Can only whites be racists and is Africa no place for whites?

Can only whites be racists and oppressors? Are whites out of place in Africa?

  • Only white people can be racists and opressors

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not only white people can be racists and opressors

    Votes: 26 74.3%
  • Africa is no place for whites - they should all leave

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Africa is a place for its inhabitants regardless their skin colour

    Votes: 27 77.1%
  • The structure of land and capital ownership should fit racial, ethnic, religious ratio of populace

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • The structure of land, capital ownership doesn't have to fit racial, ethnic, religious ratio

    Votes: 17 48.6%
  • No action should be taken regarding the land ownership in South Africa

    Votes: 5 14.3%
  • A non-state organisation should be established for buying land and distributing it among black popul

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • The state should confiscate the land and distribute it among black people with full compensation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The state should cofiscate the land and distribute it among black people with partial compensation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The state should confiscate the land and distribute it among black people without compensations

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • The state should confiscate the land and make its ownership according to racial ratio - full compens

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • The state should confiscate the land and distribute it according to the racial ratio - partial compe

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • The state should confiscate the land and distribute it according to the racial ratio - no compensati

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I like frogs.

    Votes: 15 42.9%

  • Total voters
    35
I met "commies" in my life, didn't see anything particularly wrong with them. There are a-holes as well as nice people in any part of political spectrum, except far right.

Red Elk what's Russia's refugee policies
We accept refugees suffered from New Zealand inhuman regime, of course. :)

Tell Putin we can engineer some good cheeses and wine. Tank design we suck at.
Don't worry about it, if you move to Russia no matter what you design you'll always end up getting tank or rocket.
 
Please quote for me a historical example where forced land redistribution to redress old injustices was actually a successful policy and not a catastrophe? My comprehensive and expansive knowledge of world history is having a hard time digging one up. And this question goes for @Senethro, @Gorbles, @Cloud_Strife, @Lexicus, and @MaryKB, as well.

There have been many countries that have carried out land reform successfully including most countries in Latin America and North Korea (N Korea's land reform prior to the Korean War is why the North avoided the peasant insurgencies that nearly caused the government in the South to fall apart).

I would not deny that many attempts have ended in catastrophe, but I think that this is in large part due to the violent resistance of the landlords to being dispossessed.

Ah yes, we're all commies.

I mean....*raises hand*
 
British more subverted India rather than outright conquest.

They were outnumbered 1000 to 1.

That's like claiming the Germans were massively outnumbered by the French alone in WW2 by counting the French civilian population.

In the actual battles, Britain fought and lost fights in the 20-40k range against Indian armies in the 20-40k range multiple times in the mid-late 1700's. That's not "1000 to 1", in some cases it was 1:1. Look at some of the battles in the Anglo-Mysore wars. To put it mildly, Britain did not win convincingly in the first conflicts.

India was not unified, so the claim wrt numbers is even more absurd in that context.

That's not good for any society but add in the fact that due to colonialism and apartheid there are massive inequalities in income and wealth between racial groups and you have a recipe for social unrest and possibly race war.

Colonialism and apartheid are pretty obviously bad, but it's worth asking why South Africa is bad compared to other regions of the world with colonialism in its past.
 
Colonialism and apartheid are pretty obviously bad, but it's worth asking why South Africa is bad compared to other regions of the world with colonialism in its past.

First we'd have to establish what we are saying is bad about South Africa.
If its wealth and income inequality then I'd say its because of apartheid which prevented decolonisation from occurring long after most other colonies had achieved majority rule.
If its corruption then objectively it isn't that bad in South Africa. Its a bit more corrupt than Greece, a lot better than India or Argentina and nowhere near basketcases like the DRC.
If its crime then its very bad but I suspect due to the horrendous inequality it has.
 
Can I just say after twenty pages of posts here I still feel like the OP was disingenuous nonsense? I mean I get it, some parties in SA are trying to use government to repatriate lands taken during colonial days and that upsets people for obvious reasons. Lets be real though essentially this is about political power like it was when the colonists took the land in the first place, and now that the shoe has changed the foot it is on I hear whining? Idc about this story honestly because it is not my fight. I can tell you it is easy to imagine myself in both sets of shoes.
 
Colonialism and apartheid are pretty obviously bad, but it's worth asking why South Africa is bad compared to other regions of the world with colonialism in its past.

South Africa is relatively well-off compared to many other former colonial regions (like, much of the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa for one).
 
On second thoughts, this is a great example of Patine's ideological bias, because of their tendency to group anyone with a remotely critical opinion into the same group, and then ascribing the same viewpoints to that entire group.

I think that visible blocs of opinion have started forming on this, seemingly inadvertently and despite certain posters' best judgements (like actually against my best judgement when I first entered the debate). And some here have pushed the issue that redress of wealth (however it is done) should be viewed on a simple racial level without dealing with, or seriously acknowledging, the more fine-toothed divisions and more complex issues on the ground in the country. I think most of us have actually approached this issue in the last few days in a very wrong-headed manner, and then dug in trench-lines over it. It's a very good thing for South Africa that we're not making their making their decisions for them.
 
South Africa is relatively well-off compared to many other former colonial regions (like, much of the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa for one).

For sure. I even changed my post before submitting it when considering a number of central African countries. But I don't think recency of colonial presence is the only factor here.

If its wealth and income inequality then I'd say its because of apartheid which prevented decolonisation from occurring long after most other colonies had achieved majority rule.

But as Lexicus points out, quite a few countries without apartheid are significantly *worse* off overall, and still really bad by this specific metric. So if you're making this argument you must be saying that something else about South Africa was so strong that despite apartheid it still outperformed many countries in similar situations.

That might be the case, but I'd want to see more reasoning for it. I'd argue apartheid is bad for other reasons.

Can I just say after twenty pages of posts here I still feel like the OP was disingenuous nonsense?

There are people even in the US that unironically claim that some people can't be racist because they have a particular skin color. I don't know OP's intentions for making this thread, but that really is a thing and it's a confusing stance to take.

I don't think those people are common though, more likely they stand out because they're exceptional.
 
For sure. I even changed my post before submitting it when considering a number of central African countries. But I don't think recency of colonial presence is the only factor here.

It's a combination of South Africa having vast mineral wealth plus a greater degree of development in the context of a settler-colonial situation that just didn't really happen elsewhere on the continent.
 
There are people even in the US that unironically claim that some people can't be racist because they have a particular skin color. I don't know OP's intentions for making this thread, but that really is a thing and it's a confusing stance to take.

I don't think those people are common though, more likely they stand out because they're exceptional.

Do you mean exceptional in their ignorance? Racism obviously exists everywhere. The question for SA and for America is in what ways does racism effect society?
 
Complete aside from where the thread has gone in the past couple of pages but I've been thinking about this idea that stolen land is immediately laundered the moment it changes hand or the original thief dies.

I really dont think theft is even the right word here. Its more sort of racially aggravated landlording. Theft occurs once but creating a legal system where you can own the land and they cannot own the land, but working the land is necessary for survival then effectively you've set yourself up as a feudal baron. Loyalty and punitive tax on labour being repaid with survival. This is a continuously committed crime and damn near everyone between the original thief and the end of the apartheid state has supported and maintained it.

Given that western/developed nations accept the existence of landlords as valid, its difficult to notice that this should be a crime of some kind.

Anyway this thought feels very underdone to me and could do with some extra heat if anyone has some to spare.
 
Complete aside from where the thread has gone in the past couple of pages but I've been thinking about this idea that stolen land is immediately laundered the moment it changes hand or the original thief dies.

I really dont think theft is even the right word here. Its more sort of racially aggravated landlording. Theft occurs once but creating a legal system where you can own the land and they cannot own the land, but working the land is necessary for survival then effectively you've set yourself up as a feudal baron. Loyalty and punitive tax on labour being repaid with survival. This is a continuously committed crime and damn near everyone between the original thief and the end of the apartheid state has supported and maintained it.

Given that western/developed nations accept the existence of landlords as valid, its difficult to notice that this should be a crime of some kind.

Anyway this thought feels very underdone to me and could do with some extra heat if anyone has some to spare.

The simplistic, purely RACIAL dynamic of the question, and any solution, has to be abandoned. Pegging any solution to "Whites" and "Blacks" as solid blocs of consideration is a doomed endeavour, will not bring any true justice to the situation or show a true appreciation of what's actually going in South Africa, and will likely lead to inequity and injustice, as well, just of a different sort than is present currently.
 
The simplistic, purely RACIAL dynamic of the question, and any solution, has to be abandoned. Pegging any solution to "Whites" and "Blacks" as solid blocs of consideration is a doomed endeavour, will not bring any true justice to the situation or show a true appreciation of what's actually going in South Africa, and will likely lead to inequity and injustice, as well, just of a different sort than is present currently.

I did not in fact propose any solution in that thought, nor did I peg it to any ethnicities. You're being a hypocrite and sticking firmly to your script despite complaining of others doing so.

Additionally, why have you not proposed ANY solution?
 
I did not in fact propose any solution in that thought, nor did I peg it to any ethnicities. You're being a hypocrite and sticking firmly to your script despite complaining of others doing so.

Additionally, why have you not proposed ANY solution?

Because I'm not a miracle-worker, don't have a Messianic complex, have never been to South Africa and feel comfortable with my on-the-ground knowledge of affairs to construct such a solution, am not filled to the brim with hubris and arrogance at my own capabilities, and am not cavalier of deciding whole peoples' fates in that way. Some on these forums seem to carry one or more of those traits, however. I find playing the Devil's advocate, dissenting voice, and realistic critic far safer of a role here.
 
Complete aside from where the thread has gone in the past couple of pages but I've been thinking about this idea that stolen land is immediately laundered the moment it changes hand or the original thief dies.

I really dont think theft is even the right word here. Its more sort of racially aggravated landlording. Theft occurs once but creating a legal system where you can own the land and they cannot own the land, but working the land is necessary for survival then effectively you've set yourself up as a feudal baron. Loyalty and punitive tax on labour being repaid with survival. This is a continuously committed crime and damn near everyone between the original thief and the end of the apartheid state has supported and maintained it.

Given that western/developed nations accept the existence of landlords as valid, its difficult to notice that this should be a crime of some kind.

Anyway this thought feels very underdone to me and could do with some extra heat if anyone has some to spare.


To me this is as much a hereditary class issue as a race issue.

The traditional moderate remedy was to have a taxation system that divided income into two categories:
earned income and unearned income, and set taxes that would over a period of time reduce hereditary wealth.
I understand that this process occurred in the UK between 1945 and 1975, but it went into reverse in 1979.
 
Because I'm not a miracle-worker, don't have a Messianic complex, have never been to South Africa and feel comfortable with my on-the-ground knowledge of affairs to construct such a solution, am not filled to the brim with hubris and arrogance at my own capabilities, and am not cavalier of deciding whole peoples' fates in that way. Some on these forums seem to carry one or more of those traits, however. I find playing the Devil's advocate, dissenting voice, and realistic critic far safer of a role here.
The only thing I've found you to be is a "devil's advocate", which really never helps anything. You've been anything but a realistic critic, at times you've come off as almost taking this personally for some reason, and you've come across as very strongly supporting the status quo with nonsense deflections without adding anything constructive.
 
Because I'm not a miracle-worker, don't have a Messianic complex, have never been to South Africa and feel comfortable with my on-the-ground knowledge of affairs to construct such a solution, am not filled to the brim with hubris and arrogance at my own capabilities, and am not cavalier of deciding whole peoples' fates in that way. Some on these forums seem to carry one or more of those traits, however. I find playing the Devil's advocate, dissenting voice, and realistic critic far safer of a role here.

Just for the record I have spent months in South Africa and spent much of that time learning as much about the country's history and politics as I could.
 
The only thing I've found you to be is a "devil's advocate", which really never helps anything. You've been anything but a realistic critic, at times you've come off as almost taking this personally for some reason, and you've come across as very strongly supporting the status quo with nonsense deflections without adding anything constructive.

I have been a realistic critic. I've pointed out that any solution on purely racial lines is not going to be productive, that the Bantu are no more indigenous than the Boers, but the actual indigenous are a tiny minority - in large part due to the Boers, British, AND Bantu, that the Bantu-dominated ANC has had full political power for 25 years, and their must some be some complicance or support (tacitly or otherwise) on their part, and that Afrikaaners are no longer culturally or linguistically part of any European ethnicity and have no other homeland now, and several other points that would prove very significant problems and impediments to several of the "solutions" proposed here.
 
That's like claiming the Germans were massively outnumbered by the French alone in WW2 by counting the French civilian population.

In the actual battles, Britain fought and lost fights in the 20-40k range against Indian armies in the 20-40k range multiple times in the mid-late 1700's. That's not "1000 to 1", in some cases it was 1:1. Look at some of the battles in the Anglo-Mysore wars. To put it mildly, Britain did not win convincingly in the first conflicts.

India was not unified, so the claim wrt numbers is even more absurd in that context.



Colonialism and apartheid are pretty obviously bad, but it's worth asking why South Africa is bad compared to other regions of the world with colonialism in its past.

I was referring to the colonial administration.
India didn't really get colonized and it's used a lot of Indians in the administration.

It funded the UKs army, and large amounts of Indians served in the army as well. A few went back to the UK and apparently the first Indian restaurant opened before the first fish and chip shop.

When the British left they had built a nation in effect with an army, infrastructure and adminstration.
 
Top Bottom