"Vermont is longer than 70 miles. And I have walked that much. Called the Logn Trail.
You can't get around the fact that by SA's own standards the crime is rampant."
I'm not saying crime is not bad there, I'm just other countries have high crime to its just more people get away with it. When you take your stappler home from work thats theft. Yet how much people ever been arrested for it in USA? In South africa the differences i some one will break into your house and steal your stapler who you don't know and that gets reported.
In Canada the homicide rate is reported at 605 a year for a population of 30 million, this seems low. In reality it is closer to 7000 as they do not count when people drink and drive and kill people as a homicide, which legally it is considered and is the leading cause of homicide death. What I am pointing out is that developed countries seemingly manipulate the stats to make the homicide rate look lower, it doesn''t matter if your hit by a drunk man or by a bullet both can kill and both are homicide but only one is considered in the stats. There exist no comprehensive crime data to make a fair comparison, Madoof stole money for years and got away imagine those like madoff who don't get caught.
"You skirt the fact that Blacks were stealing from Blacks."
I did not skirt the fact, I said it was irrelevent to the discussion becuase it is ok to offend/do bad things to your own race more so than it is to another race. That why Hitler is worse than Churchill. Hitler killed jews but churchill and stalin killed people of their own race. Africa is full of black people who kill black people all day long and I never seen a white person who ever cared yet, so I don't think you do either. Your trying to say that one group of whites are somehow equally "african" as a group of black people who have been in the land for not only centuries but for mileenium, they have been in that land before england and netherlands was a country before christianity was even widely accepted in europe, before the birth of muhammad and the crusades. These africans have nowhere else to go, the brits and dutch do and that should be considered. If your black and you can't get a job in africa and can't escape white racism in africa, then you answer the question what country do you go to?
Not to add that it was not really stealing of land until the rise of Shaka Zulu if you want to put it that way. There was never a use of intentional killing until he rised to power. It was actually very different. nothing was stopping a ndeble or san man from coming back to an area that was "taken" from him and hunting there. Obviously he could not do that in a city, but the main conflicts were from Zulu and other Bantu tribes. As is evidenced because the San and Bantu people actually mixed as opposed to a violent conflict you are trying to portray. Warfare was not part of southern africa traditionally. ONLY shaka zulu brought it and the generations after him
This is a huge difference between the europeans who came, set up fences, and started ethnic cleansing the khohikhoi, zulu and san. They were never invinted from day 1 they had warfare and it just continued until the khohikhoi were wiped out/ethically cleanse/genocided. No such thing happened with the Zulus, they never killed of races of people. Even under Shaka the choice was to join Shaka's empire, which basically meant the politicians pledge allegiance to him but no other real consequence. Whereas pledging allegiance to english or dutch meant death, and the evils of apartheid.
Not to mention you have skirted plenty of my questions.
" And, no, apartheid began before the 50's. Ghandi once travelled in SA and was shocked by it."
LOL Ghandi was pro apartheid and he was in india for a long time. He only opposed the part of apartheid that seperate indians from whites. H e was a little racist you know. Ghandi was a member of the army, he wa snot so peaceful, it was becuase he got a taste of aprtheid that he decided to stop supporting the british who mad ehim take of his turban in court.
In 1903 the british declared war on the zulu nation and ghandi encouraged indians to take up arms against the zulu. This just goes to show you that there was an entire zulu nation in 1906, SA was not even really fully colonized at that time when USA and Canada and most western nationas had achieved their independece from britain.
Ghandi was my bo means shocked by apartheid, he said that indians and whites hsould work together against the black man. I am no fan of ghandi.
"If they didn't file they wouldn't of gotten anything. If the Blacks there were squatting the Whites did not legally speaking steal from them."
Your definiton of legally stealing is some kind of twisted american definition used to trick native americans out of their land. we will have non such of that in africa. We will operate like america and the UK in the future, we iwll set laws, and if those laws don't benefit africans, we will change them so that they do. You are speaking of double talk now. Keep you story straight.
