Colonialism wasn't all bad‚ says Helen Zille

[Knyro]

No it isn't, it's the entire point of the argument. Nobody said colonialism was good. Not once was it said. I said it brought some benefits.

Then what's the point of people questions asking if Africa would have X if the colonists hadn't arrived?

What exactly are they trying to imply?

 

[FrankieK]

Then what's the point of people questions asking if Africa would have X if the colonists hadn't arrived?

What exactly are they trying to imply?

The question is why can a country like Singapore prosper so much despite their colonial past but South Africa can not?

 

[Pox]

The question is why can a country like Singapore prosper so much despite their colonial past but South Africa can not?

Two part answer:

Part 1 - TIA
Part 2 - cANCer

 

[Knyro]

The question is why can a country like Singapore prosper so much despite their colonial past but South Africa can not?

How about you answer my post.

 

[RyanPCMR]

That's like suggesting atheist fundamentalists acknowledge that they benefited from the Protestant work ethic philosophy.

Those 139 characters are a shocking indictment of the lack of comprehension skills displayed by the vociferous complainers and should be enough to fail a standard 6 pupil.

You two have obviously not read the full thread from the first post where it contains that exact quote. I merely re-quoted the original quote. Your anger is misguided and childish!

 

[FrankieK]

How about you answer my post.

Which brings us back to Helen's tweet. Why has a country like Singapore managed to overcome (and subsequently prosper) the "scourge" of colonialism, yet SA managed to fark it up six-love?

My question in post #442.

I'm not speculating about what Africa would or would not have had without the colonialists. What's done is done.

Sorry, to answer your question. Zille did not praise colonialism. She said that colonialism brought some good stuff to people. Some of them, like Singapore, embraced it, said f*** the colonialists and prospered to a very first world country despite the hardships they endured. Others, ehhh not so much.

 

[Moosedrool]

Then what's the point of people questions asking if Africa would have X if the colonists hadn't arrived?

What exactly are they trying to imply?

Because colonialism did accelerate the process thanks to it being a collection historical sets of global engineering teqhniques and such. It was implemented straight away without having to be reinvented over time.

If britain was completely cutoff from the rest of the world and never traveled the time they did and adopted improvements from other nations they would be significantly behind in modern society.

Does it make more sense of I use another country instead of southern africa?

And yes the natives would've build ships to sail the waters and so forth if it had any benefit. But maybe 50 to 100 to even thousands of years later. Egypt had boats wayyyyy before the native americans because it simply aspired from an idea with the nile to use it as transport. You simply can't predict when or how...

If the implications has to do with europeans being some kinda superior race instead of superior technology at their grasps then you know you're talking to racist.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm not saying Zille said. But unlike her I could easily foresee the kind of response a tweet like that would get. Funny how she can foresee the shytestorm acknowledging the technological progress brought about by the Nazis would bring but can't foresee that.

So what you are basically saying is that expected too much of South Africa, when she expected them to be able to understand her tweet? I agree with you then.

Well after the shytestorm, it was pretty easy to see what would happen, isn't it?

Hitler was brought up because the situations are similar. The Nazis did terrible things to the Jewish population in Germany back then, but they also advanced technology. Zille, being Jewish, won't acknowledge this. My my, how ironic. How hypocritical.

I've already given a reason for this. Do you disagree?

 

[FrankieK]

/snip

You simply can't predict when or how...

^^This.

 

[Knyro]

Because colonialism did accelerate the process thanks to it being a collection historical sets of global engineering teqhniques and such. It was implemented straight away without having to be reinvented over time.

If britain was completely cutoff from the rest of the world and never traveled the time they did and adopted improvements from other nations they would be significantly behind in modern society.

Does it make more sense of I use another country instead of southern africa?

And yes the natives would've build ships to sail the waters and so forth if it had any benefit. But maybe 50 to 100 to even thousands of years later. Egypt had boats wayyyyy before the native americans because it simply aspired from an idea with the nile to use it as transport. You simply can't predict when or how...

