Did Mandela really do good to South Africa? (gasoline, independence, biased)

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by Neuling

Some people in the West seem to think that every country/people has the goal to be the most developed. But I think that is simply not the case, many people just want to lead their simple lives and be left alone. Thus it doesn't matter if Kenya would be more developed today if it were still a British colony. Who knows how African countries (they would not even exist the way they are today) would be doing today if there never had been any colonies in the first place? After all, except for Ethiopia there is not a single country in Africa that was not a colony, with all the consequences...

Be like us or you're bad...that's the gist of their reasoning.

They talk about sovereignty and democracy, but they only respect those ideals for certain nations and certain people.

Africans aren't as advanced, so being a usurper and interloper is ok since they don't deserve to determine their own outcomes.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Democracy!?!

How about just plain basic freaking freedom like people like you rant about incessantly?

You know those basic unalienable rights?

Look, I love freedom and I'll advocate for freedom anywhere in the world. But the problem was that, the ANC and other groups in South Africa weren't really advocating for actual freedom. They were advocating for the government that they wanted. They were socialists. They weren't libertarians.

While I recognize that apartheid certainly is the opposite of freedom. The truth is that, while the apartheid government wanted to heavily regulate the social side of life. They largely wanted to keep markets "free". Had Mandela taken over in the 1950's. The country likely would have fallen into communism, or at least government takeover/nationalization of many industries, especially natural resources(that was the height of the cold war).

If you think the ANC wants free markets, you are delusional. They aren't that far off from Zimbabwe. Who has put in place many "land reforms". Which basically takes away the land from some, and gives it to others. Which has been an utter failure of a policy.



I mean, its really like contrasting the French Revolution to the American revolution. The American revolution created an environment where people were completely distrustful of government. So the outcome was a very limited government. In the French revolution on the other hand. The outcome wasn't a hatred of government. They came out loving the government. And the consequence of the French revolution was severe government tyranny.


The problem with democracy, is that the people(the majority) get what they want. But giving 51% of the people what they want all the time, is a terrible idea. And it makes me a bit nauseous when people even describe our country as a democracy. It is not a democracy, and I pray to god that it never becomes a democracy. This place would turn into complete garbage(and its headed in that direction, thanks to democracy).

This is a limited democratically-elected representative republic. DO NOT shorten it to just the word democracy. Because most people are too ignorant to know better.


So lets go back to my point.

It is incredibly unlikely that South Africa would have been more economically developed had the ANC taken over in the 1950's. But more importantly, its highly unlikely that the general quality of life would be better in South Africa than it is today. Even for blacks. Its likely that it would much more resemble Zimbabwe or Kenya than the current South Africa.


With that said. Let us go back to one of my comparisons from earlier in this thread. Martin Luther King Jr and Mandela. MLK in my mind gets more credit than Mandela. Because at least he was peaceful.

But if you really look at MLK. He was basically a communist. In one of his speeches, he declared that we should "abolish" poverty through the government expansion of the welfare state. I mean, MLK generally wasn't advocating a general freedom. He was advocating for government control over everything. He didn't just want to free black people. He basically wanted reparations. He wanted things like affirmative-action. He would have been fine with government takeovers of many/most industries.

I can appreciate MLK for much of what he wanted to accomplish. But would I want to MLK to be in any sort of real policy-making position. The answer is hell no. The same can be said for Mandela.

The truth is, Mandela was a figure-head. Up until very recently, the United States generally considered Mandela to be a terrorist. And was on the US terrorist watchlist until 2008.

The real US policy toward Nelson Mandela - Salon.com


Mandela is just loved, not because he is truly a great person. But by people who hate racism, and are embarrassed by its past. They seek to turn anyone who advocated the end to racist polices, into heroes and saints(even if they advocated reverse-racist policies). For some reason, they only want to see the good these people did, and completely ignore the evil things they have done.


I mean, I've been talking to a lot of Europeans lately. And I actually got into an argument with a Russian about Stalin. He thinks Stalin was a great man. Because of how Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union and made it possibly the most powerful country on Earth. I mean, the Soviets basically were the ones who defeated the Nazi's. But what about about the bad things Stalin did? Were they necessary? And were the bad things Stalin did offset by all the good things he did?


As I said. I suppose my question then is. Was Stalin a great man? I suppose that is only opinion. But I like to think of it like, what if Stalin had never become the leader of the Soviet Union? Would it be better or worse? Well I suppose its hard to tell, because the Soviets were already communist before he came along. I think a more fair comparison might be. Would Russia have been better off had Lenin never come to power?


I suppose these questions are all still pretty difficult to answer. Because the government Lenin was overthrowing, was a monarchy. Which hadn't done a very good job of anything. And Millions of Russians had just died in WW1.

I suppose a better question might. Instead of Lenin taking over and instituting communism. Lets pretend instead that libertarians had taken over Russia. China. South Africa. Etc. Would those countries be better off today? Well, I could say with incredible certainty. Libertarians running any country would lead it in a very positive direction.

But the media never turns libertarians into saints. They turn communists into saints. They like beautiful words. Rather than great actions. They like good intentions, rather than good results. And I despise it.


Let me add. The problem I have with "leftists" or "statists"(which includes neo-conservatives). Is that the basic foundation of the way they view the world is "the end justifies the means".


I tend to instead adhere to the Immanuel Kant school of philosophy. And I argue that the immediate act is what is good or evil. Not the consequences of an act.

Everything must have "universality". It is either always right or it is always wrong. I cannot be right under certain conditions and wrong under others. You cannot make exceptions for bad behavior.

Is necklacing for instance right or wrong? It is wrong. It is terrorism. It is evil. It is deplorable.


I find it much more effective politically to be a victim, rather than an aggressor. I believe humans are naturally good. They deplore violence and evil. And just have to be reminded from time to time that they have a responsibility to stop it.

As the saying goes "Evil prevails when good men fail to act". I implore you, call out evil wherever it exists. Do not justify it. Ever. Do not glorify it for some "greater good". Do not make heroes out of violent men. They don't deserve it, and we don't deserve it.

The real heroes of the world, are rarely known. Real heroes don't want to be known. They usually don't even think of themselves as heroes. They see themselves simply as people, doing the right thing.

Don't tell me who my heroes are supposed to be. That pisses me off. Mandela is no hero.

[Neuling]

Again, that view is based on the assumption that black South Africans want to be among the most advanced countries on earth, at any price, such as living like second-class people on their own continent. But I doubt that is the case...

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Neuling

Again, that view is based on the assumption that black South Africans want to be among the most advanced countries on earth, at any price, such as living like second-class people on their own continent. But I doubt that is the case...

I suppose economics isn't a good measure. But its something most people can recognize as a symbol of "progress".


With that said. South Africa is now one of the most violent countries on Earth. I think someone posted earlier that half of all South African women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. The amount of street thieves is out of control. The murder rate is ridiculously high.

There is a considerable amount of hatred in South Africa which has generally been worsening instead of getting better. The unemployment rate is through the roof. Corruption is rampant.


The economy is based almost entirely on the exploitation of natural resources. Which is unsustainable. And a lot of people with skills and money are leaving South Africa in huge numbers.


I'm just saying, if libertarians had taken over South Africa. The place would be a lot better than it is today.

The indigenous tribes would have been largely left alone. There would be no laws separating anyone by race, privately or publicly. The private sector would be stronger and more diverse. The country would be much richer, and more safe. As well as having a much more promising future.


Freedom is the answer. The ANC doesn't give a crap about freedom. They only care about giving black people more positions in government. And spreading the wealth. Why won't you recognize that?

[Neuling]

But the fact that things are so bad now is the very consequence of apartheid as blacks are not as educated as whites, thus they don't get good jobs, are poorer, etc. One thing leads to another...

Other African countries are not rich, either, but without SA problems such as rampant crime. Not even when they became independent in the 60s or whenever did they have those problems. And I guess it is because places like Ghana were never as segregated as SA was.

Another problem in SA is that due to the continuing income inequality prices are relatively high, while blacks earn much less. In other African countries whites have become a tiny minority that no longer plays a role. In SA that is not the case, it is still like two parallel countries in one.

Not to mention HIV, which is rampant throughout southern Africa and very costly for any society.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Neuling

But the fact that things are so bad now is the very consequence of apartheid as blacks are not as educated as whites, thus they don't get good jobs, are poorer, etc. One thing leads to another...

Other African countries are not rich, either, but without SA problems such as rampant crime. Not even when they became independent in the 60s or whenever did they have those problems. And I guess it is because places like Ghana were never as segregated as SA was.

Another problem in SA is that due to the continuing income inequality prices are relatively high, while blacks earn much less. In other African countries whites have become a tiny minority that no longer plays a role. In SA that is not the case, it is still like two parallel countries in one.

Not to mention HIV, which is rampant throughout southern Africa and very costly for any society.

As you say. Wealth has no direct impact on crime. Crime is usually caused by hatred. It is caused by people blaming all of their problems on someone else.


The problem I have with socialists. Is they feed this in two ways. First, they love class war. They love pitting one side against the other. They want you to hate anyone who has more than you.

Secondly, the South African government is incredibly corrupt. And because the government can effectively create winners and losers. It strengthens the desire to control the government by one group or another, for their own benefit.


These socialists create hatred and jealousy. Then they can't control it.


Just leave people the hell alone. Have some faith in humanity for once.


I'm poor, I've always been poor. And I don't want to be rich. I pity those with wealth. It is a curse and a burden, not a gift. Trust me.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by Bettafish

In the 1950s, South Africa was even better than now is, compared to other African countries

How so and for whom?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

How so and for whom?

Counter question: How is it better now, for anyone, black or white?

[Zimbochick]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Counter question: How is it better now, for anyone, black or white?

You are joking, hopefully?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Zimbochick

You are joking, hopefully?

Why would I be joking? Read my post above about what South Africa once was and what it turned into, and how I also said if I had been a black South African, I would have probably done the same things they did. South Africa was once the richest and most prosperous nation on the continent. It is now a nightmare for both black and white (except for the ANC in power). Blacks actually immigrated into South Africa during the days of apartheid because they had better wages and rights than they did from where they came from. And I said, this isn't a fact that gives me the slightest bit of pleasure to write, it was simply the truth. Can it be denied?

So no, I am not joking. Who is better off? Answer the question. I am not much impressed with irony...especially when it ignores reality of history.

Here is a good column by syndicated columnist Walter Williams (a black man who dares speak the truth...yet is vilified by the left for doing so):

South Africa after apartheid