NationStates Jolt Archive

Africa's next genocide, the death of the Boers?http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htm

This Genocide Watch is to raise an alert concerning the number of Boer farmers slain since the end of apartheid in South Africa. The threat of destruction of a group must not be ignored because its numbers are small or its members disfavoured because they have acted in discriminatory ways in the past. A critical factor in this analysis is the total remaining number of Boer farmers. The total number of ethno-European farmers in South Africa has been estimated at approximately 40,000 to 45,000. The majority of ethno-European farmers are Boers. In world context, this may seem to be a small number of people. But such absolute numbers are biased against recognition of threats to the survival of minorities. The smaller the minority the more severe this bias.

Wiki on Genocides in History:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides#cite_note-193
The South African farming community has suffered from attacks for many years.[191] The vast majority of the victims have been white farmers, with claims of death tolls of up to 1,700 (July 2005) cited in the media.[192][193] The age of those killed range from as old as 87 years to young infants. Genocide Watch has stated that these attacks constitute early warning signs of genocide against Boers and has criticised the South African government for its inaction on the issue, pointing out that the murder rate for them ("ethno-European farmers" in their report) is four times that of the general South African population.[194][195]

Anti-Boer-Anti-Farmer stance in the SA Government:
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,9909,2-7-1442_2314200,00.html
Anti-farmer hate speech slated
29/04/2008 22:35 - (SA)

Gcina Ntsaluba

Groblersdal - Residents of this Limpopo town have asked police to investigate the role of political hate speech in fuelling farm murders.

A memorandum was submitted to Groblersdal police station on Tuesday after the recent murder of Johan Myburgh, 33, on his parent's farm outside the town on April 19.

Kallie Kriel, chief executive of AfriForum, an independent, non-profit organisation, said: "Those who inflame hate and aggression towards farmers have to be regarded as accomplices to the murders of farmers."

Kriel, who signed the memorandum, said theft could not be used as a motive for farm murders, as it was not necessary to torture and murder people when robbing them.

Kriel urged police to launch a comprehensive investigation into the role played by hate speech by politicians against farmers.

He accused Agriculture Minister Lulu Xingwana and her deputy, Dirk du Toit, of being party to inciting hatred against farmers.

Accused of ethnic genocide

"The minister, for example, made herself guilty of hate speech on December 5 2006 during a gathering at Church Square, Pretoria, by falsely alleging that the agricultural industry was riddled with cases of violence against women and children and that farmers raped and assaulted farm workers," he said.

He said Du Toit even went so far as to accuse farmers of committing ethnic genocide.

He said that during the ANC's protest action at the first court appearance of 18-year-old Skierlik murder suspect Johan Nel, ANC MP Patrick Chauke publicly blamed the white community for the murders, after which protestors yelled slogans such as "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer!".

Nel, who is not a farmer, is accused of killing four people, including a three-month-old baby, and wounding six in a shooting rampage at Skierlik informal settlement near Swartruggens in North West in January.

Kriel said posters with slogans such as "One settler, one bullet!", "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer!" and "Maak dood die wit man", were also displayed during the court appearances.

No arrest in Myburgh murder

At the funeral, speaker after speaker launched scathing attacks against the farming community and whites, and called for "action" against farmers.
Groblersdal police station's Inspector Nopofu Jelle said the community's concerns would be taken up by the provincial police commissioner's office.

Meanwhile, no one has been arrested yet for Myburgh's murder.

"They shot him in the back of his head through a window," said resident Yolanda Duvenage on Tuesday.

She said police had a responsibility to ensure the safety of farmers.


The failure of the ANC to lead South Africa, and the White-Flight from South Africa.
South Africa's not doing too well under the ANC, which is destroying the country, riddling itself with corruption and failure, and White people are leaving:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8851
The African National Congress, South Africa's ruling party, meets this week to select its new leader. Reports indicate that Jacob Zuma, the left-leaning former deputy president of South Africa who was fired in 2005 after allegations of corruption, has garnered enough support to unseat current president Thabo Mbeki in the ANC's top job.

Zuma will likely become South Africa's next president when the general election is called in 2009. Although South Africa is politically and economically freer than it was under apartheid, serious challenges remain. Zuma will need to try new ways of addressing them.

According to the United Nations, HIV/AIDS afflicts 19% of South Africans between the ages of 15 and 49, and many doubt the government's commitment to fighting it. Thabo Mbeki, the current president, refuses to talk about the disease, and his firing of popular and capable Deputy Health Minister Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge suggests that he values personal loyalty over professional ability. That also explains why Jackie Selebi, who failed to make a dent in South Africa's murder rate — which remains nine times higher than that of the United States — and who is under indictment for links with organized crime, remains South Africa's police commissioner. The country needs a president who does not mock the citizens' concern over crime.

Although South Africa is politically and economically freer than it was under apartheid, serious challenges remain.
The parliamentary oversight of the ever-stronger executive is woefully inadequate. The electoral system of proportional representation allows political parties, rather than constituencies, to select their candidates for parliament. That arrangement has allowed the ANC to fill the government benches with scores of toadies who tolerate ministerial mismanagement and corruption out of fear for their jobs.

At the same time, many members of the public refrained from criticizing the Mbeki government because they worried about being accused of lack of patriotism or even racism. On the upside, the contest for the ANC presidency has led to the first genuine country-wide debate about the pros and cons of individual candidates.

Corruption has billowed under Mbeki. Part of the reason for that increase is the conflict between the content of South Africa's much-admired constitution and the realities of the ANC's self-styled "national democratic revolution." The constitution contains plenty of checks and balances.

In contrast, the ANC's politicies saw a Putin-style placement of the party's supporters into all the watchdog roles and positions of oversight. The ANC has mimicked the same approach in the private sector, pressuring the country's large businesses to appoint its supporters into senior positions. The hegemonic impulses of the ruling party have cost South Africa much in terms of economic efficiency and erosion of the rule of law. Whether the ethically compromised Zuma can set that to rights remains uncertain.

If South Africa is to succeed as a multi-racial society, the new president will have to repudiate the racially divisive rhetoric that marked much of the Mbeki presidency. With some one million white South Africans leaving the country over the last decade, Nelson Mandela's "rainbow nation" is becoming less colorful. The large but inefficient public sector is beset by skills shortages and frequent protests among the intended recipients of public services — the vast majority of whom are black — which show that Mbeki's race-based electioneering was not only unethical but self-defeating.

Tony Leon is the former leader of the Democratic Alliance and the former leader of South Africa's parliamentary opposition. He is a fellow at the Institute of Politics, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Marian L. Tupy is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and author of the study "Troubling Signs for South African Democracy Under the ANC."

The new president should have the courage to adopt economic reforms that result in faster economic growth. South Africa's money-guzzling, public-private corporations, like South African Airways, which gets billions of rands in annual subsidies, ought to be privatized.

The new president should also liberalize the labor market. In spite of a growing economy, rigid labor laws keep unemployment stubbornly high, at 26%. Worryingly, the number of people in South Africa who live in absolute poverty doubled between 1994 and 2007. Unfortunately, Zuma may be too beholden to the Congress of South African Trade Unions, which was very supportive of his candidacy, to do what is necessary.
Abroad, South African foreign policy is increasingly puzzling and at variance with the ANC's stated commitment to the promotion of human rights. Mbeki has done much to foster peace in Africa, but his international moralizing is at odds with the policies pursued by his foreign-policy mandarins. The ANC cozies up to dictators from Burma and Cuba to Libya and Zimbabwe while at the same time criticizing the American and Israeli foreign policies. For the ANC to criticize American foreign-policy mistakes while shielding Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe from international scorn is hypocritical and then some.

South Africa remains Africa's dominant economy and its largest democracy. In spite of the mistakes of Mr. Mbeki's presidency, the country's potential remains great. To unleash it, the new president must do a better job than the last.

South Africa's future, the future of the possible genocide against Boers and increased White Flight:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321785,00.html
He may be the most controversial figure in African politics — a skirt-chasing, self-described "Zulu Boy" shrouded by accusations of corruption and rape who marches to a catchy tune called "Bring Me My Machine Gun."

South Africa, meet your next president.

Jacob Zuma, the 65-year-old "100 Percent Zulu Boy" and new leader of South Africa's ruling African National Congress (ANC), has garnered the popular support of communists and young people, some of whom publicly display anti-gay and anti-feminist views.

South African presidents are chosen by the 400 members of the directly-elected National Assembly, one of the two houses of parliament.

Although more than a dozen parties are represented in parliament, the ruling ANC has been the main player in South African politics since 1994, which means that Zuma is the most likely successor when current president Thabo Mbeki steps down.

(The ANC's rivals include the Democratic Alliance (DA), the biggest opposition party, and the predominantly Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP).)

Women's groups may be sounding off over the values of the polygamist president-to-be, but Zuma is no stranger to controversy.

Zuma took his fourth wife over the weekend.

Zuma has an estimated 20 children by six different women. His eldest wife, Sizakele Khumao, has renounced her "first lady" status in favor of his new 33-year-old wife.

A former wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, is South Africa's foreign minister and a potential political rival. Another wife killed herself in 2000.

Despite Zuma's removal as deputy president of South Africa after fraud charges two years ago, and subsequent corruption and rape charges, the ANC announced this week that the party will support his candidacy for the national presidency.

During his rape trial, Zuma took a "short skirt" excuse, claiming it was his duty as a Zulu warrior to have sex with a woman if she wore a short kanga (an African wrap), and that he could not leave her "unfulfilled."

Zuma told the court that he knew the woman was "clearly aroused" by the fact that her kanga was "quite short" — meaning knee-length.

"In the Zulu culture, you cannot just leave a woman if she is ready," he explained.

According to his defense team, Zulu men have sexual primacy over women. Therefore, he could not be guilty.

"To deny her sex, that would have been tantamount to rape," Zuma claimed.

The accusing woman, who was 31 and HIV-positive at the time of the incident, is the daughter of one of Zuma's now-dead liberation-war comrades.
She alleged that when she went for advice in late 2005 to the home of the man she had known since childhood and had always called "uncle," Zuma forced his 250-pound frame upon her.

During the subsequent trial, thousands of Zuma's supporters congregated outside the courthouse, chanting "kill the bitch" and pelting the accuser with rocks as she arrived each morning. She was given police protection due to death threats.

At one point, Zuma was caught attempting to bribe the victim's aunt with an offer of two cows and a new garden fence in exchange for persuading the victim to withdraw the allegations.

But was Zuma, the former head of the National AIDS Council in a country where one in seven citizens are HIV-positive, and aware of the woman's HIV-positive status, concerned about unprotected sex?

"I had a shower afterwards," Zuma explained after announcing that he had chosen not to use a condom.

In a country where, according to human rights groups, a woman is raped every 26 seconds, Zuma was found not guilty. His accuser has been granted asylum in the Netherlands.

Zuma's throngs of supporters, who refer to him as simply "JZ," dismiss the rape and corruption allegations as plots masterminded by government intelligence agents to prevent his rise to power.

Zuma has also been accused of taking bribes in a defense-contract scandal for which he still faces trial, as well as charges of consorting with criminals, prostitutes and corruption.

Despite claims that the judiciary is independent, he will have significant influence over his own prosecution as the head of the ANC.

A recent KPMG auditing report alleges that the man at the center of the defense-contract scandal, fraud convict Schabir Shaik, spent over $21 million on Zuma's children, including allowances, cars and cash payment for a wedding.

The report also suggests that Shaik and his companies footed the bill for Zuma's household and travel expenses.

Zuma faces 16 charges, including one charge of racketeering, two counts of corruption, one count of money laundering and 12 counts of fraud.

Ironically, Zuma's problems have only increased his support among the poverty-stricken and the oppressed.

Under President Mbeki, discontent has escalated in the black population.

Most South African blacks still live in shocking conditions, with one person murdered every 20 minutes and unemployment at 90 percent in some townships.

In his striking political comeback, Zuma, who often wears a traditional cowhide robe and Zulu shield, led his thousands of supporters Tuesday, many from the Young Communist League, in preparation to succeed Mbeki as the new ANC leader.

Zuma left home at 16 and joined the ANC as a foot soldier for the armed wing of the liberation movement, Umkhonto we Sizwe or "Spear of the Nation."

At 21, he was arrested for conspiring to overthrow the apartheid government and served 10 years in prison alongside liberation hero Nelson Mandela — as well as his rape accuser's father — in the notorious jail on Robben Island just offshore from Cape Town.

Mbeki is also a veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle, but unlike Zuma, he is an intellectual who left South Africa to pursue an economics degree in England during the anti-apartheid struggle and never spent time in prison.

A series of corruption scandals, including the theft of millions intended for vital drugs, increased opinion against Mbeki.

Zuma has signaled his intent to "Africanize" the country, and there rumors he plans to seize some white-owned South African farms.

In neighboring Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe's "Africanization" land-reform policies have brought famine to his country through the seizure of white-owned farms.
Ironically, while Mbeki has been criticized for his refusal to take action against the dictatorial Mugabe, a fellow veteran of the liberation struggle, Zuma has called for a tougher South African stance.

Thirteen years after emerging from apartheid and starting down the path of Mandela's "Rainbow Nation", South Africa, Africa's superpower and largest economy now embarks down the road of "Bring Me My Machine Gun."
I think it's totally possible that we may see an attempted genocide of Boers from South Africa, and with these attacks contuing, the increasing White Flight, and the tones of the anti-White ANC and the views of the President-to-be of South Africa, I can't really see White people as part of South Africa's future. I'd say that White people should just leave for GB, America or Canada. SA is lost, and though it's future may be without it's white citizens, it's future won't be much to look at with the way things are going. South Africa is falling apart under it's new government and will be rejoining the rest of it's corrupt, violent and backwards continent. Yay. :rolleyes:

What do you think about SA's current leadership, the future of the country (under the new President and in general, it's future) and the future of White people in the country?

Do you really think anyone cares when non-whites wipe out whole cultures of other non-whites? Rwanda, Darfur, Tibet, Zimbabwe, etc. The UN has proven they will do nothing and if a Western power steps in that would be imperialism.

Welcome to the world the UN hath wrought.

...who marches to a catchy tune called "Bring Me My Machine Gun."

Hey! That's MY song!

Do you really think anyone cares when non-whites wipe out whole cultures of other non-whites? Rwanda, Darfur, Tibet, Zimbabwe, etc. The UN has proven they will do nothing and if a Western power steps in that would be imperialism.

Welcome to the world the UN hath wrought.

Psssssst ;)

Boers are White people. Afrikaaner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaaner). Boers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boers).

Do you really think anyone cares when non-whites wipe out whole cultures of other non-whites?
Um, what's this got to do with the OP?

Psssssst ;)

Boers are White people. Afrikaaner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaaner). Boers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boers).

Sorry. My mistake. People care even less when whites are liquidated by non-whites.

Correction: Who cares when non-whites wipe out white people?

There, all better.

Sorry. My mistake. People care even less when whites are liquidated by non-whites.

Correction: Who cares when non-whites wipe out white people?

There, all better.

Actually, no one cares if anyone wipes out less than 100,000 people.

Not the UN (whose human rights commision is run by the likes of Sudan).

Any Western nation that gets involved would be fucked by international opinion (you fucking racist colonialists) and by their people at home (not in my name, fuck the war, hell no we won't go).

Want to know why we're not going to Darfur to save anyone? For all the reasons that people want us to leave Iraq as quickly as possible.

As soon as you can find a nation capable of mounting the operation, with a population who would fully support the mission, without any criticism from the international community, let me know.

Otherwise, all genocides are now ON from now on.

Actually, no one cares if anyone wipes out less than 100,000 people.
Sure they do.

Not the UN (whose human rights commision is run by the likes of Sudan).
That commision doesn't exist anymore.


Want to know why we're not going to Darfur to save anyone?
Because of the problems concerning national sovereignty, among other things.


Otherwise, all genocides are now ON from now on.
:rolleyes:

Really?

I though you didnt went to Darfur because you already controlled the oil there.

I Must be mistaken.

Sorry. My mistake. People care even less when whites are liquidated by non-whites.

Correction: Who cares when non-whites wipe out white people?

There, all better.
Well, for starters, all the people on this board who fight against discrimination, racism and for human rights.....yet seem to be absent when the tables are turned and the cases are AGAINST White people.

. I'd say that White people should just leave for GB, America or Canada.
Ah, yes, white immigrants you don't mind...

Africa's next genocide, the death of the Boers?

This is actually an issue.


The failure of the ANC to lead South Africa, and the White-Flight from South Africa.

This is totally unrelated garbage. The first one is also an editorial written by the leader of the opposition and somebody from a neo-liberal think tank. Again you are trying to pass off an editorial as something factual. The second is some FOX news article that's a few months old and says nothing concrete about the Boer genocide.

I think it's totally possible that we may see an attempted genocide of Boers from South Africa, and with these attacks contuing, the increasing White Flight, and the tones of the anti-White ANC and the views of the President-to-be of South Africa, I can't really see White people as part of South Africa's future. I'd say that White people should just leave for GB, America or Canada. SA is lost, and though it's future may be without it's white citizens, it's future won't be much to look at with the way things are going. South Africa is falling apart under it's new government and will be rejoining the rest of it's corrupt, violent and backwards continent. Yay. :rolleyes:

What do you think about SA's current leadership, the future of the country (under the new President and in general, it's future) and the future of White people in the country?

And this is a hodge-podge of unrelated assumptions, racism, and unproven assertions.

I think the SA leadership is doing quite well considering the fact that they had one of the most backward societies in the world a few years ago. The amount of improvement that we have seen since the end of apartheid is amazing. However, that does not mean that SA is now paradise on Earth. It has problems, especially in terms of its race relations. This is not surprising for anyone with a minimum knowledge of African history.

But I like how you pretend that these problems are due to their 'black' government. Did you bring Zuma into the picture just so that we can somehow relate his idiocy to the ANC in general and from there to the SA government in general, and then somehow relate it to the genocide?

Because if you were trying to do that, you failed.

Actually, no one cares if anyone wipes out less than 100,000 people....Otherwise, all genocides are now ON from now on.

Only those genocides that occur over known reserves of petroleum are regarded as important by the powers that be. I find it amusing that you seek to lecture us on realpolitik when it comes to US foreign policy, but forget its lessons when you wish to complain about the UN.

I think it's totally possible that we may see an attempted genocide of Boers from South Africa, and with these attacks contuing, the increasing White Flight, and the tones of the anti-White ANC and the views of the President-to-be of South Africa, I can't really see White people as part of South Africa's future. I'd say that White people should just leave for GB, America or Canada. SA is lost, and though it's future may be without it's White citizens, it's future won't be much to look at with the way things are going. South Africa is falling apart under it's new government and will be rejoining the rest of it's corrupt, violent and backwards continent. Yay. :rolleyes:

What do you think about SA's current leadership, the future of the country (under the new President and in general, it's future) and the future of White people in the country?
Ooopsy, you forgot to capitalize a "White" there. Can't let that happen now so I fixed it for you. Are you feeling more superior yet?

Ah, yes, white immigrants you don't mind...
I've always differentiated between non-culturally assimilable and culturally assimilable immigrants. Even still, I've never ever said America should have no non-white immigrants. Indeed there is nothing wrong with latin immigrants to America, for example. What I HAVE been very vocal about is the number of Latin-immigrants we recieve.

And from a personal point of view I know manyAfrikaaner immigrants including a few Jewish ones and they are good people and a valuble contribution to society. So unless you can convince me that large numbers of culturally assimilable Afrikaaner bring a negative contribution to our society, I won't change my view. Not all immigrants are equal. To assume otherwise is stupidity. Immigration should be looked at by what benefits the nation most.

I think the SA leadership is doing quite well considering the fact that they had one of the most backward societies in the world a few years ago. The amount of improvement that we have seen since the end of apartheid is amazing. However, that does not mean that SA is now paradise on Earth. It has problems, especially in terms of its race relations. This is not surprising for anyone with a minimum knowledge of African history.
One of the most backward societies? It had an advanced economy, advanced infrastrucutre, nuclear power and a 1st world living rate. Even if that was for only the Afrikaaner in the nation and not all of the nation, the it's economic rating alone would still make it better than most of the world where almost NONE of the people live in a 1st world society and have that modern infrastructure and such.

ZA has not improved since the end of apartheid. Indeed it is falling apart due to white-flight, extreme corruption and anti-white racism, extreme violence and extreme anti-white violence and economic protectionism, cronyism and a far left black-nationalist government.

Ooopsy, you forgot to capitalize a "White" there. Can't let that happen now so I fixed it for you. Are you feeling more superior yet?
Debate the post, don't just fill the thread with nonsense, thank you.

Oh sweet zombie Jesus, here we go again......

/facepalm

Debate the post, don't just fill the thread with nonsense, thank you.

The post is nonsense.

One of the most backward societies? It had an advanced economy, advanced infrastrucutre, nuclear power and a 1st world living rate. Even if that was for only the Afrikaaner in the nation and not all of the nation, the it's economic rating alone would still make it better than most of the world where almost NONE of the people live in a 1st world society and have that modern infrastructure and such.

Listen, you can spew all the unproven assertions you want, but the simple and undeniable fact is that SA was not a democracy, and now it is. It still has the infrastructure, nuclear power, and a fairly strong economy. Comparing it to other countries in Africa and around the developing world only proves my point.

ZA has not improved since the end of apartheid. Indeed it is falling apart due to white-flight, extreme corruption and anti-white racism, extreme violence and extreme anti-white violence and economic protectionism, cronyism and a far left black-nationalist government.

Let me be entirely clear: I think the above is complete and utter unsupported tripe. If you actually believe what you wrote, prove it.

