Whites facing Genocide in South Africa

[Blackhawk2001]

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my previous point, but this is exactly what I was getting at. Blacks Africans have no issue with killing each other, so for to be killing white people doesn't exactly have me scratching my head as to "why."

And you point out something that I find indeed interesting, though I wonder if you realize it. It's the arrogance of the western world's view of democracy as being the best system of govt. Democracy IS a great system.... but only for populations that understand it, and that are ready to apply it. Look at it this way:

Let's say that I drive you to 20 miles to work in a car everyday. You see how I operate the car, and think you have grasp of how to operate a motor vehicle, The one day, I suddenenly tell you I'm moving, hand you the keys, and tell you to drive yourself to work from now on. What are the odds that you'll make it to work, safely? I'm betting zero to none.

This is exactly what happened in S. Africa, and Africa in general. Western colonial powers set up governments mirroring that of their own own nations. They ran those governments for decades with little or no participation allowed by the native populations. And then one day, when they decided they could afford the administer the nations anymore, they hand the keys to a few people, and said "the cars' yours son, don't crash it." But the problem is that they never adequately trained the new owner on how to operate the machine. Failure was a certainty. The colonial govts didn't "lose" power, they simply gave it up.

It's for this reason that democracy isn't always the best option. Sometimes a population just isn't ready for it.

A democracy or a republic requires a population which has or can develop a tradition of self-determination. The Africans aren't the only ones who have problems with this. Interestingly, reading a sci-fi book by LTC (Ret) Tom Kratman, the background narrative discusses the sociology of tribal cultures vs non-tribal cultures and the reasons military discipline is so difficult when attempting to mix tribes. The same problems would logically apply to government. The Palestinians did the same thing with the assets the Israelis handed over to them when they gave up Gaza. When you don't make anything and your whole way of life revolves around taking, it doesn't help you in the long run to kill or run off the ones who know how to make things.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well its about time we get a taste of our own medicin!

 

[jeremy]

A democracy or a republic requires a population which has or can develop a tradition of self-determination. The Africans aren't the only ones who have problems with this. Interestingly, reading a sci-fi book by LTC (Ret) Tom Kratman, the background narrative discusses the sociology of tribal cultures vs non-tribal cultures and the reasons military discipline is so difficult when attempting to mix tribes. The same problems would logically apply to government. The Palestinians did the same thing with the assets the Israelis handed over to them when they gave up Gaza. When you don't make anything and you're whole way of life revolves around taking, it doesn't help you in the long run to kill or run off the ones who know how to make things.

Which book?!

 

[88GT]

Oh, I'm certainly not upset.

So you just resort to childish phrases and smilies without offering intelligent rebuttals because.......?

I'm used to people who choose which facts they present to support their case, but if one were to look at the entire history, would you still hold the same opinion?

Yes, I would.

Go back to 1652 and then examine the crimes committed from that time until 1994 and then tell me what you think. Who was committing crimes against whom? Does that matter or is that too far back in time and should be forgotten?

No, it doesn't matter. Because the issue at hand doesn't concern pre-apartheid times. For that matter, it doesn't even concern apartheid era years. This is about post-apartheid black-on-white violence and, more specifically for this particular tangent, whether or not Mandela and/or the ANC encouraged/encourages it.

The only reason I can come up with why someone would want to introduce non-relevant historical fact (and you'll notice I did not deny anything--though, to be honest, you haven't exactly produced anything concrete either), is in an effort to explain or justify current fact.

Is that what you're doing? If not, why is is relevant that the Boers colonized southern Africa, fought off Britain for control, and then ruled for the next however-many years?

I understand that history is viewed from one's life experiences, culture, and background, but that's no excuse to ignore other facts presented. Just do some research on colonization, politics, and the laws of that country and then tell me what you think.

Why is this relevant? Start a new thread. Let's discuss the vile, racist policies of the Boers. But what does that have to do with discussion at hand?

 

[Que]

So you just resort to childish phrases and smilies without offering intelligent rebuttals because.......?



Yes, I would.



No, it doesn't matter. Because the issue at hand doesn't concern pre-apartheid times. For that matter, it doesn't even concern apartheid era years. This is about post-apartheid black-on-white violence and, more specifically for this particular tangent, whether or not Mandela and/or the ANC encouraged/encourages it.

The only reason I can come up with why someone would want to introduce non-relevant historical fact (and you'll notice I did not deny anything--though, to be honest, you haven't exactly produced anything concrete either), is in an effort to explain or justify current fact.

Is that what you're doing? If not, why is is relevant that the Boers colonized southern Africa, fought off Britain for control, and then ruled for the next however-many years?





Why is this relevant? Start a new thread. Let's discuss the vile, racist policies of the Boers. But what does that have to do with discussion at hand?

Okay, sticking strictly to what you say is relevant, why is it even important? What does it matter to Americans what is occurring in South Africa? Apartheid was not important and colonization is not relevant, so what makes this matter so significant?

 

[88GT]

Okay, sticking strictly to what you say is relevant, why is it even important? What does it matter to Americans what is occurring in South Africa? Apartheid was not important and colonization is not relevant, so what makes this matter so significant?

A+ for the usage of straw men and deflection in this thread. Well done.


How about this? Can you provide something that illustrates why apartheid or pre-apartheid historical fact should be considered in this discussion?

 

[Que]

A+ for the usage of straw men and deflection in this thread. Well done.


How about this? Can you provide something that illustrates why apartheid or pre-apartheid historical fact should be considered in this discussion?

Wait a minute, you just stated that none of that was relevant. I'm not now going to attept to go back and try to further develop the conversation past where I expected it was going. "Straw men and deflection"? I don't even know what that means, so if you don't want to answer the question pertaining to the discussion you wanted to have, just drop it.

 

[88GT]

Wait a minute, you just stated that none of that was relevant.

No, I did not. I said the historical facts you wanted to introduce to the discussion were not relevant to the discussion topic. Since you can't seem to find any evidence to the contrary, nor are you supplying your own opinions as to the relevancy, I stand by my statement.

I'm not now going to attept to go back and try to further develop the conversation past where I expected it was going.

It was never going there, that's part of the problem. Nobody wanted to indulge you in your little fantasy of justification.

"Straw men and deflection"? I don't even know what that means,

I think you do. But for the sake of making sure that you won't be at such a disadvantage in the future:

Noun 1. deflection - a twist or aberration; especially a perverse or abnormal way of judging or acting
warp
aberrance, aberrancy, aberration, deviance - a state or condition markedly different from the norm
2. deflection - the amount by which a propagating wave is bent
deflexion, refraction
bending, bend - movement that causes the formation of a curve
3. deflection - the movement of the pointer or pen of a measuring instrument from its zero position
deflexion
motion, movement - a natural event that involves a change in the position or location of something
4. deflection - the property of being bent or deflected
bending, deflexion
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
wind deflection, windage - the deflection of a projectile resulting from the effects of wind
refractiveness, refractivity - the physical property of a medium as determined by its index of refraction
5. deflection - a turning aside (of your course or attention or concern); "a diversion from the main highway"; "a digression into irrelevant details"; "a deflection from his goal"
digression, divagation, diversion, deflexion, deviation
turning, turn - the act of changing or reversing the direction of the course; "he took a turn to the right"
red herring - any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue

Noun 1. straw man - a person used as a cover for some questionable activity
figurehead, front man, nominal head, strawman, front
beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat - someone who leads you to believe something that is not true
2. straw man - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
strawman
specious argument - an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious
3. straw man - an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds
bird-scarer, scarecrow, scarer, strawman
effigy, simulacrum, image - a representation of a person (especially in the form of sculpture); "the coin bears an effigy of Lincoln"; "the emperor's tomb had his image carved in stone"

so if you don't want to answer the question pertaining to the discussion you wanted to have, just drop it.

That would be convenient for you, wouldn't it?

How about when you answer my question, I'll answer yours? Deal? Since I asked first, you answer first.

 

[netsecurity]

Jeesh, settle down, wtf...

 

[indiucky]

So I assume everyone is good with the American Indians to begin killing you Europeans.

They are charging 125% on their pay day loans.....


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9mhlRp8DzI[/ame]


"Yes it's expensive...But remember Sand Creek and Show me the money!!!!!"

 

[IndyDave1776]

Okay, sticking strictly to what you say is relevant, why is it even important? What does it matter to Americans what is occurring in South Africa? Apartheid was not important and colonization is not relevant, so what makes this matter so significant?

Que, you must either be not very old or must not believe in taking responsibility for one's own actions, nationally in this case. I cannot say that I agree with some elements of the old South African government, but at minimum it was a stable country until we took it upon ourselves to jump in with economic sanctions until we strangled them into submission and created an unmitigated disaster. That would appear to be an excellent reason for us to be concerned. Then again, I suppose completely screwing up other countries and walking away leaving the mess has become accepted standard procedure.

 

[Que]

Que, you must either be not very old or must not believe in taking responsibility for one's own actions, nationally in this case. I cannot say that I agree with some elements of the old South African government, but at minimum it was a stable country until we took it upon ourselves to jump in with economic sanctions until we strangled them into submission and created an unmitigated disaster. That would appear to be an excellent reason for us to be concerned. Then again, I suppose completely screwing up other countries and walking away leaving the mess has become accepted standard procedure.

No, I totally believe in individual and group responsibility. But, South Africa was only "stable" in the eyes of those in charge. As I stated before, murder, rape, and everything else happening today, was happening back then. Was it the right thing for America and other countries to get involved? Maybe not, maye so; however, someone believed there was a reason to become concerned. Fast forward to today and there is more reason to be concerned. So, do you believe something should be done or should "concern" be enough? If America messed it up, is there a responsibility to fix it at this point? If so, what should be done?

 

[Phil502]

The first step toward justice is admitting that there is a problem.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, I totally believe in individual and group responsibility. But, South Africa was only "stable" in the eyes of those in charge. As I stated before, murder, rape, and everything else happening today, was happening back then. Was it the right thing for America and other countries to get involved? Maybe not, maye so; however, someone believed there was a reason to become concerned. Fast forward to today and there is more reason to be concerned. So, do you believe something should be done or should "concern" be enough? If America messed it up, is there a responsibility to fix it at this point? If so, what should be done?

A no-brainer of a starting point would be cutting off foreign aid (which had been unnecessary prior to our intervention). How about a little political pressure and restrictions on military hardware (yes, we can veto the Saab Gripens as they use a license-built GE engine) and an open demand for them to live up to the billing they sold us while we were leveraging in their favor. Mandela was the worst mistake we made since supporting Joe Stalin.

 

[jeremy]

Sadly, I think about the only thing that would work to iron out RSAs problems would be to step in with a FULL Military Presence and force an end to the problems with extreme prejudice. Short of that nothing we do will work at all...

Reality sucks doesn't it...

 

[lucky4034]

What comes around goes around.... Maybe the US should step in and mandate that the blacks all get to build Casinos?

 

[Kutnupe14]

A no-brainer of a starting point would be cutting off foreign aid (which had been unnecessary prior to our intervention). How about a little political pressure and restrictions on military hardware (yes, we can veto the Saab Gripens as they use a license-built GE engine) and an open demand for them to live up to the billing they sold us while we were leveraging in their favor. Mandela was the worst mistake we made since supporting Joe Stalin.

Never happen, nor would it ever be considered.... for one reason alone; a simple element used to harden steel called Manganese. The US uses a whole lot, and by keeping RSA in the 'western fold' has influence on who they export to.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Never happen, nor would it ever be considered.... for one reason alone; a simple element used to harden steel called Manganese. The US uses a whole lot, and by keeping RSA in the 'western fold' has influence on who they export to.

It didn't stop us from doing so when the Cold War was still on, so why should it be a problem now?

 

[Kutnupe14]

It didn't stop us from doing so when the Cold War was still on, so why should it be a problem now?

Stop what? The US strongly opposed economic sanctions against S. Africa during the Cold War, they only gave lip service to "Apartheid is bad." It wasn't until the mid 80s that US imposed sanctions that dealt with private business and some nation to nation trade, but we were still a VERY active trading partners. There's no comparison to the "sanctions" imposed on S. Africa compared to say Cuba.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Stop what? The US strongly opposed economic sanctions against S. Africa during the Cold War, they only gave lip service to "Apartheid is bad." It wasn't until the mid 80s that US imposed sanctions that dealt with private business and some nation to nation trade, but we were still a VERY active trading partners. There's no comparison to the "sanctions" imposed on S. Africa compared to say Cuba.

OK, it wasn't as absolute as the absolute trade embargo with Cuba. Beating a person with a blunt instrument generally isn't as serious as shooting them. That said, would you consider it insignificant if I were to begin beating the hell out of your with a pick handle so long as I don't shoot you?