Only white people, or black people who never lived in the townships during the apartheid days, can ever think apartheid government was any good. As bad as this ANC government is, it's 100 times better than the apartheid one.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: If you were buying a TV today, which brand would you choose?
20 May 1983
- Thread starter Mila
- Start date
Only white people, or black people who never lived in the townships during the apartheid days, can ever think apartheid government was any good. As bad as this ANC government is, it's 100 times better than the apartheid one.
etienne_marais
Honorary Master
See, you speak about Africa as if it should be black/African, and about South Africa as if the blacks did not migrate there themselves. Does the fact that we came over the seas make any difference ? A hodgepodge of cultures only works, and to only some extent, in imperial or quasi imperial states as they absorb into a predominant culture. Why should South Africa be a hodgepodge of cultures rather than a series of non-racial nation states ? Does the same hold true for Europe, should it stay primarily white and take a very radical stance on the mass immigration from the third world that is currently happening ?
/Feels disenfranchised because I need a VISA to enter the U.S. or U.K., why have borders at all ???
Last edited:
What things are those?
Eskom was run better under the Nats, however they also had the luxury of not supplying a large portion of the population. Do you think the Nats would have gone out of their way to supply power to people who previously didn't have it? Do you think the majority black populations would have better access to electricity under a Nat controlled Eskom?
Last edited:
Where was this good service delivery? Some of us blacks grew up without water, electricity, roads, clinics, school buildings, etc.
etienne_marais
Honorary Master
The early Nats yes, especially Verwoerd.
The grand architect of Apartheid, really? Then why didn't they when they had the chance?
Do you actually recognise that apartheid was a bad thing? Some of your comments seem to indicate otherwise....
How could it have been run better when it was only supplying electricity to 10% of the population? This whole Eskom fallacy has to stop. Eskom has never been an efficient organisation.
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
Always thought DF Malan was more befitting of the title.
etienne_marais
Honorary Master
Due to the influence of the Broederbond and people who did not have the same vision. Remember, he was assassinated. Vorster started working with those who would later play a crucial role in dismantling Apartheid at the same time continuing with machinations already in place but without the view on cultural nation states (which could later demand sovereignty) for blacks but according to a gradual movement to a integrated South Africa. His earliest actions were to play a role in Rhodesia's black majority rule as a 'white Rhodesia' was seen as a 'liability to South Africa'.
Last edited:
Did you even read my post? I said it was well run because they had the luxury of not having to supply everyone. Despite the lack of efficiencies, if you where part of the privileged few, Eskom power supply was very stable under the Nats. This does not mean I said it was equitable or even fair, just that it's a lot easier to supply electricity to a small user base.
True, he certainly is up there..
The Voice
Honorary Master
http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-03-02-16/Report-03-02-16.pdf
The 1996 Census stats showed that 58,6% used electricity for lighting, 47,4% for cooking, and 46,5% for heating. As this was only two years after the Nats handed over to the ANC, where do you get the 10% from?
Eskom was always an efficient organisation: when the country needed more power, it built more power stations. It didn't steal the money meant for maintenance and construction, or ignore the requests of its engineers when demand exceeded supply. And it definitely didn't have to run the country on diesel. Let's add to that list SAA, the Post Office, and Transnet, while we're at it.
Albereth
Honorary Master
See - you agree. Something was better.
And then you tried to support your view by adding a bunch of other stuff.
We can engage on that. In our make believe world the ANC are the government but Eskom is run by the Nats. Do you not think that the ANC would be able to drive a household electrification process that didn't leave us where we are today? Connected but nothing is coming out?
The real tragedy is that the ANC has squandered the jewels of South Africa.
R13...
Honorary Master
rza is probably pulling those numbers. The first phase (at least the planning) of the mass electrification program by Eskom began shortly after the end of apartheid (~1990). 35% of the country had access at the access time. The townships obviously had access to electricity way before then but it was limited (you could tell by the evening smog around townships when people began cooking).
Albereth
Honorary Master
Eskom was plenty good at energy generation but pretty poor at last mile energy distribution. They are a bulk supplier. 10% is nonsense unless you're are trying to say that only 10% of residences were electrified. Eskom provided energy for the entire country and then some. Not quite the same as every household having an electric socket.
But take a look at the electrification of South Africa. It didn't happen in every white household over night. It wasn't in every city or town either. It was rolled out on the back of an economic model. Sure, the economic model of the time favoured a certain population group. But then the argument (as circular as it may be) was that that group could afford the services. Nobody was given free electricity.
granted.
The townships only got electricity when the ANC took power.