"SA THEN versus NOW"
Apartheid in South Africa has been demonized as an 'evil racist era'. Nothing can be further from the truth. Look at the statistics and stop being so gullible to believe all the liberal propaganda you've been brainwashed with.
The Apartheid government built ten Universities for blacks including Medunsa which is a unique medical university that turned out 200 highly qualified black doctors every year all at state costs, paid for by the white taxpayers. It also trained paramedics and nurses.
Since 1970 the budget for black education was raised by about 30% per year every year. More than any other government department.
In the period 1955 -1984 the amount of black school students increased 31 times from 35,000 to 1,096 000.
65% of black South African children were at school compared to Egypt 64%, Nigeria 57%, Ghana52%, Tanzania50% and Ethiopia 29%.
Amongst the adults of South Africa, 71% could read and write (80% between the ages 12 and 22). Compare this to Kenya 47%, Egypt 38%, Nigeria 34% and Mozambique at 26%.
In South Africa, the whites built 15 new classrooms for blacks every working day, every year. At 40 children per class it meant space for an additional 600 black students every day!!!
In 1985 there were 42,000 Blacks at 5 universities in South Africa, about the same amount at the universities of the homelands.
In an article called "Die Afrikaner" 11 Feb 1987, the quarterly magazine called "Vox Africana Nr 29 4/87 stated that,
South Africa had 4,8 million whites and 18,2 million blacks in 1987. The whites paid 77% of the taxes and the blacks only 15%...despite this...56% of the government budget was spent on blacks.
During the time of Dr. Verwoerd. the living standards of Blacks were rising at 5,4% per year against that of the whites at 3,9% per year. In 1965 the economic growth of South Africa was the second highest in the world at 7,9%. The rate of inflation was a mere 2% per annum and the prime interest rate only 3% per annum. Domestic savings were so great that South Africa needed no foreign loans for normal economic expansion.
Even Lord Deedes admitted, "White South Africa grew to become the economic giant of the continent, the other members of the Commonwealth virtually sank into poverty."
At the hight of Apartheid in 1978 Soweto had 115 football fields, 3 Rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 Cricket fields, 2 Golf courses, 47 Tennis courts, 7 swimming pools built to Olympic standards, 5 Bowling alleys, 81 Netball fields, 39 children play parks, and countless civic halls, movie houses and clubhouses.
In addition to this, Soweto had 300 churches, 365 schools, 2 Technical Colleges, 8 clinics, 63 child day care centres, 11 Post Offices, and its own fruit and vegetable market.
There were 2300 registered companies that belonged to black businessmen, about 1000 private taxi companies. 3% of the 50,000 vehicle owners in 1978 were Mercedes Benz owners. Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.
The discussion and comments that followed the publication of the above document led to the response provided by ToxiNews below:
Accusation: "But there was so much human abuse & violation of the black population under the apartheid regime. They were treated like 3rd class citizens compared to us whites! The architects of apartheid were nazi Hitler sympathisers. It is the whole reason we are in this mess now because black families were destroyed by pass laws & bantu home lands which were designated to them on the worst land of the country, while the best land was kept for the whites! Apartheid was one of societies most evil events, and I am certainly NOT brainwashed. It Never should have happened, there should have been black people in power alongside white people from the beginning, maybe then there wouldnt be this current situation because they would have had more respect for us. This situation in SA now is the aftermath of the evil regime of apartheid, & It is sad but true!"
Answer : The mere use of the word Apartheid combined with the term Human Rights Violations points to liberal ignorance and there is no sense debating a situation with someone from that point of view. There is this tendency that some people suddenly read newspapers and hear about the murders without ever having been interested or involved in politics before, which leads to them coming up with nonsense about so-called Apartheid, a term used abroad only and that did not even appear in the National Party's Manifest. Apartheid is something that never even existed and was nothing but a creation of the foreign media after Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd used the term only twice ever, merely in an explanatory context.
They also do not realise that the National Party removed many of the systems inherited from the British Union of SA. Now I have to beg the question, why should we bother to now discuss a non-existent system of Apartheid deliberately defined to create an impression completely removed from the actual Separate Development system. I also cannot see why I should debate the current genocide perpetrated by the communist Marxist-Leninist ANC Regime put in place by the very people now blaming it on Apartheid, a word they do not even understand. Anyone that blames the current genocide on Apartheid is an ignorant fool that has zero knowledge, understanding or experience of South Africa before or during the National Party rule, let alone of the current ANC Regime or Africa as a whole for that matter. It is more important for us to address our current predicament and inform and guide as to what is lying ahead than waste our time discussing apartheid. Appeasing liberals will always find something to blame for the current as a means to warrant their ignorance in the past. You and I are living here now and we have to survive what was predicted 40 years ago already and we are living those predictions right now, we know what is lying ahead and we need to ready ourselves for the inevitable, there is no time for us to live in a conjured-up past that never existed, but in the minds of the manipulated populace abroad. Current reality dictates our future.
