NationStates Jolt Archive

12 years since the first multi-racial democratic elections have been held in South Africa, there are enormous challenges faces that country. On the one hand, millions of (black) people now have homes, electricity, clean water, and personal freedoms that they did not have before; on the other hand, poverty, crime, HIV/AIDS and unemployment are as problematic as they ever were.
What is your opinion of South Africa now and what do you think will become of it in the future?

I voted the third option, just to offend people.

I don't have an opinion... the world will be a dead, lifeless ball in a hundred years, so what does it matter?

oh come on! certainly we can get more responses than this in the first 20 minutes.

oh come on! certainly we can get more responses than this in the first 20 minutes.
I gotta be honest, man-after it ceased being the "Cause de jour" I don't know that much about it. For the most part I only ocasionally running across some extreme anti-carjacking method in use there that is so off the scale I'm not sure if it isn't a spoof.

Really, I didn't know that much about it when it was the 'cause de jour'.

I hate Black people getting control of formerly strong colonies and running them into the ground.

I hate Black people


Live in West Auckland, huh?:p

Live in West Auckland, huh?:p
Wellington :D

Ah Aukolofa capital city of the PAcific!

I've read they have some sort of special anti-carjacker police who chase down carjackers in souped-up BMW police cars and shoot them with assault rifles.

Blacks boil their eggs in their socks in the communal Hot water system.:eek:

12 years since the first multi-racial democratic elections have been held in South Africa, there are enormous challenges faces that country. On the one hand, millions of (black) people now have homes, electricity, clean water, and personal freedoms that they did not have before; on the other hand, poverty, crime, HIV/AIDS and unemployment are as problematic as they ever were.
What is your opinion of South Africa now and what do you think will become of it in the future?
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Soweto protests, 30 years ago today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/16/newsid_2514000/2514467.stm

The HIV problem is huge and needs to be addressed.

Like everyone else, that's about all I know about SA today.

*Thinks*

Oh, they beat the Aussies in that fabulous one day game! (Hurrah!)

And don't they have a gun crime problem?

South Africa is becoming a sort of reverse-Apartheid state, with the Blacks in power and given more benefits.

The old South Africa was an über oppressive quasi-fascist police state with one of the most despicable governments that ever existed.

The new South Africa is a crime-infested hellhole with a corrupt government, but at least the country doesn't torture dissidents, bulldoze squatters' homes, regulate peoples' behavior to within an inch of their lives, gun down schoolchildren, wage war on its neighbors, etc.

The old South Africa was unfree but safe, the new South Africa is free but unsafe.

Conclusion: the new South Africa is a lot better, but on the whole, they both suck abysmally.

The old South Africa was an über oppressive quasi-fascist police state with one of the most despicable governments that ever existed.

The new South Africa is a crime-infested hellhole with a corrupt government, but at least the country doesn't torture dissidents, bulldoze squatters' homes, regulate peoples' behavior to within an inch of their lives, gun down schoolchildren, wage war on its neighbors, etc.

The old South Africa was unfree but safe, the new South Africa is free but unsafe.

Conclusion: the new South Africa is a lot better, but on the whole, they both suck abysmally.
Well i take the reverse of that opinion.
It is worse because now we get all these White South Africans coming here.:gundge:
Plus their Sporting quota system which doesnt officially exist anymore is ruining their sports teams.

The old South Africa was unfree but safe, the new South Africa is free but unsafe.

I don't think the black South Africans were all that safe under Apartheid. And yes one could say that it was better to be black in South Africa than black in certain other diseased and war torn countries, but that still doesn't excuse denying people human rights. One could argue that since I wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for my father I shouldn't mind if he kicks me in the nuts every now and then, but I would disagree.

A number of people I know who lived in South Africa (Black and White) who now live in the UK have said that they would not at all be suprised if South Africa broke up into tribal regions such as Zululand and Swaziland. They also commented on the "New Apartheid" where whites and other minorities have no say in the government and are often oppressed (They didn't say what this oppression was.)

My opinion: I like Charlize Theron ;)

As far as sub-Saharan Africa goes, I'd say South Africa is doing pretty well. But it doesn't take that much to be an excellent country in sub-Saharan Africa, does it?

By "safe" under apartheid I meant in terms of crime. Of course, they weren't "safe" from oppression. Despicable as the ANC is, it's a vast improvement over its predecessors.

South Africa is turning into another Zimbabwe and taking its leadership example from Mugabe.

It has taken productive farms owned by whites who have been there for over 100 years and ran by blacks who have been there as long, kicked everyone off and given the land to political supporters who can't farm.