All of the land was either owned by san, bantu or san and bantu admixed people, there was no free land SA. The had to kill off all the khohikoi people and steal the land. Clearly the khohikoi people opposed it as theyf fought so no squatters rights can be claimed, if I am not mistaken there is a group who is filing suit against britain right now over it.
"It would change everything. "
Even if it would it was irrelevent as iit did not happen that way. I just double checked.
"It was the government under the ANC that was internationally citiqued for ignoring the AIDS problem. "
Well aids didn't just pop up in 1994. I'm not saying their hands are completely clean, but if the crumbs of aprtheid were a good as you are claiming their never should have been so many people with Aids. If SAwas a first world country under white rule for everyone, you never could have had so much aids. Look at SA neighbours under black rule, they have much lower aids, even the "corrupt" eveil and terrible "dictator" mugabe has better managed the aids situation than a rich first world white aparthied government,
"Those weren't the military under Washington but citizens acting on their own and that behavior was not considered acceptable by men like John Adams and Washington. "
Come on, Washington is an America hero, he was a terrorist, a man fighting against a nation with no recognized state at the time. The victors write the war story, if osama won he would also be a hero, but he didn't so he is a terrorist. The breadth and scale of the attacks suggest that it was directed form the top. When he said go capture a city he knew innocent people were being blown up. You sound incredibly naive to me, almost like one of those people from the 1970s who think they can blow up a federal building and kill no one.
Geroge washington was also a raicst and a sexist, he held slaves and thought blacks and women were down there, but we don't like to remember that about our heros. We don't like to remember that abraham lincoln wrote how he wanted to ethnically cleanse and genocide every "red faced savage" acccording to a documentary on him on the history channel.
Even if what you said was true, washginton would be considered a war criminal because he had the power to stop it, knew it was happening and chose not to. Its the same thing they did to the german and *** commanders and anyone ever accused of war crimes or terrorizism at the top. They would say Mr. Washington you are the commander of the contiental congress, yes, and is it not true you command the entire army, yes, and is it also not true that people were tared, feathered and murdered under your watch, yes but I had nothing to do with, then how is it possible that this could happen on such a wide scale the 100,000s of refugees had to flea the country, uhh, i dunno, it wasn't me man, ya you sound like the who ran enron. I'm sure if washington lost they could find some benedict arnold to say washington told them to totrture and kill to save their own skin.
"The U.S. still honors, for the most part, the right to arms. By your own admission Mandela was a brute."
No more than George Washington or any other leader who fought for independence.
"You can't kill them, etc. "
I agree, but do you have a right to try and retrieve your car? Even if it was 5years.
" Better could have been found. "
The next leading man was a communist who had support from, cuba, soviet union, mozambique and angola and zimbabwe to fight an armed conflict and over throw the government. There were actually plans in place to have soviet union bomb the capital and basically gang bang SA andput in a communist regime.
"No, not at all. That is a racist statement. People are equal, a crime again one person is never worse because of the race of the person."
People are equal but cirmes aginats another race on mass are more hateful and hatecrimes, acts of geneocide and thenic cleansing. If a white man does the same act to a white man its not, its just murder and land grabbing.
"No, if you care about the people, you would care about the economy. Only a good economy will improve living standards for the people."
Its not that we don't care about the economy, we care about our freedom more. Its like saying george washington should have never rebelled because it disrupted the economy for decades. Whats the point of having a good economy where only one group enjoys the good and the rest stays forever poor. The whites fight reform at every step so there is no other choice. I would rather be poor and free of white oppression than to be poor under white oppression. I agree witht the ameican who said give me liberty or give me death. Money isn't everything.
"Your statement on Switzerland is misleading. Not even a Swiss person born to Swiss parents in Switzerland automatically becomes a citizen. It must be granted to them (and military service is requires of all Swiss males). But in most countries being born there gives you automatic citizenship, like in the U.S. "
true
"African countries signed the agreements, African countries are in the UN, and the world will enforce basic international laws whether you think you are obligated to not torture, commit ethnic cleansing, etc., or not."
World, what world. This is the problem, USA thinks they are the world, they are not. The world includes everyone, and as far as I can see international law means nothing, has no teeth or enforcement outside of the wto. The "world" has shown time and time again a completely inability to enforce international law, russia in georgia, NK, america in iraq and afghanistan, France in Chad rwanda, and Sudan, Britain in Zimbabwe and iraq, Iran, sri lanka. The worse dictator alive is omar el bashir of sudan, no one has killed more of his own people and he travels freely around africa, so I don't think the world as you call it has any teeth. Not to mention that not even the USA believes in international law. Bush would be on trial now and so would former us commanders and america won't even sign up for the faux world court. Law is nothing wihtout enforcement. after the Bush invasions of iraq, africans have smarted up. we naively believed that the west was sincere, but now we see that westerns can support genocide like in france, invade countries like usa, uk and russia, and have 0 consequences. so we will never turn over s single person to the world court again, and to most africans its not worht the paper it is written on.
"Which ones? Russia's economy went into shambles once the oil prices collapsed."
Well lets see
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/sf.html
Sa is an emerging market, goriwng at 2.8%, thats better than anywhere in the western world, hmm not to bad. Its gdp per capita is about the same as brazil. so SA seems to be holding its own, its grew in ayrea when most economies in the west shrank
"They were there on a large scale in the 19th century."
Those are different than the disputed people in question. Those whites are dutch spread out among east zimbabwe, north south africa, zambia and malawai and mozambique. They have a totally different history than the genocidal british. The whites/dutch of the 19th century also were much smaller and were never GIVEN the land, just the right to "long term lease it". So live on it, use it, but it was clear from the treaty that it would have to be returned someday. These dutch men who fought under the zulu were basically zulu vassal state, never considered their own soveirn nations by the zulu but given the right to use the land and form a state like government like all the other zulu vassal states.
"Blatant racism. They are not foreigners, they were born there."
I pointed to you that being born in a place does not always make you that ethnicity. Its like a chinese man being born in ireland calling himself and irish.
" They are Africans whether you like it or not because of your racism. "
So you are a white alaskan trying to tell me who I am. Interesting, and I am the racist? African=black or partial black heritage they are not african, because they are full blooded white men.
"That's like saying the only Americans are Native Americans. Not true. As all humans originated in Africa, once science is applied, your beliefs become even more absurd."
All humans may have originated in africa, but not south africa, so they do not originate from here. They are from europe.
"The Zulu were no different than the Whites. They claimed it was theirs for no reason, they did not originate there either."
They lived there ebfore Britain awas even a country. If ginger people are scottish or french men french then zulus are zulu. zulus did not colonise, they mixed with the indigenious without war. The zulu and xhosa have been warring for a long time only at the rise of shaka did it involve arms which was only a short time befre most europeans came here illegally. The zulus claimd it as their because it was theirs, the land was empty along the cost, so the zulus took it and intermarried with the san who also married the xhosa in the interior. No warring was involved until about 1650s when it began to be over populated.
" Their empire was forced on other people and land with military force. A new group came stronger and forced them out. "
No, You had 2 nations that grew for 1000 years ran out of space so warred, like england and french.
"It sounds more to me like people wanting land free or dirt cheap."
Why should africans pay for them to go anyways, they shouldn't they came here illegally. Let the british who sent them here take them away. If not they will just be kicked off. Should they get nothing, its not the most desirable thing, I do feel somewhat sorry for them, but its madness to think africans should pay for them. We opposed their being here, hte british since day 1.
"There's no statute of limitations on murder in most countries. Stealing, there almost always is. Can you cite the pertinent laws in SA?"
Yes
Theft SOL South Africa legal definition of Theft SOL South Africa. Theft SOL South Africa synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
No statute of limitations exist on theft in SA, this includes land theft. This is why the minister now has the power to expropriate stolen lands by white settler aka colonialist.
"That's English common law. "
Then that part it is not used in south africa see above
"Well it would logically follow that people Mugabe committed these crimes against are not walking freely are they? No, the U.S. and U.K. did not support Mugabe's massacres. They were political opponents. Like most tyrants Mugabe had them murdered."
Your are just making angry accusations with no base now.
