Malema: Lekota working with Imperialist sympathisers

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,821
Lets get some context first of all. Zim and SA are totally diferent cases. In Zim prior to 2000 the minorities refused to participate in politics. There may be a reason for this, I'm not totally clued up on Zim's history.

But I can just imagine that a scenario in Zim where very few white people participated in public life must've have bred some resentment with the majority of the population- especially those who war veterans who were landless and whose struggle seemed to be in vain. While white farmers were (seemed to be) living off the fat of the land.

In South Africa minorities actively participate in public life and you don't get the image of the rich white farmer living it up while the rest of the population struggles. Granted, we have a way to go when it comes to reducing the income gap but South Africa is nowhere near where Zim was in the early 90s and some of the economic upheavals that turned Uncle Bob into a hater of all things Western when he had built his image on being a civilised native. Although their historical paths seems similar, comparing the two is nonsense.

Maybe I'm missing something but why would white people not voting breed resentment? In SA most white people don't vote ANC so surely the ANC and their supporters would rather they didn't vote?
 

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,588
Lets get some context first of all. Zim and SA are totally diferent cases. In Zim prior to 2000 the minorities refused to participate in politics. There may be a reason for this, I'm not totally clued up on Zim's history.

But I can just imagine that a scenario in Zim where very few white people participated in public life must've have bred some resentment with the majority of the population- especially those who war veterans who were landless and whose struggle seemed to be in vain. While white farmers were (seemed to be) living off the fat of the land.

In South Africa minorities actively participate in public life and you don't get the image of the rich white farmer living it up while the rest of the population struggles. Granted, we have a way to go when it comes to reducing the income gap but South Africa is nowhere near where Zim was in the early 90s and some of the economic upheavals that turned Uncle Bob into a hater of all things Western when he had built his image on being a civilised native. Although their historical paths seems similar, comparing the two is nonsense.

@brixton tower, you're making assumptions. What makes you think white Zimbabians don't or didn't take part in public life? White farmers also didn't make up the bulk of Zimbabwe's white population - they're a fraction, like everywhere else.
 

brixton tower

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,286
Maybe I'm missing something but why would white people not voting breed resentment? In SA most white people don't vote ANC so surely the ANC and their supporters would rather they didn't vote?

I was not actually referring to voting but since you've touched on this topic. If white people are seen to be oblivious to what's happening in the country then it does breed a lot of resentment...and this can ultimately be exploited by the likes of Malema....but then again Malema seems to be better suited to Zim in 2000 then South Africa of 2009- he's totally out of touch.
 

kingmonty

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
4,268
Forget about the colonialism/imperialist BS that Malema keeps spewing...no-one cares about it.
You're very wrong. ANC ground roots support is based entirely on the belief held by the voters that the ANC is a liberation movement. They do care - having a colonialist/imperialist (read white person) in power is something they do care about - it's something they are very very much against.
 

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,821
I was not actually referring to voting but since you've touched on this topic. If white people are seen to be oblivious to what's happening in the country then it does breed a lot of resentment...and this can ultimately be exploited by the likes of Malema....but then again Malema seems to be better suited to Zim in 2000 then South Africa of 2009- he's totally out of touch.

Fair point. A friend of mine from Zim that's now living here said that they essentially stayed out of politics there and didn't vote, which is the point you make. Her point though was that was essentially an unspoken compromise between the white community and Mugabe/Zanu-PF, they stayed out of politics and were left to carry on with their lives.
 

brixton tower

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,286
You're very wrong. ANC ground roots support is based entirely on the belief held by the voters that the ANC is a liberation movement. They do care - having a colonialist/imperialist (read white person) in power is something they do care about - it's something they are very very much against.

Yeah but like capitalism has taught us, patience is in limited supply. Believe me, the ANC knows that they can only flog a dead horse so many times. Much of the strife within the ANC has nothing to do with white people and more to do with some of the clashes that occurred after Nelson Mandela's presidency and Mbeki's adoption of macro-economic policies that seemed to shaft the socialists who were/are trapped in a time-warp.

Neo-colonialism has been a reality since the 90s when developing nations agreed to open up their markets in the guise of fair trade. If George Soros/Warren Buffet wanted to destabilize SA he could do it with the simple click of a mouse, he wouldn't have to go through the inconvenience of having to buy political favours.
 

kingmonty

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
4,268
Yeah but like capitalism has taught us, patience is in limited supply. Believe me, the ANC knows that they can only flog a dead horse so many times. Much of the strife within the ANC has nothing to do with white people and more to do with some of the clashes that occurred after Nelson Mandela's presidency and Mbeki's adoption of macro-economic policies that seemed to shaft the socialists who were/are trapped in a time-warp.

Neo-colonialism has been a reality since the 90s when developing nations agreed to open up their markets in the guise of fair trade. If George Soros/Warren Buffet wanted to destabilize SA he could do it with the simple click of a mouse, he wouldn't have to go through the inconvenience of having to buy political favours.

What has Buffet and Soros got to do with South Africa, or your argument for that matter?
 

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,821
Neo-colonialism has been a reality since the 90s when developing nations agreed to open up their markets in the guise of fair trade. If George Soros/Warren Buffet wanted to destabilize SA he could do it with the simple click of a mouse, he wouldn't have to go through the inconvenience of having to buy political favours.

How exactly is free trade neo-colonialism? Anyone with enough money can destabilise a financial market, that goes without saying.
 

brixton tower

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,286
What has Buffet and Soros got to do with South Africa, or your argument for that matter?

Basically what I am saying is that the world is no longer isolated into little nations and that if any person with sizable interest in a country wanted to sell his interest he could destabalise an economy, making the work of governing very difficulty.

Its the same leverage that China has over the US right now. China buys US government bonds in the belief that the American economy will turn the corner. If this does not happen then the Chinese would not have the appetite to finance America's debt which would cause massive upheavals.

It should be said that South Africa is not in that position but the opponents of Mbeki's government believed that South Africa was headed in that direction even though all indications were to the contrary.
 

kingmonty

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
4,268
Basically what I am saying is that the world is no longer isolated into little nations and that if any person with sizable interest in a country wanted to sell his interest he could destabalise an economy, making the work of governing very difficulty.

Its the same leverage that China has over the US right now. China buys US government bonds in the belief that the American economy will turn the corner. If this does not happen then the Chinese would not have the appetite to finance America's debt which would cause massive upheavals.

It should be said that South Africa is not in that position but the opponents of Mbeki's government believed that South Africa was headed in that direction even though all indications were to the contrary.
You haven't answered my question.

I see what you're trying to say but to an African country where US (and indeed foreign) Aid almost eclipses "investment", your point makes little sense. If you were trying to say that the volatile dealings between the super powers can destabilise countries then that would make more sense, but also be as obvious as a zebra painted orange.
 
Top