I want to add this. The people blaming the genocide on apartheid supported this ANC Regime all along and are therefore the architects of the Genocide and cannot be trusted now. They feel in most instances that the genocide is warranted, because it is viewed as payback for the so-called Human Rights Violations that were concocted by the media. Remember always that we were the children in school uniforms that were showed in movies abroad apparently using blacks for moving target practice. While the poor ignorant fools abroad never realised that we were actually filmed while doing target practice and later the films were edited to show blacks lying dead in-front of us. WE were the ones in those movies, therefore we know what really happened and how those films were produced and we know that the world could nail us today based on those movies as according to the world we really did shoot blacks in our school uniforms, at school and with the consent of the teachers. So these liberal idiots blaming today's murders on apartheid do not deserve our time, because they do not even feel guilty for the murders that they were the architects of. To hell them. They will in future turn against us once again and when we have to defend ourselves against the Regime they are the ones that would once again use that film material, manipulate it and show the world, once again "Look at what those nasty Nazi SA whites are doing to the poor innocent blacks!" Mark my words these people will again use the film material to paint the opposite picture, because as stated so many times before, we SA whites were Nazi's and that is how they view us and that is why they feel we deserve it as payback for the so-called atrocities of the past that they think happened here.
They are the same people that condoned the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians during the NP rule. It would take less than five minutes to loose them in discussion on the truth about those times, which they prefer to ignore or to know, like the fact that 90% of political deaths during that time was black on black perpetrated by their holy beloved terrorist ANC under the leadership of the architect of terrorism in SA the highly praised messiah of liberalism the Marxist-Leninist terrorist Nelson Mandela. They are ignorant about the role of Kissinger and how the whole situation was orchestrated with the help of Pik Botha and FW de Klerk and how the various situations were interwoven to achieve what we were handed in 1994. People think they know what "Apartheid" was about, because of what they heard from other liberals.
Young people have a completely distorted view and impression of pre-1994 SA, which is as it was intended to be. It has always been like this. Just as people are not aware of what is happening now, so too did they also not know what was happening during the time of the NP. Anyone calling an American a traitor and a sell-out is uninformed as to what went down in those days. SA was not sold out by America, SA was sold out by its own people. It is an absolute waste of time and effort trying to educate people on pre-1994 SA and even more so trying to change their ingrained perceptions of pre-1994 SA. Whatever their perceptions are is their business and if they want to learn the truth about it, they are at least 2000 books behind. There is no time for catching up, there is only time to address what is lying ahead.
Rivonia Unmasked: The True Story of Nelson Mandela
http://sacreator.com/blog/rivonia-unmasked-the-true-story-of-nelson-mandela/
This is a perspective on Nelson Mandela you will not read elsewhere. I know it was written by a right-winger, but the truth nonetheless
Nelson Mandela - communist, terrorist, rabble-rouser !
http://www.hnp.org.za/site/index.php?id=67
The Pass Laws
Something to think about is why so many black South Africans actually supported the NP, something no one ever tells us either. The first pass laws in South Africa were introduced on 27 June 1797 by the Earl Macartney in an attempt to exclude all natives from the Cape Colony. Introduced in South Africa in 1923, they were designed to regulate movement of black Africans in white urban areas. Outside designated "homelands", black South Africans had to carry passbooks at all times, documentation proving they were authorised to live or move in "White" South Africa. The laws also affected other non-white races. Indian people, for example, were barred from the Orange Free State. These discriminatory regulations fuelled a growing discontentment from the black population and the ANC began the Defiance Campaign to oppose the pass laws. The Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, 1952, commonly known as the Pass Laws Act, made it compulsory for all black South Africans over the age of 16 to carry a "pass book" at all times within white areas. The system of pass laws was not the work of the National Party, but something they inherited and could not merely overnight abolish and certainly not at the time, it would have led to a revolution that they would not have been able to contain. The system of pass laws was repealed by the National Party in South Africa in 1986.