"Following independence in 1980, Zimbabwe initially made significant economic and social progress, but tensions between the Shona and the Ndebele began to surface once again. Internal security worsened as the Ndebele resorted to terrorism[
citation needed] to challenge Mugabe and his majority Shona ruled party. The government responded with a series of military campaigns against the terrorists and Mugabe was accused of numerous
atrocities against civilians in Matabeleland"
wiki-mugabe was fighting violent terrorist, what was he suppose to do give them rose flowers. Thats like saying Obama is a tyrant for fighting al qaeda
"Absolutely wrong. In Common Law leaders are absolutely responsible for their actions and not absolute rulers at all. That's what the Magna Carta was all about, eliminating absolute rule. Since then any leader who acted illegally can be prosecuted. "
Thats only on paper, show me a leader from a common law country in the last 200 years ever put on trial. Nixon commited crimes and he never went to trial, stole, broke and enter, corruption and tried to steal an election. canada has a history of political corruption and not on eleader ever stood trial. In theory
, yes the prime minster can be prosecuted but in reality never happens. America will never put a president on trial or convict him without pardonning him because
-It will "bring great shame to the nation"
-degrade the office
-too partisan, I don't see dick cheney in prison yet he lied to congress and its not even disputed- rebulicans just jump and say too partisan, divide the nation. Every country is like this. If a liberal is corrupt the liberals in parliament or congress will say it will divide the nation, shame the country we can't do it. The magna carta is in line with legal theory that say the right to possess arms and property. Outside america no common law country honours this. and america clearly will not prosecute its own, so in practice and convention-part of common law, law, the leader is above prosecution.
"Nixon's pardon is not the same as what you think it is. The president may pardon anyone, Ford pardonned Nixon to get over the scandals. If he did not Nixon was going to be prosecuted. Clinton was prosecuted while in office. Not removed from office, but prosecuted and found guilty (impeached). Cheney is not immune from prosecution, simply no one has prosecuted him. The Whites had every right to be there. Mugabe has been guilty of ethnic cleansing."
Etnic cleansing of who? Mugabe is no more guilty of ethnic cleansing than george washington or migel castillo onto colonialistfrom britain and spain. Its not as if mugabe killed the white people he just order them off the land as owners. They were still free to lease or rent it, work on it, and otherwise travel anywhere in the country. Its no different than when the government orders people off of land that is being turned into any othergovernment work, aka railroad. The only difference instead of a railroad you had a new owner instead of rail lines.
Let me be more clear, even if mugabe was prosecuted he can pardon himself as being president. even the icc admits it has no power to act against anyone who is a national of a state party. so anyone who is a leader in recognized country cannot be prosecuted so mugab like bush and blair is above the law.
"It's well referenced and there's plenty out there from multiple sources. Only blind supporters of him deny this stuff."
Only blind supporters support this stuff. It has multiple sources on paper but all the same people. all white, mostly jewish south african and former zimbabwean ex nationals angry at a black man flexing his power and granting soverignty to a an oppressed people. Show me the aid organization, look who runs it and a 90% chance a chairman who is a former zimbabwean or Sa with a chip on his shoulder.
"Racism once more. Scientifically everyone is originally African. Do you believe all the scientists are wrong about the origins of humans?"
Do they orginate from Sa. some scientist also believe that white, african, and asian man developed on 3 countients seperately.
"Have a link to some info. on this vote?"
News - Southern Africa: Mugabe voted history's third-greatest African
Robert Mugabe hailed a hero at African Union summit - Times Online - Mixx
The idea of the evil mugabe only exist in britain and countries who get their news through britain like usa. Britain is a liberal wack job, don't trust its media, its worse than cnn
"Actually he is precisely the same in the following ways: he promises uneducated people who have little, land. He takes it from wealthy landowners whom he has demonized through propaganda and either killed or forced them to flee the country."
No one want these land owners aka colonizers, not even the black people who are in the same party as the land owners. They say no to clonization but they can stay here and work here. You want to put in your view which is fine, but it doesn't exist in osuthern africa. The choice will be all whites go back to europe or leave the land and stay here.
