Comments on: African Democracy

By: Californian

Californian — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:36:34 +0000

I was in South Africa-Rhodesia in 1979-80. Rhodesia was a nicer place than SA, despite the war, as it had more of a British colonial laid back nature. It is just amazing how thoroughly the forces of "majority rule" have wrecked that country in the last three decades. Under Apartheid, South African blacks were stripped of their citizenship. Before whites came to South Africa, there was no country in which blacks were citizens in the modernsense. The region was inhabited by warring tribes. The cities, the mines, the industry, the agricultural surplus of South Africa, all were the products of white (or if you like, Western) civilization. Take away that civilization, and modernity and progress collapse. The apartheid government practiced detentions without trial, torture, censorship and massacres - eg. Sharpeville Massacre and Soweto uprising were 200 to 600 student were killed- All of which are routinely practiced by majority rule African governments, as well as mass starvation, throwing dissenters to the crocodiles, and cannibalism. Yet none of this causes very much moral outrage among Western liberals. Southern Africa was truly the clash of civilizations. Either Western civilization or African civilization was going to triumph. There was (and is) no middle ground. The losers would (and did) end up becoming second class citizens, if you like. We can see that happening today in the rainbow nation to white South Africans. The problem for Western liberals is this does not fit into the script. "Liberation" and "majority rule" are supposed to lead to democracy, not dictatorships and failed stated. Since the reality does not fit the ideology, the reality is jettisoned.

By: TJF

TJF — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:38:47 +0000

I would like to have a vote on who is more stupid and offensive, the hysterical and dyslexic bigot Horace Grady on the Obama thread or the hysterical and bigoted anti-racist Shahin here. Since South Africa was a "racist" regime, he is arguing, that justifies the ANC's terrorism. May I suggest to Shahin that he go to South Africa and do a little humanitarian aid to the re-oppressed natives. But he should make sure that his parents have tickets bought in advance so that when they go too tell his murderers they forgive them, they can have the 14 day advance price. Go way, both of you, and play with people your own age.

This reminds me of another Shahin I once ran into, a neoconservative who wanted to talk about tradition and community, ripped off Clyde Wilson's ideas and (suitably denigrating Prof. Wilson along the way) and represented them in Irving-Kristollian language, and voila, a PhD and a new star in the firmament of Hell. I wonder if it is the same guy?

By: Allen Wilson

Allen Wilson — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:38:03 +0000

I doubt that Soweto can be called a 'massacre', and I hear that the rioting and murder in Soweto is still going on just like it was back in the 80's. The difference now is that the black government refuses to enforce the law or even attempt to keep the streets safe anywhere in the country.

By: Shahin

Shahin — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:08:51 +0000

Apartheid was a system of legalized racial segregation. Apartheid legislation classified inhabitants and visitors into racial groups (black, white, coloured and Indian (or Asian). Under Apartheid, South African blacks were stripped of their citizenship. The apartheid government practiced detentions without trial, torture, censorship and massacres - eg. Sharpeville Massacre and Soweto uprising were 200 to 600 student were killed-

The Apartheid regime is the symbol of racism around the world.

Finally, I agree that there is "a double standard" in the definition terrorism.

By the way, did you know that the French partisans who were fighting in France against the Nazi's occupation of their country, were called terrorist by the Nazis?

By: Clyde Wilson

Clyde Wilson — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:32:28 +0000

31. This fellow is utterly ignorant of George Washington and the American War of Independence.

By: TJF

TJF — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:56:03 +0000

First of all, it remains to be seen that the old South Africa was an "oppressive or imperialist regime" as compared with, for example, with South Africa today. Secondly, "may have planned sabotage or even assassinated some officials" is a dandy way of referring to the killing, raping, and looting that characterized the ANC's actions, much less the charming behavior of Mrs. Mandela, whose goons killed the black opposition by putting burning tires around their necks. Yes, Mandela was probably no Mugabe or Mao, but he is bad enough even in what he admitted to, much less what he was widely accused of. In the American Revolution, by contrast, it was the British government that deliberately murdered civilians, not George Washington. It is true that the rebels practiced merciless retaliation against Tories, especially in places like the western parts of the Carolinas where the war was a true civil war, but that was not the action either of the Continental Congress or of General Washington. The argument here appears to reflect a double standard that excuses criminal violence so long as it serves a national liberation movement against an imperialist, read white European regime. Next he will be defending Hamas.

By: Shahin

Shahin — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:37:27 +0000

Djordje:

Mandella may planned sabotage or even assassinated some officials.If you call him a terrorist, you have broadened the definition of terrorism to the extents that we can label Ghandi, Washington or anyone else who stands against an oppressive or imperialist regime as terrorist.

By: Andrew L

Andrew L — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:26:41 +0000

Many thanks, Djordje. Any additional info will be welcome too. Didn´t Mandela murder a policeman, for instance?

By: Djordje

Djordje — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:14:38 +0000

@Shahin Here is just a capsule of the activities of the "Great Man". "Mandela was convicted of terrorism in 1963 and freely admitted at his trial, "I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation." As economic sanctions, and especially an oil embargo brought about the end of the white regime in South Africa, Mandela was released and became the ANC leader. The ANC's terrorist arm, which Mandela headed in 1963 -- called Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) or Spear of the Nation -- continued waging terrorist attacks with arson, political murder and robberies. It was at this time that the recently freed Mandela told cadres from a Umkhonto meeting in Venda, "It was always my view that the armed liberation struggle is based on and grows out of mass political struggle fought by the oppressed." He called for the total defeat of "the white minority." DEAL-MAKING NELSON In those days, Mandela crafted all kinds of deals with Cuba, Libya, Iran, North Korea and the Palestinians. Now with armed struggle ended, he continues close friendships with Fidel Castro, Muammar Qaddafi, Yasser Arafat and the other little tyrants who helped the ANC to its victory. "

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:39:20 +0000

The white liberal elite is mainly interested in tearing down anything that doesn't fit their definition of 'equality', and they have no interest or personal exposure or investment in the aftermath. If terrorists take over, so what. The exact analogous thing happened in the US, on school busing. Once the schools were 'integrated', the liberals didn't care that they became hellholes.