The first inhabitant of South Africa.
Posted on 04/13/2013 12:29:08 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Few South Africans have the moral stature of retired archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who campaigned against apartheid and now laments the crime and inequality that plague the nation two decades after it cast off racist white rule.
"We can't pretend we have remained at the same heights and that's why I say please, for goodness' sake, recover the spirit that made us great," Tutu said. "Very simply, we are aware we've become one of the most violent societies. It's not what we were, even under apartheid."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Whites are always to blame in the eyes of black political agitators. Though Tutu (who preveiously called for a white tax) admits that South Africa is worse now under black rule both violence-wise and economically, Tutu still blames South Africa’s problems on the “legacy of apartheid” even though blacks have rules for twenty years now.
We see the same in America with Detroit being a perfect microcosm. When whites fled the wave of violence that came with the 1967 riot and black mayor Coleman Yound taking power in Detroit in the 70s, whites were blamed for the wave of crime and fledling economy that followed because whites left city and took their tax money with them. Recently when the state of Michigan wanted to appoint an emergency financial manager to help bailout Detroit, Detroit’s black leaders (and Jesse Jackson) agrgued that white intereference in Detroit was racist.
Literally, in both America and South Africa, whites are blamed for black poverty and crime when whites are in power and when whites are not in power. And whites are to blame when whites self-segregate, when blacks self-segregate, and when both are integratated.
Why doesn’t some politician have the stones to call these agitators on their obvious BS? Just tell them the truth — people create their communities. If there is more violence and poverty among certain communities it’s because that’s what those communities create for themselves. Apparently, in South Africa, in America, and in points between.
Well, well. The old Marxist revolutionary might actually make himself worthy of all the acclaim he’s received. He’s being honest regarding a very difficult topic, for himself in particular.
Watch the left agitate against him now, though. This is what they want. They’ve wrought it elsewhere and continue to support it. Why should South Africa be any different?
If America serves as any example, black South African leadership will be blaming whites for their self-inflicted problems for at least the next 150 years.
So. What. if African nations aren’t “well-run and properous?”
It’s THEIR continent. It was stolen by European colonists... And the history of European rule of Africa, gold mines and farms notwithstanding, is shameful.
Of course they threw off their overlords when the opportunity presented itself. Who wouldn’t?
I don’t understand the logic of Americans who defend theft and subjugation of other people and nations on the grounds that other people can run it better.
It’s the same logic that brought us the Kelo decision: “If we think we can make more money by giving your property to others, we’ll just take it — at gunpoint.”
Marxists don't like that.
Gee. That's exactly what Mugabe did to the white people!
But according to you, blacks are inferior and can't be held to the same standards as everyone else.
But just because you believe blacks are inferior does not make you a racist! And anyone who says it does is RACIST!
"We can't pretend we have remained at the same heights and that's why I say please, for goodness' sake, recover the spirit that made us great... Very simply, we are aware we've become one of the most violent societies. It's not what we were, even under apartheid."..."It's almost as if decades of our violent gangland-style rampage to overthrow the Boers prefigured the situation today."
The issue was and is purely the race of the rulers, which is deemed wrong in the instance of South Africa because the majority population was being ruled by a minority. This is the opposite of the United States, in which continued majority rule by the majority population was deemed wrong and minority rule encouraged. Forgive me for getting the impression that perhaps the whole thing, in both instances, is a racially based distaste for a certain group in power, with majority rule or minority rule not mattering one iota.
What has you saying “so what” like Hillary Clinton is a recipe for an endless series of wars, reprisals and ethnic cleansings far worse than anything yet seen in the modern era. The only reason might hasn't made right recently is the acquiescence of the mighty.
Such voluntary surrendering of might has seldom been the case in recorded history, and regardless of who is in power it certainly won't always be the case. Not every conquered group given the reins of power out of a sense of guilt on the part of their conquerors is going to be better. Most will be worse as we've seen.
The amazing thing about South Africa to me is that it had very little black African population when the Boers first came and settled there. Bushmen, nomadic. Very few others. Their success in building a prosperous country led to more or less refugees from other parts of the continent, and they were permitted to remain. They were not conquered, and they subjected themselves to apartheid by going there.
The Afrikaners were stupid enough to hand over the entire country of South Africa on a silver platter to ANC. Would we ever see the Israelis do the same thing with Hamas?
The template for doing so as well as some of the likely consequence is right there in South Africa, if they ever decide to do so. They’re under pressure to do it and have been for decades, another similarity. My understanding of scriptural prophecy says they will do it, and it will turn out even worse.
In retrospect, there should have been a deal to hand over most of South Africa to ANC, while making Cape Town an independent city-state (from the Republic of South Africa) with an Afrikaner majority.
“The amazing thing about South Africa to me is that it had very little black African population when the Boers first came and settled there. Bushmen, nomadic”
A myth propagated by the thieves who stole it.
“Gee. That’s exactly what Mugabe did to the white people!”
If somebody hot wires the car you stole six months ago, um... I don’t care.
To whom does “it” belong, Blue Ink? Name them specifically. No abstractions please.
I KNEW it!!!
That might have slowed the decline, but ceding territory would ultimately only encourage the original objective. I’m convinced that the left used the language and sentiment of the US civil rights movement to throw Africa into war and famine intentionally. They continue to use it there and elsewhere. They’re Malthusians and nihilists. They want the population of the world greatly reduced. This is but one means to that end.
The Afrikaners did not encounter the Bantu (African) tribes until they went on the Great Trek in the 19th Century.
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.