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.
What you fail to see is, the fact that most countries do not have a need for cheap immigrant workers, The US economy has an insatiable need for cheap immigrant labor, no matter what their race is. Big manufactures, huge agriculturalists, billion dollar housing market and others DEMAND cheap labor. They have the authority to tell the government what is needed period and what it must do. Right now we are being informed that the US economy is short by at least 2 Million cheap labor immigrants.
At least I see a pattern here of monkey see, monkey do. Just that often the hand of the USA serving as a model of admiration and copy in other parts of the world seem to go into hiding when it sees fit.
Plus, why the countries that adopted similar policies tended to be ex-British colonies for the most part?
Well, I don't want to hijack the thread into negativity but the monkey see monkey do comment did that. The American model is not the best model to copy because of the negative social trends it has caused. Multiculturalism cannot be forced because some cultures have strict beliefs from their religion and past generations.
I never forget what certain Muslims said about western society. That it is poisonous because:
the U.S. model promotes:
- violence, sex, and immoral living though Hollywood.
- freedom to buy anything and almost in any state (marijuana and drive, text & drive, vape, guns)
I also don't agree with the U.S. infinite taxation on your personal investing. e.g. Money you worked for and that you paid taxes on is taxed again and again year after year when you make a gain or sale on an investment. (this 20-28% tax doesn't exist in every country's stock market and we're still in a trillion deficit, very sad)
I'm a non-white who has lived abroad for periods of 6-12 months and you get a different perspective when you understand foreigner's views and then see the evidence of whats wrong here and not there.
I don't know what is the best model but I see a lot of harm in our current model. Immigration controls or quotas and systemic changes are necessary.
There was a lot of immigration into settler South America of Rumi from the settlers of Sham, through renegado Rumi Constantinople, the "Holy" Alemani Rumi Imperialists through to the Canaries of the strong man Franco.
When you look into segregationist policies around the world, there are two things that appear over and over again.
One is that the countries that put in place some sort of segregation/apartheid tended to be ex-colonies of Britain (USA, South Africa, Rhodesia -now Zimbabwe-, etc). This is not to say that other places had no issues regarding this, just that it tended to be stricter and official in ex-British colonies. If English was the main language used in a place, it went without saying that things such as racial mixture were looked down upon (in some llaces they put laws making racial mixing illegal, imagine that!) and racial segregation tended to be stronger and stricter.
The other is how the USA comes up as a source of inspiration for many of these things, even if many Americans are not up to hearing about this. There is the case of Australia as mentioned before, its restrictions were modelled after similar ones already imposed in the USA. A long time ago, though I don't remember his name, I saw an interview made to some South African leader and he said that South Africa's apartheid was actually modelled after the USA's segregation, which already existed for many years before apartheid was imposed in South Africa. Of course, the USA began to dismantle segregation in the 1960's while South Africa's apartheid began to crumble in the 1980's, I think. The point is that the USA appears to be used as a model to copy and often times the USA was ahead of the curb so to speak. Apartheid arose after segregation was in place for many years in the USA. Apartheid fell after segregation had crumbled for many years in the USA.
At least I see a pattern here of monkey see, monkey do. Just that often the hand of the USA serving as a model of admiration and copy in other parts of the world seem to go into hiding when it sees fit. Apartheid in places like South Africa didn't appear out of thin air. Rhodesia's apartheid was copied from South Africa, but South Africa's apartheid was inspired by American segregation.
The question is, where did American segregation came from? Plus, why the countries that adopted similar policies tended to be ex-British colonies for the most part?
South Africa was first settled by the Dutch, almost 150 yrs. before the Brits arrived. The Dutch were known to have the most rigid and elaborate apartheid policies wherever they went, categorizing all different ethnicities and mixes in the territories they controlled. This includes Indonesia. And it was the Dutch descendants, who clung stubbornly (and violently) to apartheid. The Brits had wanted to dismantle it long before "regime change" finally came, but couldn't, because the Dutch (Afrikaaners) were in control.
That "some South African leader" you cited was Nelson Mandela. South Africa's system of tribal "homelands" was modeled on the US Indian reservation system. As late as the late 1980's, the Afrikaaner government sent agents to the US to study Federal Indian Law, as a potential model for a legal system to govern the "homelands". Regime change came before they could implement anything new. Sketches of Native Americans in war bonnets were found among Hitler's notebooks, btw. He got off on genocide.
