In Amerika word daar gewoonlik vier rasgroepe onderskei: blankes, swartes, Hispaniste en Indiane. Anders as in Suid-Afrika is blankes daar die meerderheidsgroep. Soos in Suid-Afrika is die Amerikaanse blankes oorspronklik van Europa en die swartes van Afrika afkomstig. Die groot verskille (bv kultureel) tussen blankes en swartes is algemeen bekend. Die Spaans- en Portugeessprekende Hispaniste, afkomstig uit Sentraal- en Suid-Amerika, speel in Amerika ‘n beduidende rol maar glad nie in Suid-Afrika nie. Die Amerikaanse bevolkingsgroep waarvan ons plaaslik seker die minste kennis dra, is die Indiane. Hulle is minder as 2% van die Amerikaanse bevolking teenoor 13% swartes en 16% Hispaniste. Daar is ‘n vyfde Amerikaanse bevolkingsgroep, die Asiate, wat groter as die Indiane is, naamlik 5%, maar hulle is hoogs onprominent in die medediging om bevoordeling. Dit is die Hispaniste, Indiane en veral die swartes wat op bevoordeling ten koste van die blankes aandring.
Die Indiane (American Indians) word deesdae Native Americans genoem, enersyds om hulle van die Asiate te onderskei en andersyds om te beklemtoon dat hulle hulle voor die ander rasgroepe in Amerika gevestig het. Alle nie-Indiane verkry sodoende die status van setlaars, terwyl die Indiane in werklikheid via die Bering-seestraat uit Asië na Amerika geëmigreer het. In Suid-Afrika het die Khoi-San deesdae ‘n soortgelyke dierbaarheidstatus van “altyd hier gewees.” Die blankes, wat oor die see van Europa na Suid-Afrika gekom het, word as setlaars en gronddiewe gebrandmerk. Die swartes, wat te voet uit die noordooste Suid-Afrika binnegekom het, word egter nie setlaars en gronddiewe genoem nie. Hulle misbruik hulle verswelgende meerderheid om die blankes insgelyks van gronddiefstal te beskuldig. Die destydse Kaapse slawe word ook nie as setlaars gebrandmerk nie. Afgesien van kultuur is die groot onderskeid tussen die blankes en die ander bevolkingsgroepe in wat hulle konkreet tot stand gebring het. Dit word deesdae egter polities byderwets verswyg. Die Khoi-San en slawe het eintlik niks noemenswaardigs nagelaat nie. Maar polities byderwetses kom deesdae tot hulle redding met die bewering dat die Khoi-San en slawe op ‘n mistieke manier Afrikaans in die kombuise gefabriseer het (Praag 11 Februarie). ‘n Nuwe taal kan blykbaar soos ‘n haas uit ‘n hoed getrek word. Daarna het die Boere/Afrikaners glo naas grond ook hierdie taal van hulle gesteel.
Die afmetings wat die bevoordeling van nie-wittes aanneem, is ongelooflik. In Amerika verkies mense om indien enigsins moontlik eerder aan ‘n minderheidsgroep te behoort as om as lid van die meerderheidsgroep, die blankes, op eie prestasie aangewese te wees. By Amerikaanse minderheidsgroepe is daar min(der) druk op individuele prestasie. Soos in Suid-Afrika verseker groeplidmaatskap bevoordeling, met net die blankes wat vir benadeling uitgesonder word. ‘n Bekende voorbeeld is Todd, die eggenoot van Sarah Palin. Sy was in 2008 die visepresidentskandidaat in John McCain se onsuksesvolle verkiesingsveldtog. Todd Palin is net ‘n agste Eskimo (of Inuit/Aleut, soos hulle deesdae genoem word). “It was a tricky thing to be just Native enough to seem glamorous, but not so Native that it was obvious. Todd could easily pass for all white” (Joe McGinniss, The rogue: Searching for the real Sarah Palin, New York: Crown Publishers, 2011, 336p; Amazon Kindle $12,99, 320). “When he gets drunk he starts talking like a Native” (327). ‘n Soortgelyke geval is Ward Churchill (gebore in 1947) wat ‘n Indiaan wil wees en op wie ek in hierdie rubriek fokus.
Churchill was ‘n dosent in etniese studies aan die University of Colorado Boulder. Teen 2005 het hy berug geword weens ‘n 2001-essay (wat in 2003 tot ‘n boek aangedik is) waarin hy beweer dat die 9/11-aanval ‘n natuurlike gevolg van die Amerikaanse buitelandse beleid was. Hierdie beleid is gekarakteriseer as “ongoing genocidal American imperialism.” Die mense wat in die Wêreldhandelsentrum omgekom het, die “technocratic corps,” was volgens Churchill “little Eichmanns.” Die universiteit het Churchill se navorsingsbedrywighede ondersoek en hom in 2007 weens plagiaat en die fabrisering en vervalsing van navoringsresultate ontslaan. Hierna het ‘n reeks hofsake gevolg, wat eers in 2013 finaal in die guns van die universiteit beslis is.
Die radikalisering van Churchill se opvattings word aan die Amerikaanse deelname (1964-1973) aan die Vietnamese oorlog toegeskryf. “It was the armed struggle waged by the Vietnamese themselves – without the pretense of systematic support from the American pacifists – which finally forced the war to a close” (Churchill, bron hier onder, Kindle 1039). In 1978 het Churchill as ‘n regstellende aksie-amptenaar sy loopbaan aan die University of Colorado Boulder begin. In 1990 het hy ‘n medeprofessor en in 1997 ‘n volle professor in etniese studies geword, met Indiaanse studies as sy spesialiteit. Sy aanstelling was klaarblyklik van ‘n polities byderwetse aard (“a special opportunity position”) want hy het ‘n magistergraad gehad pleks van, soos normaalweg vereis word, ‘n doktorsgraad. In 1992 het Alfred University ‘n eredoktorsgraad aan Churchill toegeken.
Churchill se aanspraak op die status van etniese Indiaan is betwis. In 1992 het hy gesê hy is ‘n agste Creek en ‘n sestiende Cherokee. Die volgende jaar het hy beweer dat hy ‘n sestiende Creek en Cherokee is en in 2005 drie-sestiendes Cherokee. In die 1930-sensus is albei sy ouers egter as blank beskou. Die Indiane aanvaar iemand as een van hulle ras as hy minstens ‘n kwart Indiaanse bloed het; iets wat Churchill nie kon bewys nie (Wikipedia).
Die hooftema van Churchill se Indiaanse opvattings is die beweerde destydse volksmoord en die voortgesette onderdrukking van Indiane deur blankes. Soos Nelson Mandela beskou hy gewapende stryd as die beste en selfs enigste manier om die beweerde onreg reg te stel. Diegene wat pasifisme bepleit, word sonder meer rassiste genoem. In Kindle-formaat is Churchill die mede-outeur van ‘n boek teen kapitalisme. Hy het ook ‘n voorwoord geskryf by ‘n boek oor Islamofobia en een by ‘n boek oor die George Jackson Brigade, wat in die jare sewentig banke beroof en aan gewapende opstand deelgeneem het. Daar is ook Acts of rebellion: The Ward Churchill reader (Routledge, 2003, 506p; Amazon Kindle $61,50), wat onbetaalbaar duur is.
Ek het die volgende boek van Ward Churchill gelees: Pacifism as pathology: Reflections on the role of armed struggle in North America (Oakland: AK Press, 1998/2007, 160p; Amazon Kindle $5,70). Dit is opgedra aan “the fallen warriors of the armed struggle” met die hoop “liberation will come.” In die voorwerk word Diana Oughton van die Weather Underground Organization (‘n amptelik gelyste terreurgroep) gehuldig. Sy het in 1970 saam met Ted Gold en Terry Robbins gesterf toe die bomme wat hulle gemaak het, ontplof het.* Die 1998-voorwoord is deur Ed Mead geskryf en die 2007-voorwoord deur Derrick Jensen. Na Churchill se teks volg daar kommentaar deur Mike Ryan. Hierdie e-boek is ‘n ramp omdat die teks op talle plekke moeilik leesbaar is. Die anargistiese tema dra verder tot ‘n irriterende leeservaring by. Uit die newetitel blyk dat dit nie net om die “bevryding” van Amerika gaan nie, maar om dié van die hele Noord-Amerikaanse kontinent. Die newetitel van die eerste uitgawe was: “Notes on an American pseudopraxis.”
[* Dit herinner aan die manier waarop Robert Waterwich en Coline Williams, meelopers van die MK-terroris Ashley Kriel, in 1989 omgekom het toe die bom wat hulle by die magistraatsgebou in Athlone wou plant, ontplof het. Die ANC-stadsraad het in 2005 ‘n monument vir hulle onthul. In 2008 is hierdie monument gesteel en as skrootmetaal verkoop. In 2009 het die DA-stadsraad ‘n nuwe monument vir hulle opgerig.]
Ek skryf vervolgens agtereenvolgend oor die teks van Mead, Jensen, Churchill en Ryan, voordat tot ‘n aantal gevolgtrekkings gekom word.
Ed Mead
Mead begin sy voorwoord met ‘n aanhaling van Mao Tsetung: “Power grows from the barrel of a gun” (Kindle 408). Die rede waarom hy gevra is om die voorwoord te skryf, is dalk:
“I just finished an eighteen-year stretch in prison for having been a part of a political organization that bombed, among other places, the headquarters of the Department of Corrections in Olympia; the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Everett, and the FBI office in the Tacoma federal courthouse” (430). “My associates and I paid a terrible price. That cost included the loss of comrades Bruce Siedel and Ralph ‘Poe’ Ford. Poe died while planting a pipe bomb in the refrigeration mechanisms located in the back wall of the Safeway store on the 15th, and Bruce was killed in a shootout with police at a failed George Jackson Brigade bank robbery. The cost also included the loss to Seattle’s progressive movement of many committed militants, who ended up spending many years in various state and federal prisons” (435).
“I served nearly two decades behind bars as a result of armed actions conducted by the George Jackson Brigade … I still find one conclusion inescapeable: Pacifism as a strategy of achieving social, political, and economic change can only lead to the dead end of liberalism ” (439). “Nonviolence as a strategy thus amounts to a form of liberal accommodation and is bound to fail. The question is not whether to use violence in the global class struggle to end the rule of international imperialism but only when to use it” (444). “I am … objecting to the privileges that pacifists are often able to enjoy at the expense of the global class struggle (one does not see too many pacifists of color these days) … I managed to do my time [in prison] in a manner I believe was consistent with communist principles” (449). “If at some point we are bound to engage in violent struggle against the government … it is imperative that we do so in a manner calculated to win. The object is to win” (455).
“The television screens of the era [circa 1969] … showed US troops reeling in defeat before Vietnamese liberation forces supplied by both China and the USSR. The same images would shortly be aired with respect to Cambodia and Laos. There were other revolutionary victories in places like Cuba, Nicaragua, Mozambique, and Angola. Substantial guerrilla struggles were being waged at the time in Uruguay, El Salvador, Guartemala, Palestine, Rhodesia, South Africa, the Philippines, and elsewhere. We future Brigade members could see a world in which progressive forces were on the offensive internationally and imperialism was everywhere in retreat. All we needed to do to bring about final victory, it seemed, was apply pressure on the cracks of empire by opening up fronts in the belly of the beast [the US] itself” (463). ‘n Gewapende stryd is in verskeie stede dwarsoor Amerika gevoer. “We could readily envision a day when all of these seemingly isolated elements would join into one huge fist,* battering the whole structure of capitalist oppression to its knees. That was the atmosphere in which the Brigade developed. Conditions seemed genuinely ripe for revolution” (469). “The sacrifice did not accomplish the desired political goals” (474). [* ‘n Gebalde vuis is ook die Nelson Mandela-saluut.]
Derrick Jensen
In sy voorwoord beklemtoon Jensen sowel sosiale as omgewingsgeregtigheid. Die blankes besoedel glo nie net die samelewing nie maar ook die natuur. Dit is die bekende mite van hoe vreedsaam die inheemses voor die koms van die blankes gelewe het en hoe hulle deurgaans in harmonie met die natuur was. “The dominant [white] culture is killing the planet” (52) [and] “commits genocide against every indigenous culture it encounters, that degrades and impoverishes the vast majority of humans” (57). “Churchill doesn’t, of course, argue for blind, unthinking violence. He merely argues against blind, unthinking nonviolence” (67). “Those in power are insatiable. They will do anything – lie, steal, kill – to increase their power” (71). “Long ago … Indians and others of the indigenous asked nicely for members of this culture [whites] to stop stealing their land … It will not stop so long as there is anything left for it to exploit” (71). “Without a healthy landbase you have nothing … no landbase means no life” (87). “Violent and nonviolent approaches to social change are complementary”* (250). “Violence … works. It works dreadfully well. And it can work for liberation as well as subjugation” (326). [* Dink aan hoe die ANC met die NP-regering onderhandel het en terselfdertyd sy gewapende stryd tot die 1994-verkiesing voortgesit het.]
Ward Churchill
In Amerika is dit die konserwatiewes en ondersteuners van die Republikeinse Party wat aandring op die reg op vuurwapenbesit, sodat hulle hulleself teen misdadigers kan beskerm. Die linkse liberale en ondersteuners van die Demokratiese Party wil hierdie reg inkort. Hierdie linkses is ideologies baie nader aan Ward Churchill as die konserwatiewes. Maar dit is liberale wat die sterkste voorstanders van vrede en passiwiteit is. “Many people on the left demonstrated an irrational aversion to firearms … this translated into a posture of deliberate self-disempowerment … To call such practice selfdefeating is to dramatically understate the case” (493). Churchill beywer hom gevolglik vir “‘hands on’ exposure to weapons … only by becoming familiar with weapons – to some extent ‘demystifying’ them – could one strip away the kind of psychic baggage which precluded rational decision-making with respect to their potential utility” (498). Daardie “demystifying” word “personal empowerment” genoem (510). Dit het Churchill daartoe beweeg “to look at … the Black Panthers … in a whole new way” (510). Die Black Panther Party (1966-1982) het hom vir ‘n aparte Amerikaanse staat vir swartes beywer. Die anargis en bewonderaar van terrorisme, Noam Chomsky (gebore in 1928), dien ook as inspirasie (581, 1052).
Assata Shakur (gebore in 1947) was lid van die Black Panther Party en die Black Liberation Army. Sy is ‘n veroordeelde moordenares en die eerste vrou wat in Amerika amptelik as ‘n terroris gelys is. Sy word soos volg goedkeurend aangehaal: “It is the obligation of every person who claims to oppose oppression to resist the oppressor by every means at his or her disposal. Not to engage in physical resistance, armed resistance to oppression, is to serve the interests of the oppressor, no more, no less. There are no exceptions to the rule, no easy out” (600). Churchill verkwalik bv die Jode dat hulle hulle nie gewelddadig teen die Nazi’s verset het nie (632). Bruno Bettelheim (1903-1990), wat self in die Dachau- en Buchenwald-konsentrasiekamp was, verwys na “the role of passivity and nonviolence in amplifying the magnitude of the Holocaust” (656). “The persecution of the Jews was aggravated, slow step by slow step, when no violent fighting back occurred” (680). Die enkele opstand in Auschwitz was ‘n uitsondering. Daar was ook “the armed revolt of the Warsaw Ghetto during April and May 1943” (715).
“The example of the Jews under nazism is, to be sure, extreme. History affords us few comparable models by which to assess the effectiveness of nonviolent opposition to state policies, at least in terms of the scale and rapidity with which consequences were visited upon the passive. Yet it is precisely this extremity, which makes the example useful; the Jewish experience reveals with stark clarity the basic illogic at the very core of pacifist conceptions of morality and political action” (690). Vir die Jode “nonviolence was a catastrophic failure, and only the most extremely violent intervention by others saved Europe’s Jews at the last moment from slipping over the brink of utter extinction. Small wonder that the survivors insist, ‘Never again!’” (734). Die ANC-kamerade se “Never again” wanneer na apartheid verwys word, kom klaarblyklik hiervandaan.
Mohandas* Gandhi (1869-1948) word dikwels voorgehou as ‘n toonbeeld van suksesvolle vreedsame protes. Maar Churchill beweer “Gandhi’s movement showed little likelihood of forcing England’s abandonment of India. Without the global violence that destroyed the Empire’s ability to forcibly control its colonial territories (and passive populations), India might have continued indefinitely in the pattern of minority rule marking the majority of South Africa’s modern history” (741). “It required/requires no particularly sophisticated analysis to perceive that the imposition of colonial/neocolonial forms of exploitation upon Third World populations entailed/entails a degree of systemic violence sufficient to ensure the permanence of their revolt until it succeeds” (1061). [* Mahatma (Sanskrit ‘great soul’) is ‘n verdierbaring van Gandhi soortgelyk aan die naam “Madiba” vir Nelson Mandela.]
‘n Ander prominente voorbeeld van beweerde suksesvolle vreedsame protes is Martin Luther King jr (1929-1968). Hierteen argumenteer Churchill op ‘n soortgelyke wyse.
“The limited success attained by Martin Luther King and his disciples in the United States during the 1960s, using a strategy consciously guided by Gandhian principles of nonviolence, owes a considerable debt to the existence of less pacifist circumstances” (746). “Without the spectre, real or perceived, of a violent black revolution at large in America during a time of war, King’s nonviolent strategy was basically impotent in concrete terms” (754). “There simply has never been a revolution, or even a substantial social reorganization, brought into being on the basis of the principles of pacifism. In every instance, violence has been an integral requirement of the process of transforming the state” (773).
“Pacifist praxis (or, more appropriately, pseudo-praxis), if followed to its logical conclusions, leaves its adherents with but two possible outcomes to their line of action: 1. To render themselves perpetually ineffectual (and consequently unthreatening) in the face of state power, in which case they will likely be largely ignored by the status quo and self-eliminating in terms of revolutionary potential; or, 2. To make themselves a clear and apparent danger to the state, in which case they are subject to physical liquidation by the status quo and are self-eliminating in terms of revolutionary potential. In either event – ineffectuality or suicide – the objective conditions leading to the necessity for social revolution remain unlikely to be altered by purely pacifist strategies” (773).
“Pacifism is racist. In displacing massive state violence onto people of color both outside and inside the mother country, rather than absorbing any real measure of it themselves (even when their physical intervention might undercut the state’s ability to inflict violence on nonwhites), pacifists can only be viewed as being objectively racist. Racism itself has been accurately defined as a pathology” (1158). “Pacifism is suicidal. In its core impulse to prostrate itself before the obvious reality of the violence inherent in state power, pacifism not only inverts Emiliano Zapata’s [1879-1919, a Mexican revolutionary] famous dictum that ‘It is better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees;’ it actually posits the proposition that it is best to die on one’s knees and seek to achieve this result as a matter of principle. Pacifist Eros is thus transmuted into Thanatos”(1168) – Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) se doodsinstink.
“It is considered axiomatic that revolution in nonindustrialized areas all but inherently entails resort to armed struggle and violence. This remains true whether one is considering the Bolshevik revolution, the Chinese revolution, the Vietnamese revolution, the Cuban revolution, the Algerian revolution, decolonization struggles in Africa during the 1950s, the Nicaraguan revolution, the Zimbabwean revolution, or any other. The same principle also holds with regard to Third World liberation movements such as the ANC in South Africa, SWAPO in Namibia, the Tupamaros in Uruguay, the Prestes Column in Brazil, Shining Path in Peru, and so on. In each case, the fundamental physical relationship between armed struggle/violence and liberatory posture is clear. As a matter of praxis, this relationship has been clarified (even codified) by theorists as diverse as Frantz Fanon, Che Guevara, Mao Tsetung, and Vo Nguyen Giap,* to name but a few. The accuracy of their articulations is so compelling that even such a devout (and principled) North American pacifist as Blase Bonpane has observed that, in the Third World, armed struggle is required because ‘passivity can coexist nicely with repression, injustice, and fascism’” (1219). Churchill skryf: “Pacifism itself offers no coherent praxis for liberatory social transformation … assuming the status of a sort of ‘quasi-praxis’ … a low level of ideological consciousness” (1263). [* Dit is bekend dat die ANC se onderhandelingstrategie met die NP-regering sterk deur die Vietnamese generaal Giap (1911-2013) beïnvloed is.]
Churchill krabbel skynbaar ‘n bietjie terug wanneer hy skryf:”It is not being suggested that nonviolent forms of struggle are or should be abandoned, nor that armed struggle should be the normative standard of revolutionary performance” (1279). Maar dan haal hy Stokely Carmichael (1941-1998, “Mama Africa,” Miriam Makeba 1932-2008, se man) soos volg aan: “If we are to consider ourselves as revolutionaries, we must acknowledge that we have an obligation to succeed in pursuing revolution … We must use the strength of our enemy to undo him, keeping him confused and off-balance. We must organize with perfect clarity to be utterly unpredictable. When our enemies expect us to respond to provocation with violence, we must react calmly and peacefully; just as they anticipate our passivity, we must throw a grenade” (1279). Is dit nie presies wat die ANC met die armsalige NP-“onderhandelaars” gedoen het nie?
“Any revolutionary movement within advanced capitalist nations must develop the broadist possible range of thinking/action by which to confront the state. This should be conceived not as an array of component forms of struggle but as a continuum of activity stretching from petitions/letter writing and so forth through mass mobilization/demonstrations, onward into the arena of armed self-defence, and still onward through the realm of ‘offensive’ military operations (eg elimination of critical state facilities, targeting of key individuals within the government/corporate apparatus, etc). All of this must be apprehended as a holism, as an internally consistent liberatory process applicable at this generally-formulated level to the late capitalist context no less than to the Third World. From the basis of this fundamental understanding – and, it may be asserted, only from this basis – can a viable liberatory praxis for North America emerge” (1288).
“There is no place for the profession of ‘principled pacifism’ to preclude – much less condemn – the utilization of violence as a legitimate and necessary method of achieving liberation. The dismantling of the false consciousness inherent in the ideology of ‘nonviolent revolution’ is therefore of primary importance in attaining an adequate liberatory praxis” (1297). Churchill sluit sy boek soos volg af: “The desire for a nonviolent and cooperative world is the healthiest of all psychological manifestations. This is the overarching principle of liberation and revolution. Undoubtedly, it seems the highest order of contradiction that, in order to achieve nonviolence, we must first break with it in overcoming its root causes. Therein, however, lies our only hope”(1418). In Suid-Afrika het ons voor “bevryding” ‘n oorvloed van geweld deur individue en terreurgroepe gehad. Anders as wat Churchill ons probeer wysmaak, het ons sedert 1994 nie vrede ervaar nie maar buitensporige voortgesette geweld.
Mike Ryan
Ryan, ‘n “white radical” (2018), gee ‘n Kanadese perspektief op hierdie onderwerp. “I am prompted to ask how bad conditions must become before we recognize that the time is right for any and all forms of resistance that can be effectual in putting an end to this madness, before it puts an end to us” (1986). Hy dink die verlangde revolusie sal nie gewilder word as weerstand tot protes afgeskaal word nie (1991). “A party (or, in our case, an organization of movement) which bases itself on an existing average level of consciousness and activity, will end up reducing the present level of both” (1996). “The state is violent in its very nature. The police, the army, the prisons stand as immediate, tangible evidence of this. The genocide of Third and Fourth World peoples stands as evidence of this” (2002). In hierdie soort linkse literatuur word blankes telkens van volksmoord (“genocide”), die uitroeiing van nie-wittes, beskuldig terwyl daar statistiese bewyse is dat nie-wittes onder blanke bewind vinniger toeneem as wanneer hulle aan hulle lot oorgelaat word. In die era van Westerse slawerny het Afrika-swartes net in die Amerikas meer geword. Desnieteenstaande word blankes nie net van “genocide” beskuldig nie, maar sommer van “omnicide, the death of all life” (2286), dus dat blankes die natuur doeltreffender as swartes vernietig.
“The civil disobedience of the white Canadian peace movement, other than being a revolutionary practice or an honest expression of protest, has become a form of catharsis, a practice that allows us to cleanse our souls of the guilt of our white skin privilege for ourselves and for each other without posing a threat either to the state or ourselves. We create a theater of pseudoresistence” (2042). Ryan wil hierdie situasie radikaliseer. Hy haal Judy Costello soos volg aan: “I believe in noncooperation and civil disobedience, but in practice I have seen men use these tools as weapons – seeing who can suffer the most, counting up jail records, feeding on the glory of being able to suffer more” (2065). Ryan skryf: “As long as we remain passive and ineffective in our resistance, we will … leave Third and Fourth World peoples in the front line of the very real and very violent struggle between imperialism and liberation while we continue to reap the benefits of a comfort zone created by their oppression” (2072).
Martin Luther King het dieselfde laai as Desmond Tutu uitgehaal deur skynbaar teen gewelddadigheid te praat maar sy volgelinge dermate op te sweep dat hulle tot geweld oorgegaan het en dan het sowel King as Tutu konsekwent nagelaat om die geweld te veroordeel. Ryan haal King aan waarvolgens hy geweld teen eiendom goedpraat omdat dit nie geweld gerig teen mense was nie. King sê: “I am aware that there are many who wince at the distinction between property and persons, who hold both sacrosanct. My views are not so rigid” (2104). Hierin lees Ryan “recognition that nonviolence does not imply the absolute, constant, and permanent absence of force or violence” (2109). Hy haal Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) soos volg aan: “Decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” (2127). Malcolm X (1925-1965) het gesê: “The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are [the oppressed] … I believe we should protect ourselves by any means necessary when we are attacked by racists” (2198).
Ryan:
“There has never been an example of nonviolent liberation in the Third World. The one experiment with nonviolent decolonization was the electoral victory of Salvador Allende [1908-1973] in Chile [1970], and this one example was smashed by US imperialism” (2127). “One need only look to the African National Congress (ANC) and the example of Nelson Mandela to see why Third World revolutionaries must embrace violence” (2131). “We recognize that the actions of Third World revolutionaries are not aggressive acts of violence, but a last line of defence and the only option for liberation in a situation of totally violent oppression” (2264). Fanon word weer aangehaal: Wat met die geweld beoog word, is “to rehabilitate [human]kind, and help make [humanity] victorious everywhere, once and for all … This huge task … consists of reintroducing [humanity] into the world” (2155). Ryan noem dit “the new world” (2309); dus utopia, oftewel hemel op aarde. “We, as Euroamerican radicals inside the North American settler states, must develop a clear position regarding what we will do if this war of genocide which has been going on for some 500 years once again heats up and heads toward a definitive culmination” (2183).
Slot
In hierdie rubriek het ons te make met mense wat in ‘n heeltemal ander liga is as diegene wat gewoonlik op Praag aan die woord gestel word. Ons is hier midde in die wêreld van marxiste, terroriste, vandale en misdadigers, dus die soort mense wat ons bv as ANC-kamerade in leidende posisies leer ken het. Enigiets wat onder blanke bewind opgebou is, kon maar vernietig word. Met die oog op die politieke magsoorname kon die land maar tot op die grond afgebreek word. Beskaafde, Westersgeoriënteerde mense vind dit moeilik, selfs onmoontlik, om aansluiting by sodanige destruktiewe ingesteldheid te vind.
Die bogenoemde vier outeurs trek te velde teen blanke politieke beheer vanuit hulle posisie van onderdanigheid/”onderdrukking”. Hulle argumenteer ten gunste van die gebruik van alle middele, insluitende geweld, ten einde die mag oor te neem. In Suid-Afrika het die magsoorname egter reeds op gewelddadige en verraderlike wyse plaasgevind. Die bewering dat die magsoorgawe vreedsaam verloop het, is vals. Die geweld duur steeds voort. Dit is ook ‘n leuen dat die meerderheid blanke kiesers tot magsoorgawe ingestem het. Hulle het hulle ten gunste van magsdeling uitgespreek.
Die outeurs maak dit duidelik dat pasifisme die strategie van die liberales en progressiewes is en dat pasifisme nie tot verandering lei nie. Pasifisme word beskou as ‘n resep vir selfvernietiging en dat dit selfs algehele groepuitwissing kan veroorsaak. Vir beduidende verandering is geweld glo noodsaaklik. In Suid-Afrika word blankes se belange al hoe meer vertrap. Blankes en veral Afrikaners ervaar toenemend dat hulle taal en kultuur met uitwissing bedreig word; selfs hulle lewens. Die eiendomsreg van blankes word al hoe meer aan bande gelê. Op grond van hulle ras geniet blankes nie volwaardige burgerskap nie. Swartes word blatant bevoordeel en bepaal wat, en in watter mate, iets aan blankes gegun word.
Daar is sekerlik elemente van waarheid in wat die vier outeurs geskryf het. Die vraag is in hoeverre Suid-Afrikaanse blankes hierdie outeurs se raad kan inspan om hulle situasie te verbeter. Vir my lyk ‘n gewelddadige teenrevolusie nie na ‘n realistiese opsie nie.* Dalk is dit omdat my ingesteldheid glad nie militaristies is nie. Ek is nie eens militant genoeg nie. Toe die veiligheidsmagte (weermag en polisie) in 1994 nog sterk was en doeltreffend ter beskerming van die blankes kon optree, het Constand Viljoen geoordeel dat militêre ingryping veral op die lange duur nie die gewenste resultate sou lewer nie. Intussen het meer as twee dekades verloop en het baie van diegene wat destyds sodanige weerstand kon bied, gesterf of oud en afgeleef geword. Wat klaarblyklik in 1990/94 broodnodig nodig was, was beter onderhandelaars wat ‘n veel beter staatkundige grondslag kon afdwing.
[* Toe Spanje onder die beheer van Moslems was (711-1492) “Muslim rulers … used decapitation against their fellow Muslims even more than against Christians. This last difference may be attributable to the submissive condition of Christians … in Islamic Spain, which lessened the number and danger of their revolts” (Dario Fernandez-Morera, The myth of the Andalusian paradise, Wilmington: ISI Books, 2016, 381p; Amazon Kindle $9,74, 2675). Geweld is dus nie ‘n wonderkuur vir die opheffing van onderdrukking nie. Dieselfde geld vir onderdanigheid. Tussen die uiterstes van geweld en onderdanigheid moet daar êrens ‘n streep getrek word.]
Die huidige totale en daarby vreemde oorheersing is myns insiens vir die meerderheid Afrikaners onaanvaarbaar. Berusting is nie moontlik nie. Weerstand of verset of ten minste protes is noodsaaklik; sekerlik in groter mate as wat tot dusver die geval was. Suid-Afrika is nie sonder meer die land van die swartes soos bv Nelson Mandela graag beweer het nie. Insgelyks is dit ook nie sonder meer die land van die Khoi-San nie. Suid-Afrika is ook, selfs in oortreffende mate (as hulle bydrae na waarde geskat word), die land van die blankes. Daarom is dit ontoelaatbaar dat daardie inwoners wat hulleself as voortreflik (selfs as die voortreflikste) bewys het tot minderwaardige burgerskap verdoem word.
NP van Wyk Louw het gewaarsku dat ‘n geslag nie sonder protes verby moet gaan nie. ‘n Geslag beslaan dertig jaar. Sedert 1994 het meer as twee dekades verloop. Vir die huidige ouer geslag is daar min tyd oor om doeltreffend te protesteer. Hoe minder ons ons daadwerklik teen onreg verset, des te meer sal daar ten koste van ons onreg gepleeg word. Sodanige protes moet uiteraard primêr teen ons nuwe, vreemde heersers gerig word. Maar dit kan kwalik gewelddadige protes wees. Met iedere dag wat verbygaan, word die blankes ‘n kleiner persentasie van die bevolking weens die vinniger aanwas van nie-wittes en die toestroming van inkommers uit veral Afrika. Die geweldsopsie word dus daagliks al hoe meer onrealisties.
Een van my groot griewe is teen die klein groepie blankes en daarby Afrikaanssprekendes wat mandaadloos gehandel en ons as blankes in ‘n posisie van relatiewe magteloosheid en minderwaardige burgerskap laat beland het. Dit is verregaande dat hierdie mense sonder magtiging hulle aangematig het om ‘n land,* ‘n Europese beskawing en die Afrikanervolk (potensieel) op die vernietigingspad te plaas. My beswaar is veral teen FW de Klerk, Leon Wessels en Roelf Meyer wat pleks van in skaamte laag te lê, hulle steeds telkens op die voorgrond dring. Hulle verkeer in die waan dat hulle uitsonderlik gepresteer het en, asof hulle beskermheiliges is, met die blankes se belange vertrou kan word. Dit is die dure plig van Afrikaners om die onbesonne woorde en dade van diesulkes by elke moontlike geleentheid aan die kaak te stel, dus hulle daadwerklik te diskrediteer. Hulle durf nie skotvry daarvan afkom nie. [* Dit is die verklaarde beleid van die ANC, gesteun deur sy Lite-vleuel (die DA), dat Afrikane vryelike uit Afrika na Suid-Afrika moet kan beweeg. Dit is onteenseglik ‘n resep vir die verdere agteruitgang en selfs vernietiging van die land.]
Groter eensgesindheid onder blankes en veral Afrikaners is sekerlik nodig. Ons sal deurlopend en met erns oor ons pad vorentoe moet besin sodat ons doelgerig kan optree. Ten spyte van al die dwaasheid wat ten koste van ons gepleeg is, is daar een ding wat ons ons steeds moet veroorloof: om nooit moed op te gee nie.