I've always differentiated between non-culturally assimilable and culturally assimilable immigrants. Even still, I've never ever said America should have no non-white immigrants. Indeed there is nothing wrong with latin immigrants to America, for example. What I HAVE been very vocal about is the number of Latin-immigrants we recieve.

And from a personal point of view I know manyAfrikaaner immigrants including a few Jewish ones and they are good people and a valuble contribution to society. So unless you can convince me that large numbers of culturally assimilable Afrikaaner bring a negative contribution to our society, I won't change my view. Not all immigrants are equal. To assume otherwise is stupidity. Immigration should be looked at by what benefits the nation most.
Yet you seem to be happy choosing them by skin colour alone, not any closer analysis of benefits or contributions.

Hmmm, I say.

Also, since the OP is filled with rather old information, anybody have an update? Has there been a genocide in SA the last six years?

I'll go first: The US State Department Human Rights Report 2007 says:

Killings and other violent crimes against farmers and, on occasion, their families, continued in rural areas. Despite concern among white farmers that they were targeted for racial and political reasons, studies indicated that the perpetrators generally were common criminals motivated by financial gain. According to the 2006‑07 South African Police Service (SAPS) report, there were 794 farm attacks and 86 farm killings in the 12 months prior to March 31. Farm attacks increased by 25 percent compared to the previous year's figures. Farm homicides decreased by 2 percent.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100505.htm

The report doesn't mention "Boers" though. And genocide-watch has no new reports on the situation as far as I could see.

LOL South Africa.

...and

LOL NSG

I have to admit, I am particularly worried about SA's failure to get the AU in line over Zimbabwe.

Listen, you can spew all the unproven assertions you want, but the simple and undeniable fact is that SA was not a democracy, and now it is. It still has the infrastructure, nuclear power, and a fairly strong economy. Comparing it to other countries in Africa and around the developing world only proves my point.
Yeah, it takes time to ruin an economy, let's not forget that. Give 'em time and they will. And a democracy? LOL What? I had no idea countries in which the President is elected by Parliament are "democracies".

Ossama Obama;13820421']Yeah, it takes time to ruin an economy, let's not forget that. Give 'em time and they will. And a democracy? LOL What? I had no idea countries in which the President is elected by Parliament are "democracies".

See, folks. Here is another example of someone who provides assertions without any empirical evidence or logic, yet expects us to simply believe him or her.

Ossama Obama;13820421']I had no idea countries in which the President is elected by Parliament are "democracies".

The same goes for countries with electoral colleges, hmmm?

The farm murders are terrible, to be sure, but is there any proof that the government approves of, or endorses, them? And, however corrupt and incompetent the ANC may be, I'll take corruption and intolerance over racism and totalitarianism (read: apartheid) any day.

I daresay that the Boers shouldn't have been there in the first place. I'm not excusing the actions of the criminals, but gaining land and financial status from a past of oppression and racism hardly makes you blameless.

Oh, and calling the crimes of poor individuals against rich individuals genocide is simply false, no matter the race.

The same goes for countries with electoral colleges, hmmm?
Hmm. Yes.

See, folks. Here is another example of someone who provides assertions without any empirical evidence or logic, yet expects us to simply believe him or her.
It's called time-lags, and it's blatantly obvious to anyone whose head isn't up their posterior.

I daresay that the Boers shouldn't have been there in the first place. I'm not excusing the actions of the criminals, but gaining land and financial status from a past of oppression and racism hardly makes you blameless.
And why, precisely, "shouldn't" they have been there? Can you even prove that most/all Boers gained from oppressing others? Most have links to the country that stem back centuries.

Oh, and calling the crimes of poor individuals against rich individuals genocide is simply false, no matter the race.
Please stop trying to romanticize what's going on in SA... not that you've fabricated a romance of much appeal.

Really?

I though you didnt went to Darfur because you already controlled the oil there.

I Must be mistaken.
No, we aren't in Darfur because the government says it doesn't need outside help. Since they are idiots, we're going anyway, but have had to get this through the UN because otherwise people will complain about "imperialism" or some other utter shite and we'll stop caring about the actions of the Janjaweed and be more focussed on fighting a PR war ;)

Oh, and calling the crimes of poor individuals against rich individuals genocide is simply false, no matter the race.
Aye, see Rwanda. *cough etc.*

Ossama Obama;13820462']
And why, precisely, "shouldn't" they have been there? Can you even prove that most/all Boers gained from oppressing others? Most have links to the country that stem back centuries.


YOu know, the whole LAWL THAR BE NEGOREZ THAR, LETS TAKE THAR LANDS AND WYMONS AND DANCE WITH WOODEN SHOES HURRRRRRRRRRRR thing.

Aye, see Rwanda. *cough etc.*

Call me when the first 10,000 die, and there's gangs of blacks going around and going Chef Tony on pale folk.

YOu know, the whole LAWL THAR BE NEGOREZ THAR, LETS TAKE THAR LANDS AND WYMONS AND DANCE WITH WOODEN SHOES HURRRRRRRRRRRR thing.
Um, educate yourself on the history of the country.

Ossama Obama;13820462']It's called time-lags, and it's blatantly obvious to anyone whose head isn't up their posterior.

The only obvious thing is your inablity to understand the plural meanings of democracy in modern politics. By your definition, Canada is not a democracy because the head of state is a monarch, and we don't even have a president.

Tell you what, if you or TAI can show me some sort of evidence that SA has become less democratic since the end of apartheid, I will gladly concede this point.

Call me when the first 10,000 die, and there's gangs of blacks going around and going Chef Tony on pale folk.
I don't think there's going to be a genocide of the Boers. But you can't say that wealth means that it doesn't count when it does.

Ossama Obama;13820489']Um, educate yourself on the history of the country.

There wern't euros there before the Boers. It wasn't there land to take. Aweful similar to the North American colonization.

The only obvious thing is your inablity to understand the plural meanings of democracy in modern politics. By your definition, Canada is not a democracy because the head of state is a monarch, and we don't even have a president.
For all practical purposes, most "democracies" are republics, at best, dictatorships at worst. I simply hold no emotional attachment to the word.

Tell you what, if you or TAI can show me some sort of evidence that SA has become less democratic since the end of apartheid, I will gladly concede this point.
Why would I give a damn about how "democratic" it is or isn't, seeing as my point was that if it's economy's still good now, it's only because its current president hasn't had the chance to wreck it yet?

There wern't euros there before the Boers. It wasn't there land to take. Aweful similar to the North American colonization.
Oh? Whose land was it? Had anyone laid claim to it? Do mere claims suffice to exclude others from settling the land, if the claimants have never even so much as stepped on the land? To prove your point, you'd have to show most Boers engaged in violent expropriation of blacks who had originally settled there permanently (settling which the Boers had done.) Some did, some didn't. To treat all Boers as criminals automatically is mindless, and I think you really need to do some research on the country's history.

Ossama Obama;13820504']For all practical purposes, most "democracies" are republics, at best, dictatorships at worst. I simply hold no emotional attachment to the word.

Why would I give a damn about how "democratic" it is or isn't, seeing as my point was that if it's economy's still good now, it's only because its current president hasn't had the chance to wreck it yet?

Right. So you only mentioned democracy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13820421#post13820421) for shits and giggles? Whatever.

Now, let's look at the economy. Do you have any empirical evidence or logic in support of your claim that the SA government is destroying the economy?

Or are you going to pretend you weren't discussing that either?

Ossama Obama;13820510']Oh? Whose land was it? Had anyone laid claim to it? Do mere claims suffice to exclude others from settling the land, if the claimants have never even so much as stepped on the land? To prove your point, you'd have to show most Boers engaged in violent expropriation of blacks who had originally settled there permanently (settling which the Boers had done.) Some did, some didn't. To treat all Boers as criminals automatically is mindless, and I think you really need to do some research on the country's history.

It was the native africans' land. Descendants stole said land, and passed it down.

All Boers are not criminal. I never said they were. But we should not pretend that these are poor whites under threat of certain death from the Vast Negroid Conspiracy. These are rich (comparitively) farmers who prospered under a racist system.

Right. So you only mentioned democracy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13820421#post13820421) for shits and giggles? Whatever.

Now, let's look at the economy. Do you have any empirical evidence or logic in support of your claim that the SA government is destroying the economy?

Or are you going to pretend you weren't discussing that either?

Nah, just pulling it out of my ass... this isn't happening (http://www.newsweek.com/id/80811/page/2).

It was the native africans' land. Descendants stole said land, and passed it down.
The entire country was? Please, get real. I am willing to grant the areas the blacks had settled and developed were theirs, and that any expropriation was criminal - but my question is to what extent did Boers benefit from criminal expropriation as original homesteading and settling of hitherto unowned land (and please don't tell me the natives owned the entire landmass - they did not)?

Ossama Obama;13820533']..but my question is to what extent did Boers benefit from criminal expropriation as original homesteading and settling of hitherto unowned land.

Vast riches - see De Beers.

Ossama Obama;13820533']The entire country was? Please, get real. I am willing to grant the areas the blacks had settled and developed were theirs, and that any expropriation was criminal - but my question is to what extent did Boers benefit from criminal expropriation as original homesteading and settling of hitherto unowned land (and please don't tell me the natives owned the entire landmass - they did not)?

Are you saying that there were absolutely no people living in the area that the Boers settled?

Tell me, can you name any major landmass or area that no one lived on before colonists came?

YOu know, the whole LAWL THAR BE NEGOREZ THAR, LETS TAKE THAR LANDS AND WYMONS AND DANCE WITH WOODEN SHOES HURRRRRRRRRRRR thing.
Remember kids, being racist is only acceptable if it's about white people!

"The Boers were all morons" = OK
"Africans can't run their own countries" = Bad

Let me be entirely clear: I think the above is complete and utter unsupported tripe. If you actually believe what you wrote, prove it.
Read everything I quoted in the OP and read this:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80811/page/1

Read everything I quoted in the OP and read this:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80811/page/1
That's not news. That's opinion.

That's not news. That's opinion.

Even so, the problem with the ANC is pretty much as described and, to be honest, affects nearly any party that 'liberates' a country. I put liberates in quotes not as a reflection on the ANC but in overall terms.

The ANC has been entitled to power and when a government feels entitled, it can often result more in jostling for power, especially when the first wave of leaders disappears, than serving the people.

This was always the danger with the ANC, that there would not be true democracy when the party was cloaked in such righteousness in terms of power.

Similar happened in India with the Congress Party, the agrarian ideal put forth by Ghandi originally and taken up by Nehru held the country back for many years and entrenched corruption.

We complain about 2-party systems but 1-party systems are so much worse in that they're simply not accountable.

As much as I disagree with TAI's motives, I'm not sure he's wrong about the South African government. Of course there is no genocide, and racially motivated attacks are more likely an exception rather than the rule, but the ANC is seriously falling behind right now.

