A Warning for America from South Africa

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Plane]

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?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

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.

[Plane]

<<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.