Is southern Africa about to kick off?

seamus

Unfortunate confluence of two big issues at the moment;

- South Africa is going to push ahead with the same kind of land expropriation reforms that annihilated Zimbabwe's economy and ignited the effective ethnic cleansing of white people

- Zimbabwe itself has just elected Mugabe's best buddy as the new leader, in a very tight margin of a high-turnout vote, in a result that the second candidate is calling fake.

Seems like there's potential for civic violence to spark in both countries, which often tends to overspill. Will we see the entire southern part of the continent in chaos by the end of the decade?

Kermit.de.frog

Is South Africa potentially the first, first world country, to soon go backward in a meaningful way? It's a question being asked more and more.

People thought Greece in 2010 but that country has stabilised.

If I was South African i'd be very concerned with the trajectory and policy making there at the moment.

Then there is the goings on in the neighboring Zimbabwe as well.

It's an unstable outlook in that region and that's putting it lightly.

Both Zimbabwe and SA have their bad history but that is no excuse for nativism, corruption and pogroms.

Das Reich

The whites there under english colonialism did nothing to reduce the fertility of the black population and left they reproduce at very fast rate. Whites need to pay for their mistake, the afrikaners there still paying for losing the second boer war. But with the Chinese colonizing more and more of Africa they will do something like they did on China, Chinese people have higher IQ than English.

judeboy101

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is South Africa potentially the first, first world country, to soon go backward in a meaningful way? It's a question being asked more and more.

People thought Greece in 2010 but that country has stabilised.

If I was South African i'd be very concerned with the trajectory and policy making there at the moment.

Then there is the goings on in the neighboring Zimbabwe as well.

It's an unstable outlook in that region and that's putting it lightly.

Both Zimbabwe and SA have their bad history but that is no excuse for nativism, corruption and pogroms.

SA was never ever a first world country.

Arthur Daley

No wonder they are so security concious and live behind high walls and 24/7 security signs. In the affluent urban areas anyway. While you can't comfortably walk down the street outside tourist areas. Sad way to be living your life really. Worse than anywhere in America.

Mancomb Seepgood

seamus wrote: »

Unfortunate confluence of two big issues at the moment;

- South Africa is going to push ahead with the same kind of land expropriation reforms that annihilated Zimbabwe's economy and ignited the effective ethnic cleansing of white people

- Zimbabwe itself has just elected Mugabe's best buddy as the new leader, in a very tight margin of a high-turnout vote, in a result that the second candidate is calling fake.

Seems like there's potential for civic violence to spark in both countries, which often tends to overspill. Will we see the entire southern part of the continent in chaos by the end of the decade?

I'd question the likelihood of South Africa going down the Zimbabwe road.Ramaphosa is a pragmatist and has said that any land acquisition will have to take account of food security.It is likely that compulsory acquisition will focus on unused agricultural land and speculation in urban areas.It would hopefully tackle the issue of land owned by the trust controlled by the Zulu king,as well.Its in the early stages yet but Zimbabwe is usually treated as a cautionary tale in the region now,not a role model.

Of course,I could be wrong.As bad as things can be at times,given the huge levels of mostly race-based inequality in South Africa,it's a wonder that it's done as well as it has in the last few decades.There is a good account of some of the "white genocide" hysteria here: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2018-05-18-the-imperative-of-challenging-the-white-genocide-and-land-expropriation-narrative-abroad/

Arthur Daley

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

It is likely that compulsory acquisition will focus on unused agricultural land and speculation in urban areas.It would hopefully tackle the issue of land owned by the trust controlled by the Zulu king,as well.

If that works out so smoothly maybe we should get them over to look at how land control for housing is working here.

blackwhite

Whilst the whole "race war" and "white genocide" stuff is obvious sensationalist scaremongering, there is definitely a major shift in SA over the past 10 years making it a fairly unwelcoming place for white South Africans (Boer/Afrikaner descent).

