Dear White People

[Nicodeamus]

Do you really need an answer there? I didn't say a single entity controls the economy, i said the minority are still controlling the economy. Single entity would mean only Caucasians control the economy which isn't true, but they control the majority of the economy when they only make up 20% of the population? And that is ideal in your opinion? Your opinion so you have a right to it.

nonsense, a majority doesn't control the economy. No one controls the economy, an economy is a result of spontaneous order, it doesn't have a central bureaucratic.

If you are not well trained you will not prosper in the economy of ANY nation.

Agreed on OBE being a dismal failure, but OBE isn't the only reason black people are poor, or still in the majority poor, it is a reason that PROLONGED that situation and made it worse when it should have been better. Even with OBE (introduced a year after I matriculated, the students were only in Grade 10 at the time), would mean the students have only been in the job market for 5-7 years (this not factoring in 3-4 years in varsity). So are you really going to blame OBE for why lower classes are not getting better and call it Bantu Education? Come on! and which point was it that you tried to make so I can understand?

if OBE was a success story then we would have seen a drastic increase in the participation of young black people in the job market, however as far as statistics go, more young black people are now unemployed than at any point in SA's history. (they are the products of OBE, you can't point that on bantu education). Unemployment among older generation blacks are higher than the younger ones, they had some sort of skill, even if it was for basic laboring.

Ideally because of BBEE and AA yes, but realistically? Move away from the PC for a week or so and go into townships or even in the suburbs and really really look at the type of jobs blacks/coloureds/indians work in compared to Caucasians.

I worked in an office where there are more black people than white people. I can compare the townships of Mammalodi (where I do tutoring), do the white township of bonnekopdam (where I did communial service). They both have the same prospects. If anything poverty is very colour blind. I think you need to take off the blinkers.

It's still a huge huge gap where you could complain about losing a job as a developer to another race, when most of those professionals, are working tills or jobs that they could have worked with their matric alone. This is something I can back up and gladly give you a list of places you can visit to see for yourself if you think I'm being bias because of my shoulder chippy lol

nonsense, people don't lose jobs to another race, they lose jobs if they aren't the best candidates (in the private sector at least).

Am I arguing AA? Clearly you arguing on the "plight" of Caucasians and the injustice BBEE and AA is doing against you. Let me ask YOU a personal question because I don't want to assume anything as I do not know you. What do your grandparents and parents do? What do you do? With that in hand, let's say you are not able to find work and AA and BBEE has put you out of market (mind you I have seen dozens and dozens of jobs that are not even AA, or those that specifically request "afrikaans speakers", but let's say you are totally out of market, no dime to your name and this is the injustice of AA, is there a possibility you will go to bed hungry or have no roof over your head? Mind you if the same thing happened to me, even though it would be a blow to my ego, my situation makes it comfortable enough for me to have my parents to be there until I got back on my feet.

no I am not arguing AA, I asked you a basic piece of evidence and you can't seem to provide an answer.

Now the most likeliest situation to pan out for most out there is if they do live with a parent or grandparent guess what? They live on grannies pension or whatever our taxes provide, for an ENTIRE month. Around R1 200.00? (someone will have to back this up for me)... Now tell me if you alone can live on R1 200, let alone support a grown man out of a job on that same amount? Now for people looking in without seeing the impact of that situation it's easy to say "well I should get the job on merit", and yes on principle you should TBH, but you will still have plenty of options (kinda like the Woolworths fiasco, guess what, go apply at PnP or Checkers!), while someone on that R1 200+- situation will last how long before their spirit gets broken? Already as is it's hard for you to grasp AA and the idea of being out of a job period, now imagine the status quo which has created a situation where those in expensive school's getting better marks, better attention, better options even after school vs an average achiever by your standards (the guys who do meet your standards are so few and far between esp in poorer skules), now not even being given a boost just because you feel it's unfair. It is, just like it is unfair to anyone to live off any type of grant or live off anyone on a type of grant that can't even sustain one person decently. Now you still want to cry wolf and say I have a chip on my shoulder? We can take a drive and you can come meet real poor people, and doesn't even have to be black, we'll meet poor coloureds or even our definition of "middle class".

