Carte Blanche

I wonder how surprised the BBC would be if a former minister of Tony Blair's cabinet replaces Brown to be the next PM.

LOL where did he come from :eek:

:D
 
alanf85 said:
That had a hint of a BBC stage managed special IMO
Click to expand...
Possibly, or maybe they chose to believe it. People in England are exposed to different things and tend to be cautious when visiting these parts. It's easy to forget how we have become used to a certain level of crime/violence/apathy from authority etc..
 
Poverty is not the exclusive legacy of Apartheid as the journo implies. There are countries across the continent that have the same "legacy" that did not have Apartheid. It is foolish to consider poverty as a result of Apartheid. Idiotic IMO.

He also holds that Apartheid created an unequal society. This is (even if it isn't said) also difficult to explain. There is no proof that the black masses would have more economic prosperity or even an equal footing with westerners (the whites) in South Africa without Apartheid. I am somehow doubtful the economic prosperity that is shown in the white community would have been the behest of the blacks in South Africa had whites never arrived here. That is doubtful in my mind. Not because there is potential but because the cultural norms and western way of going about development wasn't and still isn't prevelant here or anywhere else in Africa. It is a developmental issue. This can be achieved, but South Africa would not be the economic powerhouse of Africa today if it weren't for the so called white influence here.

This aspect of the Apartheid "legacy" hasn't been honestly looked at in studies in my view. This still needs to happen.

Simple question: Would black people in South Africa on average have been better off without white influence here?

Another: Is it fair to compare the differing economic levels of economic prosperity between whites and blacks?

Yet another: Is white prosperity in South Africa the sole outcome and result of Apartheid and nothing else? In other words, is the oppression of blacks by whites during Apartheid the only reason white people are better off?


The reality today is that whites have very little to do with the future prosperity of black people in South Africa. Black people are today at the mercy of black leaders. What can be said is that should the leadership put the economic freedom of whites at risk in South Africa, the whole country could well fall apart and put black people at even more risk of economic and even political anguish. We are on this road already and getting off seems unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Eh! said:
This just F#$%^ piss me off. When I read and watch other country's local news, any violent crime and rapes are always followed up by the arrest of the perpertraitors on the floor in handcuffs behind their backs with their arses up in the air.
Click to expand...

And that is also a rare occurance as most civilized countires dont have that much crime.
 
marine1 said:
Agreed or blame colonialism:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You just have to look at Zim (as usual) They've banned all BBC journos.

Mind you the BBC has become quite biased recently. Several programmes have made me question their integrity and fairness.
 
antowan said:
Poverty is not the exclusive legacy of Apartheid as the journo implies. There are countries across the continent that have the same "legacy" that did not have Apartheid. It is foolish to consider poverty as a result of Apartheid. Idiotic IMO.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, are there any other African country that had such a wide gap between the poor and the wealthy based on the colour of your skin?
 
Fudzy said:
Just out of interest, are there any other African country that had such a wide gap between the poor and the wealthy based on the colour of your skin?
Click to expand...

Yes. Zimbabwe and Namibia.

The funny thing is that economic prosperity levels of whites in Africa are pretty much on par with white communities in the Western world. Funny how that came to be. White prosperity in the West MUST be an outcome of oppression, correct? I don't think so but the argument can probably be held by some who think of it in a simple way.

If you can indulge a little prediction on my part. Namibia and South Africa will falter at round about the same time. Within the next decade and not more than 5 years apart.
 
Last edited:
Fudzy said:
Just out of interest, are there any other African country that had such a wide gap between the poor and the wealthy based on the colour of your skin?
Click to expand...
Many, but they attribute this to colonialism for obvious reasons.
 
@antowan

Unfortunately the whole premise of BBC reporting on foreign affairs, which they primarily focuses on the third world and their suffering, is it's the result of colonialism and white western oppression and exploitation. It's their 'forte' and the basis of their ideology which they propagate under the guise of 'journalism'. Take that away and they're an empty shell :o
 
Then you could say that Africa's role on the world stage is have lots of children, plead poverty and put their hands out for donations.
 
Skeptik said:
Then you could say that Africa's role on the world stage is have lots of children, plead poverty and put their hands out for donations.
Click to expand...

I'm affraid so

Although I'm so sure about lots of childen. S.A has IIRC a population of 47mill and that really isn't a lot compared to other nations our 'size'. It's just S.A cannot sustain a population to the same standard as others.
 
Last edited:
They won't admit that until the rest of the world bleed the natural resources dry though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X