Crime is a constant in South Africa, as it is all over Africa. Its not as overewhelming as you might think. Cape Town and Sandton are reasonably safe. So is Pretoria and Nelspruit. Sheesh, some people think its like some sort of Mad Max or Purge type scenario.
(This post was last modified: 02-28-2018 09:48 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
Crime is a constant in South Africa, as it is all over Africa. Its not as overewhelming as you might think. Cape Town and Sandton are reasonably safe. So is Pretoria and Nelspruit. Sheesh, some people think its like some sort of Mad Max or Purge type scenario.
You claim to know what he thinks great Oracle?
Massive arrogance on your behalf.
Crime is a constant in South Africa, as it is all over Africa. Its not as overewhelming as you might think. Cape Town and Sandton are reasonably safe. So is Pretoria and Nelspruit. Sheesh, some people think its like some sort of Mad Max or Purge type scenario.
You claim to know what he thinks great Oracle?
Massive arrogance on your behalf.
LOL. There's always a time to highlight crime in black majority areas, especially in this case, when you can combine it on a thread that appears to justify apartheid era property seizures.
Crime is a constant in South Africa, as it is all over Africa. Its not as overewhelming as you might think. Cape Town and Sandton are reasonably safe. So is Pretoria and Nelspruit. Sheesh, some people think its like some sort of Mad Max or Purge type scenario.
You claim to know what he thinks great Oracle?
Massive arrogance on your behalf.
LOL. There's always a time to highlight crime in black majority areas, especially in this case, when you can combine it on a thread that appears to justify apartheid era property seizures.
Your real estate needs to be confiscated without compensation and given to Native Americans, got it.
(02-27-2018 03:12 PM)miko33 Wrote: South Africa is an interesting case. According to this article - white farmers own the majority of the farm land in SA as of late last year.
I'm not the type to harp on "White Privilege" because I think it is heavily overused in the U.S. from my perspective as a U.S. citizen. However, I think it's a very appropriate thing to cite for a country where the majority of the people don't access to the "South African Dream".
What you are seeing is a staunch socialist ideology play out against a racial backdrop.
But, that is from our Western point of view and completely discounts much of the reality on the ground. This is tribal more than racial and the whites are the group from which the resources for this in-fighting can be easily procured.
South Africa is a mess because of the remnants of colonialism stayed behind as opposed to what happened in virtually every other colony given up by the Europeans in the 20th century. That's why we are seeing what we are seeing play out today.
In some ways, yes. But, that's a gross oversimplification when it comes to South Africa.
The specific issue described in the OP wrt to the land grab that the governing party (the blacks) wants to enact - it's a reaction to colonialism that evolved into the British/Dutch citizens governing system that brought apartheid.
Now if you want to talk about the clusterfvck that is going to erupt once the white "boogeyman" is gone - that's a different story IMHO. If Africa was left untouched by Europe and the Arabs - IMHO it would probably be a primitive society built on tribal warfare and genocide. At least that's what Africa appears to be to me - a hopeless continent. Now would a strong civilization have developed within southern part of the continent without influence from the Middle East and later Europe? IDK. People will point to Ethiopia (Cush) and say it did. However, why didn't other groups within the southern portion of the continent consolidate power and build a strong empire to rival the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, etc? Egypt is in northern Africa, so it's not part of the central and southern parts of the continent encompassed by Chad, Zaire, Niger, Ethiopia, South Africa and other countries that I likely missed.
Miko, I'd like to get your perspective on why Africa is so much worse off than other former colonial nations, e.g. Most of South & Central America, India, and North America? Sure some of these places have problems, but not near the scope or level of Africa. I would submit that the former colonial nations in Africa are generally the better African ones without European influences.
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2018 08:13 AM by Jugnaut.)
(02-27-2018 03:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: That misses the forrest for the trees.
What you are seeing is a staunch socialist ideology play out against a racial backdrop.
But, that is from our Western point of view and completely discounts much of the reality on the ground. This is tribal more than racial and the whites are the group from which the resources for this in-fighting can be easily procured.
South Africa is a mess because of the remnants of colonialism stayed behind as opposed to what happened in virtually every other colony given up by the Europeans in the 20th century. That's why we are seeing what we are seeing play out today.
In some ways, yes. But, that's a gross oversimplification when it comes to South Africa.
The specific issue described in the OP wrt to the land grab that the governing party (the blacks) wants to enact - it's a reaction to colonialism that evolved into the British/Dutch citizens governing system that brought apartheid.
Now if you want to talk about the clusterfvck that is going to erupt once the white "boogeyman" is gone - that's a different story IMHO. If Africa was left untouched by Europe and the Arabs - IMHO it would probably be a primitive society built on tribal warfare and genocide. At least that's what Africa appears to be to me - a hopeless continent. Now would a strong civilization have developed within southern part of the continent without influence from the Middle East and later Europe? IDK. People will point to Ethiopia (Cush) and say it did. However, why didn't other groups within the southern portion of the continent consolidate power and build a strong empire to rival the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, etc? Egypt is in northern Africa, so it's not part of the central and southern parts of the continent encompassed by Chad, Zaire, Niger, Ethiopia, South Africa and other countries that I likely missed.
Miko, I'd like to get your perspective on why Africa is so much worse off than other former colonial nations, e.g. Most of South & Central America, India, and North America? Sure some of these places have problems, but not near the scope or level of Africa. I would submit that the former colonial nations in Africa are generally the better African ones without European influences.
The sad fact of the matter is that Africa is actually better off having been colonized than it would have if left alone.
To the point of colonization the vast majority of Africa had not even caught up with 2000BC Europe.
In fact, even today, without outside help, much of Africa remains primitive to the point that there is no native knowledge sufficient to build a bridge over a ditch. That is not the doing of the Colonial masters. To put it very bluntly, many areas of Africa which do not have irrigation systems lack those not because of politics or colonization but because they exist in almost utterly ignorant societies and cultures.
Africa is a place with the trappings of modernity but almost completely without the mindset or expertise to maintain it--almost all of that is foreign.
If there was one thing that the colonials did which is having lasting impacts on the people of the continent it is the brining of foreign ideologies which are poison to the native tribalist bases.
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2018 02:20 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
(02-27-2018 03:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: That misses the forrest for the trees.
What you are seeing is a staunch socialist ideology play out against a racial backdrop.
But, that is from our Western point of view and completely discounts much of the reality on the ground. This is tribal more than racial and the whites are the group from which the resources for this in-fighting can be easily procured.
South Africa is a mess because of the remnants of colonialism stayed behind as opposed to what happened in virtually every other colony given up by the Europeans in the 20th century. That's why we are seeing what we are seeing play out today.
In some ways, yes. But, that's a gross oversimplification when it comes to South Africa.
The specific issue described in the OP wrt to the land grab that the governing party (the blacks) wants to enact - it's a reaction to colonialism that evolved into the British/Dutch citizens governing system that brought apartheid.
Now if you want to talk about the clusterfvck that is going to erupt once the white "boogeyman" is gone - that's a different story IMHO. If Africa was left untouched by Europe and the Arabs - IMHO it would probably be a primitive society built on tribal warfare and genocide. At least that's what Africa appears to be to me - a hopeless continent. Now would a strong civilization have developed within southern part of the continent without influence from the Middle East and later Europe? IDK. People will point to Ethiopia (Cush) and say it did. However, why didn't other groups within the southern portion of the continent consolidate power and build a strong empire to rival the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, etc? Egypt is in northern Africa, so it's not part of the central and southern parts of the continent encompassed by Chad, Zaire, Niger, Ethiopia, South Africa and other countries that I likely missed.
Miko, I'd like to get your perspective on why Africa is so much worse off than other former colonial nations, e.g. Most of South & Central America, India, and North America? Sure some of these places have problems, but not near the scope or level of Africa. I would submit that the former colonial nations in Africa are generally the better African ones without European influences.
I think people in Africa - especially those not along the northern swath (Egypt, Libya, etc) - are by nature more tribally affiliated. That contributes to part of it. But on top of that, you had Muslims fighting Christians in several countries over there. South Africa and other nations have gold, other mineral resources and diamonds which is probably the primary reason why those of European ancestry lingered in these parts of the continent as opposed to simply vacating like they did in virtually all the other continents.
Having said all that, Mexico, Central and South America are still pretty awful places in their own rights. If you had Muslim extremists in Latin America, I bet it would be every bit as awful as the middle and southern parts of Africa.
Miko, not including secure resort type housing, SSA does not really have cities like Santiago Chile, Buenos Aires,
Sao Paulo, Cartagena, etc. Yeah the bad barrios are bad and dangerous. Muslims asides the African governments and police are even more corrupt than C. and S. America.
(03-01-2018 02:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Miko, not including secure resort type housing, SSA does not really have cities like Santiago Chile, Buenos Aires,
Sao Paulo, Cartagena, etc. Yeah the bad barrios are bad and dangerous. Muslims asides the African governments and police are even more corrupt than C. and S. America.
In fairness, the level of perceived corruption has more to do with the simplicity of the schemes than it does their regularity and volume.
