SA comes from 'shameful history' of colonialism, apartheid - Lamola reflects on injustices of past

[rambo919]

They only wanted cheap labour. It is plain as anything to see.

No, that's only one thing they wanted not why Apartheid was started and certainly not why most people supported the NP.

The tale of South Africa will be that when the government works for one segment of the population at the expense of the other, it is guaranteed to fail.

When the ANC was focussed on economic growth i.e. working for everyone, the entire country prospered. Then the left took over enough control and we now have a failed state.

True enough, however the ANC was always leftist, they only pretended to be centrist initially to calm down whites who were terrified of SA becoming a Communist state..... and foreign investors who gave out investments like candy because of the euphoric PR delusion that was the rainbow nation.

 

[Gone Fishing]

Pure democracy does not work

The whole current dispensation is the problem, it must be replaced with something else just as the previous one was.

None of these things have anything inherently to do with race per se.... sure people interpret it as such but that is because your common voter is a moron with no proper historical knowledge who only knows what his TV, radio and now twitter tells him.

The common voter is a poor, unemployed black person. Making a law that affects only black people and making a law that affects 95% of the population is essentially the same thing when the majority is black.

Democracy doesn't work, but sadly it's the system we have in SA and if we want it to work, we have to make it work the best way it can.

 

[skimread]

Not exactly sure what you mean with salvation, if you have a problem with God there are other threads for that.

Apartheid was bad but not just because "racism bad bleh RAAAGE". It was bad because it was dishonest, exploitative and just plain not sustainable.

Apartheid and the settlement of SA was linked to religion and the idea that Afrikaner people were chosen by God. A bigoted racist idea. Religious salvation under suffering. You can understand this thinking was helpful during harsh conditions like famines, wars with tribes and British and depression eras the Afrikaner endured, but by the time the National party and their apartheid came along it was outdated and out of sync with reality. Basically the indoctrination of religious salvation of going to heaven in exchange for being obedient to the obedience hierarchy.

The advantage of such thinking is that people were not anywhere near as corrupt than those of today although I don't doubt you had bad apples then but because people believed in religious judgement and community values, crime and corruption was not serious.

In contrast today we don't know what will happen in future because of the full negative effect of the "anything goes" rules out in place in today's ANC ruled world. It is sad this happens due to the tools like internet , communication and smartphones we have available we can see how evil they are with their rhetoric. Tools people didn't have during Apartheid because it didn't exist.

 

[rambo919]

The common voter is a poor, unemployed black person. Making a law that affects only black people and making a law that affects 95% of the population is essentially the same thing when the majority is black.

Democracy doesn't work, but sadly it's the system we have in SA and if we want it to work, we have to make it work the best way it can.

That's the problem, we can't make it work because it does not work. Wishful thinking is killing SA.

 

[konfab]

You are welcome to debate anything, just as people are welcome to debate taking your land away from you. ACTUALLY taking away people's rights and land is a different story, but the fear is already in place.

I'm just saying a party that wants to take your ownership away, no matter how efficient they may be, isn't appealing. Same thing for rights.

Like the right to vote?
You know about 65% of the population would be willing to live in a dictatorship if said dictatorship delivered economic growth.

Sokutu is not alone in this sentiment. CapeTalk noted research presented at an Electoral Commission (IEC) seminar in September 2022 that shows many South Africans would accept a dictatorship ‘provided the leader solves the country’s pressing issues’: based on 2021 polling, Afrobarometer found that some 65% of South Africans might be willing to give up on democracy if a non-democratic government delivers.

Afrobarometer asked, ‘If a nonelected government or leader could impose law and order, and deliver houses and jobs, how willing or unwilling would you be to give up regular elections and live under such a government?’

https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2023/03/03/illusion-benevolent-dictatorship-south-africa

Not that a benevolent dictatorship could work. Incentives for government are then not aligned to anything.

 

[Gone Fishing]

Like the right to vote?
You know about 65% of the population would be willing to live in a dictatorship if said dictatorship delivered economic growth.


https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2023/03/03/illusion-benevolent-dictatorship-south-africa

Not that a benevolent dictatorship could work. Incentives for government are then not aligned to anything.

That goes contradictory to the illusion of Apartheid coming back then? People wanted human rights because they wanted to be treated fairly and have equal opportunity, why would they then allow a dictator to group them and dictate their lives?

If 65% of the vote is all that is needed, why not have a dictator run for presidency then? I feel liek this poll may not be reflective of what people really want or if they understand it correctly.

 

[rietrot]

Here is the problem... whether or not the swart gevaar is real is irrelevant. Almost no one want's Apartheid back they want seperate development.... the thing Apartheid said it wanted to do but never actually managed to do.

Nobody wants separate development? What kind of BS statement is that and how is it not apartheid.

Is this like real communism haven't been tried?

 

[rambo919]

Apartheid and the settlement of SA was linked to religion and the idea that Afrikaner people were chosen by God. A bigoted racist idea. Religious salvation under suffering. You can understand this thinking was helpful during harsh conditions like famines, wars with tribes and British and depression eras the Afrikaner endured, but by the time the National party and their apartheid came along it was outdated and out of sync with reality. Basically the indoctrination of religious salvation of going to heaven in exchange for being obedient to the obedience hierarchy.

Nope the idea is not racist at all it just happened to coincide with race nor is it outdated yet.... it's just become unpopular after it's abuse.

The advantage of such thinking is that people were not anywhere near as corrupt than those of today although I don't doubt you had bad apples then but because people believed in religious judgement and community values, crime and corruption was not serious.

In contrast today we don't know what will happen in future because of the full negative effect of the "anything goes" rules out in place in today's ANC ruled world. It is sad this happens due to the tools like internet , communication and smartphones we have available we can see how evil they are with their rhetoric. Tools people didn't have during Apartheid because it didn't exist.

The corruption of Apartheid was nothing more than absolute power corrupting absolutely, the theology itself had nothing to do with it directly.

The big problem with the theology of Apartheid however was that it as incomplete.... instead of a temporary dispensation it was constrained into a stagnant permanent one. Politicians took control of church instead of church taking control of politicians. The theology of perpetual white governorship can in no way be biblically sustained, a temporary transitionary governorship however can.

The only way the NGK theology of the time could be sustained was to ignore large swathes of scripture, and it was done because of the BroederBond imperial ambitions they had learnt from the British. Do not confuse what Apartheid became with what people initially wanted it to be. It's failure in no way discredited separate development... only seperate development completely dominated by a particular group.

 

[rambo919]

Nobody wants separate development? What kind of BS statement is that and how is it not apartheid.

Is this like real communism haven't been tried?

Apartheid never was separate development, it literally never reached that stage. It was hijacked along the way before it could and then later when PW wanted to get things back on track the liberal (funny that it was the liberals ne?) faction of the NP nudged him out of leadership while the conservatives merely blocked his attempts at gradual reformation.

 

[rietrot]

Apartheid never was separate development, it literally never reached that stage. It was hijacked along the way before it could and then later when PW wanted to get things back on track the liberal (funny that it was the liberals ne?) faction of the NP nudged him out of leadership while the conservatives merely blocked his attempts at gradual reformation.

You are just doing the USSR/China was not real communism from the other side. Stop it it is stupid.

All the black tribes could develop separately to their hearts content, yet didn't with the traditional leaders in charge and just did subsidence farming. Still the same today. Poor traditional homelands are poor and people moved to the cities/mines for work.

Completely true separate development is Swaziland and Lesotho and they also come to SA for jobs.

 

[konfab]

Apartheid and the settlement of SA was linked to religion and the idea that Afrikaner people were chosen by God. A bigoted racist idea. Religious salvation under suffering. You can understand this thinking was helpful during harsh conditions like famines, wars with tribes and British and depression eras the Afrikaner endured, but by the time the National party and their apartheid came along it was outdated and out of sync with reality. Basically the indoctrination of religious salvation of going to heaven in exchange for being obedient to the obedience hierarchy.

The reasons for it are a lot more complex than that. You have legitimate worries of anglicization thrown in as well as urbanisation and trade unionism.

Hutt did the best job of explaining why it occurred IMO, because he wasn't a communist trying to impose a retarded Marxist model on it.
https://cdn.mises.org/The Economics of the Colour Bar_2.pdf

The real bummer for progressives is that they think Orania is re-incarnation of apartheid. But it lacks the fundamental feature of apartheid, which was that Afrikaners at the time thought that certain work was below them. Orania is literally founded on the opposite of that, in that all work, no matter how ugly or dirty is for Afrikaaners (and only Afrikaaners ) to do. If someone thinks that is the bastion of Apartheid, they are retarded.

We see similar things with Afriforum as well, but to a much lesser extent.

 

[Gone Fishing]

Nobody wants separate development? What kind of BS statement is that and how is it not apartheid.

Is this like real communism haven't been tried?

How do you develop separately without infringing on other people's rights?

Village 1 has 10 white people. Village 2 has 10 black people.

1 white guy and 1 black woman fall in love. That white guy invites that black woman to come and live with him in his village.

Village 1 has 10 white people and 1 black person, Village 2 has 9 black people.

 

[rambo919]

You are just doing the USSR/China was not real communism from the other side. Stop it it is stupid.

No I am not offering an impossible utopia, this is the difference.

They actually tried to implement Communism and saw they could not.

Separate development was never actually attempted in SA, at best the attempt was attempted to attempt but it was blocked by vested interests.... this is not true for Communism.

EDIT: another proof that separate development never happened..... black labour in white areas.

 

[rambo919]

How do you develop separately without infringing on other people's rights?

Village 1 has 10 white people. Village 2 has 10 black people.

1 white guy and 1 black woman fall in love. That white guy invites that black woman to come and live with him in his village.

Village 1 has 10 white people and 1 black person, Village 2 has 9 black people.

Buffer areas in between or alternatively separation areas. Give people the freedom to choose their own futures. It's not impossible it's just never been tried.

 

[konfab]

That goes contradictory to the illusion of Apartheid coming back then? People wanted human rights because they wanted to be treated fairly and have equal opportunity, why would they then allow a dictator to group them and dictate their lives?

If 65% of the vote is all that is needed, why not have a dictator run for presidency then? I feel liek this poll may not be reflective of what people really want or if they understand it correctly.

It is because fundamentally, the majority of people understand that the best way for themselves to get out of poverty is to get a decent job.

A Lee Kuan Yew figure in SA that only focussed on stopping crime and growing the economy would be a magnet for voters. At one point I thought Herman Mashaba could be that person, but he was a damp squib in that regard. More interested in selling out to the EFF than anything.

 

[rietrot]

How do you develop separately without infringing on other people's rights?

Village 1 has 10 white people. Village 2 has 10 black people.

1 white guy and 1 black woman fall in love. That white guy invites that black woman to come and live with him in his village.

Village 1 has 10 white people and 1 black person, Village 2 has 9 black people.

Then you start village 3 a coloured village.

 

[Gone Fishing]

Then you start village 3 a coloured village.

Why? He has a house and job in village 1?

Should the people that are offended not leave to village 3?

Edit: This is what I was talking about in regards to laws - you need a law to FORCE him to go make another village.

 

[rietrot]

Why? He has a house and job in village 1?

Should the people that are offended not leave to village 3?

Edit: This is what I was talking about in regards to laws - you need a law to FORCE him to go make another village.

Only Ranbo takes this stuff seriously. I was being sarcastic, it is stupid.

 

[rambo919]

Why? He has a house and job in village 1?

Should the people that are offended not leave to village 3?

Edit: This is what I was talking about in regards to laws - you need a law to FORCE him to go make another village.

If it's his choice to marry outside his tribe he has to take the responsibility for all repercussion of that choice.

 

[rietrot]

No I am not offering an impossible utopia, this is the difference.

They actually tried to implement Communism and saw they could not.

Separate development was never actually attempted in SA, at best the attempt was attempted to attempt but it was blocked by vested interests.... this is not true for Communism.

EDIT: another proof that separate development never happened..... black labour in white areas.

Yes you are. People will intermix. There is no way to prevent it, not even making it illegal will stop it.

Maybe on a small scale with a dictatorship and no property rights you can do it like Orania. But not on any meaningful scale and it will never be self-sustaining.