The Sharpville Massacre
On 21 March, a group of between 5,000 and 7,000 people converged on the local police station in the township of Sharpeville, offering themselves up for arrest for not carrying their pass books. This was part of a broader campaign organized by the PAC. Many of the crowd attended to support the protest, but there is evidence that the PAC also used intimidating means to draw the crowd to the protest, including the cutting of telephone lines into Sharpeville, the distribution of pamphlets telling people not to go to work on the day, and coercion of bus drivers and commuters. By 10:00 am, a large crowd had gathered, and the atmosphere was initially peaceful and festive. Fewer than 20 police officers were present in the station at the start of the protest. Later the crowd grew to about 20,000, and the mood turned hostile. About 130 police reinforcements, supported by four Saracen armored cars, were rushed in. The police were armed with firearms. There was no evidence that anyone in the crowd was armed with anything other than rocks. Sabre jets and Harvard Trainers approached to within a hundred feet of the ground, flying low over the crowd in an attempt to scatter it. The crowd responded by hurling stones, striking three policemen, and at about 1:00 pm the police tried to arrest a protester. There was a scuffle, and the crowd advanced toward the fence. The shooting began shortly thereafter. 69 people were killed. Police reports in 1960 claimed that inexperienced police officers panicked and opened fire spontaneously, setting off a chain reaction that lasted about forty seconds. It is likely that the police were nervous as two months before the massacre, nine other police officers had been killed at a riot in Cato Manor. The Cato Manor killings undoubtedly made policemen edgy when they were surrounded by black people, as they were at Sharpeville on the fateful day of March 21 1960. "If the PAC's civil disobedience against the hated pass laws had not led to violence in Sharpeville - it had not done so in Soweto and elsewhere - it's campaign might simply have become another failed attempt by blacks to persuade the government to abolish oppressive and discriminatory legislation, as Thomas Karis and Gwendolen Carter argue in their documentary history of black protest and resistance in South Africa."
A major problem at Sharpeville on the fatal day was that PAC marshals appeared to be thin on the ground and/or not vigilant enough in preventing the crowd from pressing against the fence surrounding the police station. In his analytical chronicle of the Sharpeville shooting An Ordinary Atrocity, Philip Frankel goes a stage further when he writes: "... the much vaunted marshals, whose primary task was to steer up the mob ... were unable or unwilling to steer the crowd away from what was clearly becoming a cataclysmic situation."
But here comes the crux of the matter, the part very seldom, if ever mentioned anywhere. "Emeritus professor David Welsh provides another perspective in his excellent and newly published book The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. He identifies the immediate cause of the tragedy as two simultaneous events: firstly, a scuffle at the fence gate when security police officer Att Spengler opened it to let a member of the crowd in and some of the people at the gate entered with him, possibly because they were pushed from behind; and, secondly, the arrival at scene of Geelbooi, a common law criminal who was drunk and armed with a handgun, and who, thinking he had spotted a policeman who had maltreated him, fired two shots in the air."
Sharpville was used as a political tool with more efficacy than any other event in SA history and in fact it was the only incident of its kind in all of pre-1994 SA that could be blamed on the Government and which is why it is the only one ever mentioned.
The question I often ask to people is what would they have done in that situation? I've been in that situation. I saw young soldiers 18, 19 years old wetting themselves and vomiting over themselves and they were only faced by some 50 raging rioters. I knew at the time that should I not step in and in the harshest possible manner diffuse the situation, anyone of those scared young men could lose it and pull a trigger out of fear and sheer nervous reaction, which could have led another massacre, but this time against rioting black soldiers, not civilians.
Imagine being faced with 20,000 angry rioters intent on killing you. Its easy for us to talk today, but if you have never been in that situation and do not know the circumstances its better sometimes to stand back and allow the media and politicians to enjoy their propaganda games.
Media manipulation of the facts:
"69 Blacks died. The official reports states that many were shot in the back. But the journalism have to be brought into question because the bodies photographed had EXIT wounds on their backs where the most blood is shown. Shot in the front, small entry, person runs away and collapses on his stomach, bloody exit wound on his back is photographed by BBC journalists and claim that he was shot in the back... you get the picture. If the police really wanted to commit a “massacre”, they would have shot wildly into the crowd, emptied their magazines and thousands of Blacks would have been killed. The fact that only 69 were killed was a testimony to the discipline and restraint exercised by the policemen. The Sunday night and the Monday morning preceding the “Massacre” the police drove the Blacks back with batons and tear gas, but they still kept coming, at about 13h35 on the Sunday they broke through the gates and their aim was to kill every policeman inside the police station." Quoted from "Mike Smith's Political Commentary: Sharpeville revisited: The Avocado tree at Cato Manor" http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/2011/06/sharpeville-revisited-avocado-tree-at.html (The original link is nolonger active, but the original article can still be found at http://whatishappeninginsouthafrica.blogspot.com/2011/06/sharpeville-revisited-avocado-tree-at.html)
The old SA is frequently being accused of "abhorrent human rights abuse", but to this day no one could come up with any evidence to the effect, yet we can provide literally thousands of cases orchestrated and executed by the ANC against blacks since their founding some 100 years ago.
