Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Worthless rag Sowetan tries to stir racial pot again

More pseudo-intellectual bullcrap from the Sowetan, this time from trying to equate the recent gathering of three minority groups and Zuma with that of the Black Journalists Forum meeting Zuma. Folks, this shit passes for intellectualism in the black race, worthy even of a print in a national black paper.

Nice try at stirring Oupatjie but no cigar. Not even close.

I will be brief because this whitey doesn't want to test your limited black intellekshualness. Will an explanation in point form do? I can supply a "connect the dots" version if you'd like with a hand-drawn sketch?

Let's reply to the main premise of your article, that is, that there was no "uproar" when "whites-only" groups visited Zuma recently yet the opposite happened when blacks did the same. The rest is blah-blah-yawn-zzzzzz.

Oh, there so much wrong with your premise Oupatjie.

1. The Black Journalists Forum is really for blacks only. No other races allowed. Got it? Bring black skin or fuck off. Understood?

2. The Italian, Greek and Portuguese communities are NOT whites only groups. There are black Italians, Greeks and Portuguese. Name a race, they can be found there. Zuma was thus not meeting racially-exclusive groups because blacks are welcome to join these 'minorities'.

Not the same izzit Oupatjie?

But then you KNOW that. No one can be that stupid. Can you?

Okay that's it, two simple points which shatter your "oh woe is poor black meeee..." race bait attempt.

Your blacks-only meeting is not open to white journalists, however, the minority meetings IS open to all races. Very. Simple. Point with your finger and read aloud if I'm going too fast for you.

Remove the chips off the shoulders Oupatjie. Prat. You, a "truth warrior" my white ass.

The rest of your rant is so inanely pitiful that it is not worth discussing unless you want to don on your "zombie" hat and dance for me black man.

Doos.

***

Why no uproar when whites-only groups invite Zuma?

In February last year, the Forum of Black Journalists was summarily dismissed as “racist” and condemned as out of step with the Constitution of South Africa for hosting ANC president Jacob Zuma as a guest.

Radio 702’s aggrieved Katy Katopodis rushed a complaint to the South African Human Rights Commission.

As sure as Amen follows a prayer, the commission’s adjudicative response to the FBJ’s misguided cheek was unmistakable. True to South Africa’s way of life, a just-us-blacks meeting is no proposition for white blessings to come rushing in.

Seven months thereafter, in September, the good heavens were witness to Zuma being a guest of the Hellenic, Italian and Portuguese Alliance.

Last Thursday, the minority communities were once more in full swing, honoured by Zuma’s presence with no brow moving an inch of surprise as to why it is an issue if it were a black gathering?

Even human rights lawyer George Bizos was also there, as if to assure all and sundry that the first, second and third generation rights were not in harms way.

In the expected, reconciliatory and mature order of things, the FBJ has not turned the tables on the commission.

The heavens have similarly twice smiled that Zuma can be met with regular ease by minority communities. Why then is there an automatic uproar when it is the turn of the component of the majority population to meet Zuma?

Part of the answer lies in the notion in which blacks are fashioned to only to sing, dance and die for causes they need not bother exercising their minds for, or chance demonstrating thought leadership in the direction of changing the reality of their unique experiences by the sheer weight of their numbers to prove that they are not only in office but also in power.

But the culprits for this zombification of blacks are not solely traceable to white paternalistic mischief as it as much a conniving act of culpable blacks that Steve Biko called non-whites.

Caught between white paternalistic mischief and conniving black culpability, the much avowed principle of nonracialism suffocates in the quicksand of mutual deceit. This deceit produces self-perpetuating unnatural beings.

In the process, whites are unable to genuinely exorcise themselves from the given and enduring demons of their instinctual superiority complexes, while blacks wallow in terminal inferiority complexes in which they are never quite certain to emerge and declare themselves as beings in their right without reference to white consent and validation.

The fault, dear South Africans, does not lie in the skins in which you were born into, but in continuing to believe that there is blissfully nothing untoward in whites meeting on their own and yet scream to high heaven of impending danger when blacks deem it fit to get into committee.

There needs no reminding that the choices so readily enjoyed today would not have been possible had it not been for the initial preparedness of the black majority to die for.

In the unperturbed meetings that the Hellenic, Italian and Portuguese Alliance has had with Zuma, the ruling by the SAHRC that the one he had with the FBJ was illegal, stands to show that in the yawning gap between the law and justice there is always room for a good fight to be waged. Truth warriors do not relent.

48 Opinion(s):

Exzanian said...

Well deserved award! For the benefit of overseas readers, Doos is a disparaging afrikaans word for Cunt.

Dachshund said...

I really doubt that there are any blacks in the Italian, Greek and Portuguese communities, but this doesn't detract from the point that Oupa Ngwenya is trying to raise a racist storm in a teacup.

What is he trying to say? That blacks should have been proportionately invited at 10 blacks to every white, a couple of cows and goats slaughtered, with everything paid for by the minority groups?

Next thing you won't be able to have a small braai in your own back garden because you didn't invite 50 blacks as payback for the sins of apartheid.

Another thing: why doesn't Oupa change his name to something more ethnically suitable like Nhlanya Ngwenya? (For those who don't know a black language, nhlanya means DOOS in Nguni.)

Black Coffee said...

I disagree, Oupa raises a very valid point. Theoretically you may be right - there are black Portuguese, Italians, etc., but how many of them live in South Africa? Come on, you know as well as I do that when we talk about Italian, Greek, etc. in South Africa meeting with Zuma we are talking about white communities. Now, remember all the hysteria about whites being excluded at that one gathering last year? If not look at this blog's archives, and the comments that came through on Thoughtleader and the times' website at that time. Look at the lack of outcry from blacks about similar gatherings of whites-only with Zuma. Do you not see the hypocrisy? I am one white man who is glad the "Sowetan" takes time to point this out.

Viking said...

I confess up front I'm speaking from a zero knowledge standpoint here, but presumably the reason there IS a "hellenic, portuguese and Italian" alliance in SA is because they DON'T fit well into the 'white' category? Or any other for that matter?
Just a thought.

FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FishEagle said...

Black Coffee, please don't compare apples with pears. Nobody would have had a problem if it was the Zimbabwe Journalist Forum or Angola Journalist Forum that was meeting with Zuma. It was specifically a BLACK Journalist Forum meeting, i.e. the criteria for those that were allowed to attend was RACE and profession. That is RACIST.

My next commment is not meant as an ad hominem attack. It is my honest observation and I apologise in advance to you Black Coffee - I am finally convinced about your complete lack of intelligence. I honestly had some doubt until now.

FishEagle said...

If I may just expand on my previous comment, as I'm getting more pissed off the more I think about Black Coffee's comment. Black Coffee, that statement that you made is the reason why you are considered racist. You just see everyone in Africa as black. According to you, Europeans have Portuguese, etc. but Africans just have blacks. Educate yourself, shit!

Black Coffee said...

FE - you have already admitted to Jeff in another thread that you are racist. Whatever your personal experience may have been it is no excuse for racism. Now, I never said that "Africans only have blacks..", but that is way whites in Africa have defined Africans for centuries. I have looked at records of Verwoerd's speeches, and he never referred to "whites" and "blacks" as such but to "Europeans" and "Non-Europeans" with the message that the former were better than the latter and were entitled to South Africa. Now all of a sudden whites want to be recognized as Africans when for centuries whites have had one foot in Africa and the other in Europe - figuratively speaking. I have no problem with whites being recognized as Africans, especially those who were born in South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. But is is incumbent upon you to then integrate yourself into the indigenous societies. That does not mean whites have to abandon all their cultural ways, just recognize and adopt value of indigenous African cultures. It also means recognizing the damage that racism of past did and that in order to correct that damage, things like Forum of Black Journalists are necessary.

Islandshark said...

You have to realise you are criticising BC's academic journal of choice here - The Sowetan.

Islandshark said...

@ BC: You're really are a 24-carat plonker, aren't you?

"That does not mean whites have to abandon all their cultural ways, just recognize and adopt value of indigenous African cultures."

Which "values" of African cultures should whites adopt?

Taking by force something which doesn't belong to you? Raping and murdering whilst doing it? That's if you didn't rape and murder just for the hell of it. Never working a single day in your life, but expecting the racist white man to support your 10 children (Need I cite the example of octo-mum in USA?) Harvesting organs from live human beings? Attacking elderly white folk and torturing them to death?

FishEagle said...

BC, yes I am racist. Who are you to judge me?

"But is is incumbent upon you to then integrate yourself into the indigenous societies." So much for respecting individuality and celebrating differences between the races. Who are you to judge my white race in South Africa?

Doberman said...

@ Dach, there are plenty of Portuguese blacks in the Portuguese community actually, Angolan and Mozambican blacks.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing wrong with being racist. The self-destructive notion that racism is bad, was invented by liberal WHITES and has been fully bought by blacks. Why? - see below:

Ever wonder why racist blacks want to live in close proximity to whites? Because they KNOW they derive benefit from it: liberal whites bleed gifts like social security to them, plus benefits of getting technology that they themselves are incapable of producing, PLUS additional benefits such as free sex (called rape by whites) and free goods (called theft by whites). And puhlease don't tell me that blacks in general are not racist. The ONLY way in which they are non-racist is their wish to integrate because of all the freebies they get. But then they schitzophrenically still have the wish to massacre the whites. Eish, can you smell the burning rubber odour caused by the cognitive dissonance?

Ever wonder why racist whites do NOT want to live in close proximity to blacks? Because they KNOW that it holds NO benefit for them.

What's left over? Oh yes, "non-racist whites". Hmmm. We'll just have to call them SUCKERS.

Deprecator

Doberman said...

@ BC, dead wrong again. You need to THINK before you write. The writer was speaking about RACE versus ethnic group, not the same thing. Zuma was not meeting a WHITES ONLY group with the minority meeting. However he WAS meeting a BLACKS ONLY group with the journos. Can you not tell the difference, really, are you that far gone down the Marxist leftwing road to hell? STOP trying to find a stick to beat whitey with. The writer's premise was dead wrong and you need to understand that.

Anonymous said...

Look at BC's earlier post:

"I am one white man who is glad the "Sowetan" takes time to point this out."

Is he saying that he is WHITE?

Doberman said...

@ Anon 11:50, if you are new to ILSA, Black Coffee is a white American who spent six months in SA and vociferously condones all black actions and thoughts. Everything blacks do is a consequence of what whites do, which is rather strange because that's a very racist thought.

Ron. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron. said...

Well B C. I should point out that the Boer people in particular have always viewed themselves as Africans & that it was not until the British arrived that the macro White population was then later called "European" [ as noted by Fritz Meyer in his 1997 letter to the British High Commissioner in Pretoria ] therefore Verwoerd [ the head of the surrogate Colonial regime which lorded over the marginalized Boer people as well among others ] simply appropriated the British tradition of calling White folks "European" which is totally laughable to apply this erroneous label to the Boer people when considering that they sprang up on African soil & have known no other continent.

This would be as absurd as calling the Ojibwas "Asian" for the crime of having ancestors originally having come from Asia. Back in 1707 a local White inhabitant named Hendrik Biebouw stood up in court & declared that he "was an African" & that he did not want "to be ruled by Europe". Signaling the first time that a member of one of the local emerging White Afrikaans communities was recognized as an African in court.

While the other White groups could be accused of having one part in Europe & another part in Africa [ particularly the late 19th cent segment arrival of English speakers ] : one must remember that the Boer people NEVER lived like this as they broke all ties to Europe early on [ as noted by Sidney & Shirley Robbins in The Devil's Annexe on Page 59. ] & have been fully a part of the African landscape [ as Oliver Ransford noted in the Great Trek. ] since the beginning of their emergence in Africa. The Boer people transcend one dimensional labels as they are a more complex group than the average White inhabitant of the region.

The Boer people HAD to adopt indigenous Khoisan ways in order to survive the harsh Cape frontier back when they were nomadic pastoralists so you can not accuse the Boers of never having to assimilate other indigenous cultures - in fact the very language they speak / method of water storage adopted / clothes they wore were influenced by such. Just read up on their Trekboer / frontier origins.

Now the obsession with holding the local White population responsible for the racist tenure of past REGIMES is totally absurd because the White population of today does not adhere to the racist [ or rather the racially exclusive ] outlook as adhered to in the past furthermore the bulk of the victims of racism today of found within the White population.

FishEagle said...

@Ron, "Now the obsession with holding the local White population responsible.... the bulk of the victims of racism today of found within the White population.