I've worked with quite a number of South Africans in a few different countries over the years. A common complaint is that anything Govt related will show fairly blatant favoritism to non-whites (be it priority for services, applications for jobs, tendering for contracts, etc) and that the enforcement of quotas (both officially and unofficially) is rampant - all in an effort to "make up for" how things were under Apartheid.

Now I know to take some of the complaints with a pinch of salt - I'm sure their own personal biases come into this a bit as well - but it's a fairly consistent complaint from both those who have emigrated permanently, and from those who were still working in SA.

Dr Brown

Nelson Mandela has a lot to answer for.

Surprised to see this is not being discussed.

South Africa is about to pass legislation to expropriate farms without compensation and then the state owns all the land. Very close to communism.

On top of this 139 farms recently have been identified to expropriate to test the constitution. Its amazing this never makes Irish news, a new apartheid exists in South Africa and before anyone comments that whites deserve it, read up a bit of the history. The Koi-San are the original occupants of South Africa, the Zulus came from the Congo and wiped out every tribe on its way and then met the Afrikaaners and British.

Zimbabwe did this in 2000 and still haven't recovered. South Africa has a deeper history than Zimbabwe regarding white European settlers and from my own experiences of working there the white predominantly Afrikaaner farmers will not go without a fight.

South Africa in my opinion will not survive land grabs without a major conflict, if the whites do get wiped out, the indians would be next there, then the tribes will turn on themselves as there is huge distrust of the Zulus among the other tribes.

The silence from Europe on this is deafening, its a conflict that could erupt very quickly as the 139 farms have been identified to test the waters.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Surprised to see this is not being discussed.

South Africa is about to pass legislation to expropriate farms without compensation and then the state owns all the land. Very close to communism.

On top of this 139 farms recently have been identified to expropriate to test the constitution. Its amazing this never makes Irish news, a new apartheid exists in South Africa and before anyone comments that whites deserve it, read up a bit of the history. The Koi-San are the original occupants of South Africa, the Zulus came from the Congo and wiped out every tribe on its way and then met the Afrikaaners and British.

Zimbabwe did this in 2000 and still haven't recovered. South Africa has a deeper history than Zimbabwe regarding white European settlers and from my own experiences of working there the white predominantly Afrikaaner farmers will not go without a fight.

South Africa in my opinion will not survive land grabs without a major conflict, if the whites do get wiped out, the indians would be next there, then the tribes will turn on themselves as there is huge distrust of the Zulus among the other tribes.

The silence from Europe on this is deafening, its a conflict that could erupt very quickly as the 139 farms have been identified to test the waters.

It's apartheid pure and simple - just reversed from before.

Still equally as wrong.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Threads merged.

Mancomb Seepgood

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

I'd question the likelihood of South Africa going down the Zimbabwe road.Ramaphosa is a pragmatist and has said that any land acquisition will have to take account of food security.It is likely that compulsory acquisition will focus on unused agricultural land and speculation in urban areas.It would hopefully tackle the issue of land owned by the trust controlled by the Zulu king,as well.Its in the early stages yet but Zimbabwe is usually treated as a cautionary tale in the region now,not a role model.

Of course,I could be wrong.As bad as things can be at times,given the huge levels of mostly race-based inequality in South Africa,it's a wonder that it's done as well as it has in the last few decades.There is a good account of some of the "white genocide" hysteria here: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2018-05-18-the-imperative-of-challenging-the-white-genocide-and-land-expropriation-narrative-abroad/

Ramaphosa has already been hijacked by Zuma before he left office. The KZN ANC branch is a huge threat and Zuma is behind it. Julius Malema has stirred up the black youth against the whites and has publicly stated whites wont be killed yet.
https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/1954509/army-jacketed-malema-says-whites-will-determine-whether-anarchy-reigns/

The wheels are moving and Ramaphose was handed a poisoned challace in free education announcement by Zuma prior to leaving office and the land issue, insisted upon by the KZN ANC as they were turning voilent at the ANC conference.

South Africa will be much worse than Zimbabwe if this breaks out.

There is no hysteria about white farm murders, lots of times nothing is stolen but the farm couple is tortured and killed and worse raped.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

It's apartheid pure and simple - just reversed from before.

Still equally as wrong.

yeah but it somehow seems acceptable to the world.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah but it somehow seems acceptable to the world.

Concerning.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Concerning.

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/we-are-cutting-the-throat-of-whiteness-malema-on-plans-to-remove-trollip-20180304

Imagine a white man said this about a black man.

Yet nothing happens

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

The silence from Europe on this is deafening, its a conflict that could erupt very quickly as the 139 farms have been identified to test the waters.

And silence from the US and Russia, and Middle East and Australia.

African issues are a difficult one for Europe in particular. Europe is in many places regarded as the cause of all of the problems on the African continent.

I recall many many years back a discussion on a civil conflict somewhere in Africa, and I had suggested that the EU/UN should intervene to help restore peace. One person instantly jumped on me, accused me of racism, and claimed that I was saying black people were unable to govern and needed white people to rule over them.

So it's understandable that the EU would be reluctant to be at all critical of the actions of African governments; because it'll just be turned around and used as propaganda.

Very much similar to German-Israel relations. Germany is really slow to directly condemn anything Israel does. It usually relies on using the EU as a voice instead. This is not because Germany approves, but because any German attack on Israel is good propaganda for the Israeli government.

Also as the quietness of this thread illustrates, any woes in Africa are of less interest to European populations. So even if the EU does say or do anything about South Africa, the media may not even bother reporting it.

Dr Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/we-are-cutting-the-throat-of-whiteness-malema-on-plans-to-remove-trollip-20180304

Imagine a white man said this about a black man.

Yet nothing happens

People use to laugh at the AWB in the 1980s but everything they said would happen in SA has come to pass.

Odhinn

Dr Brown wrote: »

Nelson Mandela has a lot to answer for.

Yes - a freed people, democracy, no retributive massacres of the white population.

Dr Brown

Odhinn wrote: »

Yes - a freed people, democracy, no retributive massacres of the white population.

How can a convicted terrorist who was involved in a bombing campaign be a friend of democracy ?

Mandela was so extreme that even Amnesty International refused to support him.

Odhinn

Dr Brown wrote: »

How can a convicted terrorist who was involved in a bombing campaign be a friend of democracy ?

A ridiculous and loaded question. He was resisting an evil regime by the means deemed most likely to succeed.

Dr Brown

Odhinn wrote: »

A ridiculous and loaded question. He was resisting an evil regime by the means deemed most likely to succeed.

So its OK to kill innocent people in pursuit of political aims ?

What makes Mandela any different to the people who carried out the omagh bomb ?

Odhinn

Dr Brown wrote: »

So its OK to kill innocent people in pursuit of political aims ?

What makes Mandela any different to the people who carried out the omagh bomb ?

His was a clearly just cause, with popular support.

Dr Brown

Odhinn wrote: »

His was a clearly just cause, with popular support.

A United Ireland is a just cause but that doesn't give anyone the right to bomb civilians.

You can't say Mandela is great and them condemn the people carried out the omagh bomb.

Even amnesty international recognized that Mandela was a terrorist.

But the fake news media have elevated Mandela into some sort of modern day saint.

Odhinn

Dr Brown wrote: »

A United Ireland is a just cause but that doesn't give anyone the right to bomb civilians.

You can't say Mandela is great and them condemn the people carried out the omagh bomb.
...................
.

A false and simplistic dichotomy. Mandela was justified in his acts of resistance because the nature of the regime precluded peaceful settlement.


Do you accept that black africans are equal to white europeans?

4Ad

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/we-are-cutting-the-throat-of-whiteness-malema-on-plans-to-remove-trollip-20180304



Imagine a white man said this about a black man.

Yet nothing happens

Jesus, thats so racist..

Mancomb Seepgood

Dr Brown wrote: »

A United Ireland is a just cause but that doesn't give anyone the right to bomb civilians.

You can't say Mandela is great and them condemn the people carried out the omagh bomb.

Even amnesty international recognized that Mandela was a terrorist.

But the fake news media have elevated Mandela into some sort of modern day saint.

I'd suggest you read what Amnesty said about Mandela. Seems strange that they'd give an award to someone who they considered a terrorist extremist: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/nelson-mandela-and-amnesty-international

By the time Mandela was sent to prison,MK had caused a total of zero military or civilian casualties in their sabotage campaign.In later years,civilians were killed in bombings by the ANC but it should be pointed out that these were dwarfed by the casualties and cruelty inflicted by the apartheid regime.

Kermit.de.frog

4Ad wrote: »

Jesus, thats so racist..

That's unbelievable.

Could you IMAGINE if any white person in politics at any level in almost any other country said that about any black political incumbent :eek:

The future looks bleak for South Africa whatever's after happening. Seems the wrongs of the past have simply been reversed.

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

A false and simplistic dichotomy. Mandela was justified in his acts of resistance because the nature of the regime precluded peaceful settlement.


Do you accept that black africans are equal to white europeans?

Actually Mandela was involved in combing civilians and that’s why he was on the run and yes you could say he was forced into it as peaceful means was not happening, most white South Africans accept this.

To say there is no comparison to the north is ridiculous, civil rights marchs were peaceful until the unionists and ruc battered people off the streets. Peaceful settlement, b specials burning people out of homes, yeah I can see your logic there, what about internment, it’s all too easy to forget the brutal unionist regime. The similarities with the north and South Africa is huge.

Mandela and a lot of black South Africans hold Adams very highly, you praise Mandela but call Adams a terrorist.

Anyway it was Mandela who kept the situation at bay, if war broke out like Winnie wanted, the whites would have slaughtered the blacks, people tend to forget the strength of the South African army and the police at that time. Saying the whites avoided a massacre is completely false, the anc knew they would have been wiped out.

Many South Africans think that a civil conflict is inevitable but they also say the anc waited until there was no strong remnants of the army, pure conspiracy but I suppose look what’s happening

Dr Brown

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

I'd suggest you read what Amnesty said about Mandela. Seems strange that they'd give an award to someone who they considered a terrorist extremist: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/nelson-mandela-and-amnesty-international

By the time Mandela was sent to prison,MK had caused a total of zero military or civilian casualties in their sabotage campaign.In later years,civilians were killed in bombings by the ANC but it should be pointed out that these were dwarfed by the casualties and cruelty inflicted by the apartheid regime.

Amnesty refused to support Mandela in the 1980s but since then they have become a lot more PC and now actively campaign for abortion on demand as a "human right".

Do you realize Mandela could have been released from prison a decade earlier if he renounced violence but he refused to do so.

Dr Brown

Odhinn wrote: »

A false and simplistic dichotomy. Mandela was justified in his acts of resistance because the nature of the regime precluded peaceful settlement.


Do you accept that black africans are equal to white europeans?

Blacks under apartheid had a better standard of living than anywhere else in Africa.

If apartheid was so bad then why did blacks from all over Africa flock there ?
Today many blacks are worse off since the fall of apartheid some even want the old system brought back.

Whatever ones views on apartheid I think most people would agree that South Africa was a far safer and prosperous country 30 years ago than it is today.

Todays South Africa is now well on the way to becoming a failed state.

By any measure I don't see how that can be considered "progress".

Dr Brown

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

I'd suggest you read what Amnesty said about Mandela. Seems strange that they'd give an award to someone who they considered a terrorist extremist: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/nelson-mandela-and-amnesty-international

By the time Mandela was sent to prison,MK had caused a total of zero military or civilian casualties in their sabotage campaign.In later years,civilians were killed in bombings by the ANC but it should be pointed out that these were dwarfed by the casualties and cruelty inflicted by the apartheid regime.

Have today's Amnesty condemned Black Supremacists such as Julius Malema ?

Jaggo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Surprised to see this is not being discussed.

South Africa is about to pass legislation to expropriate farms without compensation and then the state owns all the land. Very close to communism.