It's denying political asylum (against its own laws) to Mugabe's opponents.

Crime is skyrocketing

Disease is skyrocketing

Yeah, they're doing fabulous.

1) Apartheid was evil, so is hating Black people in general. Pretending to hate them is sorta okay... but only if everyone is sure that you are being ironic.

2) White South Africans (Afrikaans or whatever) _seem_ evil. No offence to anyone, but its something about the voice or something... the same goes for Serbians.

3) I once heard a South African politician state that SA was a special case because it was simultaneously a First and Third World country. That made me angry and it stuck with me, as it seemed she was perfectly happy to see the majority of her country underdeveloped.

4) South Africa needs to do something about Zimbabwe, I don't care what, just do something.

5) I have no sympathy for whiney White ex-pat South Africans, when you are complacent towards your elite oppressing an underclass you deserve to be held against a wall and shot. If you receive any better than that you should count yourself lucky.

6) If South Africa continues to ceoncentrate on reconcilliation then I think it could be a major African success story and a stabilising regional leader.

South Africa is turning into another Zimbabwe and taking its leadership example from Mugabe.

So, a democratically elected government suddenly equates to a tyrannical dictatorship that keeps its people in poverty.

It has taken productive farms owned by whites who have been there for over 100 years and ran by blacks who have been there as long, kicked everyone off and given the land to political supporters who can't farm.

Some 80% of agricultural land is owned by white South Africans, who make up only 10% of the population - the legacy of apartheid laws.

It's still on willing-buyer willing-seller basis, although the government wants to accellerate land changeover, because it hasn't been fast enough.

It's denying political asylum (against its own laws) to Mugabe's opponents.

Not the worst thing in the world.

Crime is skyrocketing

However, violent crimes such as murder and robberies have decreased in recent years, with the year 2004 seeing a drop of 4.6% and 5.3% respectively for these two offences. The rape rate, however, showed no signs of such a slowdown. [2] Recently the government has had a widely-publicised gun amnesty programme to recall the many weapons still in circulation from previous levels of violence and wars in neighbouring countries like Mozambique. In addition, it adopted the National Crime Prevention Strategy in 1996, which aimed to prevent crime through reinforcing community structures and helping individuals back into work.

It's high, but not skyrocketing, like most developing countries.

Disease is skyrocketing

I read a while ago that AIDS infection rates should be peaking around now, and should start reducing pretty soon. While a major problem, it is relatively simple to solve.

Yeah, they're doing fabulous.

Well, compared to Somalia...;)

As far as sub-Saharan Africa goes, I'd say South Africa is doing pretty well. But it doesn't take that much to be an excellent country in sub-Saharan Africa, does it?
It is going backwards.

They are hosting the next football world cup but ain't even in this one and all their white players are vanishing from the national team.

So, a democratically elected government suddenly equates to a tyrannical dictatorship that keeps its people in poverty.

When the "democratically elected leaders" are all Marxists and are following his examples, yes.





It's still on willing-buyer willing-seller basis, although the government wants to accellerate land changeover, because it hasn't been fast enough.

Translation: Not enough people are willing to effectively give away their land for cutrate prices so the Gov't is going to take it from them anyway.




Not the worst thing in the world.

But is blatantly hypocritical and against their own law.

"no person may be refused entry into [South Africa], expelled, extradited or returned to any other country ... if as a result of such refusal, expulsion, extradition, return or other measure, such person is compelled to return to or remain in a country where he or she may be subjected to persecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group; or his or her life, physical safety or freedom would be threatened on account of external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or other events seriously disturbing or disrupting public order in either part or the whole of that country."

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=061206D



It's high, but not skyrocketing, like most developing countries.

It has one of the highest crime rates in the world.



I read a while ago that AIDS infection rates should be peaking around now, and should start reducing pretty soon. While a major problem, it is relatively simple to solve.

"Should be" doesn't mean it will or has. If it's "realively simple to solve",how come it hasn't been yet? even in the US.



Well, compared to Somalia...;)

Hell, compared to Somalia, New Jersey's a garden spot.

A number of people I know who lived in South Africa (Black and White) who now live in the UK have said that they would not at all be suprised if South Africa broke up into tribal regions such as Zululand and Swaziland. They also commented on the "New Apartheid" where whites and other minorities have no say in the government and are often oppressed (They didn't say what this oppression was.)

Swaziland is an independant nation. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaziland

When the "democratically elected leaders" are all Marxists and are following his examples, yes.

So do you have any proof or just lots of boilerplate?


Translation: Not enough people are willing to effectively give away their land for cutrate prices so the Gov't is going to take it from them anyway.

Do you have any proof this is what is going on.

I'll admit, from what little I know about the place it wouldn't be unlikely. But still...


"Should be" doesn't mean it will or has. If it's "realively simple to solve",how come it hasn't been yet? even in the US.

Well the fact that there are many myths flying around that the government hasn't been proactive in combatting might have something to do with it.

The ANC hasn't implemented marxist policies. In fact, they deregulated health care (not the type of thing a marxist government does, is it?)

http://www.adamsmith.org/80ideas/idea/17.htm

South Africa also has a version of the Medical Savings Account concept. After deregulation in 1994, virtually every type of health plan could be sold, and after a favourable ruling from the tax authorities, employer deposits to MSAs received the same favourable tax treatment as employer payment of third-party insurance premiums.

Thus in South Africa, MSA plans have competed against other forms of provision (including preferred-provider organizations, health maintenance organizations, and straightforward insurance) on a level playing field. The result has been remarkable. In a few short years, MSA plans have become increasingly popular, more so than US-style managed care organizations, and they already represent about half the market.

South African MSA plans typically have varying deductibles. For example, a representative plan has no deductible for hospital care (on the theory that patients exercise little discretion within hospitals), but a $1,200 deductible for outpatient care (on the theory that patients have a lot of discretion in that setting).

The high deductible also applies to medicines; but for chronic conditions, for which skimping on medicines could lead to more expensive care later, the deductible drops back to zero. There is no evidence that MSA holders skimp on primary care in a way that leads to higher inpatient costs.

So do you have any proof or just lots of boilerplate?




Do you have any proof this is what is going on.

I'll admit, from what little I know about the place it wouldn't be unlikely. But still...



Well the fact that there are many myths flying around that the government hasn't been proactive in combatting might have something to do with it.


Knew I forgot something. The links:

Heres some:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28944
http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/article/0,2763,872695,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1801144,00.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46117
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-10-2003-33479.asp

There's also the fact that almost 1,500 white farmers have been killed since 1994.

When the "democratically elected leaders" are all Marxists and are following his examples, yes.

Anti SA Government rantings, not fact.

Translation: Not enough people are willing to effectively give away their land for cutrate prices so the Gov't is going to take it from them anyway.

SA Land is a free-market economy with western property laws. However, i will reiterate my previous point: what is the problem with doing so if the government has a democratic mandate to do so?

But is blatantly hypocritical and against their own law.

"no person may be refused entry into [South Africa], expelled, extradited or returned to any other country ... if as a result of such refusal, expulsion, extradition, return or other measure, such person is compelled to return to or remain in a country where he or she may be subjected to persecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group; or his or her life, physical safety or freedom would be threatened on account of external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or other events seriously disturbing or disrupting public order in either part or the whole of that country."

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=061206D

Tenner says you can't find a government that isn't hypocritical and/or doesn't break it's own rules.

It has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

Excuseable in a developing country, that has just recentyl come out of an opressive racist regime. Most countries that move from a dictatorship to democracy go through periods of social upheval, and compared to that, crime is nothing.

"Should be" doesn't mean it will or has. If it's "realively simple to solve",how come it hasn't been yet? even in the US.

The US, like most western nations, has low infection rates. Reducing HIV infection rates, since there is no "cure", is simply reliant on education.

And if you're cynical enough not to believe government projections, well that's your problem, not mine. We use projections and trends to judge future climate change, economic growth, population levels, for example, so why not HIV infection rates?

Hell, compared to Somalia, New Jersey's a garden spot.

Compared to Britain, New Jersey's a complete dump!

The ANC hasn't implemented marxist policies. In fact, they deregulated health care (not the type of thing a marxist government does, is it?)

http://www.adamsmith.org/80ideas/idea/17.htm

They've also instituted plans to monitor internet usage and push for land distribution. The types of things marxist gov'ts do.

Anti SA Government rantings, not fact.

So you deny the comments made by numerous individuals in the Gov't supporting Mugabe?



SA Land is a free-market economy with western property laws. However, i will reiterate my previous point: what is the problem with doing so if the government has a democratic mandate to do so?

Tyrrany by the majority? If they're taking the land, it's not free market.



Tenner says you can't find a government that isn't hypocritical and/or doesn't break it's own rules.

addressing nothing. Do you deny that the SA gov't is breaking its own laws. Isn't it convienent that the one denied is a "white" opponent of Mugabe? The same one that numerous comments have been made in support of? While at the same time sheltering Aristide?



Excuseable in a developing country, that has just recentyl come out of an opressive racist regime. Most countries that move from a dictatorship to democracy go through periods of social upheval, and compared to that, crime is nothing.

