quote:

Apartheid ran from 1948 - 1994.

I don't believe that you can say that the SA government was the "same" from 1948 to 1994.

So...I want to ask you that very question...Do you believe the SA government of the 50's & 60's was the same as the SA government of 1980?

quote:

quote:
However, you appear to think that Mandela has pursued the same policies which isn't the case at all.


I know people in RSA in which had a black partner imposed into their businesses as a 51% partner.

Steve,
Also please comment on the above.

Lane,

I did reply but added it because I initially missed that post. Sorry about that.

As to whether the Apartheid regime was the same in 48 as it was in 94...... Hell, I wasn't even born in 48 so obviously can't comment on that...... as we're talking about 1980 or so, let's discuss that sort of time.

I can certainly tell you that Apartheid was enforced pretty strictly around 1980 and the relaxation of the laws only really began some years later. - Probably around 1990.

It is indeed interesting to see the public position of the south africians posting on this very PUBLIC FORUM, it is in this light I am wondering how long it will be till U S citizens wil have to take the same position with regard to our government.

quote:

it is in this light I am wondering how long it will be till U S citizens wil have to take the same position with regard to our government.

It is this very reason that I am going to vote for Sarah Palin if she runs for president.

See...all of you that called me a racist...I am going to vote for a woman for president!

Steve,

Look at the SilverTip pic I posted in rifles for leopard.

I should add that SA has had a land restoration programme in SA for some time but the Gvt buys the land from the farmer at market price and (to the best of my knowledge) usually on a willing seller basis.

The guys it's happened to in my area, are mostly fruit or sugar farmers and most if not all of the ones I know have been more than happy with the prices paid and some have in fact leased their old farms back and are farming them again and making more money than before.

I understand some areas have been taken back by the Gvt because the locals have not farmed the areas as they should.

HOWEVER, it should be noted that some areas have not had such satisfactory results and also that some areas, particularly rural areas have had a lot of violence. Reasons for that are obviously largely a matter of opinion but mine is that most of it is political and mostly based on black Africans settling old scores with white Afrikaans farmers etc.

As I'm an Englishman, most (black) Africans tend not to view me in the same way as they view the Afrikaans guys.

It'd be interesting to hear the opinion of some of our Afrikaans members on that though, as I don't really know a hell of a lot about the land issues as I'm not involved in them, and of course, my nationality may well mean my outlook is different to theirs.

quote:

usually on a willing seller basis.

Key word here is "usually".

Might be always but I'm not 100% sure so I played it safe.

Steve,

You and I just have a different view of acceptable government actions. I for one will say I am apalled at the things my government is doing under the Obama administration. And I intend to do everything I can peaceably do to make sure they are voted out.

I probably won't be planning on using any of the tactics that Mandela planned on using in his former career as a terrorist.

Not to suggest, necessarily, that the situations were fully analagous, but David Ben-Gurion was considered by many to be a "terrorist" both before and after 1948. His young[er] follower Moshe Daya, the same.

Just sayin'...

I get the impression that you don't have the whole story...... you might find it interesting and informative to read some of the books on the subject and I'd suggest you start with Mandela's 'Long Walk To Freedom' (it really is an interesting read) and then go on to a few more.

You might also try some of the older books such as 'The Dilemma of south Africa' by John Hatch which might give you an understanding of some of the older viewpoints.

Things aren't anywhere near perfect in SA but they'd be a lot less perfect if Mandela hadn't been around when the time for black rule arrived as it had, inevitably to do and I'm only sorry he's not 25 years younger and able to continue running the country for considerably longer than he did..... and I for one would much rather live here in SA than the UK which was the land of my birth and infant nurture.

quote:

I get the impression that you don't have the whole story......

I am an avid reader. I have those along with others like the Great Betrayal. I just disagree. Believe me there are those that live in RSA that you are probably aquainted with that don't share your view point!

quote:

black rule arrived as it had, inevitably to do

Why???

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Why???

Exactly the same reason as the rest of Africa and countries such as Vietnam had inevitably to get home rule and the current war zone of Afghanistan will eventually go the same way, whether our politicians like it or not. Don't forget that even the US was despite a lot of opposition at the time, eventually forced to allow equal rights to their own black population.

No small population can forever rule a large population that don't want to be ruled and won't be ruled.

Sure, a small population can take a country and rule a larger population for a limited time, sometimes a very long time but never forever and especially not when other countries instigate trade embargos as happened to SA and before them, to Rhodesia for example.

In the case of SA & apartheid, one of the major flaws was the total segregation of the races...... let's face it, you're never, ever gonna be completely successful in stopping people shagging!

quote:

Don't forget that even the US was despite a lot of opposition at the time, eventually forced to allow equal rights to their own black population.

But we did not give the whole country back to the American Indian. Which, according to you, is mandatory.

Equal rights is one thing. Forcing partnerships and "redistributing" land and wealth is entirely another.

quote:

I'm only sorry he's not 25 years younger and able to continue running the country for considerably longer than he did....

I am only sorry Ian Smith is not 25 years younger right now and could have the chance to re-group Zim with out the help of Jimmie Carter.

Ian was the man with the correct vision.

quote:

Afghanistan will eventually go the same way, whether our politicians like it or not.

So just let the Taliban back in to set up shop??? They were native folks.

Hold on, I'm not saying everything that's happening is right or even that everything that happened in the past is wrong.

I'm explaining why things are the way they are and why they came to be so... also explaining that things would have been considerably worse without Mandela's influence.

Like I said, African politics are murky and I'll add that SAs history is extremely complicated and all parties (unfortunately) have very long memories.

Everyone has fought everyone else in previous generations and despite the years and generations that have in some cases passed, some people still treat it as yesterday.

I've know many Afrikaaners who I consider really good friends and the salt of the earth, but I've also met the occasional one who wouldn't even speak to me because I'm English and they still regard me as the enemy....... and the Anglo Boer war finished in 1902! - How bloody ridiculous is that!

Also remember that the issue of land ownership in Africa always has been and always will be a thorny issue and I wouldn't begin to be able to suggest a solution to that one.

ADDED

At the risk of going off topic and getting political rather than historical etc.

As for Afghanistan, (IMO) it's not a case of what we want, it's about reality. The reality is that it's an impossible war to win for the reasons previously mentioned and the western politicians are simply throwing the lives, limbs and minds of our finest men and women(to say nothing of the money) away in an unwinnable war for their own self aggrandisment.

Much better to withdraw and use the troops and money to protect the security of our individual homelands and when someone discovers the location of Bin Laden et al, send in a few long range missiles.

That's all I have to say on that matter and my apologies if that opinion has offended anyone.

quote:

Afrikaaners

Afrikaaners were very similar to those who settled the American West. In both views and toughness. They took, held, and settled the land when no one of less fortitude probably could have.

I can't argue with that. The Afrikaans are some of the toughest people I've ever met..... they also have the ability to absorb alcohol like a sponge and I've learned it's never a good idea to try to keep up with 'em in the booze stakes!

The Afrikaaners are great hosts and great company but every time I go out for a drink with any of them, I have to be driven home damn near legless!

I'd better warn forum members that Luan and Rudi are especially good at this trick and either can drink me under the table with one hand tied behind their respective backs!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
[QUOTE]Anytime that a person's property is taken from them in the name of giving it back to it rightful owner ... that ain't right.

quote:

You and I just have a different view of acceptable government actions. I for one will say I am apalled at the things my government is doing under the Obama administration. And I intend to do everything I can peaceably do to make sure they are voted out. I probably won't be planning on using any of the tactics that Mandela planned on using in his former career as a terrorist.

Here you have, in a nutshell, the bizarre logic of apologists for the former apartheid regime. On the one hand, they rail against a government having too much power and reallocating property. "Socialism", they cry! Of course, this pertains only to a government they oppose (Mandela's or Obama's, in the case of Lane).

But when a government they support seizes property from a constituency far removed from their own - such as black tribal lands "reallocated" by the government following the 1961 whites-only referendum that created the republic - then by way of an economy of reason this is not viewed as a crime but, one supposes, a legitimate function of government. As Lane says himself, giving property back to its rightful owner "ain't right".

In the case of South Africa, we're not talking about land disputes from the 19th or 18th century, or even early 20th century as in Rhodesia, but rather in the past 50 years - within the lifetime of those affected. Illegitimate land seizures, whether by Mugabe or the South African apartheid regime (or Netanyahu or the US Government), can never be countenanced. Nor can one countenance the failure to return to the rightful owner that which is theirs.

Laughably, Lane says that he won't adopt the tactics that Mandela used inasmuch as he intends to "make sure (Obama is) voted out". That's all well and good since Lane has the option to vote in this country. Mandela and the black majority of South Africa didn't have that right. I have no doubt whatsoever that had Lane and the others agitating against Mandela been black citizens in South Africa during the 1960's or '70's, and they were subjected to being legally disenfranchised and relegated to second-class citizenship, you can bet they would have been the most strident - if not violent - revolutionaries. I know that my outrage would have made Mandela's actions look like those of a Girl Scout.

I have many South African friends, white and black, who almost to a person are appreciative of Mandela's moderate, if not Solomonesque, approach to reconciliation. He is not a perfect man by any stretch, and he has made his share of mistakes, but as Shakari said so well, "If it hadn't been for Mandela, things would have been considerably worse when the time of change arrived, as sooner or later it had to".

quote:

As Lane says himself, giving property back to its rightful owner "ain't right".

My exact words were "in the name of giving land back to its rightful owners".

I did not mean the folks being "given" the land were the rightful owners.

I think the biggest mistake he made was to abolish the death penalty for murder and say it would never be re-introduced all the while he was alive.

If we still had that I reckon the crime figures would halve.

quote:

but as Shakari said so well, "If it hadn't been for Mandela, things would have been considerably worse

That arguement is like me saying: "I am sure happy the fellow that shot me in the face was shooting a .22LR rather than a .45 ACP as it sure would have been worse!"

While true...it is a stupid argument.

Lane,

You REALLY need to read those books and do some research of your own if you think that.

quote:

You REALLY need to read those books and do some research of your own if you think that.

What? That a .45 would have blown my head off while a .22 only gave me a permanent dimple???

As I said...I have read them. I disagree with your interpretation!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
As I said...I have read them. I disagree with your interpretation!

With all due respect and genuinely without meaning to insult, you need to re-read them, because you must have an appalling memory.

You seem to have forgotten that Zim independence predated SA independence by damn near a decade and a half and that Mubabe is guilty of many thousands of proven human rights abuses and genocide etc whereas Mandela won the Nobel Peace Prize and has not committed any such crimes.

How anyone can draw parallels between the two beggars belief.

quote:

Mandela won the Nobel Peace Prize and has not committed any such crimes.

Hell Steve they just gave Obama a nobel I guess for breathing air!!! Lots of folks have gotten a Nobel that I disagree with.

I don't think Mandela is a Saint!!! I think he is a terrorist that got off due to circumstances. He was in the right place at the right time. I am a student of history and I disagree with how you look at it.

If anybody in the whole world deserves a Nobel Peace Prize...it is George W. Bush for having the guts and fortitude to kill Saddam Hussein and his 2 thug raping killing boys!!!

Now there is something that deserves recognition!!!

I think Steve and Kim have it completely right; if it wasn't for Mandela, the transition from apartheid to majority rule would have been an exceptionally bloody one. The shift was bound to happen. How it happened was due in large part to Mandela.

I can't imagine Mbeki or Zuma trying to rally a black nation around a white sport as was shown in Invictus. Such is the political genus of Mandela.

ledvm is a student of history but seems to be totally ignorant of it. Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. This was true of the Stern Gang (NOT Irgun as was stated above).
"Lots of folks have gotten a Nobel that I disagree with". So what? Who cares?
Here's another:
"I am only sorry Ian Smith is not 25 years younger right now and could have the chance to re-group Zim with out the help of Jimmie Carter.

Ian was the man with the correct vision."

UDI was the death knell for Rhodesia and that is a fact. Ledvm, look up UDI you might learn something!
I have no idea what this "student of history" is talking about. UDI was in 1965. The British Commonwealth then imposed trade sanctions against Rhodesia. Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1977. Oh well! Still he managed to involve Obama in his diatribe. I guess he forgot to mention Kennedy.
Ledvm take your stuff ot the political forum you will fit right in.
Peter.

Let me apologise for the tone of my previous post. Ledvm, let me tell you that I am from England. This stuff of which you speak so blithely involves men in Rhodesia and South Africa who shed their blood for England (the Mother country) long before the USA got involved in either of the World Wars. The ties of blood are strong, but not as strong as the demands of Justice. Rhodesia had considerable good will and support in England and in the Commonwealth. That disappeared when UDI was declared. They just said, in effect, we don't care about these ties. They even declared it while negotiations were on going. It was tough to defend. I am not defending nor condoning the actions of the people in power in Zim. Democracy and freedom are not free and unfortunately that is a hard lesson to learn and there are no shortcuts as we are learning in Afganistan and Iraq.
Peter.

I don't suppose now would be a good time to bring up the Israeli/Palestinian land question, now, would it? Seems to be a parallel or two.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
I don't suppose now would be a good time to bring up the Israeli/Palestinian land question, now, would it? Seems to be a parallel or two.

Wonder what wesley thinks about what happened to his thread...

quote:

Originally posted by Peter: Rhodesia had considerable good will and support in England and in the Commonwealth. That disappeared when UDI was declared. They just said, in effect, we don't care about these ties. They even declared it while negotiations were on going.
Peter.

Peter,

Rubbish. Rhodesia lost the support of the liberal English politicians when they declared UDI, but they still enjoyed a great deal of support from many English people. And Rhodesia never declared that they didn't 'care about these ties', the English were the ones who declared this, if not in words then by their despicable actions. Let me remind you that Rhodesia sent more soldiers per capita to the second world war effort than any other nation on Earth. Sure, the Rhodesians were hardheaded, but it was the English refusal to meet them half way that resulted in the Rhodesian war. Ian Smith was, to a large extent, correct with his predictions of what majority rule would bring about, and it must be an extremely bitter pill for his detractors to swallow. I am certainly no Smith supporter now, and like to think I wouldn't have been had I been old enough then, but the fact remains that life was 1000 times better for Zimbos under Smith than it is now. Yes, even with the war. I may be biased and I may be bitter, but I hold England accountable for much of what has happened to this country in the last 40 years. Many, many people here and elsewhere feel the same way.I guess it's a personal thing - generations of soldiers from one's family fighting wars for the English will do that to one. I agree that declaring UDI was Rhodesia's death knell, but it needn't have come to that. And it was not only the Rhodesians who were responsible for UDI. At the end of the day, once all the bullshit had been spouted and England had turned the whole world against Rhodesia, there was no choice but to fight. What would you do if a bunch of murderers rocked up at your house in the middle of the night to slaughter your family? I can assure you that you would fight.

Thank you, David



R.R. Hulme, Rhodesia Regiment WWII, North Africa. Seconded to 237 squadron, the Rhodesian air-force, and the Long Range Desert Group. Wounded in action.He was decorated and my dad has the medals at home, just don't know what they are right now.

Mandela = Mugabe?!

Unbelievable!

This thread is proof that some people refuse to be educated, or even informed, when the result might interfere with their deep-seated prejudices.

God forbid that anyone should be confused and confounded by having to deal with facts and reason!

Eastwood has made some good films. I just might have to see this one.

David,

I was only a kid when it happened but from what I remember about it, the British (rather than the English) public were generally in support of Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Government, but it was the unpopular Government of the day, led by that bloody idiot Harold Wilson assisted by the useless tosser Lord Carrington that foisted their policies on both the British and the Rhodesian people.

quote:

Mandela = Mugabe?!

Unbelievable!

This thread is proof that some people refuse to be educated, or even informed, when the result might interfere with their deep-seated prejudices.

+1

Mrlexma, never let the facts get in the way of myopic dogma as many here seem to do

FWIW I saw Invictus last night and thought it was great!

Steve,

I was also too young, but I see it the same way. My opinion only comes from talking to those who were not too young, and books. It is too close to home for me, taking into account what has happened here in recent times. I'm also sorry for my tone in my first post - I shouldn't even get involved in debates on the subject. Sorry if I came across as rude or whatever, Peter, no malice intended, just a sore point.

Mugabe = Mandela? Unbelievable for sure. I wish we had had a Mandela.

Dave