Accusation: "the ANC government who used to be banned & brutalised by white police ended up becoming a military terrorist organisation"
Answer: According to the Human Rights Commission 73 people died while in Police detention during the period 1963 to 1990, which equates to 2.6 people annually during the "Apartheid" years. According to the Independent Complaints Directorate (IDC) 219 people died in police custody for the period 1997 to 1998 alone. And by the time we received their results for the period 2008 to 2009 a total of 912 people had died while in Police custody. Yes so obviously the old SA police were very brutal compared to the ANC Regime. LMAO
Accusation: "The men who began apartheid were huge Hitler followers." "There are differences as well as similarites between the two regimes. Germany & SA have totally different & unique demographics & circumstances. Does not change the fact that the old South Africa back in the 1930s-40's, under nationalist rule was sympathetic to Hitlers ideals. Now that may not have been everyone in the Nats of that time but definately the kingpins & people who had the most influence in the party." "the old South Africa back in the 1930s-40's, under nationalist rule"??
Answer: The NP only took over the government in 1948, after WWII, after the fall of Nazi Germany. How could the National Party Government have been sympathetic to Nazi Germany when it did not even exist.
Accusation: "For too long the blacks had been de-humanised & were starting to rise up for equal rights."
Answer: Where are blacks more dehumanised than in black African states. There is no comparison between the dehumanisation of any blacks anywhere in Africa under black rule than ever was the case during Apartheid. I always find it interesting how the whole world would rise up against Apartheid, always refer to Apartheid and demonise Apartheid, yet no one ever says a word about Africa, the human rights violations in Africa during the past thousands of years. No one ever mentions the advantages of Apartheid, how it grew and develop South African blacks when compared against the rest of Africa during the same period. More black millionaires were produced under Apartheid than in all of Africa combined during the same period.
Isn't it strange how all of Africa where "Apartheid" never existed is worse off than SA where Apartheid did exist. Their inhabitants (no African country has citizens, because citizens have a life) are generally worse off in all respects than any local SA blacks ever were. Isn't it strange how the oldest liberated black state in the world is a disaster like none other more than 85 years after independence, without ever having been under Apartheid rule.
Haiti
It was the first independent nation in Latin America and the first black-led republic in the world when it gained independence as part of a successful slave revolution in 1804.
Haiti was virtually bankrupt and the United States occupied the island in 1915 and US Marines were stationed in the country until 1934.
The US made massive improvements to infrastructure: 1700 km of roads were made usable; 189 bridges were built; many irrigation canals were rehabilitated hospitals, schools, and public buildings were constructed, and drinking water was brought to the main cities.
Sisal was introduced to Haiti, and sugar and cotton became significant exports.[44] The U.S. Marines supervised the operations of a client Haitian government, and emphasized American-style modernization of the infrastructure and universal education. Haitian traditionalists were highly resistant to these changes while the urban elites wanted more control. Together they helped force an end to the occupation in 1934.
The US occupation forces established a boundary between Haiti and the Dominican Republic by taking disputed land from the latter. After the US left in 1934, Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo – in an event known as the Parsley Massacre – ordered his Army to kill Haitians living on the Dominican side of the border. In a "three-day genocidal spree", he murdered between 10,000 and 20,000 Haitians. He then developed a uniquely Dominican policy of racial discrimination, Antihaitianismo ("anti-Haitianism"), targeting the mostly black inhabitants of his neighboring country.
In 1925, Haiti was lush, with 60% of its original forest covering the lands and mountainous regions. Since then, the population has cut down an estimated 98% of its original forest cover for use as fuel for cookstoves, and in the process has destroyed fertile farmland soils, contributing to desertification.
In 2004, a revolt began in northern Haiti. René Préval was elected President in February 2006, following elections marked by uncertainties and popular demonstrations.
I rest my case.