"Excusable"? BS.



The US, like most western nations, has low infection rates. Reducing HIV infection rates, since there is no "cure", is simply reliant on education.

And if you're cynical enough not to believe government projections, well that's your problem, not mine. We use projections and trends to judge future climate change, economic growth, population levels, for example, so why not HIV infection rates?

Supported by nothing. If you're naive enough to believe everything the Gov't tells you, go for it.



Compared to Britain, New Jersey's a complete dump!

Compared to most places, NJ's a complete dump.

So you deny the comments made by numerous individuals in the Gov't supporting Mugabe?

I don't. However, if that is what the people of South Africa elected freely and fairly, why shouldn't they?

Tyrrany by the majority? If they're taking the land, it's not free market.

No land has been taken, it's merely been suggested.

addressing nothing. Do you deny that the SA gov't is breaking its own laws. Isn't it convienent that the one denied is a "white" opponent of Mugabe? The same one that numerous comments have been made in support of? While at the same time sheltering Aristide?

If one white has been refused, then there must be plenty of blacks refued asylum also - even if it does break it's own laws. All nations do.

"Excusable"? BS.

You're judging South Africa based on Westen standards of crime. Remember, South Africa, despite being Africa's superpower, is still much poorer than the West, and since poverty generally fuels crime, greatly increased crime rates.

However, crime rates are reducing - hardly "skyrocketing," as you origionally claimed.

Supported by nothing. If you're naive enough to believe everything the Gov't tells you, go for it.

I repeat: If you can forecast the economy, climate, population and crime, for example, why not infection rates?

Compared to most places, NJ's a complete dump.

Even SA?

south Africa ,mm Aparthied in reverse , renaming vitrually everything that was named by an afrikaan and BEE plus probably no chance ot have a white government for a an age but aleast it still has some best sausages around

From my wildly remote view, South Africa seems to be be doing a lot better than most, if not all, other African countries. In my mind the country is just as likely to 'graduate' to first-world status (Not my term, but I guess it works) as any of the "squeezed middle" in Latin America or Asia.

I don't. However, if that is what the people of South Africa elected freely and fairly, why shouldn't they?

But first you claimed it was propaganda. Which is it?

Because I oppose tyrrany by the majority, especially when the majority is encouraging racist policist in revenge for racist policies.



No land has been taken, it's merely been suggested.

And there have also been reports that the Gov't isn't paying for the land, only giving "promisory notes". The Gov't also has land available. It's just better PR for them in country to start taking it.



If one white has been refused, then there must be plenty of blacks refued asylum also - even if it does break it's own laws. All nations do.

Proof of this?



You're judging South Africa based on Westen standards of crime. Remember, South Africa, despite being Africa's superpower, is still much poorer than the West, and since poverty generally fuels crime, greatly increased crime rates.

Poverty is only one part of crime. It's murder rate is one of the highest in the world. Whites are being killed at disproportionately higher rates there in revenge killings and the Gov't is doing little.

However, crime rates are reducing - hardly "skyrocketing," as you origionally claimed.

Now follow the links in the Wiki article. They tell a different story.

http://crimepages.co.za/news.htm

South Africa's child murder and rape shame

More children are being murdered and raped in South Africa than in previous years, according to police statistics, which reveal that more than three children are killed every day. Equally shocking is that statistics released by the Safety and Security Ministry also show that more than 60 children are raped daily.The figures were released in the same week that saw the brutal murder of Transvaal Judge President Bernard Ngoepe's granddaughter Makgabo Matlala, 4. Statistics released on Friday by Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula show that 1 128 children were murdered between April 2004 and March last year. This is substantially more than the 700 reported cases of child murder the previous year. During the same period, 22 486 children were raped. Again, the figure is substantially higher than the 15 867 reports of child rape in the 2003/2004 financial year. Nqakula was responding to a parliamentary question from DA MP Mike Waters.The minister also said there were 1 569 cases of attempted murder reported to police, 4 829 of indecent assault and 24 189 of assault with grievous bodily harm involving children.Of the murder cases, the highest number of reports came from KwaZulu-Natal (284), followed by Gauteng (222) and the Eastern Cape (204). There were 164 murders reported in the Western Cape.Waters said he was appalled at the horrific increases. "In 2002/2003, 15 144 child rapes were reported while last year there were 22 486. That's an increase of 48 percent in the past two years. Now the government will tell you that it's got to do with better reporting, but that's not true. If that were the case, it would be a steady increase," Waters said.He said the figures amounted to a total onslaught on the country's children and urged the government to introduce drastic steps to reduce crimes against minors."The conviction rate in the 2003/2004 financial year was 4.5%. This means there's a 95% chance of not being caught, so people are re-offending all the time. And it's not about poverty either because, even if you're poor, it doesn't mean you go around raping children," Waters said.



