The DA is in total crisis.

[rambo919]

There was never an indication he wanted to end Apartheid. It's in the books...never assume. Not a single Nat MP since then has ever raised the prospect Verwoed (or anybody before or after, until the NP was pushed into a corner) wanted to end Apartheid.
A simple fact check would be to go read their statements. Don't try getting around the fact that what happened there, led directly to the backlash we see today.

I never said he wanted to end it, there is a possibility he wanted to improve it's implementation, there are indications he wanted to improve a great many things. Apartheid was no crime against humanity that is a communist lie, it was however a policy framework that was impossible to maintain long term as the whites at the time had grossly misjudged black development as well as development potential. It also ended up being immoral in it's rather hubristic arrogant implementation, separate development as a concept though in itself is not immoral.

The only thing that kept Apartheid going even when it was clearly failing was white terror at loosing political power.... a terror that incidentally has been partially vindicated.

 

[rietrot]

Mhhhm, seems like you have not been paying attention to the posts here.

Seems like you are making up BS.

 

[rambo919]

How do you know this? You've got some alternative reality machine stashed away somewhere?

They were literally founded either by the NP or the Broederbond.....

 

[Hamish McPanji]

They were literally founded either by the NP or the Broederbond.....

And if those weren't around? People would have sat around and done nothing? You know that how?

That's like me saying if Edison didn't invent the lightbulb, we'd all still be using candles today

 

[rambo919]

And if those weren't around? People would have sat around and done nothing? You know that how?

That's like me saying if Edison didn't invent the lightbulb, we'd all still be using candles today

And on what exactly do you base the assumption that someone would have founded them? What proves that all vacuums get filled in Africa simply by them existing?

The same goes for all businesses, the blacks could have done exactly what the Afrikaners did even though there in many instances already were businesses that filled all niches...... many Broederbond projects were copies of British businesses in fact.... and they ended up doing better business than their British rivals. Why have SA black's not simply copied that a second time and insisted instead on simply gradually stealing them via BEE? SA blacks literally HAVE still to this day the demographic advantage when it comes to business.

There is absolutely no excuse for blacks in the last decades of literal black rule not building strong black mega businesses on own power. Yes, I highly doubt Eskom having been built as strong as it was was inevitable, it took hard work to both build and maintain. Honestly if I were black I would be utterly ashamed of my race for promoting underachievement and leeching instead of excellence and self sustainability.

EDIT: Steve Biko would be spinning in his grave if he could see what SA has become

 

[Hamish McPanji]

And on what exactly do you base the assumption that someone would have founded them? What proves that all vacuums get filled in Africa simply by them existing?

The assumption is based on the fact that I have a brain. Is this really the line of argument you're going for? Other countries have SOEs without the NP. Telecoms companies, electricity suppliers, manufacturing industries, etc. Shocking, isn't it?

 

[Tokolotshe]

The way you're playing it is a bit schit, tbh.

Oh I agree. But then again it is your rules.

First of all, you're comparing an entrenched system of government that spanned almost a century that has stolen, disenfranchised and mistreated an entire group of people based entirely on something they cannot possibly control (their race) with a bunch of violent, deluded ****tards criminals. Your scaling is totally incorrect.

See the next point, still abiding by YOUR game rules.

Secondly, I have no sympathy towards those Maharashtra guys...they're scum, can be tortured and killed for all I care . Do you have the same opinion towards those apartheid guys....including the ones who voted to keep it? Let's be honest here, you probably a bit supportive of them, excusing their actions, and even assigning blame elsewhere.

Okay, let's continue with your schitty game. You can condemn them all you like, but it's your dead albatross, no matter your involvement due to some racial label. You have to acknowledge the harm they did, accept responsibility. No matter how fair or not. It's your logic at play here.

I hold no white people accountable for their actions of their forefathers. But will not ignore either the benefits they have reaped from those actions, nor ignore the real fear that their victims have of their descendants. Its based on a relatively recent reality, which you seem to want to minimise and ignore. Ant the only people to blame are the perps

Once again, what benefits did I (me) reap from it? Your theoretical model of understanding of history and your application of corrective actions makes me responsible for something I had no control over except talk about it, vote against it when the time was due. Not supporting the ANC and engaging or not in an armed struggle is not an apartheid/anti-apartheid issue either. As for your last honesty, you sound right like the Maharashtra guys. Your rules apply.

Yes, this is a schitty game to play. If you think Maharashtra does not apply to you, change your game to an honest one. Rather not support a feels based game, work on a new one based upon facts, not hate and fear. Use one with positive goals that does not fvck up South Africa. Either that or ask the mods to change your name to McMaharashtra.

 

[Tokolotshe]

She was part of Helen Suzmann's movement. She was against Apartheid but didn't see eye to eye with the liberation movements either (which is fair enough). They had very little support. Suzmann was the sole representative of the white liberal caucus for many years.

Suddenly in the new democracy, a lot of people describe themselves as being liberals and "against the system" during Apartheid even though the facts indicate that the liberals did not perform very well. One of my colleagues at work who was a legitimate white liberal (and can prove it) during Apartheid even spoke about this once.

Tip: Perhaps go make a study of how electoral districts were changed. You think the ANc figured that out all by themself?

 

[Vrotappel]

Is that all you've got? I'm not strawmaning my way out of anything. You need to face the history of your people. And recognise the effect it's had on the descendants of the victims of it.

It's not my fault the DA looks to a lot of people like a group of white ous trying to control things from behind the scenes. They did that to themselves.

Once you can define a 'your people' you are making the case for self determination of the 'your people'. So keep it up. At some point the 'your prople' you refer to will get themselves their own place and it will be because of people like you. You want to lump me in a group then that group will start sticking together. We had enough of your ****.

 

[rambo919]

The assumption is based on the fact that I have a brain. Is this really the line of argument you're going for? Other countries have SOEs without the NP. Telecoms companies, electricity suppliers, manufacturing industries, etc. Shocking, isn't it?

Comparing apples to apples, other African countries have SOE's on par with Eskom at it's height that were founded by blacks?

Remember this is Africa we are talking about not Europe or Asia. You cannot directly compare SA to Japan you have to compare it to other African countries. SA did not become the Southern African super power because of white privilige.

 

[Tokolotshe]

Loo, I am not defending the Nats at all. I think you have me confused with what some other people are alluding too here. The Nats rode that Apartheid train for all it was worth, until they couldn't anymore. I never said the ending of Apartheid was a Nat thing...go read again. I said it wasn't solely down to the Nats and mentioned the severe sanctions against the country.
Never mentioned Helen. Don't know enough about her background but I believe she fought against those injustices. So, not sure what you are confusingly claiming I, in turn, am claiming.

I don't want to leave anything in South Africa for my children. I will be LEAVING South Africa so that they can live a life they deserve.

PS: The ANC's gravy train will also come to an end when most of the tax payer base has been eroded. By which time the Chinese will be firmly entrenched in most of Africa. But that's another discussion.

Loo?

You alluded to the Nats and not white South Africans voting to end apartheid. That's the trap being propagated by current radicals and hate mongers, deliberately confusing it. Helen has the easiest background to reserach if you want to know the truth. Also why I quoted it, not only to stay on topic - well, semi. Yet compare the current narrative in this very thread, no need for Twitter or the media.

Well, hopefully you won't support Nazis, just like nobody sane is. But it is relevant in the here and now, where we're heading. Apartheid was something else again, a different evil creature ugly in different way. The idea of swooshing an entire colour, regardless of culture, into some melanin based basket is in itself racist and dangerous. Revising history in itself is equally dangerous. Look at the Bird Island debacle. People wanted to believe stuff, were ready for the bs, it fanned newfound hate. Discussing that and with somebody that understood what real racism is would have helped understand why it simply was not plausible. But then again, they tried that with Terreblanche's murder. And lol and behold, the same cheer leaders are propagating the same narrative. As despicable as these people were, it does not give us the right to add fictional crap. It further fans hate. Of course the media loves it and feeds it, also why they got into kak.

Anyway, I wish you and your family the best of luck.

Please don't flush the Loo on the way out - there are many people here still.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Oh I agree. But then again it is your rules.

See the next point, still abiding by YOUR game rules.

Okay, let's continue with your schitty game. You can condemn them all you like, but it's your dead albatross, no matter your involvement due to some racial label. You have to acknowledge the harm they did, accept responsibility. No matter how fair or not. It's your logic at play here.

You departed from all logic a while back. Not my fault that you can't really figure out how this works

Once again, what benefits did I (me) reap from it?

None, it was an equal playing field.... apparently

Your theoretical model of understanding of history and your application of corrective actions makes me responsible for something I had no control over except talk about it, vote against it when the time was due.

Actual history. Not the made up schit they brainwashed you with at school

[QUOTE ]
Not supporting the ANC and engaging or not in an armed struggle is not an apartheid/anti-apartheid issue either. As for your last honesty, you sound right like the Maharashtra guys. Your rules apply.
[/QUOTE]

it seems like you're just waffling now. What do the Maharastra guys sound like? Never heard them

Yes, this is a schitty game to play. If you think Maharashtra does not apply to you, change your game to an honest one. Rather not support a feels based game, work on a new one based upon facts, not hate and fear. Use one with positive goals that does not fvck up South Africa. Either that or ask the mods to change your name to McMaharashtra.

Yup, waffling a lot, about feels and stuff. Do you actually read what you type?

 

[Tokolotshe]

You departed from all logic a while back. Not my fault that you can't really figure out how this works




None, it was an equal playing field.... apparently



Actual history. Not the made up schit they brainwashed you with at school


Not supporting the ANC and engaging or not in an armed struggle is not an apartheid/anti-apartheid issue either. As for your last honesty, you sound right like the Maharashtra guys. Your rules apply.

it seems like you're just waffling now. What do the Maharastra guys sound like? Never heard them


Yup, waffling a lot, about feels and stuff. Do you actually read what you type?

Yes, I know I departed from all logic when I used the rules of your little game. And waffling. That's the whole point, I'm reflecting your own perverted logic right back at you, Mr McMaharashtra.

Incidentally - you are reflecting on yourself with "schit they brainwashed you with at school". Some people actually lived it and you're using your brainwashing to waffle against them. That's how you sucker yourself into being the actual racist. But hey Mr McMaharashtra - you're the exspurt.

 

[JohnStarr]

Loo?

You alluded to the Nats and not white South Africans voting to end apartheid. That's the trap being propagated by current radicals and hate mongers, deliberately confusing it. Helen has the easiest background to reserach if you want to know the truth. Also why I quoted it, not only to stay on topic - well, semi. Yet compare the current narrative in this very thread, no need for Twitter or the media.

Well, hopefully you won't support Nazis, just like nobody sane is. But it is relevant in the here and now, where we're heading. Apartheid was something else again, a different evil creature ugly in different way. The idea of swooshing an entire colour, regardless of culture, into some melanin based basket is in itself racist and dangerous. Revising history in itself is equally dangerous. Look at the Bird Island debacle. People wanted to believe stuff, were ready for the bs, it fanned newfound hate. Discussing that and with somebody that understood what real racism is would have helped understand why it simply was not plausible. But then again, they tried that with Terreblanche's murder. And lol and behold, the same cheer leaders are propagating the same narrative. As despicable as these people were, it does not give us the right to add fictional crap. It further fans hate. Of course the media loves it and feeds it, also why they got into kak.

Anyway, I wish you and your family the best of luck.

Please don't flush the Loo on the way out - there are many people here still.

I am the one stating the Nats never ended Apartheid of their own accord because it was such a horrid system. They perpetuated the system of hate and separation of whites and non-whites, and there were many whites who never supported Apartheid. I personally believe they'd have continued with things, but, because their hands were now effectively tied by sanctions, had no other choice. Was it because there was a new breed of Nat MP that thought it was so bad they had to change it? Not really sure.

Hell, my mom nearly ended up in a jail because the cops thought she knew where our domestic's one son was who they were searching for. And neither voted because, you know, the Nats always seemed to win. What was the purpose of English people voting against them really, I think was the general feeling of malaise

 

[JohnStarr]

I never said he wanted to end it, there is a possibility he wanted to improve it's implementation, there are indications he wanted to improve a great many things. Apartheid was no crime against humanity that is a communist lie, it was however a policy framework that was impossible to maintain long term as the whites at the time had grossly misjudged black development as well as development potential. It also ended up being immoral in it's rather hubristic arrogant implementation, separate development as a concept though in itself is not immoral.

The only thing that kept Apartheid going even when it was clearly failing was white terror at loosing political power.... a terror that incidentally has been partially vindicated.

"Apartheid was no crime against humanity that is a communist lie" <-- so you condone forced movements of non-whites to areas where they had no benefits really? Where they had no say in elections until 1994? Where they were shipped off to homelands and given so-called "autonomy". A simple Yes/No answer would suffice.

This white terror...would it have been around if Apartheid never was...? You don't think just maybe we could have lived fairly peacefully?

 

[Vrotappel]

I am the one stating the Nats never ended Apartheid of their own accord because it was such a horrid system. They perpetuated the system of hate and separation of whites and non-whites, and there were many whites who never supported Apartheid. I personally believe they'd have continued with things, but, because their hands were now effectively tied by sanctions, had no other choice. Was it because there was a new breed of Nat MP that thought it was so bad they had to change it? Not really sure.

Hell, my mom nearly ended up in a jail because the cops thought she knew where our domestic's one son was who they were searching for. And neither voted because, you know, the Nats always seemed to win. What was the purpose of English people voting against them really, I think was the general feeling of malaise

The apartheid system was the last buffer against communism in Africa. Once communism failed the need for the USA to support the apartheid government ended. That opened the gates. It is always interesting to note that the old crocodile himself started talking to the ANC quite a while before democracy. He started it but never carried it through. Unfortunately the new democracy entered into in good faith is being undermined by the actions of the ANC and EFF. It seems we are getting to a point where things will become intolerable.

 

[Vrotappel]

"Apartheid was no crime against humanity that is a communist lie" <-- so you condone forced movements of non-whites to areas where they had no benefits really? Where they had no say in elections until 1994? Where they were shipped off to homelands and given so-called "autonomy". A simple Yes/No answer would suffice.

This white terror...would it have been around if Apartheid never was...? You don't think just maybe we could have lived fairly peacefully?

It was never a crime against humanity. Many countries did not support that viewpoint. Funny that the communists raised this at the time they were trying to completely take over Africa. It is always interesting to know the circumstances around certain decisions.

Fact is that 'democracy's aids stance' killed many more black people in a year than apartheid did in its lifetime. Fact is that apartheid's benefits is much more than its negatives ever were. thanks to apartheid the ANC got Africa's powerhouse, top economy, pristine infrastructure, etc. Now it is all falling apart.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

It was never a crime against humanity. Many countries did not support that viewpoint. Funny that the communists raised this at the time they were trying to completely take over Africa. It is always interesting to know the circumstances around certain decisions.

Fact is that 'democracy's aids stance' killed many more black people in a year than apartheid did in its lifetime. Fact is that apartheid's benefits is much more than its negatives ever were. thanks to apartheid the ANC got Africa's powerhouse, top economy, pristine infrastructure, etc. Now it is all falling apart.

Dafuq??!

 

[rambo919]

"Apartheid was no crime against humanity that is a communist lie" <-- so you condone forced movements of non-whites to areas where they had no benefits really? Where they had no say in elections until 1994? Where they were shipped off to homelands and given so-called "autonomy". A simple Yes/No answer would suffice.

It's not a simple yes or no answer because you conflate too many things

If they were moved because of an actual national need that's as fine now as it was then. Race does not matter.

At the time homelands were considered not just a national need but a national security need.

Simple district removal and removal to homelands are separate issues.

I am not in favour of free universal suffrage in general (for anyone) so you will not get an answer on voting from me in any way that will make you happy.

Prior to Apartheid there was no universal black suffrage, there were changes to a limited suffrage but no national removal of it.

Even if the homelands were a total fraud which I am not completely convinced it was..... none of these are crimes against humanity.

Apartheid was short sighted and sometimes idiotic but it was not a crime against humanity. You bar for crimes against humanity is WAY too low IMHO. If there were mass murders on torture was common (the latter started cropping up but only as black terrorism increased and in relative proportion) and blacks were treated like literal slave labour.... I would agree with you but exagerate as you might the pass system and migrant labour was NOT slave labour.

This white terror...would it have been around if Apartheid never was...?

Apartheid was started BECAUSE of this terror.

You don't think just maybe we could have lived fairly peacefully?

A fairty tale utopia, the character of Africa is not kumbaya.

 

[JohnStarr]

It's not a simple yes or no answer because you conflate too many things

If they were moved because of an actual national need that's as fine now as it was then. Race does not matter.

At the time homelands were considered not just a national need but a national security need.

Simple district removal and removal to homelands are separate issues.

I am not in favour of free universal suffrage in general (for anyone) so you will not get an answer on voting from me in any way that will make you happy.

Prior to Apartheid there was no universal black suffrage, there were changes to a limited suffrage but no national removal of it.

Even if the homelands were a total fraud which I am not completely convinced it was..... none of these are crimes against humanity.

Apartheid was short sighted and sometimes idiotic but it was not a crime against humanity. You bar for crimes against humanity is WAY too low IMHO. If there were mass murders on torture was common (the latter started cropping up but only as black terrorism increased and in relative proportion) and blacks were treated like literal slave labour.... I would agree with you but exagerate as you might the pass system and migrant labour was NOT slave labour.


Apartheid was started BECAUSE of this terror.

A fairty tale utopia, the character of Africa is not kumbaya.

There are different levels to crimes against humanity. Farm murders are just that for instance. Disenfranching races and not allowing them to vote or have a fair shot at employment (look at what BBBEE has become now as a direct result of that); death squads to wipe out dissidents against the state...that's why we had a Truth & Reconciliation Committee.
Apartheid was always short-sighted and always idiotic. Which is why the rest of the world looked upon us with scorn. Which is why there were sanctions that eventually broke Apartheid.

You either supported Apartheid, or you didn't. If you didn't then nothing makes sense about it and you cannot defend a single aspect of it. The opposite is then true if you did. There was NO terror when Apartheid was started, but continue to believe that.