From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Mar 09 2006 - 08:29:41 EST
Hi Patrick, Thanks for the report on the colloquium. > The task of analysis is fairly minor in all of this, because we can all > see what one Cape Town commentator termed 'neo-apartheid' > all around... Yes, but is there an agreed upon understanding of the meaning of 'neo-apartheid'? If it is thought of as a form of neo-colonialism (as understood, for example, by Nkrumah), then I think it is apt. After all, when apartheid officially ended that no more ended the economic relations characteristic of apartheid than the success of anti-colonial movements ended the underlying economic relationships that existed between the former colonial power and the formerly colonized. While the character of South Africa as a white colonial settler state has changed, the wealth in South Africa hasn't been re-distributed and so the main forces who owned and controlled the wealth in South African under apartheid continue to control that wealth today. But, when you say that all can see neo-apartheid around them, you seem to be suggesting something else like brute repressive force by the state. So, is neo-apartheid commonly understood in South Africa to be a repressive policy by the state or a system of economic relations or both? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 11 2006 - 00:00:02 EST