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.
I assume that not few white people simply lack the capability to understand what it means to be treated like second-class people.
Would so many people including presidents and pm's have defended or excused apartheid for decades if those blacks had looked like Swedes, but otherwise been exactly the same? I doubt it.
My position remains the same. The nation is in the hands of the native people of the land, and it will rise or fall on its own merits.
I don't care if Apartheid was better or worse. I don't like that it was imposed on the natives by European interlopers that had no right to do so.
Ok, fair enough. But how were they (whites) interlopers? You know that the black African tribes warred against each other and even sold the losers of the "war" into slavery.
But anyway, there were no "natives" in the sense that was any sort of organized land-ownership. Same as in the United States. The "Indians" didn't own land and never thought of themselves as owning it at all. They regularly "stole" land from each other, and committed horrible atrocities on each other as well.
What the white South Africans did was make some out of nothing at all. And, relatively speaking, did an excellent job of it. Why otherwise would black Africans try and get into it?
Who can blame the "whites" for wanting to hold on to what they created? Would you? I am willing to put myself into your place as to natural alliances with who was or who wasn't the "bad guy". -- even if I don't agree with it -- but you don't seem willing to reciprocate...
One thing -- no matter how twisted into a corkscrew -- is that South Africa has gone from the most prosperous nation on the continent, into one full of horror, murders and rape.
I assume that not few white people simply lack the capability to understand what it means to be treated like second-class people.
Would so many people including presidents and pm's have defended or excused apartheid for decades if those blacks had looked like Swedes, but otherwise been exactly the same? I doubt it.
I have seen them and it is the same old apologetic and pathetic guilt-ridden treatise...and often by white leftists who always conveniently manage to avoid what they recommend for everyone else. The proverbial "limosine liberal".
Do you honestly think black people today are being treated like second class citizens? How long do you think this old canard is going to have any currency at all?
But ok, so far as South Africa goes? I can name quite a few instances where blacks wanted to migrate to South Africa. Can anyone name just ONE, where whites wanted to apply for citizenship the other way around in the black-controlled African nations?
Isn't it somehow..."strange"?...shall we say, that when people like me speak the truth as we see it, that we are so often vilified as "racists." And black Americans such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, dismissed as "Uncle Toms." (personally, I would like to see either run for president!).
BUT...no one ever really refutes the facts presented?
Of course, and I don't mean that sarcastically at all. As I have said repeatedly, if I were a black South African, I would have done the same thing. And (afterthought), hope I was in the winning tribe.
It was warned, what would happen if Mandela's faction gained control. And it was not pretty...and it isn't. No sugar-coat is going to make it different.
But as it was? The place went to hell in a handbasket. Mandela was a committed Marxist and this wife was worse. No matter how it is spun by the worshipping American left, his ultimate idea was NOT harmony with whites. It was to take over the country. Heck, human nature for power hungry people...and the evidence is out there if one really cares to stare it in the face...
And no one ever seems to be able to refute the inconvenient fact that the main reason black Africans flooded into South Africa, was because they actually enjoyed a higher standard of living than where they came from originally.
I guess I just have little patience with all these notions that Mandela was some kind of saint. He wasn't. He did good for his own committed tribe, but he supported a system that has the worst consistent human-rights violations in history.
Wellll, I might be dense, but I don't connect this analogy at all, to the subject. In fact, it seems quite a contrived stretch. But I am certainly wanting to hear your connection.
BTW -- just like Detroit, I want to add that you seem like a very intelligent person with whom a conversation can be had, even if in disagreement!
If I am not mistaken many immigrants were from Mozambique during the civil war there. Others came from Zimbabwe, which was also a hell hole, a dictatorship.
To a certain extent i think it is natural for black SA's to have wanted to take over and everything away from whites, whom they considered thieves and invaders. I guess every country wants to get rid of invaders and take back what they consider theirs.
I am not saying that SA's are not egoists and racists as well, but I think they are more justified to be down there. Now, if they went to the Netherlands and wanted to take over there, it would be another story.
While Marxism and Communism are mostly frowned upon in the West, why would others think the same way? There is no scientific law or anything that says they are bad.
In a country where wealth has been in the hands of a minority for a long time, there is a natural tendency to want to redistribute that wealth, a kind of economic osmosis.
In many African countries the problem was that the colonial powers had split the local population into elites and the rest, so that when the colonial powers left, the native populations were often left with a similar class system like before, the only difference being that it was now a black minority trying to grab wealth and privileges at the expense of the rest of the population. That is also what fueled corruption and cronyism, which is especially devastating in those huge African countries with tens or even hundreds of ethnic groups like Nigeria. Some say the Brits did that splitting on purpose in order keep the native population from uniting.
I think the rape analogy was pretty obvious. Don't really know what to explain there
I have seen them and it is the same old apologetic and pathetic guilt-ridden treatise...and often by white leftists who always conveniently manage to avoid what they recommend for everyone else. The proverbial "limosine liberal".
Do you honestly think black people today are being treated like second class citizens? How long do you think this old canard is going to have any currency at all?
But ok, so far as South Africa goes? I can name quite a few instances where blacks wanted to migrate to South Africa. Can anyone name just ONE, where whites wanted to apply for citizenship the other way around in the black-controlled African nations?
Isn't it somehow..."strange"?...shall we say, that when people like me speak the truth as we see it, that we are so often vilified as "racists." And black Americans such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, dismissed as "Uncle Toms." (personally, I would like to see either run for president!).
BUT...no one ever really refutes the facts presented?
Today? We were talking about SA's during apartheid. Most of them had no electricity, no running water, no adequate housing, etc. So, yes, they were definitely treated like second-class people.
I don't understand why you think that the fact that some Africans immigrated to SA during apartheid means that the system was somehow OK.
I live in Portugal, there are people coming here from third-world countries, where no Portuguese people would want to move. Still, does that change the fact that Portugal is in bad shape? No, it only means that those people pick the lesser evil.
Ok, fair enough. But how were they (whites) interlopers? You know that the black African tribes warred against each other and even sold the losers of the "war" into slavery.
But anyway, there were no "natives" in the sense that was any sort of organized land-ownership. Same as in the United States. The "Indians" didn't own land and never thought of themselves as owning it at all. They regularly "stole" land from each other, and committed horrible atrocities on each other as well.
What the white South Africans did was make some out of nothing at all. And, relatively speaking, did an excellent job of it. Why otherwise would black Africans try and get into it?
Who can blame the "whites" for wanting to hold on to what they created? Would you? I am willing to put myself into your place as to natural alliances with who was or who wasn't the "bad guy". -- even if I don't agree with it -- but you don't seem willing to reciprocate...
One thing -- no matter how twisted into a corkscrew -- is that South Africa has gone from the most prosperous nation on the continent, into one full of horror, murders and rape.
Don't know what else to say...
They made something out of nothing?
LMAO...you've GOT to be kidding me.
So the blacks were just sitting around with their thumbs up their butts doing absolutely nothing, huh? Just living meaningless lives until the good old white man arrived, eh?
And I don't know how many times I have to disabuse you guys of the notion that subjugation and tyranny by Europeans in Africa was ok just because tribes were constantly at war.
Europeans tribes had JUST AS MUCH tribal war and probably much worse. In fact, they were having tribal wars well into the 1940's. The European Tribal War that went from 1938-1945 alone killed 50-60 million people so you tell me who specializes in tribal wars? And that was after another European Tribal War that went from 1914-1918 that killed about 10 million.
So the blacks were just sitting around with their thumbs up their butts doing absolutely nothing, huh? Just living meaningless lives until the good old white man arrived, eh?
And I don't know how many times I have to disabuse you guys of the notion that subjugation and tyranny by Europeans in Africa was ok just because tribes were constantly at war.
Europeans tribes had JUST AS MUCH tribal war and probably much worse. In fact, they were having tribal wars well into the 1940's. The European Tribal War that went from 1938-1945 alone killed 50-60 million people so you tell me who specializes in tribal wars? And that was after another European Tribal War that went from 1914-1918 that killed about 10 million.
It's called the Europeans had better weapons and training 150 years ago. I'm 100 percent sure had it been the other way; Africans would've done the SAME nasty stuff in Europe.
It's called the Europeans had better weapons and training 150 years ago. I'm 100 percent sure had it been the other way; Africans would've done the SAME nasty stuff in Europe.
Yeah..having "better weapons" (whatever that means) makes the European Tribal Wars more 'civilized.'
70-80 million dead in ten years is ok because hey...they had better weapons. Which means that they're less barbaric than those black Africans with their primitive weaponry.
After all, those Europeans didn't MEAN to kill so many people. It's the weapon's fault.
Yeah..having "better weapons" (whatever that means) makes the European Tribal Wars more 'civilized.'
70-80 million dead in ten years is ok because hey...they had better weapons. Which means that they're less barbaric than those black Africans with their primitive weaponry.
After all, those Europeans didn't MEAN to kill so many people. It's the weapon's fault.
I get it Packard.
Uh; I'd be looking at Rwanda just a few years back. No "white" people doing the killing; it was def Black on Black murdering.
Like I said earlier: had the Africans had good weapons and knew how to use them; Europe would've fallen assuming the people there were savages using just bows and arrows.
Uh; I'd be looking at Rwanda just a few years back. No "white" people doing the killing; it was def Black on Black murdering.
Like I said earlier: had the Africans had good weapons and knew how to use them; Europe would've fallen assuming the people there were savages using just bows and arrows.
Nowhere did I deny that blacks had civil wars and massacres. But so what?
Around the same time Rwanda was going on, white Catholic Croatian militias, white Serbian Orthodox Christian militias, and white Bosnian Muslim militias were in the Balkans whacking each other by the hundreds of thousands. No blacks were involved in that.
We can keep going if you like. Because at the end of the day, I can stack the European bodies up higher than you EVER can the Africans.
So it's like...whatever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