On top of this 139 farms recently have been identified to expropriate to test the constitution. Its amazing this never makes Irish news, a new apartheid exists in South Africa and before anyone comments that whites deserve it, read up a bit of the history. The Koi-San are the original occupants of South Africa, the Zulus came from the Congo and wiped out every tribe on its way and then met the Afrikaaners and British.

Zimbabwe did this in 2000 and still haven't recovered. South Africa has a deeper history than Zimbabwe regarding white European settlers and from my own experiences of working there the white predominantly Afrikaaner farmers will not go without a fight.

South Africa in my opinion will not survive land grabs without a major conflict, if the whites do get wiped out, the indians would be next there, then the tribes will turn on themselves as there is huge distrust of the Zulus among the other tribes.

The silence from Europe on this is deafening, its a conflict that could erupt very quickly as the 139 farms have been identified to test the waters.

Didn't Ireland redistribute land from the landlords to the natives...
How is the south African exanple different from what happened in Ireland?

Nody

Jaggo wrote: »

Didn't Ireland redistribute land from the landlords to the natives...
How is the south African exanple different from what happened in Ireland?

In theory nothing with the plan; the main problem in SA (and Africa in general) and has been for a long while is the corruption in the political elite. The countries could do a lot better but due to greed and corruption they do not and this has become a vicious circle. Even the once trying to clean it up (and there has been quite a few in various countries) tend to run into the wall of institutionalised corruption from people who don't want to lose their "benefits".

Sadly there's no magical cure to corruption nor is there any real way to intervene to remove it. It's a change that needs to be driven by the people over decades to happen. And don't think I don't know it exist in Europe as well but the scale of it is different and the corruption while still focusing on personal gain (Brexit anyone?) is not to the same levels of open excess.

Jaggo

Jaggo wrote: »

Didn't Ireland redistribute land from the landlords to the natives...
How is the south African exanple different from what happened in Ireland?

Did they? Was it on a grand scale, South Africa the state will own all the land.

I am not sure about Ireland taking land, I know in the 1800s there was a major push to land ownership and the British gave mortgages to the tenants to buy which they did. Wasn’t one of the major issues post independence repaying this money of which Ireland eventually did.

I am not going to pretend to be an expert on Ireland’s land question as it was years ago I studied it. South Africa is a different story, who actually owns the land, it was conquest after conquest from black northern tribes to the Europeans. To this day most S.A. tribes don’t trust the Zulus, hence the major bloodbaths in the early 90s in SA

Jaggo

Nody wrote: »

In theory nothing with the plan; the main problem in SA (and Africa in general) and has been for a long while is the corruption in the political elite. The countries could do a lot better but due to greed and corruption they do not and this has become a vicious circle. Even the once trying to clean it up (and there has been quite a few in various countries) tend to run into the wall of institutionalised corruption from people who don't want to lose their "benefits".

Sadly there's no magical cure to corruption nor is there any real way to intervene to remove it. It's a change that needs to be driven by the people over decades to happen. And don't think I don't know it exist in Europe as well but the scale of it is different and the corruption while still focusing on personal gain (Brexit anyone?) is not to the same levels of open excess.

Yeah, tend to agree. The Irish policy was much the same as in both the planned SA one and the Zimbabwean one, but the corruption levels are different.
On saying that, just as in Zimbabwean example, the Irish government gave land to army veterans, set up a political system that allowed local interests.... etc. I think that Ireland was quite lucky that we escaped the worst excesses of corruption (although maybe those living in 1950's ireland would say something different).

CrabRevolution

Jaggo wrote: »

Didn't Ireland redistribute land from the landlords to the natives...
How is the south African exanple different from what happened in Ireland?

1. They redistributed the land after buying it. It wasnt summarily seized. The huge sums being paid by the Free State to Britain for the cost of purchasing Irish land was one of the main causes of economic wars of the 30s.

2. The land was only purchased if the owner was living abroad, not because of the colour of their skin.

3. Land being actively farmed was not redistributed in Ireland, unlike in Zimbabwe and South Africa where active farms are to be seized regardless.

Jaggo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did they? Was it on a grand scale, South Africa the state will own all the land.