" He sends thugs around to enforce his will, he rigs the government in his favor to hold power, and amidst all of this he lives like a king while most are in poverty. "
Mugabe is a man who has many degrees from good western schools. even if he never became a leader he would have been wealthy regardless. The claims of corruption are silly. He is independenttly wealthy. Mugabe could not have been riging votes for ever. I don't get how one claim a vote is rigged when there was not 1 international observer in the last vote as they werre banned. This is african politics, every country in africa has a group of opposition who claims a rigged vote if they lose. Its the big barrier to democracy. Whenever a party loses that has lots of support, rigged election. Any election within 5 point=rigged election for the losing side in africa. People in urban areas don't vote mugabe so you look around and see 1 million morgan supporters and say how could we lose, rigged elections. what they forget is morgan did not campaign outside 1 city. Mugabe has support from the other 11 million zimbabweans in rural and suburban areas. This is why he has traditionally crushed the oppoents. Morgan was part of Mugabe party up until 2000s, he was able to skim some vote from suburbs and rural areas so elections are closer but not rigged. You don't rig and election to lose by a few points , you rig to win.
You have no EVIDENCE only hersay. These people are like the angry floridans who say bush stole the election. zimbabwe voted for mugab in free and fair elections for 30 years before any accusations came up of election rigging, he has had his run and can take a loss, and wanted to step down 8 years ago but has no predessor except black jesus.
"The economic decline began earlier, the agricultural decline began with the land program."
have any proof?
"They had the opportunity to learn but chased the educated away. And most of Mugabe's friends don't want to farm, they just want to live richly."
Well by your theory it would be in their best interest to keep the white farmers theeir and then just take their money, rather than to cease the land. Your accusations are baseless. There is no proof that mugabe ceased land from anyone to give to his friends. More likely was that those in higher government were the only ones with good jobs who could buy land from the whites at the prices they were selling it for.
"Not really. Mugabe brought all the problems on himself."
No, thats not true
"
When Zimbabwe gained independence, 46.5% of the country's
arable land was owned by around 6,000 commercial farmers.
[65] Mugabe accepted a "willing buyer, willing seller" plan as part of the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, among other concessions to the white minority.
[66] As part of this agreement, land redistribution was blocked for a period of 10 years.
[67]
In 1997, the new British government led by
Tony Blair unilaterally stopped funding the "willing buyer, willing seller" land reform programme on the basis that the initial
£44 million allocated under the
Thatcher government was used to purchase land for members of the ruling elite rather than landless peasants. Furthermore, Britain's ruling Labour Party felt no obligation to continue paying white farmers compensation, or in minister
Clare Short's words, "I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers" wiki land reform zimbabwe
It seems that he took a big political risk, he told his people that the whites can stay because the british will buy them out, so everyone will get a fair deal. The whites will get money for land from england, the blacks will get their land back and everyone is happy. Then Tony Blair decided to backstab Mugabe and put him in a bad position. Mugabe looked like a liar for believing Britain would honor its signed agreement, so he decided that the land reforms would go ahead.
"They only want more money because it's losing value and can't buy much. So they print more, and it gets worse. Big circle..."
Whose faulkt is that. white farmers who push up prices and take up government money through land reform
"Mugabe was in power in the 90's when it began failing. it failed because his government policies chased businesses away, he was thuggish to the educated, and outsiders and educated Zimbabweans alike saw what was coming with his government and did not want to invest in the country."
Makes no sense by 1999 when land reform started Mugabe was in power for more than 19 years.
"The definition of colonialism has been pretty well set for centuries in the dictionary. You are changing it."
Thats how you define colonialism in America fine. In africa its defeined differently. when europeans try to control our domestic policy its soft colonialism. You don't have to take physical control to colonise, britain coloniased botswana without ever putting a troop there aka protectorate. You are likely unfamiliar with this but it exist. Britain tells you how to act in your own country is equivalent to a protectorate, you will have this much army, this much tax this much that or else we sanction=colonialism. diplomacy=paying white farmers for what Britain did to them.
"Every country tries to bully others in some way to do what they want. It's called diplomacy, not colonialism. You see it all the time. Like NK threatening everyone to try to get what they want. Russia against Georgia recently.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
