South Africa

Status
Not open for further replies.

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
In order to avoid dragging the other thread off topic, the conversation will be continued here.
If you can't see the problem there already, then I don't believe I can successfully communicate it to you.
There is no problem. We had something they wanted (political power), they had something that could threaten us (the ability to start a civil war), we negotiated and devised an agreement that gave everybody some of what they wanted.
They would be, and justly so.
The Maori get away with it, because they are unlikely to ever reach a position where they could become dangerous. In a perfectly just world, they should not be getting away with it, but in the real one, people have priorities.
They're a larger chunk of New Zealand's population than we are of South Africa's. They also have the zeitgeist (anti-colonial, anti-racist, etc...) on their side, whereas it's against us. We're more vulnerable than they are, or ever have been.
That is abuse of power.
What is your preferred solution? Whites give up everything or almost everything and become impoverished? Please tell me you understand why that would be completely unacceptable to us.
It was a completely fair deal, even slanted against us a little (I wish it had also included a guarantee that no geographical renaming would take place, and a power-sharing agreement akin to Lebanon)
 
Hahahahaha.

Man, you are  sore about this. I'd suggest primary sources, but you can just start with the Wikipedia entries on apartheid in SA.

I have (white) family in SA. I completely and fully admit that. Historically and nowadays. The company I work at has clients in SA. Buddy, I am  laughing at how badly you think you've been done over. You haven't. You just don't understand fairness in-context.
 
Hahahahaha.

Man, you are  sore about this.
If you were in my shoes, you would be "sore" about this, too.
I'd suggest primary sources, but you can just start with the Wikipedia entries on apartheid in SA.

I have (white) family in SA. I completely and fully admit that. Historically and nowadays. The company I work at has clients in SA. Buddy, I am  laughing at how badly you think you've been done over. You haven't. You just don't understand fairness in-context.
I know what apartheid was. It's over, it's done, time to move on.
 
If you were in my shoes, you would be "sore" about this, too.
No, I wouldn't be.
I know what apartheid was. It's over, it's done, time to move on.
Like I said. Start off with Wikipedia. Nice and easy does it :D

I'll give you a starting point. Things take longer to free undone than they take to be done in the first place.
 
If whites had such a powerful position, why was de Klerk so willing to make the transition to majority rule? Why did whites vote in the 1992 to permit this?

The position of the NP after the cold war was simply not tenable. changemymind.tiff
First of all, de Klerk and the Afrikaner people were willing to do this as a gesture of kindness and goodwill. Second of all, we didn't want a repeat of the Rhodesia situation, where the racial tensions turned into a bloody civil war that ended up with most Whites fleeing the country (i.e. "soft expulsion" as opposed to a "hard expulsion" like those after WWII)
No, I wouldn't be.

Like I said. Start off with Wikipedia. Nice and easy does it :D

I'll give you a starting point. Things take longer to free undone than they take to be done in the first place.
The goal posts are ever moving. They said they wanted Mandela free and apartheid over. We gave that to them. Now they want to take our land without compensation. If we give that to them, what will they want next? For us to all flee the country?
 
The goal posts are ever moving. They said they wanted Mandela free and apartheid over. We gave that to them. Now they want to take our land without compensation. If we give that to them, what will they want next? For us to all flee the country?
You don't get it, huh? Apartheid meant that (among many other things) you / we took their land. What do you think "apartheid over" means?
 
You don't get it, huh? Apartheid meant that (among many other things) you / we took their land. What do you think "apartheid over" means?
Apartheid over means that they now can vote and be in any place they want to.
 
I know what apartheid was. It's over, it's done, time to move on.
This reminds me of someone on TrekBBS who dropped an absolute gem of a post (she said with extreme sarcasm), saying that the Jews should "get over it already" in reference to the Holocaust since it happened several decades ago. That person was clueless as to why she was promptly chastised by a dozen people.