Apartheid in South Africa has been demonized as an 'evil racist era'. Nothing can be further from the truth. Look at the statistics and stop being so gullible to believe all the liberal propaganda you've been brainwashed with.
The Apartheid government built ten Universities for blacks including Medunsa which is a unique medical university that turned out 200 highly qualified black doctors every year all at state costs, paid for by the white taxpayers. It also trained paramedics and nurses.
Since 1970 the budget for black education was raised by about 30% per year every year. More than any other government department.
In the period 1955 -1984 the amount of black school students increased 31 times from 35,000 to 1,096 000.
65% of black South African children were at school compared to Egypt 64%, Nigeria 57%, Ghana52%, Tanzania50% and Ethiopia 29%.
Amongst the adults of South Africa, 71% could read and write (80% between the ages 12 and 22). Compare this to Kenya 47%, Egypt 38%, Nigeria 34% and Mozambique at 26%.
In South Africa, the whites built 15 new classrooms for blacks every working day, every year. At 40 children per class it meant space for an additional 600 black students every day!!!
In 1985 there were 42,000 Blacks at 5 universities in South Africa, about the same amount at the universities of the homelands.
In an article called "Die Afrikaner" 11 Feb 1987, the quarterly magazine called "Vox Africana Nr 29 4/87 stated that,
South Africa had 4,8 million whites and 18,2 million blacks in 1987. The whites paid 77% of the taxes and the blacks only 15%...despite this...56% of the government budget was spent on blacks.
During the time of Dr. Verwoerd. the living standards of Blacks were rising at 5,4% per year against that of the whites at 3,9% per year. In 1965 the economic growth of South Africa was the second highest in the world at 7,9%. The rate of inflation was a mere 2% per annum and the prime interest rate only 3% per annum. Domestic savings were so great that South Africa needed no foreign loans for normal economic expansion.
Even Lord Deedes admitted, "White South Africa grew to become the economic giant of the continent, the other members of the Commonwealth virtually sank into poverty."
At the hight of Apartheid in 1978 Soweto had 115 football fields, 3 Rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 Cricket fields, 2 Golf courses, 47 Tennis courts, 7 swimming pools built to Olympic standards, 5 Bowling alleys, 81 Netball fields, 39 children play parks, and countless civic halls, movie houses and clubhouses.
In addition to this, Soweto had 300 churches, 365 schools, 2 Technical Colleges, 8 clinics, 63 child day care centres, 11 Post Offices, and its own fruit and vegetable market.
There were 2300 registered companies that belonged to black businessmen, about 1000 private taxi companies. 3% of the 50,000 vehicle owners in 1978 were Mercedes Benz owners. Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.
The discussion and comments that followed the publication of the above document led to the response provided by ToxiNews below:
Accusation: "But there was so much human abuse & violation of the black population under the apartheid regime. They were treated like 3rd class citizens compared to us whites! The architects of apartheid were nazi Hitler sympathisers. It is the whole reason we are in this mess now because black families were destroyed by pass laws & bantu home lands which were designated to them on the worst land of the country, while the best land was kept for the whites! Apartheid was one of societies most evil events, and I am certainly NOT brainwashed. It Never should have happened, there should have been black people in power alongside white people from the beginning, maybe then there wouldnt be this current situation because they would have had more respect for us. This situation in SA now is the aftermath of the evil regime of apartheid, & It is sad but true!"
Answer : The mere use of the word Apartheid combined with the term Human Rights Violations points to liberal ignorance and there is no sense debating a situation with someone from that point of view. There is this tendency that some people suddenly read newspapers and hear about the murders without ever having been interested or involved in politics before, which leads to them coming up with nonsense about so-called Apartheid, a term used abroad only and that did not even appear in the National Party's Manifest. Apartheid is something that never even existed and was nothing but a creation of the foreign media after Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd used the term only twice ever, merely in an explanatory context.
They also do not realise that the National Party removed many of the systems inherited from the British Union of SA. Now I have to beg the question, why should we bother to now discuss a non-existent system of Apartheid deliberately defined to create an impression completely removed from the actual Separate Development system. I also cannot see why I should debate the current genocide perpetrated by the communist Marxist-Leninist ANC Regime put in place by the very people now blaming it on Apartheid, a word they do not even understand. Anyone that blames the current genocide on Apartheid is an ignorant fool that has zero knowledge, understanding or experience of South Africa before or during the National Party rule, let alone of the current ANC Regime or Africa as a whole for that matter. It is more important for us to address our current predicament and inform and guide as to what is lying ahead than waste our time discussing apartheid. Appeasing liberals will always find something to blame for the current as a means to warrant their ignorance in the past. You and I are living here now and we have to survive what was predicted 40 years ago already and we are living those predictions right now, we know what is lying ahead and we need to ready ourselves for the inevitable, there is no time for us to live in a conjured-up past that never existed, but in the minds of the manipulated populace abroad. Current reality dictates our future.
