Sad…Red China extending its influence in an Anglosphere nation…
Hey, they’ve showed us that you don’t need democracy to be Baller$$.
I’m talking about Africa for native Africans. Those Dutch people are not native. They’re invaders from another continent.
oh good Christ
I understand you’re American? So, unless you’re Native American, then exactly the same can be said of you.
Although I am an English-speaking South African, I have some Afrikaner ancestry. I can trace back 10 generations to people who were already living at the Cape in the late 1700s. That is longer than many Americans’ families have been in America, or many Australians’ family have been in Australia, or… you get the picture.
The remainder of my response to your comment would be suitable only for the Pit.
Half of my family immigrated here from Africa; why, God only knows. The other half was dragged here as slaves. I can say with absolute confidence that one side would never have come here had there been no European settlers, and I’m willing to bet that without the Europeans here, the other half would have been unlikely to come, either.
And now we get to the Native Americans. The slave side of my family fought alongside them against European settlers in Florida and other places. I’m sure you know who the Seminoles were. My family has both Native American friends and blood, too. If by some miracle the Native Americans managed to take back North America my family probably would not be among the ones that they come for. Probably.
Let me put this delicately for you - your family’s and ancestors’ immigration history in Africa is absolutely, positively not similar to mine. You do not have common ground. The same cannot be said of me. Your people invaded Africa. At least half of my people were forced here against their will.
And that’s supposed to be significant because…?
Oh I’m really intimidated now.
Kicking people out seems to only be a problem when the evil darkies do it. :rolleyes:
I mean, really, Europe is on the verge of trying to kick out Muslims and France is ethnic cle-er, um, kicking out the Gypsies, and none of these groups have, in a hundred years, done to Europe what the Dutch did in 10 years upon their arrival in Africa. The whole resurgence of the Right Wing in Europe is entirely due to their fear.of.immigrants.
But when Africa plays that game, against a people who have brutalized them for centuries? Oh no, now that’s wrong. Rules for thee but not for me!
Yeah, good Christ.
Fair enough; my argument does not apply to you personally, then. It does, though, apply to the majority of the population of the US, Canada and Australia. Are you similarly in favour of getting rid of all the people of European ancestry in those countries?
Because of the sentence which followed, in which I compared the length of time that white people have been in South Africa to the length of time they’ve been in America. It bolsters my comparison with the US situation. But it’s not terribly important.
It wasn’t supposed to be intimidating; I was just venting a little anger.
No more in favor than Sarkozy is in favor of kicking out the gypsies and banning burkas; or more than Europe is in favor of kicking out the evil Muslims.
See, it seems to be just fine in Europe to have this big fat panic over the evil brown people coming into their countries and committing heinous crimes and living off welfare (which isn’t even true). Everyone’s up in arms about the immigrant problem. And don’t tell me this movement isn’t significant, because it’s driving politics all over Europe!
It’s not so much that I’m in favor of kicking them out; it’s that I sympathize with the natives who want their land back.
You say it’s not fair to the Europeans… but what about all those brown people whose world was taken from them? When do they ever get theirs back? Or is this “conquerors keepers losers weepers”?
I don’t know quite how to interpret the first sentence, since I don’t know how much you think Sarkozy and Europe are in favour of those things.
I see the point you’re making, and (to the extent that I have thought about it; I’m not particularly well-informed about contemporary European politics) I agree that Daily Mail-style immigrant-phobia is a worrying trend in Europe. I’m not sure, though, how it’s relevant to the South African situation. I don’t think that there’s much overlap between people who have a serious opinion about European immigration politics, and people who have a serious opinion about South African land politics overlap very much (except on this board, of course ;)).
I think that one does have to draw a line at some point in history where it does become “conquerors keepers, losers weepers” - otherwise you could iterate indefinitely back into history trying to redress earlier and earlier injustices. At some point you have to accept for the sake of practicality that not every wrong can be righted; otherwise you end up trying to send the Angles and the Saxons back to Germany so that you can return Britain to the Celts. Obviously, where you draw that line is a very contentious question. You may say that I am only saying this because my ancestors were on the conquering side, and I don’t suppose there is any answer I can make to that.