I'm also reminded of a day in my Grade 8 social studies class (1975) when the teacher brought in a guest speaker. The speaker was a black man who had lived under apartheid in South Africa. I remember the class being shocked at the idea that white and black people were not permitted to mingle socially. It's not a big deal here, at least to most people.

My own mother was a racist, though, and got upset when I spoke to an Indian man we encountered when leaving a restaurant (he and his wife were coming in as we were leaving). I'd worked with him in the theatre, and he was (and still is) one of the nicest people I've met. When we were outside, my mother asked in a disapproving tone, "Do you know him?" and I explained about the theatre. This isn't the only incident. Imagine you're with a parent, who decides to get gas for the car, pulls up to the pump, and the first words out of her mouth to the attendant are "Is this gas station owned by whites?"

The kid working there couldn't have been much over 18. He was shocked, and if we hadn't been too far from home, I'd have gotten out and walked. I was ashamed to be seen with my own mother for what she said. I guess you wouldn't have had a problem with that, though. Between my mother's bigotry toward anyone not white and my grandfather's bigotry toward Jews, I'm glad I didn't allow their attitudes to taint my own (it was a bit of a shock to my grandfather when I informed him that if he was anti-Jewish, he'd better stop watching any TV show starring William Shatner - who is Jewish - and also had best stop reading my science fiction books, as I estimate that at least a third of my collection was written by authors who happen to be Jewish).

When atrocities happen to a specific population of people, it affects not only those who experienced it directly, but also their children and grandchildren (due to economic and social reasons). This is why Canada will be dealing with the fallout of residential schools for decades yet to come, as the last one closed a mere 30 years ago (give or take a few; I don't recall the exact reported date).

Uncle Paul said:
Now they want to take our land without compensation. If we give that to them, what will they want next? For us to all flee the country?
Didn't you (general you in your country) take their land without compensation? Would you be surprised if at least some of them would love it if you all left?
 
First of all, de Klerk and the Afrikaner people were willing to do this as a gesture of kindness and goodwill. Second of all, we didn't want a repeat of the Rhodesia situation, where the racial tensions turned into a bloody civil war that ended up with most Whites fleeing the country (i.e. "soft expulsion" as opposed to a "hard expulsion" like those after WWII)
Fears of a civil war do not sound to me like an upswell of altruism.
 
This reminds me of someone on TrekBBS who dropped an absolute gem of a post (she said with extreme sarcasm), saying that the Jews should "get over it already" in reference to the Holocaust since it happened several decades ago. That person was clueless as to why she was promptly chastised by a dozen people.
The difference is the Holocaust isn't used as an excuse to dispossess my people, in fact, Israel, which was created because of the Holocaust, enabled Western civilization to gain a foothold in the Levant. Also, the Holocaust was an atrocity.
I'm also reminded of a day in my Grade 8 social studies class (1975) when the teacher brought in a guest speaker. The speaker was a black man who had lived under apartheid in South Africa. I remember the class being shocked at the idea that white and black people were not permitted to mingle socially. It's not a big deal here, at least to most people.
The cultural differences between white and black in South Africa are much larger than the cultural differences between white and black in North America.
My own mother was a racist, though, and got upset when I spoke to an Indian man we encountered when leaving a restaurant (he and his wife were coming in as we were leaving). I'd worked with him in the theatre, and he was (and still is) one of the nicest people I've met. When we were outside, my mother asked in a disapproving tone, "Do you know him?" and I explained about the theatre. This isn't the only incident. Imagine you're with a parent, who decides to get gas for the car, pulls up to the pump, and the first words out of her mouth to the attendant are "Is this gas station owned by whites?"
I'm sure she was just as appalled by your views as you were by hers.
The kid working there couldn't have been much over 18. He was shocked, and if we hadn't been too far from home, I'd have gotten out and walked. I was ashamed to be seen with my own mother for what she said. I guess you wouldn't have had a problem with that, though. Between my mother's bigotry toward anyone not white and my grandfather's bigotry toward Jews, I'm glad I didn't allow their attitudes to taint my own (it was a bit of a shock to my grandfather when I informed him that if he was anti-Jewish, he'd better stop watching any TV show starring William Shatner - who is Jewish - and also had best stop reading my science fiction books, as I estimate that at least a third of my collection was written by authors who happen to be Jewish).
If you're in your 60s, how did your grandfather even know what Star Trek was? IIRC, Star Trek was created about 50 years ago. Since when do grandparents get in to, what was at that time a hip new show? My grandfather preferred movies from decades ago.
When atrocities happen to a specific population of people, it affects not only those who experienced it directly, but also their children and grandchildren (due to economic and social reasons). This is why Canada will be dealing with the fallout of residential schools for decades yet to come, as the last one closed a mere 30 years ago (give or take a few; I don't recall the exact reported date).
And yet, the residential schools helped to Westernize them. While there were excesses at those schools, the original intention was noble.
Didn't you (general you in your country) take their land without compensation? Would you be surprised if at least some of them would love it if you all left?
No, they tried to attack and kill us, but we defeated them. Blood River 1838.
Fears of a civil war do not sound to me like an upswell of altruism.
It was a mix of altruism and self-interest.
 
My grandfather preferred movies from decades ago.
South Africa didn’t have television until 1976 so his preference didn’t matter. And this was not due to technical limitations: Ethiopia and Rhodesia began broadcasts more than a decade earlier.

It was a mix of altruism and self-interest.
My inner Ayn Rand is crying. Do you know why?
 
Reminds me of the “Blaster,” a short-lived car accessory sold in South Africa that would shoot flames out the side when activated. Designed to prevent car thefts, I think it just resulted in more drivers getting shot before they had the time to pull the lever.

This seems like it ought to be extremely illegal?

 
Yeah, we couldn't afford the liability insurance on the flamethrower when we visited, luckily our rental service had alternatives!

 
The difference is the Holocaust isn't used as an excuse to dispossess my people, in fact, Israel, which was created because of the Holocaust, enabled Western civilization to gain a foothold in the Levant. Also, the Holocaust was an atrocity.
You missed my point. The point was your "get over it" attitude reminded me of what this woman said over on the TrekBBS forum. It shocked quite a lot of us.

The cultural differences between white and black in South Africa are much larger than the cultural differences between white and black in North America.
Well, you are entitled to your opinions. The fact is that everyone suffers and dies at some point. Is someone killed by an oppressor any more or less dead if it happens on a different continent?

I'm sure she was just as appalled by your views as you were by hers.
Do NOT presume that I grant you the right to 'splain my own mother to me.

Whether or not you're correct (you are, to some extent, as she was upset that I liked going to a particular restaurant run by people who had immigrated from Pakistan - good food for a fair price and not too crowded - or that I was on friendly terms with a man from India who worked in the same theatre company I did; she would have been even more appalled to learn that he was married to a white woman, not that it was any of her business), it's not your place to make assumptions.

If you're in your 60s, how did your grandfather even know what Star Trek was? IIRC, Star Trek was created about 50 years ago. Since when do grandparents get in to, what was at that time a hip new show? My grandfather preferred movies from decades ago.
Here's a bit of advice: If you're going to air opinions about me based on my age, do your homework. I've never hidden my age on this forum, and it's freely visible to anyone who cares to look up my profile. I am not in my 60s. Not yet, anyway; I don't turn 60 until next year.

Star Trek premiered in 1966. I was 3 at the time, but we lived on an acreage in the county and only got one or two channels. Star Trek was not one of the shows we got, nor would it have been one I'd have been interested in anyway, even if my parents had allowed me to watch. My 3-year-old self was into cartoons, and the only live-action shows I remember from those years are Bonanza, Gunsmoke, the news, and hockey games, as well as the kids' shows on CBC. In short, typical '60s stuff, most of it Canadian.

Fast-forward some years... my parents divorced, I went to live with my grandparents, and my grandfather decided we would move into the city. In 1975 he decided to get cable TV, and it was in November of that year that HE was watching Star Trek (he sampled a wide variety of TV shows due to having a much wider selection of channels than just 2). I took one look at it, thought it looked stupid, and told him I wanted to watch something else (I was into cop shows at the time). He told me to either sit down and be quiet, or go to my room.

So I sat down, shut up, and gradually got interested in the episode. At the end of it I figured okay, that was interesting, and I'd like to try more. Star Trek was on 5 days/week at that time, and it didn't take long to admit I was hooked. Then, on one of the twice-monthly visitations with my mother (my dad got custody in the divorce), we happened to go to Woolco (now Walmart), where I was browsing the book department and discovered that someone named James Blish had adapted the Star Trek episodes into short story format. Those two Blish books I bought were the beginning of a science fiction collection that now numbers in the thousands.

Oh, and the irony of this? My grandfather eventually declared that he was "tired of that damn silly Star Trek!" though he continued to watch shows starring William Shatner (he liked T.J. Hooker). He hadn't realized until I told him that Shatner was Jewish (this is something known to anyone who has read any of Shatner's autobiographical books or behind-the-scenes books about Star Trek, but while my grandfather read a lot of my books, he never read any Star Trek ones). My grandfather died the same year that Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ("the one about the whales") came out.

So I'm a bit confused as to why you would think that my grandfather couldn't have been interested in Star Trek. He was a casual viewer, and I think he might have regretted creating the "monster" he did; my life would have been very different if not for that show, as it had a tremendous influence on my life in numerous ways. I wouldn't have gotten into science fiction in general, and wouldn't have gotten into the Society for Creative Anachronism (since I heard about it via science fiction), nor would I have been interested in the theatre (after reading The Making of Star Trek I thought that working on the tech side of performing arts sounded fascinating, so when applications were sought for the theatre, I jumped at the chance and got in). We wouldn't even be having this argument if not for all this - it was someone in the SCA who introduced me to Civ games, and someone on an RPG forum who gave me the link for CFC.

Just think what my grandfather unwittingly set in motion all those decades ago!

Oh, and while you're at it, ponder this: Elderly people aren't one bloc of group-think that cares only about "old people stuff". I am definitely not the oldest person on CFC, and there is no rule about how old a person can be when they acquire a new interest or pick up a more modern outlook on something.

And yet, the residential schools helped to Westernize them. While there were excesses at those schools, the original intention was noble.
The original intention was anything BUT noble. The original intention was to "kill the Indian in the child".

Read this article and then tell me how Macdonald and Langevin and others had "noble" ideas. They considered the indigenous people to be savages.

And while you're at it, I suppose you think the Sixties Scoop was also "noble". This is something that was never taught in schools during the years I attended. I hadn't even heard of it until a few years ago when there was something on the news about it. Indigenous kids were literally kidnapped from their homes and sold in black market adoptions to couples in the U.S. and Europe. Do tell me: HOW IS THIS "NOBLE"?

You call yourself Christian. Even Pope Francis finally stated that the residential schools were a form of cultural genocide. Yes, the kids were taught to read and write. But they were also forced to live in substandard conditions, with substandard health care, and their language and culture were literally beaten out of them as much as their oh-so-"kindly", oh-so-"Christian" teachers could manage. There were numerous sexual assaults, and some kids died while trying to escape back to their families.

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SAYING THIS WAS ALL "NOBLE"?

There are searches being conducted now at numerous sites of former schools, to see if there are any more unmarked graves or mass burial sites. They found hundreds of remains in BC. There are 4 sites of former residential schools/trade schools for indigenous kids in this very riding, one of them only a few blocks from where I live, in the Minister of Education's own riding.