South Africa has big problems: an undereducated populace with a huge poor underclass, very high unemployment, an AIDS epidemic and failing public institutions and -services. All of these are dragging the country in the wrong direction, with corruption, factionalism, crime and mob violence appearing all over the place. Of course, much of that would also have been around under previous governments and simply not publicised or recorded properly, but that's hardly an excuse. Remember the response of the government to the attacks on Zimbabwean refugees? It was a softly, softly approach aimed at making sure that no one could get the idea that the ANC was taking the side of the people who were beaten in the streets against the poor, poor mob.

The ANC is a group of cronies unwilling to offend their underclass supporters, and thereby making things worse. What South Africa needs is a few new politicians coming in from the outside who don't campaign based on what Zulu rank they might have, or how close they were to Mandela in the bad old days, but on fixing actual issues and cleaning out the system. South Africa needs a proper democracy, including one where a white person can get elected.

Because no one here seems to be getting it right: South Africa is not a white country, nor a black country. It's multicultural and multiethnic, and its system of government must reflect that.

Even so, the problem with the ANC is pretty much as described and, to be honest, affects nearly any party that 'liberates' a country. I put liberates in quotes not as a reflection on the ANC but in overall terms.
True.

-snip-

Well said. Another shovelful of reason cast on the great fires of NSG's unreason.

Remember kids, being racist is only acceptable if it's about white people!

"The Boers were all morons" = OK
"Africans can't run their own countries" = Bad

They weren't morons. They were thieves. :)

I've always differentiated between non-culturally assimilable and culturally assimilable immigrants. Even still, I've never ever said America should have no non-white immigrants. Indeed there is nothing wrong with latin immigrants to America, for example. What I HAVE been very vocal about is the number of Latin-immigrants we recieve.

So black Africans aren't "assimilable"? That's funny, because the last time I checked Africans had the highest college graduation rate of any immigrants in the US. They also tend to dislike black people, just like most of the country.

And by "number" you mean "all those latinos that aren't picking my lettuce and are taking jobs I might actually want", yes?

And from a personal point of view I know many Afrikaaner immigrants including a few Jewish ones and they are good people and a valuble contribution to society.[/QUOTE]

Take out "Afrikaaner" and put in any ethnic population. Statement still holds true. I personally know many Chinese, Korean, Mexican, Russian and Brazilian immigrants. They are good people and make a valuable contribution to society.

No one ever wants to talk about the number. All cities (apart from Canberra) in Australia are expected to have water shortages by 2050 yet there is a goal to increase the population through migration. I personally would prefer to have less stuff if it ment I could drink water

Yes those in immigration normally contribute to society but shouldnt there be a population limit. A population that has access to the scarce resource known as water

By 2050 the world health organization believes 2/3 or the world will experience water shortage. Yet the governments are happy if the population increases by 50% towards 2050 as thats good for the economy

Priorities should be sorted. I personally have the priority of drinking water.

This is one aspect of migration that no one wants to talk about

No one ever wants to talk about the number. All cities (apart from Canberra) in Australia are expected to have water shortages by 2050 yet there is a goal to increase the population through migration. I personally would prefer to have less stuff if it ment I could drink water

Yes those in immigration normally contribute to society but shouldnt there be a population limit. A population that has access to the scarce resource known as water

By 2050 the world health organization believes 2/3 or the world will experience water shortage. Yet the governments are happy if the population increases by 50% towards 2050 as thats good for the economy

Priorities should be sorted. I personally have the priority of drinking water.

This is one aspect of migration that no one wants to talk about

Well, if they're only migrating to Australia, they'll only be a drain on water resources six months of the year probably.

Remember kids, being racist is only acceptable if it's about white people!

"The Boers were all morons" = OK
"Africans can't run their own countries" = Bad

I'm sorry, who invaded SA again?

Oh god, is Atlantian on one of his racist rantings again? (facepalms)

Ossama Obama;13820533']The entire country was? Please, get real. I am willing to grant the areas the blacks had settled and developed were theirs, and that any expropriation was criminal - but my question is to what extent did Boers benefit from criminal expropriation as original homesteading and settling of hitherto unowned land (and please don't tell me the natives owned the entire landmass - they did not)?

Expropriation is good!

loot the looters!

Ossama Obama;13820530']Nah, just pulling it out of my ass... this isn't happening (http://www.newsweek.com/id/80811/page/2).

Read everything I quoted in the OP and read this:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80811/page/1

Well, since both of you picked the same article to support your argument, why don't you pick out the relevant quotes. Let me show you how it's done:

True, in the 13 years since the country emerged peacefully from the grip of apartheid--one of the most inspiring episodes of the 1990s—its government had boosted the economy, turning it into an attractive emerging market; promoted racial reconciliation; prevented massive brain drain and helped rebuild this deeply scarred society...

...Consider the economy. Postliberation South Africa has made great strides: a decade-long boom has lifted millions out of poverty, and with growth predicted to hit 5 percent next year, this progress seems set to continue. ...


So, it looks like the SA economy has been improving since the end of apartheid, according to your editorial.

However, let's look at other sources:

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11486461

See, this article actually says something that supports your claim that the SA economy is slowing down. Unfortunately for you, it discusses things like power shortages rather than blaming the economic woes on Zuma's misogyny.

And now, there's also this:

South Africa's economy grew by 5% in 2006, representing the highest rate of economic growth in 25 years. After years of rising unemployment, the unemployment rate has declined for three years in a row, with over a million jobs created in this period.

The present economic boom represents one of the longest sustained increases in income in about 40 years.

This growth has been relatively broad-based with the share of income going to Africans rising to above 50% in 2005, from about 40% in 1996. The number of black people entering what is called “the middle class” increased by 30% in a single year to 2,6 million in 2006.

According to a study by the Department of Trade and Industry, the number of small businesses has grown by 150% since 1995 and 87% of these businesses are black-owned.

This economic performance is due to two main factors. Firstly, over the past decade, South Africa has pursued policies that have put the economy on a sound footing, where it is able to grow faster and more sustainably. Secondly, high commodity and a favourable international economic environment have benefited the South African economy, at a time when the economy has been opened up.

http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/economy.htm

I'm sorry, who invaded SA again?
In fact nobody invaded SA because SA was not a country until the Dutch and then British built it into one. Some land was taken from the natives, in battles, some land was taken by the Dutch/British, in battles with each other, and some land was simple just settled, unoccupied.

Since you went through and ignored most of the article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80811/page/1

In late November, at a high-level meeting of South Africa's ruling African National Congress (ANC), a senior strategist named Joel Netshitenzhe delivered a blistering assessment of the state of his country. In a confidential document, Netshitenzhe warned that crime had become a "scourge," HIV was exacting a "devastating" toll, income equality was worsening and millions of South Africans remained mired in poverty.

True, in the 13 years since the country emerged peacefully from the grip of apartheid--one of the most inspiring episodes of the 1990s—its government had boosted the economy, turning it into an attractive emerging market; promoted racial reconciliation; prevented massive brain drain and helped rebuild this deeply scarred society. But the country nonetheless faces a profound crisis. "The issues may be uncomfortable to entertain," Netshitenzhe wrote. "But we cannot avoid dealing with them."

He was right. Many South Africans have started to feel that their country—recently an exemplar of democracy and enlightened leadership--is gradually tilting in the wrong direction. During the 1990s, the nation's AIDS epidemic was serious but no worse than that suffered by much of Africa. The same for violent crime. Today the AIDS crisis—which kills upwards of 900 South Africans a day—has become one of the world's worst. And crime is so bad that South Africa is starting to resemble Sierra Leone or Colombia. In fact, the country suffered more violent deaths per capita in 2007 than Afghanistan:eek:—the supposed front line in the war on terror.

There's a pervading sense, moreover, that the benefits of democracy have not flowed freely enough. Despite economic growth, income inequality among blacks, especially, is getting worse. So is corruption. And President Thabo Mbeki—who is required to step down in 2009—has grown increasingly authoritarian. As a result, as the ANC picked Jacob Zuma over Mbeki to as its next leader (a position that makes him a frontrunner to become president) many here were grappling with a troubling question: has South Africa fallen prey to the same malaise that has brought down so many independent African states? "There is a moment when many African liberation movements stumble," says William Gumede, a political analyst and author of a forthcoming book on the ANC. For South Africa, that moment seems to have arrived. "There is a sense that something uncontrollable is happening," Gumede says.

The roots of this unease can be traced back to the ANC, which helped win the country its freedom in 1994 and has governed it ever since. For generations after its founding in 1912, the ANC stood out as virtually the only African liberation movement that was progressive, tolerant of dissent and relatively democratic and uncorrupt. Today, however, the movement's leading lights--the generation that led it from prison cells on Robben Island and exile in Zambia and England--are slowly disappearing. Inspirational figures such as Nelson Mandela and Mac Maharaj have retired, while others, like Walter Sisulu and Oliver Tambo, have died. "It is a massive change," says Gumede. "There is real panic inside the ANC about what is happening in the party and in South Africa."

No wonder. With the elders' passing, the core values that shaped half a century of revolutionary struggle are being replaced by petty politics and personal agendas. Bad management at home has tarnished the country's image, and the moral high ground the ANC once enjoyed abroad has been steadily eroded by its baffling tolerance for oppressive regimes in Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma. "What an awful blot on our copybook," Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate and outspoken figure in the anti-apartheid struggle, said recently of the government's treatment of Zimbabwe. "Do we really care about human rights? Do we care that fellow Africans are being treated like rubbish, almost worse than they were treated by rabid racists?"

Increasingly, Pretoria's answer seems to be no. Meanwhile, corruption—that African scourge—has grown noticeably worse. Allegations of profit-making now reach all the way to the top; though he vehemently denied the charges, the country's chief cop, Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi, has been tarnished by a bribery scandal, as have Mbeki and Zuma. "A lot of people are just absolutely shattered by what the ANC has become," says Andrew Feinstein, a former ANC parliamentarian who quit the party after his corruption probes were shut down and who explored the graft allegations in a recent book.

But the problems go well beyond the ANC. Consider the economy. Postliberation South Africa has made great strides: a decade-long boom has lifted millions out of poverty, and with growth predicted to hit 5 percent next year, this progress seems set to continue. Yet according to the World Bank, South Africa now ranks as one of the world's most unequal societies—and things are getting worse. Between 1975 and 2005, wealth disparities nearly doubled. The economic divide between whites and blacks has narrowed, and "within the black community, there is a group that is better off than during apartheid," says economist Jac Laubscher. "But there is an even larger group that's worse off than before." According to a study conducted last in 2006 by the Institute for Race Relations, the poorest 10 percent of South Africans now get the same share of the national income as they did in 1993, the year before apartheid ended. And the number living on less than $1 a day has grown from 1.9 million in 1996 to 4.2 million in 2006. "We have got a crisis," says Adam Habib, deputy vice chancellor of the University of Johannesburg. Indeed, waves of angry protests calling for better services and greater opportunities swept the country in 2007.

