The subreddit for the capital city of South Africa. News, events, people and anything else about and around Pretoria.
Originally, my plan was to continue on with his article on Slavery in the United States. However, United Left
, and some previous posts of mine, more or less already debunk the picture he paints in that article. I still plan to address though at a later date.
This article, perhaps even better than the last, show how thin Faulk's objectivity is. He opens and closes as if he was actually being holistic, but instead leaves a specimen blatant rationalization over a topic common among right-wing circles, the racial history and politics of South Africa. Lets not waste time.
The impact of European colonialism on the world is often described as being profoundly negative. The popular view is that Europeans came, stole resources, destroyed cultures, and committed mass murder all over the earth. By contrast, the prevailing view 100 years ago was that Europe was supplying the world with advanced institutions which they would not develop on their own and, in so doing, was civilizing the world.
Either of these theories might be true, and, to some extent, they both are. It is obviously correct that Europe took resources from places, killed some number of people, and ended various indigenous cultural practices. It is also obviously true that Europe set up various institutions, such as capitalism and democracy, in various parts of the world which had not developed these things on their own.
Does he think state control
over, say, African labor during colonialism is Capitalism? Or that limiting Local chiefs from legislation such as in Colonial Nigeria is democracy?
A broad look at the empirical evidence suggests that European colonization helped most people more than it hurt them. Research has shown that the longer, or more heavily, a place was colonized by Europeans the richer it ended up being today (Eaverly and Levine, 2012; Feyrer and Sacerdote, 2006). Moreover, in the 20th century Africa, which is the center of much of the colonization debate, saw tremendous net gains in both wealth and population size (Manning, 2013; Roser; 2016)
Going through each of these, The Easterly study mainly looks at economic growth, and honestly doesn't suffice to explain the specific of African colonial experience in that regard. The second study notes how specific conditions of colonialism influences growth, while the two figures on African population growth shows this to be particularly so in the Post colonial era. Few would consider the first decades of African independence to be embodied by these numbers.
Here's an actual balanced set of studies
and explanation on Colonialism in Africa.
I find this broad view compelling, but discussions on colonialism are rarely about the broad view. Instead, people like to talk about the anecdotal experiences of particular countries at particular times, and no anecdote is more often talked about than South African apartheid.
In this article, I will examine the history of South Africa as a case study in European colonialism.
Correction: You will gloss over it in a way that reflects your political biases.
The earliest people known to have occupied South Africa were a type of African called Khosians. Khosians are not the group of people most people think of when they think of Black South Africans. Those are Bantus. Bantu Africans and Khosians Africans look different, traditionally spoke different languages, and lived different sorts of lives. If we turned the clock back 4 thousand years, we would find that the southern half of the African continent was almost entirely inhabited by Khosians.
Some time roughly 3,000 years ago, Bantu Africans began expanding out of eastern and central Africa. As they expanded, they displaced many of the African peoples who had previously lived there. The degree to which this expansion occurred via violence, disease, out breeding, or other means, is unknown.
By 1,000 AD, the Bantu had reached most of South Africa. However, most of the people there were still Khosians. When the Portuguese arrived in South Africa in the 1400’s, they encountered very few Bantu.
As the Bantu expanded, they divided into tribes which then went to war with one another over land. In several African nations, a specific Bantu tribe came to dominate the others and then set up an empire. This occurred in South Africa as well. In the 1810’s and 1820’s, the Zulus conquered many neighboring African tribes and formed the Zulu empire. This empire went on to last almost until South Africa was entirely under White rule.
So a few things worth mentioning, that by 1000 AD
, the current trends in a predominately Bantu Eastern half and a predominately Khoisan Western Half was already established.
The Rise of apartheid
While the South African government did not obtain independence from Britain until 1948, the beginnings of Apartheid can be traced back to the land act of 1913. This law made it illegal for Whites to sell land to Blacks and vice versa. By this point, Whites had already conquered or purchased the vast majority of South African land and this law was designed to make sure that this would not change.
