Org Mobile Site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17771455
So what is the root cause of rape in Africa? I know about the "sex with a virgin cures aids" and "Corrective" rape. I am just trying to wrap my head around this whole thing
Originally Posted by :
Rape is endemic in South Africa. This is not a case of the young men being libertines as they adhere to a fairly strict moral code otherwise(or at least pay lip service to one) With the AIDS epedimic sweeping the continent it is clearly in no ones best interest to be having anonyomus sex, much less raping anyone.- South Africa has one of the highest incidence of rape in the world
- 1 in 4 men admit to rape
- More than 56,000 cases of rape were reported in the year ending in March 2011
So what is the root cause of rape in Africa? I know about the "sex with a virgin cures aids" and "Corrective" rape. I am just trying to wrap my head around this whole thing
I don't know, but if we try really hard I am sure we can abjucate them of all responsibility, label them as victims and blame some white people for it. It's kind of like 7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but I call it 7 Degrees of Cracker.
barbarians be barbarians bro
Time for the Afrikaners to get home, there is a totally ignored genocide going on there
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Time for the Afrikaners to get home, there is a totally ignored genocide going on there
Eh??Time for the Afrikaners to get home, there is a totally ignored genocide going on there
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Eh??
White farmers quite regularly are killed by black South Africans. As little as I know about it, it seems that the ANC isn't doing as much against it as they could.Eh??
Racism isn't gone in South-Africa and it goes both ways.
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill:
White farmers quite regularly are killed by black South Africans. As little as I know about it, it seems that the ANC isn't doing as much against it as they could.
Racism isn't gone in South-Africa and it goes both ways.
Could they stop it even if they tried there best, I doubt it to be honest.White farmers quite regularly are killed by black South Africans. As little as I know about it, it seems that the ANC isn't doing as much against it as they could.
Racism isn't gone in South-Africa and it goes both ways.
That rape rate cited is pretty consistent throughout most of Africa. It's not a south African thing, it's an African thing. And Haitian thing. And Brazilian thing. Oh wait.
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
It's not a south African thing, it's an African thing. And Haitian thing. And Brazilian thing. Oh wait.
There comes a point where you have to wonder if it really is due to a thousand and one abstract, unquantifiable factors, or if it's just down to the quality of people.It's not a south African thing, it's an African thing. And Haitian thing. And Brazilian thing. Oh wait.
I didn't expect much more from a country where the President rapes a woman then washes his privates in the shower to protect against AIDS.
I've heard a bit about the situation there from being in contact with Afrikaners through some Reformed Christian forums. All I can say is I hope that the Afrikaner people get their own state because things are taking a really ugly turn there.
I'm starting to think we shouldnt have been in such a rush to let some of them leave the empires. Actually scratch that, we gave them the chance to do thier own thing and some flosrished, though I feel we should have at least interviened when a bunch of them turned into hellholes.
Edit: then again desert storm showed how badly that could go. I dunno, I feel we shouldnt just sit back and watch them crash and burn.
Edit2: Um I'm starting top get that "woefully ignorant about the true facts of the situation" feeling again.
Edit: then again desert storm showed how badly that could go. I dunno, I feel we shouldnt just sit back and watch them crash and burn.
Edit2: Um I'm starting top get that "woefully ignorant about the true facts of the situation" feeling again.
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill:
White farmers quite regularly are killed by black South Africans. As little as I know about it, it seems that the ANC isn't doing as much against it as they could.
Racism isn't gone in South-Africa and it goes both ways.
My Uncle married an Africaner, they're out there right now. I think the consensus where they are is it's more a jealousy thing and a lack of Law and Order rather than an organised genocide.White farmers quite regularly are killed by black South Africans. As little as I know about it, it seems that the ANC isn't doing as much against it as they could.
Racism isn't gone in South-Africa and it goes both ways.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I think the consensus where they are is it's more a jealousy thing and a lack of Law and Order rather than an organised genocide.
I think the consensus where they are is it's more a jealousy thing and a lack of Law and Order rather than an organised genocide.
If your a
Does this mean it is ok that it happens of course not however nor is it proof of large scale genocide.
More likely it is proof of the inability of governments in Africa to truly control there territory and population at large.
Essentially South Africa is a flawed democracy better than most but could do better.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
My Uncle married an Africaner, they're out there right now. I think the consensus where they are is it's more a jealousy thing and a lack of Law and Order rather than an organised genocide.
Yeah, actually this is a universal, in every society and every culture. Extreme inequality (on a local level) leads to a breakdown of order and social fabric. That's why, as a relatively successful lemur, I'm more than happy to pay my bit into the social safety net through property, state and federal taxes. It's insurance for my lifestyle, and for the safety of my family. It's in my selfish interest to not have people living in shacks, desperate for anything they can get.My Uncle married an Africaner, they're out there right now. I think the consensus where they are is it's more a jealousy thing and a lack of Law and Order rather than an organised genocide.
That's probably another discussion, though.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
That's probably another discussion, though.
Clearly, as there are many societies where this is not the case. That depends on the local culture and a host of other factors. The rape culture, as others have pointed out, is particularly strong in Sub-Saharan Africa. It's also down to how a culture identifies itself. I suspect Jamaican "daggering" and etc has something to do with their cultural identity.That's probably another discussion, though.
If you treat people like dogs, don't be surprised when they act like them
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
"daggering"
Interesting..."daggering"
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
If your awhite relatively richer farmer with a nice house a couple of dogs and picket fence yet half a mile up the road is some fella is living in a shack even though he is supposedly "Free" does it surprise anyone these incidents happen.
A lot of Afrikaners live in poverty, they rely on food aid to survive. I wish I had it to hand but there was an article recently on a news site where black South Africans were shown a video of their conditions and they were shocked.If your a
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
If you treat people like dogs, don't be surprised when they act like them
There are a lot of misconceptions about Apartheid.If you treat people like dogs, don't be surprised when they act like them
The reality is black South Africans had not only the highest living standards of any black population in Africa, they also had full political rights within their homelands. The likes of Mandela could only do what they did because they were educated in institutions created and payed for by the white man.
And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British and yet their solution wasn't to mass rape their own people.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British and yet their solution wasn't to mass rape their own people.
I must say that this is a very good observation.And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British and yet their solution wasn't to mass rape their own people.
Originally Posted by :
And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British
I never realy understood that phrase, nowadays we treat dogs almost better than we treat eachother, from what I know about history the ones who weren't tamed were largely ignored and considered a minor nuisance to cityfolk at worst, while the ones that got violent were killed on the spot, usually quickly. Is there some period of widespread dog abuse I'm not aware of?And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British
Originally Posted by rvg:
I must say that this is a very good observation.
No it's not. It's a terribly shallow glossing over of the situation. I must say that this is a very good observation.
That list you gave is absolute trash. That is not where blacks settled themselves in 1913
I have to go to class but when I come back everyone is going to fet a stern talking to
Screw it, I'll do it now.
The British and Boers were mutually antagonistic to eachother. This culminated in the Boer wars. I would like to see how Boer treatment equates with that of Africans considering the Boers were able to settle up country, out of the cape and aparthied is the brain child of the Boers. The war was brutal but it was not a systematic dienfrnachisement like that of aprthied. South Africas early history is all about British-Boer power brokering. The Boers were equal in that sense.
The British cape colony extended voting rights to civilized property holding blacks, and by all accounts treated them with much less parentelism than the Boers. After the union the British and Boers came together. Due to some brilliant political manuvering by Smuts he was able to keep the more hardline Boers and Brits together and after the second war Malan was able to rally the groups around the symbolism of white Africa.
Aparthied was the bastard brain child of the Calvanist themed Dutch reformed church and it's archeticts are almost wholly Boers themselves. It is the price Brits paid for alliance during the war and remaining in the commonwealth (until the republic of course) Boers also held allot of the land, and the Brits ever being the pragmatists realized they would have to work with them.
On the other hand the Africans were seperated and marginilized to the worst farmland (in part helped by traditional African chiefs whom saw their traditonal power being chipped away by the ANCs calls for democratazation)
It has become en vouge for the self styled polmec to point to high living standards of South Africa and equate it with the benovlence of white rule. Completely ignoring the speical status and lucrative trade contracts South Africa was able to obtain from the UK and later the US as a peice in the later cold war.
So yea the Boers and the Brits fought a war but they were also the most politically enfranchised groups in Southern Africa. The Brits may have killed their fair share of Boers but in peacetime it was more haggiling than jackboots
Your source is a peice of trash
The British and Boers were mutually antagonistic to eachother. This culminated in the Boer wars. I would like to see how Boer treatment equates with that of Africans considering the Boers were able to settle up country, out of the cape and aparthied is the brain child of the Boers. The war was brutal but it was not a systematic dienfrnachisement like that of aprthied. South Africas early history is all about British-Boer power brokering. The Boers were equal in that sense.
The British cape colony extended voting rights to civilized property holding blacks, and by all accounts treated them with much less parentelism than the Boers. After the union the British and Boers came together. Due to some brilliant political manuvering by Smuts he was able to keep the more hardline Boers and Brits together and after the second war Malan was able to rally the groups around the symbolism of white Africa.
Aparthied was the bastard brain child of the Calvanist themed Dutch reformed church and it's archeticts are almost wholly Boers themselves. It is the price Brits paid for alliance during the war and remaining in the commonwealth (until the republic of course) Boers also held allot of the land, and the Brits ever being the pragmatists realized they would have to work with them.
On the other hand the Africans were seperated and marginilized to the worst farmland (in part helped by traditional African chiefs whom saw their traditonal power being chipped away by the ANCs calls for democratazation)
It has become en vouge for the self styled polmec to point to high living standards of South Africa and equate it with the benovlence of white rule. Completely ignoring the speical status and lucrative trade contracts South Africa was able to obtain from the UK and later the US as a peice in the later cold war.
So yea the Boers and the Brits fought a war but they were also the most politically enfranchised groups in Southern Africa. The Brits may have killed their fair share of Boers but in peacetime it was more haggiling than jackboots
Your source is a peice of trash
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
If your awhite relatively richer farmer with a nice house a couple of dogs and picket fence yet half a mile up the road is some fella is living in a shack even though he is supposedly "Free" does it surprise anyone these incidents happen.
Does this mean it is ok that it happens of course not however nor is it proof of large scale genocide.
More likely it is proof of the inability of governments in Africa to truly control there territory and population at large.
Essentially South Africa is a flawed democracy better than most but could do better.
Currently, SA is a de facto One Party State.If your a
Does this mean it is ok that it happens of course not however nor is it proof of large scale genocide.
More likely it is proof of the inability of governments in Africa to truly control there territory and population at large.
Essentially South Africa is a flawed democracy better than most but could do better.
20 years of Political dominance by the ANC has bread graft and corruption.
As the ANC is always elected they have no motivation to actually make the reforms necessary to improve the living standards of the poorest. The only well run areas are the ones the ANC doesn't control.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
A lot of Afrikaners live in poverty, they rely on food aid to survive. I wish I had it to hand but there was an article recently on a news site where black South Africans were shown a video of their conditions and they were shocked.
There are a lot of misconceptions about Apartheid.
The reality is black South Africans had not only the highest living standards of any black population in Africa, they also had full political rights within their homelands. The likes of Mandela could only do what they did because they were educated in institutions created and payed for by the white man.
And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British and yet their solution wasn't to mass rape their own people.
Both right and wrong, right about the poor whites, wrong about Aparteid.A lot of Afrikaners live in poverty, they rely on food aid to survive. I wish I had it to hand but there was an article recently on a news site where black South Africans were shown a video of their conditions and they were shocked.
There are a lot of misconceptions about Apartheid.
The reality is black South Africans had not only the highest living standards of any black population in Africa, they also had full political rights within their homelands. The likes of Mandela could only do what they did because they were educated in institutions created and payed for by the white man.
And the Boers were treated worse than dogs by the British and yet their solution wasn't to mass rape their own people.
Mandela was educated during British rule, post British rule education for blacks fell off sharply with the result that as the population ages the literacy rate is actually falling.
I'll see if I can find the report later.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
:snip:
Dang, if he's like this just by being sober, I'd hate to see Strike angry.:snip:
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Dang, if he's like this just by being sober, I'd hate to see Strike angry.
I'm thinking bear hugs. Lots of bear hugs and bad breath.Dang, if he's like this just by being sober, I'd hate to see Strike angry.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Screw it, I'll do it now.
The British and Boers were mutually antagonistic to eachother. This culminated in the Boer wars. I would like to see how Boer treatment equates with that of Africans considering the Boers were able to settle up country, out of the cape and aparthied is the brain child of the Boers. The war was brutal but it was not a systematic dienfrnachisement like that of aprthied. South Africas early history is all about British-Boer power brokering. The Boers were equal in that sense.
The British cape colony extended voting rights to civilized property holding blacks, and by all accounts treated them with much less parentelism than the Boers. After the union the British and Boers came together. Due to some brilliant political manuvering by Smuts he was able to keep the more hardline Boers and Brits together and after the second war Malan was able to rally the groups around the symbolism of white Africa.
Aparthied was the bastard brain child of the Calvanist themed Dutch reformed church and it's archeticts are almost wholly Boers themselves. It is the price Brits paid for alliance during the war and remaining in the commonwealth (until the republic of course) Boers also held allot of the land, and the Brits ever being the pragmatists realized they would have to work with them.
On the other hand the Africans were seperated and marginilized to the worst farmland (in part helped by traditional African chiefs whom saw their traditonal power being chipped away by the ANCs calls for democratazation)
It has become en vouge for the self styled polmec to point to high living standards of South Africa and equate it with the benovlence of white rule. Completely ignoring the speical status and lucrative trade contracts South Africa was able to obtain from the UK and later the US as a peice in the later cold war.
So yea the Boers and the Brits fought a war but they were also the most politically enfranchised groups in Southern Africa. The Brits may have killed their fair share of Boers but in peacetime it was more haggiling than jackboots
Your source is a peice of trash
The historic narrative with the British/Boer power haggling doesn't change the fact that the Boers were rounded up into what were effectively concentration camps and suffered mass casualties.Screw it, I'll do it now.
The British and Boers were mutually antagonistic to eachother. This culminated in the Boer wars. I would like to see how Boer treatment equates with that of Africans considering the Boers were able to settle up country, out of the cape and aparthied is the brain child of the Boers. The war was brutal but it was not a systematic dienfrnachisement like that of aprthied. South Africas early history is all about British-Boer power brokering. The Boers were equal in that sense.
The British cape colony extended voting rights to civilized property holding blacks, and by all accounts treated them with much less parentelism than the Boers. After the union the British and Boers came together. Due to some brilliant political manuvering by Smuts he was able to keep the more hardline Boers and Brits together and after the second war Malan was able to rally the groups around the symbolism of white Africa.
Aparthied was the bastard brain child of the Calvanist themed Dutch reformed church and it's archeticts are almost wholly Boers themselves. It is the price Brits paid for alliance during the war and remaining in the commonwealth (until the republic of course) Boers also held allot of the land, and the Brits ever being the pragmatists realized they would have to work with them.
On the other hand the Africans were seperated and marginilized to the worst farmland (in part helped by traditional African chiefs whom saw their traditonal power being chipped away by the ANCs calls for democratazation)
It has become en vouge for the self styled polmec to point to high living standards of South Africa and equate it with the benovlence of white rule. Completely ignoring the speical status and lucrative trade contracts South Africa was able to obtain from the UK and later the US as a peice in the later cold war.
So yea the Boers and the Brits fought a war but they were also the most politically enfranchised groups in Southern Africa. The Brits may have killed their fair share of Boers but in peacetime it was more haggiling than jackboots
Your source is a peice of trash
I think that it is strange that you can say black South Africans were "treated worse than dogs" with the conditions they had under Apartheid, and then with a straight face tell me that for all the Boers endured it was "more haggling than jackboots".
Also despite your emphasis on Apartheid being a brainchild of the Boers, I don't think I ever suggested otherwise. If it was meant to be implicit that this was somehow denouncing the Boers when I've been defending them, well then it's a bit redundant as a point since I was defending Apartheid itself.
Regarding the high quality of life of black South Africans, I don't believe I ever attributed that to white rule. My point was simply that for them to have enjoyed such a relatively good standard of life, they can't have been treated that badly.
Of course financial growth can go hand in hand with political oppression. But when it comes to political rights, like I said blacks had their homelands where they had their own political system and even defence forces. They were actually recognised as sovereign nations by the South African government. Although only a couple like Swaziland and Lesotho happened to be recognised by the British.
So the only point really addressing an example of black oppression is the one about the 1913 Native Land Act. Now, I know history isn't all, well... black and white. That Act did store up a lot of problems for black South Africans given the rapid population growth they would experience. And the white government failed to keep their promises to the black people to expand the borders they could hold land in.
But I don't think the intent was so malicious when the Act was passed, it was I believe actually supported by some black politicians and liberal white ones. The 7% figure people like to throw about is very misleading given that a large portion of the landmass was desert or semi-desert. Not to mention the fact that it was only actually enforced in the Orange, Transvaal and Natal areas (since it was unconstitutional in Cape-Colony).
Maybe it's just so simple that some people miss it, but the reality of inequality in South Africa is surely just down to the vast difference in the level of advancement that the different peoples in the area had. Black South Africans live in shacks just like the rest of black Africans white rule or not. The Boers brought civlization and they continue to enjoy it.
Which is not to say that some level of oppression did not take place. It looks like a tough topic to me, it's quite complicated stuff. But from what I've gathered so far it seems like the wickedness of the Apartheid regime is quite notably overstated.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
There are a lot of misconceptions about Apartheid.
I dug a little deeper on the website and found this mission statement.There are a lot of misconceptions about Apartheid.
Originally Posted by :
Our mission is three-fold:
1. To provide a forum and community of like-minded Christians who seek the preservation of their descendants in the lands of their ancestors, and who have not acquiesced to the contemporary idols of Cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, equality, and the heretical social gospel;
2. To influence and encourage debate, theological, cultural, and otherwise, within our denominations to dislodge and discredit the current unfortunate monolithic Marxist multiculturalism of the institutional churches; and
3. To evangelize and encourage those, among the most noble of our people, who have been alienated by the Church’s treasonous behavior towards their own homelands and people and thus drifted from the faith of their forefathers.
Our mission is three-fold:
1. To provide a forum and community of like-minded Christians who seek the preservation of their descendants in the lands of their ancestors, and who have not acquiesced to the contemporary idols of Cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, equality, and the heretical social gospel;
2. To influence and encourage debate, theological, cultural, and otherwise, within our denominations to dislodge and discredit the current unfortunate monolithic Marxist multiculturalism of the institutional churches; and
3. To evangelize and encourage those, among the most noble of our people, who have been alienated by the Church’s treasonous behavior towards their own homelands and people and thus drifted from the faith of their forefathers.
When I read it at first I thought it was just your standard evangelical paranoia about liberals etc etc except that it's not really is it.
Some good ole boy is hosting this website an it strikes me that this person whoever they are is close enough to Breviktown if you ask me.
Who Does America Belong To?
Alienism and Marxism in Complete Agreement
American Indians are a Social Construct
A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism
All I can say is I am shocked at how well put together this pile crypto-racism is
tis almost cogent an nearly makes a warped sense.
I can see now how easy it was to be codded by it all now for the Boers.Till I read this bit on the about us tab on the website that is About Faith & Heritage Webzine
Originally Posted by :
We affirm that all men, of every race, ethnicity, and tribe, are created in the image of God. However, this common humanity does not mean that all groups are equal in every respect, just as two brothers can share a common family but be blessed by Providence with vastly differing talents and abilities. We affirm that many of these differences have genetic components and thank God for the diversity of mankind.
We affirm that all attempts to amalgamate humans into one mixed mass are in open rebellion against God’s law and His sovereignly created boundaries.
It goes on an on but tis pretty obvious this is a henious website subtle about it but no less dangerous for it.We affirm that all men, of every race, ethnicity, and tribe, are created in the image of God. However, this common humanity does not mean that all groups are equal in every respect, just as two brothers can share a common family but be blessed by Providence with vastly differing talents and abilities. We affirm that many of these differences have genetic components and thank God for the diversity of mankind.
We affirm that all attempts to amalgamate humans into one mixed mass are in open rebellion against God’s law and His sovereignly created boundaries.
Bravo Rhy you had me going there for a while earlier on, where did you find that website it's a hoot.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
they also had full political rights within their homelands.
The only reason the concept of homelands existed during apartheid was to serve as a pretext to deny them South African citizenship, and therefore the same services and political rights that whites had acces to. Many of them actually had SA citizenship at some point, only to be rebranded as foreigners and guest workers. Kind of similar to the "seperate but equal" nonsense in the USA.they also had full political rights within their homelands.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Some good ole boy is hosting this website an it strikes me that this person whoever they are is close enough to Breviktown if you ask me.
Wow. Is this the new Godwin's law? It you wanted to make wild accusations against anybody remotely right-wing, they used to be called Nazi's. ABB seems to be taking over that mantle. Some good ole boy is hosting this website an it strikes me that this person whoever they are is close enough to Breviktown if you ask me.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
All I can say is I am shocked at how well put together this pile crypto-racism is tis almost cogent an nearly makes a warped sense. I can see now how easy it was to be codded by it all now for the Boers.
It is very well put together, isn't it.All I can say is I am shocked at how well put together this pile crypto-racism is tis almost cogent an nearly makes a warped sense. I can see now how easy it was to be codded by it all now for the Boers.
Of course their views are ones a lot of people are uncomfortable with. So the fact that what they say is coherent, structured and researched only proves how wicked and cunning they are, rather than suggesting they might have a point.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Bravo Rhy you had me going there for a while earlier on, where did you find that website it's a hoot.
They did a couple of organised debates with the guys over at the PuritanBoard, which is a hardline Calvinist yet non-racist and fairly mainstream site.Bravo Rhy you had me going there for a while earlier on, where did you find that website it's a hoot.
They would come under the banner of Kinism, it's not extremist at all, from the wiki:
"Parnell McCarter called Kinism "the wrong solution to the real problem" of a "multi-cultural, multi-civilization nation."[15] Jonathan Barlow said Kinism is "defining salvation down" with "racial fatalism", but unlike the Christian Identity movement, which he states is effectively another religion, Kinism is heterodox Christian sect"
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Could they stop it even if they tried there best, I doubt it to be honest.
40.000 killed by nowCould they stop it even if they tried there best, I doubt it to be honest.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO