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

Brixton Repulsive Stone 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 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 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

Brixton Repulsive Stone wrote: »

yeah but it somehow seems acceptable to the world.

Concerning.

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

Brixton Repulsive Stone 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

Brixton Repulsive Stone 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

Brixton Repulsive Stone 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 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".