My first job was for R20 an hour, It sucked, then I got educated. I thought it was bloody unfair. Either way you are once again spewing emotional half-truths that I do not care about.

Here is the question again (for the third time, lets see if you can awnser it this time around).
Provide me with evidence (or sound reasoning) that an educated black person would be less competitive in the SA economy than an uneducated white person.

and the 2nd question: provide me with a conclusion is to how it is even remotely possible for a single entity (which you deny, thank got) or minority to control an economy - if they do not have political control at all.

 

[purpleonlineadmin]

You probably do need to go on. Persia isn't part of Africa. I don't recall that the Nubians contributed much in the way of historical accounts and the Egyptians had a rather insular view on things. That leaves the Europeans as the recorders of sub Saharan history. Not exactly a balanced view. But then most of early western civilization was recorded by conquerors and usually many years after the events.

So you saying Europeans are the only guys who recorded a clear and unbiased history or that any other form of recorded history by anyone else naturally becomes "insular"?! Lol Albereth you clearly have an "insular" view and don't know much about African history yourself or you would also know if you dug a little deeper most of the "sources" of European history stem from those same natives of those areas. Since we have veered off into a history lesson in this thread let me continue. Egyptians were in contact with many other civilizations and they recorded things about them, like they did their own.

Read up on Al-Bakri or even Abd al-Sadi who were Arab historians who also recorded findings on places like Timbuktu, on oral and some written traditions of the areas. I personally suggest to you to start reading up on native African history, not just South Africa, but Africa in it's entirety, because even Nubians had classic texts (you can read up on the Kingdom of Kerma or how Nubians kept record of their history also in written texts). Just because you don't recall it doesn't mean it didn't happen and were basis of reference for the same Europeans you give the entire credit to.

Don't stop on antiquity era or just North Africa, in central Africa you had kingdoms like the Kingdom of Kongo (pre Portuguese settlement), who the "modern" historians had to rely on oral traditions of the area to "record" it on paper and make it comprehensible to other Europeans. This isn't even unique to Africa, but even South America and other continents that had inhabitants before contact with Europe.

If you want anything closer to home you can read up on the Kingdom of Mapungubwe.

Just because you don't know these historians by name and only know the Italian/Portuguese/Spanish/English/German missionaries who decided to write what they found from the natives on paper for you to read and comprehend, or referenced from Arab scholars, doesn't mean it wasn't recorded to begin with. The history you know is mostly anglicized and written in a way you'll understand and easier for you to pronounce. So read up and come back to me.

The sort of makes moot any point you may have had about the real history, and not what was read. The real history is lost or distorted. But seeing that a broken watch is right twice a day, those history books are useful. Except where they contradict a point you are trying to make.

European history is more reliable and not broken, when even something as simple as the place name is anglicized? Every history record can have holes in the facts to suit certain perceptions, won't even bring up Christianity into this to show you how anglicized Hebrew and excluded texts created a book full of inconsistent writings. Once you start translating anything, the chances of it being broken are even higher than the original reference because a native word that could mean "land" can suddenly become "country" in English due to mistranslation and change the context entirely (read up on the historical possibility of Noah to understand such a point). So instead of taking European history on face value being more reliable, mix it up, read translations from Arab accounts, or Hebrew accounts, or any other culture that also recorded the same or similar records but from their perspective and not dismiss it as insular and bias. Natives came into contact with many people, and they recorded it, maybe not as extensive as a person who's occupation is to find out such history to begin with, as is normal in Western cultures. Point is it is recorded period!

 

[purpleonlineadmin]

Germany turned itself around from a country severely affected by the great depression to a war machine that once again challenged the world. I don't agree with the motives behind it but imagine if the same effort was put into play in this country? Taiwan, I think it was is also famous for their "5 year plan" which lead the country to vastly increased economic wealth and prosperity. Back to Germany, for any country, over the period of 100 years, to be able to tackle the world with a strong enough war machine, not once but twice and still recover so that in the next century they are once again a financial powerhouse that other countries now BEG to get loans from is quite an amazing acheivement.

The point I'm making is that countries can and have turned their economic situations around in relatively short periods of time. It's not impossible, it's certainly do-able but both the government and the population are required to make it work.