Between this time and the 1960’s, the Apartheid government passed many laws which further segregated the races. For instance, inter-racial marriage was banned.
The most often talked about policy of South Africa was the creation of the Bantustans. These were designated “homelands” for Black South Africans. The Apartheid government forcibly moved millions of Blacks from multi-racial areas of South Africa into these Bantustans.
As explained in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the people who established the Bantustans gave the following rational for their motives:
“NP politicians portrayed the homelands as a moral response to South Africa’s ‘multi-national’ reality. Apartheid theorists believed that South Africa was a country containing a number of nations, each developed to a greater or lesser degree. Freedom, they posited, could be realized only by providing the opportunity for each of these nations to exist and develop along its own lines.”
However, critics are quick to point out that the Bantustans consisted of less than a quarter of South Africa’s land even though Blacks made up an overwhelming majority of the nation’s population.
Bantustans also suffered from tremendous poverty. As the Encyclopedia of Britiannia explains:
“The Bantustans were rural, impoverished, underindustrialized, and reliant on subsidies from the South African government.The original hope of the designers of the Bantustan system was that industries would be established along the Bantustan borders to utilize the cheap labour available nearby, but for the most part these hopes went unrealized. Other initiatives to create the illusion of viable economies for the Bantustans also broke down. To the end they were heavily dependent on financial aid supplied by the South African government. Poverty remained acute in the Bantustans, and child mortality rates were extremely high. Despite draconian control of where people were allowed to farm and the number of cattle they were permitted to have, Bantustan lands were oversettled, overgrazed, and hence afflicted with serious soil erosion.”
So far so good. Of course, for this to be an article by Faulk, things would have to sharply turn downward.
The Net Economic Impact of Bantustans
Such critics rarely mention the fact that as can be seen, in 1960, Black South Africans were exactly as poor as Sub-Saharan Africans generally were. By 1980 they were far richer (1).
Given this, it does not seem fair to say, as some people do, that Bantustans caused Blacks to be poor. Prior to being forced into these areas, Black South Africans were just as poor as Sub-Saharan Africans generally were. Had Black South Africans been left totally alone, there is no reason to think that they would have become any richer than the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa let alone richer than they were under Apartheid. The land in Bantustans may have been bad. But this, evidently, was more than made up for by payments from the South African government.
The economic strain caused by the nature of the Bantustans is basically uncontested by actual experts as far as I know. The basis being that the clearly linked demographic disasters linked to their design have been established but ignored by the government since their early existence through the Tomlinson report
and previous studies calling for reform.
Voerwerd refusing to spend the recommended budget to actually achieve independence as oppose to partial dependence for black labour, as well as the future migration
to urban areas fueled by the increasingly poor conditions, suggest whatever aid given to the homelands were far from sufficient in any meaningful sense. Height data suggests
Living standards indeed deteriorated with the onset of particular labour exploitation events and that future improvements were linked to being apartheid of the same economic benefits that white South Africans were apart of. This would've been undermined had Apartheid not inadvertently fueled migration into white urban areas and new urban areas surrounding the homelands close to white populations.
Thus, whatever growth seen between Apartheid, which eventually became economically weakened from the 1970s to the 1980s, would be in spite of the laws imposed.
fore an overview on the arbitrary decision, poor conditions, and deceiving nature of Homeland "independence".
In conjunction with these external pressures, domestic terrorism was rapidly rising in South Africa during this time period. Following the incident in Sharpville, members of the ANC, the leading Black political party in South Africa, formed a military wing called the MK. Among its founders was Nelson Mandela, who was famously thrown in prison in 1962 for committing various acts of terrorism against the South African government.
The most famous incident of said terrorism perpetrated by the MK was the Church Street Bombing of 1983. This attack consisted of a car bomb being set off in the middle of the day on a busy street. 19 people were killed and over 200 were wounded. 📷
This is but one example from a list of many similar terrorist attacks that occurred, mostly in the 1980’s. During this time, the MK also gained a reputation for torturing prisoners.
