On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:20:29 +0100, Bing Trotsky
gmail.com> wrote:
>So that's the deal then. You were in the military killing to defend
>apartheid, and you don't have the guts to face the possibility that might
>have been the wrong thing to do.
How very presumptuous of you. You would probably be very surprised
what I did and how I felt.
>Look toward? I've been to Zimbabwe and Zambia. Both a mess. But both
>where you won't find many people demanding a return to colonial rule.
Wrong. Almost all of the ordinary blacks in Zimbabwe would like to
return to the life they had under Ian Smith. The vast majority don't
understand and couldn't care less about the politics - they just want
their old life back whatever it takes. Zambians don't know anything
other than what they have now.
>>> I've also
>>>yet to hear a black South African tell me anything other than that life
>>>is better than it was under apartheid.
>> And where did you meet those blacks? I doubt it was in a rural
>> village. You would have heard the same from city-bred black
>> Zimbabweans shortly after Mugabe took over. Try asking the same
>> question today though.
>In London, in Liverpool, and in Zambia (quite a few South Africans on
>the train from Lusaka to Ndola, and a LOT of time to talk).
So none that are actually living in the country. Strange that the
people who you say are telling you how much better the country is have
chosen to live elsewhere.
>So mostly in exile up to apartheid fell.
Apartheid fell quite some time ago. Why have they not returned?
> I know a few black South Africans still,
>though all currently based in London.
Exactly. Better to look at the country from afar with rose-tinted
glasses than actually live there.
>On the other hand I also know quite
>a number of white South Africans. Some have gone back to make a life in
>SA, and some have settled over here (all rock spiders with one
>exception). I also used to work closely with the South African branch of
>the Samaritans up until a few years ago. It's a fair range.
No it isn't. It is a self-selected sample of people who have the
means to emigrate and have chosen to live elsewhere. That is *far*
from being a representative sample. The vast majority of black South
Africans do not have the means to leave the country even if they want
to do so. I bet that you have not spoken to a single rural black, yet
they make up the majority of the population. It's a pity, because I
think it would really open your eyes to the reality of the situation.
Your contacts have been with Westernised blacks - who admittedly got
the roughest end of the stick under apartheid.
> So have you
>actually been told directly by any black South African that they would
>prefer to return to apartheid?
Black Zimbaweans. Yes. South Africa has not yet degenerated to
anywhere near the same extent, and life there is presently reasonably
OK. Though as you yourself have noticed, the cracks are very evident.
>>>I think I have at least some understanding of the issue. I'm not
>>>convinced that you have the slightest understanding of it.
>> I'm sure you genuinely believe that your picketing outside the South
>> African embassy and exposure to distorted and one-sided propaganda
>> gave you a far better insight into the situation than my 30 years of
>> living in the country and regular conversations today with friends who
>> are still there. It is highly unlikely that your belief is correct.
>Right. So a wide range of people of different races, religions, and
>political beliefs is distorted and one-sided propaganda, and somebody who
>is ex-South African military and is an apologist for apartheid is
>claiming to have the open mind.
Your contacts have not been with the people who are living in the
country. As for being an apologist for apartheid - I have stated that
it was an imperfect but unfortunately necessary system. Events have
proved that the only alternative that was put in its place simply does
not work in that culture - which was 100%% predictable by anyone who
lived in the country for any length of time. Do you really think that
it is a good thing to get rid of an unfair poliotical system *at the
expense of making everyone far worse off and destroying the country*?
Yes, under apartheid as it was practised the blacks only had half a
loaf whilst the whites had a full loaf (but only by Western
standards). But now they have *nothing*. Sure, you can create
equality by pulling everyone down to the lowest level. That's easy.
Doing it the other way around takes time and effort.
And of course, there is far *less* equality in Mugabe's Zimbabwe today
than there was under Smith's Rhodesia in 1970.
>So, pray tell. Have you actually had any black South African claim that
>they would rather apartheid had continued?
See above. And I don't think you actually understand the concept of
apartheid (as opposed to the way it turned out in practise). The
system is not designed to treat any group better or worse than any
other. It simply allows two cultures to co-exist in the same
geographic area whilst maintaining separate cultural identities -
neither group must necessarily be treated worse than the other. It is
carried out in many situations without anyone geting upset about it.
There is apartheid between the Westerners and the natives in Saudi,
for example. Different living areas, effectively different laws.
Minimal social interaction. There is also a self-imposed apartheid in
the UK, with various cultural groups deciding to stay apart from other
cultural groups.
One thing that I have not checked up on, but will do so, is what laws
have been applied to both blacks and whites now that there is
"equality" in Africa? Are blacks now forced to be monogomous, or are
South African white men permitted toi have more than one wife?
--
Cynic
