Winnie Mandela...

[woody2]

25 minutes ago, pongo said:

Economic ruin (a moot point - since most are no worse off) is nothing to do with the end of white racist rule. That model was never sustainable. The majority is SA are better-off and the country is less violent than during the resistance era.

[pongo]

What is it about that which makes you post smileys Woody?

Violence peaked under the racist regime during the 1980s but is now at the same level as during the early 1960s.

[Chinahand]

South Africa’s murder rate:

[Rog]

13 hours ago, pongo said:

What is it about that which makes you post smileys Woody?

Violence peaked under the racist regime during the 1980s but is now at the same level as during the early 1960s.

Violence during the "living separately" regime because of the ANC thugs were attacking the legitimate government. It is often forgotten that ZA is not a simple White vs. Black country, in addition there are the Cape Coloured, ethnic  Indian,  various half breeds especially mulattoes, and the vast majority were perfectly happy with the government as it was. 

The diving force that saw the loss of ZA was jealousy from the blacks from outside of ZA who, as In the case of Rhodesia, just wanted to take what "Whitey" had built.  

ZA, now "South Africa" is a nightmare of violence and corruption and it will get even worse.

Such is certainly not the case today.

[pongo]

48 minutes ago, Rog said:

Violence during the "living separately" regime because of the ANC thugs were attacking the legitimate government. It is often forgotten that ZA is not a simple White vs. Black country, in addition there are the Cape Coloured, ethnic  Indian,  various half breeds especially mulattoes, and the vast majority were perfectly happy with the government as it was. 

Suppose Britain, or some previously empty bit of Britain, decided to impose some variety of black rule. With specific rules about what bus you could get, where you could live, shop, pee etc

I take it you would be equally okay with that - you'd see it as equally "legitimate".

[woody2]

5 minutes ago, pongo said:

Suppose Britain, or some previously empty bit of Britain, decided to impose some variety of black rule. With specific rules about what bus you could get, where you could live, shop, pee etc

I take it you would be equally okay with that - you'd see it as equally "legitimate".

see london.......

[Rog]

1 minute ago, pongo said:

Suppose Britain, or some previously empty bit of Britain, decided to impose some variety of black rule.

I take it you would be equally okay with that - you'd see it as equally "legitimate".

If by some previously empty part of Britain had been colonised by a race of people who brought civilisation to a previously uncivilised and virtually uninhabited part then where's the problem?

And if after a period of time it made sense to enact legislation that ensured that people who had then come for the rich pickings and also to plunder from the colonists a result of their development of what had been to all intents a wasteland lived apart, because after all that's what the word and principle of apartheid means, in order to reduce theft and attacks against them where's the problem.

[Rog]

3 minutes ago, woody2 said:

see london.......

Exactly.

[twinkle]

I see all the freeloaders/libtards have shut the fuck up, leave it to the blacks for six weeks and they will fuck the entire country up.

[pongo]

37 minutes ago, Rog said:

If by some previously empty part of Britain had been colonised by a race of people who brought civilisation to a previously uncivilised and virtually uninhabited part then where's the problem?

All uninhabited places are by definition uncivilised.

Much of Britain is uninhabited. Same as Africa.

[the stinking enigma]

That south african gold and those south african diamonds could have done a bit to alleviate the natives poverty had they not been stolen from them.

[Rog]

57 minutes ago, pongo said:

All uninhabited places are by definition uncivilised.

Much of Britain is uninhabited. Same as Africa.

Uninhabited - but not unowned.

[Rog]

36 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

That south african gold and those south african diamonds could have done a bit to alleviate the natives poverty had they not been stolen from them.

 Not stolen at all. Extracted by the legitimate owners of the land which until the colonists arrived were unowned.

[the stinking enigma]

Who did the legitimate owners buy it off?

[Rog]

1 minute ago, the stinking enigma said:

Who did the legitimate owners buy it off?

They didn't need to buy it from anyone for the simple reason no one of no tribe or no country owned it. Instead the colonialists arrived and established farms and industry serving those farms in much the same way that European colonists arrived and developed lands that at best been roamed over by a few nomads who had no concept of anything other than tribalism and tribal conflict.

It's interesting to compare the colonisation of the Americas where genocide was an accepted way to seize tribal lands.

In the case of Rhodesia and ZA there were no tribal lands because unlike the First Nations who had specific lands that were associated with the separate tribes and that they roamed over according to season, in Africa the tribes just wandered living a strip-and-move-on lifestyle with no concept of land ownership.