Also troubling is the crime epidemic. Antony Altbeker, a criminologist who has spent years studying the fault lines in South African society, estimates that the country has become one of the world's five most violent places; it has eight times more murders a day than the United States (which is nearly seven times its size). The mayhem isn't limited to the poor: in June, five international tourist groups were robbed, and thugs ambushed South Africa's U.N. ambassador. Diplomats from the Ethiopian, French, Gabonese, Ghanaian, Pakistani and Thai missions have also been assaulted over the last six months.

Still, it's the marginalized who generally suffer the worst. The country is now enduring a plague of sexual assaults. "When victims come into our hospital, we don't even ask if they've been raped anymore," laments the director of one Cape Town hospital. "It's always a gang rape now, so we ask how many men they were raped by." As Altbeker describes the situation, "Violence [has] entered the DNA of our national culture and has reproduced itself there." Years of repression, vast inequality and widespread alcoholism have combined with lack of faith in the government to produce a deadly state of affairs.
And then there's AIDS, which perhaps best symbolizes the government's neglectful approach. For Mbeki's entire first term, which lasted until 2004, the president—who has persistently cast doubt on the link between HIV and AIDS—refused to authorize the delivery of antiretroviral medication by the public-health system. Recently, under intense pressure, Pretoria has improved its policies somewhat, formulating a national action plan that coordinates the delivery of medicine. But that didn't stop Mbeki from firing Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, South Africa's popular and effective deputy Health minister, last summer, or from renewing his support for her controversial boss, Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang—who has publicly advocated beetroot and African potatoes as a cure for the disease. No surprise that South Africa now has about 5.5 million people living with HIV (according to the United Nations) and an adult prevalence rate of 19 percent.

Unfortunately for South Africans, December's leadership battle offered little hope that things will improve. Once Mbeki's protégé, Zuma was fired by the president in June 2005 over corruption charges that remain outstanding. Yet these didn't hurt Zuma's popularity; nor did an indictment for rape (he escaped conviction). That's all cause for concern. Mbeki's tenure has been problematic, but Zuma is a poorly educated populist who many critics fear will drag down South Africa's economy and further hurt its image (this is a man who once famously brushed off concerns about AIDS transmission by saying he took a cold shower after having sex with an HIV-positive woman).

Zuma's backers say he's been unfairly maligned, and that he couldn't make drastic changes even if he wanted to, as he will be hemmed in by the party apparatus. Others are optimistic that all the tumult could lead to improvements. Ayanda Dlodlo, who heads a group of liberation-era ANC veterans, says that the country's downward spiral has inspired the surviving graybeards to re-engage. "The sense of sacrifice is still there," she says. "All the veterans have is the ANC, and they would be loath to see South Africa degenerate into a basket case."
Indeed, veterans' groups have already begun reactivating their cells—only this time in the interests of civil society. Old party members have advocated establishing "street committees," much like those used during the anti-apartheid struggle, to help police against crime. Similar measures are being discussed to attack AIDS, corruption and poverty. Meanwhile, according to the political analyst Gumede, the specter of Zimbabwe's implosion could serve as a cautionary lesson for South Africa's leaders.

Should they commit to turning the country around, South Africa has huge advantages over its neighbors, such as an educated population, a relatively good infrastructure and clear civilian control of the military. In recent months, moreover, the government has extended grants to thousands of the poor to help close the income gap. Still, South Africa's leaders must focus their efforts on actually governing if things are to improve. For too long, politicians here have failed to take on the boring but critical work of running the country, says ANC veteran Maharaj. Even the wish that the elders would return and take charge is a way of avoiding "responsibility for the problems of today," he says. Still, the old struggles are over, he argues; good government must now become the ANC's focus. That's something South Africa's old leaders clearly understood. Let's hope their heirs finally get the message.

If you read all that, it is impossible to deny that South Africa is indeed heading in the wrong direction, getting far far worse and simply falling apart.

Expropriation is good!

loot the looters!
http://www.lsg.musin.de/geschichte/geschichte/lkg/antikomm.jpg
Darum: Kapitalismus
Oh god, is Atlantian on one of his racist rantings again? (facepalms)
Yes, doesn't allowing free conversation even if it goes against your personal opinion just fill you with 13 year old-communists-are-cool fury!? I mean uncle Joe would NEVER have allowed it!

Go, Andaras! Throw out your computer, get out there and take action against this, freedom of speech! This unholy injustice against the Proletariat.

No? Then stop buzzing around my thread like an annoying insect.

Seems to me that a lot white Western "liberals" and "anti-racists" are simply self-haters, who want to shock "mummy and daddy". These fake leftists couldn't really give a damn about suffering in the 21st Century, and haven't seen hardship in their entire, middle class lives, hence why when it's other white people, many of whom identify with us and speak our languages, these activists don't say a word.

After all, if they did people would agree with them. Where's the fun and the shock-factor in that?

But seriously, South Africa's going down the drain, for Whites and Blacks. People like Zuma (tribal barbarians of antiquity) are part of the problem - hell, they're most of the problem. Reminds me a lot of Leonid Kuchma.

In fact nobody invaded SA because SA was not a country until the Dutch and then British built it into one. Some land was taken from the natives, in battles, some land was taken by the Dutch/British, in battles with each other, and some land was simple just settled, unoccupied.

Bit simplistic there, don't you think? Then again, I suppose the "natives" their existence, and their treatment under the colonists doesn't figure large on your horizon.

Bit simplistic there, don't you think? Then again, I suppose the "natives" their existence, and their treatment under the colonists doesn't figure large on your horizon.

The genocide of less than 100,000 people doesn't figure large on your horizon, I see.

You and I are more alike than you know.

In fact nobody invaded SA because SA was not a country until the Dutch and then British built it into one. Some land was taken from the natives, in battles, some land was taken by the Dutch/British, in battles with each other, and some land was simple just settled, unoccupied.

You are simply wrong:

In addition to establishing the free burgher system, van Riebeeck and the VOC also began to import large numbers of slaves, primarily from Madagascar and Indonesia. These slaves often married Dutch settlers, and their descendants became known as the Cape Coloureds and the Cape Malays. A significant number of the offspring from the White and slave unions were absorbed into the local proto-Afrikaans speaking White population. With this additional labour, the areas occupied by the VOC expanded further to the north and east, with inevitable clashes with the Khoikhoi. The newcomers drove the Khoikhoi from their traditional lands, decimated them with introduced diseases, and destroyed them with superior weapons when they fought back, which they did in a number of major wars and with guerrilla resistance movements that continued into the 19th century. Most survivors were left with no option but to work for the Europeans in an exploitative arrangement that differed little from slavery. Over time, the Khoisan, their European overseers, and the imported slaves mixed, with the offspring of these unions forming the basis for today's Coloured population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa#Arrival_of_the_Dutch

Since you went through and ignored most of the article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80811/page/1

If you read all that, it is impossible to deny that South Africa is indeed heading in the wrong direction, getting far far worse and simply falling apart.

Oh, I read your editorial. I then put the relevant quotes concerning the economy into my post. The other part of the editorial, that dealt with economy, can be seen here:

Consider the economy. Postliberation South Africa has made great strides: a decade-long boom has lifted millions out of poverty, and with growth predicted to hit 5 percent next year, this progress seems set to continue. Yet according to the World Bank, South Africa now ranks as one of the world's most unequal societies—and things are getting worse. Between 1975 and 2005, wealth disparities nearly doubled. The economic divide between whites and blacks has narrowed, and "within the black community, there is a group that is better off than during apartheid," says economist Jac Laubscher. "But there is an even larger group that's worse off than before." According to a study conducted last in 2006 by the Institute for Race Relations, the poorest 10 percent of South Africans now get the same share of the national income as they did in 1993, the year before apartheid ended. And the number living on less than $1 a day has grown from 1.9 million in 1996 to 4.2 million in 2006. "We have got a crisis," says Adam Habib, deputy vice chancellor of the University of Johannesburg. Indeed, waves of angry protests calling for better services and greater opportunities swept the country in 2007.

Now, since you're using an editorial to support your argument, I can't take it at face value. Rather than believe the spin that the author has put on the information, I would like to see the information itself.

Now, please provide links for the following:


The World Bank study showing the ranking of nations in terms of wealth disparity.
The context of Mr. Laubscher's comments.
The study conducted by the Institue for Race Relations.
The context of Mr. Habib's comments.


Meanwhile, take a look at the US State department's analysis of the SA economy. I find it paints a much better picture than your gloom and doom editorial.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2898.htm#econ

The genocide of less than 100,000 people doesn't figure large on your horizon, I see.


Rather presuming theres a genocide happening there to the Boers, which doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can see. Depending on the definition one uses, one could make the case that Mugabe has launched a genocide both against the oppossition, and white farmers in Zimbabwe. Nothing in South Africa approaches that whatsoever.

I think that some other minorities will be targeted before the Boers. Like the descendants of italian, chinese and indian immigrants - who usually are less rich (so they can affor less security) and way too much "paler" than what the most extreme black racist groups allow.

SA is going to the dogs. When you see the Zulus enacting racism against the refugees from Zimbabwe, some delusions about "the rainbow nation" do snap. Maybe they've still got time to change direction, but not very much.

SA is going to the dogs. When you see the Zulus enacting racism against the refugees from Zimbabwe, some delusions about "the rainbow nation" do snap. Maybe they've still got time to change direction, but not very much.

The whole tribal thing's outdated anyway. If maybe they could keep the traditions of their tribes and get rid of the stupid, mindless racism, it wouldn't be so bad. In the end though, it seems every non-Arab African country has been damaged by tribalism in one of its guises.

Rather presuming theres a genocide happening there to the Boers, which doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can see. Depending on the definition one uses, one could make the case that Mugabe has launched a genocide both against the oppossition, and white farmers in Zimbabwe. Nothing in South Africa approaches that whatsoever.

You wouldn't believe a genocide was taking place unless the bodies were stacked up in your room, smelling to high heaven.

You wouldn't believe a genocide was taking place unless the bodies were stacked up in your room, smelling to high heaven.

A rather curious statement. Would you care to explain it?

Poor Africa...Another genocide. They keep having all of these genocides, and it seems like there is no end to it.

As much as I disagree with TAI's motives, I'm not sure he's wrong about the South African government. Of course there is no genocide, and racially motivated attacks are more likely an exception rather than the rule, but the ANC is seriously falling behind right now.

South Africa has big problems: an undereducated populace with a huge poor underclass, very high unemployment, an AIDS epidemic and failing public institutions and -services. All of these are dragging the country in the wrong direction, with corruption, factionalism, crime and mob violence appearing all over the place. Of course, much of that would also have been around under previous governments and simply not publicised or recorded properly, but that's hardly an excuse. Remember the response of the government to the attacks on Zimbabwean refugees? It was a softly, softly approach aimed at making sure that no one could get the idea that the ANC was taking the side of the people who were beaten in the streets against the poor, poor mob.