Racial segregation existed in South Africa long before it existed in the US as a whole. It got started in the northern states in the 1930's, as migration of Blacks from the south intensified. That is when the practice of redlining began, delineating White and non-White areas for the purpose of home purchase loans and renting. Prior to redlining, European immigrants and Blacks lived together in inner-city neighborhoods. though according to some historians, there was a degree of "white flight" from those neighborhoods as the Black population grew. But segregation wasn't codified until redlining began. In South Africa, the term "apartheid" was first used in a body of law developed by the government in the late 1940's into 1950's, but segregation had been imposed since the early days of European colonization, which began in 1652.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 06-04-2022 at 03:05 PM..
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR
The question is, where did American segregation came from? Plus, why the countries that adopted similar policies tended to be ex-British colonies for the most part?
Colonial America started out similarly to Spanish colonies with a lot of race mixing and lack of a racial caste system. Many Whites of colonial ancestry still have trace amounts of African ancestry from that early period, including my wife, mother in law, and about 25% of my cousins who took the ancestry DNA test.
What changed? Bacon's Rebellion in 1676. A mixed Black / White militia attacked upper class Whites. The later made numerous legal changes to make sure working class Blacks and White would never again join in battle or in the voting booth.
South Africa was first settled by the Dutch, almost 150 yrs. before the Brits arrived. The Dutch were known to have the most rigid and elaborate apartheid policies wherever they went, categorizing all different ethnicities and mixes in the territories they controlled. This includes Indonesia. And it was the Dutch descendants, who clung stubbornly (and violently) to apartheid. The Brits had wanted to dismantle it long before "regime change" finally came, but couldn't, because the Dutch (Afrikaaners) were in control.
That "some South African leader" you cited was Nelson Mandela. South Africa's system of tribal "homelands" was modeled on the US Indian reservation system. As late as the late 1980's, the Afrikaaner government sent agents to the US to study Federal Indian Law, as a potential model for a legal system to govern the "homelands". Regime change came before they could implement anything new. Sketches of Native Americans in war bonnets were found among Hitler's notebooks, btw. He got off on genocide.
Racial segregation existed in South Africa long before it existed in the US as a whole. It got started in the northern states in the 1930's, as migration of Blacks from the south intensified. That is when the practice of redlining began, delineating White and non-White areas for the purpose of home purchase loans and renting. Prior to redlining, European immigrants and Blacks lived together in inner-city neighborhoods. though according to some historians, there was a degree of "white flight" from those neighborhoods as the Black population grew. But segregation wasn't codified until redlining began. In South Africa, the term "apartheid" was first used in a body of law developed by the government in the late 1940's into 1950's, but segregation had been imposed since the early days of European colonization, which began in 1652.
Actually Segregation existed in the USA just as long as South Africa did.
The Virginia assembly established in 1667 that converting to Christianity did not change the condition of blacks and Native Americans in bondage. Previously, some black and native people who could prove that they had been baptized had successfully sued for freedom. Second, the assembly created social distinctions between white servants and black slaves. In 1680, the Virginia assembly passed new legislation preventing “any negroe or other slave” from raising a hand to any white person, a measure that put servants on a par with their masters in their impunity for abuse of enslaved people, and stripped enslaved people of any right of self-defense. In 1691, laws punishing intermarriage between whites and blacks were put in place. Finally, in 1705, the assembly decided that, while white servants could own property, all property owned by slaves was to be seized and sold, with profits “applied to the use of the [white] poor.” Thus the white poor materially benefited from additional oppressions put upon black slaves.https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...e-to-virginia/
With the Dutch in Indonesia, they did not attract many White settlers, and only a few European women would move there, and it was mostly European men who settled there during colonial times and the ruling class were mostly Dutch Indonesians, who were of the offspring of Dutch men and Indonesian women.
A large majority of Dutch Indonesians left when Indonesia became independent and mostly settled in the Netherlands, where today they represent the nations biggest ethnic minority. Even so when they moved there they were culturally similar to the Dutch and usually spoke Dutch as their first language as they did back in Indonesia. However that community is has declined due to assimilation and intermarriage.
Yet the Dutch that settled in South Africa hundreds of years ago, their offspring are never eligible to move to the Netherlands due to having Dutch heritage. It is because it has long not been part of the Netherlands overseas territory, unlike Indonesia was.
Actually Segregation existed in the USA just as long as South Africa did.
The Virginia assembly established in 1667 that converting to Christianity did not change the condition of blacks and Native Americans in bondage. Previously, some black and native people who could prove that they had been baptized had successfully sued for freedom. Second, the assembly created social distinctions between white servants and black slaves. In 1680, the Virginia assembly passed new legislation preventing “any negroe or other slave” from raising a hand to any white person, a measure that put servants on a par with their masters in their impunity for abuse of enslaved people, and stripped enslaved people of any right of self-defense. In 1691, laws punishing intermarriage between whites and blacks were put in place. Finally, in 1705, the assembly decided that, while white servants could own property, all property owned by slaves was to be seized and sold, with profits “applied to the use of the [white] poor.” Thus the white poor materially benefited from additional oppressions put upon black slaves.https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...e-to-virginia/
Key words in the sentence in my post that you bolded: "...as a whole". I was comparing when segregation was adopted in SA with when it became the practice nation-wide in the US, not just in the South.
Key words in the sentence in my post that you bolded: "...as a whole". I was comparing when segregation was adopted in SA with when it became the practice nation-wide in the US, not just in the South.
Well Dutch rule in South Africa did only cover a small part of South Africa. However in the early days intermarriage was common, as the Dutch and European settlers were mostly men, and with the lack of European women, the European then turned to the the original inhabitants of that area which were the Khoi people, and there was intermarriage with them, same with the Malay slaves they brought into the Cape colony. From that, a new class of people evolved which are known as the Coloureds, who are now a majority of the demographics of the Cape region today. Eventually more Europeans such as Huguenots (French speaking Protestant) families settled there and added to the European mix there. Eventually the tolerance of intermarriage became taboo too there. Eventually the British took over control of the Dutch rule cape colony, which began during the early 19th century, the British, took more and more control of territory of South Africa. The British preserved the racial segeration policies established by the Dutch.
The modern South Territory which was originally was drawn by the British, and it is far bigger than what was the Cape colony that was established by the Dutch.
One shouldn't forget that during the time the ladino states & societies were being portrayed by the globalist plantation system as a "racial democracy" strong men with ties to the Nazi movement like Vargas, Peron, Trujillo, were connected to the Francos, Mussolinis, & Salazars (Porty Geez) of the world.
Many of the trans-national neo-nazi cartels that operate in ladino states & societies were born in the Red Scare from 1919 up to the late 1990's.
The 2nd generation creole writer whose roots are from the tropical South Bronx, Piri Thomas, also did not paint the reception he got in South America in a great light.
South Africa was first settled by the Dutch, almost 150 yrs. before the Brits arrived. The Dutch were known to have the most rigid and elaborate apartheid policies wherever they went, categorizing all different ethnicities and mixes in the territories they controlled. This includes Indonesia. And it was the Dutch descendants, who clung stubbornly (and violently) to apartheid. The Brits had wanted to dismantle it long before "regime change" finally came, but couldn't, because the Dutch (Afrikaaners) were in control.
That "some South African leader" you cited was Nelson Mandela. South Africa's system of tribal "homelands" was modeled on the US Indian reservation system. As late as the late 1980's, the Afrikaaner government sent agents to the US to study Federal Indian Law, as a potential model for a legal system to govern the "homelands". Regime change came before they could implement anything new. Sketches of Native Americans in war bonnets were found among Hitler's notebooks, btw. He got off on genocide.
Racial segregation existed in South Africa long before it existed in the US as a whole. It got started in the northern states in the 1930's, as migration of Blacks from the south intensified. That is when the practice of redlining began, delineating White and non-White areas for the purpose of home purchase loans and renting. Prior to redlining, European immigrants and Blacks lived together in inner-city neighborhoods. though according to some historians, there was a degree of "white flight" from those neighborhoods as the Black population grew. But segregation wasn't codified until redlining began. In South Africa, the term "apartheid" was first used in a body of law developed by the government in the late 1940's into 1950's, but segregation had been imposed since the early days of European colonization, which began in 1652.
So why is SA a mess?
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.