Not being colonised != being cut off. Knowledge can and has spread through other means as well.

So what you are basically saying is that expected too much of South Africa, when she expected them to be able to understand her tweet? I agree with you then.

Well after the shytestorm, it was pretty easy to see what would happen, isn't it?



I've already given a reason for this. Do you disagree?

You telling me Zille is so dumb she could only predict a shytestorm from acknowledging the positives Nazis brought only because of what happened earlier with the colonists?

Yeah I'm going to have to disagree there.

EDIT:

Her being a hypocrite is more likely IMO.

 

[FrankieK]

Not being colonised != being cut off. Knowledge can and has spread through other means as well.



You telling me Zille is so dumb she could only predict a shytestorm from acknowledging the positives Nazis brought only because of what happened earlier with the colonists?

Yeah I'm going to have to disagree there.

Yes it does. But sometimes it spreads much faster and leaves some good stuff behind.

I'm sure eventually SA would have discovered gold and diamonds. We just discovered it a bit earlier.

 

[Swa]

There's nothing to get over. It's just a part of our history. A politician cannot defend the enemy and come out looking good. It is completely and utterly ignorant of her.

Exactly, it's history so get over it. It was ignorant of her to think there can be a rational discussion in a country with a combined IQ less than other African countries.

Did you read the thread, or tweets by the general public? Many are in fact saying that. Saying Africa would have never develped etc.

Wrong context.

She probably won't acknowledge any progress brought about by Hitler because she knows that people like you will misread what she says.

Were social media a rational place in which a reasoned discussion could occur, she might elaborate. But she knows that, whatever she says about Hitler, her words will be twisted until she is a die hard Nazi supporter.

It's interesting that you still think Zille was saying African people deserved colonialism.

Exactly, she likely sees the Hitler comment as the trap it is.

 

[Moosedrool]

Not being colonised != being cut off. Knowledge can and has spread through other means as well.

We know this and yet again it is how it happened and nobody is saying that's the right way or the only way... We can't change the past we can only look back at it.

 

[Johnatan56]

Then what's the point of people questions asking if Africa would have X if the colonists hadn't arrived?

What exactly are they trying to imply?

That those benefits would not exist as they currently do within South Africa had the colonialists not arrived. It's not implied, I've written so multiple times.

Let's work backwards and see if we can find a country that has not been touched by colonialists/taken over within the last ~150 years and see what their current state is.
May I use Wikipedia for speeds sake?

To that above image we can add Mexico (Austria, Spain)

Actually we can just use this map:


The Portuguese:


That pretty much rules out North/South America.

I think I'll just Google who hasn't been colonized/owned by a superior country.
http://afkinsider.com/62750/countries-that-were-never-colonized/
Bhutan, Nepal (though it was a protectorate of GB), Ethiopia.

Buthan: "The economy of Bhutan, one of the world's smallest and least developed countries,"
Nepal: "An isolated, agrarian society until the mid-20th century, Nepal entered the modern era in 1951 without schools, hospitals, roads, telecommunications, electric power, industry, or civil service. " I have a friend there, he absolutely hates it and only goes back to visit for family.
Ethiopia: "Despite recent improvements, Ethiopia remains one of the poorest nations in the world"

 

[Knyro]

We know this and yet again it is how it happened and nobody is saying that's the right way or the only way... We can't change the past we can only look back at it.

You're the one who brought up examples of being cut off.

 

[Knyro]

/snip

Japan is a glaring omission to your post.

 

[Moosedrool]

You're the one who brought up examples of being cut off.

I brought that as an example to show you how progress works.

 

[Knyro]

I brought that as an example to show you how progress works.

No. You conflated not being colonised with being cut off from the rest of the world. And colonialism with progress.

 

[Moosedrool]

No. You conflated not being colonised with being cut off from the rest of the world. And colonialism with progress.

Uh jeez. And yet i say colonialism is bad and is not required over and over again. I donno man now it's just turning silly.

 

[Johnatan56]

Japan is a glaring omission to your post.

You're kidding right? Do you know anything of the history of Japan?