DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Religious Dick on May 27, 2010, 04:23:46 AM
-
A Warning for America
from South Africa
By Gemma Meyer
(Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)
People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).
Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.
America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.
Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you've created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.
But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.
That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.
Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace."
Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.
The Third World is different - different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.
Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.
It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe "compassionate conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.
White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.
We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of "oppression" and "racism," and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the "equality of man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World's history.
The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's mission-school proteges. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."
Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.
From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.
A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel.
In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society's laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white man's justice"? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.
What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white "racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?
Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.
In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing - invasions of private land by the "have-nots;" the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.
In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.
What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?
Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.
Don't imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be found to exonerate the guilty.
In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.
When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.
Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and don't pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans' services, are simply abandoned.
What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.
Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.
Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.
To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.
Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your posessions, your power, and your status.
And they already know that their allies among you, the "human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will.
They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well.
They know what to do.
Do you?
This article first appeared in the August 2000 edition of Middle American News. It is reprinted here in response to numerous requests.
http://www.manews.org/0105sawarning.html (http://www.manews.org/0105sawarning.html)
-
<<That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.
<<Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace.">>
Terror and murder practiced by the ANC? I don't get it. Did the ANC kill Steve Biko and thousands like him? Did it conduct the Sharpeville Massacre? This author has a serious selective memory problem. The ANC became involved in violence only after years of passive resistance to the racist white regime's murderous repression had completely failed. And guess what? For the ANC, the violence worked!!!
-
he didn`t factor that caucasions are the ruling minority there.
wouldn`t that make abit of a difference ?
-
In response to kimba's point, Naomi Klein has a reasonably good analysis of the South African government and in fact the ANC did cave in on key economic issues to the white minority. This is a reason for the continuing capitalist influence which keeps the black majority in poverty for the benefit of the white minority, ruling through black figureheads. Massive expropriations of white property were avoided and there was no real redistribution of the wealth of the nation, which had previously been stolen by the whites.
This is a situation which cannot be expected to continue indefinitely. REAL revolution is still a possibility, some would say an inevitability, and if and when it comes, there will be a more just distribution of the national wealth and resources, and probably a lot less street crime in the result.
-
if and when it comes, there will be a more just distribution of the national wealth
and resources, and probably a lot less street crime in the result.
oh great...maybe they will kick the whites off the farms then they can see the whole country
go down the shitter like Zimbabwe and instead of being poor they can flirt with starvation!
there is not much doubt is there that Zimbabwe blacks are worse off under black rule? And
I assume South African Blacks now are much worse off than they were during Apartheid.
-
It seems rather strange for this person to refer to Black Africans in South Africa as an "alien culture". I suppose to the author of this article, White folks were sent by God to civilize the heathens.And now, God has been tricked into letting the darkies rule once more.
It is also a bit of a stretch to suggest that the Latino, Chinese and perhaps East Indian minorities are going to go all tribal on us like the Zulus. I think the main result will be more and better Mexican, Chinese and Curry restaurants.
Most of the wealth in SA is concentrated in the hands or a minority of the White minority. It is pretty bad in the US (I think the top 1% owns something like 90% of the income-producing wealth in the country). We are on a par with Portugal when compared in terms of income distribution with the EU nations.
-
think it`s more of a visibility issue.
here you`r not likely gonna see too many people doing extremely better than you.
but In SA it maybe a different matter.
but then we got credit cards, meaning people with massive debt can still own a plasma tv.
income disparities are very blurred in meaning here.
-
<<And I assume South African Blacks now are much worse off than they were during Apartheid.>>
Sure, if being kidnapped, tortured and murdered by the state security apparatus is a good thing, the South African blacks ARE much worse off now than they were during apartheid. Why don't you ask THEM how much they miss the "good old days?"
-
Most of the wealth in SA is concentrated in the hands or a minority of the White minority. It is pretty bad in the US (I think the top 1% owns something like 90% of the income-producing wealth in the country).
I think Xo might be confusing "wealth ownership" with taxation. Wouldn't be the 1st time
-
In Zimbobwe they are worse off, no question.
South Africa still has hope and means to advance.
-
<<In Zimbobwe they are worse off, no question.>>
How so? Whitey's off their backs, so the colour of their own skin is no longer a barrier to their future advances in life.