Agreed on your above points, but did you see what my point was? How quick did Germany as a whole develop in 20 years, which is the same period we are at right now? They had economic upturns but WERE STILL IN DEVELOPMENT even 20 years after a traumatic experience. What makes South Africa different from Germany or Russia when 20 years down the line we are also developing (at a slower pace though admittingly AGAIN), and won't see a complete product within 20 years as some people in here would ideally want? Just because it's 19 years since the first free vote for everyone, it doesn't mean prior issues are now done and dusted. Race relations in both Germany and Russia were tense more than 20 years after the war, their economy was developing and in the 60's development was still in effect in those countries was it not?

The mere fact that prior to WW2 Hitler used economic struggles to play on people's emotions is exactly the same point I try to push with most ANC supporters, because they voting entirely based on sentiments and promises instead of service delivery, the same way the Nazi party blamed certain groups for their problems. My points were a direct attack on guys like @STS who clearly want to make economic strength, and reconciliation, based on race alone instead of other factors. I doubt if you asked any Jew born in the 50's in Germany, they would have been all hunky dory about the Nazi/German issue even though they were not born during the war.

We basically agreeing as far as development progress goes, but you trying to give praise to Germany between WW1 and WW2 when one of the reasons WW2 even happened was because of ignorance and economic hardships Hitler played on is similar to our own situations in South Africa. Germany in the 20's and 60's was still in economic and racial tolerant development after the wars were they not?

 

[Kosmik]

Agreed on your above points, but did you see what my point was? How quick did Germany as a whole develop in 20 years, which is the same period we are at right now? They had economic upturns but WERE STILL IN DEVELOPMENT even 20 years after a traumatic experience. What makes South Africa different from Germany or Russia when 20 years down the line we are also developing (at a slower pace though admittingly AGAIN), and won't see a complete product within 20 years as some people in here would ideally want? Just because it's 19 years since the first free vote for everyone, it doesn't mean prior issues are now done and dusted. Race relations in both Germany and Russia were tense more than 20 years after the war, their economy was developing and in the 60's development was still in effect in those countries was it not?

The mere fact that prior to WW2 Hitler used economic struggles to play on people's emotions is exactly the same point I try to push with most ANC supporters, because they voting entirely based on sentiments and promises instead of service delivery, the same way the Nazi party blamed certain groups for their problems. My points were a direct attack on guys like @STS who clearly want to make economic strength, and reconciliation, based on race alone instead of other factors. I doubt if you asked any Jew born in the 50's in Germany, they would have been all hunky dory about the Nazi/German issue even though they were not born during the war.

We basically agreeing as far as development progress goes, but you trying to give praise to Germany between WW1 and WW2 when one of the reasons WW2 even happened was because of ignorance and economic hardships Hitler played on is similar to our own situations in South Africa. Germany in the 20's and 60's was still in economic and racial tolerant development after the wars were they not?

Difficult to compare the two when germany was effectively split and muzzled economicly after world war II. Even with all that, look where they are today.

 

[purpleonlineadmin]

nonsense, a majority doesn't control the economy. No one controls the economy, an economy is a result of spontaneous order, it doesn't have a central bureaucratic.

If you are not well trained you will not prosper in the economy of ANY nation.

Again you preaching ideals. Let me give you an example of Nepotism, does nepotism not exist in work places? Have you not ever come across someone being your senior just because it's a family business. Now with that experience what actually makes you think it doesn't happen that jobs are also given first preference to certain races at times? Or is Nepotism a unique situation of bias in workplaces?

if OBE was a success story then we would have seen a drastic increase in the participation of young black people in the job market, however as far as statistics go, more young black people are now unemployed than at any point in SA's history. (they are the products of OBE, you can't point that on bantu education). Unemployment among older generation blacks are higher than the younger ones, they had some sort of skill, even if it was for basic laboring.

I just gave you timelines. I'm as much a critic of the ANC as you, but even given the timelines that OBE was in effect, OBE as of 2013 wouldn't have changed much as far the lack of economic dispersion. The kids who would have finished under OBE would still be too inexperienced to compete in skilled sectors, except the one's who completed their 3-4 year post high school qualifications.
I don't need to do the math for you that from 5-7 years of the OBE system, those with 3-4 years post high school qualifications would still have to compete for jobs in some saturated markets, and most might probably still be unemployed period. This is reality not an ideal. NOT EVERYONE WITH QUALIFICATIONS get's hired off the bat, everyone in here also knows that after they studied.

I worked in an office where there are more black people than white people. I can compare the townships of Mammalodi (where I do tutoring) (I assume you mean Mamelodi), do the white township of bonnekopdam (where I did communial service). They both have the same prospects. If anything poverty is very colour blind. I think you need to take off the blinkers.

Again you taking a small sample group and comparing it with another small sample group. I have never said there aren't any poor white people have I? I worked in workplaces were I was surrounded by white people, what is your point? The reality is there are millions upon millions of blacks/coloureds/indians who are in situations because of regime policies not because there were opportunities there they just didn't make use of (which will be my assumption of residents of Bonnekopdam), unless you want to suggest those residents are there because the ANC took all their jobs and they were all left to poverty?

nonsense, people don't lose jobs to another race, they lose jobs if they aren't the best candidates (in the private sector at least).

Again clearly you in your own little bubble if you don't believe people do lose jobs due to some sort of bias, be it their sex, relation, race or any other personal issues someone has with another. Some companies in the private sector are still hiring based on languages spoken (specifically adverts wanting only Afrikaans speaks, preferably as a first language) and I doubt you have ever spoken against that nor is a problem. Now do you think this isn't bias to a certain point? or you believe if this became a trend, kids from the townships will be able to apply for similar jobs?

Like I said before to you, it seems to bother you if it's of a concern to you but not when the tables are turned?

no I am not arguing AA, I asked you a basic piece of evidence and you can't seem to provide an answer.
My first job was for R20 an hour, It sucked, then I got educated. I thought it was bloody unfair. Either way you are once again spewing emotional half-truths that I do not care about.

Here is the question again (for the third time, lets see if you can awnser it this time around).
Provide me with evidence (or sound reasoning) that an educated black person would be less competitive in the SA economy than an uneducated white person.

It is possible depending on who is hiring is it not? There is no physical evidence unless someone publicly came out and said "Yeah I don't like hiring any other race but Caucasians", just like there is no evidence when something happens behind closed doors and no one bears witness to it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen Jeeezus. There are many factors that go into a job application than just education as my other point made you aware of. Just because you have the qualification is only a step in the right direction, it now comes down to whoever does the recruitment require at the time including experience, communication skills etc. For all the opportunities blacks/coloureds/indians have in South Africa today, it's still part of a developing process and is far from a finished product. Students coming from the townships, going to varsity, and working still have more to deal with than students in suburbs going to varsity and having to work including also professional networks of people you know, if you do not believe this or actually know of that reality then it confirms you do live in a very linear belief. It's the reality of the situation, and students from townships didn't put themselves in townships because their parents were just too lazy to get a decent education right???

and you were arguing AA, look at your previous points made in your other posts.

and the 2nd question: provide me with a conclusion is to how it is even remotely possible for a single entity (which you deny, thank got) or minority to control an economy - if they do not have political control at all.

A previous regime status quo. You do forget that when the old regime fell apart Nicodeamus, in order to remain economically competitive nothing was changed as far as who ran what. Just like Germans didn't go shutting down Hugo Boss and Mercedes Benz or most businesses that benefited from prior regimes just because the world had an agenda to settle.

Most businesses older than 20 years old did benefit from the Apartheid regime and it's policies. Mandela and the ANC did not throw policies to have managerial or directorial structures changed (which is a good thing), but meant things remained the same and laid foundations where black/coloured/indian people were given the opportunity to catch up (which is what we doing now is it not)?

Now how you can dismiss the FACT that one of the minority races, also just happens to be the majority as far as control, especially in private sectors, boggles my mind? Or is it not reality and it's not true? There is a shift happening but as it stands even look at something as simple as Forbes list of heavy money makers in the South African economy and maybe reality will smack you in the face a bit.

 

[purpleonlineadmin]

Difficult to compare the two when germany was effectively split and muzzled economicly after world war II. Even with all that, look where they are today.

Today being 60+ years, where were Germany 20 years after the traumatic event? were they not developing? Yes or No?

