Saturday, March 06, 2010

Amy Biehl: White Liberal on a Dark Continent



No doubt many will remember this story when it happened in 1993. It was part and parcel of the backdrop of the cataclysmic events surrounding us in the late 80's and early 90's in ZA. There was a lot happening. I recall vividly the response of Amy's parents to the news of her death, and it is as shocking today as it was then. I cannot fathom why a man would shake hands with the murderer of his own daughter? Is guilt such a twisted deep emotion that it can fly in the face of an evolutionary imperative? Why must a white American shoulder this burden? Surely it's too much to ask? Are whites really that guilty? Seriously, are we?

These stories, these events, at the time created within the white psyche such a trauma, that we hastened our own demise. We were under such duress, the threat of imminent death was so strong, that we were blindly eager to hand over power to the blacks without so much as a quibble. It was in effect extortion by threat of genocide.

Although this article is somewhat dated, I would like to post it here as it seems to be in danger, like so much of the history of savagery in ZA, of being swept under the carpet...


The death of Amy Biehl is an exception, one of those rare cases where mere recitation of all the facts should be sufficient to demonstrate a convincing political meaning. But in the case of Biehl's murder the political meaning with which her story is now endowed is the exact opposite of what the bare facts would lead any rational, unbiased observer to conclude. Biehl has become a symbolic martyr to the cause of multiracial democracy both in South Africa, where she died at the hands of a savage Black mob, and in the United States, where she had acquired her naive multiracialist ideals, specifically her hopelessly misguided faith in the possibility of democratic self-government by savage Black mobs.

Amy Elizabeth Biehl, by all accounts a talented, intelligent woman, arrived in South Africa in 1993 as an exchange student on a Fulbright Fellowship and was continuing her Ph.D. studies in political science at the mainly Black University of the Western Cape. She left Stanford, where she had received her earlier degrees, for South Africa with anti-racialist political objectives in mind.

She wanted to fight apartheid, which she passionately opposed, and accordingly spent much of her time registering Black voters in South Africa's first all-race elections, scheduled for April of 1994, which would hand over political control of the country to its Black majority.



Biehl would have acknowledged, openly and proudly, that she was working against her own race and on behalf of another race, the Black race. That was the principal ideological source of her now celebrated idealism. She wanted to fight White "racism"; she wanted to help its supposed Black victims.

On August 25, 1993, Biehl was driving three Black companions through Cape Town's Guguletu Township. A mob of toyi-toying supporters of the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), fresh from a raucous political meeting, attacked her car, pelting it with stones and smashing its windows while shouting "One settler, one bullet," a PAC slogan popular among South African Blacks, "settler" being a synonym for a White South African. Biehl was struck in the head with a brick and, bleeding heavily, dragged from her vehicle. As she tried to flee, stumbling, across the road, she was surrounded by a throng of Blacks who repeatedly kicked, stoned, and stabbed her. The fatal wound, among many, came from a knife, buried to its hilt, that entered under her ribs and ended in her heart.

It is now claimed by her eulogists that Biehl died bravely. But the truth is that she didn't. She died begging for her life. No one can blame her, of course, but the story of Amy's bravery is just a pious lie. She died as most of us would die under similar circumstances -- a degrading, abject death, beseeching her tormentors for mercy, but receiving none.

Four of Biehl's assailants, from among the dozen or so who attacked her, were arrested and convicted, but in July of 1998, in the wake of apartheid's demise, they were released from prison, on the ground that the motive for her murder had been political. The killers had believed that her death would help end apartheid, Desmond Tutu's Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded. She was, as the Commission further observed, simply a representative White in the wrong place at the wrong time. As one of the killers testified: "We were in very high spirits and the White people were oppressive; we had no mercy on the White people. A White person was a White person to our eyes."

Amy's father, demonstrating how thoroughly he shared his daughter's anti-racialist convictions, shook hands with her murderers and encouraged their release. Peter Biehl told reporters: "We hope they will receive the support necessary to live productive lives in a non-violent atmosphere. In fact, we hope the spirits of Amy and of those like her will be a force in their new lives." Two of the freed killers were, however, subsequently accused of rape, a common pastime in the "New South Africa," and have since fled prosecution; Amy's parents selflessly assumed the White man's burden and befriended the other two. Doubtless Amy herself would have befriended her father's killers, had he been killed by a Black mob instead of her. Such is the nature of anti-racialist idealism: It thrives on the most outrageous violations of normal human loyalties.

In itself a single case, it proves nothing, no matter how compelling. At most it only provides a face and a specific life history for a larger factual argument, which should either succeed or fail on the basis of its intrinsic merits and on the weight of evidence its advocates can convincingly adduce, not on the emotions the face and specific life history evoke. But if Amy Biehl's death, taken in isolation from other facts, demonstrates anything, it is surely not the likelihood of successful Black government in post-apartheid South Africa.

Not even the most delusional liberal, one would think, could possibly draw that meaning from the brutal racial killing of a defenseless, anti-racialist White woman. Yet that, nevertheless, is the significance her murder, remarkably, has been assigned. The death of Amy Biehl represents, in the eyes of her hagiographers, a meaningful sacrifice to the noble cause of racial harmony and multiracial democracy, now well on their way to realization in the New South Africa. It is a political interpretation that requires, much like anti-racialism itself, an almost supernatural ability to overlook pertinent facts.

"In her death," Peter Biehl now imagines, "Amy created ... a new consciousness of the depths of human denial and of the raw potential of a free nation." Accordingly the Amy Biehl Foundation has been established to continue what Biehl's parents call "Amy's unfinished legacy": American school children are indoctrinated in the purported but highly implausible "lesson" of Amy's life -- that "a single person can make a difference," just like Amy ostensibly did; musical instruments are distributed to budding Black South African musicians; cosmetics and perfumes are, perhaps quixotically, distributed in Amy's name to needy women in the Black townships and squatter camps; more substantively, training programs for Blacks are funded, in which two of Amy's killers participate, at the moment successfully; a bakery has been established, selling "Amy's Bread -- the bread of hope and peace."

The obvious problem with the anti-racialist interpretation of Biehl's martyrdom is, of course, that the wrong people martyred her. That is not merely a small and thus dispensable "inconvenient fact" intruding itself into an otherwise convincing liberal narrative, starring Amy as the bearer of hope and peace for a "New South Africa." It is, rather, central to the event: She died, as a representative White, so that people like her killers could govern people like herself, her fellow Europeans, her racial kinsmen.

Black violence is also central, very tangibly, to the Black-governed South Africa that Biehl worked, in her own modest way, to create. Her death at the hands of a Black mob was not unusual in 1993. Exactly a month earlier PAC terrorists, practicing their own brand of anti-apartheid activism, had massacred congregants in a White Church with grenades and rifle fire, killing eleven and wounding fifty-eight, a portent of the even greater violence that majority-rule would soon unleash. The "New South Africa" is, with twenty-seven thousand murders per year, the most dangerous place on earth.

It can also boast of more rapes per capita than any other country; a South African woman is now raped every twenty-six seconds, about forty percent of the victims enduring sadistic gang rapes (or "jackrolling," as its Black practitioners call it) . White farmers, in concrete enactments of the venerable ANC slogan "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer," are now regularly tortured and murdered in brutal, often horrifyingly brutal attacks on their isolated rural homes; farming is thus statistically post-apartheid South Africa's most dangerous profession.

Carjackings are now so routine that motorists run red lights rather than risk stopping their vehicles, armed robberies likewise so routine that only in exceptional circumstances do the media bother to report them. Suburban Whites now cower at night behind barred windows, which of course do little to protect them from home invasions, and the more affluent are retreating to fortified enclaves, away from exploding crime in South Africa's formerly First World cities.

All of this, along with an accelerating economic collapse, was predictable and was in fact vocally predicted by White defenders of apartheid, who knew what "multiracial democracy" would mean for their people. With average IQs in the low 70s, most sub-Saharan Africans are mentally retarded by European standards and thus incapable of either creating or maintaining an advanced, Western society. Black-governed South Africa is simply descending, gradually but inexorably, to the primitive level of the rest of Black Africa. That's what everyone, including Amy Biehl, should have expected.

Biehl selected South Africa for her benevolent ministrations, rather than Rwanda or Sierra Leone, because she recognized that it was the continent's only successful economy. Her parents report:

Amy used to tell us that Africa was the "continent of the future." Amy was drawn by the numerous democratic struggles throughout the continent. She knew that these emerging democracies would awaken and transform a sleeping giant. She recognized that -- because of its economic sophistication and developed infrastructure -- a democratic South Africa could become the dominant player in an African transformation. This realization -- coupled with the depth and breadth of human rights abuse -- took Amy to South Africa.

Comment should be superfluous. Black Africa has, needless to say, not a single genuine "emerging democracy" and not even a single functioning nation-state. Somehow Amy Biehl, a Ph.D. student in political science, failed to grasp that South Africa's "economic sophistication and developed infrastructure" were products of the Whites who governed it and the Whites who, under apartheid, comprised its citizenry.

In the early 1990s, while White liberal activists, assisted by their more sanguinary Black colleagues, worked busily for the dispossession of South African Whites from the homeland that their ancestors had built, the economic output of all of sub-Saharan Black Africa, with a population of about six hundred million, was less than Sweden's, population eight million. Then, as now, eighteen of the world's twenty poorest nations were in Black Africa.

Then, as now, Black Africa -- which under European colonialism had produced ninety-eight percent of its food requirements -- was the world's largest recipient of food aid. Then, as now, Black Africa was plagued with endemic hunger, disease, violence and war. Apartheid South Africa, governed by its hated White minority, was the only sub-Saharan exception, the only success story on the entire Dark Continent. But in six short years Black misgovernment has turned South Africa into just another Black failure.

Anti-racialism is more a religious faith than a set of political convictions. Hence the virtual irrelevance of facts in the minds of its most dedicated votaries. White-governed South Africa, like White-governed Rhodesia before it, was always an attractive target for liberal activists, because the very presence of Whites enabled them to ascribe, to their own satisfaction at least, Black poverty and violence to White malevolence.

Most deliberately closed their eyes to the fact of Black Africa's manifest failure elsewhere and willed themselves to believe that a Black-governed South Africa would, miraculously, become the continent's sole exception. Although they knew the abundant evidence that indicated otherwise, they chose, in their own anti-racialist version of Orwellian double-think, to allow their knowledge to remain inert, with no effect on their equalitarian beliefs, in order that their ideals could remain uncontaminated by evidence.

Should deracinated liberals receive a moral pass for a willed failure to notice the utterly obvious? And wasn't the eruption, in a very physical form, of obvious racial realities into a life devoted to delusional anti-racialist activism really the most striking feature of Biehl's brutal murder? The legend of Amy Biehl implausibly claims that her death was a significant sacrifice for a worthy objective. But in simpler and far more convincing terms she was just a naive liberal do-gooder who received, fatally, an unmerited but unsurprising lesson in the real world's indifference to idealistic fantasies.

22 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Peter Biehl sacrificed his daughter, literally, on the altar of a false god. He was responsible for this atrocity. Shame on him! Read Judges 11:31 onwards...

Exzanian said...

The history of black politics in ZA can be summed up in one phrase "inability to control mobs" or put another way "mobs are easily exploited"
Whether you are looking at the Sharpeville incident, the Ciskei massacre (07 September 1992) the Boiphatong massacre, or the euphamistically named "xenophobic" slaughter in 2008, and many more, it's all the same. Why should whites keep shouldering the blame?????

Piet the Pirate said...

Amy Biehl was afflicted by the terrible and, in her case, terminal illness, known as liberalism.
Her parents inflicted this perversion on her, and she, naive thing that she was, paid the price of their stupidity.
BTW, I resent the introduction to this article. I certainly don´t believe whites were paralysed by fear, but rather, were sold out by dishonest leaders who they trusted, and who betrayed them. To say otherwise is to suggest Amy Biehls death was a contributing factor to white capitulation, and as such, a success for the tactic of terrorism.

FishEagle said...

I wish they wouldn't call it political SCIENCE. Shame on the universities.

Anonymous said...

The white bitch was a traitor to the white race and got what she deserved. Talk about being racist, the kaffirs are the biggest racists on the face of this earth.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing more dangerous than a young, white liberal woman. She was put out of her misery before she could cause more harm.

Anonymous said...

You have done exactly the correct thing to rerun this article.

It deserves much wider publicity in the USA and Europe.

I agree she was set up here by her parents.Her father in particular seems to have exhibited the most bizarre form of naive arrogance, not least towards the rest of us as well as to his daughter's butchers.

Minor degrees of this phenomenon are still widespread in the West, and cumulatively very destructive of legitimate white interests all over the world.

However, there exists no clearer example of the fact that political correctness is a suicide cult, than this sordid and pathetic tragedy.

Anon.

trey cruz said...

White south Africans have ruined their own nation by handing it over to stone age kaffirs, and soon will have to emigrate if they are to preserve their lives when Uhuru comes.
Give 'em all the Darwin Award and send 'em to France.

Jim Beam said...

@Anon

"The white bitch was a traitor to the white race and got what she deserved."

So what have you done for the white race in your life? Let me guess - fuckall!

Yap Yap Yap

Exzanian said...

PTP, perhaps you were not paralysed by fear, but many of us were. I certainly voted "yes" in the 1992 referendum partly because I feared that if I didn't, the violence would spill over in a big way and whites would be killed en masse. Coupled with the years of indoctrination on television, government propaganda that this was "the right thing to do" and the overseas media, I felt absolutely compelled to vote yes, like a rat in a corner...

Anonymous said...

@Jim Bean - what have you done for the coloureds? You like to come on this forum and dish out against us hated whites but anything bad said about the coloureds is taboo. You also live in lala land with the other "previously disadvantaged" who were so hard done by. I can gurantee that if it weren't for apartheid the blacks would have wiped you race out years ago.

Get real.

Jim Beam said...

@Anon

Hey register a name with blogger or someone else. Have balls would you.

Amy Biehl no matter what we might think of her helping blacks on the other side of the world did something positive. She did not bitch on forums she got up and did something. This very blog not to long ago spoke about doing something outside of blogging and starting a fund to help whites.

That is was a positive start. It gets away from talking and doing something real but the reaction to the idea was luke warm. So who has the balls? The white liberal out of America or some 'big balls' guy on a blog or forum who does fuckall other than talk?

Oh, by the way you take the piss out of Coloureds as they do on the other blogs and forums as it does not do anything for me. Blowing out someone elses candle does not make yours burn any brighter - now does it?

Now go and do something positive and don't pour scorn on those - however misguided - who at least did something they believed in.

FishEagle said...

I'm sorry. What exactly did Amy Biehl do that was so great?! I would argue that when people are not capable of registering to vote, i.e. they need help, they should not be allowed to have a say in the running of the country. People that were diadvantaged by apartheid to the extent that they were too poor and uneducated to register to vote have all my sympathy. But as always, people only look as far as the end of THIS day and never into the future. Those poor people needed upliftment FIRST. The fruits of Amy Biehl's efforts can be summed up in two words - Julius Malema. That's nothing to be proud of.

Piet the Pirate said...

FishEagle said... 9 March 2010 00:54

The fruits of Amy Biehl's efforts can be summed up in two words - Julius Malema. That's nothing to be proud of.

LOL. You can say that again.

Anonymous said...

The problem with Amy B is not that she lacked initiative, it's that she lacked a critical understanding of what she was getting involved in.

And this is only marginally her fault. There are plenty of young people who need time to learn, and getting involved in the real world might well have taught her in the long run.

The real problem lies with those adults who set her up for this. Judging by her parents' actions after her murder, I would guess they are mainly to blame. But in a way, the entire rotten PC movement murdered her, and damn the whole liberal establishment for it.

Anon.

AMB said...

@ Jim Bean - oh, so all the Anon's out there should register? Who knows what your real name is? Just like all the bloggers, they have pseudonyms, and Anon is also one! Doesn't make the message anymore real.

Jim Beam said...

@AMB

You are missing the point. It means that we can make reference to what they had said before. Much like Piet who plays the New World Order line then forgets a week later when he throws another reason.

Who cares what your real name is. It makes it easier to debate.

Ron. said...

What a joke. They try to justify her murder by erroneously claiming that it was done to "fight Apartheid" when any fool would know that Apartheid had ended on July 17 1991. This murder took place in 1993 two years AFTER the end of Apartheid & just a few months before the multi racial Transitional Executive Committee government & less than a year before the ANC government. The notion that she was killed as part of a "struggle against Apartheid" is a blatant proven lie & does not hold water.

Viking said...

I'm with Piet on this one - her parents are the problem, and probably encouraged her to stick her neck in the noose in the first place.
Being naive doesn't deserve a death sentence, and it's not like she was advocating violence. We were all idealistic in our youth, and teaching the blacks how to engage in democracy is not an act worthy of hate.
She was murderer for being white, that's the reality. They saw her and couldn't resist their murderous urges. They were not interested in why she was there.

Her parents should be ashamed.

Ron. said...

Correction. Apartheid legislation was abolished on June 17 1991. Not July - this is what happens when one posts tired.

Bantu Education said...

Her last words to her black girlfriends - as she naively got out of the car to explain to the crazed mob that she was "part of the revolution" - were "Dont worry, I understand these people..!"

Well she didn´t understand them - and neither do any white liberals, and this is the problem facing us..!

FishEagle said...

@ Bantu Education. So true. It's that simple.