Well said.

Anonymous said...

Re white BC: Thanks for clarifying that Doberman. A bit disappointing because I was thinking that (at last) here's a black man with a bit of intelligence who is at least trying to be fair and see things from both points of view. My hopes are dashed.

Doberman said...

@ Ron and FE, the concept that you can hold descendants for the actions of their ancestors is the MOST preposterous in the world yet it is the very thing by which Leftists guide their thought processes. Original sin. To the Left there is no race (it's a "social" construct, heard that?) except when it comes to protecting their favourite mud people from the big bad white race. When one begins to deconstruct their ideology, inevitable they resort to calling you "waycists!" which means nothing because the word has been over-used and means different things to different people.

Me, I personally think I am a racist but in the context of accepting that there are different races and we are different from each other. Just like the doos writer of the piece. He is black, recognises race, therefore is also a racist. Nothing wrong with that.

The sooner we all stop pretending and start that "conversation about race" the better.

FishEagle said...

Dobes, when I say I'm racist it's because I hate blacks when I feel threatened by their standard of living. I don't think that as a white I'm better than blacks, although that's not going to stop me from trying to influence other people, in this case blacks, to be more like me. That's just being human. Blacks do it too.

Dachshund said...

@Dobe: Whether there are blacks within the Portuguese culture or not, the fact remains that being Portuguese is still a predominantly white thing.

As regards the race issue: I have no compunction whatsoever in saying that I am a racialist, because my race determines my culture. For whites to be assimilated within a black culture is cultural suicide, which is exactly what quasi-humanists like Greg want for us: extinction.

Greg, you once called me an anti-semite because I find you offensive. But you are not a semite, you are a deeply unpleasant person who happens to be a Jew. I can't even call you a wolf in sheep's clothing where white interests are concerned, as you are so clearly a wolf in wolf's clothing. What personal demons drive you is anyone's guess, and perhaps we'd rather not know.

@Dobe again: what Greg is trying to do is provoke hatred against Jews among whites using the race AND anti-semite card, which in turn is designed to create anti-white and anti-Afrikaner sentiments among Jews. I am quite certain that Greg doesn't give a damn about blacks in South Africa. His real agenda is hatred of white South Africans; to depict whites as brutish and "insensitive".

Doberman said...

@ Dach, the point I'm making is that it is not exclusively white, that were you to be a black Portuguese, black Italian or black Greek, you could belong to these groups and so Zuma is not meeting a racially exclusive group. In fact, even if you are not Portuguese, Italian or Greek, you could still belong to these groups if you share their concerns and interests.

The Black Journo Forum on the other hand excludes everyone on the basis of a race criterion fullstop even if you are a journo yourself. I think it's obvious that the two situations are nothing alike and for this idiot to try and put the two on the same plane is some pretty fanciful deception.

AMB said...

@BC - what's with this African crap? Why is Africa the only continent allowed to belong to black people - and please don't insult my white intelligence by denying that that's what you believe. Please clarify which race can claim bragging rights for North America? Is it the native American (which have basically been wiped out) or is the Mexicans or the Caucasians?? What about Asia - who is in charge there? People with slanty eyes? Anyone who doesn't have any are therefore not Asians? (so not sure what the Indians would say about that)? And how about Australia. Which race is in charge there? Presumably it should be the Abbo's but Caucasians are the majority. NO ONE tells the Aussies to go back to Europe as they have "one foot in Australia and the other in Europe" cause they regard themselves as Aussies. But, us white SA's are still hounded about originally being from Europe and anytime a black from Africa doesn't agree with your view you're told to go back to where you came from. It is really getting a bit rich. We were born in SA and are therefore Africans and thus our culture should also be recognised - just like the blacks demand for themselves. Just because I don't agree with their backward mentality doesn't make me less African. Now fuck off and go blog somewhere someone gives a toss about what you have to say. Your stupidity shines through daily and maybe you think you're clever cause your friends are black so by default you look fucking intelligent, but here you're regarded as retarded by your fellow whites....doos.

Baas said...

Is this oke really a doos???
A doos is use full i think he
is a piece of SHIT!!

Exzanian said...

