Is this the way to tackle injustices?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36381572
What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Is this the way to tackle injustices?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36381572
Last edited by Gilrandir; 05-29-2016 at 06:36.
Originally Posted by Suraknar
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Good luck with that, it takes a lot of expertise to grow crops, and let's face it, white farmers have it.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
No surprise given that they forcefully prevented the others from acquiring it for decades.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
We will talk of retaliation again?
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
No, just making sure that one side is not eternally favoured based on a crime.
If someone acquires something during a criminal act, do they always get to keep it?
Or are we arguing now that the Apartheid and everything done under it was technically legal and therefore everything is perfectly fine now?
Why did Germany not get to keep what it conquered in WW1?
Last edited by Husar; 05-29-2016 at 16:33.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Because it lost the war.
For all we know, the people(s) that inhabited South Africa when Europeans came could have genocided/expelled previous populations living there (who in turn could have genocided/expelled yet earlier populations), meaning that the land wasn't "theirs" in the first place. That's not even considering the ethics of claiming uninhabited land for yourself.
All to say that it is not necessarily as black and white as you present it, and that lots of evidence of 'crimes' may be missing because they happened during times where little or no history was recorded.
Runes for good luck:
[1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
We should have returned the boers to holland, they had developed too much bad blood with the native africans and were too proud to shed the identity and become British. When they were granted independance the fear of retaliation fueled the continued oppression of the black population, fears that were legitimized in their eyes with the fall of Rhodesia.
That blood defines the dynamic between whites and blacks in south africa, through its history a large scale retaliation against the whites have only been averted through the brutality of apartheid and later the influence of (and respect for the ideas of) Mandela, whose ability to forgive was, I believe, borderline messianic.
Now Mandela is dead we can only hope that the cultural memory of arpartheid fades faster than the influence of Mandela lest they risk ending up with Mugabe 2.0. Considering that repatriation is what Mugabe did and largely responsible for the famines zimbabwe faced, Mandela is likely spinning in his fresh grave.
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-29-2016 at 18:17.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
You can say that without being unfair, but look at Zimbawe, used to be rich
@Greyblades, it doesn't really is an an incentive to become brittish if you are put into a concentration-camp. I think most ex-Dutch would love to come back to the Netherlands really. Not sure where this is going. The Boers have a pretty good reason to dislike the Brittish, and vica versa. Welcome back anyway in the Netherlands as far as I care.
Last edited by Fragony; 05-30-2016 at 07:57.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Yes we should have let them stay to starve with thier burning farms instead of attempting to keep them alive by putting them at the mercies of 19th century logistics and sanitation.
The boers started a war they could not win to protect their right to deny their utilanders the vote and right to treat their black neighbours bad enough to make 19th century europe cringe. They died in those camps because their leaders decided to wage a guerilla campaign beyond the point of sanity.
The standard response to guerilla tactincs was scorched earth, it was British sensibilities that put the civillians into camps to prevent them all starving and when the civillians started to succumb to camp diseases the boers kept fighting the hopeless war regardless. When the British stopped admitting new boers into the camps due to public outcry back home at their condition the guerillas found they now had to provide for their own people. They promptly surrendered.
The boers were not the jews and the british were not the nazis, no matter how much the current post colonial thought might wish you to think so.
Last edited by Greyblades; 05-30-2016 at 13:01.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks