"Absolutely wrong and pure racism.
The 1600's was not that long ago relatively speaking. And not one person alive today has been there centuries."
First you say the 1600s were too long get over slavery, now the 1600s are not that long. Make up your mind please. You have skirted my question if black people in south africa who have been living there for 1600 plus years to 100,000 cannot escape discrimination in south africa, there own country what country should they go to? Germany where black people get told go back to africa n----ers? Russia where we come under racist attacks by mobs of skin heads? or UK and USA where we can be arrested in our own homes even if we become phd professors at Harvard by hot headed white police. O r we can be police officers and get shot by white cops when we are off duty. These africans have claim to these lands as their ancestrial homeleands like jews have claims to israel.
"Was has gone on for a very long time there. You're sugarcoating pre-colonial African history, which is as bloody as the history of everywhere else."
No I am not. Precolonial history in many parts of africa was very bloody, gruesome and very war like. Prior to shaka zulu, in south africa was involved gorups of men going into an open field and throwing stones and people were rarely killed. It was more akin to a dangerous sport or the aztec concept of rubber hand ball than to european or northern african violent war. The San and Bantu people mixed like how in america British Anglos and Saxons and Normans mix except without violence or how brits, Germans or Irish mixed except without the anti-immigrant stuff in america.
"So one group of Blacks invited others to war with them, whereas they did not invite Whites? I hope you realize how absurd this sounds..."
I don't see how you drew that conclusion from what I said. There was no opposition to the bantu, as bantu and san intermarried no problem. Some bantu took on the san way of life and vice versa. Even the war like Zulu never conducted zulu apartheid, or shot school children or killed protesters for fun/sport
Zulu did not practice ethnic cleansing, he practiced political hegemony, simply to avoid war all you had to do was join the zulu nation yet operate with COMPLETE soverignty. This was done for food security rather than a means of amassing wealth. Better to have an extra province you can go to, without starting a war if one province has a bad year, better than mass starvation.
iafrica.com | news | sa news Apartheid cop loses bid
"He was not pro-apartheid. The event that set his activism off was when he was kicked off a train in SA because he was not White."
Trinicenter.com - Gandhi and African Blacks
You accept the caste and apartheid your a racist. If I said all white people have inherently better souls or are some how superior than dark peoples I am a racist, ghandi believed that he is a racist.
Great ghandi who "oppose apartheid wrote
"
Commenting on the White League's agitation, Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of September 24 1903:
" We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."
"
"He was in the Ambulance Corps, not in the fighting but treating the wounded. He did want the Indians to have a greater role in the Empire to improve their status, this was before he decided the British rule had to end."
O so he was a conveinet racist kill every kaffir, which is a racist erm by the way, and let the indian and white man be equals.. His opposition to apartheid was that it discriminated against indians not that it did crimes against humanities as admitted by old president de klerk.
"
Mahatma Gandhi, who was in South Africa at the time, felt that the Indians in South Africa would do best for themselves to serve the
British Empire as a reserve force in the Army against the Zulu uprising.
[1]"
wiki
enIt wasn't that Ghandi wasn't racist he just never got his way, he wanted to be racist as the white oppress but the never saw indians as nothing.
"His comments on Blacks were directed towards convicted criminals he encountered in prison. Segregationist ideas did influence him in the 1890's but as he experienced the dicrimination from the British he moved away from those ideas."
Words are like time you can never take it back. Even if we assume Gandi was a reformed racist there is a huge problem in that argument, Gandi refused to reject the caste system, which is inherently racist. It designates white skins at the top and dark skin as so low as to b untouchable and treated unhuman.
"The ANC refused to confront the issue initially. Education could have prevented the "make love with a virgin child" AIDS cure myth that has spread it some, and effective police could have limited the widespread rapes, which has also spread it."
Look aids was in USA from when the 1970s say and got big in the 1980s. This is the geenral pattern world wide. By the time the ANc got into power they were just trying to deal with damage control of a situation that was not primary-avoiding an all out race war between rich whites, many whom have huge stolen properties, and groups of millions of angry rural blacks who had there land stolen and were displaced by the apartheid government, seemed like a bit more of a priority. As time passed it will be hard for the ANC to justify the aids as a problem of the past, but that doesn't make the NP immune. Had they spent more money on blacks and less money oppressing blacks the situation would not have occured.
"Washington was not in charge when the most famous cases of tarring and such happened. He was at times barely able to keep his army under control because it was made up of people who were loyal only to their own homestates. Basically there was anarchy and chaos in the colonies at times during the Revolution."
O, and Mugabe is clearly in control of every fraction of the ZANU-PF even though he did not even control half of the party aka the army faction. I feel as if I have to explain everything to you which makes things, hard, to say the least. There was a ZANU party and PF parties in Zimbabwe that got it freedom. Mugabe was favoured to Nkomo, the leader of PF which was an all military organization. This is why Britain negotiated the lancaster agreement with Mugabe who was also more popular. Mugabe had 0 control of the armed forces of Zimbabwe until 1987 when he got Nkomo to sign away his rights/power basically over to him.
also realize that Nkomo who was like a co-president of sort was the one involved in the massacre that you were trying to blame on Mugabe. Mugabe had nothing to do with those massacres. He never had ANY control of the armed forces.
I think Mugabe and Washington faced similar situations. Neither controlled the army, but washington certainly was the formal commander and had control of some units. Mugabe did not control the armed forced until 1987.
" War then wasn't like today, there weren't that many civilian casualties from firing cannons at a city compared to the more destructive bombs now."
LOL, check you war stats my friend. war had more civilian casualities because weapons were less acurate, there was no convention/law on war or torture. You were at the mercy of your enemies who had a habit of torture be they america, japanese or whatever race.
"Washington did not support slavery and freed his slaves. He would have freed them sooner had it not been complicated because of issues with his wife and state law he was unable to change. "
LOL. Stop defending him. Would you have slaves? Only a racist person, cruel ,, wicked person would practice chattel slavery on anyone, not even the ancient did that. Washington was a cruel man, yes he freed his slaves, how lucky for them, only after serving all of your life in servitude without pay because of the color of your skin and having no rights. Washington was a terrorist but he was your terrorist so it is ok. If I bought your kidnapped kids, and forced them into slavery and let them go on my wife's death bed, I'm sure you would be very greatful of me. You would praise me of course for my kind heart.
"There's limitations to what force you can use to retrieve property."
Ok stop skipping the question, would you so o well he stole my car along time ago too bad, or would you do somethin, anyswer honestly. The avreage man would say you sob and throw a couple fist across his face.
"The USSR was dead by that point."
ahh the USSR may have been weak but they were supporting communism world wide until the day they died. USSR livilihood depended upon expanding markets and trade, like the USA. So they spent money trying to turn the whole of southern africa communist and had lots of success. DRC, Angola, cameroon, ethiopia. Basically SA was the last frontier, and my suspicion is that SA would have been communist had the USSR not collapsed. which was part of the reason the communist party fell behind mendela.With Sa, mozambique, angola all communist already turning SA communist would have forced zimbabwe, nambia, malwai and the whole region to go communist.
"You're thinking narrowly, there were many people in SA, you can't tell me Mandela was the best to be found."
Well best for who. How do you define best, what would have been the best person, a person who said ok alll black people need to go back to africa, but not this part of africa. Mendela was a colonialist appeaser, the whites got everything they wanted, there was nothing more whites could reasonably have wanted from him. All more they could have asked for was to keep apartheid.
"I'm not an advocate of hate crime laws. I've never seen a murder done out of love for the person. Murder is the result of hate, always. Ethnic cleansing is a crime not because of the racial differences but because of what it does to people."
Hmm so why do you support the ethnic cleansing done by british to africans in south africa? I'll be honest, I don't get your type, quick to point out injustices slow to suggest solutions. Quick to say colonialism or apartheid was wrong, but slow to offer any form of justice to the vicitms. Your type of people seem to be the type who are just greedy. I can't think of any other reason. Your not a psychopath, because you see the wrong, you just don;t want any to receive any form of finacial or monetary compensation for misdeeds done to them beyond yourself. So I must conclude your just greedy and ddislike to see anyone beyond yourself getting ahead.
" There's a chance Hitler had a Jewish ancestor (disputed, unsettled at the moment), but that wouldn't change anything about his crimes. And, was it a greater crime when a Pole was killed by Hitler than one of Hitler's fellow Austrians or Germans who also fell victim to him?"
All I know is that more people were kileld in dresden air raids than any other battler or place in the war. twice as many germany people died as in nagaskai nuclear bomb, yet somehow Hitler is evil and winston churchill and fdr=good. No one has more blood on their hand than winston churchill who could have avoided a war by appeasing hitler, and fdr who could have surrendered and negotiated peace with the japanese. Well maybe I am being unfair on the second count. But FDR didn't have to go to europe, it was none of his business. I can only conclude that Hitler and mussolini=evil because they killed, jews, gypsies, handicaps, poles, and blacks. where as fdr and churchill and stalin= good becaus e they killed white men.
"A country with a poor economy will inevitably lose its freedom as well."
Not true, Jesus was an extremly poor man by modern standards, lived on less than a dollar and often on no money at all a day. Yet no man in history was ever more free. It also depends how you define freedom. If freedom= going out and gettiing drunk with friends and being concernec with worldy materials and selfish things then your correct, if not then maybe not so. I would say Zimbabwe is a more free country than Sa, SA has worse, crime disease and so on. Zimbabwe has less money yes but more freedom, no colonialist telling you have to live your life. Even Britain and USA have backdown because they realize that Mugabe is an unwavering pillar of freedom for zimbabwe. Slavery is easy because you don't have to make tough choices, its like being an animal.
Freedom is hard because you may have to give up everything.
zimbabwe has justice for his own people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people, and their right to their resources, south africa has none of this but only 3% of the resources for its people. The rest are controlled by which whites guys of european descent who got land from an aparthied government at the expense of milllions of blacks displaced.
I now white people, white people would not tolerate this in their own countries in europe. They would not allow an 80-87% white country to be controlled by 60,000 black farmers who got their land from colonization. They would say we need fairness.
"If SA went to a more industrial economy even with the Whites owning most land there could be plenty of well paying jobs available to all (use min. wage laws). In most Western countries the majority do not own their own land. "
Well western like europe or western like west =americaS.
Perhaps but that time is far away for Sa, maybe 20 years more likely 50.
"You confuse citizenship, race and ethnicity."
No, every nations and different people define these different. To be an american citizen at one time only required you to jump on a boat and set up a hut on land. Now it is not there is a long process. You do not understand how african society is different than american society and believe that I am wrong, when not so. none of us are wrong in the regards, just different. A swiss defines citizenship different than a german or a french. A african american defines race different than a hawaiian american. Ethnicity is very differently defined by different nations. Whites in africa can have citizenship yes, but they ar e not black and they are not ethnic africans. Whereas in Italy a chinese man according to my italian friend can be more ethnically italian than him, but not racially white, but an italians citizen. different defintions but that does not mean either of us is confused. Not even anthropologist all agree on these.
"You are being racist."
Funny, I feel the same about you and your refusal to answer tough questions. at least I am answering yours.
"South Africa is just one part of the continent of Africa. As all humans originated in Africa you can't say one race of humans can never be Africans since, in fact, all humans are originally Africans."
Yes but not south africans, there are only one group of originally south africans and they are not white anglo saxons.
"BTW: interestingly enough, the ancient Egyptians were not Black either. They were White."
This is just a response to try to get me angery, no one agrees with you except the white supremist you previously dismissed as crazy and uncredible. The irony of this is that even the kkk acknowledge the black presence of blacks in egypt except they claim it in reverse the way it occured
BBC NEWS | Also in the news | Cleopatra's mother 'was African'
History is largely against you. Most anthropologist put it this way, the ancient egyptian empire was founded by black africans, by the year 600 bc the last pure african were ruling in egypt besides the rule of nubians in the 11th century ad. From 600 onwards you had racial mixture and by the 1000 year turkish occupation egypt went from having an african flavour to being more middle eastern and speaking arabic.
I remember talking to a arab guy who pointed out an obvious flaw with people who thought the ancient egyptians could have even been anything but black. They would get sun burn everyday and turn black anways, LOL.
You don't know much about it, don't even try that one. The egyptians according to their own history come from somalia, they speak african languages have an african culture and nothing in common with whites until the greek and roman occupations. The evidence is so overwhelming its not even worth anymore of my time to discuss this, its just you being an idiot probably trying to **** me off and change the subject as usual.
Even modern egyptians say they are mixed race not pure whites, llok at anwar sadat then hang your head in shame.
"You say they didn't colonize yet they spread out and took new land.
Double think?"
nope, its not colonization when cultures fuse naturally, no war or ethnic cleansing was involved, no segregation or apartheid, no second class citizenry or non o the evil the civilized europeans brought
"The current residents were not sent by the British, and they lawfully acquired the land. They were born there, the current ones, quite legally."
Well if thats your position keep on believe it. You do not want to be reasonable you just want to argue mindlessly. they did not buy the land, I gave you specific examples of land acquired through ethnic cleansing, you refused to respond on how these people should be compensated for crimes that occured in 1980s not 1800s. Yet you refuse to answer the question.
"Statutes, not a brief incomplete answer like that."
The answer was answering your question, you can look that up on your own time, maybe you will learn more and stop having me be your history professor. I have toaught you alot, but u need to put effort.
"No. All 20,000 of them in one massacre, men women and children, were not terrorists. Mugabe has been equally violent to other political enemies."
Well no one disputes that lots of them were terrorist like killing of any terrorist groups who hide behind women and children, no different than usa who has killed 300,000 ciivilians in iraq. When terrorist act up they get put in their place. Pplus Mugabe had no control of the army, in Nkomo homeland were the uprisings were against his strong armed policies.
"Leaders are not above prosecution. The Nazis were prosecuted, were they not? Clinton was prosecuted and only barely avoided removal from office. The Magna Carta established that the leaders are not above the law."
The Magna Carta is so rarely enforced by common law practice it means nothing. That is how common law works. When you stop doing something by convention it becomes like an unwritten law, so rarely does a Prime minister not a president of a n american country who doesn't even follow the same common law as the common wealth come under prosecution even when he has done illegal stuff, that he is effectively above the law. The Nazis did not use english common law, that was the problem.
"Umm, torturing and killing them, etc., forced them out of the country. Yes Mugabe did have Whites tortured and killed. You are quite incorrect about what happened. Ethnic cleansing doesn't have to involve killing either."
This is the double standard I was pointing to. Usa has wiped out tons of natives,in america, britiain in australia, natives in canada, yet they are not war criminals but when a non white moves whites off land that black people never wanted them to be on in the first place, that they came here with guns and started wars and forced them seleves into, we are terrorist, ehtnic cleansers and so on. Mugabe has done nothing to the whites in comparision to what whites have done to africans. He has not rounded up all the whites and put them onto white resevese did he? Imagine how you would be acting up if he did. Any torture and killing would have been done by Nkomo, thats what he was known for. Nkomo was a lose cannon and everyone knew it so they distanced themselves from him but needed him because he controlled the army.
"Interesting. The 2000 amendment to Zimbabwe's constitution granting him protection from prosecution in zimbabwe, was rejected by the voters but the parliament put it in anyways. That can be changed as soon as he loses power."
Would not matter, laws cannot be retroactive, he is immune from prosecution while he is in power because he passed the law at the time.
" Mugabe has purchased property in Hong Kong. He evidently plans to flee at some point. He will not be immune once he's out of the country."
Actually that makes perfect sense, once he leaves people will be happy for what he did but will want to move on. Mugabe liberated Zimbabwe forom white colonialist and oppresion, brought justice and right to resources. He did his job and we understand that it is time for him to go, he wanted to go from 2000, but could not find a succesor beyond black jesus. Morgan is a bit of an idiot, but he will likely have to do.
"SA is one part of Africa. If all people originated in Africa you can't say a White person born there isn't African. The science is pretty well settled on this, those who disagree are a tiny exception and not supported by the evidence."
Do white people originate from SA. No are they black, no, are they african no, then they are guest in africa. Do all people originate from africa, maybe but not that region. If you believe in the bible maye it is iraq or babylon or israel or whatever. Even if it is true answer the question why should black people have no control in the country with they have no toher place to go and they are 80-87% of the population?
"Hitler was popular in his country until he was dead and people realized how bad he was. But evidently mugabe's popularity is slipping."
Doesn't matter to Mugabe or most africans. He doesn't want to be in office right now but doesn't want to leave the country without leadership. There are no leaders who can see beyond the revolution which is over mugabe liberated zimbabwe and they need a leader who can talk to white people they way they like to hear and who can lie to the whites and get us their money.
"And umm, why did Mugabe ban neutral observers if the elections were not being tampered with or accompanied with threats? And ahem, Mugabe's opponent won the election last year by a few percent:
Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
he banned observes for the reason i previously said, uk and usa spies pretending to be charity worker s and observes shutting down pro mugabe stations and starting riots. If there were no neutral observers then no basis exist which to claim corruption you do realize?
"Mugabe had a new vote, the opponent was threatened by violence from Mugabe's thugs and dropped out for fear of his life. "
Sounds like every african politician who ever won. sound slike al gore, lol.
"And, Mugabe stealing from the people in various forms has been well documented for years. "
No proof only baseless accusations. No one has seen his bank account. Owning property in HK for a man who has been president for 30 years and received knighthood from england cash prizes is not unusal for mugabe to be a multi millionaire of legal affairs.
"The vote also went against Mugabe in 2000 for the constitutional amendment granting him and his officials immunity from prosecution and enabling the land program to go forward, amongst other things. He had the parliament pass it anyways against the voters' wishes."
So you can have a referendum, fail but still pass that law in parliament aka congress/senate. Not to mention Morgan is not clean himself.
"Did you read the links? It's fairly clear."
I read the links, the problem is I question where the info comes from. Its like they are making it up in thin air.
-no foriegners are even allowed in zimbabwe, be it from an aid agency or a neutral observer, so where do these claims of corruption come from.
Anyone who loses claims corruption like florida minorities when bush won. if your not an official observer you cannot prove corruption
"It's been thoroughly documented. Including by poor Black refugees who've fled the country."
only his political enemies have emigrated. If I emigrated from america odds are I don't like george bush, so what, people have lots of opnions, most have never even seen mugabe.,
" As the stated goal of the land reform was to put land in the hands of the poor and landless, by your own admission Mugabe was doing otherwise."
I do not recall admitting that even if he did it was irrelevent. It was none of britain business who got the land once they stopped paying for it. Much of it did go to landless blacks when britain was paying for it, when they stopped them only the independently wealth could purchase the land until mugabe started to removed colonizers.
"Leaving 53.5 percent of the land (a majority) in others' hands.
But anyways, you left out part of the message from the U.K., the following portion: "We do, however, recognise the very real issues you face over land reform. We believe that land reform could be an important component of a Zimbabwean programme designed to eliminate poverty. We would be prepared to support a programme of land reform that was part of a poverty eradication strategy but not on any other basis."
Thats more empty rhetoric from the british. If that was the case they would pay for land reform in sa under mendela or was he corrupt too?
"What the U.K. said was quite true, Mugabe had given the land to his wealthy friends, not the people who truly needed it. Why should the UK subsidize the wealthy getting wealthier when the original purpose was to get land in the hands of the landless? The U.K. did offer to continue funding land reform provided it met the original purpose. Mugabe had other plans obviously..."
No it was just empty rehtoric. Well Morgan is the UK's puppy dog, so lets see what they say when mugabe retires and only Morgan who is the Uk yes man is, next thing you know they will accusse him of being a horned winged devil and a corrupt man. You have a complete ignorance of the third world, you realize when someone makes $1 a day and can't feed their family they behave corruptly, more likely if any corruption exist, it exist in the low level not high powers. Mugabe puts someon in charge of land reform in a ministry and some mid level guys act corrupt. Your american you know corruption exist in politics but it doesn't mean every country is corrupt.
"Mugabe's for his terrible economic and monetary policies."
Yes Mugabe tells the farmers you sell the g'ment your land for 10 times it value.
"And for most of that time the economy has been slowly dropping. The land program was basically the final straw."
No it was fine until the land reform sanstions from uk and usa.
"No it's just diplomacy and aggressive diplomacy at that, with the threat (and sometimes use) of force. Colonialism is where they conquer the land and send in settlers."
You do not know colonialism, as you have never seen it. Most africans have never seena setller, they have seen a man with pasty skin and gun speaking oin a foreign language.
So russia has send in the army, they have send in russian "settlers" and the army to protect them from georgians. If it looks like colonization it is. Colonization is not about settlers it has always been about control. The idea is send in settlers displace locals then set up you own government and rule the world. This got costly, wars cost money, settlers cost money, settlers fight war and demand support from natives who outnumber theem and that cost more money and by the time you set up your nation among natives, the natives can kick you out like in zimbabwe, or egypt or ghana and you can't fight them all at the same time. So what do you do. Pull out the settlers, so you don't have to fght most the wars. Now all you have to do is fight wars and control the country by tellling them how to behave. If they don't behave how you want sanction them, even if they are white, like Ian smith. England hated Ian smith because Ian smith acted black. Ian smith refused to let a white man keep him down and control him. so they gave nkomo aka the Gd of death and black jesus aka god of the air force who decides life and death millions of dollars to get rid of ian smith.
NK has a navy, airforce, and they have a nuclear weapons and missile program.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Linear Mode