I repeat: If you can forecast the economy, climate, population and crime, for example, why not infection rates?

And how often are they accurate? You can "forecast" all you want, it doesn't necessarily mean its reality.



Even SA?

In comparison to crime rates, no. In comparison w/ just it being NJ, maybe.

More Wiki links:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2772-2100080,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4140990.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1260941.stm
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/sf-south-africa/Crime-crime&b_cite=1

Regrettably South Africa is now effectively a one party state and it won't be long until it becomes a president for life state. There is no basis in black cultural development for doing anything but holding on to power in any way you can.

Rhodesia probably had a better chance and look what happened there. You simply cannot deny the inflation, devastation of the environment, political corruption, and on and on and on, to be fould in Zimbabwe.

The only hope for South Africa is that a true black-based muli-party system will develop relatively quickly. If that doesn't happen within the next decade, look for a version of the Zimbabwe horror story to develop.

Regrettably South Africa is now effectively a one party state and it won't be long until it becomes a president for life state. There is no basis in black cultural development for doing anything but holding on to power in any way you can.

1.Blatant racism.
2.Japan is a party-dominant state (Liberal Democrats), as is the Republic of Ireland (Flanna Fail), Sweden (Social Democrats) to name but a few.

Rhodesia probably had a better chance and look what happened there. You simply cannot deny the inflation, devastation of the environment, political corruption, and on and on and on, to be fould in Zimbabwe.

How did Rhodesia have a better chance when it went into civil war, and the transition to democracy in SA was peaceful and successful?

The only hope for South Africa is that a true black-based muli-party system will develop relatively quickly. If that doesn't happen within the next decade, look for a version of the Zimbabwe horror story to develop.

And I thought I could be a cynical prophet of doom! Nevertheless, I agree, albeit partially. The Democratic Alliance has been doing well in provincial elections, and should help provide a healthy opposition - however, the ANC is still popular, and ths wins elections.

Which bit is blatant racism? South Africa is effectively a one party state. The ANC. Name a single black culture that has a tradition or history of any form of voting to govern itself. The trend in the South African Presidency is a drift toward Zimbabwe style rhetoric. With a few exceptions (e.g. Botswana) Africa has a consistent and repeatable pattern of transitions from "one man one vote (once)" to repressive dictatorial governments, call them what you will.

Free opinions follow, take them for what you think they are worth.

As for Rhodesia, if a parlimentary form of representative government had been allowed BEFORE UDI, as was promised many times, it seems to me likely that the terrorist war would have been stopped and the deep division between Shona and Matabele could have been moderated. As it turned out the intentional delay played into the hands of the terrorists who eventually managed to threaten and kill their way into power. History clearly shows that once elected Comrade Mugabe did everything and anything necessary to stay in power. For starters, Google "Fifth Brigade" and see what you get.

I regard the ever-increasing numbers of white South Africans emigrating to my country with suspicion. I don't trust white South Africans on the whole. I've met too many who, after feeling they've gained my confidence, start trotting out the worst kind of racist drivel in front of me. Tack-o-rama.

Poverty is only one part of crime. It's murder rate is one of the highest in the world. Whites are being killed at disproportionately higher rates there in revenge killings and the Gov't is doing little.

Whites are not killed disproportionately in South Africa. The vast majority of crime victims in South Africa are black. I've seen various conspiracy theories on the internet (which appear primarily on white supremacist websites) about attempts to kill all the White farmers. The number that usually appears is 4500 white farmers killed in attacks between 1994 and 2004. What I find comical about people who throw around that 4500 number as if it meant anything, is that during the same time period at least 200,000 (20,000 annual homocides * 10 years) South Africans - most of them poor and black - fell victim to homocide. 4500 out of 200,000 is nothing to cry conspiracy over.

It is not unusual for developing countries to have high homocide rates. Colombians, Russians, and Brazilians can attest to that.

I'm really curious to know how the South African ecnomy was doing under Apartheid, but before the international sanctions kicked in.

Given what's been happening since the white farmers were ejected in Zimbabwe, the comparison would be really interesting.

My country has some major problems facing it. It needs to come to terms with reality, and realise that it has to change. It needs to address the issue of AIDs, restore its economy, halt affirmative action and try and abate tensions between the various black tribes. It needs to become a confederal, welfare capitalist country for now, and slowly move on to something more minarchist. Only the Inkatha Freedom Party has the wits to suggest this so far. I seriously hope it does not degenerate into another African trash heap.

