I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you but there is a certain level of hypocrisy in your last several posts that I find a little hard to accept.
I guess the question I have is, why is it a problem when done in SA but its not a problem when done elsewhere.
Things occured in Sierra Leone, Burundi and not to mention Rwanda That were so incredibly inhumane and horrific it begs the question of why werent they ever reported to the extent that the internal politics of SA were? Maybe the difference is because it wasnt whites that were responsible for the ethnic violence. The underlying message seems to be, if it happens somewhere in Africa no matter how horrid, oppressive or inhumane, if it doesnt involve whites being responsible it needs to be either A) ignored or B) quietly swept under the carpet.
How many people of whatever political background do you know that can honestly raise their hands and name the factions involved in that unfortunate episode? Not many Im sure. Yet Human Rights Watch a non profit group estimates that up to 1.5 million people may have been killed in that conflict, with thousands of acres of land stolen from their owners, and millions more forced into becoming second class citizens (with literally no rights whatsoever) of the regime that took power.
Its also interesting to note that many areas in SA werent even occupied by blacks at the time of the Voortrek. Many land purchases and agreements coincided.
Immediately after the close of the apartheid system which was not only a black/white issue, but was also intended to ensure the relative peace and cooperation of the rival tribal factions. The tribal areas immediately resumed their decades old rivalrys and fighting. For better or worse, despite all its flaws the seperation actually may have stopped the violence. With no borders between the groups, they ravaged each other ceaselessly.
I think what happened is similar to other circumstances. For whatever reason the whites prospered and the blacks did not. Was this the result of "oppression"? thats a difficult question. The only answer I have is-maybe. But if thats the case, then the question needs to be asked, why did the surrounding black ruled african countries not prosper either? Why were countries like Zimbabwe and SA consistently productive, relatively safe from strife, and industrialized whereas virtually every single country in sub-saharan africa outside of those two remained un-industrialized, uneducated and plagued with massive social upheaval and the endless bloody slaughter of its own citizens.
I think your view may be overly simplistic and in fact, borders on the naive. And some further insight into the history of the country and the entire area may be warranted.
Yes, the whites brought great prosperity to the region. But they kept it all to themselves, even though they earned a lot of it by putting the blacks to work for them. And they refused to allow blacks to join them in their society, and have an equal shot at attaining that wealth. If they had, SA and Rhodesia (it would still be Rhodesia) would be the bulwark of sanity in Africa, feeding much of the continent, propping up good rulers, removing bad ones... things would be very different if the Boers and English hadn't been so racist.
And the Soviet Union.