Xenophopic violence continues in South Africa– the toll so far being 62 dead and 670 wounded:
Attacks broke out in a poor neighbourhood of Johannesburg on May 11 and spread across the country, targeting immigrants including Zimbabweans and Mozambicans, whom locals blamed for taking their jobs.
The Ugandans aren’t impressed with South Africans:
We have always known South African black people to be even more discriminatory than the whites who rode roughshod over them during apartheid. We just didn’t think they’d go this far- beating and killing fellow blacks from other countries, blaming them for their economic woes.
The Nigerians are protesting at the South African embassy.
Mozambique claims there has been no retaliation against South Africans but they have absorbed 32,000 people fleeing the violence.
Of course none of this is really new to South Africa, it has just become more intense and is now making the news. Just check out the dismal photo gallery that has been documenting the death of Johannesburg since 2006.
poor ted, triped over his boot lace and wound up with a foot-in-mouth
ted, it is not always what one says, often it is what one fails to say that defines character!!
Penny: Ted, this is too easy. I posted one comment today and never mentioned historic Native American slave holdings…
===============================
Yes, Ted. Learn how to read, will you. It should help you to come up with better arguments. I’m the one who mentioned the bit about slavery, just so you might some day be able to say that, oh, the Whiteman isn’t the only evil in the world and I guess it’s possible to point out that some shit holes in the world have only themselves to blame.
Louise: my mistake. You are right. You were the one spewing the nonsense about NA Indian slavery. Penny was spewing the nonsense about Haitian slavery. And let me be clear, since penny is now pretending to care about accuracy: the nonsense part is not the facts of that slavery – which only the most far out of it leftied at rabble might dispute or equivocate on – no, your standard fare nonsense is your inventing positions and views that I have about such thinks. For folks who are whining about reading things properly, you might want to start with the mirror.
It’s rather strange that right minded conservatives would be so bothered replying to “teds” blithering comments that do nothing but sling childish mud at the other posters.
He obviously has nothing to say aside from promoting his agenda to label SDA and it’s readership as racists. He’s not listening to you nor will you ever change his misguided perception of the world. This is without a doubt an attention getter for “ted” and his goal is disruption, self-flagellation and a soap opera where he’s the star on center screen. Where are his facts or arguments other than personal attacks and lazy cheap shots at others facts and arguments?
Penny was spewing the nonsense about Haitian slavery
“A Crime So Monstrous”, Chapter One, so, Ted, it’s there for you to refute. Fire away, you idiot.
I am an African immigrant, born to educated, well-to-do Nigerians. I have traveled a little, have lived in North America since 1998, and agree with the general thrust of much that’s been written here.
For those who wish the clearest philosophical explanation of the social problems reported in the links posted by Kate, I refer you to the Ayn Rand essays:
1) “Global Balkanisation” (in “The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought”); and
2) “Racism” (in “The Virtue of Selfishness”).
Oh penny, penny, penny. Accusing others of reading and accuracy problems and then deliberately misreading comments yourself. How typical of you. Silly person.
So I’ll repeat, and this time read it s l o w l y…
And let me be clear, since penny is now pretending to care about accuracy: the nonsense part is not the facts of that slavery – which only the most far out of it lefty at rabble might dispute or equivocate on – no, your standard fare nonsense is your inventing positions and views that I have about such facts.
So again, penny, caught inventing positions I do not hold. It’s like you have so much hate and venom inside you that you have to make stuff up to have the argument you want.
And none of the horrible slavery and conditions in Haiti has anything to do with South Africa or Kathy Shaidle’s promotion of apartheid as the solution for South African problems.
So two lessons for you, penny dear: stay on topic and stop making stuff up.
Knight99:
Since you too obviously don’t get it, let me explain it to you too.
The right, just like the left and all other beliefs, has its share of obtuse and hateful people. Their venom and hate drive their solutions to the world’s problems. This is why, after a guest post by Jaeger (not Kate, folks) highlighting a collapsing civilization, Shaidle’s response and solution is naturally to pine for the better days of apartheid and Penny’s response is naturally to point out that blacks in other parts of the world are just as bad if not worse.
These types of commenters poison the well. I am not calling conservatives racist, Knight99, just these types.
And what resulted from pointing out how The Great Rights Defender Shaidle promotes apartheid solutions? The comments thread was diverted from the typical black/Africa bashing thread that penny and Shaidle and irwin daisy their like find most appealing, and some started to talk about African successes and solutions, leading up to a separate and great head post this morning (guest posted by Vitruvius) about exactly that: solutions and successes in Africa. So, mission accomplished. You are welcome.
So many here praise the likes of Kathy, but like the Judy Rebic’s of the left, they do far more damage to their own side then their opponents. And their responses here – in response to my small original comment – do more to show that. So again, mission accomplished. You are welcome.