 

[purpleonlineadmin]

The Germans rebuilt what they had built themselves before.
So they had the skills, the willpower, add whatever you like....

And we have what we have not from what we built ourselves before? I don't understand what you trying to get at, so can you elaborate!

 

[wikk3d88]

Today being 60+ years, where were Germany 20 years after the traumatic event? were they not developing? Yes or No?

With significant aid from the US, yes

 

[purpleonlineadmin]

With significant aid from the US, yes

Thats all I wanted to know. Now why can't South Africa also be in the progress of development 20 years since Democracy? How were racial tolerances in Germany in the 50's and 60's?

 

[Nicodeamus]

Again you preaching ideals. Let me give you an example of Nepotism, does nepotism not exist in work places? Have you not ever come across someone being your senior just because it's a family business. Now with that experience what actually makes you think it doesn't happen that jobs are also given first preference to certain races at times? Or is Nepotism a unique situation of bias in workplaces?

if nepotism happens in the workplace the company gets punished for that, if it is sever the company won't exist as they won't make profit anymore. Simple.

I just gave you timelines. I'm as much a critic of the ANC as you, but even given the timelines that OBE was in effect, OBE as of 2013 wouldn't have changed much as far the lack of economic dispersion. The kids who would have finished under OBE would still be too inexperienced to compete in skilled sectors, except the one's who completed their 3-4 year post high school qualifications.

nonsense, people don't compete for high management positions when they enter the job market. You need experience for that, however they cannot compete for even the most basic jobs that requires you to read or write. That is a total lack of OBE education (even OBE up to primary school education should equip you with this skill), it has not, therefore it has failed.

I don't need to do the math for you that from 5-7 years of the OBE system, those with 3-4 years post high school qualifications would still have to compete for jobs in some saturated markets, and most might probably still be unemployed period. This is reality not an ideal. NOT EVERYONE WITH QUALIFICATIONS get's hired off the bat, everyone in here also knows that after they studied.

yes, indeed, government having people studying pointless BA qualifications won't get them anywhere, the job market is saturated mainly in areas where low skill is required, like manual labor. However people with relevant qualifications or on the job experience (like plumbers, electricians, handyman, tilers, builders, supply-chain workers are still very competitive in this country). There are many of them around and the demand is still high. You do not need 3-5 years of tertiary education for some of the jobs

Again you taking a small sample group and comparing it with another small sample group. I have never said there aren't any poor white people have I? I worked in workplaces were I was surrounded by white people, what is your point? The reality is there are millions upon millions of blacks/coloureds/indians who are in situations because of regime policies not because there were opportunities there they just didn't make use of (which will be my assumption of residents of Bonnekopdam), unless you want to suggest those residents are there because the ANC took all their jobs and they were all left to poverty?

you're argument is flawed, just because I do not agree with the first suggestion, doesn't imply that it automatically means your 2nd suggestion?
The majority of unemployed people are within the ages of 19-25 in this country, they are precisely those who are illegible for OBE education. However most of them didn't even bother to finish school. It has nothing to do with race, you're for some odd reason suggestion that because more black people are unemployed that that would automatically imply that some sort of irrational prejudice takes place. However employers seem to not be prejudiced when wanting to employ those with skills...

Again clearly you in your own little bubble if you don't believe people do lose jobs due to some sort of bias, be it their sex, relation, race or any other personal issues someone has with another. [/ Some companies in the private sector are still hiring based on languages spoken (specifically adverts wanting only Afrikaans speaks, preferably as a first language) and I doubt you have ever spoken against that nor is a problem.

companies in Pretoria do demand that you need to speak at least Afrikaans and English yes (which is rational given that we speak Afrikaans here). However speaking Afrikaans, sepedi, Zulu and English is more certainly going to give you an advantage over someone that only speaks Afrikaans and English.

Now do you think this isn't bias to a certain point? or you believe if this became a trend, kids from the townships will be able to apply for similar jobs?

the township kids in Pretoria speak Afrikaans all the time, however it is totally irrational for someone in Durban to demand that a person speaks Afrikaans and I doubt companies do demand that.

