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.
That's funny because Americans keep saying they have the right to be armed in order to prevent an oppressive regime Assuming those armed Americans would not cuddle a potential dictator to death, does that mean the US constitution supports terrorism at home? And if so, why not in SA where Mandela was clearly a freedom fighter as well?
Fact is, a lot of foreign governments totally failed in their assessment of the situation, and their behavior back then was simply embarrassing.
For whom? Black people were being treated horribly and subjected to a dictatorship.
Well, I guess the question I have in regards to South Africa. Is whether or not democracy is a good thing.
The problem the white South Africans had was that. If South Africa had been a democracy from its early days. The black South Africans generally would have voted to take all of the wealth away from businesses(especially white businesses), and hand it out as welfare payments to the black tribes.
I mean, the people pushing to end apartheid weren't exactly freedom-loving capitalists. No, they were overwhelmingly communists/socialists. If you could say, go back to the 1950's and gave control of South Africa over to the ANC back then. Would South Africa be a better place today or a worse place today?
Thus the real question again is. Is democracy always a good thing? Or might you concede that while it certainly wasn't "fair". That the white government probably did a better job promoting economic growth and improvements in standard of living, than what would have existed in its place?
A good example of this is Kenya. Kenya at one time was a British colony. When the British were in Kenya. Kenya was one of the most developed countries in the world. After Britain left Kenya, it has stagnated. And is now one of the poorest countries in the world.
Would Kenya be better off today, if Kenya was still a colony of Britain?
I am not advocating colonization btw. But that is the essence of the question. And if you really look at social factors since the ANC took over(such as crime). You have seen worsening conditions in a lot of areas. Such as the how white farmers are being systematically murdered across the country.
Well, I guess the question I have in regards to South Africa. Is whether or not democracy is a good thing.
Democracy!?!
How about just plain basic freaking freedom like people like you rant about incessantly?
You know those basic unalienable rights?
Things not quite as important as... let's say government requiring you to have health insurance but rights like
being able to walk in your own country without a pass book, or
the ability to live where you liked,
love who you liked,
to work where you liked,
to buy land without being restricted where you could buy but how much of it you could buy,
to speak out against the government without threat of exile, imprisonment, torture and death.
All those trivialities that go with true democracy!
Well, I guess the question I have in regards to South Africa. Is whether or not democracy is a good thing.
The problem the white South Africans had was that. If South Africa had been a democracy from its early days. The black South Africans generally would have voted to take all of the wealth away from businesses(especially white businesses), and hand it out as welfare payments to the black tribes.
I mean, the people pushing to end apartheid weren't exactly freedom-loving capitalists. No, they were overwhelmingly communists/socialists. If you could say, go back to the 1950's and gave control of South Africa over to the ANC back then. Would South Africa be a better place today or a worse place today?
Thus the real question again is. Is democracy always a good thing? Or might you concede that while it certainly wasn't "fair". That the white government probably did a better job promoting economic growth and improvements in standard of living, than what would have existed in its place?
A good example of this is Kenya. Kenya at one time was a British colony. When the British were in Kenya. Kenya was one of the most developed countries in the world. After Britain left Kenya, it has stagnated. And is now one of the poorest countries in the world.
Would Kenya be better off today, if Kenya was still a colony of Britain?
I am not advocating colonization btw. But that is the essence of the question. And if you really look at social factors since the ANC took over(such as crime). You have seen worsening conditions in a lot of areas. Such as the how white farmers are being systematically murdered across the country.
You're asserting a very mild advocacy of Apartheid, oppression, tyranny, and imperialism. Just say so...no one is being fooled here.
Your assertion isn't nearly as cryptic as you think it is.
If Democracy is good enough for you, then it's good enough for everyone else. What makes you special?
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...
I had no idea before Mandela's death just how unhappy American conservatives are about the end of apartheid.
Wow. This has been one hell of a revelation.
You and I have always been able to have a mutually respectful exchange, and I have no reason to believe this one will be any different! I know you to be a very intelligent and fair-minded man, and one I enjoy exchanging controversial topics, with.
So to get to the point, I don't understand how you come by that conservatives are unhappy about the end of apartheid. I can't speak for all conservatives, so I will only speak for myself:
I am neither happy nor unhappy about the end of apartheid. Every society has its own unique history and culture and time and it is (IMHO) very naïve to judge it by some utopian standard. In the case of South Africa, the "whites" settled it and made that nation a first-world country from nothing. Something like how the European settlers did the same in America. And that was no small accomplishment.
Sometimes the truth is painful and not politically correct. And, even becoming censored in today's world. There is an increasing problem with facing reality, today.
But, as it is, the white South Africans maintained a system of rigid segregation because they wanted to maintain and preserve the nation they created, and didn't want it to become what they were surrounded by; that is, black-ruled nations which had the worst consistent human-rights violation record in world history. And I don't think it is just coincidence that blacks -- even in the day of apartheid -- flooded into South Africa. The reason being they actually had more rights and more opportunities and a "higher standard of living" than in the countries they fled.
With all that said though? If I were a Mandela, or a black South African? I would want to change things too. I would want to take charge of the country. And that was what it was, motivation wise...even if incremental. Let's be honest, it wasn't out of some idealistic notion of black and white harmony and sharing that sparked it all. Rather, it was the first step toward controlling the country itself. And again, hell *shrug*, I don't blame them...from their point of view.
So I guess bottom line is, no way around that things have not turned out for the better. South Africa is now a third-world country, and has turned into exactly what the pessimists predicted would be the inevitable result. Tribal warfare is common, and the murders of whites and take-over of their land is the same. And so are some horrible crimes, making news, such as:
Finally, again, Desert Detroit, you and I have always had a congenial and respectful, even if often "at odds" exchange, so I hope this latest will but continue it! I do consider you a friend.
South Africa is a 3rd world country to you? Either you don't know what that means or you have a very broad term for 3rd world.
Definitely more of a developing country than a developed country.
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.
Assuming those armed Americans would not cuddle a potential dictator to death, does that mean the US constitution supports terrorism at home? And if so, why not in SA where Mandela was clearly a freedom fighter as well?
