Nelson Mandella has died

[RMAC757]

For a great read on colonialism in Africa.
http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-.../dp/0618001905

I see the same issues arising in Israel if "the world" has its way.
South Africa was a tribal hell hole before white colonialists civilized it as much as they could.
Israel remains an oasis of civilization surrounded by savage nations.
If you remove the protectors of civilization from a region, lawlessness will rapidly take its place.

Personally, I believe the continent of Africa should have been left alone from the beginning. However, the greed of politicians will not allow.
It has been proven many times that you cannot bring a third world state up to a first world state quickly. Does not work. Lead a horse to water... Afghanistan is likely the most recent example.

Third world morals are not the same as first world morals.
Without a higher moral standard, civilization cannot exist.

[hatidua]

the continent of Africa should have been left alone from the beginning.

....if only. But it's too late to un-ring that bell.

[Ronin13]

I know I said I was out but this warranted a reply. The atrocities committed by all races in SA was horrible. It was a product of Apartheid. If you systematically treat people unethically a monster will be unleashed. Poverty creates violence and a host of other issues. It doesn't matter if your black, white, Indian or Asian. Look at Northern Irleland or some of the many other nations that have felt "oppressed". Less than 10% of the population of SA ruled over and created a separate code of living for the rest of the nation. How could this not end in violence or revolution? Ask yourself what would happen here if 10% of a particular ethnic group voted itself all powerful? Would you lay down your guns and comply with your new rules? Would you move to the newly formed Ghettos or would you fight? I read a book when I was about 15 called "Kafir Boy". It lead to me reading a host of other books on South Africa and apartheid. There is never a good reason to treat one ethnic group differently than another. Just ask those in the Balkans. It will not end well. As a reply to some, I don't support all things black. That's just stupid. Mugabe is a monster and deserves to be treated a such. As does any other dictator that advocates violence against its people. Whites oppressing blacks for good reason? Is it possible they created this monster? Mandela wasn't a saint, but I believe in what he fought for.

In response to this, I only have this to say: Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because someone wrongs you (jeez, I hope Obama hears this, he should take this to heart) doesn't give you the just cause to wrong them back. In the case of southern African nations, if the white colonists oppressed the blacks, then the blacks take control and oppress and/or murder the whites in retribution (or "Truth and Reconciliation") then that makes the blacks in power of lower moral character than those who oppressed them. Of all that I've read about Mandela, it would appear that the man was of weak moral character. I'm not saying Apartheid was right or just, but if after it ended, the country was worse off, then was it all worth it? Could a better alternative have been attempted? I would like to think so.

[RMAC757]

Dave I think you have a weak understanding of colonialism in Africa. I have read up on I quite a bit and to say Europeans had good intentions is absurdly far fetched. It's like saying the American Indians needed us to become "civilized". The colonization of Africa was about natural resources. King Leopold of Belgium killed tens of millions of people while raping a nation of its resources. I'm not sure I would call that civilized. Tribal societies function different land always will. Why are we so intent on imposing our moral code on everyone. Sure a lot of it is F-ed up, but who gives a damn. It's their country....let them have at it. You were right about one thing, Greed. Africa is full of natural resources and colonists wanted them. It's strange as hell to hear people on this forum think that 90% of South Africans want to live in a shit hole. I'm guessing that a vast majority of those folks are just like us. They want a good life and a fair chance of advancing themselves. Years of Apartheid created vast poverty which in turn created a group of predators and shitty people. It happens anywhere poverty exists. It's not about race, it's about money and power. One poster said that white South Africans were scared, that's why they had to use Apartheid. With this logic liberals would have a field day in this country thinking that if they took away our guns, they would be much safer. Why not go a step further and put away anyone who opposes the current administration. That would certainly cut down on dissent.

I see the same issues arising in Israel if "the world" has its way.
South Africa was a tribal hell hole before white colonialists civilized it as much as they could.
Israel remains an oasis of civilization surrounded by savage nations.
If you remove the protectors of civilization from a region, lawlessness will rapidly take its place.

Personally, I believe the continent of Africa should have been left alone from the beginning. However, the greed of politicians will not allow.
It has been proven many times that you cannot bring a third world state up to a first world state quickly. Does not work. Lead a horse to water... Afghanistan is likely the most recent example.

Third world morals are not the same as first world morals.
Without a higher moral standard, civilization cannot exist.

[RMAC757]

In response to this, I only have this to say: Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because someone wrongs you (jeez, I hope Obama hears this, he should take this to heart) doesn't give you the just cause to wrong them back. In the case of southern African nations, if the white colonists oppressed the blacks, then the blacks take control and oppress and/or murder the whites in retribution (or "Truth and Reconciliation") then that makes the blacks in power of lower moral character than those who oppressed them. Of all that I've read about Mandela, it would appear that the man was of weak moral character. I'm not saying Apartheid was right or just, but if after it ended, the country was worse off, then was it all worth it? Could a better alternative have been attempted? I would like to think so.