On top of all this, in 1989 the South African president suffered a stroke that caused him to resign from office. F.W. De Klerk took his place after being elected by congress and was then re-elected by the electoral college.
De Klerk eliminated as many of the Apartheid laws as he could and, after freeing Nelson Mandela, entered into negotiations to end Apartheid.
Following the announcement of these negotiations, De Klerk’s party, the National Party, lost a national election to the pro apartheid Conservative Party. This was taken to indicate that the (White) people of South Africa did not want Apartheid to end and so De Klerk decided to hold a national referendum on whether or not to continue his negotiations to end apartheid.
The referendum was conducted in 1992 and the public was taken to have voted to end Apartheid. However, the referendum has been heavily criticized on several grounds. First, the South African government owned the media and this meant that the public only got a biased presentation of one viewpoint (Schonteich et al., 2003). Secondly, western powers were expected to plunge South Africa into a recession if they voted no (Wren, 1993). Thirdly, serious accusations of voter fraud have been made. Regardless, the negotiations continued and in 1994 Apartheid was ended.
Some Whites tried to resist the vote by setting up smaller areas of White control, but such efforts largely subsided after several Whites were executed on live TV by Black police officers. As one author wrote:
“the sight of three wounded AWB men pleading for their lives on live television and then shot in cold blood [by black policemen] had a powerful impact on the country’s Whites.”
Following the end of Apartheid, Nelson Mandela was elected president of the new South African government.
So there's an impression left here that'll pick up on later, but to give you a hint, Faulk doesn't tell you exactly who the executed whites were
National Success Since Apartheid
Unfortunately, since Apartheid ended South Africa has declined on many metrics of national health.
Under apartheid GDP per capita usually grew roughly in sync with the rest of the World. This trend began to collapse in the 1980’s following the introduction of sanctions against the country. After apartheid ended, GDP per capita not only stagnated but, in fact, fell such that South Africans were poorer in 2002 than they were in 1982.
Of course what it also shows is an eventual recovery.
In 1980, South Africa has an unemployment rate of 9.8% (Murwirapachena et al., 2013). By 2002, that figure had risen to 30.4%, and in 2014 it was still nearly 3 times as high as it was in 1980 (Murwirapachena et al., 2013; World Bank) .
What he doesn't show
is this disparity occurring before Apartheid ended, almost 10 years prior in fact.
Under Apartheid, South Africa had a longer average life expectancy than Sub-Saharan Africa generally did. Since Apartheid ended, life expectancy has stagnated and fallen such that life expectancy was almost 10 years higher in 1992 than it was in 2002.
Like the GDP, it saw a recovery
Murder rates in South Africa began to rise in the 1970’s. Given the national turmoil of this time period, an increase in crime is unfortunate but not surprising. Perhaps less obvious, however, is the fact that murder rates exploded following the end of apartheid. As can be seen, this has disproportionately impacted Whites.
That is actually not supported by the data. Coloreds in South Africa make up roughly the same percentage as whites, yet their victimizations are night and day. That's actually the point of the study.
These declines have not just impacted White South Africans. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in South Africa was slightly lower under Apartheid than it is today.
📷(Leibbrandt et al., 2012)
This, taken in conjunction with the fact that GDP growth has slowed since Apartheid ended, implies that both Blacks and Whites in south Africa would likely be richer today if Apartheid were still in place.
Moreover, Black South Africans reported feeling less happy and less satisfied with their lives in 2008 than they did in the early 1980’s.
📷(Moller, 1998; Gaibie and Davids, 2009)
📷(Moller, 1998; Gaibie and Davids, 2009)
Thus, it seems that the economic, physical, and psychological health of South Africa has gotten worse since Apartheid ended.
The 1980s, mind you, being Apartheid at it's economical weakest compared to previous decades, going towards the trend of less government restrictions.
Kill the Boers
Anti-White racism has also risen since Apartheid ended. Today, there is a wave of mass murder being waged against the descendants of the Boers.This is how the situation was described by the president of Genocide Watch:
“Afrikaner farm owners are being murdered at a rate four times the murder rate of other South Africans, including Black farm owners. Their families are also subjected to extremely high crime rates, including murder, rape, mutilation and torture of the victims. South African police fail to investigate or solve many of these murders, which are carried out by organized gangs, often armed with weapons that police have previously confiscated. The racial character of the killing is covered up by a SA government order prohibiting police from reporting murders by race. Instead the crisis is denied and the murders are dismissed as ordinary crime, ignoring the frequent mutilation of the victims’ bodies, a sure sign that these are hate crimes*.*However, independent researchers have compiled accurate statistics demonstrating convincingly that murders among White farm owners occur at a rate of 97 per 100,000 per year, compared to 31 per 100,000 per year in the entire South African population, making the murder rate of White SA farmers one of the highest murder rates in the world.” Leon Parkin & Gregory H. Stanton, President – Genocide Watch14 August 2012
These murders are not only common place, they are also gruesome. Attie Potgieter was stabbed over 150 times while his wife and daughter, who were later executed, were made to watch.
Dr. Louis John Botha was thrown into a crocodile pit and eaten alive.
As a final example, consider the Viana family. The father and daughter were shot, the mother was raped and killed, and the son was drowned to death in a bath of boiling water.
These murders reflect a more general anti-White sentiment which is ubiquitous in South Africa. Even leaders of the ANC, the party now in charge of the South African government, literally sang songs about killing White people as recently as 2012.
“South Africa’s ruling party on Tuesday defended the singing of an apartheid-era song with the words “Kill the Boer” in a row that has raised fears of increasing racial polarisation.” – Govender (2010)
White South Africans are also discriminated against by various South African institutions in order to make up for the damage that Apartheid institutions are thought to have done to Blacks.
First, there is discrimination in University admissions. Consider, for instance, this report on the University of Cape Town:
“The way in which the university has achieved this diversity, however, is somewhat controversial. To be admitted, white students must score the equivalent of straight A’s. Meanwhile, black and mixed-race students can get in with plenty of B’s. The University of Cape Town doesn’t make this policy a secret — admission cutoffs are listed by race in the prospectus.” – Kelto (2011)
Employers are encourage by the state to discriminate against Whites as well. The Black Economic Empowerment law set up the following point system in the country:
“Points are based on the percentage of blacks and other non-white ethnic groups in the company’s ownership and the skills training it gives to people in these groups. For companies, having a good BEE scorecard is often essential for business. The higher the BEE score they have, the more access they get to public markets and contracts.” – Iob (2013)
Finally, in may of this year South Africa passed the “land expropriation bill” which allows the government to force White South Africans to sell their land to the government at a price that the government decides. The rational behind this law is that it can undue the redistribution of land into the hands of whites which was solidified by the Land Act of 1913.
These factors have led White South Africans to abandon South Africa in large numbers. Since Apartheid ended, over half a million White South Africans have left the country. To put that in perspective, there are less than 5 million Whites in the whole country.
Some White South Africans are unable to emigrate on their own and are asking Western nations for Refugee status. The Canadian government has recently acquiesced to this request and allowed two White South Africans to come to Canada as refugees.
“31-year-old Brandon Huntley from Cape Town said he was constantly called a “white dog” and “settler” by Black South Africans back home. He was also robbed 7 times and stabbed three times by Black South Africans since his home country ended Apartheid in 1994. “There’s a hatred of what we did to them and it’s all about the color of your skin,” Huntley told the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board.The evidence Huntley provided showed “a picture of indifference and inability or unwillingness of the South African government to protect White South Africans from persecution by African South Africans,” Board Chairman William Davis said.” –
White South Africans are also asking for refugee status from the EU which, in recent years, has allowed tens of thousands of middle eastern and African refugees to cross its borders.
I won't sugarcoat the the economic and social issues of whites currently in South Africa. The problem is, aside from the victimization of Afrikaners (farmers specifically) by murders, the general economic position of whites in South Africa hasn't changed.
As for white emigration, his figure combines the total number of whites (roughly 300k) that have left between 1986 (that is before apartheid fell) and 2000, and roughly 300k between 2000-2015.
Overall, the white population
only slightly shrank between 1980 and 2015.
If conquest is not a legitimate means to acquire land, the Zulu and similar Bantu tributes did not justly own South African land, nor did any other tribe of the last few hundred years. After all, this land was conquered from Khoisan and older Bantu tribes.
Moreover, if the Zulu did steal the land, it is not clear that Apartheid was in the wrong for taking it from them. Is it wrong to steal something which is stolen from the thief who stole it?
If, on the other hand, conquest is a valid way to acquire land, then White South Africans had a perfectly legitimate claim on it. This might be taken to imply that there is also nothing wrong with modern Black South Africans taking land from Whites. However, conquering land via war is not the same thing as using a false political narrative about the supposed negative effects of apartheid to take land. Moreover, forcing White people into a society that hates and mass murders them is not analogous to putting Blacks in bantustans which, as we have seen, were not as bad as they are often made out to be.
I consider the morality of conquest to be a difficult question and I won’t try to resolve it here. What I will say is that it is very hard to come up with any principled moral answer which would justify the totality of what is being done to White South Africans.
Where to begin?
- Assuming the validity of the right of conquest, that only applies to the right to claim land or wield power over it. That doesn't exempt moral considerations on particular acts directed towards the previous occupiers. That is, if the Zulu Empire lead to the displacement and abuse of other groups like the Khoisan, then they can be morally judged on those grounds. Same can be easily said for victims of the Anglo-Boer wars under concentration camps.
- "White South Africans" didn't conquer Bantu lands leading to their annexation, it was the British specifically. Boers more so are responsible for the displacement of the Khoisan in the Western Cape.
- "Forced Removals" weren't the direct result of being conquered, annexation was. Forced removals, then, can be viewed as a separate act apart of conquest from war and as a decision by an already formed government. It was these laws that form the basis of land claims, not British colonization in and of itself.
- There is noting "false" that was validly demonstrated regarding the effect of Bantustans had on the black population. Nor were the Bantustans "not that bad", as most moved out by 1986.
Another important question is whether or not the political violence initiated by the MK against White South Africans was justified.
Apartheid set up various laws, some of which I would consider unjust. Most importantly, Apartheid severely restricted the right of Blacks to protest. This was the justification that Mandela used for resorting to violence. He had no other choice.
This may be true, and if you think that apartheid’s policies were sufficiently horrible this may justify violence, but there is no way that the indiscriminate violence against innocent and random White south Africans that the MK engaged in can be justified. Their activities, especially in the 1980’s, were morally equivalent to any other act of mass murder.
Further more, as we have seen, Apartheid’s actions were not nearly as bad as they are often thought to have been.
This is what I was alluding to earlier, that terrorism among the Anti-Apartheid movement was directed towards whites mostly. While there were indeed anti-white motivation fueling the movement, the overwhelming
majority were black. See here
for an understanding.
This whole section is a strawman.
Even if Apartheid improved the material and psychological conditions of Black Africans,
It didn't. De facto
economic integration efforts was what lead to observed improvements.
On the other hand, the material benefit that Whites brought to South Africa, and Africa generally, was truly immense. Were it not for colonialism, most Africans alive today would have never even been born.
In South Africa, that population growth came from a reaction of concentrated poverty, not wealth.
Fundamentally, the problem of African colonialism is the problem of multi-racialism. So long as Whites allowed Blacks to continue to live in Africa, which could have only been prevented with a massive and horrific genocide, Black Africans were going to resent them.
Except in Botswana, and to a lesser extent Namibia. Both with significantly different approaches to race relations.
As Apartheid shows us, this is true even if the Whites improve the conditions of the Blacks. There will always been a feeling that Whites do not belong there and Blacks will always resent the invariably superior material conditions of Whites.
Probably because many were removed from and forced away from Urban living.
Colonialism of the United States only worked because there aren’t many Indians around anymore.
I get the feeling this is part of his Bitchute video on the topic.
The kind of colonialism practiced in Africa in which Whites would be permanent but ruling minorities in a majority Black nation was never sustainable without an uncomfortable measure of totalitarianism and even then ethnic conflict was still common place.
The violence surrounding colonialism was rarely, if ever, one sided. Today, there is a massive level of systemic racism against White South Africans. The fact that this racism is not covered in Western media offers a stark contrast with how the media covered the sins of Apartheid.
The sources of the farm murders and affirmative actions were News24, a relatively left leaning SA news source, NPR, Reuters, Voice of America and the Dailymail. Only one source was an "alternative one", which reported the murder a whole year after News24
did and relied on a mainstream Afrikaner-news report
These get attention by "Western media".
Overall, the problems of South Africa, both in terms of Blacks resenting their White rulers under Apartheid and Whites experiencing racism today, come from the inherent difficulties of having a multi-racial society. In this sense, the story of South Africa contains lessons not only about colonialism but also about more general and pressing questions of immigration and diversity.
Or, you know, what happens when you don't consider the role of Black Africans in your government, unlike Botswana.
Make a new game where some stuff that you can buy from trader (Wood monkeys and chickens) appear naturally and you can find some new monsters submitted by
Something like a planet instead of astroids
Also, have villages with the inhabitants being nuus pixies and garams
Also more animals
Ich freue mich, Sie heute in meinem Schnell-Restaurant begrüßen zu dürfen. Warum „Schnell-Restaurant“? Nun, ich kam auf die Idee, doch einmal die Schnelligkeit in der Zubereitung eines thailändischen Imbiss mit der Gemütlichkeit eines kleinen Restaurants zu vereinen. Das Onlinemagazin für die Region Würzburg Schweinfurt Kitzingen Mainfranken Unterfranken . Aktuelle Themen in den Bereichen Lokalnachrichten, Sport, Freizeit und Kultur sowie Justitz und Geschäftswelt Over NUUS. De Beiaard was het weekblad van de Vlaamse Ardennen, wekelijks gelezen door duizenden mensen. Sinds 01/01/2017 gaan wij online verder. Blijf hier het streeknieuws verder volgen. Neem contact met ons op: [email protected] Zoeken. Meest gelezen artikels. Dodelijk ongeval Zottegemsesteenweg in Zwalm. Ravage na zwaar ongeval Elenestraat Zottegem. Lichtgewonde bij schietpartij in ... szerző:nuus; 2020. 11. 04. Miközben maga Erzsébet is haragszik Harryre, amiért elszakadt a királyi családtól és amerikai politikai kérdésekben értekezik, a Korona képviselői közötti békét mindennél fontosabbnak tartja. Csoportterápiát szervez, hogy az ellentétek feloldódjanak. Das Nüüs beinhaltet Geschichten aus dem Kleinwalsertal, der schönsten Sackgasse der Welt - wie wir sind, wie wir leben, was wir tun.Zusammenhalt untereinander, viel Leidenschaft und ein Auge für's Detail machen es möglich, dass wir und unsere Gäste sich hier so wohl fühlen. Lesen Sie was das Kleinwalsertal so besonders macht, begleiten Sie die Planung und Umsetzung von Projekten und ...
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Ons het besluit dis tyd om te deel! Baie dankie aan ons awesome bure wat ons hiermee gehelp het!! (Kyk in high definition asb!) Maroela Media is 'n internetkuierplek, trots en onbeskaamd Afrikaans. As jy Afrikaans is, is hierdie jóú kuierplek! Volg ons ook op Telegram by https://t.me/... SABC News, Africa's news leader at www.sabc.co.za/news is the online news portal of South Africa's public broadcaster. The South African Broadcasting Corpora... NUUS Videos; Playlists; Channels; Discussion; About; Home Trending History Get YouTube Premium Get YouTube TV Best of YouTube Music Sports Gaming Movies ...