De clerk treatment

https://m.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/eff-rejects-de-klerk-apology-over-apartheid-statement-calls-for-inquiry-20200217

Is this justified, a man who went against his grain to bring about peace. EFF obsessed with removing every strand of white rule.

Were the afrikaans fears justified, their culture and significance being eradicated.

They would have been off standing firm, between political and employer oppression, race,culture, AA and BEEEE, the whites were idiots to vote for peace

LuckyLloyd

The situation under apartheid was completely untenable. Eventually it would have ended in mass slaughter. I suppose the real question you pose is whether it was better to relinquish a fabricated and unequal society at the point of the gun or via peaceful transition? Either way, once the democratic process was restarted, white South Africans necessarily had to give up all of the ill gotten features of their brutal regime.

If language is the last bit, so be it.

Hillmanhunter1

EFF is a fascist/mafia type organization, not a political party. It's only objective is to garner, by whatever means, wealth and power for Julius Malema.

Apartheid was an abomination, and de Klerk helped to maintain that system. He also helped to dismantle it peacefully, probably not out of a sense that this was the right thing to do, but that it was the wise thing to do.

James Brown

This is the thing. You take and treat sections of society as third class citizens. Torture them, murder them and then expect a fair and equal overhaul under new rules when the jig is finally up. It doesn't always work like that nor should it IMO.

Hande hoche!

De Klerk was part of the system but was also one of the driving forces for its dismantlement, in particular he had considerable sense of timing with the end of the Cold war. Imagine the ANC are rubbing their hands in glee over the whole thing.

donaghs

Bowie wrote: »

This is the thing. You take and treat sections of society as third class citizens. Torture them, murder them and then expect a fair and equal overhaul under new rules when the jig is finally up. It doesn't always work like that nor should it IMO.

How should it be? Just reverse the treatment?

The EFF are just racists. They can claim to be anti-colonial or whatever, but just look at how treat South Africans of Indian heritage.

James Brown

donaghs wrote: »

How should it be? Just reverse the treatment?

The EFF are just racists. They can claim to be anti-colonial or whatever, but just look at how treat South Africans of Indian heritage.

Nope, but they shouldn't feel put out if they lose assets or land depending on how they took it or butchered for it.

I'd expect many Israeli settlers to lose land if they ever return to Israel, where ever it's borders are agreed.

markodaly

Isnt this simly retrospective justice? De Klerk was part of the peaceful handover of power and part of the negotiations.
Now, almost 20 years later, the EFF want to persecute him.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Isnt this simly retrospective justice? De Klerk was part of the peaceful handover of power and part of the negotiations.
Now, almost 20 years later, the EFF want to persecute him.

How slimy? Justice isn't slimy. You might be thinking of revenge?
It would need be an issue by issue basis I'd expect.
Getting back to the OP, you cannot, IMO, rule with criminality and fear, and make gains off that and not expect some form of recompense due when freedom, democracy and justice win out.

tipptom

How can he expect his foundation to be taken seriously if they argue what was done to black people in SA was not a crime against humanity?

donaghs

Bowie wrote: »

Nope, but they shouldn't feel put out if they lose assets or land depending on how they took it or butchered for it.

I'd expect many Israeli settlers to lose land if they ever return to Israel, where ever it's borders are agreed.

De Klerk is right that apartheid isnt the same thing as the Nazi Holocaust. But his point is still stupid. Apartheid should never be acceptable, and it’s pointless trying to argue that apartheid was not a “crime against humanity”. You can see how he might try to argue this for his own self-interest/image, but to be honest even that makes him look worst.

In regard to White South Africans, how do you determine who took land or butchered people? When? Do you Just assume that if their skin colour meets the apartheid requirements for white, that they should forfeit property rights?

Would the Khoisan people be the most entitled surely? The black Bantu migrations/invasions robbed them of their ancestral lands and pushed them to the southern corner of modern South Africa.
They claim post-apartheid South Africa has led to newer discrimination and marginalisation. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/khoi-and-san-people-protest-johannesburg-stock-exchange

AbusesToilets

donaghs wrote: »

De Klerk is right that apartheid isnt the same thing as the Nazi Holocaust. But his point is still stupid. Apartheid should never be acceptable, and it’s pointless trying to argue that apartheid was not a “crime against humanity”. You can see how he might try to argue this for his own self-interest/image, but to be honest even that makes him look worst.

In regard to White South Africans, how do you determine who took land or butchered people? When? Do you Just assume that if their skin colour meets the apartheid requirements for white, that they should forfeit property rights?

Would the Khoisan people be the most entitled surely? The black Bantu migrations/invasions robbed them of their ancestral lands and pushed them to the southern corner of modern South Africa.
They claim post-apartheid South Africa has led to newer discrimination and marginalisation. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/khoi-and-san-people-protest-johannesburg-stock-exchange

The white settlers were in SA longer than the Zulu, who pushed out the Xhosa (so?) iirc.

James Brown

donaghs wrote: »

De Klerk is right that apartheid isnt the same thing as the Nazi Holocaust. But his point is still stupid. Apartheid should never be acceptable, and it’s pointless trying to argue that apartheid was not a “crime against humanity”. You can see how he might try to argue this for his own self-interest/image, but to be honest even that makes him look worst.

In regard to White South Africans, how do you determine who took land or butchered people? When? Do you Just assume that if their skin colour meets the apartheid requirements for white, that they should forfeit property rights?

Would the Khoisan people be the most entitled surely? The black Bantu migrations/invasions robbed them of their ancestral lands and pushed them to the southern corner of modern South Africa.
They claim post-apartheid South Africa has led to newer discrimination and marginalisation. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/khoi-and-san-people-protest-johannesburg-stock-exchange

I agree, the Nazis wanted to wipe out a people, Apartheid wanted to use and abuse them as needed, while treating them as less than second class.

Who tortured who and why? Who took land, from who and why? Basically who broke laws or assigned certain rights to some and not to others. Who profited and who lost, was killed etc. Not an easy task but traceable I'd imagine. It happened in the modern age.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The white settlers were in SA longer than the Zulu, who pushed out the Xhosa (so?) iirc.

So? indeed. We profess to live by a certain standard in the international community, so we must meet those standards. Atrocities don't cancel each other out.

AbusesToilets

Bowie wrote: »

I agree, the Nazis wanted to wipe out a people, Apartheid wanted to use and abuse them as needed, while treating them as less than second class.

Who tortured who and why? Who took land, from who and why? Basically who broke laws or assigned certain rights to some and not to others. Who profited and who lost, was killed etc. Not an easy task but traceable I'd imagine. It happened in the modern age.



So? indeed. We profess to live by a certain standard in the international community, so we must meet those standards. Atrocities don't cancel each other out.

No apologies for apartheid, I do find it illustrating that white colonialism is so looked down upon, but the same behaviour by other African tribes, in this context, gets a pass.

I'd fear that SA is trending in the same downward spiral that consumed Zimbabwe. Taking stances that advocate for oppressing white people isn't going to do anything to improve the situation for folks there.

James Brown

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No apologies for apartheid, I do find it illustrating that white colonialism is so looked down upon, but the same behaviour by other African tribes, in this context, gets a pass.

I'd fear that SA is trending in the same downward spiral that consumed Zimbabwe. Taking stances that advocate for oppressing white people isn't going to do anything to improve the situation for folks there.

It's not about giving a pass. It's context. When you try pass yourself off as a first world nation you need hold yourself to the same laws. Also they don't all cancel each other out.

I agree if it's the case.

AbusesToilets

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'd fear that SA is trending in the same downward spiral that consumed Zimbabwe.

It has been for many years. Take all the land off the white people and give it to the local party hack. What could go wrong.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

It has been for many years. Take all the land off the white people and give it to the local party hack. What could go wrong.

That's a terrible idea. Take it off anyone stole it or killed to get it.

Hande hoche!

Bowie wrote: »

That's a terrible idea. Take it off anyone stole it or killed to get it.

Would be a lot of land for the 10,000 or so bushmen left. Feel the same way with the U.S. and Native Americans?

James Brown

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Would be a lot of land for the 10,000 or so bushmen left. Feel the same way with the U.S. and Native Americans?

I do actually but I'm not expecting it. They've signed treaties so those issues are long put to bed in most cases.

If you are butchering people and stealing land while selling yourself as a decent democratic nation, you need live by that is all. When those laws applied they did not apply to all equally. That should be rectified. No point in going back to before the country proper existed.
You set up a faux democracy, engage in criminality, you should pay a price IMO.

seagull

SNIP. No more silly comments please.