Go, Andries, Go - the story of Andries Wilhelmus Jacobus Pretorius

Remorseless1

Prince
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
471
Would you consider Constantinople to be stolen from Greece? Would you consider Kaliningrad to be stolen from Germany?

That was a response to the Boer War...the horrors of the concentration camps inflicted upon helpless Boer women and children led to the conclusion that the only way Boers could be safe was by controlling South Africa, not unlike how the horrors of WWII led many Jews to the conclusion that they could only be safe by having a state of their own (Israel).
The Boer War was against the British Empire, not the indigenous people who had lived there for thousands of years. And to compare an awful yet brief period of time where Boers suffered to the centuries of discrimination, exclusion, pograms, and oppression endured by Jews is disgusting. No one gives Israel a pass for the way it treats Palestinians and no one gave South Africa/Goers a pass on the way it treated non-whites.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,810
That was a response to the Boer War...the horrors of the concentration camps inflicted upon helpless Boer women and children led to the conclusion that the only way Boers could be safe was by controlling South Africa, not unlike how the horrors of WWII led many Jews to the conclusion that they could only be safe by having a state of their own (Israel).
I find that funny, in a black humour, mirthless way, in both cases. The BRITISH put BOERS in concentration camps, then Apartheid against RACIAL MINORITES in South Africa (despite the British being White) is justified for, "security for the future," just like the THIRD REICH put Jews in concentrations, so turning the PALESTINIANS into a destitute, stateless people with no inherent rights or national self-government is, SOMEHOW, necessary. You're not the only one, by far, to justify these things. It's called the VICIOUS CYCLE, and any functional or sane person knows it must be broken, and not perpetuated, and is highly unhealthy - for the victims, and the one doing it.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,810
Would you consider Constantinople to be stolen from Greece? Would you consider Kaliningrad to be stolen from Germany?
There are Germans who do complain about, "stolen lands," not just Kaliningrad/Konigsburg, but also the rest of East Prussia (including the Memelland), as well all of West Prussia, Posen, Silesia, Far Pomerania, North Schleswig, Eupen-Malmedy, and Alsace-Lorraine. Indeed, such Germans do exist. But, they tend to belong, or at least vote loyally, for such parties as the NPD or the DVU, and often belong to secret Neo-Nazi groups of one sort or another. And, I believe Golden Dawn's platform, in Greece, among other extremist, ultra-nationalism, includes the reclamation of Constantinople. Do you REALLY want to put yourself in this company?
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
I don't see anyone in this thread from those places slinging mud at the former inhabitants because they want their lands back.
Germans who want the eastern territories back are viewed as extremist loons who are stuck in the past, as are Greeks who want Constantinople back. Why should blacks who want "their" land "back" be viewed any differently?
But I do see a Boer who is disparaging Black South Africans because they want their land back...
They want to take our land, impoverish us, and make us landless.
The Boer War was against the British Empire, not the indigenous people who had lived there for thousands of years. And to compare an awful yet brief period of time where Boers suffered to the centuries of discrimination, exclusion, pograms, and oppression endured by Jews is disgusting. No one gives Israel a pass for the way it treats Palestinians and no one gave South Africa/Goers a pass on the way it treated non-whites.
I agree with Churchill about the Dog in the Manger.
I find that funny, in a black humour, mirthless way, in both cases. The BRITISH put BOERS in concentration camps, then Apartheid against RACIAL MINORITES in South Africa (despite the British being White) is justified for, "security for the future," just like the THIRD REICH put Jews in concentrations, so turning the PALESTINIANS into a destitute, stateless people with no inherent rights or national self-government is, SOMEHOW, necessary. You're not the only one, by far, to justify these things. It's called the VICIOUS CYCLE, and any functional or sane person knows it must be broken, and not perpetuated, and is highly unhealthy - for the victims, and the one doing it.
Having a state of your own means security. Boers knew that in the 19th century, but the Second Boer War really drove that point home. The Dreyfus affair led to the birth of Zionism, as Theodor Herzl realized that the only way the Jewish people could be secure was with their own state. The Holocaust drove that point home, now Israel grants citizenship to any Jew who wants it, and so there can never be another Holocaust as long as Israel exists.
There are Germans who do complain about, "stolen lands," not just Kaliningrad/Konigsburg, but also the rest of East Prussia (including the Memelland), as well all of West Prussia, Posen, Silesia, Far Pomerania, North Schleswig, Eupen-Malmedy, and Alsace-Lorraine. Indeed, such Germans do exist. But, they tend to belong, or at least vote loyally, for such parties as the NPD or the DVU, and often belong to secret Neo-Nazi groups of one sort or another. And, I believe Golden Dawn's platform, in Greece, among other extremist, ultra-nationalism, includes the reclamation of Constantinople. Do you REALLY want to put yourself in this company?
The entire point I was making is that Germans or Greeks who want their former lands back are seen as extremist nutters. Blacks in South Africa who want "their former lands" back should be seen the same way. What's done is done, what's won is won.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,810
Germans who want the eastern territories back are viewed as extremist loons who are stuck in the past, as are Greeks who want Constantinople back. Why should blacks who want "their" land "back" be viewed any differently?

The entire point I was making is that Germans or Greeks who want their former lands back are seen as extremist nutters. Blacks in South Africa who want "their former lands" back should be seen the same way. What's done is done, what's won is won.
Living in the past, and demanding old land borders restored, regardless of changes in situation or demographics, as though it were, "owed," and those living there can be indicted for, "old stolen land," theories, is not a mentality for good fellowship or social or political health, in any case.
They want to take our land, impoverish us, and make us landless.
Like the Boers did to the Black Africans, and some want to do again, you mean? Black Townships like Soweto, mostly made up of Black South Africans driven off ancestral lands so Boers could get farms on the cheap, made 1980's South-Central Los Angeles look like a sparkling urban paradise.
I agree with Churchill about the Dog in the Manger.
Sir Winston Churchill is largely remembered in much of the Western World for being a great leader in WW2. However, his policies and views in Colonial affairs prior to that were downright repugnant.
Having a state of your own means security. Boers knew that in the 19th century, but the Second Boer War really drove that point home. The Dreyfus affair led to the birth of Zionism, as Theodor Herzl realized that the only way the Jewish people could be secure was with their own state. The Holocaust drove that point home, now Israel grants citizenship to any Jew who wants it, and so there can never be another Holocaust as long as Israel exists.
This statement is so twisted, it's a powderkeg-laced Gordian knot to unravel.
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
Living in the past, and demanding old land borders restored, regardless of changes in situation or demographics, as though it were, "owed," and those living there can be indicted for, "old stolen land," theories, is not a mentality for good fellowship or social or political health, in any case.
And that includes black South Africans.
Like the Boers did to the Black Africans, and some want to do again, you mean? Black Townships like Soweto, mostly made up of Black South Africans driven off ancestral lands so Boers could get farms on the cheap, made 1980's South-Central Los Angeles look like a sparkling urban paradise.
It's not like they were rich before we showed up...
Sir Winston Churchill is largely remembered in much of the Western World for being a great leader in WW2. However, his policies and views in Colonial affairs prior to that were downright repugnant.
I agree about him being a great WW2, but his colonial views were wonderful, too.
This statement is so twisted, it's a powderkeg-laced Gordian knot to unravel.
OK then.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,810
And that includes black South Africans.
The ANC (who has consistently had a majority of the vote since 1994) are politically forward-looking and conciliatory in their policies, if misguided in a fair number of places. The EFF is who you accuse of the revanchist viewpoint, and they definitely hold such, like Mugabe did in Zimbabwe. But, you have also viewed Black South Africans of supporting the EFF (and revanchist, backsliding views) as a solid, unified, demographic voting bloc. But, how can that be, when the EFF cannot get more votes than, not only the ANC, but also the multiracial liberal Democratic Alliance, and shares Black voteshare with around 30 other parties? How does this make sense when one does the math?
It's not like they were rich before we showed up...
First, the Bantus had different measures of wealth (for instance, the number who cattle you owned was FAR more important than many other factors in determining your personal wealth). Second, does this statement show a belief, even if taken at European views of wealth, that robbing poor people of land and sending them to horrible slums is more acceptable than doing it to rich, or even well-off or middle-class, people?
 

schlaufuchs

Break My Heart
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
16,482
Location
Seattle, WA
It’s almost like different things are different
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
The ANC (who has consistently had a majority of the vote since 1994) are politically forward-looking and conciliatory in their policies, if misguided in a fair number of places. The EFF is who you accuse of the revanchist viewpoint, and they definitely hold such, like Mugabe did in Zimbabwe. But, you have also viewed Black South Africans of supporting the EFF (and revanchist, backsliding views) as a solid, unified, demographic voting bloc. But, how can that be, when the EFF cannot get more votes than, not only the ANC, but also the multiracial liberal Democratic Alliance, and shares Black voteshare with around 30 other parties? How does this make sense when one does the math?
The clowns in the EFF are gaining more power with each election.
First, the Bantus had different measures of wealth (for instance, the number who cattle you owned was FAR more important than many other factors in determining your personal wealth). Second, does this statement show a belief, even if taken at European views of wealth, that robbing poor people of land and sending them to horrible slums is more acceptable than doing it to rich, or even well-off or middle-class, people?
1. If it was robbing, than the same is true of large chunks of Europe today.
2. It's worse to go from being prosperous to being destitute than to go from being destitute to being more destitute, since your losses are greater. Remember that South Park episode where Cartman inherits money from his great-grandmother, buys an amusement park, and then loses it to mismanagement? He was worse off than when he started, because he had lost something major, even if he was no worse off financially at the end of the episode compared to the beginning.
Also, measuring wealth in cattle is primitive, it's Stone Age stuff. Why should we feel bad about lifting them out of the Stone Age?
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,810
The clowns in the EFF are gaining more power with each election.
It still doesn't make claims of unified, solid, unanomous bloc support (and treatment, collectively, as if it's so) AT ALL warranted or acceptable.
1. If it was robbing, than the same is true of large chunks of Europe today.
2. It's worse to go from being prosperous to being destitute than to go from being destitute to being more destitute, since your losses are greater. Remember that South Park episode where Cartman inherits money from his great-grandmother, buys an amusement park, and then loses it to mismanagement? He was worse off than when he started, because he had lost something major, even if he was no worse off financially at the end of the episode compared to the beginning.
Also, measuring wealth in cattle is primitive, it's Stone Age stuff. Why should we feel bad about lifting them out of the Stone Age?
No, it doesn't matter how wealthy you are (or by what standards) or become, at all. That doesn't make a distinction in any moral or principled terms. And, the Bantus were Iron Age, not Stone Age cultures, not that difference in tech levels matters for any distinction in moral or principled terms (in fact, higher tech peoples going and beating up and conquering more primitive peoples is looked at in a dim light, nowadays, ethically-speaking). And, if you're quoting South Park, you've lost any serious debate on any matter of gravity, right then and there.
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
It still doesn't make claims of unified, solid, unanomous bloc support (and treatment, collectively, as if it's so) AT ALL warranted or acceptable.

No, it doesn't matter how wealthy you are (or by what standards) or become, at all. That doesn't make a distinction in any moral or principled terms. And, the Bantus were Iron Age, not Stone Age cultures, not that difference in tech levels matters for any distinction in moral or principled terms (in fact, higher tech peoples going and beating up and conquering more primitive peoples is looked at in a dim light, nowadays, ethically-speaking). And, if you're quoting South Park, you've lost any serious debate on any matter of gravity, right then and there.
Iron Age is still primitive, and this whole "noble savage" idea has gotten really out of hand.
 

Remorseless1

Prince
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
471
It's fortunately rare to see unbridled, boastful bigotry here at Civ. South Africa was a pariah state for most of my life. Evidently not all South Africans had a change of heart.

To clear up the confusion for Mr. Paul, most people sympathize with the oppressed, not the oppressors. You defend the oppression.
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
I didn't use the term, "noble savage," or any analog. You've missed the point utterly - or refuse to acknowledge it.
You think their savage and primitive ways were noble and worth preserving, even if you didn't use the phrase "noble savage".
It's fortunately rare to see unbridled, boastful bigotry here at Civ. South Africa was a pariah state for most of my life. Evidently not all South Africans had a change of heart.

To clear up the confusion for Mr. Paul, most people sympathize with the oppressed, not the oppressors. You defend the oppression.
Meanwhile, China, Turkey, and other authoritarian states are more than welcome in the international community. South Africa was the sacrificial lamb, the scapegoat. It was a way for US politicians to pander to black voters - throw South Africa under the bus, so they could win black votes without having to do anything to help the blacks in their own country.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,810
You think their savage and primitive ways were noble and worth preserving, even if you didn't use the phrase "noble savage".
Again, I didn't say this. Moreso, the Boers were not, "noble," by seizing the Black South Africans' land, putting them in horrid slums, stripping of any right to participate in the Government that was set up, what which was fully empowered to make all legal decisions for them, regardless, and have them live by definitively separate, and inferior legal status. Their original culture is an irrelevancy in regard to that, which was the ACTUAL point I was making - not some cliched Rudyard Kipling or Edgar Rice Boroughs, "noble savage," trope.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,810
Meanwhile, China, Turkey, and other authoritarian states are more than welcome in the international community. South Africa was the sacrificial lamb, the scapegoat. It was a way for US politicians to pander to black voters - throw South Africa under the bus, so they could win black votes without having to do anything to help the blacks in their own country.
Outside one U.S.-instigated coup in the early '80's, Turkey was, on average, more democratic during the same period of the height of Apartheid in South Africa than South Africa was (as that was post-Inonu but pre-Erdogan in Turkey). At least a lot more than 16% of the Turkish population were allowed to vote.
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
Again, I didn't say this. Moreso, the Boers were not, "noble," by seizing the Black South Africans' land, putting them in horrid slums, stripping of any right to participate in the Government that was set up, what which was fully empowered to make all legal decisions for them, regardless, and have them live by definitively separate, and inferior legal status. Their original culture is an irrelevancy in regard to that, which was the ACTUAL point I was making - not some cliched Rudyard Kipling or Edgar Rice Boroughs, "noble savage," trope.
The Voortrekkers were noble for setting out across the great unknown to find freedom to govern themselves in their own free republics.
Outside one U.S.-instigated coup in the early '80's, Turkey was, on average, more democratic during the same period of the height of Apartheid in South Africa than South Africa was (and that was post-Inonu but pre-Erdogan in Turkey). At least a lot more than 16% of the Turkish population were allowed to vote.
Even in North Korea, most people are allowed to "vote".
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,810
The Voortrekkers were noble for setting out across the great unknown to find freedom to govern themselves in their own free republics.
While suppressing the freedom and forcibly taking away the land of those they came across. Not so noble, really

Even in North Korea, most people are allowed to "vote".
North Korea and Turkey were not even remotely in the same orbital plane of similarity politically and electorally. You can dispense with THAT hyperbolic, disingenuous comparison, if you would please?
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
While suppressing the freedom and forcibly taking away the land of those they came across. Not so noble, really
It's not like tribesmen living under a chief's iron fist had any freedom to begin with.
North Korea and Turkey were not even remotely in the same orbital plane of similarity politically and electorally. You can dispense with THAT hyperbolic, disingenuous comparison, if you would please?
But they killed Constantinople.
 
Top Bottom