Like I said before to you, it seems to bother you if it's of a concern to you but not when the tables are turned?

no, it doesn't bother me at all, if someone who is only competent in English does not get his job, even though he is a better company then he has the opportunity to work for the competitor, meaning the company that didn't want to hire him would go out of business. The market destroys irrational prejudice.

It is possible depending on who is hiring is it not? There is no physical evidence unless someone publicly came out and said "Yeah I don't like hiring any other race but Caucasians", just like there is no evidence when something happens behind closed doors and no one bears witness to it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen Jeeezus.

"There is a God, because you cannot disprove him"" - nice logic

There is discrimination, because you cannot disprove it - nice logic

There are many factors that go into a job application than just education as my other point made you aware of. Just because you have the qualification is only a step in the right direction, it now comes down to whoever does the recruitment require at the time including experience, communication skills etc. For all the opportunities blacks/coloureds/indians have in South Africa today, it's still part of a developing process and is far from a finished product. Students coming from the townships, going to varsity, and working still have more to deal with than students in suburbs going to varsity and having to work including also professional networks of people you know, if you do not believe this or actually know of that reality then it confirms you do live in a very linear belief. It's the reality of the situation, and students from townships didn't put themselves in townships because their parents were just too lazy to get a decent education right???

Education is the wrong word, I should probably have used skills. You're assuming that all kids from the suburb has a parent with intense amount of networks and connections and people that will offer his kid a job just on the spot. However fair enough students in the township are at a disadvantage, because they cannot acquire decent skills. If you are going to argue those with access to skills or training vs those who do not then it is a matter on its own entirely.

However that only proves that employers discriminate based on skills that an application has. There is no other rationality for him to discriminate -if he does the market will sort him out.

The bold part is another form of flawed logic in your reasoning. If I do not agree with point A---> then it implies point B

and you were arguing AA, look at your previous points made in your other posts.

Well it is not my intention to argue AA, its retardation has been overly discussed on this forum.


A previous regime status quo. You do forget that when the old regime fell apart Nicodeamus, in order to remain economically competitive nothing was changed as far as who ran what. Just like Germans didn't go shutting down Hugo Boss and Mercedes Benz or most businesses that benefited from prior regimes just because the world had an agenda to settle.

Most businesses older than 20 years old did benefit from the Apartheid regime and it's policies. Mandela and the ANC did not throw policies to have managerial or directorial structures changed (which is a good thing), but meant things remained the same and laid foundations where black/coloured/indian people were given the opportunity to catch up (which is what we doing now is it not)?

Now how you can dismiss the FACT that one of the minority races, also just happens to be the majority as far as control, especially in private sectors, boggles my mind? Or is it not reality and it's not true? There is a shift happening but as it stands even look at something as simple as Forbes list of heavy money makers in the South African economy and maybe reality will smack you in the face a bit.[/QUOTE]

 

[wikk3d88]

Thats all I wanted to know. Now why can't South Africa also be in the progress of development 20 years since Democracy? How were racial tolerances in Germany in the 50's and 60's?

Dunno

What I do know is that in response to perceived Soviet aggression (the cold war deserves its own thread), the US pumped significant aid into west germany. ze germans hardly had to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

In 1948, the Deutsche Mark replaced the occupation currency as the currency of the Western occupation zones, leading to their eventual economic recovery.
In 1947, the Marshall Plan, initially known as the "European Recovery Program" was initiated. In the years 1947-1952, some $13 billion of economic and technical assistance—-equivalent to around $130 billion in 2006--were allocated to Western Europe. Despite protests from many beneficiaries, the Marshall Plan, although in the less generous form of loans, was in 1949 extended to also include the newly formed West Germany. In the years 1949-1952, West Germany received loans which totaled $1.45 billion dollars, equivalent to around $14.5 billion in 2006.
The country subsequently began a slow but continuous improvement of its standard of living, with the export of local products, a reduction in unemployment, increased food production, and a reduced black market
By 1950, the UK and France were finally forced to stop the dismantling of German heavy industry. [1] [2] [3]. The country's economic recovery was, once it was permitted, swift and effective. During the mid-1950s, the unemployment rate in Germany was so low that it led to the influx of Turkish immigrants into the country's labor force.[citation needed] Germany's economy continued to improve until the 1973 oil crisis. (see also Wirtschaftswunder)
[edit]Rehabilitation Milestones

In 1946, the US Secretary of State (foreign minister) made the speech Restatement of Policy on Germany, repudiating the Morgenthau plan policies.
In 1947, the JCS 1067 was rescinded.
In 1948, the Deutsche Mark replaced the almost worthless Reichsmark in the Allied western occupation zones initiating the start of economic recovery in western Germany
In 1949, West Germany is formed from the Western occupation zones, with the exception of the Saarland.
In 1949, the Marshall Plan is extended to include West Germany.
In 1950, the dismantling of West German heavy industry ends.
In 1955, the military occupation of West Germany ends.
In 1955, NATO, which was formed in 1948, allowed West Germany to join.
In 1957, France returned the Saarland to West Germany.
In 1957, West Germany was one of the founding nations of the European Economic Community.
In 1973, West Germany joined the United Nations (formed in 1945).
In 1991, a unified Germany was allowed by the Allies of WW2 to become fully sovereign after signing the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.

 

[Nicodeamus]

With significant aid from the US, yes

The marshall plan played a good role, however Germany's recovery can be attributed to the genius of Ludwig Erhard and the integrity of Konrad Adenauer.

 

[wikk3d88]

The marshall plan played a good role, however Germany's recovery can be attributed to the genius of Ludwig Erhard and the integrity of Konrad Adenauer.

Genius and Integrity only take you so far. It helps when the dollars are rolling in.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Genius and Integrity only take you so far. It helps when the dollars are rolling in.

The marshall plan wasn't enough to cover all the costs, it was only implemented in 1953, up until 1950 the UK and France were still dismantling Germany's factories.

Ludwig Erhard engineered what became known as the Wirtschaftswunder. Countries such as England and France received more aid from the Marshall plan than West Germany did, had the Marshall plan really helped as much, then England and France should have grown as fast as West Germany did. It did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder#Reparations

 

[purpleonlineadmin]

Nicodeamus, most of your arguments are based on ideals and technicalities. Nepotism happens, whether said companies create situations for themselves that make them anti-competitive is a whole 'nother story. Reality is it happens.

You might not like the idea that reality there is a possibility of such situations happening but it is there, I have friends who have grasped their opportunities in workplaces and had fantastic management who supported what they did based on skill alone. I have also come across friends who have had *******s in management who had clear bias on certain employees, including women.

The argument for OBE we are not even arguing that it was a success. I bleepin agree with you it's a failure, what get's on my nerves with your argument and prior arguments by other people is using OBE as the one answer to workplace equality or that after 20 years all should be fine and black/coloured/indian people in South Africa should now get on with it. Even with 5-7 years of a successful educational system would have made a huge difference to a point where the inequalities of apartheid would have been fixed. It is TOO SHORT A PERIOD! You assuming yourself that all unemployed blacks/coloureds/indians are unqualified and without a proper education or skills?

Once you apply for a job different factors take place, and depending on the recruiters prerogative, there will be skills and slight bias. Just because 2 people walk into an office, both with a BsC and both with a years worth of experience it means they already on bloody equal footing? Ideally yes, reality NO! It now boils down to the person interviewing, and their preference on what sets apart both candidates, and believe you me racial bias still happens.

So is there no God because you cannot prove it, or is there a God because those who believe in him also cannot prove it? It's not nice logic, it's realistic logic. Some instances discrimination and bias does exist even without solid proof or people harking "Hey look at me I'm racist and only want to hire blacks or whites only". Get OUT YOUR SAFETY COMFORT BUBBLE!

 

[saksakgp]

That's true, nepotism exists but purple should start his own business and stop complaining about black people not being given the chance to work for white people. We are starting and growing our own businesses now, there's no time to moan about what white people are doing.

 

[purpleonlineadmin]

@saksakgp Actually I did start my business, and work with different people, including white people too. So contrary to the perception, not all blacks complaining about the situation in South Africa are sitting on their hands constantly complaining without doing anything about it.

 

[Albereth]

So you saying Europeans are the only guys who recorded a clear and unbiased history or that any other form of recorded history by anyone else naturally becomes "insular"?! Lol Albereth you clearly have an "insular" view and don't know much about African history yourself or you would also know if you dug a little deeper most of the "sources" of European history stem from those same natives of those areas. Since we have veered off into a history lesson in this thread let me continue. Egyptians were in contact with many other civilizations and they recorded things about them, like they did their own.

