Posted on 03/02/2018 2:42:14 PM PST by Trump20162020
What Bible is that?
Exodus 34:7 He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations. (From this week's Torah portion, if fact!)
ML/NJ
Whites settled there hundreds of years ago and while much of the country was unformed and deserted by Western terms, there were native tribes with a claim to the area. The tribes were either defeated in battle and then exploited or held under the aparteid laws.
The whites who stayed after the end of white rule and hoped for reconciliation of the races had the experiment of several African states who ultimately failed at integration and reconciliation.
This new step is was probably an inevitable result of the hopes for a bi-racial society. S. Africa will revert to entirely black populations and the whites, no matter how long they have been there and have illusions of S. Africa being their homeland should leave asap before things worsen.
Beginning in the 1940s?
Both sides need a reality check.
Ezekiel 18:20 King James Version (KJV)
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
The VAST MAJORITY OF THAT LAND WAS WITHOUT PEOPLE OF ANY TYPE prior to the arrival of the whites--and had been so for as long as anyone could tell.
Yes indeed.
Ok. Let’s play this game.
That was my understanding, as well.
For some P.C. reason, we are supposed to accept the belief that the African continent (at least the sub-Saharan) region is reserved for melanin rich (dark skinned) people.
South Africa was uninhabited, and fairly barren. A few bushmen lived in the area, however those aren't the people claiming the land today. The Boers and English developed the land. They planted the trees, and developed the agriculture. When it became a rich land, the tribes from the Lake Victoria area moved in.
All of that is 'ok', but the Melanin impoverished South African natives have a better stake to the land than do the people who moved in after its development.
Hopefully we don't sell them out at the PC altar, as 'we' (Jimmy Carter actually. America's first America hating (and American ally hating) President) did to Rhodesia.
Two people in the entirety of the first page know the facts. The Bushmen were driven off, the whites will be driven off, then in 100 years the Cape will be desolate or Chinese controlled.
The entire sad story was a dry run on what they want to do with North America. Guest workers become the oppressed, become the terrorists, then the political prisoners, on to oppressors. All non-whites will run the whites out here if we allow them to. JMO, but SA was once a leader in a great many fields, including medicine and a great ally of America.
That’s exactly the same story I’ve read over & over.
Black Africans were never in that area until Whitey developed it. Then they came is as illegal alien invaders.
I wonder if there are many whites left who think minority status will be no big deal?
“Before whites, no one lived in South Africa. It was only after white settlement that tribesmen migrated from the north to South Africa for jobs.”
You got that nonsense from where?
While true enough the African tribes in South Africa had less productive abilities and organizations than those from Europe who built colonies there, it is nonsense to pretend they were not even there until after the colonists arrived. No unbiased and independent history of the region would claim that.
Angela should go live in the new black paradise....
Ironic that they do all of what you posted - BUT....
still take in those Federal & State Dollars paid for by white folks.
When that money trail runs out, they die. And they should know that too.
I certainly don’t want to argue with someone whose screen name looks a lot like van der Kerk! But I should clarify my statement. Yes, there were nomadic Bushmen in the region, but the Bantus who are now running the country and claim to own the far south and central areas were not dispossessed of it by the Boers. The Boers got there first and moved northward into Bantu regions.
I’m Sorry, but White settlers are what brought the industry to South Africa. Mining, Farming, Civilization. Where would Africa be if it had not been for white settlers? ....about 2000 years behind.
Clearly a context is needed. The Ezekiel passage is about times of drastic chastisement on the nation from external forces — the urgency of decision. The Exodus passage is about affairs in the nation when it’s business as usual — generational sin.
If the conditions on the Ezekiel passage were like that of the Exodus passage, nobody could repent and be saved as a result of beholding the scene and learning from it.
And yet, the settlers may not have been spiritually serious enough to grapple with what came with Africa. Had they to do it over, they would have insisted on evangelizing guest populations.
You should do some homework. read Washing of the Spears about the original settlers in South Africa (White)moving north meeting original settlers in Natal (Black Bantu) moving south.
Surrounded as they are and with no law, I dont think any of us would want to live that way
Slaughters of SF farmers and their families have been particularly brutal and inhuman
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.