Eugene Terreblanche (1941–2010)

15 Responses to Eugene Terreblanche (1941–2010)

1. Kevin Snoymann says:

   April 5, 2010 at 5:02 pm

   Now the shit’s going to fly. Remember that Malema was comparatively safe where [he] was, surrounded by his apologist goons. I doubt whether a mere wage dispute is going to remain as reason enough for a murder of yet another farmer, especially one with the stature of Terreblanche. Good luck Malemsie. Your days will be interesting if not final…
2. piltdown says:

   April 5, 2010 at 11:17 pm

   Murder is one of the worst things a human can do but it’s hard to feel sorry for him and I will not condemn the killers without more information.
3. @ndy says:

   April 6, 2010 at 8:54 pm

   Shit’s always flying in South Africa, it’s a very violent place. Regarding the exact circumstances under which the vocalist for the Average White Band was killed, who knows? He has a history of violent conflict with his (black) employees, so that his life would end in this manner is not hugely surprising. Regarding the possibility of a backlash, again, who knows? The last time his mob attempted something like that, it ended in disaster, both military and political; I don’t know that anything’s changed which would make any kind of ‘victory’ more likely — quite the opposite.
4. Fascist Troll says:

   April 7, 2010 at 4:22 pm

   Who gives a shit what I think.
5. lest we forget says:

   April 11, 2010 at 8:18 pm

   ah, south africa. that beacon to the world of the triumph of good over evil, of right over reprehensible wrong. of the power of an illiterate democracy to bask in the compassion of its fellow nations while masking its true decadence. whenever i read about south africa, i’m almost compelled to believe all that anarchist jargon about the folly of majority rule. but that isn’t how you people like it to mean, is it? that would go against everything you believed in. i call that hypocracy. i mean, i don’t hear much ranting about smashing the state of south africa. why not? have a good think on that one. you see, south africa was the cause celebre of the left for many years, and when arpartied was overthrown, it was seen as a momentous victory. unfortunately, the country has rapidly deteriorated since then, but to the left, it seems, a veritable garden of eden must exist there now, judging from the silence… “no good sledging poor ol’ seth efrica, it’s perfect now that whitey has been kicked off his ranch”… no, it’s not perfect, it’s a right shithole for the most part, but you can’t rant at south africa because someone will point their finger at you and call you a racist. and we all know, to a lefty, that’s a fate worse than death. so instead you direct your hatred to western countries, ones with good hospitals and schools, with welfare and cold beer. these are the ones you want to destroy. bloody weird, don’t you reckon.
6. @ndy says:

   April 11, 2010 at 8:50 pm

   Jesus wept.

   All your complaints demonstrate is your illiteracy and incomprehension — again.

   Of course the overthrow of apartheid was celebrated, but while this brought about an end to the solidarity campaigns that couldn’t fail to impress themselves upon your memory, it did not bring about the end of capitalism or the state in southern Africa, and neither, therefore, did it bring about an end to popular struggles.

   Go read something. We Are The Poors: Community Struggles In Post-Apartheid South Africa (Monthly Review Press, 2002) by Ashwin Desai, for example, or ‘What ‘Appen To South Africa? 1976-2005: Defiance to Apartheid, Neoliberalism, And Recuperators Of Defiance’ — which places in one volume three critical essays discussing the period in question, and which is available online.

   And stop being so tendentious.

   It’s boring.

   PS. Sam Mbah & I.E. Igariwey, African Anarchism: The History of A Movement (See Sharp Press, 1997).
7. lest we forget says:

   April 11, 2010 at 9:21 pm

   tendentious…i had to look that up. do i detect spite, andy? that’s a shame. please forgive my crass generalizations, i’m just making a point. and sorry, my articulation is a bit wayward. alas, i’m but a poor truck driver. one thing i am perfectly competent with, however, is comprehension. so before you throw another little tanty mate, i suggest you try not being so ‘tendentious’ yourself, and realise that the truth isn’t your own personal dominion. and when you exclude all other truths except your own, you are, in fact, a bigot. anyway, you proved my point, south africa is a no go zone hey. bloody touchy, aren’t we.
8. Ana says:

   April 12, 2010 at 8:15 am

   worthwhile comment here about the racist’s death :
   http://ridwanlaher.blogspot.com/2010/04/max-du-preez-on-terre-blanche.html
9. @ndy says:

   April 12, 2010 at 2:23 pm

   Petulant commentary from truck drivers on anarchist blogs makes baby Jesus cry.
10. Anton says:

    April 12, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Nothing surprises me anymore in South Africa.

    The [W]est will be handing over millions in aid soon just like the rest of the sh#t hole African nations.

    The population of Africa doubles every 24 years. Overpopulation is the biggest threat to Africa. The famines are man made due to overpopulation! Don[‘]t worry movie stars and Christians will feed the millions.
11. @ndy says:

    April 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    Western aid is made on Western terms, and on the basis that such aid serves Western interests, whether in Africa or elsewhere. Further, the flow of wealth is from Africa to the West, not the other way around (and leaving aside precisely what is meant by the terms ‘Africa’ and the ‘West’, which in reality are largely synonymous with global elites — whatever their location — and the institutions which serve them).

    Famine is not caused by over-population, but by a multiplicity of factors. What threatens Africa — by which term I mean the African masses — is by and large composed of the same forces which have spent the better part of the last few centuries plundering its resources, and that is the forces of state and capital.
12. @ndy says:

    April 12, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    Food Aid in Africa: A Profitable Business
    Shoshana Perrey
    Food First
    December 3, 2009

    From the expanses of Iowa’s green cornfields to the Horn of Africa, subsidized U.S. corn flows into the bellies of the some of the hungriest people on the planet. In war-torn Southern Sudan, the World Food Program (WFP), which began airdropping food in the area on 4 November, estimates that 1.2 million people are already facing serious food insecurity. Throughout the region, hunger is the result of decades-long civil war and multi-year drought. The Sudanese government has had little choice but to waive their national ban on GMOs in order to receive food aid to sustain the population and avoid famine. Their calls for emergency food aid have repeatedly been met by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the single largest donor of food aid to Africa, who still refuse to acknowledge the threats of GE corn, despite several African nations’ expressed concerns. Since 2004, USAID has provided the World Food Program (WFP) with 65% of its cereal grains donations and paved the way for the expansion of GE agribusiness in Africa by attempting to “harmonize” GE regulations and African bio-safety policies. Yet, the Sudanese are still at the mercy of Aid and their call for food sovereignty has been boldly dismissed. Why?

    US food aid deliveries contribute a pretty penny to US agribusiness. When the US Congress passed Bill PL 480 in 1954, the American food aid regime was founded on four principles: find an outlet for the mounting tons of surplus agriculture commodities; promote American geo-political interests to combat communism; establish and develop humanitarian assistance programs; and create new markets abroad for US agricultural products.1 PL 480 essentially viewed poor countries as massive dumping grounds for surplus cereal grains. Sixty years of US food aid has only achieved success with two of its four original goals: dumping surpluses and cornering markets. Meanwhile, an estimated 90% of the world’s farmers who work an average 2ha each can’t compete with the bottom barrel prices of subsidized American grains. The presence of surplus grains on the local market undercuts these farmers, and undermines USAID’s alleged objective of long-term agricultural development.

    A devil’s advocate might say that cheap surplus grains are an efficient way to resolve world hunger. However, as agricultural economist Chris Barrett points out in his book, Food Aid After Fifty Years, “Food aid is no longer a relatively cheap form in which to provide aid. Indeed food aid as presently practiced by the United States in not necessarily even a cheap way to provide food!” In a study evaluating the costs of grain shipments to Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Kenya, it was shown that, “Corn food aid purchases (. . .) cost more than 70% in excess of the equivalent market prices faced by private sector buyers.” Further, American ocean-line shipping would have been all but outcompeted by cheaper Chinese lines if they weren’t subsidized through bylines of US food aid legislation that require food aid deliveries to be transported solely through American carriers. Its estimated that it costs $2 to US taxpayers for every $1 worth of corn food aid sent to African nations.

    By dumping grain surpluses through food aid deliveries, food prices drop; communities won’t purchase food from neighboring farmers when they can receive it for free or at drastically distorted low prices. Thus, one of the biggest criticisms of food aid is that it functions as a driver for US grown food commodities, rather than African-grown food, which in turn profits US firms instead of African farmers and peasants.

    Food aid doesn’t address the root causes of hunger: it’s a band-aid for emergencies that require immediate attention. Despite all of its faults, emergency food aid is still extremely important for addressing immediate hunger needs, but must be accompanied by programs and policies that protect small farmer and pastoralist livelihoods, support sustainable agriculture and protect natural resources. For, even in Sudan where conflict has been ongoing for over twenty years, supplying aid has become a de facto operation of USAID and the WFP. The best way for African governments to reduce their dependence on food aid is to scale-up the peasant-led, agroecological projects that are already established. Policies that favor self-sufficiency, intra-trade of African-origin foods and implementation of redistributive land reform are urgently needed to reduce hunger. Sustainable solutions to hunger must be grown out of African soil, knowledge and experience.

    (1) – Ball, Richard and Christopher Johnson. 1996. Economic Development & Cultural Change. Political, Economic, and Humanitarian Motivations for PL 480 Food Aid: Evidence from Africa. pp 515-537.

    EDITOR”S NOTE: This article has been revised since its original publication.
13. @ndy says:

    April 18, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    “Racist, brutal Terre’Blanche may have got his well-deserved come-uppance, but there is little to genuinely celebrate for the country’s desperately poor blacks and whites for whom his death is insignificant and irrelevant; their circumstances of exploitation and exclusion are not likely to be improved anytime soon by the country’s ANC elite.”

    ~ Death and the Mielieboer: The Eugène Terre’Blanche Murder & Poor-White Canon-fodder in South Africa, Michael Schmidt, April 18, 2010.
14. piltdwn says:

    April 18, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    I have read further about this incident. Eugene should have been in prison for life. The reason he was killed was his hatred for the majority of humanity.
15. lest we forget says:

    May 7, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    aaawwww give me a hug, andy. your devotion to the downtrodden is, sniff, beautiful. someone so virtuous must be nicest guy in the world. now that makes jesus happy.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.