Read up on Al-Bakri or even Abd al-Sadi who were Arab historians who also recorded findings on places like Timbuktu, on oral and some written traditions of the areas. I personally suggest to you to start reading up on native African history, not just South Africa, but Africa in it's entirety, because even Nubians had classic texts (you can read up on the Kingdom of Kerma or how Nubians kept record of their history also in written texts). Just because you don't recall it doesn't mean it didn't happen and were basis of reference for the same Europeans you give the entire credit to.

Don't stop on antiquity era or just North Africa, in central Africa you had kingdoms like the Kingdom of Kongo (pre Portuguese settlement), who the "modern" historians had to rely on oral traditions of the area to "record" it on paper and make it comprehensible to other Europeans. This isn't even unique to Africa, but even South America and other continents that had inhabitants before contact with Europe.

If you want anything closer to home you can read up on the Kingdom of Mapungubwe.

Just because you don't know these historians by name and only know the Italian/Portuguese/Spanish/English/German missionaries who decided to write what they found from the natives on paper for you to read and comprehend, or referenced from Arab scholars, doesn't mean it wasn't recorded to begin with. The history you know is mostly anglicized and written in a way you'll understand and easier for you to pronounce. So read up and come back to me.



European history is more reliable and not broken, when even something as simple as the place name is anglicized? Every history record can have holes in the facts to suit certain perceptions, won't even bring up Christianity into this to show you how anglicized Hebrew and excluded texts created a book full of inconsistent writings. Once you start translating anything, the chances of it being broken are even higher than the original reference because a native word that could mean "land" can suddenly become "country" in English due to mistranslation and change the context entirely (read up on the historical possibility of Noah to understand such a point). So instead of taking European history on face value being more reliable, mix it up, read translations from Arab accounts, or Hebrew accounts, or any other culture that also recorded the same or similar records but from their perspective and not dismiss it as insular and bias. Natives came into contact with many people, and they recorded it, maybe not as extensive as a person who's occupation is to find out such history to begin with, as is normal in Western cultures. Point is it is recorded period!

You don't even understand your own response. There is a difference, a huge difference, between historians and people who would have recorded contemporary events. Take your Mapungubwe point. Where are the contemporary records? And the Congo, you sure that wasn't the Belgians? I swear that I recall you mentioning Leipoldt's Ghost somewhere.

 

[STS]

@saksakgp Actually I did start my business, and work with different people, including white people too. So contrary to the perception, not all blacks complaining about the situation in South Africa are sitting on their hands constantly complaining without doing anything about it.

don't let them bug you, a lot of people have sticks up their arses

 

[purpleonlineadmin]

You don't even understand your own response. There is a difference, a huge difference, between historians and people who would have recorded contemporary events. Take your Mapungubwe point. Where are the contemporary records? And the Congo, you sure that wasn't the Belgians? I swear that I recall you mentioning Leipoldt's Ghost somewhere.

Quick reply: Kingdom of Kongo back in the 1300's was supposedly founded by the natives, and then the Portuguese established a state, here is a link for you to READ... This is long before Leopold. Again you using "contemporary records", when I clearly said was it not recorded. Of course what you read and can comprehend now will be because of Europeans. Like my post above made point, reason you know about it is because Europeans made it easier to understand for Westernized civilzations, including anglicizing even native words for you to be able to pronounce easier.

Point remains that for those same Europeans, who's occupation is to record and distribute this information for the masses, they got their information and records from native records, be it oral history or written accounts by those natives. Or do you think they went into said area, dug around, found shards of pots, and suddenly had the enlightenment and understanding of those people including their history?

Just because YOU do not understand my point or post doesn't mean I don't, again just because English isn't my first language doesn't mean I don't understand something just because you do not understand it. You say Egyptians are insular, dismissed Nubians as recording history and I gave you a breakdown, including people you can read on, who recorded African history. Might not fit into your conformist view of only recording "contemporary history", while African history spans way further than contemporary history and was recorded, whether you wish to dismiss it or not!