I want to add this. The people blaming the genocide on apartheid supported this ANC Regime all along and are therefore the architects of the Genocide and cannot be trusted now. They feel in most instances that the genocide is warranted, because it is viewed as payback for the so-called Human Rights Violations that were concocted by the media. Remember always that we were the children in school uniforms that were showed in movies abroad apparently using blacks for moving target practice. While the poor ignorant fools abroad never realised that we were actually filmed while doing target practice and later the films were edited to show blacks lying dead in-front of us. WE were the ones in those movies, therefore we know what really happened and how those films were produced and we know that the world could nail us today based on those movies as according to the world we really did shoot blacks in our school uniforms, at school and with the consent of the teachers. So these liberal idiots blaming today's murders on apartheid do not deserve our time, because they do not even feel guilty for the murders that they were the architects of. To hell them. They will in future turn against us once again and when we have to defend ourselves against the Regime they are the ones that would once again use that film material, manipulate it and show the world, once again "Look at what those nasty Nazi SA whites are doing to the poor innocent blacks!" Mark my words these people will again use the film material to paint the opposite picture, because as stated so many times before, we SA whites were Nazi's and that is how they view us and that is why they feel we deserve it as payback for the so-called atrocities of the past that they think happened here.
They are the same people that condoned the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians during the NP rule. It would take less than five minutes to loose them in discussion on the truth about those times, which they prefer to ignore or to know, like the fact that 90% of political deaths during that time was black on black perpetrated by their holy beloved terrorist ANC under the leadership of the architect of terrorism in SA the highly praised messiah of liberalism the Marxist-Leninist terrorist Nelson Mandela. They are ignorant about the role of Kissinger and how the whole situation was orchestrated with the help of Pik Botha and FW de Klerk and how the various situations were interwoven to achieve what we were handed in 1994. People think they know what "Apartheid" was about, because of what they heard from other liberals.
Young people have a completely distorted view and impression of pre-1994 SA, which is as it was intended to be. It has always been like this. Just as people are not aware of what is happening now, so too did they also not know what was happening during the time of the NP. Anyone calling an American a traitor and a sell-out is uninformed as to what went down in those days. SA was not sold out by America, SA was sold out by its own people. It is an absolute waste of time and effort trying to educate people on pre-1994 SA and even more so trying to change their ingrained perceptions of pre-1994 SA. Whatever their perceptions are is their business and if they want to learn the truth about it, they are at least 2000 books behind. There is no time for catching up, there is only time to address what is lying ahead.
Rivonia Unmasked: The True Story of Nelson Mandela
http://sacreator.com/blog/rivonia-unmasked-the-true-story-of-nelson-mandela/
This is a perspective on Nelson Mandela you will not read elsewhere. I know it was written by a right-winger, but the truth nonetheless
Nelson Mandela - communist, terrorist, rabble-rouser !
http://www.hnp.org.za/site/index.php?id=67
The Pass Laws
Something to think about is why so many black South Africans actually supported the NP, something no one ever tells us either. The first pass laws in South Africa were introduced on 27 June 1797 by the Earl Macartney in an attempt to exclude all natives from the Cape Colony. Introduced in South Africa in 1923, they were designed to regulate movement of black Africans in white urban areas. Outside designated "homelands", black South Africans had to carry passbooks at all times, documentation proving they were authorised to live or move in "White" South Africa. The laws also affected other non-white races. Indian people, for example, were barred from the Orange Free State. These discriminatory regulations fuelled a growing discontentment from the black population and the ANC began the Defiance Campaign to oppose the pass laws. The Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, 1952, commonly known as the Pass Laws Act, made it compulsory for all black South Africans over the age of 16 to carry a "pass book" at all times within white areas. The system of pass laws was not the work of the National Party, but something they inherited and could not merely overnight abolish and certainly not at the time, it would have led to a revolution that they would not have been able to contain. The system of pass laws was repealed by the National Party in South Africa in 1986.
