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.
Then let me ask you this, why weren't Blacks attacking White people to the same intensity in other African nations are you would see in South Africa?
Why ask me? I don't know. Not sure what you are getting at. I did not specifically ask about race relations during my visit, figuring such a topic was improper.
Why ask me? I don't know. Not sure what you are getting at. I did not specifically ask about race relations during my visit, figuring such a topic was improper.
This is what I'm getting at. The same racial friction that exists in South Africa isn't as apparent in the rest of Africa.
This is what I'm getting at. The same racial friction that exists in South Africa isn't as apparent in the rest of Africa.
This is the impression I got - I am not sure you can compare it to the rest of Africa. They don't equate themeselves as a colonial European power that took control in the victorian era of imperialism. The white south africans, particularly in those eastern provencinces, consider themselves as african first and foremost, not british or german or dutch. They settled the country since the 1500's, developed the land, they have their own identity, their own language, the even fought a war against the european powers themeselves (although they remained a commonwealth country).
Ideas change slow without outside influence. But it did finally change. For both blacks and whites, it was a sudden transition - a revolution (for the most part peacefully fortunetly) not an evolution. That's good in that it needed to happen. But you also have the transitional pains that come with the sudden change. Blacks learning how to adapt to a new found freedom, some intent, lets face it, on revenge....whites learning how to adapt to what was considered a secondary class of citizen. It's not always smooth. I think they are still learning.
This I'll say: many of the "white" people in that BBC story would be "Black" here in the US. That 1 little blonde girl with full on "nappy" hair walking beside that dude holding his sick friend. It seemed to be more skin color in South Africa than the "1 drop rule" like here who got called Black, I'm guessing.
But really, what is your point? Are trying to convey that Black people cannot rule themselves or rule nations? Are you suggesting that Black people are inherently unable to rule a nation?
The colonial powers obstructed the black Africans from acquiring the kinds of skills that would be useful in governing a nation, and then suddenly turned the governments over to them. The blacks are not inherently incapable of learning modern western governance, they were simply denied the opportunity to learn, during decades and centuries in which they might have.
Black people cannot rule themselves when they have been taught not to.
"False Start in Africa" by Renee Dumont is a good primer on this topic. John Kenneth Galbraith also dedicated several chapters to Africa in one of his books, I forgot which one.
That has been my point. South Africa under apartheid was good only if you were White.
This isn't true, Black South Africans had the highest standard of living for Black people on the entire continent of Africa. Furthermore, there was SIGNIFICANT Black immigration _TO_ South Africa under apartheid for jobs.
Whether it is PC to believe it or not, you were better living in apartheid South Africa as a Black person than anywhere else in Africa. You were safer and had a higher standard of living.
Yeah, White's ran the country. But it was under White leadership which allowed South Africa to have the largest economy on the continent, this wouldn't be the case if Blacks were running the show. The very fact the country was ran by Whites until 1994 is what has afforded Black people in the country the standard of living they have their today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
It is obvious to anyone with any sense that there was nothing good about being black under apartheid in South Africa. I've nothing else to say about the matter.
Obviously not true if their standard of living was the highest on the continent and thousands immigrated their under apartheid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
I'm closed-minded? I'm just looking at the human rights abuses and other kinds of abuses that went on during apartheid.
Yes, because the rest of the continent was well known for being a bastion of democracy, freedom, safety and a high standard of living... I'm sure Black South Africans would have been better off under Idi Amin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
Are you suggesting that Black people are inherently unable to rule a nation?
No, they are completely capable. Look at all the examples of success.
Actually, they were only on the right track for their colonial nations, such as the UK. I view colonialism as having your nation taken from you, and someone else telling you what to do, how to think, and taking your rights away from you.
But really, what is your point? Are trying to convey that Black people cannot rule themselves or rule nations? Are you suggesting that Black people are inherently unable to rule a nation?
The colonial powers were not always perfect but look what they were working with? The various tribes in Africa were killing each other off and had been for hundreds of years. Like it or not, the only path to some sort of peace and normal society for a colonial power to step in and start to build a nation. Since the colonial powers left, I don't think any of the formal colonial countries have done anything but kill each other off and destroy their nations. More than a few people in those countries have spoke up for the colonial powers to return and help them get their nations back on some sort of path to a civilized society.
The colonial powers obstructed the black Africans from acquiring the kinds of skills that would be useful in governing a nation, and then suddenly turned the governments over to them. The blacks are not inherently incapable of learning modern western governance, they were simply denied the opportunity to learn, during decades and centuries in which they might have.
Black people cannot rule themselves when they have been taught not to.
"False Start in Africa" by Renee Dumont is a good primer on this topic. John Kenneth Galbraith also dedicated several chapters to Africa in one of his books, I forgot which one.
Colonialism held Africans back in some ways, but what is often overlooked is that it gave them bonuses too. Colonial powers often built roads, mines, and schools during their administration. Wise people could have used this foundation to begin to build states and countries that would serve their citizens. In fact, in a couple of places like Kenya and Ghana this has pretty much occurred. These countries are still "Third World", but are on the path to development.
While much of Colonialism was based on the idea of exploiting colonies for their natural resources the end result is not that simple. For example, Britain established a colony in West Africa that is now known as Sierra Leone. The truth is that there was very little in Sierra Leone to exploit. Administering this colony was almost certainly an economic liability for Britain. There were certain "undefinable elements" in the whole colonial experience. Perhaps, some areas were colonized less for economic reasons than because some Europeans believed (however wrongfully) that spreading their culture and institutions to undeveloped regions of the world might aid the people who lived there.
Britain and France (to a lesser degree) had a practice of bringing some of colonial subjects home to the mother country to be educated in its best schools. When talk of independence began in the 1950's and the 1960's, these individuals generally were involved in these discussions. The British actually encouraged the people in these countries to form political parties.
Colonialism did in some ways create barriers that made it more difficult to create successful independent nations. However, that's only half the story. The other half is that the people in the colonies received some advantages and opportunities as a result of colonialism. So, it was a mixed bagged. Whatever the case, most of these countries got their independence fifty years ago or more. Its time for them to stop blaming western colonialism or imperialism for their shortcomings and start fixing their own problems. Britain and the other colonial powers are not responsible for the endless civil wars that have occurred since independence in a number of African countries. They are not responsible for geography that isolates sub-Saharan Africa from most of the rest of the world. Nor, are they responsible for "governments" made up of the native people that are simply nothing more than mechanisms designed to plunder the natural resources of the area for the benefit of a handful of ruling people and their families.
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.
