Mentally Retarded Girl Gang Raped In South Africa. n Other News Sky Is Blue

[Vladimir]

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.

[Strike For The South]

If you treat people like dogs, don't be surprised when they act like them

[Rhyfelwyr]

If your a white 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 you treat people like dogs, don't be surprised when they act like them

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Strike For The South]

I must say that this is a very good observation.

No it's not. It's a terribly shallow glossing over of the situation.

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

[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

[Greyblades]

:snip:

Dang, if he's like this just by being sober, I'd hate to see Strike angry.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

[Greyblades]

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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If your a white 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.

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.

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.

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

There are a lot of misconceptions about Apartheid.

I dug a little deeper on the website and found this mission statement.

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

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.

Bravo Rhy you had me going there for a while earlier on, where did you find that website it's a hoot.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

[Kralizec]

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.

[Kralizec]

"daggering"

Interesting...