Is southern Africa about to kick off?

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.

Danzy

keffiyeh wrote: »

"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.

If Black South African want a pure ethno State then that is their business but they are going about it in a way of making it untenable for White South Africans to stay and that includes intimidation and large scale murder.

They have to be willing to break their economy in the process.

Agriculture while one a small % of their economy still employs or supports 8 million

judeboy101

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

I'm pretty sure that most land was owned by chiefs and kings back in the day, fellas who sold their land to brits and Dutch in exchange for support against their rivals.

In fact the current dominant tribes in SA stole the land from the original inhabitants in concurrent waves starting in the 14th century, the zulus arrived after Europeans !!!

Hande hoche!

keffiyeh wrote: »

"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.

Can't say this line of thinking is particularly convincing. Would you be of the opinion that the US belongs solely to the Native Americans or Australia to the aborigines?

keffiyeh

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Can't say this line of thinking is particularly convincing. Would you be of the opinion that the US belongs solely to the Native Americans or Australia to the aborigines?

I believe that it's their rightful home and that nobody had the right to land on their shores and decimate their lives and futures, yes. Not sure what's so unconvincing about that.



Oh and just to reiterate, anybody who unironically uses the term 'white genocide' is a bit of a joke.



There's people in this thread arguing that blacks had a better quality of life under Apartheid! WTF! Like where the **** are the mods???? This is literal racist rhetoric!

Eric Cartman

SA imwas actually safer for blacks and whites under apartheid which says how much of a bad state its in now, this white extraction and genocide will leave the country in a starving ruin and cement them as a third world state. SA needs white people in society and in politics again

keffiyeh

elli21 wrote: »

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

Utterly and disgustingly transparently racist. Worse than Apartheid??? Are you serious?



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


No it was about oppressing them and dehumanizing them because of the colour of their skin. Murder and rape were byproducts.



"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"


Someone tell them all about airplanes and airports then. They don't have the money to fly out and get set up back where their ancestors are from? Well if your heart is breaking for them so much I'm sure you'll help some of them out.


Damn those black meanies eh! lol so transparent and gross. Cromwell would be giggling in his grave at the gross **** Irish people post on this board. Disgusting, seriously.

elli21

keffiyeh wrote: »

Utterly and disgustingly transparently racist. Worse than Apartheid??? Are you serious?



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


No it was about oppressing them and dehumanizing them because of the colour of their skin. Murder and rape were byproducts.



"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"


Someone tell them all about airplanes and airports then. They don't have the money to fly out and get set up back where their ancestors are from? Well if your heart is breaking for them so much I'm sure you'll help some of them out.


Damn those black meanies eh! lol so transparent and gross. Cromwell would be giggling in his grave at the gross **** Irish people post on this board. Disgusting, seriously.

Do you not realise that it's OK to be against racism no matter who it's against?


And you have posted one hell of a racist post telling people to go back where their ancestors come from.Would you walk around Europe telling black people to go back to where their ancestors come from? I would guess no because that would be racist.

Yes white South African's know how to use airplanes ...but they don't have FOM and unless you are on the critical skills list or have the benefit of being able to trace your ancestory to 2nd generation you are foked

Chips Lovell

OK folks. We've already had one person banned in the past 24 hours. Let's not have any more. If you can't post in a civil fashion, don't post. And if you haven't read the charter, please do so now.

Thanks

seamus

keffiyeh wrote: »

"Ethnic cleansing of white people"

???

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

By that logic, every country on earth is a colony, populated by invaders.

How far back, exactly, do we go to determine who rightfully "owns" the land they live on?

Native Americans were once "colonists". Australian Aboriginals were once "colonists".

We must recognise that every person's birth is an accident of circumstance. A white person born in South Africa is not an "invader" just because a distant ancestor was.

Likewise a Black person born in the UK is not "African" just because their ancestor was.

An individual's ancestry gives them no rights except over the land they were born on, nor do the crimes of their ancestors carry forward.

A white South African has exactly the same rights as a black one, and vice-versa.

Anyone who claims otherwise, is racist.

Any attempt to remove, either through force or displacement, an ethnicity from their home, is genocide.

People who overlook this kind of behaviour on the basis of the "sins of the (grand)father" are the worst kind of hypocrite.

keffiyeh

keffiyeh wrote: »

Utterly and disgustingly transparently racist. Worse than Apartheid??? Are you serious?



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


No it was about oppressing them and dehumanizing them because of the colour of their skin. Murder and rape were byproducts.



"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"


Someone tell them all about airplanes and airports then. They don't have the money to fly out and get set up back where their ancestors are from? Well if your heart is breaking for them so much I'm sure you'll help some of them out.


Damn those black meanies eh! lol so transparent and gross. Cromwell would be giggling in his grave at the gross **** Irish people post on this board. Disgusting, seriously.

Typical response to people stating what is actually happening in SA, your a racist, same rhetoric being used by every black politician in SA, the minute you say BBBEEEEE (note sarcastic at the amount of times they have changed it) or affirmative action is gone too far you are a racist. I was in SA for a good few years, what amazed me was you would have afrikaaners driving bangers of cars but have a house while you see brand new mercs and bmws outside shacks. And before you say it, i know there is genuine poor blacks, i am just giving an indication of priorities.

No one on this thread is saying apartheid was right and most white south africans do admit it was wrong, but people tend to forget the whites voted for the talks to continue with the national party and the ANC. And dont come back with they had no choice, the south african army could have marched to Cairo that time. Fact is at the time whites wanted change as well/.

What has happened since is a systematic devaluation of white peoples rights since the end of apartheid, all their fears that was once called paranoia has come through. Whites have been forced into shacks because of quotas, so back to your point, they can barely afford millie pap not mind a plane ticket with start up money.

God help Ireland if a reunification debate ever starts, you will have the unionists as second class citizens as they invaded.

I would love to know your definition of black, are the algerians, libyans black? Because the koi-san were of the same complexion and as stated it was continual invasions that led to so many central africans migrating to south africa. Or are you being racist and deeming africa as one? Akin to saying any European has a right to anywhere in Europe