not-so-fine-line between co-operating with a racist government for scraps of power, as these ostensible leaders did; and trying to communicate with, and understand individuals.
- buyx 9y ago
  It should be noted that the isolation of apartheid South Africa became almost unbearable on an individual level, and it touched the lives of everyone in the country. No international sport (important in white South African culture), no cultural exchanges, no direct flights to much of the world, no British television shows even. South Africa was removed from the Commonwealth. Attempts to break the boycotts by "rebel tours" were met with vandalism and protest. Individual South African sportspeople were treated as villains. That excludes the economic sanctions that drove the apartheid state to bankruptcy. The line between individual, and regime was blurry, because it was known that the apartheid state was voted into power by white South Africans and they had the power to vote it out (as they eventually did). The world decided that apartheid was immoral, and gave it no quarter.
moogly 9y ago
> only after it realised that it was utterly alone and isolated and almost universally reviled, and the collapse of world communism meant that it wouldn’t be shielded by its erstwhile allies I am confused by this sentence. At least, in Europe and US, it was the right-wing parties that supported South Africa's apartheid regime. In Sweden, it had the staunch support by the right-wing Moderate Party led by no other than Carl Bildt. And here's more on the US-ZA ties: http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/19/apartheid-amnesia/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/19/apartheid-amnesia/
- buyx 9y ago
  That’s what I meant. It was viewed as an ally against communism by the Reagan/Bush and Thatcher governments. With the collapse of communism, there was no reason for them to continue to support the apartheid regime.
  - moogly 9y ago
    I see! That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

by buyx 9y ago

krastanov 9y ago

You are completely right, but as you condemn the ideology you need to also give a way out (hopefully not a humiliating way out) to those who have been indoctrinated (or those who have gotten used to dehumanizing the "others"). The subject of the article seems to have succeeded in this.

JacobJans 9y ago

> There is a fine line between collaboration and dialogue. I think this is a very important point that a lot of people don't quite get. For example, I am a pacificist. When I tell this to people, they sometimes assume I would stand aside and do nothing if a loved one was threatened with violence. In fact, the opposite is true: I would act aggressively and assertively (or I hope I would). Pacifist != Passive Acting with compassion for those who hate you does not disarm your ability to aggressively support and defend your rights. Really, in such a case, one should strive to be increasingly effective. The author of this article found a point of leverage that was effective in achieving his goals. I don't think I'd call what he was doing "dialogue," even though talking was part of it.

m_mueller 9y ago
> The author of this article found a point of leverage that was effective in achieving his goals. I don't think I'd call what he was doing "dialogue," even though talking was part of it. Exactly. It's like using the feather as a replacement to the sword, figuratively speaking. It's essentially brainwashing people, but in a positive sense of the word, i.e. washing out tribal thoughts that are cancerous to a wider open society.
ggreer 9y ago
> For example, I am a pacificist. When I tell this to people, they sometimes assume I would stand aside and do nothing if a loved one was threatened with violence. This seems like an own-goal, as the popular perception of pacifism is just that: never using violence. I recommend not using the term on yourself, as it paints the wrong picture in people's minds. If you define pacifism as "only using violence in defense of self or loved ones", then that's totally compatible with getting a concealed carry permit and carrying a gun in public– not exactly most people's idea of pacifism.
- 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
  The error is in equating "doing something" with "using violence".
  - ggreer 9y ago
    A cryptic response. Besides running away (which is often not possible) what other options are there?
    - e12e 9y ago
      Perhaps somewhat inaccurate wrt a direct threat against family, but this image comes to mind: http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Tiananmen-man-tank.jpg http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Tia...
- JacobJans 9y ago

1053r 9y ago

This is the difference between individuals and organizations. At no point did the author attempt to "respect" or "open a dialog" with the KKK as an org. (I'd argue his talks were aimed at individuals.) Instead, he opened a respectful dialog with individual Klansmen. The LGBTQ rights movement shows us the same thing. Look at how politicians who used to advocate discrimination modified their stance when family members came out to them. It didn't stop institutions from discriminating against LGTBQ rights directly, but enough brothers, mothers, sisters, sons, best friends, etc. coming out on a one-on-one basis eventually took the wind out of some of the institutional discrimination. The idea that a group of people are less than human because of a particular characteristic is what enables this kind of institutionalized hatred. However, if we open enough one-on-one respectful dialogs across the lines that propose to divide us, the institutions that support those divisions will lose their support and melt away. There is a long way to go. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are rampant not just in the western world, but globally, and institutions reinforce these boundaries daily. However, with enough mature dialog by individuals, we can wear down hatred with respect.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
m_mueller 9y ago
I hope this doesn't come across as trivializing what you say (if so that's not my intent), for the AoEII players here it's basically the difference between a Monk-rush (where you convert enemies one-by-one and let them turn on each other) and a direct attack. Both are valid strategies - the choice, which to choose is more related to the in-game economics, so not really applicable here. But one shouldn't underestimate the effect it has on the wider 'KKK brotherhood' (or whatever they call themselves) when even a Grand Dragon gives his rope to a black man. One thing though, I recommend everyone interested in this topic to watch the documentary about D. Davis on Netflix: Accidental Courtesy. It shows other (AFAIK failed) dialogs with other extremist groups, particularly a Neo-Nazi as well as rather extremist members of the BLM movement. Other examples, particularly Jews befriending Neo-Nazis, seem to show a pattern: You really have to be a member of the centrally hated target to be able to convince members of such extremist groups. Almost like how antidotes work - a black person can be the antidote to KKK while Jews can be that for Neo-Nazis. Maybe BLM members need to talk with white policemen and vice versa? I'm thinking, as long as it's not someone whose group you really hate, there's always a central pillar left that keeps your belief system up. "Oh well, I guess black people can be pretty smart, but still, those Jews are what's the real danger to society, so I'd better stick to the plan."

tim333 9y ago

>And many white South Africans remain somewhat ambiguous, at best, about the evil it wrought A lot of people involved with South Africa are ambiguous about that. The white government and people made the country much richer than it's surrounding black governed countries and the problem at the borders were always stopping too many africans moving from the surrounding countries to SA rather than visa versa. I had a coloured girlfriend from Jo'berg for a while and she was ambiguous too - no love for apartheid but no desire to live in one of the black governed counties either.

buyx 9y ago
The white government and people made the country much richer than it’s surrounding black governed countries I think you’ll find that South Africa’s enormous mineral wealth did much of that. And until the 1960’s or later, the surrounding countries were also white governed. If anything, the money wasted by segregation and the deliberate suppression of human potential[1] held the country back, and is the cause of many of the problems it faces today. I had a coloured girlfriend from Jo'berg for a while and she was ambiguous too - no love for apartheid but no desire to live in one of the black governed counties either. As I alluded to in GP, many mixed-race (“Coloured”), and Indian people were co-opted by the apartheid system, and indoctrinated to feel superior to black Africans, and inferior to whites, as a part of a well-executed divide-and-conquer programme. It isn’t surprising that a visceral fear of blacks is pretty pervasive in many, considering how much effort was explicitly put into making them feel that way. [1] It was logically inconsistent that many racists claimed that blacks were naturally inferior, yet simultaneously sought to deprive them of opportunities to succeed or fail on a meritocratic basis. One wonders if they really believed their own propaganda.
- ufmace 9y ago
  > I think you’ll find that South Africa’s enormous mineral wealth did much of that I never thought this argument rang true. Many countries with great mineral wealth are quite poor and dysfunctional, and many with little such resources are wealthy and successful anyways. I don't agree with the apartheid racial theories, but it does seem plausible that the white side inherited and followed a successful and long-established culture of good governance (well, at least good for themselves...). Meanwhile, the transitions out was abrupt enough that the culture of the government was removed and replaced with a different culture that was less experienced with government. I suppose in an ideal world, a gradual transition which gave plenty of time for the majority blacks to absorb the same government culture would work better. I know that isn't so easy to do in an environment where there has been such strong discrimination and racism for decades, though. And there's quite a bit of truth to the argument that it's easy for the side that's on top to want their transition out of always being on top to be slower.

danieltillett 9y ago

Apartheid is much more complex than just pure racism and much is tied up in the history (and especially the mythology) of the Afrikaans. As for your question if white South Africans would have seen the light is an interesting question. Certainly the international isolation added to the pressure to change, but Apartheid would have collapsed anyway as demographics doomed it. A good example is Algeria where French rule was always doomed given the demographics on the ground.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

observation 9y ago

And yet... The new rulers are far less effective than the Apartheid government. The cost of bad government is so influential it's nearly hard to imagine. I strongly suspect the moral accounting does not favour your position in the long term, the same argument is expressed here but in the abstract since this is of course an emotive subject. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/ It moves!

buyx 9y ago
The new rulers are far less effective than the Apartheid government Are they really? Access to water, sanitation, electricity and housing are far better than they were under apartheid. The AIDS epidemic which started in the last years of apartheid has been tamed through decisive government action. Despite a stubbornly high unemployment rate, blacks have made major economic strides. The macroeconomic situation is more stable than it was in the last years of apartheid. Even crime, as measured by the murder rate, has actually dropped. And the apartheid government was hardly a paragon of competent economic management, running up massive debts to keep itself going, and to wage war on its neighbours and oppress its black population. There are serious issues: education (a legacy of terribly educated teachers perpetuating their ignorance) and public healthcare are awful, and high level corruption represents a risk to the economy, but the idea that the apartheid government ruled benevolently is pretty much discredited everywhere except the darkest corners of the internet. PS. The biggest difference between the apartheid era and the democratic one was just that: in 2016, during local elections the ruling ANC was kicked out of power by voters in some of the largest cities in South Africa. It went quietly and respected the will of the people, with no squads of secret police murdering opponents of the ruling party. Could you have said the same about the apartheid government?
- observation 9y ago
  We are talking about something very big. It's bad enough this is an emotive political subject, but it's also a complex one. If I can continue to harp on my 'dust mote' fable. The life expectancy was 64 under the previous regime, and is 56 in the current one. Some back of the envelope arithmetic. 8 years x 40 million = 320000000 person years. Let us call that, assuming the higher life expectancy: five million dead. That's the cost of bad government. Silent. Insidious. Real. Now it's complex, because you'll say: "It couldn't be helped, we don't really know if the previous regime would have done better", and I'll agree with you. Then it becomes subjective because nobody can really know the answer and it's impossible to test. I strongly suspect improper rule has led to at least several million avoidable deaths. As I see it, if a government does 99/100 things right, but 1/100 things wrong, and those 1/100 things have a greater impact than the other 99... I think you see what I'm getting at. Good intentions, some gains morally, it's all kind of worthless if the big things aren't got right. To use a Comp Sci analogy, governments have their own version of Big O notation.

ycombinete 9y ago

I don't think this comparison holds up. There's a not-so-fine-line between co-operating with a racist government for scraps of power, as these ostensible leaders did; and trying to communicate with, and understand individuals.

buyx 9y ago
It should be noted that the isolation of apartheid South Africa became almost unbearable on an individual level, and it touched the lives of everyone in the country. No international sport (important in white South African culture), no cultural exchanges, no direct flights to much of the world, no British television shows even. South Africa was removed from the Commonwealth. Attempts to break the boycotts by "rebel tours" were met with vandalism and protest. Individual South African sportspeople were treated as villains. That excludes the economic sanctions that drove the apartheid state to bankruptcy. The line between individual, and regime was blurry, because it was known that the apartheid state was voted into power by white South Africans and they had the power to vote it out (as they eventually did). The world decided that apartheid was immoral, and gave it no quarter.

moogly 9y ago

> only after it realised that it was utterly alone and isolated and almost universally reviled, and the collapse of world communism meant that it wouldn’t be shielded by its erstwhile allies I am confused by this sentence. At least, in Europe and US, it was the right-wing parties that supported South Africa's apartheid regime. In Sweden, it had the staunch support by the right-wing Moderate Party led by no other than Carl Bildt. And here's more on the US-ZA ties: http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/19/apartheid-amnesia/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/19/apartheid-amnesia/

buyx 9y ago
That’s what I meant. It was viewed as an ally against communism by the Reagan/Bush and Thatcher governments. With the collapse of communism, there was no reason for them to continue to support the apartheid regime.
- moogly 9y ago
  I see! That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.