Why is Southern Africa doing so well?

[Lillefix]

I found this picture of Botswana's Exports and imports from 2004 which makes it look like the South Africans are really profiting from Botswana(like Germany and Greece).

It imported 74% from South Africa and exported 7%, while it exported 87% to EFTA and imported 17%. Efta is Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein(it must be a misprint for the EEA). But their export increased from 3.6 bill. to 5.1 bill. from 2004 to 2008, so this country seems to do quite well.

edit: Their main export seems to be diamonds. That probably explains why SA imports so little.

 

[Elta]

Actually, the majority tribe in Namibia is about half of the population, not +80%. If you're classifying all tribes as "black" then I suppose you're right, but they're different tribes and speak different languages.

You're right. My bad.

Spoiler :

Black 85,5%, White 6%, Mixed 6.5%, Asiatic 2%
note: about 50% of the population belong to the Ovambo tribe and 9% to the Kavangos tribe; other ethnic groups are: Herero 7%, Damara 7%, Nama 5%, Caprivian 4%, Bushmen 3%, Baster 2%, Tswana 0.5%

 

[Traitorfish]

31 years ago you could of included Rhodesia too.

No, you really couldn't have.

(Seriously, what is it with you reactionaries and rubbing yourselves raw over Smith's grotesque little slave-state?)

 

[amadeus]

No, you really couldn't have.

35 years, then. The loss of Mozambique, the railway traffic from Zambia, and the demand for increased defense spending killed Rhodesia's growth in the late 70s. But the ten years prior were quite good.

(Seriously, what is it with you reactionaries and rubbing yourselves raw over Smith's grotesque little slave-state?)

What do you know about Rhodesia? How can you make judgments like that with only the most superficial knowledge?

 

[Traitorfish]

35 years, then. The loss of Mozambique, the railway traffic from Zambia, and the demand for increased defense spending killed Rhodesia's growth in the late 70s. But the ten years prior were quite good.

Exposure to international competition played some part in that as well, but, of course, we won't find you conceding the benefits of protectionism any time soon.

What do you know about Rhodesia? How can you make judgments like that with only the most superficial knowledge?

I know that it operated a system of white supremacist apartheid, which is a pretty definite in my book. Some, it seems, is more lenient.

 

[Quackers]

Apartheid? O really? Any evidence for that?

 

[pesgores]

I read in National Geographic magazine that SA black middle class doubled over the last 10 years, from 20% of population to 40%. That's wonderful, but it's probably highly due to large white group.

 

[Traitorfish]

Apartheid? O really? Any evidence for that?

You don't think that 50 out of 66 seats in the Rhodesian parliament being reserved for a white minority which comprised less than 1% of the population constitutes a system of apartheid?

 

[Quackers]

Aparthierd is segregation based on race.

That sounds like a mixed race parliament to me.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Look at the Netherlands now back at South Africa. You have your answer.

Now back at the Netherlands, sadly, the Netherlands is not South Africa.

 

[Perfection]

the Netherlands is not South Africa.

Baloney!

 

[Traitorfish]

Aparthierd is segregation based on race.

That sounds like a mixed race parliament to me.

Aparthierd is a systematic system of racial oppression and discrimination, one expression of which may be segregation.

Which, incidentally, was also in place in Rhodesia, so... What's your point?

Now back at the Netherlands, sadly, the Netherlands is not South Africa.

...But it could smell like South Africa?

 

[ParkCungHee]

...But it could smell like South Africa?

But it could SOUND like South Africa if everyone had a plastic trumpet.

 

[Tee Kay]

I read in National Geographic magazine that SA black middle class doubled over the last 10 years, from 20% of population to 40%. That's wonderful, but it's probably highly due to large white group.

Well if you consider that Whites are letting Blacks have better access to SA institutions and economic opportunity, well, in a way you could say that, yes.

 

[amadeus]

You don't think that 50 out of 66 seats in the Rhodesian parliament being reserved for a white minority which comprised less than 1% of the population constitutes a system of apartheid?

You saying Rhodesia had apartheid is like me saying you're a communist. In short, even though you share some similar points, it's inaccurate. I could just as easily (and as inaccurately) shout "apartheid!" for the USSR given their treatment of the Turkmen, etc. or for the Americo-Liberians (who prevented their native population from voting at all.)

Also, whites were 5% of the population at the time, not 1%. Roughly 300,000 out of 6 million by the mid-70s.

 

[Traitorfish]

You saying Rhodesia had apartheid is like me saying you're a communist. In short, even though you share some similar points, it's inaccurate. I could just as easily (and as inaccurately) shout "apartheid!" for the USSR given their treatment of the Turkmen, etc. or for the Americo-Liberians (who prevented their native population from voting at all.)

Well, perhaps, but the point stands: Rhodesia was a white supremacist state, and so the admiration expressed for it by British reactionaries is in the worst possible taste.

Also, whites were 5% of the population at the time, not 1%. Roughly 300,000 out of 6 million by the mid-70s.

My mistake; apologies.

 

[amadeus]

Well, perhaps, but the point stands: Rhodesia was a white supremacist state, and so the admiration expressed for it by British reactionaries is in the worst possible taste.

Is it? Rhodesia's brand of racial hierarchy was certainly preferable to the lawlessness of post-colonial Angola and Mozambique, the ethnic strife in Burundi, the starvation of Biafra, rampant corruption in Zaire, etc.

Rhodesia, despite all of its many faults, offered employment and stability for Africans. Besides, most African countries were living under one-party dictatorships at the time anyway, so what difference did it make that only a few of Rhodesia's Africans could vote? Their votes still counted more than anyone in Zambia, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, etc.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is it? Rhodesia's brand of racial hierarchy was certainly preferable to the lawlessness of post-colonial Angola and Mozambique, the ethnic strife in Burundi, the starvation of Biafra, rampant corruption in Zaire, etc.

Rhodesia, despite all of its many faults, offered employment and stability for Africans.

I would suggest that you draw up a highly questionable dichotomy. The problems faced by post-colonial Africa were rather more complex than "whit oppression or black chaos".

Besides, most African countries were living under one-party dictatorships at the time anyway, so what difference did it make that only a few of Rhodesia's Africans could vote? Their votes still counted more than anyone in Zambia, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, etc.

The difference is that few people, in my experience, are in the habit of defending the dictatorships in question, while the number of willing apologists for the Rhodesian regime are startling.

 

[Theige]

Human Development Index map.




South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia are doing really well compared to their neighbors. Why?

The East-West Europe split is so abundantly clear here. Minus GB of course, who fall just under the .85 threshold.

I'm surprised Portugal is so much worse off here than Spain, Italy, and Greece.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You don't think that 50 out of 66 seats in the Rhodesian parliament being reserved for a white minority which comprised less than 1% of the population constitutes a system of apartheid?

No, that sounds like a really good business plan when your intent is to exploit blacks and the natural resources of their country to get as rich as possible in the least amount of time. Of course, slavery would have been preferable. But they couldn't get away with that anymore.