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.
Would you like to walk around with a pass in your hand to keep from going to jail? Hell, that's just ONE thing that's changed.
I wouldn't, DD. But would you like to be subject to having a tire filled full of gasoline placed over your neck and lit afire? I do believe the Mandela family had some hand in this, right?
And I would think that you, of all people, would get the point. If I were black and lived in South Africa during the days of apartheid? Well, hell yeah, I would have wanted to change things to my and my people (or tribe) benefit. The ANC was not after some sorta "kum ba ya" land of black and white harmony. They wanted to run the country the same way the whites had run it.
Only difference is, the country it turned into was, or rather, isn't, anything at all like the grand promise. Today, it is a third world nation -- or ok, maybe second..but it will get to third on a greased pole.
Was the apartheid system better? I honestly don't know. Do you? But I DO know that the crime rate skyrocketed, that jobs were lost, and blacks are suffering under it. South Africa is going the way of Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia)?
I wouldn't, DD. But would you like to be subject to having a tire filled full of gasoline placed over your neck and lit afire? I do believe the Mandela family had some hand in this, right?
And I would think that you, of all people, would get the point. If I were black and lived in South Africa during the days of apartheid? Well, hell yeah, I would have wanted to change things to my and my people (or tribe) benefit. The ANC was not after some sorta "kum ba ya" land of black and white harmony. They wanted to run the country the same way the whites had run it.
Only difference is, the country it turned into was, or rather, isn't, anything at all like the grand promise. Today, it is a third world nation -- or ok, maybe second..but it will get to third on a greased pole.
Was the apartheid system better? I honestly don't know. Do you? But I DO know that the crime rate skyrocketed, that jobs were lost, and blacks are suffering under it. South Africa is going the way of Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia)?
Can any of this be denied?
My position remains the same. The nation is in the hands of the native people of the land, and it will rise or fall on its own merits.
I don't care if Apartheid was better or worse. I don't like that it was imposed on the natives by European interlopers that had no right to do so.
Counter question: How is it better now, for anyone, black or white?
The goal of ending apartheid was not to insure whites' standard of living won't decline, but to life that of blacks.
That whole idea that things were better during apartheid makes me think of this analogy: It's like saying rape is ok if the child resulting from it has good grades at school.
The goal of ending apartheid was not to insure whites' standard of living won't decline, but to life that of blacks.
That whole idea that things were better during apartheid makes me think of this analogy: It's like saying rape is ok if the child resulting from it has good grades at school.
You put an interesting perspective on it. Some who say it was better under apartheid, well, who was it better for? How was the system of subjugating and treating people poorly beneficial to the entire population? The analogy you used does put it in a different perspective. What role did apartheid itself play in making things good for everyone? And for whom was it better for?
The goal of ending apartheid was not to insure whites' standard of living won't decline, but to life that of blacks.
That whole idea that things were better during apartheid makes me think of this analogy: It's like saying rape is ok if the child resulting from it has good grades at school.
Look, Apartheid was largely just "white rule". It was basically just colonialism.
The concept behind Apartheid is that basically, white people are better able to make decisions than black people. With the basic idea being that, Black people, if given the right to vote, will basically vote for policies which will be socially and/or economically damaging.
It isn't a new idea. And the same basic concept had been in place in America in the past.
What I mean is, in the past, not every person was afforded the right to vote. Many times only land-owners were given the right to vote. Or it could have only been certain families(nobles?). Sometimes people demand literacy tests or basic-knowledge tests, or whatever sort of test. To filter out those who many see as "unworthy to vote".
Look, there is nothing particularly useful about democracy. We don't even believe in democracy. The idea of a "representative" democracy. Is that we actually elect people who actually know more than us. Thus we recognize that some people are better able to make decisions than the general population. But for some reason, we refuse to extend that idea to a logical consistency.
I mean, the idea that a know-nothing, welfare recipient with an IQ of 70 has an exactly equal vote as the guy with a master's degree in economics or political science. Seems a bit silly doesn't it?
I think most people recognize on some level, that its probably a bad idea for every single person to vote. The problem is that, if you advocate for limiting the right to vote to only certain people. Where do you draw the line?
The truth about colonialism. Is not that the Europeans wanted to dominate and control other countries(though in a sense that was true). The argument for the need for colonialism, was that Europeans were actually bringing civilization to the world.
The Europeans saw themselves sort of like the "parents" of the world. Bringing them out of the dark, into the light. Bringing them Christianity was about bringing them morality, not about just making more Christians(though I'm sure on some level that was true).
I mean, take any craphole in Africa right now. Replace that government with basically a European government. Is it worse off or better off?
I think most unbiased people will recognize that African self-rule has been a disaster, for both blacks and whites. But what is the solution?
I think African governments keep failing because after independence they were expected to continue countries and systems that were not African to begin with, they were expected to carry on British and French countries and systems instead of dissolving those huge artificial un-African units and returning to their rural and tribal history.
I do not think that Africans are too stupid to run things well, if that is what you are implying between the lines.
I think African governments keep failing because after independence they were expected to continue countries and systems that were not African to begin with, they were expected to carry on British and French countries and systems instead of dissolving those huge artificial un-African units and returning to their rural and tribal history.
I do not think that Africans are too stupid to run things well, if that is what you are implying between the lines.
I think there are people who really do feel that African people are inherently incapable of running things for themselves. I believe this is why some people feel that apartheid was "not that bad" or try to make apologetic arguments when it comes to the topic of apartheid.
I believe it boils down to some people feeling that Blacks are inherently inferior/incapable/stupid. There are some people who think along the lines of "some races are meant to rule, and some races are meant to be ruled". I believe some of the persons who say "it was better under apartheid", well, it is my assessment that some people really could not care less about what was happening to non-Whites under apartheid. There are those who think under the terms of "Blacks don't deserve any rights".
And a very important way yo look at it is this. How was apartheid as a system of forced racial separation beneficial for everyone? How was the unequal allocation of resources based on race beneficial for everyone? How is one group not being able to vote beneficial for everyone? How is being forcefully removed from certain places by the government based on one's race beneficial for everyone? How is being subjected to basically Jim Crow policies beneficial for everyone? Why should it be that only one group gets full rights and everyone else gets treated like second-class citizens? Why?
=Neuling;32596180]The goal of ending apartheid was not to insure whites' standard of living won't decline, but to life that of blacks.
Of course, and I don't mean that sarcastically at all. As I have said repeatedly, if I were a black South African, I would have done the same thing. And (afterthought), hope I was in the winning tribe.
It was warned, what would happen if Mandela's faction gained control. And it was not pretty...and it isn't. No sugar-coat is going to make it different.
But as it was? The place went to hell in a handbasket. Mandela was a committed Marxist and this wife was worse. No matter how it is spun by the worshipping American left, his ultimate idea was NOT harmony with whites. It was to take over the country. Heck, human nature for power hungry people...and the evidence is out there if one really cares to stare it in the face...
And no one ever seems to be able to refute the inconvenient fact that the main reason black Africans flooded into South Africa, was because they actually enjoyed a higher standard of living than where they came from originally.
I guess I just have little patience with all these notions that Mandela was some kind of saint. He wasn't. He did good for his own committed tribe, but he supported a system that has the worst consistent human-rights violations in history.
Quote:
That whole idea that things were better during apartheid makes me think of this analogy: It's like saying rape is ok if the child resulting from it has good grades at school.
Wellll, I might be dense, but I don't connect this analogy at all, to the subject. In fact, it seems quite a contrived stretch. But I am certainly wanting to hear your connection.
BTW -- just like Detroit, I want to add that you seem like a very intelligent person with whom a conversation can be had, even if in disagreement!
Look, Apartheid was largely just "white rule". It was basically just colonialism.
The concept behind Apartheid is that basically, white people are better able to make decisions than black people. With the basic idea being that, Black people, if given the right to vote, will basically vote for policies which will be socially and/or economically damaging.
It isn't a new idea. And the same basic concept had been in place in America in the past.
What I mean is, in the past, not every person was afforded the right to vote. Many times only land-owners were given the right to vote. Or it could have only been certain families(nobles?). Sometimes people demand literacy tests or basic-knowledge tests, or whatever sort of test. To filter out those who many see as "unworthy to vote".
Look, there is nothing particularly useful about democracy. We don't even believe in democracy. The idea of a "representative" democracy. Is that we actually elect people who actually know more than us. Thus we recognize that some people are better able to make decisions than the general population. But for some reason, we refuse to extend that idea to a logical consistency.
I mean, the idea that a know-nothing, welfare recipient with an IQ of 70 has an exactly equal vote as the guy with a master's degree in economics or political science. Seems a bit silly doesn't it?
I think most people recognize on some level, that its probably a bad idea for every single person to vote. The problem is that, if you advocate for limiting the right to vote to only certain people. Where do you draw the line?
The truth about colonialism. Is not that the Europeans wanted to dominate and control other countries(though in a sense that was true). The argument for the need for colonialism, was that Europeans were actually bringing civilization to the world.
The Europeans saw themselves sort of like the "parents" of the world. Bringing them out of the dark, into the light. Bringing them Christianity was about bringing them morality, not about just making more Christians(though I'm sure on some level that was true).
I mean, take any craphole in Africa right now. Replace that government with basically a European government. Is it worse off or better off?
I think most unbiased people will recognize that African self-rule has been a disaster, for both blacks and whites. But what is the solution?
LMAO @ "Christianity bringing more morality."
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.
