“How is having more rights essentially meaningless to you?”
If you’re South African and can’t vote in your own country’s elections, can’t travel freely, can’t get a passport, can’t work jobs or go to schools or buy land or buy a house except in “appropriate” racially designated areas, then you have no rights worth speaking about. Next you’ll be telling me how great ghetto life was for Jews.
“Do you not give South Africans any credit for building up that country to what it became?”
Yes. That changes nothing, however. “The Nazis built great roads” is not an argument.
“Why did Blacks continue to migrate into South Africa in spite of “White rule”?”
Why did large numbers of Europeans migrate into Nazi Germany after the beginning of the war - by choice no less? Because the economy of Nazi Germany was larger than that in Lithuania, or France, or Italy, or Bulgaria. South Africa had a thriving economy. Even states with evil, inhuman policies can have thriving economies. China does.
Your statement shows a total ignorance, perhaps deliberate for ideological reasons, but ignorance of the ethnic & historical realities of the South African sub-continent.
Have you ever been to South Africa? If you had you might appreciate the difference between the concept of a nation, and the borders drawn by the former Colonial power. The various nations of South Africa--for they are various nations--have different racial origins, to be sure. They also have different languages, and even radically different types of native architecture. The idea--now in practice of having a common voter role may appear to be idealistic to you--and certainly it appeals to those seeking a World Government;--but it effectively undermines the continuity of all those distinct nations.
Now, for example, are you aware of how the Indaba institution was applied by the Zulu Monarchy? It is a form of Democracy, but not one with much in common with the practices in a New England Town Meeting.
Apartheid has been grossly misrepresented by the Internationalists in the Western Media. It was basically intended to reverse the lumping of those distinct Nations together by the former Colonial power, and was never fully implemented because of industry's desire for cheap labor. But some of the programs that were implemented were shortly followed by similar programs in the United States, that also--as in South Africa--provided incentives to locate industry where it would be most convenient to non-White populations. In any event, it was not intended to hold any group back; rather premised on the very Conservative position that people were entitled to build on their own cultural heritage, rather than be homogenized in the way sought by the "diversity" cult in American Academia.
The Whites are not the only victims of what has been happening in Africa, of course. The same mentality that assailed South Africa in the 1960s through 1990, also denied ethnic rights to the Christian Ibos in Nigeria; to Tshombe's tribe in Katanga in the former Belgian Congo. The attack is on any tribe or nation, of any race, that would opt out of the pursuit of a new world order.
They also went to school and college( HOW ELSE COULD NELSON MANDELA GET A LAW DEGREE ? ), own property, and held jobs and not just menial ones, long before Apartheid was ever installed and after it had been.
You neither know anything much, that is factual, about that nation and its history, but you are rabidly ignorant and proud of the falsities that you continue to post.
All media is state owned there; even with that kind of censorship, with blacks now running the newspapers, in the second year of Mandela's reign.....the papers had 1/2 front page high headlines of :"BRING BACK APARTHEID NOW!". This was NOT sanctioned, it was NOT written nor begun by whites of any background, but rather, was a reaction to how bad things were then and things have only gotten far better as the years have passed.
It would behoove you to not comment on tropics you don't know nor understand.