“The point being that Africa is a nation of kill or be killed. A way of life, a pastime. Sort of like downtown Toronto.”
Aww, c’mon, Honey Pot, you only do damage to your arguments by spouting this sort of tripe. I assume you’re referring to the killing fields of the Annex? Or the mean streets of Cabbagetown? Yeah, let me tell you, I have to strap on my kevlar just to make it back from buying magazines on Queen West – it’s war out there.
As for you, Ted, you’re here to sell your little point, and nothing will distract you, that’s obvious. You’ve done nothing to address anyone who’s disagreed with you by citing examples, in favour of wrapping this tattered mantle of self-righteousness around you. What a bore.
Thanks for your post Dare.
ted,
Arrogant prick. Nobody is black/Africa bashing. Most are correctly liberal bashing. Bashing miscreants like you. It is your ilk that causes destruction and death throughout the world, through your ill thought out values and policies. It is you, with your racist policies like multiculturalism, oil for food, etc., etc., who are destroying others. You.
There are indeed some good things going on in Africa. African run organizations like AMREF are doing wonders. Africa can be a success. But it won’t as long as liberals are allowed to run roughshod throughout the continent, with their experimental, ‘progressive’ programs based on false values and lies.
you all gave ted too much rope.
There’s another entity that really should come in a for a significant share of bashing, and that is the NGOs. These mealy-mouthed busy-bodies have robbed Africans of their self-sufficiency and independence leaving nothing material to fill the gap. Africa countries, once colonized by the NGOs, never get rid of them because of the cash they funnel to the despot du jour. I weep for the continent. Read Paul Theroux’s “Dark Star.” Heartbreaking.
Furthermore, the anti-apartheid rhetoric emanating from the West was nothing more than a pacifier for North American Africans. In the meantime, South Africa soldiered on despite the boycotts. In fact the favorite soft drink in South Africa for years was Coca Cola because Coke didn’t forsake the country when others, e. g., Pepsi, did. I plan to travel to South Africa before it is too late to partake of their very superior wine and wine country as well as visit their world-class game parks. It won’t be long before South Africa goes the way of Zimbabwe. You can’t replace people in significant corporate and national roles strictly on a race basis. If the job doesn’t get done, the country rolls to a stop. You heard it here first.
“nothing more than a pacifier for North American Africans”
Right. Because North Americans hate equality, equality before and under the law, justice, individual liberty and individual rights, meritocracy. No, there was noooo other reason but pacifying the 10 percent of the US population that are “North American Africans” and 3 percent (guess) of the Canadian population and the 0 percent of the population of Europe.
Same with segregation in the US. Kennedy et all were just trying to suck up to Martin Luther King Jr. There wasn’t any other reason for ending segregation.
iowavette, you and Shaidle deserve each other.
Ted>
“10 percent of the US population that are “North American Africans” and 3 percent (guess) of the Canadian population and the 0 percent of the population of Europe.”
Are these facts? That seems a funny comment when watching Canadian, US, or European television, when the majority of the commercials or magazine ads for that matter consist of “guess”.
What’s up with that if the populations of non-European ancestry are as low as you claim in traditionally European founded nations? It’s certainly not even closely relayed as such in the media.
I guess this is aimed at trying to discuss the context introduced by “ted”.
As I read the comments on this post I notice a lot of comments on Apartheid without any discussion of what Apartheid was. As a relative newcomer to discussion on the topic I wonder if the conventional view of it is wrong. The conventional paradigm is that “Apartheid was a system of legitimized racism and white nationalism designed by the white majority” (wiki) to oppress and deprive the blacks. But it seems to me that may have been an unavoidable consequence as opposed to the intentional policy.
Imagine the situation in South Africa in the late 40’s. It is becoming apparent that the majority population is beginning to want to share the economic, social and cultural wealth produced by the minority population. They are starting to seek representation and input in the government. But they are members of a large third world community within a first world country. Over the last 50 or so years their society has not made the same technological, economic, educational or wealth enhancements as has the minority. Not only have they not kept up – but in many ways they have fallen behind. Here’s where I say something that I sure will get branded as racist by the pc police. You know from experience that the majority is simply not capable of running the country. They do not have the education, training, culture, ethical behaviours, view of individual or collective rights and obligations, etc required to ensure that the power is kept on.
But the writing is on the wall. The majority will have to become equal participants in the society. The nightmare scenario sees the third world leaders taking your country down in ruin. (Just like happened in Rhodesia) How to achieve majority rule without losing everything you have becomes the burning policy question. You are fighting communism and socialism as models for creating wealth for the third world majority, because living in the midst of a third world tribal society that is very much a model of communism/socialism, you know they won’t work. Very few options remain.
Maybe the only way is to build a ring fence around your community and preserve it while attempting to build capacity in the other community? I wonder how many of us know that,
“The Promotion of Black Self-Government Act of 1958 entrenched the NP’s policy of separate development. It set up separate territorial governments in the “homelands”, designated lands for black people where they could have a vote. The map of South Africa thus had a white centre with a cluster of black states along its borders. – Wiki.”
Yes, they deliberately segregated the majority population. But, this doesn’t seem like such a bad approach if you recognize that the majority will rule eventually and are trying to enable it in a way that doesn’t destroy what you have already achieved. You don’t fight the inevitable rise of the majority so much as shape how their ascendance to power will be effected. To do this you do is create an area where you are the majority and the country’s majority doesn’t participate. And you create an area where you don’t participate and the other group is the majority. Like a confederation of nations, you create homelands that are self autonomous and charge them with developing like nations. You plan over time to bring the third world homelands up to the standards of the first world minority. At the very least you hope to have these areas function like Arkansas (poor) and New York (rich). Or you look at it like trying to create little independent countries around the minority’s country that have a mutual support arrangement. How is this any different than saying that Canada is a separate entity from Zimbabwe and that Zimbabweans do not get to participate in Canadian elections? How is this any different than saying that Quebec is a different nation than Canada and that it should be segregated from Canada?
But the nightmare scenario is not avoided. You don’t invest enough in development – in fact your biggest investment is in policing the enforcement of your policy in the country and out of it. Eventually (in the 90’s) you end up giving up control of your country to the majority. You hope that the time you bought allowed for the development of a cadre of leaders in the majority community.
But alas, they know nothing of what is required to keep the country up and running and the next thing you know you have the next leader of your country telling the people he leads that it is safe for him to have unprotected sex because he showers afterwards and will not get or pass on AIDS. And your electricity grid is not maintained and you suffer from more outages in one week than California did in the entire time that it was being robbed by the Enron gang. And the murder rate on your streets exceeds that of the rest of the civilized world. And the formerly posh neighbourhoods begin to look like war zones. And you begin to wonder how long it will be before your country is passed by Botswana as being the shining light in ub Saharan African development. Pole Sana
So you pull up roots and move your medical practise to Canada.
rroe >
Very well said!
Knight99:
You claimed that the only reason to oppose apartheid was to placate “North American Africans”. Roughly 10% of the US population is black, roughly 3% (I’m less certain about this number) of the Canadian population are North American Africans and roughly 0% of the European population are North American Africans. Yes, in answer to your question, those are facts.
In other words, your point is ridiculous. People were appalled by the deprivation of rights – equal treatment under the law, voting, economic rights, property rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, violence perpetrated on blacks – and that is why they opposed apartheid. Not to pacify such a small number of people.
It is shocking today that people like you, Shaidle, rroe here can look at that oppression and say ‘bravo’. Especially, when you (royal you, don’t know if you specifically have said anything about the HRC issues, Shaidle certainly has) go on and on and on about the importance of freedom and liberty.
Whatever the selfish justification the white minority gave for apartheid, the fact of the matter is that a black could not vote for its own government, could not own or run his own business or property the way he wanted to, could not speak out against the government, had no say in taxation of his income, had no protection under the law in any kind of dispute with a white person, a black was never given due process. These are core values, not just legal concepts.
This is why I laugh when certain conservatives claim liberty and freedoms – including free speech and property rights and religion and association and due process – are “conservative” values. It’s beyond hypocrisy: it highlights a moral bankruptcy.
Ted>
“You claimed that the only reason to oppose apartheid was to placate “North American Africans”.”
Actually I didn’t claim anything of the sort. You are referring to comments made by “iowavette at June 2, 2008 2:03 PM.”
My question was in reference to your facts, and was wondering not only the legitimacy of them but also the relevance. I simply used a poor little tongue in cheek reference towards the biased media coverage and ad campaigns that grossly misrepresent the colored minority of first world nations to a comical status.
“In other words, your point is ridiculous”……….well it was meant to be if you were referring to the colored ad campaigns. Otherwise I’ve made no comments at all about apartheid or South Africa on this tread to be compared or associated with any of the other bloggers comments.
For the record “In my own words” of course I’m against ALL forms of repression for anyone. As far as South Africa is concerned I give a rats @ss what happens to it and don’t give it a second thought on any given day.
The best comment I read on this thread was by “Posted by: rroe at June 3, 2008 1:04 AM” which read like real experience, was honest and to the point. It reminded me that Canada now enjoys the privilege of ten percent of it doctors that have fled SA to start a new life here. My family doctor is one of those many and I will testify that without a doubt he and his SA partners run the best clinic and medical service I’ve ever witnessed in Canada.
Africa itself can rot away to oblivion as far as I’m concerned. Who cares?
Knight99: The Blackberry commenting mistake is all mine. You are correct: my response to you should have referred to iowavette. She/he is the one who thinks there was no good reason to oppose apartheid.
Posted by: Ted at June 3, 2008 5:52 PM >
No problem.