But absolutely, it is not fair to the people whose land was taken (in any such situation, not just South Africa). And that is why I am in favour of land reform and affirmative action policies, as long as they are carried out carefully and reasonably. Because “going the way of Zimbabwe” - which I do not think will happen - is not going to help anyone.
If, though, by “get[ting] theirs back” you mean having a country without any significant number of white citizens, well, I reject the idea that any group is entitled in the modern age to have an ethnically-homogenous country.
The government (under the ANC) doesn’t just pay lip service to the Constitution.
Case in point: gay marriage. We have it. We have it because of a Constitutional challenge. How is that *not *a working Constitutional democracy?
“How, exactly, is South Africa not a democracy.”
I think I’ve made that pretty plain.
Not “The ANC is in charge, and they’re not nice,” because that’s not relevant.
America is no less a democracy when the Reps are in charge than it is when the Dems are. South Africa is not a one-party state. Absolutely, unquestionably not.
Quoting you =/= “twisting” your words.
The SA Government doesn’t need to bend over backwards to accommodate people who themselves are not bargaining in good faith. The farmers started it by demanding inflated compensation or refusing negotiation at all. Now they’ll suffer for their arrogance. Tough.
Look, it’s fairly simple. 96% of commercial arable land is in the hands of White farmers. That is wrong, however you slice it. So any reasonable steps taken to redress that? I’m OK with. Even if it means land is taken at a rate below market value (but not too far), I’d be OK with it.
I’d prefer the willing seller model, but if farmers aren’t going to co-operate, they’ll have to be made to. One way that I quite like is a moratorium on inheritance of White-owned farms - that on death, a white-owned farm is automatically bought by the State, which pays the estate. That breaks the chain of White ownership nicely, without depriving a current living owner of their property.
I said it wasn’t a successful one. I’ve been going on for two pages. Go and read, grasshopper.
Yeah, because we can change things and our system makes it hard for government to squash the wee wuns.
What about all the farmers in the past that never got paid?!
Tough? That’s your attitude? Blame it on whitey? :p:p:p Blame it on whites that most of the country is in poverty? That the poorest and most desperate are the ones who have not seen ANY change? Blame that on farmers? Who is running the show now, eh?
Some people in South Africa are racist self serving dicks. Zuma is one of them. Botha another. But come on. Your F U rhetoric is weak. You don’t even have sources.
At this point, I’m feeling so anti ANC right now that I’d do anything to get the weasels out of office. If they want to terrorize people, send them to Zimbabwe.
Democracy at its finest. :dubious: Links?
How is that democracy? Forcing someone to ‘sell’ you land is not libertie !
This Just In: The ANC, our democratic jewel of South Africa, is spewing violent anti-white rhetoric and racist policy while filling its own coffers with international aid $$. Vote for ANC if you like a good stick up your ass cause you know we do!
Up Next: Angelina Jolie adopts yet ANOTHER baby! But first:
We will return after these messages brought to you by the govment.
A+
I’m curious. What happens when Whitey gets all successful in the city? Will the ANC take that, too? 
What we have here is a failure to communicate. CitizenPained you seem to be addressing points that are not made (like in posts 153, 154, 168). This is a bit confusing.
CitizenPained, you simply don’t understand the words that you are using; it’s not coherent to force people into the role of Alice to your Humpty Dumpty. Upon careful examination you will find that you are not using these words and concepts correctly:
[QUOTE=CitizenPained]
My objective measure is simple:
Government sets out to do ABC using 123 method. 123 method was not as effective as hoped and ABC was not implemented.
If I fail an exam, I fail an exam. It does not mean I won’t pass the class eventually. It just means I failed.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=dictionary.com]
failed state
— n
a weak state where social and political structures have collapsed to the point where the government has little or no control
[/QUOTE]
[
[QUOTE=dictionary.com]
de·moc·ra·cy
–noun, plural -cies.
- government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
[/QUOTE]
](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy)
[
[QUOTE=dictionary.com]
tyr·an·ny
–noun, plural -nies.
- arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
- the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
- a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler
[/QUOTE]
](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny)
Thank you for this. CitizenPained is using lots of terms in completely non-standard and IMO nonsensical ways. Every term she used for the ANC could be applied to either major party in the US at various times over the past 50 years. And they still wouldn’t be correct.
The ANC isn’t perfect, but then democracy rarely is.
Sarkozy is the very man responsible for the policy of evicting Gypsies from France.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gccPLaJDk9QtPpgtwMKLyI51Abmw
There’s like a billion links about Europe and the anti-immigration rage going on there.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/09/14/uk-europe-immigrants-analysis-idUKTRE68D1Z520100914
Anti-Muslim sentiments are rampant there, too:
If these links are considered to be biased then I can find you others.
South Africa is trying to get rid of foreigners. Although not to the extent that Europe is. And the foreigners in Africa have done far greater damage.
Yeah, that’s the point. Your ancestors were on the conquering side.
See, here’s the problem.
- North & South America were hit with a European settler problem. This brought disease, which killed millions; and genocides, ethnic cleansing, and mass subjugations, and now European settlers are the majority at least up North, while holding a disproportionate amount of power per capita down South.
- The aborigines of Australia also encountered a European settler problem. Their numbers were greatly reduced by disease, the Black War genocide, etc. Now Europeans are the majority there and the aborigines are basically begging to be treated as equals on their native turf.
- China and India both encountered a European settler problem. This wound up with India under British control and China being divvied up. Fortunately both of them threw the Europeans off their backs and regained autonomy.
- Africa encountered a European settler problem. Even a short summary of the problems? Rape, genocide, slavery, Apartheid, the list goes on and on and on.
So when the children of European settlers say “otherwise you could iterate indefinitely back into history trying to redress earlier and earlier injustices” this absolutely reeks of “we conquered the world but we don’t want to give anything back”.
But now let’s look at this another way, shall we?
The other, less openly stated but equally popular sentiment among European settlers and their children is “if you can’t defend your land then you don’t deserve it”. Social Darwinism, the strong vs the weak, that kinda thing. Well, guess what… Africa has decided to play the strongarm card. If the Afrikaaners down there can’t defend their ill-gotten holdings in Africa, then they, too, are subject to Social Darwinism.
You might know that as “Conquerors, keepers”.
Mugabe deserves a BILLION painful deaths for his epic mismanagement of Zimbabwe.
No, that’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking more about what China and India did. On a side note: Africa should get more control of its resources and leverage this to keep the next round of invaders at bay - China. Africa is in for yet another massive round of exploitation, this time by China, and few see it coming.
Orcenio, if you want to play that game, will you at least do it right? Don’t take two quotes sand put them next to each other as though they have a relation.
- In response to how I quantified a policy as being a failure:
- But if you want to talk about where I addressed the possibility of South Africa becoming a failed state, well, since you favorWik, here’s a few things for you to chew on:
If that entry was suitable, there’s also a “Failed States Index” where South Africa is at “Warning”.
Is that better for you? 
- On party monopoly of government:
But will it become a literal one party state? What did I say? I expressed concern about the ANC’s legislative agenda. I said in the idea that, as in, ‘when you look at it this way’. I could’ve just called it an oligarchy. Sorry. But I did clarify my statement. More than a few times.
Want to put democracy to the test? Let’s see if the ANC will cede any power. 
Clearly we have a dominate-party system right now. Here’s a list of other African states with dominant party systems. Some of them are in not so good shape.
The United States Constitution provides so many check and balances in government that is situations are nearly impossible. IF, say, the Democratic party rose up like a Phoenix and united the country with a 65% majority, took back the Congress, and ran the country for the next 17 years, there would still be so much political avenue for discourse (party platform, nominations, party elections, media, web, print, access to government, etc. etc.) that citizens wouldn’t be removed from the process.
- On legitimacy and how it relates to tyranny of majority:
What’s your problem with this statement? I outlined my positions on legitimacy a few times, because I said the world had a hard time of viewing the ANC as legitimate. Legitimate and illegitimate are technical opposites, but there’s a grey area. I gave so many reasons why…it’s been nearly every post.
People in the U.S. have argued (rightfully so) that certain precedents or laws in the United States set up a case for legitimacy of government. When they are violated, it weakens the checks and balances system - our greatest democratic asset. Bush v. Gore, Guantanamo Bay, Nixon, and the 9/11 Commission are all examples of actions by a government (or branch thereof) that threatened the legitimacy of the United States government.
But those things have all been addressed (and still are being addressed and figured out) by citizens and government because this is a country in which citizens, should they choose to exercise it, have a strong hold on government power. They are the government.
When citizens and their government overreach themselves and inflict danger on the liberties of others, it is expected that SCOTUS will intervene when they have breached our social contract. Sometimes it takes awhile (e.g., Civil Rights movement), but there’s a method for rejecting tyranny of government.
omg, did i JUST SAY TYRANNY? Wtf does tyranny of government mean?! It’s a criticism of what can happen in a democracy (you know, like when it becomes and oligarchy).
I think I’ve mentioned social contract theory enough that it’s obvious that people like J.S. Mill are the kind of political philosophers that influenced me. Government must be separate from party.
- On democracy:
Democracy is a tricky topic. The definition is wide enough that one democracy is another country’s illegitimate power. So when we talk about democracy in a country, a good way to measure that is by viewing democracy in action, or when the citizens can change the status quo without violence. (A very odd example of how a state can be democracy and still have the rejection of democratic principles by the majority is Puerto Rico not wanting to be a U.S. state.)
We’ve had this convo here before. Is the U.S. a democracy? Well, literally, it’s a democratic Constitutional republic. :eek: Okay. But does it have the principles of democracy? Yes.
Does Iran have the principles of democracy? Well, technically. But the only way to measure it is to look atgovernmental processes.
Clearly, my view of democracy is of a system that protects natural rights.
Now, South Africa’s government is a far cry from direct democracy. Okay, we don’t have one either, but we also don’t have a system in which a party runs on its platform and* then* places people in power with no oversight. Many parliamentary systems have placed rules in place to ensure that their head of state is known by the people. :eek:
**
Is South Africa’s government democratic? Yes in some ways and no in others. But it is it a stable democracy? I argue no, for two main reasons:**
1.) The power of the government to take away the liberties of its citizens (tyranny of majority)
2.) Its 17 year history of being a system in which one party has majority power and rule that has yet to find a way to get itself out of the mess it was in when it started.
^^ Youngest democracies are the most unstable ones. South Africa is noooo exception. It the only parliamentary system in the world (that I know of - I welcome corrections so we can do some comparative analysis here) where the head of government and the head of state are combined. :eek:
These are political science ideas. They do change a little over time and some applications cannot always be set in stone. However, the phrases I used were completely in line with any political science classroom in the United States that values itself to be above Mickey Mouse University.
Now that you have had some fun playing Webster, do you want to actually discuss political science or not?
I know I’ve been told not to engage with you, but define “foreigner”. You are still a foreigner in the U.S. since you’re not purely native. (Newsflash: Do you know how many people in the U.S. have zero black, native, or South American history? )
The Ute in Southwest Colorado are foreigners because they occupy a land that wasn’t always theirs…is that correct?
So what do you propose we do with our population? Give ‘land back’ to any ‘pure’ ethnic group that had an original claim? :smack: And the rest of the population? Do they go live in an ocean?