rhodey said:
Wow did I hit a nerve? So you are saying that there were "colored" (outside of the Indians and Asians) in SA before your Dutch ancestors got there? You wanna play " Guess whose the biggest rapist?"? Dude Europeans have wiped out entire populations with war and rape.
How do you feel about the crimes your Dutch ancestors committed against the people that were already there? Did you feel that they should have go back to Africa?
Oh wait ...wouldn't work on this case.
Im not of Dutch ancestry. Im of British ancestry, I just happen to know the history of the country. South Africa was a violent place before the Dutch got there. Like I said, Shaka Zulu committed acts of mass genocide killing and displacing more people than the Dutch EVER DID. Last I checked, he was a black African.
Same could be said when the tribes from the north invaded the country just 100-200 years before the Dutch pitched up. Africans destroyed the local indigenous populations. Decimated them in fact.
Now why is one considered war, and the other considered racism?
By the way, what makes you such a fvkcing expert anyway? Do you live in SA or even Africa? Chances are that you are a Pom studying this as part of your history lesson at school or you covered this in Uni. I think it would be important to elaborate exactly what your background is here.
No you want to create a mess and then pretend like there is no relationship between the past and present?
Tell me something genius. If things were going so well for your superior ancestors , why the need for them to sail on down the ocean and exploit a land and it's people? They must have been running from a "**** hole" , I would assume.
Where did I not say that South Africas past had something to do with its present situation? Are you a fvcking moron or something? Look at what I posted. I was quite clear when I said that South Africas past has a lot to do with its current situation.
But lets take this one step further. What if the white man never rocked up? Africans would still be in mud huts with a life expectancy of less than 35. They did not even have a written language. They were not even trading! For all the damage colonisation did, it brought currency, literature, medicine, systems of governance and infrastructure.
Modern day liberty and freedom were not the norm 400 years ago. Expecting people to be held responsible for belief systems we have in this day and age is beyond ridiculous. To hold people responsible for actions that 400 years ago were considered normal, but today considered wrong, is nothing short of fvcking retarded.
Last I checked, democracy took hold in Europe. Last I checked, slavery was first abolished in Europe. To this day, the BIGGEST SLAVERS ARE AFRICANS. One of the most popular myths is that the white man pitched up and captured slaves. He never had to. He BOUGHT them from the local African traders. They bought people inland for sea shells. You can still buy slaves today.
You paint an entire race of people with the same brush when you have absolutely no idea how Africans themselves even work. Africans in the USA and Europe have no idea about Africa. You read a few books put together and you think you know Africa. You know FVCK ALL until you have lived here and travelled here.
You mention Zulu genocide. Ok, I'll call and raise you 2. There have been acts of genocide across the world through history. There's the American Indians - tens of millions , wiped out. There black Africans from the transatlantic slave trade...hundreds of millions over the centuries. There the Jews - 6 million. ..
But yet you want to concentrate on Black Africans - even though SA is but one country. You want to lump all Africans under one culture even though MANY culture are prevalent within a single country. But hey you know about all this right? You just happened to FORGET your own history when it was convenient. Your AGENDA is transparent. You are frustrated South African white man that needs to vent. Sorry pal, no more colored only (or kaffir only) water fountains. Boo hoo.
The reason why I mention Zulu genocide is because for all the talk of whites pitching up on South African shores and slaughtering blacks, the Zulus where on a rampage that made the Dutch migration look like a picnic. It was the way of the world back then. Everyone was in on it, not just whites! It was a violent place. It still is a violent place you imbecile.
My agenda is very transparent. I was clear from the word go. I am not happy with the notion that an entire countries male population has been painted as rapists when its a segment of that population who commits those acts.
That is based on statistical FACT. It is not an opinion. It is not a view. It is a hardcore truth of South Africa.
The ironic thing here is that you want to paint current white South Africans are 1/4 rapist too because their ancestors were "violent colonisers". You paint them with the same brush because of their ancestry. Please note that the 1/4 men African who have raped a woman are not rapists by default of their ancestry.
They have actually committed the act.
For you to try and marginalise that in an attempt to paint me as a racist does a great disservice to the women who have to suffer that bull****. It does a great disservice to the majority of African men who despite cultural influence dont rape! For you to sit safe in a foreign country passing down judgement like that makes you an arsehole of the highest order.
But your suggestion that I forget MY own history clearly paints the picture of a foreign observer who has absolutely no idea about this country. I wont be so arrogant to tell you about your country, please be sure as not to be so arrogant as to tell me about mine.