The Sharpville Massacre
On 21 March, a group of between 5,000 and 7,000 people converged on the local police station in the township of Sharpeville, offering themselves up for arrest for not carrying their pass books. This was part of a broader campaign organized by the PAC. Many of the crowd attended to support the protest, but there is evidence that the PAC also used intimidating means to draw the crowd to the protest, including the cutting of telephone lines into Sharpeville, the distribution of pamphlets telling people not to go to work on the day, and coercion of bus drivers and commuters. By 10:00 am, a large crowd had gathered, and the atmosphere was initially peaceful and festive. Fewer than 20 police officers were present in the station at the start of the protest. Later the crowd grew to about 20,000, and the mood turned hostile. About 130 police reinforcements, supported by four Saracen armored cars, were rushed in. The police were armed with firearms. There was no evidence that anyone in the crowd was armed with anything other than rocks. Sabre jets and Harvard Trainers approached to within a hundred feet of the ground, flying low over the crowd in an attempt to scatter it. The crowd responded by hurling stones, striking three policemen, and at about 1:00 pm the police tried to arrest a protester. There was a scuffle, and the crowd advanced toward the fence. The shooting began shortly thereafter. 69 people were killed. Police reports in 1960 claimed that inexperienced police officers panicked and opened fire spontaneously, setting off a chain reaction that lasted about forty seconds. It is likely that the police were nervous as two months before the massacre, nine other police officers had been killed at a riot in Cato Manor. The Cato Manor killings undoubtedly made policemen edgy when they were surrounded by black people, as they were at Sharpeville on the fateful day of March 21 1960. "If the PAC's civil disobedience against the hated pass laws had not led to violence in Sharpeville - it had not done so in Soweto and elsewhere - it's campaign might simply have become another failed attempt by blacks to persuade the government to abolish oppressive and discriminatory legislation, as Thomas Karis and Gwendolen Carter argue in their documentary history of black protest and resistance in South Africa."
A major problem at Sharpeville on the fatal day was that PAC marshals appeared to be thin on the ground and/or not vigilant enough in preventing the crowd from pressing against the fence surrounding the police station. In his analytical chronicle of the Sharpeville shooting An Ordinary Atrocity, Philip Frankel goes a stage further when he writes: "... the much vaunted marshals, whose primary task was to steer up the mob ... were unable or unwilling to steer the crowd away from what was clearly becoming a cataclysmic situation."
But here comes the crux of the matter, the part very seldom, if ever mentioned anywhere. "Emeritus professor David Welsh provides another perspective in his excellent and newly published book The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. He identifies the immediate cause of the tragedy as two simultaneous events: firstly, a scuffle at the fence gate when security police officer Att Spengler opened it to let a member of the crowd in and some of the people at the gate entered with him, possibly because they were pushed from behind; and, secondly, the arrival at scene of Geelbooi, a common law criminal who was drunk and armed with a handgun, and who, thinking he had spotted a policeman who had maltreated him, fired two shots in the air."
Sharpville was used as a political tool with more efficacy than any other event in SA history and in fact it was the only incident of its kind in all of pre-1994 SA that could be blamed on the Government and which is why it is the only one ever mentioned.
The question I often ask to people is what would they have done in that situation? I've been in that situation. I saw young soldiers 18, 19 years old wetting themselves and vomiting over themselves and they were only faced by some 50 raging rioters. I knew at the time that should I not step in and in the harshest possible manner diffuse the situation, anyone of those scared young men could lose it and pull a trigger out of fear and sheer nervous reaction, which could have led another massacre, but this time against rioting black soldiers, not civilians.
Imagine being faced with 20,000 angry rioters intent on killing you. Its easy for us to talk today, but if you have never been in that situation and do not know the circumstances its better sometimes to stand back and allow the media and politicians to enjoy their propaganda games.
Media manipulation of the facts:
"69 Blacks died. The official reports states that many were shot in the back. But the journalism have to be brought into question because the bodies photographed had EXIT wounds on their backs where the most blood is shown. Shot in the front, small entry, person runs away and collapses on his stomach, bloody exit wound on his back is photographed by BBC journalists and claim that he was shot in the back... you get the picture. If the police really wanted to commit a “massacre”, they would have shot wildly into the crowd, emptied their magazines and thousands of Blacks would have been killed. The fact that only 69 were killed was a testimony to the discipline and restraint exercised by the policemen. The Sunday night and the Monday morning preceding the “Massacre” the police drove the Blacks back with batons and tear gas, but they still kept coming, at about 13h35 on the Sunday they broke through the gates and their aim was to kill every policeman inside the police station." Quoted from "Mike Smith's Political Commentary: Sharpeville revisited: The Avocado tree at Cato Manor" http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/2011/06/sharpeville-revisited-avocado-tree-at.html (The original link is nolonger active, but the original article can still be found at http://whatishappeninginsouthafrica.blogspot.com/2011/06/sharpeville-revisited-avocado-tree-at.html)
The old SA is frequently being accused of "abhorrent human rights abuse", but to this day no one could come up with any evidence to the effect, yet we can provide literally thousands of cases orchestrated and executed by the ANC against blacks since their founding some 100 years ago.
Accusation: "the ANC government who used to be banned & brutalised by white police ended up becoming a military terrorist organisation"
Answer: According to the Human Rights Commission 73 people died while in Police detention during the period 1963 to 1990, which equates to 2.6 people annually during the "Apartheid" years. According to the Independent Complaints Directorate (IDC) 219 people died in police custody for the period 1997 to 1998 alone. And by the time we received their results for the period 2008 to 2009 a total of 912 people had died while in Police custody. Yes so obviously the old SA police were very brutal compared to the ANC Regime. LMAO
Accusation: "The men who began apartheid were huge Hitler followers." "There are differences as well as similarites between the two regimes. Germany & SA have totally different & unique demographics & circumstances. Does not change the fact that the old South Africa back in the 1930s-40's, under nationalist rule was sympathetic to Hitlers ideals. Now that may not have been everyone in the Nats of that time but definately the kingpins & people who had the most influence in the party." "the old South Africa back in the 1930s-40's, under nationalist rule"??
Answer: The NP only took over the government in 1948, after WWII, after the fall of Nazi Germany. How could the National Party Government have been sympathetic to Nazi Germany when it did not even exist.
Accusation: "For too long the blacks had been de-humanised & were starting to rise up for equal rights."
Answer: Where are blacks more dehumanised than in black African states. There is no comparison between the dehumanisation of any blacks anywhere in Africa under black rule than ever was the case during Apartheid. I always find it interesting how the whole world would rise up against Apartheid, always refer to Apartheid and demonise Apartheid, yet no one ever says a word about Africa, the human rights violations in Africa during the past thousands of years. No one ever mentions the advantages of Apartheid, how it grew and develop South African blacks when compared against the rest of Africa during the same period. More black millionaires were produced under Apartheid than in all of Africa combined during the same period.
Isn't it strange how all of Africa where "Apartheid" never existed is worse off than SA where Apartheid did exist. Their inhabitants (no African country has citizens, because citizens have a life) are generally worse off in all respects than any local SA blacks ever were. Isn't it strange how the oldest liberated black state in the world is a disaster like none other more than 85 years after independence, without ever having been under Apartheid rule.
Haiti
It was the first independent nation in Latin America and the first black-led republic in the world when it gained independence as part of a successful slave revolution in 1804.
Haiti was virtually bankrupt and the United States occupied the island in 1915 and US Marines were stationed in the country until 1934.
The US made massive improvements to infrastructure: 1700 km of roads were made usable; 189 bridges were built; many irrigation canals were rehabilitated hospitals, schools, and public buildings were constructed, and drinking water was brought to the main cities.
Sisal was introduced to Haiti, and sugar and cotton became significant exports.[44] The U.S. Marines supervised the operations of a client Haitian government, and emphasized American-style modernization of the infrastructure and universal education. Haitian traditionalists were highly resistant to these changes while the urban elites wanted more control. Together they helped force an end to the occupation in 1934.
The US occupation forces established a boundary between Haiti and the Dominican Republic by taking disputed land from the latter. After the US left in 1934, Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo – in an event known as the Parsley Massacre – ordered his Army to kill Haitians living on the Dominican side of the border. In a "three-day genocidal spree", he murdered between 10,000 and 20,000 Haitians. He then developed a uniquely Dominican policy of racial discrimination, Antihaitianismo ("anti-Haitianism"), targeting the mostly black inhabitants of his neighboring country.
In 1925, Haiti was lush, with 60% of its original forest covering the lands and mountainous regions. Since then, the population has cut down an estimated 98% of its original forest cover for use as fuel for cookstoves, and in the process has destroyed fertile farmland soils, contributing to desertification.
In 2004, a revolt began in northern Haiti. René Préval was elected President in February 2006, following elections marked by uncertainties and popular demonstrations.
I rest my case.
No comments:
Post a Comment