Pretoria or Tshwane

[kingmonty]

By the way, electing a political party in power does not mean we're electing officials into said power. We entrust the party to ensure that our interests as a people are upheld. Currently our interests are not upheld in any way, as there is zero tolerance for anyone speaking out against the government, its officials and its policies (The Department of Communications is a sterling example, as is the attempts to remove all powers from the current Cape Town mayor, as is the whole name change of the Pretoria/Tshwane name change issue). Another example is the Gautrain. Even though thousands of people opposed this (a clear majority - including Cosatu), the project is is still going ahead.

 

[ignacio]

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..

Agreed - BUILD HOMES with the money instead! Name changing seems like it would be the last step in a transformation process: educate people, economically empower them, establish a healthy and functioning democracy and accountable governance, then mess around with the somewhat cosmetic stuff like name changes.

 

[kingmonty]

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!

Well, that is a generalisation in a way. Many whites vote ANC justlike many blacks vote DP and other parties.

Point is that we have a system that is not working, and there is no more reason to defend it as it has had enough time to iron out the creases.

 

[kingmonty]

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)

Coalitions are very common, you're right, but the coalitions are generally healthy for the general populace. In this country it isn't, because arguably two members of the current coalition have absolutely no say in the general governance of the whole. That is the primary reason why COSATU is coming out with its varying accusations on things like "dictatorship" in the ANC, general panick-stricken strikes, etc etc. On the contrary, the ANC is saying that there aren't any problems in the coalition, and basically just paying the other members of the coalition lip service in the media, but not entertaining their concerns in any means or form.

 

[kingmonty]

How so?

Because the majority are suffering very heavily and it's getting worse for them everyday. The last few months has seen an increase in the number of disgruntled citizens speaking out about a complete lack of service delivery and job creation. We've had national strikes dedicated to the latter. The people are speaking out, but the elected officials are not listening.

A smaller but in no way less significant example is the Department of Communication. Even with the brilliant work rpm and antowan and the rest of the activists on this forum does daily to try and get the government to liberalise the communications industry to stimulate true competition, the government ignores us, the people, who are shouting as loud as we can from the hilltops. Instead, they are taking away the independence of the one body we've been able to talk to (albeit with little to no results) so as to ensure that the telecoms industry remains squarely in their back pockets.

 

[ignacio]

Coalitions are very common, you're right, but the coalitions are generally healthy for the general populace. In this country it isn't, because arguably two members of the current coalition have absolutely no say in the general governance of the whole. That is the primary reason why COSATU is coming out with its varying accusations on things like "dictatorship" in the ANC, general panick-stricken strikes, etc etc. On the contrary, the ANC is saying that there aren't any problems in the coalition, and basically just paying the other members of the coalition lip service in the media, but not entertaining their concerns in any means or form.

You take that as a bad thing? Let the ANC monolith split down the middle, from this division, the opposition can conquer! I guess I still see this as democratic: bickering coalition partners isn't unheard of.

 

[kingmonty]

You take that as a bad thing? Let the ANC monolith split down the middle, from this division, the opposition can conquer! I guess I still see this as democratic: bickering coalition partners isn't unheard of.

I would like to see it split three ways, so that majorities are not artificially created.

 

[Angelo]

I would like to see it split three ways, so that majorities are not artificially created.

What do you mean by artificially created majorities?

 

[Angelo]

Coalitions are very common, you're right, but the coalitions are generally healthy for the general populace. In this country it isn't, because arguably two members of the current coalition have absolutely no say in the general governance of the whole. That is the primary reason why COSATU is coming out with its varying accusations on things like "dictatorship" in the ANC, general panick-stricken strikes, etc etc. On the contrary, the ANC is saying that there aren't any problems in the coalition, and basically just paying the other members of the coalition lip service in the media, but not entertaining their concerns in any means or form.

The ANC is simply saying opposing views are common in any coalition in addition SACP and COSATU were invited on Interface to debate those "dictatorship" and other mass-appeal statements they made in the media and they declined knowing they couldn't back up their statements with reason.

 

[Prometheus]

That's your choice. Doesn't explain why you'd deny me the right to hate if I so choose.

The problem is that hate goes much further than simply what a person is feeling just like love goes much further. You don't go tell people that you love them and when they ask you for help you then tell them to bugger off. That is not love and neither is it hate when you help the people you say you hate. Hate actually comes from a persons actions and whether you wish harm to come to people. Hate speaks through a persons actions like the strings of farm murders, rapes and baby murders and is never a good thing.

I am not a christian, I do not believe people are born into sin. I make mistakes, so does everyone.

I think what that refers to is that everyone is born with the ability to sin into a world of sin. That is indeed the case from everything I've seen.

But hate is part of what makes me human - as is love, anger, sorrow. I don't think it's fair that people try and tell me what I can and cannot feel.

No, people are telling you what you can and cannot do, which is actually alright up to a point. Don't confuse emotions with actions. Emotions are what we feel naturally as a means of survival. Love and hate is what actions we take as a result of those feelings and that is where our choice lies. Both of them attract more of the same actions.

We can't hate people and then say no one should hate us in return.

I never said that.

I never said you did. Merely stated it here for the other peeps some of which don't seem to know it.

I never said it was OK to act out of hatred either.

I merely stated an example there so that everyone can understand what it unually leads to.

 

[Prometheus]

We gave them (the blacks) the vote and now they are out to take their revenge. Nice reward for "doing the right thing." Maybe we should have voted NO!

Sorry can't agree with that. You do something because you know it's the right thing to do. If they don't want to do the right thing then it's their problem which they have to answer for.

You gave them nothing that shouldn't have been theirs to begin with. You don't deserve a reward for oppressing them. Inane.

Go read my post to find out who took it away. Both the white settlers "Boere" and the black settlers fought together to keep it but lost. So don't say the they whites didn't give them nothing when they gave them what they were fighting for all along namely freedom to self govern.

Actually no. A democracy is where the people elect a representative to govern - not rule. Such a representative is responsible and as such accountable to the people who elected such a representative. In South Africa, an alliance of parties has formed a monopoly, and this monopoly ensures a majority vote. This alliance of parties (commonly called the tripartite alliance) elects amongst its own ranks and its own organisation a representative to rule. That representative is not elected by the public, but by a political monopoly.

What I want to see is the tripartite alliance dissolved, thereby letting each of the member parties run for elections on its own steam, without establishing a monopolistic cartel. Then we'll have less corruption (because there's less collaberation, less coverups, etc) and more accountability of the leaders we elect.

Currently, we do not elect a leader as the president - we elect an organisation to make someone in it's ranks the leader, and that is not a democracy.

Finally someone who understands the point I made that our so called democracy is a farce.

 

[Prometheus]

So you want names like Pretoria to be retained as a "rememberance" to white settlement? Oh I'm sure the African majority will be thrilled to hear that. What a cheek!

Why not. The African majority can have the same courtesy, but don't expect people to be happy when they try and take away their heritage. Not wanting it named Pretoria out of rememberance and then naming it Tswane out of rememberance is hypocrisy. What is so offensive to you about white settlement when there is no difference between that and black settlement?

Elections are held so that we get leaders who will implement decisions as representatives of the majority, you don't want a ballot to be cast for every little matter now do you?

No need for that. 90% of the people involved want it to remain Pretoria. If they don't honour that then there is no representation of the majority.

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?

Oh really, look up your facts before taking such leaps.

Nguni-speaking settlers, who later became known as the Ndebele (derived from the Sotho word for 'refugees'), were probably the first people to recognise the suitability of the river valley which was to become the location of the future city of Pretoria for settlement. They named the river after one of their chiefs, Tshwane (from the Ndebele word for 'little ape'), which became translated in Afrikaans to Apies.

During the difaqane in Natal, another band of refugees arrived in this area under the leadership of Mzilikazi. However, they were forced to abandon their villages in their flight from a regiment of Zulu raiders in 1832.

Pretoria itself was founded in 1855 by Marthinus Pretorius, a leader of the Voortrekkers, who named it after his father Andries Pretorius. The elder Pretorius had become a national hero of the Voortrekkers after his victory over the Zulus in the famous Battle of Blood River. Andries Pretorius also negotiated the Sand River Convention (1852), in which Britain acknowledged the independence of the Transvaal. It became the capital of the South African Republic (ZAR) on 1 May 1860.

The river was named Tshwane. Pretoria wasn't names anything. Other refugees were moving through it while fleeing from the Zulu raiders. It was founded and named by Marthinus Pretorius in honour of his father Andries Pretorius. Andries had victory over the Zulus which was everyones enemy at the time or is that now a politically incorrect statement to make despite that it's true? So it wasn't named anything before it was named Pretoria and if it was named by the San they probably abandoned it. No one took it by force, it was DEFENDED by force.

 

[Prometheus]

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.

That's the problem. The minority always has its way. If this name change goes through it will again be the minority who decided it.

You take that as a bad thing? Let the ANC monolith split down the middle, from this division, the opposition can conquer! I guess I still see this as democratic: bickering coalition partners isn't unheard of.

The problem is that one side always gets its way, usually the one that is not representative of the people that voted for them. This happens across all the parties. In the end you have a vote or opinion which is not at all representative of the majority. That is why it is not a democracy.

 

[Gothan]

Well why not rename the suburb where it was historically proven King Tshwane lived to Tshwane and leave pretoria as pretoria. Remember whats good for the goose is good for the gander

 

[Angelo]

Just accept that it's Tshwane and save yourself some palpitations.

 

[charl.voster]

Die stemme is getel vir die naams verandering en die uitslag is as volg:

Hou Pretoria se naam : 20 164 sms'e
Please call me : 400 835 sms'e

 

[Gothan]

Die stemme is getel vir die naams verandering en die uitslag is as volg:

Hou Pretoria se naam : 20 164 sms'e
Please call me : 400 835 sms'e

ROLFLMAO!!

 

[supersunbird]

LOL Charl

Angelo, are you even from Pretoria? I think only people that live in Pretoria (and the rest of the Tshwane Metro areas) should have the final say anyway.

 

[Gothan]

Just accept that it's Tshwane and save yourself some palpitations.

But then Angelo, whats the fun of these discussions? Or is it merely for you to strut your stuff and sing:" fffttttppp we won, you lost"

Boy you got to love this democracy of ours

 

[Gothan]

Dang only on 417...ooops 418 posts, feels like it should atleast been a couple of thousand by now!!