I wonder what meaningless "thoughts and prayers" she'll mumble if a search is done and bodies are found. She used to be the chairman of the Catholic school board in my city. She's on record as recently as November 2015 stating that she wants teachers to "teach the positive things" about residential schools. She hired an anti-indigenous racist to oversee the writing of the social studies portion of the new curriculum the UCP intends to force on the students and teachers of this province.
 
Not even close. I refer you back to the previously-mentioned secondary sources :)
All the legal restrictions on them are gone. If they can afford to live in a nice house in a neighborhood that used to be White, they can. There's no one stopping them anymore.
South Africa didn’t have television until 1976 so his preference didn’t matter. And this was not due to technical limitations: Ethiopia and Rhodesia began broadcasts more than a decade earlier.


My inner Ayn Rand is crying. Do you know why?
A lack of television does not mean a lack of cinema. I am not a follower of Rand.
You missed my point. The point was your "get over it" attitude reminded me of what this woman said over on the TrekBBS forum. It shocked quite a lot of us.
OK then.
Well, you are entitled to your opinions. The fact is that everyone suffers and dies at some point. Is someone killed by an oppressor any more or less dead if it happens on a different continent?
Apartheid killed ~500 people a year, it doesn't remotely compare to things like Nazism, Communism, etc...
Do NOT presume that I grant you the right to 'splain my own mother to me.
Because you are so unique that nobody else can understand anything about you. I have a couple relatives with similar views to you. I am as appalled by their views as they are by mine. Most of my friends share my views. I don't need the right to "'splain" your mother to you. You are not in any position of authority over me, you cannot tell me what I can and cannot do.
Whether or not you're correct (you are, to some extent, as she was upset that I liked going to a particular restaurant run by people who had immigrated from Pakistan - good food for a fair price and not too crowded - or that I was on friendly terms with a man from India who worked in the same theatre company I did; she would have been even more appalled to learn that he was married to a white woman, not that it was any of her business), it's not your place to make assumptions.
I merely extrapolated from my own experience in having relatives who believe in leftist ideas. It's not your place to tell me what I can and cannot do, say, or type. I'm not a child, and I'm definitely not your child.
Here's a bit of advice: If you're going to air opinions about me based on my age, do your homework. I've never hidden my age on this forum, and it's freely visible to anyone who cares to look up my profile. I am not in my 60s. Not yet, anyway; I don't turn 60 until next year.
So I was one year off. Big deal.
Star Trek premiered in 1966. I was 3 at the time, but we lived on an acreage in the county and only got one or two channels. Star Trek was not one of the shows we got, nor would it have been one I'd have been interested in anyway, even if my parents had allowed me to watch. My 3-year-old self was into cartoons, and the only live-action shows I remember from those years are Bonanza, Gunsmoke, the news, and hockey games, as well as the kids' shows on CBC. In short, typical '60s stuff, most of it Canadian.

Fast-forward some years... my parents divorced, I went to live with my grandparents, and my grandfather decided we would move into the city. In 1975 he decided to get cable TV, and it was in November of that year that HE was watching Star Trek (he sampled a wide variety of TV shows due to having a much wider selection of channels than just 2). I took one look at it, thought it looked stupid, and told him I wanted to watch something else (I was into cop shows at the time). He told me to either sit down and be quiet, or go to my room.

So I sat down, shut up, and gradually got interested in the episode. At the end of it I figured okay, that was interesting, and I'd like to try more. Star Trek was on 5 days/week at that time, and it didn't take long to admit I was hooked. Then, on one of the twice-monthly visitations with my mother (my dad got custody in the divorce), we happened to go to Woolco (now Walmart), where I was browsing the book department and discovered that someone named James Blish had adapted the Star Trek episodes into short story format. Those two Blish books I bought were the beginning of a science fiction collection that now numbers in the thousands.

Oh, and the irony of this? My grandfather eventually declared that he was "tired of that damn silly Star Trek!" though he continued to watch shows starring William Shatner (he liked T.J. Hooker). He hadn't realized until I told him that Shatner was Jewish (this is something known to anyone who has read any of Shatner's autobiographical books or behind-the-scenes books about Star Trek, but while my grandfather read a lot of my books, he never read any Star Trek ones). My grandfather died the same year that Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ("the one about the whales") came out.
William Shatner's hair was fake. He wore a toupee.
So I'm a bit confused as to why you would think that my grandfather couldn't have been interested in Star Trek. He was a casual viewer, and I think he might have regretted creating the "monster" he did; my life would have been very different if not for that show, as it had a tremendous influence on my life in numerous ways. I wouldn't have gotten into science fiction in general, and wouldn't have gotten into the Society for Creative Anachronism (since I heard about it via science fiction), nor would I have been interested in the theatre (after reading The Making of Star Trek I thought that working on the tech side of performing arts sounded fascinating, so when applications were sought for the theatre, I jumped at the chance and got in). We wouldn't even be having this argument if not for all this - it was someone in the SCA who introduced me to Civ games, and someone on an RPG forum who gave me the link for CFC.
In the immortal words of Queen Victoria, "We are not amused."
Just think what my grandfather unwittingly set in motion all those decades ago!
You arguing with someone 3+ decades younger than you who lives halfway around the world on the internet?
Oh, and while you're at it, ponder this: Elderly people aren't one bloc of group-think that cares only about "old people stuff". I am definitely not the oldest person on CFC, and there is no rule about how old a person can be when they acquire a new interest or pick up a more modern outlook on something.
There's a difference between being hip and needing a hip replacement.
The original intention was anything BUT noble. The original intention was to "kill the Indian in the child".

Read this article and then tell me how Macdonald and Langevin and others had "noble" ideas. They considered the indigenous people to be savages.
Their cultures were incredibly primitive and unfit for the civilized world, but Macdonald and Langevin saw the valuable person underneath that and wanted to save the person, civilize them, and enable them to live happy, functional, productive, and modern lives. Several assimilated Amerindians went on to do great things...Charles Curtis became the Vice President of the USA in the 1920s, at the same time, Will Rodgers was the highest paid entertainer. He even came to South Africa, where he was treated as an equal.
And while you're at it, I suppose you think the Sixties Scoop was also "noble". This is something that was never taught in schools during the years I attended. I hadn't even heard of it until a few years ago when there was something on the news about it. Indigenous kids were literally kidnapped from their homes and sold in black market adoptions to couples in the U.S. and Europe. Do tell me: HOW IS THIS "NOBLE"?
The goal (assimilating them to Western culture) was noble, even if the methods weren't always noble.
You call yourself Christian. Even Pope Francis finally stated that the residential schools were a form of cultural genocide. Yes, the kids were taught to read and write. But they were also forced to live in substandard conditions, with substandard health care, and their language and culture were literally beaten out of them as much as their oh-so-"kindly", oh-so-"Christian" teachers could manage. There were numerous sexual assaults, and some kids died while trying to escape back to their families
I'm not Catholic. I don't care what Pope Francis says. He has no authority over me.
.ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SAYING THIS WAS ALL "NOBLE"?

There are searches being conducted now at numerous sites of former schools, to see if there are any more unmarked graves or mass burial sites. They found hundreds of remains in BC. There are 4 sites of former residential schools/trade schools for indigenous kids in this very riding, one of them only a few blocks from where I live, in the Minister of Education's own riding.

I wonder what meaningless "thoughts and prayers" she'll mumble if a search is done and bodies are found. She used to be the chairman of the Catholic school board in my city. She's on record as recently as November 2015 stating that she wants teachers to "teach the positive things" about residential schools. She hired an anti-indigenous racist to oversee the writing of the social studies portion of the new curriculum the UCP intends to force on the students and teachers of this province.
There were unfortunate excesses, yes, but the goal was a noble one that should never have been abandoned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom