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.”
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!
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.
I don’t want the US to run it, and I don’t want the US to pay for it either. Ever since Coleman Young ran whites out of Detroit-explicitly-blacks have run that city. Now they want YT to send more taxpayers’ hard-earned money to support it, but no YTs to have a say in how that money is spent. Same with Birmingham, New Orleans (the “Chocolate City”), Atlanta, and on. YT is to have no representation, just the taxation. Atlanta even pitched a fit when whites fled to create Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, etc-slapped a lawsuit on the hosts for being so bold as to escape the parasites-thankfully lost it. YT can go die, as long as we leave the fruits of our labor behind. Nope, you (rhetorical you) want all the say, you can pay for it too.
The interior of South Africa, until the late 1800s, was ruled by a series of black chiefs including Shaka, Mozilikaze, Mantatasi, Dingaan etc who were all blood crazed killers who wiped out entire tribes in their quest for the cattle and women belonging to their neighbours.
In those happy times the value of a woman was measured in terms of a few cows, as it still is.
The colonialism and apartheid that followed was infinitely better than Shaka’s butchery and was a tiny blink in the history of stagnant black Africa.
the ANC could have made further improvements but they were only concerned with power and loot.
The money stolen and wasted on the presidential Nkandla compound alone could have built houses for some 12 000 families.
I also don't support dumping large amounts of money as aid in countries that are poorly run, without conditions attached.