-
Zimbabwe is gradually pulling out of the morass that Mugabe got them into. It will be better for most people if Mugabe has the decency to either step down or die. Having him in power for this long is like having Nixon running the US.
Rhodesia is a disaster, but Botswana has done very well. It depends on the leadership, which needs to be candidates that will rule wisely, and turn the presidency over after a couple of terms.
-
Sure, if being kidnapped, tortured and murdered by the state security apparatus is a good thing, the South African blacks ARE much worse off now than they were during apartheid. Why don't you ask THEM how much they miss the "good old days?"
Apparently someone already did.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html)
-
<<In Zimbobwe they are worse off, no question.>>
How so? Whitey's off their backs, so the colour of their own skin is no longer a barrier to their future advances in life.
This one factor being improved , all of the black citizens can be happy that all other factors have become insurmountable obsticles to progress.
The White citizens on the other hand can simply leave or die, the color of their skin being practicly a death warrant.
-
<<Apparently someone already did [ask the South African blacks how much they miss the Apartheid days].>>
Apparently somebody asked ONE black man in the Congo how much he missed the colonial era. That was the Congo, we were talking about South African apartheid. Since the CIA murder of Patrice Lumumba back in the sixties, the Congo has had a lot of problems that can be traced directly back to foreign (U.S., French and Belgian) meddling in the post-colonial government.
I don't think you'll find too many South African blacks who want to see the return of apartheid.
-
<<This one factor being improved , all of the black citizens can be happy that all other factors have become insurmountable obsticles to progress.
<<The White citizens on the other hand can simply leave or die, the color of their skin being practicly a death warrant.>>
So that's a net improvement, since the vast majority of the inhabitants are black and not white. Furthermore in the Bad Old Days, the black majority did not have this wonderful choice of "leave or die" - - they had to suffer under white minority tyranny till they died or were killed by it.
So for the vast majority of the inhabitants, there has been a HUGE improvement achieved through the destruction of white minority rule. The whites today are simply paying a karmic debt to the evil of their ancestors and even in many cases of their own racist selves.
-
<<This one factor being improved , all of the black citizens can be happy that all other factors have become insurmountable obsticles to progress.
<<The White citizens on the other hand can simply leave or die, the color of their skin being practicly a death warrant.>>
So that's a net improvement, since the vast majority of the inhabitants are black and not white. Furthermore in the Bad Old Days, the black majority did not have this wonderful choice of "leave or die" - - they had to suffer under white minority tyranny till they died or were killed by it.
So for the vast majority of the inhabitants, there has been a HUGE improvement achieved through the destruction of white minority rule. The whites today are simply paying a karmic debt to the evil of their ancestors and even in many cases of their own racist selves.
This ignores one of the important facts.
While Rodesia was english or independant was there a net increase of Black population and a migration into or an net decrease and a migration out of?
Same Question for South Africa.
The majority of the Black people present in both cases came to the repressive countrys in order to escape neighbors where conditions were worse there was very little leaveing South Africa in order to enjoy the conditions of Angola.
So what is the net benefit of being repressed and starveing over the benefits of being repressed and and fed?
To my mind the people as a whole still need the same thing they origionally needed , enough education and sophistication to demand better successfully.
-
If I understand your last post correctly, plane, it is that white Rhodesia wasn't so bad because there were neighbouring states that you presume (based on net migration rates) were worse?
Piss-poor argument, IMHO. It's akin to saying "X wasn't bad because Y (Nazi Germany, for example) was worse." Or "My son's grades must be OK because the LOWEST mark in his class was worse than his."
Give it up. Most of the people in Rhodesia were black and they're a hell of a lot better off without the white racist minority government, because their skin colour is no longer a bar to their advancement in life.
BTW I don't trust the net migration figures then or now, they probably aren't representative of the real numbers, and the present numbers may not be all that different than before. But it's irrelevant simply because the reasons for in-migration or out-migration are complex and multi-factored and can't be taken as an indicator of the overall status of any racial group or sub-group in a country.
-
If I understand your last post correctly, plane, it is that white Rhodesia wasn't so bad because there were neighbouring states that you presume (based on net migration rates) were worse?
Piss-poor argument, IMHO. It's akin to saying "X wasn't bad because Y (Nazi Germany, for example) was worse." Or "My son's grades must be OK because the LOWEST mark in his class was worse than his."
Give it up. Most of the people in Rhodesia were black and they're a hell of a lot better off without the white racist minority government, because their skin colour is no longer a bar to their advancement in life.
BTW I don't trust the net migration figures then or now, they probably aren't representative of the real numbers, and the present numbers may not be all that different than before. But it's irrelevant simply because the reasons for in-migration or out-migration are complex and multi-factored and can't be taken as an indicator of the overall status of any racial group or sub-group in a country.
You give it up.
When it is difficult to make the transition , but many cross the line anyway , then conditions must indeed be better on the side in the direction of preponderance of travel. This is better evidence than the speculations of experts , each of the persons in migration can compare the former and the latter becomeing a real expert on his own microcosm, thus and so, the evidence is perfect.
There were people who left the intolerable conditions of South Africa , outnumbered twenty to one by the people who left the neighboring countrys to enjoy the conditions in S Africa. I have not checked lately , is this still the trend?
-
Both Mozambique and Angola were in the throes of civil war for decades up until the 1990's when change came to the RSA. People migrated to avoid starvation and war. There were jobs in the RSA. Not good jobs, but in Angola, Namibia and Mozambique there were no jobs and a bloody civil war which was sustained by aid from the Apartheid government of the RSA.
Things have improved in all the other Southern African nations, except for Zimbabwe.
Botswana is almost entirely a Black nation, and has done quite well, with a parliamentary government and regular elections. This was helped by the discovery of several diamond mines, which are controlled by the national government.
I do not know what the immigration statistics are. I imagine that the figures are inaccurate, as people simply immigrate by stepping across the border. It is no longer necessary for every Black in the RSA to carry an internal passport (passbook). People from Mozambique, Lesotho, Swaziland and elsewhere tend to migrate to those parts of the RSA where others speak their language. The borders were not drawn up to reflect ethnic groups. The Boers and the English each grabbed as much land with valuable resources they could control, pushing the locals off the lands they wanted, and hiring whomever they wished for cheap labor.
-
<<When it is difficult to make the transition , but many cross the line anyway , then conditions must indeed be better on the side in the direction of preponderance of travel. >>
What nonsense. The "difficulty" of crossing the border in some fucking jungle from one third-world country to another has to be about as "difficult" as a chicken crossing a country road.
<<This is better evidence than the speculations of experts , each of the persons in migration can compare the former and the latter becomeing a real expert on his own microcosm, thus and so, the evidence is perfect.>>
I guess the flaw in your reasoning has escaped you until now. The choice of crossing from A to B has as much to do with the attractions of B as it does with the hellishness of A. How A compares to B is not the same as comparing how B today compares to B yesterday. It may or may not be related to how hellish A is or it may or may not be related to how wonderful B is. Without an analysis of both sides of the crossing at all times, you can't really tell what is driving the migration. Your exclusively one-sided concentration on events on the Rhodesian side of the line is consistent only with your desire to see the event you selected mesh with your preconceived (and totally absurd) view of the situation of the Zimbabweans of today.
<<There were people who left the intolerable conditions of South Africa , outnumbered twenty to one by the people who left the neighboring countrys to enjoy the conditions in S Africa. I have not checked lately , is this still the trend?>>
Again the same kind of junk logic that I just addressed regarding Zimbabwe.
-
<<This is better evidence than the speculations of experts , each of the persons in migration can compare the former and the latter becomeing a real expert on his own microcosm, thus and so, the evidence is perfect.>>
I guess the flaw in your reasoning has escaped you until now. The choice of crossing from A to B has as much to do with the attractions of B as it does with the hellishness of A. How A compares to B is not the same as comparing how B today compares to B yesterday. It may or may not be related to how hellish A is or it may or may not be related to how wonderful B is. Without an analysis of both sides of the crossing at all times, ........................
The best way to account for all factors is to monitor the result of all factors. Each particle in the flow is responsible for the attractions and repulsions that affect the bit of environment it is in. The overall flow is a real indicator of the overall situation no matter how many factors may be effective but unseen.
-
<<The overall flow is a real indicator of the overall situation no matter how many factors may be effective but unseen.>>
As long as we can agree on what you meant by "the overall situation," in the above comment, I have no problem with it. "The overall situation" here being essentially nothing more or less than the direction of the net flow of migration, not the hellishness or otherwise of one particular country in the mix.