I concur with Kecibukia.

I regard the ever-increasing numbers of white South Africans emigrating to my country with suspicion. I don't trust white South Africans on the whole. I've met too many who, after feeling they've gained my confidence, start trotting out the worst kind of racist drivel in front of me. Tack-o-rama.
Yeah, lump us together all in one group. Tack-o-rama indeed.

Who would even go to your country...Europe owns.

I hate Black people getting control of formerly strong colonies and running them into the ground.
arent you just lovely!

I worked on the gold mines from 1974 to 1985. Prior to the significant impostion of sanctions, the economy was vibrant and it was possible to supplant white labor in many jobs. A black middle class was starting to emerge. The inflow from rural areas was immense.

Once however sanctions were tighten, the job market became tighter, white unions cried to the National Party, and presto, years of advances went right down the sh***er.

At that time the economy had to grow by about 15% per year, just to stand still. 50% of the total population was under the age of 15. But did those calling for sanctions give a thought to the hardships they were creating and the divisiveness that followed. Hell no, they were interested in grandstanding in front of the voters at home. Those voters by the way couldn't locate South Africa if it bit them on the a** but it sure made them fell warm and fuzzy hearing all those words about the good effects sanctions were having.

Positive changes were taking place but that didn't play well in Peoria or whatever your own podunk happens to be...

Now those who created the sanctions mess wring their hands, offer platitudes, and go about bombing Iraq into dust... and creating yet another monster

How did Rhodesia have a better chance when it went into civil war, and the transition to democracy in SA was peaceful and successful?

"Peaceful?"

You should have seen South Africa in the 1980s-1990s. Thousands of people were killed. There was a near-civil war in KwaZulu-Natal where about 10,000 people died. Lots of people were also killed by the South African security forces. And let's not forget the 400 or so people necklaced by the ANC. "Peaceful," my ass. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Farmer_Murders

It's worth noting also that "poverty" has nothing to do with these murders because, in the vast majority of cases, nothing is taken. The people are simply tortured and slaughtered in the most heinous fashion possible. Also worth noting is that these innocent people were not the ones who imposed apartheid on South Africa. They are, for the most part, simply peaceful people who want nothing more than to go about their lives minding their own business. Remember, Mugabe started out pursuing a conciliatory policy, too, but now look what's happening. Who's to say the same thing won't happen in South Africa? The ANC is no less despicable than the old National Party. Both were filled with die-hard, hate-filled tribalists (in the NP's case, Afrikaaners; in the ANC's case, Xhosas). I can't predict the future, but it wouldn't surprise me if the fascist tyranny of apartheid is succeeded by the Marxist tyranny of the ANC, an organization that, like the National Party, seldom hesitated to resort to oppression and terror to silence its opponents (can we say "necklacing," anybody?).

Blacks boil their eggs in their socks in the communal Hot water system.:eek:

Now that's what I call clever thinking.:D

South Africa is becoming a sort of reverse-Apartheid state, with the Blacks in power and given more benefits.

You're serious? I mean, are you really that much of an "achterlijke Limburger"?:p

I don't think it's a reversal of roles of black suppressing whites that's actually happening. It's just crappy politicians covering corrupt and wholly inept governance and policies by telling the majority, unemployed and uneducated rural black people that white people are the devil and if you don't vote for us, they will come into power and suppress you again.

The biggest problem in SA is the amount of uneducated black people who are listening to these politicians. Shoot the politicians I say.

I'm South African and I still live in South Africa. First, I'd like to dismiss this 'reverse apartheid' nonsense as just that, nonsense. I don't know where the idea came from but some people are under the impression that ALL black people are richer than rich and drive BMWs and live in the suburbs. Truth of the matter is a lot of poor black people have been screwed over by the ANC government. The entire point of the ANC government and the way in which they have chosen to implement Affirmative Action is to create an elite, black middle class. I think that the ideal behind Affirmative Action is good (ie, try and balance the playing fields) but the way that the current government is going about it doesn't help the black majority and makes white people feel as if they're getting screwed.

Second, I'm hoping that whoever claimed that the ANC government is Marxist was joking. Unless a new version of Marxism has been developed in which privatisation is a good thing.

Third, the crime situation is bad. I believe that the reason why crime is so violent and horrible is our past. Someone mentioned the wave of violence South Africa experienced in the 80s and early 90s. I think that that wave plays a huge role in why violent crime is so rife today. I think that the poor people of South Africa are incredibly angry. Life sucked under apartheid and after all the promises, life sucks now too. I'm not excusing that behaviour at all but I can see why it happens.

If people in South Africa realise that the current govt is shit (I think they're starting to if I look at the amount of people who turned up to vote) and find an alternative, I think the situation could be ten times better. But I can say that about every country in the world.

Most of the top echelons of the ANC are dominated by members of the SACP or "former" members like Mbeki.

I think that the ideal behind Affirmative Action is good (ie, try and balance the playing fields) but the way that the current government is going about it doesn't help the black majority and makes white people feel as if they're getting screwed.
Absolutely not. Wealth redistribution is even less commendable. I disagree with affirmative action in any form it may take. Help the poor, yes. In the form of racial discrimination though? Sorry, but South Africa has purportedly evolved. Time to prove it.


If people in South Africa realise that the current govt is shit (I think they're starting to if I look at the amount of people who turned up to vote) and find an alternative, I think the situation could be ten times better. But I can say that about every country in the world.
I wish the Inkatha Freedom Party could take power.

Hiya

Ok, I'm actually one of those White South African Folk, and I find a lot of what has been said quite interesting if somewhat amusing.

The Land Grabbing Issue - There has been some speculation about being more progressive about the transfer of white owned land to the rest of the population. To my knowledge (and I keep up with the news quite actively) so far all land sales have been done on relatively fair prices. There are rumours of these "fair" prices dropping and farmer folk being forced into deals that are not entirely to their satisfaction, but they are few and far between.

Crime in this country is atrocious. I myself (I live a pretty good area) have had my house broken three times and two cars stolen. I know numerous people that have been shot at, hijacked and robbed. Over 18000 murder cases a year, a total of 250,000 murders since 1994. That's more death numerous wars have suffered. Heists, murders and rapes (even rapes of children younger than 5 and the elderly) are so common now that they barely make the news.

The press is relatively free, though the primary broadcasting entity in the country pretty much reports only the official story. According to official statistics, crime is improving - something every single south african finds very hard to believe. But poverty is still rife - some statistics claim that our unemployment rate is somewhere near 40%, other claim as high as 50%. Even the most conservative figures rate it at over 25%. This would explain a lot of crime - however, there's a certain barbaric, savage and truly shocking aspects to much of the crime that happens - people held and tortured in their own homes, couples abducted and forced to watch eachother being gang sodomized and raped and eventually one of them killed and the other set free.... there are things happening here that cannot be explained by poverty alone. It's ironic that one of the possible explanations for this brutality is "revenge" for the apartheid years - but it's exactly this brutality that is creating a breeding ground for a much deeper racism amongst the whites of the younger generations. Bear in mind, most young to midlle aged adults have had little or nothing to do with the apartheid regime - it fell before they had any voring power or enough sense to judge right or wrong in a political context with a capability for action.

The "previously disadvantaged" population now does have certain elevated rights over the White South African - They receive preferential offering of jobs over white candidates of similar skill levels, and it is a goverment requirement that certain quotas are met and that all lucrative companies have a certain level of black ownership, and preferential goverment and public company business deals go to companies that have a certain high quota of black ownership / employment levels. It's important to note that all these rules exist in order to make up for years of lost opportunities during the opression era. Whether this is the right way to go about it or not, I'm not really sure - but what I do know is that something must be done. Our literacy rates are extremely low, public education is bad to shocking - murder in schools is common. I would not go as far as saying that the country has degenerated to reverse racism.

Comparing anything happening today to the apartheid years in a way is a futile excercise - media restriction was rife in those days and in many ways we don't really know how bad crime was, how many people were murdered. Most of us believe things were safer, but that may only be true from a white perspective - we don't really know what many of the white folk (farmers, military men) were doing, every now and then something pops up on the news of some white guy being charged with the atrocious crimes of his past.

All in all, South Africa isn't doing too badly despite it's many faults. If you consider the way things could have gone during the power change, it gone very well. I would dare say that crime is the only frightening thing about this country - not theft and petty crimes - the rapes, murders and the things worse than those.

I wish the Inkatha Freedom Party could take power.

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear!

Now that would more than likely start a civil war.

Personally I think old Zuma should start his own political party - split off from the ANC, and thus create a democratic landscape of three significant parties... as long as Zuma's new party will never have the presidency that is...

ANC 45%
Zuma 34%
DA 20%
The Rest 1%

The old South Africa was an über oppressive quasi-fascist police state with one of the most despicable governments that ever existed.

The new South Africa is a crime-infested hellhole with a corrupt government, but at least the country doesn't torture dissidents, bulldoze squatters' homes, regulate peoples' behavior to within an inch of their lives, gun down schoolchildren, wage war on its neighbors, etc.

The old South Africa was unfree but safe, the new South Africa is free but unsafe.

Conclusion: the new South Africa is a lot better, but on the whole, they both suck abysmally.




Partly right and partly wrong on both counts.

I wouldn't even say it was one of the most despicable governments in Africa let alone ever in the world (Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Ivan's Russia, Gengis Khan's Mongols, Attila's Huns, Caligula's Rome etc etc)

But i'd rather have been a black in Apartheid South Africa than a Tutsi in Rwanda, or a Hutu in Burundi or a Matabele in Mugabe's Zimbabwe or a citizen of Mobutu's Congo, Amin or Obote's Uganda, Mengistu's Ethiopia, Bokassa's Central African Empire, Siad Barre or the warlords' Somalia, Abacha's Nigeria, Doe or Taylor's Liberia, Strasser's Sierra Leone, Habre's Chad, Frelimo's Mozambique or the NIF's Sudan to name but the most egregious.

And South Africa is crime infested today, but Jo'burg (only one city as well) is safer than Nairobi or Mogadishu or Bujumbura and a damn sight more prosperous than Kinshasa, N'Djamena, Accra (repeat for every other Sub-Saharan capital city).

But, in general, I'd say your analysis is correct.

I worked on the gold mines from 1974 to 1985. Prior to the significant impostion of sanctions, the economy was vibrant and it was possible to supplant white labor in many jobs. A black middle class was starting to emerge. The inflow from rural areas was immense.

Once however sanctions were tighten, the job market became tighter, white unions cried to the National Party, and presto, years of advances went right down the sh***er.

At that time the economy had to grow by about 15% per year, just to stand still. 50% of the total population was under the age of 15. But did those calling for sanctions give a thought to the hardships they were creating and the divisiveness that followed. Hell no, they were interested in grandstanding in front of the voters at home. Those voters by the way couldn't locate South Africa if it bit them on the a** but it sure made them fell warm and fuzzy hearing all those words about the good effects sanctions were having.

Positive changes were taking place but that didn't play well in Peoria or whatever your own podunk happens to be...

Now those who created the sanctions mess wring their hands, offer platitudes, and go about bombing Iraq into dust... and creating yet another monster

That was my thought. It was the sanctions that brought poverty, not the apartheid. It was in the interests of the whites to structure the economy in a way that would grow, and that helps everyone.

Much like Cuba. It's the sanctions that make Cuba poor.

I don't think it's one country's business how another is run.

Which bit is blatant racism? South Africa is effectively a one party state. The ANC. Name a single black culture that has a tradition or history of any form of voting to govern itself. The trend in the South African Presidency is a drift toward Zimbabwe style rhetoric. With a few exceptions (e.g. Botswana) Africa has a consistent and repeatable pattern of transitions from "one man one vote (once)" to repressive dictatorial governments, call them what you will.

You can hardly blame African culture for failing to develop liberal democracy, seeing as African progress has been stunted throughout history by first the lack of passable trade (and therefore idea-exchange) routes, and then European Imperialism.

However, many political scientists point to the emerging system in Somaliland, as the first instance of an entirely home-grown democracy in Africa. The system consists of a bicameral legislature consisting of both elected representitives and traditional tribal leaders. Granted it is not entirely democratic, but history has taught us that all successful democracies must be born through strife.

*snip*
I'm really sad to hear that things are still so bad. :( Maybe I will just stay in Europe. Who knows, one day I could do something to help the country. It's time it started wanting to help itself though. I hate this affirmative action route it is taking. Give it time, and it will devolve into Zimbabwe.

Now that would more than likely start a civil war.

Personally I think old Zuma should start his own political party - split off from the ANC, and thus create a democratic landscape of three significant parties... as long as Zuma's new party will never have the presidency that is...

ANC 45%
Zuma 34%
DA 20%
The Rest 1%
I'd love to see a confederal government be brought into existence in the country. Alongside some welfare capitalist policies it could maybe bring its wealth level up. Then, minarchism. Who knows; it might just become the working model for the rest of the world. I will not hold my breath though.

Yeah, lump us together all in one group. Tack-o-rama indeed.

Who would even go to your country...Europe owns.
I just knew I could count on you being indignant over that one, Sunny Jim. Hats off to you.

How's the Cricket team these days?

I just knew I could count on you being indignant over that one, Sunny Jim. Hats off to you.
Well you certainly have a knack for odd nicknames. :confused: