Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Gaza pullout
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:

whatthefunk wrote:

Whats the difference between the whites occupation of southern africa and any other occupation???
.

Whites in Africa did not wipe out the native peoples, we helped them. How terrible of us.

Get back to your playstation now, dork boy.

whatthefunk

Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Dont have a clue

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:38 am Post subject:

rapier wrote:

whatthefunk wrote:

Whats the difference between the whites occupation of southern africa and any other occupation???
.

Whites in Africa did not wipe out the native peoples, we helped them. How terrible of us!

hahahahahahaha!!! have you ever considered going into comedy, rapier?

Quote:

The Hertzog government worked to undermine the Coloured (mixed race) vote by granting, in 1930, voting rights to white women, but not to Coloured women, effectively halving the voting power of the Coloured electorate.

Quote:

Upon taking power, the National Party began to implement a program of apartheid — a deliberate institutionalisation and extension of existing discriminatory racial legislation.

Quote:

The ultimate goal of the National Party was to move all Black South Africans into one of the homelands (although they might continue to work in South Africa as "guest workers"), leaving what was left of South Africa (about 87 percent of the land area) with a White majority, at least on paper.

Quote:

Coloureds (South Africans of mixed White and non-White ancestry) were removed from the Common Roll of Cape Province in 1953. Instead of voting for the same representatives as white South Africans, they could now vote for four white representatives to speak for them.

Quote:

In a move unrecognized by the rest of the world, the former German colony of South West Africa (now Namibia), which South Africa had occupied in World War I, was effectively incorporated into South Africa as a fifth province, with seven members elected to represent it in the South African Parliament. The White population of South West Africa, predominantly German, considered its interests akin to those of the Afrikaners in South Africa and therefore supported the National Party in subsequent elections.

Quote:

These reforms all bolstered the National Party politically, as they removed black and Coloured influence – which was generally hostile to the National Party – from the electoral process, and incorporated the pro-Nationalist Germans of South West Africa. Not surprisingly, therefore, the National Party increased its parliamentary majority in almost every election between 1948 and 1977.

Quote:

The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and Immorality Act prohibited marriages and all sexual relationships between Whites and non-Whites, and existing mixed marriages were forcibly dissolved.

Quote:

The Population Registration Act required all South Africans to be officially registered as black, white, Asian or Coloured. Self-definition was not accepted; only proven unmixed European ancestry would count as White, unless the government granted an individual dispensation, which would be based on supposedly scientific blood tests, hair analysis, and nose measurements, reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

Quote:

The Group Areas Act and the Influx Control Act prohibited "non-whites" from living or owning property in certain areas.

Quote:

The Suppression of Communism Act outlawed most major black political organizations, including the ANC, PAC and AZAPO. This was due to the fact that the Act deemed anyone advocating equality of races a 'statutory communist'.

Quote:

The Prohibition of Political Interferences Act banned multiracial political parties, with a view to ending even indirect "non-White" influence over white politicians. Parties that had accepted non-white members were ordered to either expel them, or dissolve. The Progressive Party (later the Democratic Party, currently the Democratic Alliance) reluctantly agreed to shed its non-white membership. The South African Liberal Party, led by the noted novelist Alan Paton, refused and was subsequently banned.

So, lets see here....the whites in South Africa HELPED the natives by denying them the right to vote, legalizing racism, removing natives from their homelands, denying them any voice in politis, denying them the right to own property, and restricting who they could and could not marry???

Lets also not forget the hundreds of people who died in prison, appaently of "suicide." Yes, they were truely helped by the whites.

Explain to me exactly how the whites helped the natives in south africa.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:54 am Post subject:

whatthefunk wrote:

Explain to me exactly how the whites helped the natives in south africa.

The regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia directly helped the blacks.
If not so, how do you explain their incredible population explosion from the moment white rule was instituted?

Before whites arrived in Rhodesia, the population was around 200.000. Unchanged for centuries.After a century of white rule, they climbed to 12 Million. Likewise in South Africa, formerly around 1 million- now at 44 million thanks to white mans medicine, agriculture, productivity, etc etc.

Contrast that to America etc, where they slaughtered the indigenous populations wholescale.

So..where are you from? Answer the question. And explain how the indigenous population has fared under the imperial conquest, which you are a part of.

whatthefunk

Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Dont have a clue

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:06 am Post subject:

rapier wrote:

whatthefunk wrote:

Explain to me exactly how the whites helped the natives in south africa.

Population increase does NOT mean that you helped the population. Why do somehting like 40% of South African blacks have AIDS? Yes, you did not kill them off, but you still treated them pretty badly.

rapier wrote:

So..where are you from? Answer the question. And explain how the indigenous population has fared under the imperial conquest, which you are a part of.

Im from the USA. Yes, the Americans killed off most of the natives and forcede the rest of them on to reservations, but I had no part in that. Dont blame me for that.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:14 am Post subject:

whatthefunk wrote:

Why do somehting like 40% of South African blacks have AIDS?

Because they refused to use the condoms we supplied them with. They didn't beieve in the existence of AIDS. But thats all our fault i assume.

Quote:

Im from the USA. Yes, the Americans killed off most of the natives and forcede the rest of them on to reservations, but I had no part in that. Dont blame me for that.

let me get this right...your civilisation killed off all your natives, yet you hold yourself morally superior to one that brought prosperity and a population boom to theirs?

You are living on stolen land. Why not give it back to the last remaining natives?

Summer Wine

Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:23 am Post subject:

Rapier wrote:

Quote:

So you got a taste for an hour of what we had to deal with for decades.

But I have never been to Africa, was in a party of friends from another country, not my own and was willing to treat him as a person. It was his bitterness and nothing to do with me, so I left him to wallow in it. I can understand the underlying premise to your arguments, I just felt they are a little too extreme and that those who were brought up non racist, open and willing to talk to people as equals (otherwise why do we live here) don't need to get into arguments of hate, but my question was.

Is it an issue from Zimbabwe, you have hate, he had hate? My friends from Botswana, South Africa, Kenya, etc didn't have the same issues. If Europeans were so good in Zimbabwe, why does this guy have so much hate for a white person that he had never met before in a party where he was the only african and I was the only pakeha.

whatthefunk

Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Dont have a clue

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:37 am Post subject:

rapier wrote:

let me get this right...your civilisation killed off all your natives, yet you hold yourself morally superior to one that brought prosperity and a population boom to theirs?

i dont hold myself superior to ANYONE except ignorant, racist, jackasses. and i take no responsibility for my "civilization."

rapier wrote:

You are living on stolen land. Why not give it back to the last remaining natives?

So all 250 million Americans should just go back to Europe? But then we are not Europeans....so we would be living on stolen land then too.

We need to clarify something, rapier. You justify hating the Palistinians because they stole the land from its supposed rightful owners. But at the same time you justify the takeover of the southern part of Africa simply because in your eyes the whites helped the natives. If muslims help the lands that they "take over" strickly in terms of population growth, does that justify it??

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:38 pm Post subject:

whatthefunk wrote:

So all 250 million Americans should just go back to Europe? But then we are not Europeans....so we would be living on stolen land then too.

Once again, why not? Why not be real and give back what you stole to whatever native peoples remain. Trace your ancestry and head to wherever you came from. It would be the right and just thing to do. You say yourself that your forefathers murdered the Indians to take the land..so how are you justified in continueing to hold it? What you are doing is on one hand condemning whites in africa as imperialistic pigs, then not acknowledging that your heritage committed far worse atricities.

What you are suggesting is that whites in africa should have killed evrything that moved when they first arrived like you did, and then enjoy a secure future knowing that they had annihilated any threat to their future.

Quote:

If muslims help the lands that they "take over" strickly in terms of population growth, does that justify it??

Muslims have multiplied in number without working. They have grown on the back of western civilisation that utilises oil- a free gift, a miracle of geography. In and around Israel they have prospered through the trickle down wealth engendered by Jewish industriousness.
you have missed the point again. muslims would never conquer in the name of bringing civilisation to their victims..in the form of development, education, wealth, medicine- like a responsible European colonisation. Theirs would be a case of rape and pillage and enforced slavery into their backward way of life.
Since when have muslims 'helped" any land that they took over??? Unless you count spreading terror and bombs, genital mutilation, stoning, beheading, hand amputation, and oppression wrapped up in a burkah a contribution to society.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject:

Summer Wine wrote:

Rapier wrote:

Quote:

So you got a taste for an hour of what we had to deal with for decades.

(Not talking af you personally here)-but the problem is that many westerners live comfortable lives in the west with high and mighty views on what should happen in third world countries. What is more absurd is that they actually have the economic power to force their ideas of how to shape these far away places. Often they create a far larger problem than formerly existed, with their uninformed meddling. They don't have to pay the price for the decisions they force on others, and suffering just remains an entertaining thing on a tv news for them.

The west should have left Africa alone to handle its own affairs. It would have been far better for everyone concerned. The result of outside intervention in something that did not concern them, was a 15yr war that claimed the lives of 30.000 people. The west helped to install a tyrant for a leader that has then brought the country to ruination.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:12 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The west should have left Africa alone to handle its own affairs. It would have been far better for everyone concerned. The result of outside intervention in something that did not concern them, was a 15yr war that claimed the lives of 30.000 people. The west helped to install a tyrant for a leader that has then brought the country to ruination

Imperialism went out of style at the end of WWII. Maybe the whites of southern Africa should have read more newspapers and kept up with the trend.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:13 am Post subject:

rapier wrote:

whatthefunk wrote:

Explain to me exactly how the whites helped the natives in south africa.

And there was a big population boost that occured in Canada as well. See we helped the natives. There are a lot more of them alive today than there were in the past. Google and find out. So by your own reasoning we own the land.

hypnotist

Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:55 am Post subject:

Rapier, When all the ancestors of people who emigrated to America, Australia, etc return to my home town, swelling the population maybe a hundredfold, whose land should they steal in order to live? (Number of towns/cities in the US named after my hometown: 26 Number of towns/cities outside the US named after my hometown: 4 Population of the largest: approx 250,000 Population of my hometown: 25,000 And that's just those actually named after my home town, before starting to consider those who emigrated elsewhere) Ian Smith wasn't much better than Robert Mugabe. I have no love for either of them.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:23 am Post subject:

hypnotist wrote:

Rapier,
When all the ancestors of people who emigrated to America, Australia, etc return to my home town, swelling the population maybe a hundredfold, whose land should they steal in order to live?.

Who cares? you may live in antarctica if you wish.
You all thought it was good enough for the whites of Southern Africa.

Now lets hope it happens to you.

maybe you'll end up like myself and poor old buddy bradley- esl teachers somewhere in Asia.

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:35 am Post subject:

I think the more important issue is all the displaced Sumerians when Babylon invaded in 2000 BC. I say we solve that issue first.

whatthefunk

Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Dont have a clue

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:37 am Post subject:

rapier wrote:

hypnotist wrote:

Rapier,
When all the ancestors of people who emigrated to America, Australia, etc return to my home town, swelling the population maybe a hundredfold, whose land should they steal in order to live?.

actually, alot of us had nothing to do with your moving out of africa. why should we suffer simply because you suffered? do you, rapier, enjoy watching us suffer? why so vengeful? why take out your anger on people who really had nothing to do with your situation? its pathetic...

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe