bubbadog said:Yes, that's true. And I read that it wasn't until the Dutch started moving northward beyond the Cape Colony that they began encountering native Africans.D. C. Bear said:robby44 said:Doc Holliday said:For real.Sam Lowry said:
Hard to believe anyone would defend this. And y'all wonder why whites get antsy from talk of white privilege?
**** happens when you invade a country, **** them in the ass and don't effectively wipe out the native population and then let them gain control of the government
What did you expect peace and flowers
South Africa wasn't exactly a country when the Dutch started the Cape Colony, but, yeah, one difference between South Africa and North America is that the colonial powers didn't kill off the locals with war and disease.
Having said that, no, seizure of commercial farms and redistribution to smaller, less productive and less economically viable units is not "what happens" automatically and is a recipe for disaster. This is not simply a black/white issue in South Africa.
It should go without saying that uncompensated land confiscation is wrong. It was wrong when whites confiscated so much of the land of South Africa for their farms at the expense of the black majority, and two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes, South Africa's governments have been poorly run and sometimes corrupt, especially under Zuma.
But there's also something interesting about South Africa. By all odds, it should have devolved into something like Rhodesia devolved into Zimbabwe. But it didn't. It has held together precariously (as has India, against great odds), but it has held together.
I note a couple of differences. The white Rhodesian government actually fought a war against black majority rule. In South Africa, the white government ultimately consented to give way and make a peaceful transfer of power possible. The second is that the South African government under Mandela did not run off white citizens, nor engage in a bunch of uncompensated land confiscations. South Africa got Mandela, who wanted truth and reconciliation, and Zimbabwe got Mugabe, who wanted corruption and revenge. (As crazy as Loyal Gould could sound, he warned everyone back in the mid-1970s about Mugabe and claims he told Joshua Nkomo, Mugabe's more moderate rival, not to ally himself with Mugabe or he would "have a tiger by the tail." Anyone else remember Uncle Loyal's stories?)
It is a sad historical fact that historical sins usually make for more sins.
The apartheid systems in Rhodesia and South Africa that relegated blacks to second-class status and gave most of the land to less than 10 percent of the population was a sin. This does not excuse mistreatment of whites in those countries today, nor make it any less regrettable, but it does make it understandable as an outcome that was hard to avoid if not inevitable. The wonder in South Africa is that it has not happened more.
Apparently, at one time it did. I read that the killings of white farmers in recent years is about 80 percent less than what it was in the mid-1990s, in the early years after apartheid ended. The implication by poorly informed media talkers like Tucker Carlson is that killings are rampant and on the rise. Any number of killings is of course unjustifiable, but it's also important to note the strong downward trend and to keep that in perspective when assessing the current state of South Africa.
There was, technically, an "armed struggle" in South Africa, but they were not much militarily or otherwise.
Mandela personally did an awful lot to keep that country together. He gets bad mouthed by folks who don't know better. The ANC, however, is pretty corrupt and has been for a long time. They need to lose an election or two.
That whole part of Africa was devastated by HIV/AIDS but, thanks to the United States, that has improved dramatically. They don't have the best conditions for farming, and they are highly urbanized. There are not a lot of black farmers champing at the bit to go take over white-owned farms and continue commercial-level production.
Ignore the emoticon.
