Unlike your first link, I am sadly well aware of this site and it is no less racist than the blog in your OP, just less openly so.
How is this related to your OP again?
Sorry. It’s just as bad as things seem, Afrikaans seem to want to lie about how bad it is.
I don’t like that, which is why I started this thread.
No, racist nitwits happen to be lying, which is par for the course. Your cites hardly represent the mainstream of white South African thought, Afrikaaner (Afrikaans is the language) or otherwise.
You would be silly to judge SA whites from those websites, just as I would be silly to draw any conclusions about American race relations from Stormfront and David Duke.
Objective :rolleyes:
On average, year on year, post '94, crime has been dropping. There’s been a 20% drop in murder.
Before '94, the Government didn’t really collect stats on black-on-black crime in townships, and homelands crimes weren’t part of the national stats either.
What’s wrong with that? You do realize we actually have a Communist Party in South Africa, right?
And why would Mandela, who was in prison because of the CIA, be expected to take the 60s US side on anything? The same USA that killed Lumumba?
Mandela was a freedom fighter, yes. What’s your point?
Stop bothering us with the facts.
Beyond that, you’re acting like just because you grew up in South Africa you’re more qualified to judge it than someone who’s skimmed a blog or two who’s not afraid to stand up and proclaim “I am not a Kaffir Boetie and I will not listen to their lies!”
I point out that apparently his autobiography claimed he signed off on terrorist bombings…while in prison. And off course they say this without showing the evidence.
Yes, it turns out that Nelson Mandela was not a pacifist and wasn’t committed to nonviolence, like most people on our planet. He was willing to use violence to achieve his political goals, just like George W Bush was willing to use violence, just like Churchill, just like Roosevelt, just like Lincoln, just like Washington.
The good thing about Mandela is that after he won he didn’t need to use violence anymore, and didn’t.
It is interesting that white Americans somehow seem to think that pacifism is a great political philosophy for dusky third world peoples, but don’t believe in nonviolence for themselves. It’s perfectly fine for Americans to drop bombs on other countries, but horrifying for dark skinned people use bombs.
Or perfectly fine for Americans to order the assassination and imprisonment of African politicians, but heaven forbid those Africans try and rise up…
True. Violence is appealing…until we do it. And they don’t understand how oppressive and unequal south Africa had to be in order to change.
South Africa as a state was the creation of (white) European immigrants. It was run for their benefit, blacks were seen as a source of cheap labour, to be kept out of sight and sound as much as possible. They were not permitted to own land outside designated areas and were of course effectively excluded from the political system. They were deprived of various other rights, frequently humiliated and subjected to rough justicE.
This explains how bad it really was: Bayou Renaissance Man: Was apartheid South Africa really that bad?
I came across this comment on a site pointing out that with mandela’s death things would get worse:
There have been some killings of white farm owners both large and small. This is usually done out of frustration with the social and economic situation in South Africa or robbery not part of an orchestrated plan to oppress whites
Generally the frustration in SA is caused by the fact that the only thing the 1980s social revolution seemed to have brought about was that the suburbs and large gated communities seem to have added a few black faces, while the only thing thats changed for blacks in the shanty towns are how many white neighbors you have in the nearby shacks. All of this is on top of massive numbers of immigrants coming from other less developed areas of Sub Saharan Africa.
A lot of the problems in South Africa stem from the ANC betraying their mandate and abandoning the South Africans demands for nationalization and the formation of co-operatives. In fact the ANC jumped on the neo-liberal bandwagon of the 90s. (see Naomi Klein’s book Shock Doctrine)
To be fair, nationalization has a very spotty track record.
No. This is not the way to phrase this. Thee has been killing of farmers. White farmers own by far most of the farms. So they get disproportionately targeted versus their overall demographic weight, but not versus the demographic proportion of farm owners they represent. So phrasing it was “killings of white farm owners” is just loaded phrasing.
And anyway, farm killings is shit that’s beencovered here ad nauseum. Do some basic research.
That’s only part of the frustration.
But do go on telling me what my fellow countrymen think, I find it fascinating.
Immigrants are great for our country, actually. If they can navigate the ridiculous red tape, they’re a wonderful asset - I work with several, from all over Africa.
That some elements foment xenophobia for their own political agendas, and the yellow media play along, is not exactly surprising. Easy targets and all that.
Ehh. It’s not so much the abandonment of nationalization as the outright corruption and nepotism that has soured us on the ANC. In fact, still-nationalized parastatals like Eskom and SAA are doing much worse than stuff that’s been opened up, like broadcasting and telecoms.