I am not sure about Ireland taking land, I know in the 1800s there was a major push to land ownership and the British gave mortgages to the tenants to buy which they did. Wasn’t one of the major issues post independence repaying this money of which Ireland eventually did.

I am not going to pretend to be an expert on Ireland’s land question as it was years ago I studied it. South Africa is a different story, who actually owns the land, it was conquest after conquest from black northern tribes to the Europeans. To this day most S.A. tribes don’t trust the Zulus, hence the major bloodbaths in the early 90s in SA

It was on a large scale, in the 1880s tenants could purchase land from landlords with low interest loans. After the war of independence, the government could compel a landlord or a foreign national to sell his land at reduced prices.

In 1880, there were several thousand landholders in Ireland. By 1940 there were 300,000 in southern ireland alone. (Google the land commission that was the government body that was responsible.)

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually Mandela was involved in combing civilians and that’s why he was on the run and yes you could say he was forced into it as peaceful means was not happening, most white South Africans accept this.

To say there is no comparison to the north is ridiculous, civil rights marchs were peaceful until the unionists and ruc battered people off the streets. Peaceful settlement, b specials burning people out of homes, yeah I can see your logic there, what about internment, it’s all too easy to forget the brutal unionist regime. The similarities with the north and South Africa is huge.

Mandela and a lot of black South Africans hold Adams very highly, you praise Mandela but call Adams a terrorist.

Anyway it was Mandela who kept the situation at bay, if war broke out like Winnie wanted, the whites would have slaughtered the blacks, people tend to forget the strength of the South African army and the police at that time. Saying the whites avoided a massacre is completely false, the anc knew they would have been wiped out.

Many South Africans think that a civil conflict is inevitable but they also say the anc waited until there was no strong remnants of the army, pure conspiracy but I suppose look what’s happening

I praise both, actually. And I didn't say there was no comparison with the armed struggle in the north - just omagh.

Odhinn

Dr Brown wrote:

Do you realize Mandela could have been released from prison a decade earlier if he renounced violence but he refused to do so. Today 08:38

Yes, it was an admirable act of putting the cause before himself and showed the stature of the man,

Dr Brown wrote: »

Blacks under a(...............).

The violence was confined to the townships and bantustans. Poverty is at its root.


I'll ask you again - do you believe black africans are equal to white europeans?

Dr Brown

Odhinn wrote: »

Yes, it was an admirable act of putting the cause before himself and showed the stature of the man,






The violence was confined to the townships and bantustans. Poverty is at its root.


I'll ask you again - do you believe black africans are equal to white europeans?

In what capacity ?

Odhinn

Dr Brown wrote: »

In what capacity ?

Intellectual, moral - in all the capacities that could be said to belong to human beings.

Dr Brown

Odhinn wrote: »

Intellectual, moral - in all the capacities that could be said to belong to human beings.

If your taking about average IQ levels than they are not equal to Europeans or Asians.

Parts of Africa had not even invented the wheel up until the 19th century.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

Odhinn

Dr Brown wrote: »

If your taking about average IQ levels than they are not equal to Europeans or Asians.

Parts of Africa had not even invented the wheel up until the 19th century.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

...so you don't believe they are intellectually equal.



I've made it quite clear that I'm "talking about" whether or not you consider a black man equal to his white european counterpart. You seem to be evading giving a straight answer.

ancapailldorcha

Dr Brown wrote: »

If your taking about average IQ levels than they are not equal to Europeans or Asians.

Parts of Africa had not even invented the wheel up until the 19th century.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

Mod: Stay on topic please. This is not relevant.

batgoat

Dr Brown wrote: »

Blacks under apartheid had a better standard of living than anywhere else in Africa.

If apartheid was so bad then why did blacks from all over Africa flock there ?
Today many blacks are worse off since the fall of apartheid some even want the old system brought back.

Whatever ones views on apartheid I think most people would agree that South Africa was a far safer and prosperous country 30 years ago than it is today.

Todays South Africa is now well on the way to becoming a failed state.

By any measure I don't see how that can be considered "progress".

Blacks in South Africa could be jailed for consensual sex with a white person. Mixed marriages illegal. Land ownership was limited to a tiny percentage of those who were coloured. No parliamentary representatives were allowed. Plus skilled labour tended to be limited to white people under law. This is literally a handful from the top of my head.

So while you may view it to have been better for black people, it really was not. It's very much so a mess in South Africa but to wish for the old days of Apartheid? It might be much nicer in your head but it really wasn't. To borrow from Trevor Noah, it was an extraordinarily well prepared system of systemic racism that borrowed from regimes across the globe. They literally researched how to be most effective with it. Do you really think that it wasn't so bad?

Fr Tod Umptious

batgoat wrote: »

Blacks in South Africa could be jailed for consensual sex with a white person. Mixed marriages illegal. Land ownership was limited to a tiny percentage of those who were coloured. No parliamentary representatives were allowed. Plus skilled labour tended to be limited to white people under law. This is literally a handful from the top of my head.

So while you may view it to have been better for black people, it really was not. It's very much so a mess in South Africa but to wish for the old days of Apartheid? It might be much nicer in your head but it really wasn't. To borrow from Trevor Noah, it was an extraordinarily well prepared system of systemic racism that borrowed from regimes across the globe. They literally researched how to be most effective with it. Do you really think that it wasn't so bad?

Its a bit like the old claim that people in Eastern Europe preferred communism over the market economy.

The fall of communism caused havoc for the ordinary people of the eastern bloc, what once had structure was now only chaos.

The same argument could be made for SA, was it better for blacks under the old regime, hell no, but there was a structure, now there seems to be none.

ExoPolitic

As much as it pains me to hear, SA just wants a homogeneous society. It is too much to change the popular opinion in any said country over night. So now what do we do?

White SA should be given refugee status along with anybody else who is oppressed to the nearest safe state, where ever that may be for them.

There's not much that can be done, doesn't mean that what is happening is right, but it is what is happening so they now have to make the best of a really bad situation.

Which ever country accepts their refugee status will be doing themselves a massive favour, as they are professional, highly skilled commercial farmers, with all the knowledge and experience which any nation would hugely benefit from.

Danzy

There is talk of 15k boers been given land in Russia, the Crimea I believe.

Even if they do not seize land they may well drive enough farmers out, why work at a hard job where you are being killed off and can lose it all at the stroke of a pen. Safer to leave.

The land will not be given to people who can farm but ANC cronies and family members and it will go to ruin.

ten years time South Africa will go from the bread basket of Africa to importing food.

If it collapsed as a State in years to come, would not be surprising. If that Malema <SNIP. No more name calling please.> ever gets his chance he'll turn it in to a tin pot hole.

elli21

I am one who protested against Apartheid..I am married to a Boer.



What's happening now in SA is worse than Apartheid (which was wrong on so many levels)

Apartheid was never about raping and murdering people because of the colour of their skin


There is a massive influx of SA whites fleeing now and it's just heart breacking to listen to them asking for info about how to escape

I just wish folk stop concentrating on white farmers.....these tribes with Juju reiling them up have declared war on white people...

Now even the Xhosa have issued a warning to whites

keffiyeh

seamus wrote: »

Unfortunate confluence of two big issues at the moment;

- South Africa is going to push ahead with the same kind of land expropriation reforms that annihilated Zimbabwe's economy and ignited the effective ethnic cleansing of white people

- Zimbabwe itself has just elected Mugabe's best buddy as the new leader, in a very tight margin of a high-turnout vote, in a result that the second candidate is calling fake.

Seems like there's potential for civic violence to spark in both countries, which often tends to overspill. Will we see the entire southern part of the continent in chaos by the end of the decade?

"Ethnic cleansing of white people"

???

Newsflash folks, SA is an invasion, a colony on land that belongs to black people.

I swear half of you would be arguing for Oliver Cromwell had boards been around back then.

"White genocide" dialogue is not only a complete falsification but you out yourself as a racist by trying it.