I somehow find your response style tedious but anyway, the area called Pretoria today was called Tshwane before Afrikaners enforced the name Pretoria, which was a slap in the face of the people who had been staying in the area, the was no poll held to determine how the Africans felt about the name Pretoria, the name of the place was just changed. Now what is happening now is simply a return to the original name of the place, this is no different to land reform which returns people to the land they were forced out of. Is this unjust?Xarog said:The borders of SA, and indeed all of Africa as they stand now, are the direct result of western influence, so South Africa's political landscape was founded by westerners. (note : in many cases the borders were really stupid, dividing tribes between two countries, or leaving many opposing tribes within one country. In general, the current political borders of Africa is not a good thing.)
It's not bull if it's true. The 'native' tribes here today, are all tribes that originated in the northern parts of the continent.
Yet they have their own culture and language, distinct from any other tribe. I notice you aren't trying to ensure we name the country with the names they gave to the various places here.
Whites weren't the only ones persecuting the San. There's a reason they were chased into the Kalahari desert after they left the borders of South Africa. Seems you've conveniently forgotten that little fact.
You're right, white people don't. No one does. Anyone who considers themselves an African is a defacto African. Regarding the claims about who's native and isn't, I've already addressed those.
The word is 'gall', not 'gore'. Secondly, are you claiming white people cannot have good ideas? If not, then you would be wise to listen to the suggestions white people give about the country - some of them may just be good ones.
I did not see anyone assuming that they know what's important to black people.
Yes it is.
So? People don't speak much else other than french. People speak many languages here.
I've spoken to many black people in Afrikaans. By the way, what about coloured people? They speak Afrikaans too - are they native, or not? Do they have a right to keep speaking Afrikaans or not?
So if you F#$k with Afrikaners and the names of their places, they're entitled to revenge?
In a "western" language.
Says who?
An occupation is a foreign power subjugating the citizens of any particular region or area. As I have said, by definition, the existence of the white people here is not an occupation. White people have as much of a right to live here as anyone else.
So only black people can rule, now?
Also a clear example of racism. I was under the impression that subjugation was wrong, no matter who was doing it to whom.
So why isn't it good enough to simply call it Tshwane in your house?
This is true, but it's not exactly a positive attitude, now is it?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which South African brand or product do you wish would make a return?
Pretoria or Tshwane
- Thread starter Getafix
- Start date
Oh really -you know about America, eh? So who makes the decision for who that one person will even be? The public? Wrong - the parties in primaries which are not open to the public at large. To suggest that America's practical political duopoly is somehow more democratic than our parliamentary system is a bit strange, to say the least.kingmonty said:
What's reaching? Did I say they HAD a democracy? They were self-ruled and self-determined, whatever system it was. Whites then imposed democracy on them - funnily enough, by not giving them the right to vote. Strange version of democracy that one.kingmonty said:
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Considering that the people who originally lived in the area, i.e. the San, and possibly the Khoi, as far as I know, did not call it Tshwane, no, I do not think it is just. I think if we're going to play the "change the names to what they were before they were changed by oppressors", then we should do a proper job of it and invite the San back and ask them what they would like it to be called.
The public votes on the person in the end. What exactly are you arguing about here? America is a completely functional democracy, each State has it's own independent system in place with a governor. This governor is elected by the people directly. Each state has several congressman with whom the public can raise issues, and the congressman will make these issues available in congress, which is a part of government. Participatory governance at work. The governor is held accountable directly. We don't have any method to keep politicians honest in this country.ignacio said:
What? Whites did no such thing. The masses rioted for *democratic* elections in this very country. No previous white government in this country even remotely imposed a democratic system. The masses wanted it and the masses voted for it.ignacio said:
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Bull****. The two parties in America are largely geared towards making sure the country is run in a manner that considers corporate interests first, and the actual populace second, whenever they can get away with it (which is pretty damned close to all the time). I do not consider this a democracy in any meaningful fashion.kingmonty said:
LOL - so we give you a choice of two people and then you say because we voted on one of them, this is a example of democracy at its finest. I suspect you don't know too much about American politics, but let me just say that for nearly ALL candidates for nearly ALL positions, your selections are what the two major parties give you. And this is STILL a representative democracy - just because you can chat to your politicians, that somehow means you govern? Oh, I get it, you take participatory to mean you participate. We participate by voting here and being able to chat with our leaders to. Still a representative democracy - OUR elected officials, AS IN the states, vote on issues, we do not.kingmonty said:
charl.voster
Well-Known Member
ignacio said:
I stated a fact. Whether you like it or not - there is nothing you can do about it.
Let me say it again - They did not have democracy in Africa before the whites returned home and brought it with them
Anyway - the bottom line, whether any of you or I agree with it - is that in a democracy the majority has the ability to have its way. Sure, we can complain about it, but the numbers just don't back up the minority: if the majority want Tshwane, so be it. My main concern with this change is that it has to be for the right reasons - a big waste of time and money otherwise.
But that's not even remotely what it is here. Here an alliance of independent parties puts up a single candidate which is debated amongst a very small group of individuals behind closed doors. The alliance's only function is to ensure majority success in election, the rest of the time the alliance partners doesn't even see eye to eye (Cosatu in fact is bitching daily about how the ANC is snubbing it, etc etc etc). You claim this is a democracy, but it's not a democracy when there is an alliance in place that's really just doing window dressing to ensure majority votes. And places where it's not the clear majority we see a massive abuse of political power to try and overthrow elected officials (Zille in Cape Town is an excellent example).ignacio said:
True - one thing I can agree with you on - to have a healthy democracy, you need an educated electorate - one that will hold its leaders accountable, will boot them out if they fail, as opposed to the current blacks vote with ANC regardless and whites vote anti-ANC system. We need to move past these allegiances and focus on performance. There is no way the likes of Ivy would survive in such a system!kingmonty said:
Did anyone watch "The Big Question" on Sunday night? The majority of the audience (who were black) voted 'No', with regards to changing the name to Tshwane. Whether that is something to go by or not, is irrelevant.
But one of the audience members (black) made a good point in that there are far more important and urgent things that need attending to, other than changing the name of a city.
Edit: I'd use the word "African" instead of black, but I think "African" includes all races.
But one of the audience members (black) made a good point in that there are far more important and urgent things that need attending to, other than changing the name of a city.
Edit: I'd use the word "African" instead of black, but I think "African" includes all races.
You are describing a functioning democracy, and yet you say it is not a democracy. Coalition governments are actually pretty common - the German Christian Democrats and the Green Party as an example. Coalition rule is perfectly democratic - even with enemies yes (Zille is an excellent example where you have people from the FF+ and PAC playing nicely for the sake of their own political benefit)kingmonty said: