Zindzi Mandela racist tweet

8....3....1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
192
You can listen to the part in the discussion, it starts at 22:08.

It was a run-up to the point de Klerk explained that he changed the National Party into an inclusive party. The interviewer, in conclusion, asked de Klerk whether he agreed with the UN's stance that Apartheid was a crime against humanity (which is genocide under their wartime and peacetime acts). De Klerk argued that Apartheid wasn't a crime, not a genocide. This quote is selectively applied,



which is missing the basis on which the response was made. He also apologised to the interviewer, which is a black person, and also apologised as per the above. He also elaborated that to reduce black-on-black violence they established the Coldstone Commission, none which is mentioned by the media other than a small snip in a 25min long interview.

Say de Klerk did agree with the UN, then he would have agreed that Apartheid was a genocide.
You are trying very hard to defend the man. De Klerk is an unrepentant apartheid apologist who probably still thinks apartheid was good for black people. Comparing apartheid killings against black-on-black killings (which were perpetuated by the apartheid government) shows that the apology he gave for apartheid is a half hearted one.

It's scary how many apartheid apologists are in our midst, you are one of them. Apartheid can be compared genocide. A government that went to war with the people, based on their skin colour.
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
7,126
You are trying very hard to defend the man. De Klerk is an unrepentant apartheid apologist who probably still thinks apartheid was good for black people. Comparing apartheid killings against black-on-black killings (which were perpetuated by the apartheid government) shows that the apology he gave for apartheid is a half hearted one.

It's scary how many apartheid apologists are in our midst, you are one of them. Apartheid can be compared genocide. A government that went to war with the people, based on their skin colour.
Back in full swing with the old tattered race card.

Do you know that blacks can't be racist?

Did Mal-enema buy you some airtime?
 
Last edited:

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,622
Back then at the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973/4), the UN declared South Africa's Apartheid as a crime against humanity under the acts which constituted as genocide under observation. They had no clear definition of Apartheid, forced segregation. This outlaw of Apartheid (in the South African context) wasn't prescribing individual criminal liability.

It was only in 1998 that the crime against humanity of apartheid was included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and defined as an international crime. That was 4 years after South Africa's Apartheid. The institution of this crime has also become a touchy law in other places where Apartheid is taking place, after the South African Apartheid.

There are loads of reading on this subject.
From what I remember the declaration was all sorts of politically motivated conspiracy with the soviet union and it's third world subjects taking the lead.... many western countries never agreed with this obvious political move.

The UN has no right to decide anything like that anyway, it's a diplomatic body not the world keeper of truth.

It never was a crime against humanity, the accusations of it being such were all politically motivated in an effort to displace the minority government who refused to play ball.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
31,167
You are trying very hard to defend the man. De Klerk is an unrepentant apartheid apologist who probably still thinks apartheid was good for black people. Comparing apartheid killings against black-on-black killings (which were perpetuated by the apartheid government) shows that the apology he gave for apartheid is a half hearted one.

It's scary how many apartheid apologists are in our midst, you are one of them. Apartheid can be compared genocide. A government that went to war with the people, based on their skin colour.
Glad to know how I am defined by others as an Apartheid apologist. For me, it is scary how judgemental some folks are. I just call the facts. There are people who have for years pushed de Klerk to agree with the findings made of ICSPCA in 1974.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,622
It's scary how many apartheid apologists are in our midst, you are one of them. Apartheid can be compared genocide. A government that went to war with the people, based on their skin colour.
Garbage

A portion of the black people went to war with their lawful government..... there was a literal deceleration of war.... the government was reactionary and only responded as violence escalated.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,622
Signatories to the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid: parties in dark green, signed but not ratified in light green, non-members in grey



Note the signatories..... this was in many ways not a UN decleration it was a socialist declaration made for political purposes.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
31,167
From what I remember the declaration was all sorts of politically motivated conspiracy with the soviet union and it's third world subjects taking the lead.... many western countries never agreed with this obvious political move.

The UN has no right to decide anything like that anyway, it's a diplomatic body not the world keeper of truth.

It never was a crime against humanity,
the accusations of it being such were all politically motivated in an effort to displace the minority government who refused to play ball.
From my standing racial segregation and limitations set forth in law is a crime of human abuse. In terms of the UN, there was no clear definition of the circumstances in South Africa so they went with observational reasons and ruled it on acts of genocide without prescribing individual criminal liability. Not to take away, South Africa is very unique circumstantially, but there are other countries where homelands (with limitations) was successfully applied. In fact, the whole idea of homelands being introduced in Southern Africa was due to the success of the application of homelands in Canada at that time. Yada yada, people can do their own homework. None of it worked here, we ended up racially exclusive.

The world was also very different in the past, and I do believe that the de Klerk regime was trying to rectify the social balance but at a time too late for the National Party. Many different groups in South Africa were killing each other.
 

SoldierMan

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
1,520
You are trying very hard to defend the man. De Klerk is an unrepentant apartheid apologist who probably still thinks apartheid was good for black people. Comparing apartheid killings against black-on-black killings (which were perpetuated by the apartheid government) shows that the apology he gave for apartheid is a half hearted one.

It's scary how many apartheid apologists are in our midst, you are one of them. Apartheid can be compared genocide. A government that went to war with the people, based on their skin colour.
Um you do know that genocide means the slaughter of a particular group of people on a MASS SCALE, right? Did that ever happen under the apartheid government? No, it didn't.

Apartheid was a SEPARATION of the races and reduced blacks to second-class citizens with little rights.

That is NOT genocide, to state as much means you do not understand the term or are just too emotional to see the difference.

There was no wholesale slaughter of blacks, there was torture/killing by the police for intelligence gathering and when blacks rioted or the like and then the odd occasion when police shot them to quell the violence. Not saying it was right (because that is coming next I'm sure) at all I'm just saying how it was.

Familiarise yourself with actual genocide from the history of mankind, you will see it was nothing like apartheid.

I think de Klerk needs praise for what he done, he could've easily just gone on with business as usual. But he chose a different path. But again some people are just too emotionally involved to see it.
 

The_Mowgs

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
12,624
You are trying very hard to defend the man. De Klerk is an unrepentant apartheid apologist who probably still thinks apartheid was good for black people. Comparing apartheid killings against black-on-black killings (which were perpetuated by the apartheid government) shows that the apology he gave for apartheid is a half hearted one.

It's scary how many apartheid apologists are in our midst, you are one of them. Apartheid can be compared genocide. A government that went to war with the people, based on their skin colour.
He is one of the posters on the forum with the most thought out, coherent, factual discussions so dont come here with that kak ok. Read what the man said and if you don't understand it ask for clarification instead of name calling!
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
7,126
He is one of the posters on the forum with the most thought out, coherent, factual discussions so dont come here with that kak ok. Read what the man said and if you don't understand it ask for clarification instead of name calling!
Check the post history - clearly an EFF soldier that wears his racial inferiority complex on his sleeve.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,622
From my standing racial segregation and limitations set forth in law is a crime of human abuse.
Not necesarily, in the end either total cultural and ethnic integration takes place or some sort of racial segregation takes place, this always happens you cannot prevent it. Apartheid tried to make the unofficial official at the wrong time and the black classes were manipulated into fighting the wrong enemy.... this was helped by white arrogance.

In terms of the UN, there was no clear definition of the circumstances in South Africa so they went with observational reasons and ruled it on acts of genocide without prescribing individual criminal liability. Not to take away, South Africa is very unique circumstantially, but there are other countries where homelands (with limitations) was successfully applied. In fact, the whole idea of homelands being introduced in Southern Africa was due to the success of the application of homelands in Canada at that time. Yada yada, people can do their own homework. None of it worked here, we ended up racially exclusive.
The homelands was the first step in attempting a federal system similar to the American one, to do that however the black groups needed to somehow be forced to advance to the point where such a system would be even possible. The experiment never worked because forces both outside and inside the country saw their success as automatic failure to radically socialize the country.... and other political agendas. Also there were problems with viability stemming from getting the areas homogenized and stabilized from an organization standpoint.

The world was also very different in the past, and I do believe that the de Klerk regime was trying to rectify the social balance but at a time too late for the National Party. Many different groups in South Africa were killing each other.
De Klerk and his faction attempted a political ploy where they would force the country into ANC hands, allow the ANC to discredit themselves, take back the power. They believed this could work if they kept control of the economy in broederbond hands..... this obviously has backfired somewhat.

There are rumblings of a coup coming relatively soon as an attempt to get this plan back on track but who can say where up and down really is.
 

Sollie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
6,372
From my standing racial segregation and limitations set forth in law is a crime of human abuse. In terms of the UN, there was no clear definition of the circumstances in South Africa so they went with observational reasons and ruled it on acts of genocide without prescribing individual criminal liability. Not to take away, South Africa is very unique circumstantially, but there are other countries where homelands (with limitations) was successfully applied. In fact, the whole idea of homelands being introduced in Southern Africa was due to the success of the application of homelands in Canada at that time. Yada yada, people can do their own homework. None of it worked here, we ended up racially exclusive.

The world was also very different in the past, and I do believe that the de Klerk regime was trying to rectify the social balance but at a time too late for the National Party. Many different groups in South Africa were killing each other.
I think the part that many people miss out that shaped our history, was the cold war. We were part and parcel of it due to our Cape sea route, we were in a strategic location. Essentially the old government were more West, the ANC more communist.

I'll borrow Rambo's map he posted (thanks @rambo919)
ICSPCA-members.PNG

Take this map back a bit in history, considering much of Eastern Europe was under Soviet rule. Look at who did not vote for it. Much of the for/against/refrain was based on which horse you chose in the cold war, not so much about the vote.

We also need to consider how much of the South African unrest originated. Some of it was spontaneous. Much of it was instigated, "You do as we say or face the threat of death".

There were two wars happening at the same time. We were in the thick of it. Today people have a vague soup of understanding of our reality that was then. Much of it is deliberate for own ongoing goals.
 

Knyro

PhD in Everything
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
29,408
Nope, but EFF spent the first, what, 15 minutes yesterday going on about it?
Instead of tackling more pressing issues they decided to argue over this.
They were deliberately trying to cause a disruption and get thrown out.

SONA was a success as far as they are concened. They were probably laughing and high-fiving each other on the way to Mavericks.
 

Flanders

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
10,867
They were deliberately trying to cause a disruption and get thrown out.

SONA was a success as far as they are concened. They were probably laughing and high-fiving each other on the way to Mavericks.
If I was a girl working at Mavericks I would have initiated a DDOS.
 

Hemi300c

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
20,843
Apartheid was very wrong.
The anc was blowing up civilians including women and children. The anc were killing and still are killing their own and others
The anc has through their corruption, crime, lack of interest and ability, lack of management and inability to manage killed more people than apartheid ever did by miles.
Carry on supporting them and you will see things will end very badly and even worse than Zim because the anc will have no friends like Zim has.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
31,167
I see many organisations are rallying against de Klerk and his foundation at the moment, and the EFF wants him prosecuted.
 
Top