De Klerk doesn’t deserve Nobel Peace Prize - EFF

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
107,601
Reaction score
10,243
Location
District 9
Karabo Ngoepe, News24

Johannesburg - The Economic Freedom Fighters says former president FW de Klerk’s view on the Oxford University’s Rhodes Must Fall movement shows he does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize he shares with Nelson Mandela.

“If De Klerk does not see the importance of the demand by Oxford students that Rhodes' statue must be removed in the United Kingdom, then he does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize he received alongside Mandela,” spokesperson Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said in a statement.

“We therefore call on the Nobel Peace Prize committee to recall De Klerk's award completely and re-issue it to Nelson Mandela posthumously as it is clear he should have never shared it with De Klerk in the first place.”

The backlash against De Klerk follows a report by the Agence France-Presse on a wrote a letter to The Times in the UK calling the student movement against colonialist Cecil John Rhodes “folly”.

“If the political correctness of today were applied consistently, very few of Oxford's great figures would pass scrutiny," he reportedly said.

"We do not commemorate historic figures for their ability to measure up to current conceptions of political correctness, but because of their actual impact on history," De Klerk was quoted as saying.

He went further to say: "My people - the Afrikaners - have greater reason to dislike Rhodes than anyone else. He was the architect of the Anglo-Boer War that had a disastrous impact on our people. Yet the National Party government never thought of removing his name from our history.”

Ndlozi said the party was disgusted by De Klerk’s open rejection of the plans to remove the statue.

“By extension, it means De Klerk thinks there was a time when apartheid or colonisation was politically correct, which renders his apologies for it futile. The only reason apartheid would not remove Cecil John Rhodes' statue is because it shared the same ideas of anti-black racism, colonial expansionism and conquest as he did,” he said.

Ndlozi said De Klerk's defence of Rhodes' effectively meant he was saying it was right for Rhodes to be recognised for being a colonialist.

"These views must be considered as a withdrawal of his apology for apartheid since, for him, it was politically correct. The essence is, there is no system of anti-black racism and mass murder of black people that will ever be politically correct; it was wrong in the past, in the present and it will be in the future,” he said.

Ndlozi added that the EFF supports all students in Oxford University for their unconditional demand that #RhodesMustFall.

News24
Source
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/de-klerk-doesnt-deserve-nobel-peace-prize-eff-20151227
 
"These views must be considered as a withdrawal of his apology for apartheid since, for him, it was politically correct. The essence is, there is no system of anti-black racism and mass murder of black people that will ever be politically correct; it was wrong in the past, in the present and it will be in the future,” he said.

But it's ok to be racist against whites and have mass white murder isn't it you fking d@@s.
 
By extension, it means De Klerk thinks there was a time when apartheid or colonisation was politically correct, which renders his apologies for it futile... These views must be considered as a withdrawal of his apology for apartheid since, for him, it was politically correct. The essence is, there is no system of anti-black racism and mass murder of black people that will ever be politically correct; it was wrong in the past, in the present and it will be in the future

Come on EFF, that's not what being politically correct means. It's got nothing to do with morality or if something is actually right or wrong, it just defines the ideas and concepts of the day which can be spoken about or supported without being hugely shunned by the group. In the past people could publicly support concepts like segregation without triggering instant horror from bystanders. Doesn't make them right. Political correctness is just the things you can discuss without people instinctively going "you monster!", and that changes from generation to generation and culture to culture.
 
This is an interesting line of reasoning from the EFF. It is something along the lines of: x committed acts that is not acceptable in today's society thus we can not have statues of x (or remember other great acts from x. Now we can substitute x. Now if we take Goodwill Zwelithini as an example of Zuzu culture, and we know he is notoriously homophobic, if we can extrapolate that the Zulu chiefs that came before him were brought up in the same way then we can argue that they were all homophobic thus we can not allow statues of them to exist.

So do we now start #ShakaMustFall?
 
This is an interesting line of reasoning from the EFF. It is something along the lines of: x committed acts that is not acceptable in today's society thus we can not have statues of x (or remember other great acts from x. Now we can substitute x. Now if we take Goodwill Zwelithini as an example of Zuzu culture, and we know he is notoriously homophobic, if we can extrapolate that the Zulu chiefs that came before him were brought up in the same way then we can argue that they were all homophobic thus we can not allow statues of them to exist.

So do we now start #ShakaMustFall?

And Mandela.
 
So, let me just clarify something here: racism is the worst "ism" and the only "ism" that justifies the dismantling of a cultures history and legacy by alien influences? I ask because if we divorce Bantu culture from sexism, tribalism, homophobism(made that up for symmetry) and elitism there is very little of it left. If you want to play this game we can pretty much remove every straight, black, man that lived up and till a century ago and a lot of, if not most straight, black, men that have ever lived from the history books.

In a way this attack on European culture and history could be a good thing. There is the implicit but muted message that the **** of the formerly disadvantaged does not in fact stink. The fact is that it does and if you keep acting like it doesn't someone might feel justified in showing you how it does.
 
Last edited:
Mandela was not Zulu though

Yep, but if the British had arrived a couple of years later he would have been. Just a point to ponder.

Another point to ponder is that if European colonialists hadn't arrived when they did Julias' people may have been pushed further north by Zulu Imperialism and he might never have been a South African.
 
FhHxRU4WIAEzEUK
 
Fighter Wandle Kasine

Is fighter a job title, or his name?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X