-
<<The overall flow is a real indicator of the overall situation no matter how many factors may be effective but unseen.>>
As long as we can agree on what you meant by "the overall situation," in the above comment, I have no problem with it. "The overall situation" here being essentially nothing more or less than the direction of the net flow of migration, not the hellishness or otherwise of one particular country in the mix.
How hellish can "hellish" be if it is better than what you have got and you choose to go to it?
I am not argueing that these south African countries didn't need to change , I am saying that they still need to change , and not much less.
-
<<How hellish can "hellish" be if it is better than what you have got and you choose to go to it?>>
You'd have a point if the ONLY factor driving emigration was hellishness. But migration is a lot more complex than that, and we don't know very much about the dynamics of the migration across those particular borders. For example, the emigrants might have skills, family or tribal connections or other advantages in the destination country that they lack at home. Meaning that for that particular minority (emigrants) within the home country, conditions might have improved substantially across the board and yet in their particular cases, it might be advantageous to emigrate anyway. Or it could be that BOTH sides of the border were vastly improved by decolonialization, yet for reasons now unrelated to colonialization, one side of the border is better for the emigrants than their own side.
Your use of migration stats as "proof" that one side or the other was "ruined" by decolonialization is just senseless.
-
<<How hellish can "hellish" be if it is better than what you have got and you choose to go to it?>>
You'd have a point if the ONLY factor driving emigration was hellishness. But migration is a lot more complex than that, and we don't know very much about the dynamics of the migration across those particular borders. For example, the emigrants might have skills, family or tribal connections or other advantages in the destination country that they lack at home. Meaning that for that particular minority (emigrants) within the home country, conditions might have improved substantially across the board and yet in their particular cases, it might be advantageous to emigrate anyway. Or it could be that BOTH sides of the border were vastly improved by decolonialization, yet for reasons now unrelated to colonialization, one side of the border is better for the emigrants than their own side.
Your use of migration stats as "proof" that one side or the other was "ruined" by decolonialization is just senseless.
It is rare to leave better for worse.
The overall direction of immagration is proof of which direction is better -overall-.
Now , would you rather be black in a country that restricted you for being black , or would you rather be black in a country that restricted the freedom of all human beings?
-
Now , would you rather be black in a country that restricted you for being black , or would you rather be black in a country that restricted the freedom of all human beings?
=====================================
That is too hypothetical a question. Different people would answer it differently, and unless you managed to change the person into a Black person and send him to two countries, you'd have no accurate answer. And if you did, it would vary with the individual.
-
<<It is rare to leave better for worse.>>
Meaningless statement, especially since "better" and "worse" aren't defined. As XO points out, "better" for one man isn't necessarily "better" for another. Unless the emigrants' country is totally depopulated by exodus, you have to assume that most of the population stayed behind because they DIDN'T consider it was "better" on the other side.
<<The overall direction of immagration is proof of which direction is better -overall-.>>
Nonsense. See my comment above.
<<Now , would you rather be black in a country that restricted you for being black , or would you rather be black in a country that restricted the freedom of all human beings?>>
Me? Personally? I'd rather be black in a country that restricted the freedom of all human beings. Why the fuck would I want to be the only guy held back while Whitey is having himself a ball? Why would I want to be singled out as unfit to come to the party while everyone else is free to party? Fuck dat. If I can't be free, fuck Whitey, he can't be free either. Besides, there's a better shot at Revolution when black and white all pull together, than when the ruling class sets one underclass against another, as in the U.S.A.
-
Now , would you rather be black in a country that restricted you for being black , or would you rather be black in a country that restricted the freedom of all human beings?
=====================================
That is too hypothetical a question. Different people would answer it differently, and unless you managed to change the person into a Black person and send him to two countries, you'd have no accurate answer. And if you did, it would vary with the individual.
The underlined is what I don't need to invent . The people present flowed in a trophic manner twards the better and away from the worse.
What I really can't do is open an older S Africa next to the present SAfrica and see which way the flow would go. Too bad eh? All we have is which way people went at the time.
-
<<It is rare to leave better for worse.>>
Meaningless statement, especially since "better" and "worse" aren't defined. As XO points out, "better" for one man isn't necessarily "better" for another. Unless the emigrants' country is totally depopulated by exodus, you have to assume that most of the population stayed behind because they DIDN'T consider it was "better" on the other side.
<<The overall direction of immagration is proof of which direction is better -overall-.>>
Nonsense. See my comment above.
<<Now , would you rather be black in a country that restricted you for being black , or would you rather be black in a country that restricted the freedom of all human beings?>>
Me? Personally? I'd rather be black in a country that restricted the freedom of all human beings. Why the fuck would I want to be the only guy held back while Whitey is having himself a ball? Why would I want to be singled out as unfit to come to the party while everyone else is free to party? Fuck dat. If I can't be free, fuck Whitey, he can't be free either. Besides, there's a better shot at Revolution when black and white all pull together, than when the ruling class sets one underclass against another, as in the U.S.A.
You are deeply stuck in the past.
Neither White or black should be subject to injustice.
The persuasion for justice would have been very weak if the promise was for injustice to be preserved in reversal.
-
<<You are deeply stuck in the past.>>
He who forgets his history is doomed to repeat it. I'm "deeply stuck in the past" but you're the one who brought up the wonderful world of White Rhodesia, when blacks streamed across the border to Racist Paradise.
<<Neither White or black should be subject to injustice.>>
Yes but that shouldn't mean that Whitey gets a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for his past racist crimes and atrocities.
<<The persuasion for justice would have been very weak if the promise was for injustice to be preserved in reversal.>>
What on earth is "unjust" when racist criminals are made to pay for their racist crimes?
-
<<You are deeply stuck in the past.>>
He who forgets his history is doomed to repeat it. I'm "deeply stuck in the past" but you're the one who brought up the wonderful world of White Rhodesia, when blacks streamed across the border to Racist Paradise.
<<Neither White or black should be subject to injustice.>>
Yes but that shouldn't mean that Whitey gets a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for his past racist crimes and atrocities.
<<The persuasion for justice would have been very weak if the promise was for injustice to be preserved in reversal.>>
What on earth is "unjust" when racist criminals are made to pay for their racist crimes?
It is good to compare the actual past to the actual present.
Compareing the empty promises of the past to the empty retoric of the present is easyer .
Injustice is justified by the crimes of your ancestors? Who can't find a justification for that?
Paying for being white is evil not a bit less than paying for being black.
Why should any party in power ever give over any advantage? A lot of White people were persuaded that the advantage was unfair and uneeded , if the real truth was that the unfairness would return then the uneeded part was not true was it?
-
<<Injustice is justified by the crimes of your ancestors?>>
Ancestors, my ass! In Zimbabwe, many of the whites were alive and participated in the racist crimes of the white racist government. Others are inheritors of the wealth stolen from the black majority by the white racists and farmed with the black labour that they exploited. Cry me a fucking river.
-
<<Injustice is justified by the crimes of your ancestors?>>
Ancestors, my ass! In Zimbabwe, many of the whites were alive and participated in the racist crimes of the white racist government. Others are inheritors of the wealth stolen from the black majority by the white racists and farmed with the black labour that they exploited. Cry me a fucking river.
Then should they have ever given up to fairness ?
If fairness equalled death every time it would be a lot less popular.
-
<<Then should they have ever given up to fairness ?>>
Who says they gave up to "fairness?" They knew the situation was hopeless, so they tried to pretend that they'd finally seen the light. Fooling almost nobody.
<<If fairness equalled death every time it would be a lot less popular.>>
"Death to the oppressor!" isn't ever going to be very popular in the oppressor nations but it doesn't depend on popularity among the oppressors to find its way forward, it depends instead on armed struggle.
-
<<Then should they have ever given up to fairness ?>>
Who says they gave up to "fairness?" They knew the situation was hopeless, so they tried to pretend that they'd finally seen the light. Fooling almost nobody.
<<If fairness equalled death every time it would be a lot less popular.>>
"Death to the oppressor!" isn't ever going to be very popular in the oppressor nations but it doesn't depend on popularity among the oppressors to find its way forward, it depends instead on armed struggle.
You are makeing a good case for white solidarity . Having the upper hand around the world White supremeacy was accomplished . Talked into acheivements of fairness rather than being the fittest most of the change was volentary.
-
<<You are makeing a good case for white solidarity . Having the upper hand around the world White supremeacy was accomplished . >>
That upper hand was kind of losing its grip, wasn't it? In China, in India, in French Indochina, in Algeria . . . all over the world, Whitey's ass was getting kicked. From a white POV in Rhodesia, it must have looked like they were next. Numerically overwhelmed. Abandoned by the home country, the former imperialist super-power. WTF? Though some talked the talk of die-hard white racists everywhere, common sense (not "fairness" or any other Boy Scout shit) won out and Whitey caved. Again, seemingly, fooling nobody but you with their pretence of having finally seen the light. Fairness, my ass!
