I'm not the one that said they stole education. Is it even possible to steal education?
Knowing the poster who made that statement I bet that it was some lame attempt at sarcasm.-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Article: Racism still alive: Mujati
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Knowing the poster who made that statement I bet that it was some lame attempt at sarcasm.Bearing in mind that we are now going off topic but I have to ask you this question. According your own historical knowledge, when exactly did the first settlers arrive in Southern Africa? From my own std 3 history lesson, I remember very well that the first wave of white settlers in Southern Africa arrived only in 1652 with the expansion into the rest of Southern Africa only happening much later in the early 1800's.
If the Bantu people had started iron smelting as far back as 1500 BC in the Niger, then how is it possible that when the European settlers arrived here the Bantu were still in the bronze age?
Bugger me sideways. Niger is in Southern Africa. Mind you so is the PAC star, must be Bantu education biting back. Just thought I'd mention it since we're so caught up in semantics
Bugger me sideways. Niger is in Southern Africa. Mind you so is the PAC star, must be Bantu education biting back. Just thought I'd mention it since we're so caught up in semantics
Niger is where the Bantu migration is said to have started from and reached the most southern east coast of Africa by 300 AD. The point is that if they were already in the iron age before the start of the migration how ridiculous is this assertion that they had regressed to the bronze age by 300 AD when they reached southern Africa???? Maybe deduction should be made a compulsory subject in the school curriculum.
For your information, Bantu education act was repealed in 1979 and I was only 3 years old.
Last edited:
I think you are missing the point.
"Before the expansion of the Bantu languages and their speakers, the southern half of Africa is believed to have been populated by Pygmies and Khoisan-speaking people, today occupying the arid regions around the Kalahari Desert and the forest of Central Africa. By about 1000 AD, Bantu migration had reached modern day Zimbabwe and South Africa. "
When it comes to who legitimately owns the land, the argument comes down to a principal. If you are arguing "white settlers" took the land from various African tribes by force, and this is illegitimate (I would agree), then you need to consistantly maintain that argument.
Most of the land that was "stolen" by white settlers, was also stolen by various bantu tribes when they pushed the "natives", the pygmies and khoisan out. In this case, the same principle will apply. The land legitimately belongs to the ORIGINAL NATIVE SETTLERS, which are not the descendents of the bantu tribes.
This is not the argument presented by people. It seems that only "whites" are evil and can steal land and when black people do it on other black people that is sommer okay? Come now, thats just bs.
"The aboriginal Khoisan people have lived in the region for millennia. Most of the population, however, trace their history to immigration since. Indigenous Africans in South Africa are descendants of immigrants from further north in Africa who first entered what are now the confines of the country roughly one thousand years ago. White South Africans are descendants of later European settlers, mainly from the Netherlands and Britain. The Coloureds are descended at least in part from all of these groups, as well as from slaves from the then East Indies, and there are many South Africans of Indian and Chinese origin, descendants of labourers who arrived in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."
I'm sorry, but if descendents of white europeans are all colonialist, imperialist, invaders, then all the descendents of bantu tribes are also invaders, arguably even more so. "Whites", for the most part, only took land from thieves?
Is my logic wrong or is my historical knowledge wrong?
The Boers historically fought against the British (For right or wrong reasons) for many many years, they wanted independence from British rules as much as anyone.
In a census taken in 1907, whites accounted for approximately 20% of the estimated population and, and black people approximately 67%. Now whites are less than 10% and black people approximately 80% of the population. In 1907 the estimated population size was 5,1million.
What that means is a lot less land was occupied by "african" tribes during that period, furthermore, vast tracks of interior land in South Africa were occupied by the boers when they decided to leave the cape (Didn't like British rule) and during this period they met little resistance from African tribes. This was attributed to the reign of Shaka and the "difaqane".
"Meanwhile, the Boers had started to grow increasingly dissatisfied with British rule in the Cape Colony. The British proclamation of the equality of the races particularly angered them, and they were also unhappy with the process of payment of compensation for slave-owners whose slaves had been freed. Beginning in 1835, several groups of Boers, together with large numbers of Khoikhoi and black servants, decided to trek off into the interior in search of greater independence. North and east of the Orange River (which formed the Cape Colony's frontier) these Boers or Voortrekkers ("Pioneers") found vast tracts of apparently uninhabited grazing lands. They had, it seemed, entered their promised land, with space enough for their cattle to graze and their culture of anti-urban independence to flourish. Little did they know that what they found – deserted pasture lands, disorganised bands of refugees, and tales of brutality – resulted from the difaqane, rather than representing the normal state of affairs." - Wiki
"The early 19th century saw a time of immense upheaval relating to the military expansion of the Zulu Kingdom. Sotho-speakers know this period as the difaqane ("forced migration"); while Zulu-speakers call it the mfecane ("crushing").
The full causes of the difaqane remain in dispute, although certain factors stand out. The rise of a unified Zulu kingdom had particular significance. In the early 19th century, Nguni tribes in KwaZulu-Natal began to shift from a loosely organised collection of kingdoms into a centralised, militaristic state. Shaka Zulu, son of the chief of the small Zulu clan, became the driving force behind this shift. At first something of an outcast, Shaka proved himself in battle and gradually succeeded in consolidating power in his own hands. He built large armies, breaking from clan tradition by placing the armies under the control of his own officers rather than of the hereditary chiefs. Shaka then set out on a massive programme of expansion, killing or enslaving those who resisted in the territories he conquered. His impis (warrior regiments) were rigorously disciplined: failure in battle meant death.
Peoples in the path of Shaka's armies moved out of his way, becoming in their turn aggressors against their neighbours. This wave of displacement spread throughout Southern Africa and beyond. It also accelerated the formation of several states, notably those of the Sotho (present-day Lesotho) and of the Swazi (now Swaziland)."
Shaka, didn't we just name a brand new airport after him. So, "South Africans" must celebrate a burtal, tyrannical totalitarian dictator, and hate the "white imperialists".
Got it.
My point is, the history of this country is very complex and not nearly as simple as black vs white. You need to take an unbiased and principled view when looking at our history, the racial and cultural context of the people before deciding things based on something as arbitrary as a colour.
White man's propaganda history.
Sarcasm? Or wikipedia!
MickeyD
RIP
Hauw.... your version she is not in the Pedi dictionary!Had to cover my bases there before I opened my mouth...
So the only difference between European white and Bantu black oppression is a few centuries?
Ekstasis
Honorary Master
Racism will never die. It lives in all of us on different levels.... You might say "I'm not a racist", but backtrack your actions in the past and you'll see on some level you're not such an angel as ya claim to be. Why do we group together with our own kind? Show me a country where racism has been wiped out?
S7wede
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,458
- Reaction score
- 208
Although you do bring some what of a point in regards to racism being a never ending struggle, your first point is completely subjective and moot. You cannot speak for a collective and therefore can only speculate based upon your own experiences. Please don't think that I'm trying to speak for any collective either, I'm simply saying that you do not speak for me and cannot ever hope to understand what I feel in regards to race and racism.
I think discrimination, like Walter Williams, is simply the act of choice.
In that case we call discriminate. I don't think one can ever demonstrate objectively that if you base your choice on certain criteria, that is immoral. It may be a vice, but it isn't a crime.
Freedom of association means allowing people to not associate in ays you deem offensive.
In that case we call discriminate. I don't think one can ever demonstrate objectively that if you base your choice on certain criteria, that is immoral. It may be a vice, but it isn't a crime.
Freedom of association means allowing people to not associate in ays you deem offensive.
When that choice hinders the growth of another it becomes destructive and unethical. Your choices may seem independent and isolated but in a community, especially if it's in a school or work place it becomes even more imperative to not discriminate based on colour because that directly affects that persons view of his/herself and how they approach other people in that persons race.
Lycanthrope
Honorary Master
You're projecting again, dear Ekstasis.
"Racism" is a social conditioning and nothing more. It's irrational. delusional and a scapegoat for an individual's own insecurities.
To say that racism "lives in all of us" is a grand way of making yourself feel better about your own... tendencies.
Edit: Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't racism inherently an individual making themselves feel better about themselves by using the achievements of others "like them" as somehow giving themselves a feeling of worth or accomplishment?
It's basically a weak-willed and insecure individual's way of coping with the world and their own failings and trying to find recognition with their peers.
In fact, it's a lot like any other system of "belief" -- irrational and misguided but not difficult to understand the motivations behind.
Last edited:
Ekstasis
Honorary Master
You keep thinking I'm a projector dear Lycanthrope
Love ya too man..I think you misunderstood what I tried to say. Racism has many many levels....even a negative thought in your head about the other, without acting on it could be considered as racism on a lower level than say ..calling a black dude the k-word, or burning crosses aka kkk! You get what I mean?
Lycanthrope
Honorary Master
Er... No, I don't.
If I think someone's an idiot, it has nothing to do with the colour of their skin. /hint
Or are you trying to imply that people of different races, by definition, think racist thoughts? No, dear Ekstasis, I think that's just you
Ekstasis
Honorary Master
Er... No, I don't.
If I think someone's an idiot, it has nothing to do with the colour of their skin. /hint
Or are you trying to imply that people of different races, by definition, think racist thoughts? No, dear Ekstasis, I think that's just you
Well then I guess that makes you an outstanding individual for never ever thinking/acting out thoughts of a racist nature. You're certainly a better person than I am.
I would be cautious of those adamantly trying to prove they are not racist.