Thanks for saving all the blacks in Zimbabwe, white people. You white people ROCK!
Why you’re welcome, Biggirl!
Note: I’m still part of the Ruling Race: Asians. Grin. (I don’t seems to have a smiley menu… why not?) I agree with Fenris: continuous capitalization is irritating, and mimics a debate conducted in screams. I also agree with many of the above posters: if you want to debate, pick a topic out of that mess, and we’ll debate it. And screaming, “You’re an idiot!” at someone isn’t a good debating tactic. Only resort to that if you’ve already made your point several times, and it has been ignored. Off to finish sewing project…
Not to mention, screaming, “You’re an idiot” in THIS forum, or any forum besides the Pit, for that matter, is against the rules.
So Jan flogs his website, flogs his book, and then goes on to say [among other things]:
Personally, I think Jan deserves the Rudyard Kipling Great White Hunter Award for his tireless work in extolling the virtues of whites as they selflessly give of themselves for the benefit of lesser races. I’ve never been so proud of my whiteness.
Truly, Waverly, it is a heavy burden that we white men bear.
Can a moderator send this thread to the pit so things can get really interesting?
Yowza. I really do think the OP is more Pit-appropriate than GD-appropriate. Perhaps if the poster were to write a calmer, less busy post with some clear topics for debate, I’d feel it more worthy of a place in GD. But I’m just me 
That’s right, Jan, we’re all nuts. It is a huge conspiracy against the good white people.
Oh, and that there are no successful black people. I’m multi-racial, but I suppose It’s the white part of my blood showing through. All of my family graduated from college, and we all have successful careers. I think it is pretty safe to assume we are wealthier than you, my friend. If not, many of our friends are wealthy minorities as well. Most are executives and administrators.
Oh, and my not so humble friend, do pray tell, where was the world’s first university? Why that’s right, Africa. I’m sure they just taught how to spear prey though. :rolleyes:
Oh, for your “superior” race. Hate to break it to you, but medieval Europe was the 3rd world of it’s time. For the most part, it’s inhabitants were filthy, disease ridden folk, who’s only bleak purpose in life was to procreate, that is if they could reach the age to. Yes, they are my ancestors too. The Saxons were themselves once slaves. They don’t like to talk about it though.
You just wish that blacks would just leave you alone, don’t you? Well, I have a wild idea; why don’t you leave that land that you stole from them, and go to join a white supremist commune? Or just get out of their land? That way you won’t have to deal with them again!
Your book is not actually WRITTEN like this IS IT?
For those of you who didn’t know, janl did the Pit already:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=108164
Er, thanks Jan.
Now, run along.
Kill a giraffe for us, or something.
::d&r::
[sigh] I hold little hope that janl will take the time to answer the questions I’ve raised, but I had to try.
janl said: ""What you call racism is based on false ideas to begin with. People forget that racism was hijacked by communists, Marxists and leftists to FURTHER THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA. "
I’m confused. So at one point you say that racism was taken over by the Communists/Marxists to further their agenda. 
Why in heaven’s name would Communists/Marxists want to fool with racism? IIRC, Communism is about the ideal state where everyone’s equal, and we don’t have to worry about little ol’ things like Capitalism. How do Communists/Marxists define Racism, and how does their definition differ from what you–based on your worldy experience on a small farm in Zimbabwe–contend Racism truly is. Please educate all us misguided folks out in the rest of the world, for we’ve not had the enlightening experience of living on your small farm, where the answers to the universe are revealed.
janl said:
“The bottom line is this: Certain people in this world, have a leftist political agenda and it can only move forward if they have a bunch of “victims”. So they found victims, and the most convenient, and largest group of these victims are blacks. Now, for them to CHANGE POLITICS and to GET THEIR WAY, they have to prove that these people are victims and that these people have been wronged. So that is where racism comes from.”
Who are these “certain people who have leftist agendas?” Will you give us some names, some dates, some countries, and certainly some idea of just exactly what “leftist agenda” means in the context of these “certain people.”
janl said:
"At the core and heart of racism is the belief that blacks are on the bottom rung of society because of the HATRED of whites. Whites supposedly hate blacks so much that blacks never get a chance in life. Ergo, in step the politicians who will right the wrong by taking from the thieving rich to give back to the hard-done-by poor. And it will not be called STEALING, because the assertion is that it is the rich who did the stealing originally. Instead, we are merely returning stolen goods to the rightful owners, hence, it is not seen as wrong. "
Um, I thought you said that Racism is false and doesn’t exist. But then you go on and say it’s a Communist/Marxist scam. Which Racism are you talking about? The Racism that existed before the Communists/Marxists took it over, or the Racism that you claim exists now that the Communists/Marxists have taken it over. For that matter which Marxism/Communism are you talking about? Hint. You might want to consider that the Communist state of equality has really never existed. We humans are a little too competitive for that to happen. IIRC, most countries, (e.g. Russia) that called themselves Communist, were actually Socialist Republics. That means that the folks in the government and so on had access to more resources than the folks they were governing. But anyway, um, how do you distinguish the Communist/Marxist version of Racism, with the Racism that existed before they took it over, AND with the Racism that exists in say America–where to my knowledge Capitalism more so than Communism/Marxism drives things? If the blacks are on the bottom rung of things, then that means that they have no power. How can folks who according to your logic have no power, who can’t think, run things, or decide how to dress themselves without help from the smart whites who help them out of the goodness of their hearts wrap their minds around Communist/Marxist versions of Racism and then use this nefarious definition to “steal” (What are they stealing?) from whites? If whites are as good, smart, and selfless as you say they are, then why in heaven’s name would anyone have reason to hate them?
janl said: “If you look carefully at racism, you will see a number of underlying assumptions, and if you believe these assumptions then you will have no choice but to conclude that whites are racist.”
If I look at the ahem “assumptions” and lack of definitions that you’ve provided, I can’t conclude anything, but that you don’t understand what you’re talking about when it comes to Racism. The only assumptions I’ve seen thus far are the ones that you’ve provided. You might also want to think seriously about the logical fallacy of making generalizations about whole groups of people. You have no right to speak for a whole group of folks. All black folks don’t hate all white folks. All white folks aren’t racist or completely selfless. All black folks aren’t powerless, stupid, thieves. . . I’d have to question the reasoning ability of anyone who would swallow the generalizations you are so cavalierly trying to pass off as the definitive, scholarly, absolute truth. :rolleyes:
janl said:
“A thing to note here is that while racism theoretically can be applied to anyone, in practise it is only applied to whites who supposedly hate blacks. In practise, racism, really is only used to steal from whites because supposedly the whites stole from blacks.”
This makes absolutely no sense at all. If racism can theoretically be applied to anyone, why is it in practise only applied to whites and used by blacks who according to your system of illogic can’t seem to do anything right without the help of whites to steal from whites? Besides your word, can you point us to a scholarly source from a peer-reviewed journal or text who can provide some ahem EVIDENCE to support this claim that racism is only applied to whites?
janl said:
“So while racism seems to have an air of some logic and decency, in practise it is just a charade and is actually specifically aimed at WHITE PEOPLE. Take as an example, more black slaves went to Brazil than to America. But, who will be paying $ billions/trillions in reparations? WHITE AMERICANS! Forget the fact that there was more slavery in Brazil.”
Oh, now, this is rich. How is racism logical and decent, when it is predicated on the illogical prejudice that one party has for another?! Is it a “charade” or does it really exist? What does the idea that more *blacks who were enslaved and were taken forcibly by other folks, many of whom were white * to Brazil have to do with Communist/Marxist notions of Racism? Is there Communism in Brazil? Um, what possible bearing does the black population in Brazil have to do white Americans and whether or not they will have to or not have to pay reparations for slavery that happened in America? What does black slavery in Brazil or America have to do with what is going on on your small farm in Zimbabwe?
Whoo. My head hurts. :mad: I need to go lay down for a bit. janl, you seriously need to re-think your positions, and whoever is publishing this glurge that you’ve generated needs to have his/her head examined.
How very painful.
I rather suggest we have an object lesson on what created Mugabe and his hatred. Living under the rule of people like Janl as they expropriated lands in the name of ‘civilization.’ And believed their own nasty, hateful, ignorant spewings.
If anyone ever read (I have) the propaganda coming out of Ian Smith’s Apartheid state Rhodesia, it sounds precisely like our dear Janl. Code words to justify a heinous regime, not disimilar from the same code words that the South African Apartheid regime used.
Except that peddlers of hate lost out in SA, so far, and De Klerk and Mandela managed a graceful transition to a brighter future, whereas Ian Smith and his kind clung (and too many cling given what I’ve gained from my interactions with ‘Rhodesians’) to hatred.
http://www.africancrisis.org/HB2.asp?Link=Quotes3.asp&Size=40&Link2=Forum.asp&
JanL’s take on the situation-see the top post, where he offers the same title as his thread here.
Collounsburysaid
*Except that peddlers of hate lost out in SA, so far, and De Klerk and Mandela managed a graceful transition to a brighter future, *
But does South Africa have a brighter future, since Marxist Blacks were put in charge? Has the economy grown, or the crime rate went down, or has the average standard of living increased?
Same with Zimbabwe. We know that it used to produce enough food to feed it’s people. Now it doesn’t now,that the Marxists are in charge.
As a side note to Guinastasia, yes, the Congo did suffer horribly under King Leapold, from all accounts I’ve read. The Belgians raped the country. However, it must be remembered they were there to plunder the areas resources, not to settle and build a nation. I don’t think its fair to compare the Congo situation to what happened in Rhodesia and South Africa. In those countries, the Whites founded and built nations, investing in infrastructure, and building up the land.
Note-it’s not Rhodesia anymore-it’s Zimbabwe.
If the only way the “Whites” could stay in power was to oppress the native population (what else can you call Apartheid?), then they failed.
:rolleyes:
Just to play devils advocate, how did the Whites “oppress” the Blacks? Did they give them a lower standard of living than they had before?
“Marxist Blacks”? – why is it painfully evident where our dear BS gets his info from?
Mandela wasn’t a marxist. Did not pursue marxist policies. Social democrat by and large. CP-SA member of coalition, but then NP was too.
Thabo Mbeki, London trained economist as memory serves, has pursued largely free market policies in a Social Democratic framework. Certainly no marxism there, although of course ANC does have Marxist leaning members. Economy has performed reasonably well given the challenges of 1994. No collapse, a lot of problems tied to decline in SA’s main exports and serious inefficiencies in the economy dating from the Apartheid era (poor human capital due to Apartheid era discrimination in re funding for education for non-whites etc. in re non-whites not getting due…)
Clearly unwinding the legacy of Apartheid is going to be hard, above all in re its negative economic effects from underinvestment in education for all non-whites, underinvestment in basic infrastructure for all non-whites, underinvestment in basic health care for all non-whites… Well it becomes a litany, now doesn’t it? Serious distortions and drags on productivity. And you want to blame Marxist Blacks?
Well this sounds rather like our OP’s disguised racist smear.
There can be hope for a brighter future and not the ever downward spiral which Apartheid locked in.
Crime rate of course, well as in every collapsed police state – and for non-whites SA was a police state – there have always been explosions of crime. FSU, EE etc.
Average standard of living increased? Not recently, economic slowdown has characterized the past 2-3 years. Nonetheless the government since 1994 has made some reasonable strides in unwinding Apartheid era distortions in the economy although population growth combined with AIDS issues is going to make that doubly difficult.
Per World Bank Data:
South Africa Data Profile
1996 1999 2000
Population, total 39.9 million 42.1 million 42.8 million
Population growth (annual %) 2.0 1.7 1.6
Illiteracy rate, adult male (% of males 15+) 15.4 14.3 14.0
Illiteracy rate, adult female (% of females 15+) 17.0 15.8 15.4
GDP (current $) 143.8 billion 130.2 billion 125.9 billion
GDP growth (annual %) 4.2 1.9 3.1
Inflation, GDP deflator (annual %) 8.3 6.2 6.5
Gross capital formation (% of GDP) 16.9 14.6 15.0
However, no small amount of difficulties may be attributed to the serious socio-economic distortions arising from Apartheid era policies which impoverished non-Whites in the aggregate.
Mugabe is not a Marxist. He’s a loon, a bitter twisted man, but he’s hardly a Marxist. In the past 4 years he’s done a lot to ruin the country as his obessions have taken over. As have droughts and wasteful military adventures. No real connection with the “Marxist” bogeyman, except in the minds of the racists who use it as a code word.
“Whites” did a fair amount of plundering in Southern Africa, and a fair amount of uncompensated land expropriation from the rightful owners – even after ‘conquest.’ Further, much infrastructural investment was ‘subsidized’ by forced labor at, at best, non-market wages if any for non-white labor. That includes Indian and ‘Coloured’ labor.
There’s an ugly, nasty history BS is avoiding in this bland little tale of the noble white settler.
As for how Whites oppressed blacks, well there’s this thing called Apartheid. Land expropriations, extra-judicial killings, laws banning their presence from numerous job categories. Ex-poste facto laws at the start of the century forcing black/non-white businesses out of competition with whites.
There’s a really astounding ignorance at a level I’ve rarely seen before in this ‘devil’s advocate’ question.
I’ve noticed that a few folks from this board have gone to jan’s so-called discussion forum and mentioned what he’s been doing here.
Please, folks. Don’t you remember the Inter-board Flame Wars of not-so long ago? Besides that, it’s jan’s site and posting there, in some odd way, helps him.
I did it.
I was hoping to goad him back here.
It didn’t work.
There’s a shocker.