Ronin, Truth and Reconciliation gave amnesty to anyone who was a party to a crime during the Apartheid era. Mandela opposed any type of retribution against the white population from everything I've read. In a perfect world two wrongs don't make it right but I've never seen this happen. Most people and nations hold grudges. Look at the Ukraine, China, Northern Ireland or the Balkans. This has nothing to do with race.

[Ronin13]

Ronin, Truth and Reconciliation gave amnesty to anyone who was a party to a crime during the Apartheid era. Mandela opposed any type of retribution against the white population from everything I've read. In a perfect world two wrongs don't make it right but I've never seen this happen. Most people and nations hold grudges. Look at the Ukraine, China, Northern Ireland or the Balkans. This has nothing to do with race.

I wasn't directly referring to Truth and Reconciliation, I was saying that many nations when there is a shift in power dress up some policy as something, then execute the opposite behind the veil of what "friendly" policy they have in place. Like you said, China, Northern Ireland, etc. this worked magically. Again, I refer back to Rhodesia with the one wrong retorted with an even worse one.

[davsel]

Dave I think you have a weak understanding of colonialism in Africa. I have read up on I quite a bit and to say Europeans had good intentions is absurdly far fetched. It's like saying the American Indians needed us to become "civilized". The colonization of Africa was about natural resources. King Leopold of Belgium killed tens of millions of people while raping a nation of its resources. I'm not sure I would call that civilized. Tribal societies function different land always will. Why are we so intent on imposing our moral code on everyone. Sure a lot of it is F-ed up, but who gives a damn. It's their country....let them have at it. You were right about one thing, Greed. Africa is full of natural resources and colonists wanted them. It's strange as hell to hear people on this forum think that 90% of South Africans want to live in a shit hole. I'm guessing that a vast majority of those folks are just like us. They want a good life and a fair chance of advancing themselves. Years of Apartheid created vast poverty which in turn created a group of predators and shitty people. It happens anywhere poverty exists. It's not about race, it's about money and power. One poster said that white South Africans were scared, that's why they had to use Apartheid. With this logic liberals would have a field day in this country thinking that if they took away our guns, they would be much safer. Why not go a step further and put away anyone who opposes the current administration. That would certainly cut down on dissent.

I think you misunderstood my post. I did not intend to imply Europeans colonized Africa due to good intentions. It indeed was the wealth of resources that attracted them, and they raped the continent acquiring them.
I intended to call out Apartheid South African whites as a small "colony" of civilization surrounded by third world natives. When the civilized leaders leave, the natives take over and the state reverts back to its roots.

Apartheid did not "create[d] a vast poverty." The injection of a civilized, wealthy group made the poverty suddenly apparent to natives, and they wanted it for themselves: the wealth, not the civility. They thought it was the power of politics that would make them wealthy, but failed to realize it was also the morality of a civilized society that is needed to maintain a healthy economy. Apartheid ended, and the natives squandered the economic gains.

Many are compelled to share their moral code with others because they are called by God to do so.

[generalmeow]

One poster said that white South Africans were scared, that's why they had to use Apartheid. With this logic liberals would have a field day in this country thinking that if they took away our guns, they would be much safer.

But they wouldn't be safer. We believe that, or we wouldn't be here chatting in this forum. That's the difference. They would be wrong.

We now know that the South Africans were right to be scared.

[ZERO THEORY]

The real mandella http://americanfreepress.net/?p=11873

I'm not going to argue one way or the other, because I never lived in SA and have no frame of reference. Having a frame of reference is important in knowing the ins and outs of a situation. Just saying.

Again, I don't personally know what happened there; I wasn't born yet and I've never been. However, my father is a South African-born, Congolese immigrant who has lived in this country for nearly 30 years. He is a registered Republican, has a M.S. in Telecom. Eng. and designed comm. relays for Lockheed for what it's worth (just want to cover those bases to ensure those ad hominems and speculation don't pour on too thick).

I called him today to ask him to shed some light on Mandela and his legacy in light of left wing worship and right wing dismissal. He pointed out pragmatically that accusing Mandela of being a Soviet-tied Red would be a good way to ensure the West didn't back his efforts, and that the crime and "fall" of SA is blown out of proportion by people who denounce his reign. Again, these aren't my words, and my father might have just as much bias as does anyone else. But I figured I'd give you guys a bit of insight from someone with actual first-hand understanding of what happened and happens currently in SA.

Take that for what it's worth.

[gos]

History is written by the victors, and the USA is no exception. Had the British won in 1783, we'd be speaking with funny accents, drinking warm beer, eating bland food, and reading about how the colonial terrorists were successfully stopped by the noble, peace-loving British soldiers.

Even worse, we'd believe it.