The ANC is a group of cronies unwilling to offend their underclass supporters, and thereby making things worse. What South Africa needs is a few new politicians coming in from the outside who don't campaign based on what Zulu rank they might have, or how close they were to Mandela in the bad old days, but on fixing actual issues and cleaning out the system. South Africa needs a proper democracy, including one where a white person can get elected.

Because no one here seems to be getting it right: South Africa is not a white country, nor a black country. It's multicultural and multiethnic, and its system of government must reflect that.
Indeed, but you didn't really discuss the damage the ANC is causing on South Africa's "free-market" economy:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8851

the ANC's politicies saw a Putin-style placement of the party's supporters into all the watchdog roles and positions of oversight. The ANC has mimicked the same approach in the private sector, pressuring the country's large businesses to appoint its supporters into senior positions. The hegemonic impulses of the ruling party have cost South Africa much in terms of economic efficiency and erosion of the rule of law.

The new president should have the courage to adopt economic reforms that result in faster economic growth. South Africa's money-guzzling, public-private corporations, like South African Airways, which gets billions of rands in annual subsidies, ought to be privatized.

The new president should also liberalize the labor market. In spite of a growing economy, rigid labor laws keep unemployment stubbornly high, at 26%. Worryingly, the number of people in South Africa who live in absolute poverty doubled between 1994 and 2007. Unfortunately, Zuma may be too beholden to the Congress of South African Trade Unions, which was very supportive of his candidacy, to do what is necessary.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9475

Absolute poverty rose as well. According to the South African Institute of Race Relations, "The number of people living on less than $1 per day (the measure of extreme poverty used by the World Bank) in South Africa, increased from 1.89 million in 1996 to 4.2 million in 2005. As a proportion of the population, this represents an increase from 4.5 percent to 8.8 percent of the population."

Lamentably, much of the labor force is unemployable due to deteriorating educational standards, an inappropriately strict labor code, and a misguidedly high minimum wage. The recent electricity shortages that cut the GDP growth rate to its lowest in six years have not helped. All in all, many foreigners have found employment because of their superior skills and readiness to work for lower wages, not because they "stole" jobs from qualified and willing locals.

South Africa's high unemployment rate and the concomitant desperation of millions of fellow citizens is a self-inflicted wound.

To deny this is to simply deny reality. Whether your motives for criticism of South Africa are racial, ethnic, economic, political, imperialist, marxist...whatever, one thing is for certain, the criticism itself is valid regardless of the means behind it.

White people have long been mass killed in SA, the government has long condoned it, not directly of course.
I think 4.5 million white people have been murdered since the end of apartheid.

Heres a link to a rather ... Gruesome site about it all....

http://www.linkremovedbymods.info

White people have long been mass killed in SA, the government has long condoned it, not directly of course.
I think 4.5 million white people have been murdered since the end of apartheid.

Heres a link to a rather ... Gruesome site about it all....


1) 4.5 million. Really. Did you even look at the link?

2) That site is bullshit.

1) 4.5 million. Really. Did you even look at the link?

2) That site is bullshit.

I am not sure of the numbers exactly but I vaguely remember the numbers being something like 4.5 million.

I am not sure of the numbers exactly but I vaguely remember the numbers being something like 4.5 million.

Ah wait my mistake, 4.2 million being the number of whites in South Africa...

Dear gods! Those pictures. I´m sick.

White people have long been mass killed in SA, the government has long condoned it, not directly of course.
I think 4.5 million white people have been murdered since the end of apartheid.

Heres a link to a rather ... Gruesome site about it all....

http://www.linkremovedbymods.info

What was the name of the site? Don't give me the link, just the name.

Indeed, but you didn't really discuss the damage the ANC is causing on South Africa's "free-market" economy:

Neither did you, to be honest. All you did was parrot a few talking points that you read in an editorial.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8851

You've already posted this one. I've already pointed out that it was written by the head of the opposition, i.e. the person whose job it is to make the government look bad; and a columnist from some right-wing think tank.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9475

Another editorial by the same person.It also completely ignores the articles written by disinterested economists that I have posted. Just like you do.

TAI, can I ask why you always ignore my points?

Is it because you are unable to adequately respond?

To deny this is to simply deny reality. Whether your motives for criticism of South Africa are racial, ethnic, economic, political, imperialist, marxist...whatever, one thing is for certain, the criticism itself is valid regardless of the means behind it.

I could criticise South Africa for producing too many igloos, and hurting Canada's market share. Would that criticism be valid? No, of course not, because it has no basis in fact. The same could be said of your criticisms. I am not dismissing your criticisms because you may be a racist upper-class white boy who has never worked a day in his life, but because your criticisms have only been supported by editorial pieces with their own axes to grind.

I think 4.5 million white people have been murdered since the end of apartheid.
That would be an average casualty rate of circa 320,000 white people per year. Because they aren't black people, the UN would have stepped in immediately if this happened...

Seems to me that a lot white Western "liberals" and "anti-racists" are simply self-haters, who want to shock "mummy and daddy". These fake leftists couldn't really give a damn about suffering in the 21st Century, and haven't seen hardship in their entire, middle class lives, hence why when it's other white people, many of whom identify with us and speak our languages, these activists don't say a word.

"Self-haters?" It seems to me the phrase you're searching for is "race traitor."

Making generalizations like you are doing doesn't help anyone, it's just divisive. You're dismissing legitimate criticisms of racism as "shock mummy and daddy" and piling on stereotypical straw men about "haven't seen hardship" as the supposed cause of some mythical racism against ("other") white people.

After all, if they did people would agree with them. Where's the fun and the shock-factor in that?

Right... there's "shock factor" in being against racism? Seems to me there's more "shock factor" in supporting racism and whining about non-existent genocide against "other white people." Would it be fair to say you're saying disagreeable things just for the shock-factor, or does that only apply to the supposed "self hating" "shock factors" of "fake liberals?"

White people have long been mass killed in SA, the government has long condoned it, not directly of course.
I think 4.5 million white people have been murdered since the end of apartheid.


The Flesh Eating Leprachaun is the not entirely silent killer stalking the white man in South Africa today. I think the UN should at least help with the de-Leprachauning sprays...

BEWARE, millions of innocent white people in South Africa have been murdered by an evil genocidal regime known only as 'CRIME'. SHOCK HORROR

BEWARE, millions of innocent white people in South Africa have been murdered by an evil genocidal regime known only as 'CRIME'. SHOCK HORROR

Remove the "millions" and replace with a more sane number and thats shooting in the right direction.

That would be an average casualty rate of circa 320,000 white people per year. Because they aren't black people, the UN would have stepped in immediately if this happened...

While I believe that's a ridiculous casualty number as well, I don't believe that the UN would step in.

You must recall that in Bosnia, NATO stepped in, and the UN only blessed it all afterwards.

"Self-haters?" It seems to me the phrase you're searching for is "race traitor."

Making generalizations like you are doing doesn't help anyone, it's just divisive. You're dismissing legitimate criticisms of racism as "shock mummy and daddy" and piling on stereotypical straw men about "haven't seen hardship" as the supposed cause of some mythical racism against ("other") white people.



Right... there's "shock factor" in being against racism? Seems to me there's more "shock factor" in supporting racism and whining about non-existent genocide against "other white people." Would it be fair to say you're saying disagreeable things just for the shock-factor, or does that only apply to the supposed "self hating" "shock factors" of "fake liberals?"

I think you misunderstood my point; I was hoping people could infer a little, but meh. No, my point is that - and this is not a generalisation, having met many members of parties like the SWP - a lot of people who will complain about (rightfully) protest against crimes against Blacks, Tibetans, Muslims, will not protest against the crimes that happen against White Christians, because doing so will not shock and shake the conservative foundations of their country (i.e. "mummy and daddy"). It's a middle class phenomenon, and it's real. This is not egalitarianism, it's White people being ashamed of their own race, which is just sad.

If you disagree, that's fine, I like to debate, but please don't accuse me of "dismissing legitimate criticisms of racism as 'shock mummy and daddy'", because I agree with these criticisms, I just find that the people I'm talking about are not wholly against racism, they are against their own race.

Even you are denying that the "evil white man" can suffer genocide from the Africans some of their race oppressed years ago.

You've already posted this one. I've already pointed out that it was written by the head of the opposition, i.e. the person whose job it is to make the government look bad; and a columnist from some right-wing think tank.
Are you a Marxoid? Do you dismiss sources on account of who authored them, independently of their merit? Sounds like you're the biased one here...

BEWARE, millions of innocent white people in South Africa have been murdered by an evil genocidal regime known only as 'CRIME'. SHOCK HORROR
BEWARE, a Stalinist hack is attempting to appear as if he gives a damn about human lives. What was it that Stalin said? Oh yes. One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic. Though I doubt he genuinely believed the former.

I've always differentiated between non-culturally assimilable and culturally assimilable immigrants.

In other words, white and non-white.

Ossama Obama;13824755']BEWARE, a Stalinist hack is attempting to appear as if he gives a damn about human lives. What was it that Stalin said? Oh yes. One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic. Though I doubt he genuinely believed the former.

Dude, chill out.:rolleyes:

While I believe that's a ridiculous casualty number as well, I don't believe that the UN would step in.
Who has a veto that would say no?

Chinese - abstain
Russians - not their thing, probably just abstain
US, France, USA - "ach white people are dying, let's go in"
Rest of the UNSC - "feh nobody cares what we think, so whatever"
You must recall that in Bosnia, NATO stepped in, and the UN only blessed it all afterwards.
Unsurprisingly, because Serbia was involved, and Serbia is the cub to the Russian bear, which has its... err... veto-ing claws in the plentiful source of justice salmon that is the UN Security Council.

That was maybe the worst extended imagery ever, sorry.

Justice salmon sounds positively delicious.

Justice salmon sounds positively delicious.
Part of a last supper perhaps :p

"Your choices are a steak dinner or a highly apt Justice Salmon dish"
":("

Ossama Obama;13824747']Are you a Marxoid? Do you dismiss sources on account of who authored them, independently of their merit? Sounds like you're the biased one here...

Of course I have a bias. We all do. That's why we come here to debate. I would have thought that was obvious.

However, if I am being asked to debate, then I would like to debate someone who has actually researched facts, not other people'as opinions. If I wanted to debate the opinions of editorial authors, I would debatethe authors themselves.

Like that Newsweek editorial you posted. In a previous post, I asked TAI to provide me with the sources that the author used.

Now I'll ask you the same thing, please provide links for the following:


The World Bank study showing the ranking of nations in terms of wealth disparity.
The context of Mr. Laubscher's comments.
The study conducted by the Institue for Race Relations.
The context of Mr. Habib's comments.


All of these are mentioned by the Newsweek article you linked to. As soon as we have the facts themselves, then we can start the debate. Until then, we can only discuss people's opinions on the matter.

While I believe that's a ridiculous casualty number as well, I don't believe that the UN would step in.

That's because it's outside the scope of where the UN can intervene without the blessing of the government of the nation in question. National sovereignty and all that jazz.

TAI, can I ask why you always ignore my points?

Is it because you are unable to adequately respond?

If I may, in another thread he mentioned that he didn't have the energy for debates. He could have been meaning beyond that particular thread.

I think you misunderstood my point; I was hoping people could infer a little, but meh. No, my point is that - and this is not a generalisation, having met many members of parties like the SWP - a lot of people who will complain about (rightfully) protest against crimes against Blacks, Tibetans, Muslims, will not protest against the crimes that happen against White Christians, because doing so will not shock and shake the conservative foundations of their country (i.e. "mummy and daddy"). It's a middle class phenomenon, and it's real. This is not egalitarianism, it's White people being ashamed of their own race, which is just sad.


No, I think I understood just fine. You believe that there are "fake leftists" who are "ashamed of their own race," i.e 'race traitors.'


If you disagree, that's fine, I like to debate, but please don't accuse me of "dismissing legitimate criticisms of racism as 'shock mummy and daddy'", because I agree with these criticisms, I just find that the people I'm talking about are not wholly against racism, they are against their own race.


These people you are talking about. Are there are any in this thread? Or for that matter... in reality?


Even you are denying that the "evil white man" can suffer genocide from the Africans some of their race oppressed years ago.

Uh oh, I must be a race traitor too.

Who has a veto that would say no?

Chinese - abstain
Russians - not their thing, probably just abstain


WRONG. China and Russia are in bed with SA. They're the reason (honestly) that the West can't put pressure on Mugabe, since all three of the aforementioned have business in Zimbabwe.

Uh oh, I must be a race traitor too.

I don't care what you are; you're the one who brought that fascist term into the argument anyway. You're trying to bait me by making crap up about me being the kind of person to use that phrase.

That's the worst, lowest level an argument can get to, so unless you have a sensible, non-rhetorical point to make, for God's sake, go AFK for a bit.

WRONG. China and Russia are in bed with SA.
Not really, seeing as the G8 stated that it might be a better idea to have someone that wasn't Umbeki in charge of negotiations between Zimbabwe and everyone else.
They're the reason (honestly) that the West can't put pressure on Mugabe, since all three of the aforementioned have business in Zimbabwe.
No it isn't. The reason we can't put pressure on Zimbabwe is because they would complain about 'western imperialism'.

You're right, and I am. I can't be bothered citing my sources, but I think it was in the news. Russia, China and South Africa do have a "special relationship", and they do not want the British in Zimbabwe.

Do you really think that your country would invade or pressure a country with the backing of Russia and China? Or do you deny the backing altogether?

You're right, and I am. I can't be bothered citing my sources, but I think it was in the news. Russia, China and South Africa do have a "special relationship", and they do not want the British in Zimbabwe.

Do you really think that your country would invade or pressure a country with the backing of Russia and China? Or do you deny the backing altogether?

If you can't be bothered with proof, why do you even bother?
lrn2NSG

I don't see you citing anything. No, seriously, if you want to argue with me, base it on fact, and prove me wrong. If you do, I'll admit to it. I'm really not stubborn with people who have rightfully won debates. It's just that that's only happened about twice or thrice in my life, so, y'know...

No it isn't. The reason we can't put pressure on Zimbabwe is because they would complain about 'western imperialism'.

Like that's actually stopped actual western imperialism. :rolleyes:

Dude, chill out.:rolleyes:

Actually, strange thing is no one has ever actually been able to show me where Stalin said that, and to properly source that quote.

I am left with the conclusion that like so many others, it is fabricated, probably by anti-communists.

I don't care what you are; you're the one who brought that fascist term into the argument anyway. You're trying to bait me by making crap up about me being the kind of person to use that phrase.

So what if you don't use the *phrase*, you use the same reasoning.

And while I'm not declaring you to be anything, you're more or less saying that I am white (your assumption) and that I hate other white people (your own assumption) and that furthermore, I must do so because of some Mummy-and-Daddy psychological BS about "shock-factor." All based on some stereotype you've invented which has no support, no basis in fact, and no purpose in this debate.

Remember kids, being racist is only acceptable if it's about white people!

"The Boers were all morons" = OK
"Africans can't run their own countries" = Bad
Please, like Americans run their country much better?

Democracy isn't about getting the best government which will make the best decisions, it's about letting the people decide.

So what if you don't use the *phrase*, you use the same reasoning.

And while I'm not declaring you to be anything, you're more or less saying that I am white (your assumption) and that I hate other white people (your own assumption) and that furthermore, I must do so because of some Mummy-and-Daddy psychological BS about "shock-factor." All based on some stereotype you've invented which has no support, no basis in fact, and no purpose in this debate.

Most of what you are talking about is inferred. I'm simply wondering where all the anti-racism protestors have got to when it's white people being murdered.

Please, like Americans run their country much better?
Relevance?
Democracy isn't about getting the best government which will make the best decisions, it's about letting the people decide.
No, it isn't. It's about giving the people a false impression that they're deciding so they can live their depressingly pointless existences and imagine that they're impacting on anything at all.

Like that's actually stopped actual western imperialism. :rolleyes:
Back in the day, when we were actually indulging in actual imperialism, people didn't complain about it. In the 1970s, people were a bit caught up with working out how their economies could survive the 1973 fuel crisis to actually care.

Most of what you are talking about is inferred. I'm simply wondering where all the anti-racism protestors have got to when it's white people being murdered.

If you were really wondering, you wouldn't have automatically made assumptions and started painting everyone with a wide, and frankly offensive brush. "Self hating?" Yeah, that doesn't sound like wondering, that sounds like you'd already made up your mind and nothing will change it.

Please, like Americans run their country much better?
hahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha.

Oh, God. Thanks for the laugh.
(This has nothing to do with the topic but I'd just like to curb your totally random and off-topic anti-Americanism)
Anyway, yes, and I'll show you why:

Countries by Economic Freedom Index.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/GM_-_Countries_by_Economic_Freedom_Index.png/800px-GM_-_Countries_by_Economic_Freedom_Index.png

World Map Index of perception of corruption
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png/800px-World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png

World Human Development Report
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Development_Report_2007-2008.png/800px-Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Development_Report_2007-2008.png

Percent poverty world map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Percent_poverty_world_map.PNG/800px-Percent_poverty_world_map.PNG

HIV Epidemic
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/HIV_Epidem.png/800px-HIV_Epidem.png

Murder Rate
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Map-world-murder-rate.svg/800px-Map-world-murder-rate.svg.png
Need I go on? Ah, again, thanks for the quick yet satisfying laugh. :p

hahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha.
:p

All you've shown is that South Africa is one point off Spain (a Western European country) in the corruption index and one point off France (another Western European country) in the economic freedom index.

I'd call that pretty damn good.

....This has nothing to do with the topic....

So, are you going to address the numerous points in this thread that are related to the topic, or are you going to ignore them as you typically do?

Actually, strange thing is no one has ever actually been able to show me where Stalin said that, and to properly source that quote.

I am left with the conclusion that like so many others, it is fabricated, probably by anti-communists.

This quotation most likely originated from the novel "Der schwarze Obelisk" by Erich Maria Remarque in 1956. The German quote was: "Aber das ist wohl so, weil ein einzelner immer der Tod ist — und zwei Millionen immer nur eine Statistik." Either Stalin spoke it as a quote or it was attributed to him.

What is funny is that you believe this quote was just another fabrication of the anti-Communists. The callous nature of this quote suits a man well who is responsible for the deaths of 20+ million people. And I am being quite generous with that number. I am sure they all deserved it by standing in the way of the glories of Communism.

Need I go on? Ah, again, thanks for the quick yet satisfying laugh. :p

Personally, I find it disturbing, and indeed, embarrassing that the U.S. ranked at or near the top only in economic freedom (great if you're a CEO) and only in the middle range in the other catagories.

If you were really wondering, you wouldn't have automatically made assumptions and started painting everyone with a wide, and frankly offensive brush. "Self hating?" Yeah, that doesn't sound like wondering, that sounds like you'd already made up your mind and nothing will change it.

What?! Where the hell did everyone come into it? Can't you argue with me without using rhetoric?! PLEASE, for God's sake, just make a point already!

All you've shown is that South Africa is one point off Spain (a Western European country) in the corruption index and one point off France (another Western European country) in the economic freedom index.

I'd call that pretty damn good.
I don't mind if your attention span is generally off, but please bring it a bit into focus in my threads.

This was clearly said:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13825944&postcount=108

As such, my maps were posted to compare America and Africa. Any of your irrelevant blabbering about Spain and France and SA is just that, irrelevant blabbering.

Personally, I find it disturbing, and indeed, embarrassing that the U.S. ranked at or near the top only in economic freedom (great if you're a CEO) and only in the middle range in the other catagories.
Setting aside your leftist bitching about Economic freedom like it's a bad thing, let's break these down:

Economic Freedom: Arguably the most important to make a good society. Look where Chile is in relation to South Ameirca. America is near the top.

Corruption: Indeed, unfortunatly we do have much of that but very few of the world doesn't. In fact, corruption plagues MOST of the world much worse than America. Not that our corruption doesn't need to be worked on, just putting it into perspective.

Income Inequality. Well we don't want perfect income inequality, and all though our middle class is suffering and could use some expanding, the key is to find a good productive about of inequality and not something that is foud in the welfare states of Europe where one will almost never change his life drastically, has no chance for drastic improvement, and will usually never know neither victory nor defeat.

Poverty: We do indeed have some bad areas but most of our poorest areas are [American] Black areas and [American Black culture largely brings this upon themselves. Anyway some poverty is indeed natural in a society and in our society people that tend to be poor have been able to get out of that low level of poverty through hard work, if not after a generation. Many Latin-Immigrants are doing it now, Asian immigrants have done it, Jewish immigrants have done as have other Central and Eastern European immigrants. Hell, the Irish did it.

HIV: Most of our HIV is in our black community and our gay community. In the black community is it largely brought upon themselves from drug use and hyper, carless sexual activity and rape. In the gay community it was because of a very sexual community who didn't wear condoms as much and engaged in anal sex which is the most risky behavior for the recievor as the tissue in the anus is most likely to tear.

I don't mind if your attention span is generally off, but please bring it a bit into focus in my threads.

This was clearly said:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13825944&postcount=108

As such, my maps were posted to compare America and Africa. Any of your irrelevant blabbering about Spain and France and SA is just that, irrelevant blabbering.

Oh right. Sorry. I just expanded your point to, well..... absolutely destroy it. Carry on.


HIV: Most of our HIV is in our black community and our gay community. In the black community is it largely brought upon themselves from drug use and hyper, carless sexual activity and rape. In the gay community it was because of a very sexual community who didn't wear condoms as much and engaged in anal sex which is the most risky behavior for the recievor as the tissue in the anus is most likely to tear.
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/psychoticmongooses/lolwut1.jpg

I don't mind if your attention span is generally off, but please bring it a bit into focus in my threads.

This was clearly said:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13825944&postcount=108

As such, my maps were posted to compare America and Africa. Any of your irrelevant blabbering about Spain and France and SA is just that, irrelevant blabbering.


Setting aside your leftist bitching about Economic freedom like it's a bad thing, let's break these down:

Economic Freedom: Arguably the most important to make a good society. Look where Chile is in relation to South Ameirca. America is near the top.

Corruption: Indeed, unfortunatly we do have much of that but very few of the world doesn't. In fact, corruption plagues MOST of the world much worse than America. Not that our corruption doesn't need to be worked on, just putting it into perspective.

Income Inequality. Well we don't want perfect income inequality, and all though our middle class is suffering and could use some expanding, the key is to find a good productive about of inequality and not something that is foud in the welfare states of Europe where one will almost never change his life drastically, has no chance for drastic improvement, and will usually never know neither victory nor defeat.

Poverty: We do indeed have some bad areas but most of our poorest areas are [American] Black areas and [American Black culture largely brings this upon themselves. Anyway some poverty is indeed natural in a society and in our society people that tend to be poor have been able to get out of that low level of poverty through hard work, if not after a generation. Many Latin-Immigrants are doing it now, Asian immigrants have done it, Jewish immigrants have done as have other Central and Eastern European immigrants. Hell, the Irish did it.

HIV: Most of our HIV is in our black community and our gay community. In the black community is it largely brought upon themselves from drug use and hyper, carless sexual activity and rape. In the gay community it was because of a very sexual community who didn't wear condoms as much and engaged in anal sex which is the most risky behavior for the recievor as the tissue in the anus is most likely to tear.

Well that made it very clear where you stand. And why you are so worried that...

ZOMG!!1!! teh ebil darkies at killizn white peoples!!!1!!!

Well that made it very clear where you stand.
Yes a productive post, unlike yours, does that.

Now, care to dispel any of what I said or will you just use the typical leftist reply of "racist", which, while it is indeed entertaining to see that you have no response, I admit does get a bit dull.

Yes a productive post, unlike yours, does that.

Now, care to dispell any of what I said or will you just use the typical leftist reply of "racist", which, while it is indeed entertaining to see that you have no response, I admit does get a bit dull.

Oh no. :eek: You wont hear me calling you racist. :rolleyes: No need for that.

I´m not touching your "teh-blackies-brought-that-to-themselves" argument with a ten foot pole.

Personally, I find it disturbing, and indeed, embarrassing that the U.S. ranked at or near the top only in economic freedom (great if you're a CEO) and only in the middle range in the other catagories.
Does it make you wanna cwy? :( Your ignorance certainly makes me weepy...

I´m not
Then no need for your wasting space in my thread. :)

What?! Where the hell did come into it? Can't you argue with me without using rhetoric?! PLEASE, for God's sake, just make a point already!

Pardon me? Exactly what "rhetoric" am I using? You said:

Seems to me that a lot white Western "liberals" and "anti-racists" are simply self-haters, who want to shock "mummy and daddy". These fake leftists couldn't really give a damn about suffering in the 21st Century, and haven't seen hardship in their entire, middle class lives, hence why when it's other white people, many of whom identify with us and speak our languages, these activists don't say a word.

So you're right, technically, you didn't say "everyone," merely "a lot of white Western 'liberals' and 'anti-racists.'"

A point to make? Well, what is yours? An irrelevant anecdote about some nebulous "a lot of" people who are against racists and who are liberal, who you can't really point out any examples of, but which, you surmise using telepathic psychology, are "self haters?"

Some point that was!

Oh but I want to waste space in your trread.

Argument ->
Boer farmers are being killed, they obviously brought that unto themselves by the way they threated the blackies back during the aparthate.

Stop whining. :D

The Boers would know all about racism, they wrote the book on it... Still, racist actions towards a community which believes itself to be the master race is just as unacceptable as the actions of the community in the first place.

But returning to topic. I really don't think there will be a genocide of Boers. The fact that they have nearly all the money and land while most Africans live in poverty probably has a lot more to do with the violence than any desire to exterminate.

And as for those people that say the country was better run under apartheid... perhaps it was. Hitler did a great job of running Germany... got the economy on track, restored National pride, protected the environment. Such a swell guy, just like the good honest Afrikaaners who ran South Africa

The Boers would know all about racism, they wrote the book on it...
Nope, they're hardly unique in this regard.

But returning to topic. I really don't think there will be a genocide of Boers. The fact that they have nearly all the money and land while most Africans live in poverty probably has a lot more to do with the violence than any desire to exterminate.Right side-by-side the invisible, rising class of black politicians who also control much wealth and power. You're deluded if you think the black political establishment is powerless - they are limited by the fact that the Boers tend to be the more productive segment of the country though, and thus do not want to cause too great a flight of wealth.

Such a swell guy, just like the good honest Afrikaaners who ran South Africa
No, not those "Afrikaaners", but rather the apartheid government. It seems a lot of you cannot tell things apart.

I love how people commonly equate Afrikaners with racism. A lot of Afrikaners stood up against apartheid, or against the segregation that preceded it.

Do the names Beyers Naudé, Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr, Sandra Botha, Bram Fischer, Frederik van Zyl Slabbert, or Wynand Malan ring a bell?

This was clearly said:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13825944&postcount=108




Setting aside your leftist bitching about Economic freedom like it's a bad thing, let's break these down:



Manieacs never said that it was bad that the USA was at the top of the economic freedom rankings, all he said was that it was the only ranking where USA was at the top.

Yes a productive post, unlike yours, does that.

Now, care to dispel any of what I said or will you just use the typical leftist reply of "racist", which, while it is indeed entertaining to see that you have no response, I admit does get a bit dull.

Ossama Obama;13828027']Nope, they're hardly unique in this regard.

...
No, not those "Afrikaaners", but rather the apartheid government. It seems a lot of you cannot tell things apart.

So, are either of you going to respond to my points upthread, or are you just going to ignore them again?

Now, care to dispel any of what I said or will you just use the typical leftist reply of "racist", which, while it is indeed entertaining to see that you have no response, I admit does get a bit dull.

Has it occurred to you that people do not accuse you of racism due to their being allegedly "typical leftists," but because you're making racist statements?


Poverty: We do indeed have some bad areas but most of our poorest areas are [American] Black areas and [American Black culture largely brings this upon themselves. Anyway some poverty is indeed natural in a society and in our society people that tend to be poor have been able to get out of that low level of poverty through hard work, if not after a generation. Many Latin-Immigrants are doing it now, Asian immigrants have done it, Jewish immigrants have done as have other Central and Eastern European immigrants. Hell, the Irish did it.

HIV: Most of our HIV is in our black community and our gay community. In the black community is it largely brought upon themselves from drug use and hyper, carless sexual activity and rape

...and because you're making racist arguments?

ZA has not improved since the end of apartheid. Indeed it is falling apart due to white-flight, extreme corruption and anti-white racism, extreme violence and extreme anti-white violence and economic protectionism, cronyism and a far left black-nationalist government.


Corruption and violence are given - but you mention those secondary. Your first and primary argument is that there aren't enough White people and that's why the country is 'falling apart.'

So I'm sorry if you think accusations of racism are "dull" and not entertaining enough for you. But there is evidently merit to such accusations, and perhaps your own activities and statements are the cause, not some mythical "typical leftism" which, apparently, you hold to be the case for anyone who disagrees with you on anything.

I've been thinking about why NSG allows such racist tripe to be discussed here, and this is what I have come up with: people such as TAI play something of a devil advocate's role to our generally enlightened paradigm. By questioning our core beliefs such as equality, they create a space where we can question those beliefs. And when we question the deep beliefs that are fundamental to how we view politics and society, that makes for good debate.

In theory.

In practice it's another story. I've noticed that many of the proponents of racist views, such as TAI, seem unable or unwilling to engage in actual debate. I tell myself that this is because any person who is capable of the critical thinking required to engage in debate must also be critically aware enough to concede the irrationality of racism.

Am I wrong?

Corruption and violence are given - but you mention those secondary. Your first and primary argument is that there aren't enough White people and that's why the country is 'falling apart.'


So you're pulling this guy up for the order in which he makes his points?

Jeez!

So I'm sorry if you think accusations of racism are "dull" and not entertaining enough for you. But there is evidently merit to such accusations, and perhaps your own activities and statements are the cause, not some mythical "typical leftism" which, apparently, you hold to be the case for anyone who disagrees with you on anything.

(And again with the rhetoric. Zzzz...)

You yourself are racist if you deny that any mass exodus, whether it's Whites or not is a bad thing. I don't understand what you have against the innocent Afrikaaners. Are all Germans evil because of Hitler? NO. Are all Georgians evil because of Stalin? NO. I hold a lot of strongly Socialist views which The Atlantian Islands would probably loath, but I'm right behind the guy on the subject of SA.

So you're pulling this guy up for the order in which he makes his points?

Jeez!

It's pretty telling, and hardly the only thing I said.

(And again with the rhetoric. Zzzz...)

Again you seem to think labeling what I write as "rhetoric" is some sort of rebuttal. It's rather like how The Antlantian Isles believes dismissing everything as "typical leftist" is also a fantastic rebuttal.

It ain't.

You yourself are racist if you deny that any mass exodus, whether it's Whites or not is a bad thing.

1. I never "denied" that.

2. Even if I had, this statement is so laughably irrational that I honestly don't know where to start.

I don't understand what you have against the innocent Afrikaaners.

I have nothing against them. Honestly, are you replying to voices in your head or something?

Are all Germans evil because of Hitler? NO. Are all Georgians evil because of Stalin? NO.

Are strawmen arguments valid? NO.

I hold a lot of strongly Socialist views which The Atlantian Islands would probably loath, but I'm right behind the guy on the subject of SA.

That's nice; do continue to wave your pom-poms. I stand by everything I've said.

Well Clomata, you're far too Bolshy to change the way you think, I don't expect you to change. But again, you haven't really explained what's wrong with what I'm saying, you've just attempted to make fun of me :p

In terms of debating - as the English would say - you "don't know your arse from your elbow."

Well Clomata, you're far too Bolshy to change the way you think, I don't expect you to change. But again, you haven't really explained what's wrong with what I'm saying

Yes, I have. Several times, in fact. I guess you must have blocked it from your memory.

"Bolshy?" WTF?

In terms of debating - as the English would say - you "don't know your arse from your elbow."

Oh, well that's a good argument. :rolleyes:

Grow up.

"Bolshy?" WTF?


Bolshy n. 1. one who ardently supports state communism. 2. Stalinist 3. One who imagines himself to be the singer Clodagh Rogers.

I've been thinking about why NSG allows such racist tripe to be discussed here

It's a thing called "freedom of speech." Perhaps you've heard of it.

It's a thing called "freedom of speech." Perhaps you've heard of it.
There is no guaranteed freedom of speech on here.