Ok, I get it that for whites there might have been a democracy, but was there an alternative white anti-apartheid party? Was there an alternative? Wasn't it such an ingrained part of white culture that the white race was superior and segregation justified?
I know that this might be said to strengthen your point, but I'm still not convinced that it was an embargo that turned things around in SA, but I don't know enough of the history to argue convincingly. Is there any evidence of this in SA or any other country?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
@ Oberon
I see your point and I am generally unsure about cultural boycotts as I already said several times. I agree there are other countries where Human Rights are violated and there is no boycott.
But in the case Queen playing Sun City there was a boycott. Even if Queen did not agree - there was no moral reason to ignore that boycott. There was nothing to gain in Sun City except the contempt of the many people in the world who really fought against apartheid and who really cared. To try and rationalize it as an act of political manifesto against apartheid was really making it worse. The anti-apartheid movement inside and outside South Africa had fought long and hard to raise the worldwide awareness, people had died to achieve that. They did not need Queen to come and act like it's such a great thing to play in front of the rich white protagonists of that regime.
I see your point and I am generally unsure about cultural boycotts as I already said several times. I agree there are other countries where Human Rights are violated and there is no boycott.
But in the case Queen playing Sun City there was a boycott. Even if Queen did not agree - there was no moral reason to ignore that boycott. There was nothing to gain in Sun City except the contempt of the many people in the world who really fought against apartheid and who really cared. To try and rationalize it as an act of political manifesto against apartheid was really making it worse. The anti-apartheid movement inside and outside South Africa had fought long and hard to raise the worldwide awareness, people had died to achieve that. They did not need Queen to come and act like it's such a great thing to play in front of the rich white protagonists of that regime.
I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree (no bad thing), but I would say that why should they worry about the contempt of others? And were they rationalizing it - presumably you mean after the event - or did they, as Brian said, weigh up pros and cons and believe that they could make a difference/a point (however small or insignificant) by going?
Maybe I'm trying to convince myself, but I really can't believe that they were THAT ignorant or ill informed. As someone said, it's hard to believe that four intelligent people who had recorded songs about the issues around native Americans ten years earlier wouldn't be somewhat clued up and have weighed that up. In which case, I can't say they were wrong to go.
The money thing is one big problem with my arguement I suppose, but then, they can't be expected to do things for nothing, can they?
Maybe I'm trying to convince myself, but I really can't believe that they were THAT ignorant or ill informed. As someone said, it's hard to believe that four intelligent people who had recorded songs about the issues around native Americans ten years earlier wouldn't be somewhat clued up and have weighed that up. In which case, I can't say they were wrong to go.
The money thing is one big problem with my arguement I suppose, but then, they can't be expected to do things for nothing, can they?
Maybe Queen's mistake was a political mistake, rather than a moral mistake. Ignoring an international boycott, "weakening" the embargo in some way.
Like someone pointed out, it'd be hypocrisy to complain about Queen's morals for playing in a country where racism is legalized and at the same time glorify them for being the first major band to play behind the Iron Curtain, where the government's enemies would be arrested, tortured and killed, where a genocide took place, or glorify them for the major gigs in another poor continent completely taken over by U.S. and Western Europe-supported fascist dictatorships, where young students, journalists, artists, teachers, professors and anyone else who dared to voice their opinion ended up dead, expelled from the country, or tortured until they were insane.
As dictators from Brazil and Argentina aren't really well known in the world, here's a little quote from Wikipedia to show you the level those dictatorships achieved:
"In 1971 the military dictatorship helped rig the Uruguayan elections, which were lost by the left-wing Frente Amplio [3]. It then participated in Operation Condor, which involved various Latin American security services (including Pinochet's DINA and the Argentine SIDE) in the assassination of political opponents." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brazil_%281964%E2%80%931985%29#1969-1974
So, those who defend Queen supported the apartheid regime would also dare to say Queen supported Pinochet and his friends by playing here?
Like someone pointed out, it'd be hypocrisy to complain about Queen's morals for playing in a country where racism is legalized and at the same time glorify them for being the first major band to play behind the Iron Curtain, where the government's enemies would be arrested, tortured and killed, where a genocide took place, or glorify them for the major gigs in another poor continent completely taken over by U.S. and Western Europe-supported fascist dictatorships, where young students, journalists, artists, teachers, professors and anyone else who dared to voice their opinion ended up dead, expelled from the country, or tortured until they were insane.
As dictators from Brazil and Argentina aren't really well known in the world, here's a little quote from Wikipedia to show you the level those dictatorships achieved:
"In 1971 the military dictatorship helped rig the Uruguayan elections, which were lost by the left-wing Frente Amplio [3]. It then participated in Operation Condor, which involved various Latin American security services (including Pinochet's DINA and the Argentine SIDE) in the assassination of political opponents." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brazil_%281964%E2%80%931985%29#1969-1974
So, those who defend Queen supported the apartheid regime would also dare to say Queen supported Pinochet and his friends by playing here?
Embargos was a major cause for Madiba being released and apartheid ending. There are several quotes by officials of the apartheid regime saying this both at the time and afterwards. The other main cause was the internal opposition to apartheid that was manily channeled through the ANC and some of the churches. However, it must be pointd out that this opposition would not have had the strength it had or quite possibly even survived without the material support from the rest of the world or the moral support that the sanctions are an example of. The cultural boycots were a part of this, even if it was small. Queen playing Sun City in the end did not further the existance of apartheid, however it served as moral support of the system to the rich white minority as opposed to most top artists who refused to play in the luxuary resort. This was despite the opinions of the rest of the world. They did not make any statements about this before the tour despite the controversy it led to, rather defending themselves with ?weve got to make money?. This changed however as soon as they got back. It can also be argued that they played along with the system in going there.
The embargoes against SA did not have the goal to make the people rise up against the apartheid regime. In general there was a consensus at the time, as today, that contacts are more effective than sanctions. However, SA was seen as a major objection to this. The apartheid regime relied almost exclusively on the support of the rest of the world for its existance both in material terms and as the basis for its power. As only a minority of south africans supported it or even had the possibility to vote its base for power was that the rest of the world recognised it as legitimate. This was mainly the US and Britain, who to a big degree continued this support until the very end. They were also heavily reliant on trade with rest of the world for economic reasons. If this support disappeared it would severely weaken the strength of the apartheid regime. Tero has already written about this. As he pointed out this same minority was not only reliant on this trade but they also became extremely wealthy because of it and by using the apartheid system.
USA has very little to do with this, even they if they also had sanctions had the apartheid regime. Remember that they only recently removed Nelson Mandela from their list of terrorists. The reason behind all this was the strategical importance of the Cape region for the NATO-countries. ANC were seen as communists by the Reagans and Thatchers of the world and so they rather let the apartheid regime stay than see this region go to what they saw as Soviet henchmen. The US and Britain would both during the 70s and 80s veto almost all resolutions to have the security council decide in favour of binding boycots that would include all member states of the UN. There are also several examples of quite far-reaching treaties being signed by these countries.
You have a very good point when you write that there really wasnt any moral difference between playing in South America or in China and South Africa. It can be argued that the difference was that apartheid was based on race and therefore even more severe. However I agree with you completely on this reasoning.
The embargoes against SA did not have the goal to make the people rise up against the apartheid regime. In general there was a consensus at the time, as today, that contacts are more effective than sanctions. However, SA was seen as a major objection to this. The apartheid regime relied almost exclusively on the support of the rest of the world for its existance both in material terms and as the basis for its power. As only a minority of south africans supported it or even had the possibility to vote its base for power was that the rest of the world recognised it as legitimate. This was mainly the US and Britain, who to a big degree continued this support until the very end. They were also heavily reliant on trade with rest of the world for economic reasons. If this support disappeared it would severely weaken the strength of the apartheid regime. Tero has already written about this. As he pointed out this same minority was not only reliant on this trade but they also became extremely wealthy because of it and by using the apartheid system.
USA has very little to do with this, even they if they also had sanctions had the apartheid regime. Remember that they only recently removed Nelson Mandela from their list of terrorists. The reason behind all this was the strategical importance of the Cape region for the NATO-countries. ANC were seen as communists by the Reagans and Thatchers of the world and so they rather let the apartheid regime stay than see this region go to what they saw as Soviet henchmen. The US and Britain would both during the 70s and 80s veto almost all resolutions to have the security council decide in favour of binding boycots that would include all member states of the UN. There are also several examples of quite far-reaching treaties being signed by these countries.
You have a very good point when you write that there really wasnt any moral difference between playing in South America or in China and South Africa. It can be argued that the difference was that apartheid was based on race and therefore even more severe. However I agree with you completely on this reasoning.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Oberon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Now, the argument would hold a lot more weight if Queen had taken the money and given it to some causes, but could they be sure that it would end up where it should have done? Or at least SOME of the money (maybe they did?).
Brian did petition that the fine they incurred should be used for african causes, but the organistion that fined them put it in their own coffers (and again, who knows how that would have been used - would it have been used to aid africans?)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brian May wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
When we were taken to task by the Musicians Union for breaking their embargo on playing in South Africa, (...) The compromise we came to was that the money would go direct to the Kutlwanong school for the deaf in Bophutswana, a school for poor children which we already supported by way of the entire proceeds from a ?Greatest Hits? album we put out specially for South Africa.[/QUOTE]
HTH
Brian did petition that the fine they incurred should be used for african causes, but the organistion that fined them put it in their own coffers (and again, who knows how that would have been used - would it have been used to aid africans?)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brian May wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
When we were taken to task by the Musicians Union for breaking their embargo on playing in South Africa, (...) The compromise we came to was that the money would go direct to the Kutlwanong school for the deaf in Bophutswana, a school for poor children which we already supported by way of the entire proceeds from a ?Greatest Hits? album we put out specially for South Africa.[/QUOTE]
HTH
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]gnomo wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Oberon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Now, the argument would hold a lot more weight if Queen had taken the money and given it to some causes, but could they be sure that it would end up where it should have done? Or at least SOME of the money (maybe they did?).
Brian did petition that the fine they incurred should be used for african causes, but the organistion that fined them put it in their own coffers (and again, who knows how that would have been used - would it have been used to aid africans?)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brian May wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
When we were taken to task by the Musicians Union for breaking their embargo on playing in South Africa, (...) The compromise we came to was that the money would go direct to the Kutlwanong school for the deaf in Bophutswana, a school for poor children which we already supported by way of the entire proceeds from a ?Greatest Hits? album we put out specially for South Africa.[/QUOTE]
HTH
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they requested the Musicians Union to do this, but I believe Brian stated that this didn't happen.
Brian did petition that the fine they incurred should be used for african causes, but the organistion that fined them put it in their own coffers (and again, who knows how that would have been used - would it have been used to aid africans?)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brian May wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
When we were taken to task by the Musicians Union for breaking their embargo on playing in South Africa, (...) The compromise we came to was that the money would go direct to the Kutlwanong school for the deaf in Bophutswana, a school for poor children which we already supported by way of the entire proceeds from a ?Greatest Hits? album we put out specially for South Africa.[/QUOTE]
HTH
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they requested the Musicians Union to do this, but I believe Brian stated that this didn't happen.
Kingogre.
Have you got any evidence of those quotes you mentioned as to the effect of sanctions etc.?
And what are the restrictions that sanctions/embargos impose as opposed to the trade that you say supported the regime? That seems completely contradictory. I suppose that some countries observed a internationally agreed sanction, but USA and Britain (as examples you gave) didn't?
I'm not doubting for a minute your claims about USA and Britain supporting SA government in preference to a Soviet influenced replacement.
But given that is the case, I think sanctions observed by other countries don't really mount to much in the face of these 2 significant nations supporting. Difficult. I can see your point that if this support was withdrawn that the situation would have become more untenable earlier, but I think that the end of apartheid might have become a much bloodier and messier affair than it was.
I think the timing of the end was the best. The international conscience made it impossible to continue the situation, and if De Klerk had not reached out and allowed Mandela to quell the impending violence at this time, it would all have gone very pear shaped. I will be to Mandela's eternal credit that large scale violence against the white population in SA after the end of apartheid was avoided.
Have you got any evidence of those quotes you mentioned as to the effect of sanctions etc.?
And what are the restrictions that sanctions/embargos impose as opposed to the trade that you say supported the regime? That seems completely contradictory. I suppose that some countries observed a internationally agreed sanction, but USA and Britain (as examples you gave) didn't?
I'm not doubting for a minute your claims about USA and Britain supporting SA government in preference to a Soviet influenced replacement.
But given that is the case, I think sanctions observed by other countries don't really mount to much in the face of these 2 significant nations supporting. Difficult. I can see your point that if this support was withdrawn that the situation would have become more untenable earlier, but I think that the end of apartheid might have become a much bloodier and messier affair than it was.
I think the timing of the end was the best. The international conscience made it impossible to continue the situation, and if De Klerk had not reached out and allowed Mandela to quell the impending violence at this time, it would all have gone very pear shaped. I will be to Mandela's eternal credit that large scale violence against the white population in SA after the end of apartheid was avoided.
Yes, I have. This was stated at the time by both the Foreign Secretary in the SA parliament and the Secretary of Trade in an interview. The last was referenced in the swedish parliamentary debate. Can look it up in a couple of days if you want to.
Sanctions are not a good way to influence in these kind of situations, it is often a very two-edged sword and can also serve to strengthen the regimes the are aimed at. However SA is very often seen as an example of effective sanctions. Undoubtedly the pressure they put on the apartheid regime made helped end the conflict. As the regime was heavily reliant on outside support it was also seen as a situation where sanctions could have a positive effect at the time. However it is fully to mr Mandelas credit that the situation never escalated to a bloodbath and that it got a peaceful end.
ANC recieved support from the Soviet Union however it is not obvious that they were allies. ANC also recieved heavy support from many western countries, for example Sweden and Norway. If you ask the organisatio today they were forced to accept the support from the russians because the US and Britain opposed them. All of this is not easy to answer, especially since many South Africans have a differenet view on these things than westerners because they have different experiences from the past.
Ive written an university essay partly on the subject and this is some of the things it featured.
Sanctions are not a good way to influence in these kind of situations, it is often a very two-edged sword and can also serve to strengthen the regimes the are aimed at. However SA is very often seen as an example of effective sanctions. Undoubtedly the pressure they put on the apartheid regime made helped end the conflict. As the regime was heavily reliant on outside support it was also seen as a situation where sanctions could have a positive effect at the time. However it is fully to mr Mandelas credit that the situation never escalated to a bloodbath and that it got a peaceful end.
ANC recieved support from the Soviet Union however it is not obvious that they were allies. ANC also recieved heavy support from many western countries, for example Sweden and Norway. If you ask the organisatio today they were forced to accept the support from the russians because the US and Britain opposed them. All of this is not easy to answer, especially since many South Africans have a differenet view on these things than westerners because they have different experiences from the past.
Ive written an university essay partly on the subject and this is some of the things it featured.
kingogre --
I'm sure this was a worldwide effort, and the USA's part was relative to this. But didn't divestment efforts make a difference? I recall this having some effect on South Africa's economy.
I'm sure this was a worldwide effort, and the USA's part was relative to this. But didn't divestment efforts make a difference? I recall this having some effect on South Africa's economy.
Is it o.k to go there now? Sounds like a grand spot for a fortnight.
Anybody have a link for bookings?
Anybody have a link for bookings?