<<Talked into acheivements of fairness rather than being the fittest most of the change was volentary.>>
Bullshit.
-
<<You are makeing a good case for white solidarity . Having the upper hand around the world White supremeacy was accomplished . >>
That upper hand was kind of losing its grip, wasn't it? In China, in India, in French Indochina, in Algeria . . . all over the world, Whitey's ass was getting kicked. From a white POV in Rhodesia, it must have looked like they were next. Numerically overwhelmed. Abandoned by the home country, the former imperialist super-power. WTF? Though some talked the talk of die-hard white racists everywhere, common sense (not "fairness" or any other Boy Scout shit) won out and Whitey caved. Again, seemingly, fooling nobody but you with their pretence of having finally seen the light. Fairness, my ass!
<<Talked into acheivements of fairness rather than being the fittest most of the change was volentary.>>
Bullshit.
Oh yes?
When the European attitude was uniformly bad they put a foot on almost every neck.
Why not stay there?
Did you totally ignore Gandi and Dr Martin Luther King Jr?
-
<<Why not stay there?
<<Did you totally ignore Gandi and Dr Martin Luther King Jr?>>
More or less, I did. Gandhi was the spearhead or the focus of the Indian independence movement, but it didn't start or end with him. What finished the Raj was the toll of the Second World War on Great Britain. They were finished, spent, as an imperialist power. Not only India, but all of their African colonies soon freed themselves from the bondage of colonialism. It was a burden that the British could no longer afford to bear. They just couldn't afford it.
Dr. King basically followed around a booming post-war drive for black equality. He didn't initiate the sit-ins or the boycotts, he followed them and gave them voice. Basically it was the student radicals who organized these protests from the grassroots up, and not Dr. King, who created the images of firehoses and police dogs, of white racist mobs cracking skulls and spewing hate. As long as the TV networks continued to cover the news, America was getting a black eye in the eyes of the world every day this kind of shit continued. Finally the U.S. Congress got the message, they realized that white racism was a luxury they could no longer afford if they were trying to convince the rest of the world that their way was better than the Communist way. It was not Dr. King that they were giving in to, it was the images on TV that the student radicals had created.
-
What made the Birmingham Bus Boycott successful was the fact that there were enough Black people who owned their own cars to sustain the boycott. Also, in years past, there were enough White passengers to keep the buses profitable. By the '60's there were so many Whites driving themselves to work that there were not enough White passengers to keep the bus company solvent when the Blacks refused to take the bus.
Economics was a big factor in the success of the Civil Rights Movement: when most of the Blacks were out in the fields picking cotton, mass movements were impossible, because there was a lack of masses. New agricultural machinery forced Blacks into the cities when the sharecropping system and manual labor gradually was becoming extinct.
Freedom rides were possible only because there were national bus systems, like Greyhound and Trailways, that relocated passengers according to Jim Crow laws. The lunch counters that were targets of sit-ins were national chains, like Woolworth, that could be boycotted in their Northern stores for refusal to serve Blacks in the South. Locally owned lunch counters had to wait for the Civil Rights Laws.
-
What made the Birmingham Bus Boycott successful was the fact that there were enough Black people who owned their own cars to sustain the boycott. Also, in years past, there were enough White passengers to keep the buses profitable. By the '60's there were so many Whites driving themselves to work that there were not enough White passengers to keep the bus company solvent when the Blacks refused to take the bus.
Economics was a big factor in the success of the Civil Rights Movement: when most of the Blacks were out in the fields picking cotton, mass movements were impossible, because there was a lack of masses. New agricultural machinery forced Blacks into the cities when the sharecropping system and manual labor gradually was becoming extinct.
Freedom rides were possible only because there were national bus systems, like Greyhound and Trailways, that relocated passengers according to Jim Crow laws. The lunch counters that were targets of sit-ins were national chains, like Woolworth, that could be boycotted in their Northern stores for refusal to serve Blacks in the South. Locally owned lunch counters had to wait for the Civil Rights Laws.
That is a good point, Black people makeing economic advancement was enableing to other sorts of advancement.