BC said "just recognize and adopt value of indigenous African cultures"
Ok mate, name a few. To get you started:
1) Ubuntu? If I'm a rich black, I will be consumed with obtaining greater wealth and say to the poor fuck you Jack, stay in your shack. If poor, I'll be hacking foreigners to death and dousing them with petrol.
2) Spiritual/ Religious? In which case I'd better start worshipping my ancestors and put my bed on bricks to stay out of reach of the Tokolosh
3) Family? Better get some more wives!
4) Cultural? Better get a leopardskin and learn the Shaka dance
5)Social? Sharpen my knife in order to kill livestock in my backyard at weddings and funerals

Go ahead BC, name a few more of these "indigineous" values I should embrace...

Dachshund said...

@Dobe: Ok, point taken about the Porros.

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody should care less about what Greg has to say, about anything.

Would you get into an argument with an idiot in a home for the mentally handicapped just because he told you you were wearing a green shirt when you were actually wearing a blue one?

Greg is a mentor on Shut up Whitey, aka Kill Whitey. Rooster is a half wit with a self-acknowledged brain disorder that could blow his fuse totally at any moment, and you want to argue with these losers???

Why, Dobe, why?

FMCLAW777 said...

@ BC 12:54

"I disagree, Oupa raises a very valid point. Theoretically you may be right - there are black Portuguese, Italians, etc., but how many of them live in South Africa?"

My friend, how many WHITE Zulu's, White Xhosa'a, White Pedi's do you have / see in the world? None, the same with Black Afrikaners, Black Italians, Black Portuguese!! They simply do not exist and never will. Just is typical Black culture to adopt / invade into another culture and then call it their own.

In SA racism is described as:

"Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment"

Discrimination is:

"The United Nations explains: "Discriminatory behaviours take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection." [1] Discriminatory laws such as redlining have existed in many countries. In some countries, controversial attempts such as racial quotas have been used to redress negative effects of discrimination"

Read above and then tell me that BEE, AA, QUOTA'S and what is happening in SA today that the Government is not racist / discriminative towards whites.

FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FishEagle said...

Thanks for that FMCLAW. Then I'm definately a racist some of the time, depending what I'm doing. That begs the question whether it is OK for the government to be racist....hmmm.

FMCLAW777 said...

@FE 10:49PM - My friend, in this liberal world that we live on it is OK for any Government to be racist as long as it's leaders are Black and not White!

If your Government is run by Whites, you are forced by Liberals and their views to be "politically correct" in everything you do and do not do!! As long as you keep on giving and helping the BLACKS and not the listen / give / help or stop genocide against the Whites.It is acceptable for Black to resort to Reverse racism due to Slavery / Oppression, but you have to ask, who started SLAVERY and Oppression and according to them, whites were never slaves (Aus / NZ etc) and they were never oppressed (British against SA / USA / AUS / NZ). But I forgot, these were WHITES oppressing and enslaving WHITES, so that doesn't count, come to think of it, BLACK slavery began with BLACKS AND ARABS, so they should then also not be using this shitty excuse anymore??

SA Greek said...

I am South African Greek and i do not accept "blacks" into our community.I dont know if some Greeks marry blacks.If they do,i do not accept them as members of my race any more.Especially their children.Whites must marry whites.Period.As for an Italian-Greek-Portuguese alliance i dont know anything about it.But even if it exists you must understand that we were a minority even amongst fellow whites.Afrikaners and English South Africans outnumber us by far.So we tend to keep together in order to preserve ourselves.Especially know that SA is governed by a bunch of black criminals.Did a mention that Bizos is a fool??He certainly does not represent me and he must not speak on behalf of all SA Greeks.Hope he is proud to see what he contributed SA to become.A black hole.

Anonymous said...

Just cut Greg AKA BC loose. He's a bad egg that trolled another ZA website endlessly, always stirring the pot, so much so that he was blowing hot and cold in his attempts to stir. So much so that one could detect he wasn't "real". After he got chucked off that other ZA blog, he had to find some place else to troll, namely this blog. And even though this site is very different to the other one, Greg sounds just the same, only he's adjusted his tactics to suit this blog. Always looking for and pushing people's buttons. Just ban him. He's allegedly doing a PhD at a nice, liberal university in the US. No doubt the ANC is paying him to be their under-cover spin doctor.

Just Google "Greg Berchenko" if you want to see all the kak he causes.

He's even got a facebook page. Puts his friend's pics there but is too scared to put his own pic up!

Would you trust someone who used to blog for a site called "kill a whitey"?

Just lose the greep. Cut him out. Permanently. He's the most insincere person on the web.

Black Coffee said...

Dach - I really do not care whether you think I am an idiot or not, that's up to you and others. I think people who know me know better. I have nothing to do with the shut-up whitey site and have had nothing to do with it for a while, but if you keep this up I will bet some blacks would tell whiteys to do just that, and rightly so. Integration into African culture does not mean cultural suicide. Ron is correct - some of the Boers did just that out of necessity. But you know what Ron - that did not stop them, or at least most of them, from feeling superior to blacks on basis of skin color. Boers believed that they were God's chosen people and thought the Brits committed a big crime by setting slaves free in the 1830s, that's why they went on the Great Trek in first place.
Dobes - your reply to me plays with semantics and you know it. You can call it ethnic if you want, you know as well as I do that in SA when they refer to Greeks, Italians and Portuguese we are talking about whites. What the Sowetan's writer pointed out was that blacks are not raising an outcry about that, but whites did about the Forum of Black Journalists and the fact that they kicked out some white 702am reporter. You have posted numerous articles here where you decried the supposed double standard that exists against whites in SA, the US and UK. Here is a clear example of whites applying a double standard, this writer rightly brings this out and you accuse him of being a "doos".
Islandshark - you bring up abberations, one can find those in any culture. Is that what you think black African culture is all about? How about the fact that there is a saying in Zulu that translates into something like "I am because of other people." Many African cultures adhere to this and you know what? It exhibits a value for fellow human beings which is often missing from the overly individualistic Western cultures with their obsession with "me, me, me" and "how much can I consume and how much money can I make" and fuck everyone else. There is nothing wrong with that to a point, but Western societies often overdo the above mentality to the point where we abandon poor people in our own societies, even poor whites. It is evident that you and Exzanian only see what you want to see in African culture.
Also - I have never condoned all black actions. I do not condone crime regardless of who commits it. I also do not condone racism and I think many of problems you see today, whether it is the high crime rate in South Africa, the high crime rate in American black ghettoes and predominantly black cities like New Orleans or indeed the sorry state of majority of African continent, a lot of the causes for these problems, not entirely but a major part, does go back to legacy of white racism. It seems to me the sooner whites acknowledge this the sooner we can move on to working on solutions to the above problems.

Exzanian said...

BC said "I am because of other people."
That's Ubuntu Greg dammit. Stop going on about it because it does not exist! 67 people hacked and burnt to death last year. Was that an "aberration?" A once off? Was that Ubuntu? Where did the Ubuntu go over that period? Do you think that will not happen again? My examples are all honest to goodness truth examples of "indiginoues" black culture, not aberations. You have not given any of your own except "Ubuntu" I want you to give exampes prof!

Viking said...

@Exzanian
Ubuntu seems to me to be a cultural device geared towards ensuring no black African is ever allowed to become successful on his or her own merits.
Upon getting a break and finding a decent job, all sorts of relatives, cousins and people he's never met turn up on the doorstep demanding some ubuntu, preventing him from saving, investing or planning for the future.
If he refuses to share his modest wealth with every man and his dog, he is ostracised from the community. A successful black South African is a lonely man indeed.
O, and this was explained to me by a Xhosa gentleman...

Viking said...

@Black Coffee
I think the point has been made that this grouping is not a whites-only alliance other than by accident - in fact neither you nor I would have been allowed to attend!
But you've been talking a lot of sense lately, even though your exasperation is showing.
I have been thinking a lot about your remarks about "recognizing the damage that racism of past did and that in order to correct that damage" and even wrote a blog post on the subject.
Call it ideological if you will, but my belief is that it is not the government's business to be in the business of correcting anything related to the past; the government of any country should be in the business of providing equal rights, not "special" rights.
The civil rights marches may have taken place in the 1960s, but it was (probably America's greatest president) Eisenhower who first made efforts to bring black Americans to the voting station.

The government is not authorised to carry out social engineering! That's an infringement of citizens' rights, in my view.

Apart from that., you can't turn back the clock of history. There are whites in Africa and everywhere else and most of them probably didn't have a choice about it.

My ancestors were shipped to another country some 300 years ago for reasons that were not their own, world history is full of such examples. Most of America was populated by people who were fleeing something or other. The current state of affairs is what it is, for better or for worse.

FishEagle said...

@ Viking, "If he refuses to share his modest wealth with every man and his dog, he is ostracised from the community. A successful black South African is a lonely man indeed." That's so true. I have a work colleague that lives in the township. He once commented that during weekends he went to the gym a few times a day to get away from friends and family that come to ask him for money at his house.

FishEagle said...

@ BC, the majority of white people in the First World will probably give you backing regarding your viewpoints. Had the topic of discussion not been so controversial though, your argumetns would have been exposed for what they were - lacking in logic. Nobody would have given your arguments a second glance, they are so poor. You are using controversy to get your bit of limelight. I, for one, don't need controversy. You offer no practical solutions and therefor you are becoming a huge bore.

Black Coffee said...

Anon - 12:27 I am not here to stir up anything, I just provide my opinions, which I think are informed ones. The other site I think you refer to is zasucks, and I tried to offer informed opinions there. I think some people misinterpreted that as "stirring the pot" and people, including myself, said some things we shouldn't have. I am avoiding that now and simply sticking to issues that Doberman and others bring up.
Viking - I respect your opinion, but I think government does have a role to play in rectifying things from the past and I guess you and I have a divergence here. Without government interference, call it "social engineering" if that's what you think it amounts to, things will stay skewed toward whites for a long time. There are still way too many racist whites both in US and SA to think that if we simply made societies race -neutral meritocracies than people of all "races" would have equal opportunity.
Exzanian - you asked for examples of ubuntu. Have you ever been to a township during your years in SA and actually spent some time in one? Because while I can recall many times going to peoples' homes in Soweto and encountering nothing but the friendliest hospitality, the black African, supposedly "white-hating" hosts offering me food and cool drinks. Ok, I admit I was with my black friend, but still the people whose houses he took me to did not know me from Adam if you know what I mean, plus I am white. Examples of ubuntu abound. I could go on and on about this, but it seems to me that for many of us "Westerners" and whites - when we have had a bad experience or two with blacks or Muslims we then tend to associate all blacks and Muslims with that experience. I bring Muslims into discussion because there were plenty of Americans doing just that after 9/11/2001.

FishEagle said...

BC, "than people of all "races" would have equal opportunity." You are not promoting equal oppurtunity, only equality.

"I could go on and on about this, but it seems to me that for many of us "Westerners" and whites - when we have had a bad experience or two with blacks or Muslims we then tend to associate all blacks and Muslims with that experience."
Whites that live on the African continent don't just have one or two bad experiences.

Viking said...

@FishEagle
I think you've hit the nail on the head - the difference between 'equal opportunity' and equality is the issue. In many ways its the defining issue between left and right, and also the difference between my views and BC's.
Although I suppose American history is very different to South African history when it comes to racial issues...

Ron. said...

Well B C if you had bothered to examine the documented historical facts closer & not blindly believe the lazy slipshod research of Western pundits: you would have learned that the Great Trek had virtually NOTHING to do with the issue of slavery as most of the frontier Boers did not own slaves - as noted by Canadian Professor Wallace Mills & the Encyclopedia Britannica among others. The folks who went on the Great Trek [ a term created by the Afrikaner usurpers of Boer hist because the actual Boer people have always had a long tradition of trekking ] were the poorer BOER communities of the eastern Cape while the much more affluent Cape Dutch -many of whom DID own slaves- DID NOT GO on the Great Trek.

Which begs the question: if the Great Trek was over the abolition of slavery then why did not the Cape Dutch slave owners trek while the non-slave-owning Boers did?! You do not suppose that there were LARGER issues at work here? The main catalyst for the Great Trek was the constant killing of Boers by the marauding Xhosas! British Colonialism was just the straw that broke the camel's back because the British REFUSED to defend the Boers from attack. [ the more things change the more things remain the same ] Furthermore the Boers were most adverse to British Colonialism than the Cape Dutch were as the Boers did not want to be colonized so they decided to trek.

The fact that the Boers even trekked at all is testament to the fact that they did not want to be colonized by the British & that they valued freedom & independence much more than the Cape Dutch ever did & will. One must remember that the Boers were always adverse to having foreign laws imposed on them [ which was the cause of the Slagter's Nek Rebellion of 1815 ] & one of the defendants of the rebellion rightfully asserted that he did not know what a government was due to never having been near one in his life. He was the only one to be acquitted of the charges. The other five were hanged to death.

Quote from Professor Wallace Mills: [ Retief’s so-called manifesto has too often been accepted uncritically and without analysis of context. Not all the assertions can be accepted at face value. It must be analysed carefully and critically.

- for example, the complaint about the abolition of slavery and the process of compensation for a long time went unexamined and was repeated innumerable times as a factor in the trek (by both friends and critics).

-however, investigation revealed that slavery was not common in the eastern frontier areas from which almost all the Voortrekkers came.
Besides, no new slaves could be imported after 1807 and the prices of the existing slaves had risen markedly. Very few (if any) Voortrekkers had ever owned slaves. ]

Source: The Great Trek.

Ron. said...

Quote from Stephen Crane. [ The Boers had never been greatly in favor (many opposed it strongly) of slavery, but they had yielded to the general custom and over three million pounds was invested in slaves throughout the colony in 1834. Sir Benjamin D'Urban proclaimed the emancipation of the slaves, who had been set free throughout the British Empire, in August, 1833. This freeing was to take effect in Cape Colony on the 1st of December, 1834.

The news of the emancipation was felt to be a relief, but the terms on which it was conducted were productive of unending trouble.
The slave-owners of Cape Colony were awarded less than a million and a quarter for their slaves -- and the imperial government refused to send the money to South Africa; each claim was to be proved before commissioners in London, when the amount would be paid in stock. To make a journey of one hundred days to London was, of course, impossible to the farmers; they were at the mercy of agents who made their way down to the colony and purchased the claims, so that the colonist received sometimes a fifth, sometimes a sixth, or less, of the value of his slaves. The colonists had hoped that a vagrant act would have been passed by the Council when the slaves were freed, to keep them from being still further overrun by this large released black population, but this was not done. ]

Source: The Great Boer Trek.

Quote from Vice President Piet Joubert of the ZAR. [ The discontent, so often, and to his detriment, ascribed to the Boer was exaggerated and misrepresented, as, for instance, in the matter of the freeing of the slaves, when he was described as being inhumanly against their liberation. No! Your Majesty, it was not the Christian Boers' repugnance to the emancipation, but his opposition to the means employed in effecting same under the blessed British rule. ]

Source. The Story of the Boers. Page 166. Compiled by Dutch diplomat C W van der Hoogt who met President Paul Kruger when the latter was visiting Holland.

Ron. said...

Furthermore: I have outlined all of this in the important post: The Great Trek was not over abolition.

Also: I informed you of all of this last year at the Kill Whitey blog yet you STILL choose to propagate the lie that the Great Trek had anything to do with a custom that most Boers did not even practice! [ furthermore the Boers are actually partially descended FROM Asian slaves ] Also: the notion that the Boers saw themselves as God's chosen people is complex because I see that you are trying to conflate this RELIGIOUS outlook with a RACIAL one! The Boers MIGHT [ this has never independently been established but only assumed ] have viewed themselves as a "chosen people" but only in reference to how they identified with the Israelites of the Old Testament.

The whole notion of being a "chosen people" was in fact a political meme invoked retroactively & propagated by the Afrikaner Nationalists [ which was run by the Cape Dutch ] as part of a political platform at rationalizing the seizure of the British macro State & to co-opt the Boer people under their program within a limited but effective political context.

Islandshark said...

Brilliant, Ron.! I am all for different opinions, but as Ron has clearly proved here, BC is only interested in advancing his propaganda BS and doesn't hesitate to discount the facts if they don't fit in with uninformed views.

How much effort are we then prepared to waste at this sucker? Can't those resources be better applied in advancing our own cause instead of "debating" with delusional fools whose sole aim is to discredit what we already know as fact?

I for one will not respond to this fool anymore. It's is a waste of precious resource.

Doberman said...

As you all would have noticed Ron. is our very able resident history boffin so anyone coming on here better have their facts right or face Ron. stripping you bare. Nice comments Ron.