South Africa parliament votes to seize white owned land

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 05:46 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: This is a hilarious interpretation of history. The idea that there's a "correct" way to colonize and some outsider needs to go in to set a "standard" pretty much sums up your worldview that many of us know you to have very well.  

The idea that the world wasn't civilized prior to the British "civilly" slaughtering thousands of people is inherently contradictory to the idea of "civilization", but I'm not sure if your western-centric view of history will allow you to understand things from any other perspective. 


Colonizing isn't needed for many peoples of the world to advance organically as they interact with the rest of the world. What's even more ironic, is that we are currently speaking in this thread of an issue that had direct links to British and Dutch colonization. So if nothing else, this is just another example of where British and Dutch colonizing efforts didn't evolve a society, but rather damaged it for generations to come. There are myriads of examples all across the world where some of this can be attributed to the British, but this is neither the thread for it, nor, considering whom I'm responding to, a worthwhile endeavor in terms of honestly engaged conversation.
 

Colonization was a good thing. Especially British and Dutch colonization. I will agree with you in terms of Spanish and French colonization . This wasn’t nearly as successful.

The Brit’s took undeveloped areas and made them useful to the point that we got along faster as a world.

We should all be thankful. Instead of constantly bashing them and romancing the poor decisions made by natives.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 05:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It may have addressed some things in the thread, but not my points.



So are you contesting that the people indigenous to these areas all fairly traded their lands away? Do you have evidence to suggest this is the case for all of these lands in South Africa? Every history I have read on the establishment of the Cape Colony and further settlement of South Africa was that the indigenous populations were displaced most often with force, though disease also played a role as did a few purchases. However, if you have information to the contrary I would be most intrigued to read it.


"Nothing with the lands" other than living on them in their pastoral societies that existed before the Dutch came. Your statement is thick with supremacist language. I get it, you feel that what we see as "Western" culture today is the way to be. I wonder if you would prefer there to be one homogeneous world culture that is Eurocentric.

I would never say all. That’s ridiculous, no one ever means.

I am sure some were displaced that’s how you make progress. As for disease.:.... Europe suffered from diseases from the east as well. It’s just a part of life as these cross the globe.

The western way is the way to be. It’s opened up freedom and economic viability for billions around the world.

As for a world like us..... no. People need to make their own choices. Living the right way has not really taken hold on the African continent they still exploit their own people.

Personally I would close them off from the west until they finally sorted themselves out. After all there was the other poster who thinks these people can do just fine progressing on their own.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 06:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure why we keep giving people second, third, fourth, and fifteenth chances when they just come here to say that anyone who isn't white is a savage and any genocide against them is justified.

(03-08-2018, 06:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As long as we're not explicitly discriminatory along racial lines, implicit racism is okay. It's like our criminal justice system in this country.

Uncivilized people are indeed savages. That is precisely the definition of a savage. You are the only one bringing up skin color.

I never discriminate along race. White people can also be savages. Just because news stories discussed here do not involve them doesn’t mean they do not exist. Not sure why I have to repeat this time and again.

[BmorePat87]

(03-08-2018, 07:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Uncivilized people are indeed savages.   That is precisely the definition of a savage. You are the only one bringing up skin color.  

I never discriminate along race.   White people can also be savages.   Just because news stories discussed here do not involve them doesn’t mean they do not exist.   Not sure why I have to repeat this time and again.

You called genocide by white people "progress" but called those being killed "uncivilized savages" because they were "violent" in their attempts to not be murdered.

You've called people from every continent except for Europe "savages" and argued against Fred when he brought up the fact that the last century saw tens of millions of deaths because of European wars.


I'm not even sure why you even pretend anymore. We all know you're sitting behind that Compaq of yours wearing new balances, khakis, and a white polo. If some fat loser from Ohio can get the confidence to drive to Virginia and wave around some goofy ass shield and hate on Jews, I'm sure you can come out of the closet and at least be honest with us behind your anonymous username. 

[BmorePat87]

Mods, lemme know if I'm not allowed to call out blatant racism and support for genocide and I'll stop

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 08:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You called genocide by white people "progress" but called those being killed "uncivilized savages" because they were "violent" in their attempts to not be murdered.

You've called people from every continent except for Europe "savages" and argued against Fred when he brought up the fact that the last century saw tens of millions of deaths because of European wars.


I'm not even sure why you even pretend anymore. We all know you're sitting behind that Compaq of yours wearing new balances, khakis, and a white polo. If some fat loser from Ohio can get the confidence to drive to Virginia and wave around some goofy ass shield and hate on Jews, I'm sure you can come out of the closet and at least be honest with us behind your anonymous username. 

Lol let me get this straight. It’s not genocide when you blatantly target black and brown babies via abortions in today’s civilized world. But back when the world was developing some aggressive steps were taken to colonize and modernize these undeveloped areas of the world.

Were there some harsh things that happened to the natives..... yes. Is it pleasant ..... no. Do we wish we lived ina world where nothing bad ever happened to people.... yes . But it didn’t and it does no one any good to bash those colonists today. You can’t walk it back and you can’t punish some poor afrikan who may Have had a relative alive during some of these tough times.

Same reason why the Indians blaming us today has zero effect. Or blacks..... none of us did it and no one is responsible for the poor choices of their relatives. Let alone their distant relatives.

The only pertinent genocide happening today is the mass abortions of black and brown children in this country and around the world. Or are you only interested in past because we can’t do anything.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 08:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Mods, lemme know if I'm not allowed to call out blatant racism and support for genocide and I'll stop

You really should try and learn the definition of the word racism. And I mean the real old school definition. Not this modern everything is racist if you disagree with a leftist.

[Dill]

(03-08-2018, 02:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, we also have to keep in mind that "progress" and "advancement" are terms that aren't necessarily accurate when speaking about civilizations, societies, or cultures. Those subjective terms rest on the idea that there is an evolutionary, linear track on which civilizations progress. This is a false narrative that was concocted during the era of European imperialism in order to justify their colonization and subjugation of indigenous people the world over. However, such classifications are not accurate, are not based on objective methodology, and are now mostly dismissed. The social sciences still have a hard time moving on from them because that was really the beginning of the movement, but there is a concerted effort to focus on more objective methodology since, as the name says, they are sciences.

Well, Bels, I'll have you know that if you pick the right starting points, draw lines in the right places and introduce the right standards, it is very clear that Western civilization, and especially the Anglo sector, does express progress towards civilizational perfection. 

Rather than begin with those "non-Aryan" cultures where mathematics, architecture, metal-working, astronomy, and, in a word, civilization actually started thousands of years before a town larger than 1,000 people existed in Britannia, or even with the Greco-Roman which laid the foundation for our very superior law, government and religion (and colonized what would become England), start at Afred's unification in the 9th century.  From there, almost nothing but PROGRESS. The English invented Gunpowder and cannons and ocean-going ships and the astrolabe and discovered the New World. They helped The Chinese restore their opium production, gave the  population of India a much needed thinning when the British army required their grain. And they spread the English language around the world, even to Pennsylvania and Ohio. Most importantly, they started up America which became the United States and the best country in the world.  And that's by American standards, thank you. You can apply them to any period of history you want--within the starting points and lines affirmed above--and you cannot avoid this conclusion: people who look English make good choices. 

The Brits don't get a lot of thanks for taking darker people's land and showing them how to better it under white ownership. I think that counts as proof that ethics are simply underdeveloped in some of these so-called ex-colonies of Britain not named the U.S. or Canada.  That is as clear as the boundary between England and France (after 1455, I mean, when the lines stopped moving).   Also, Brits and Americans may enslave other peoples but they don't enslave their own (again remember what I said about starting points and lines).   And before we get all weepy over slaves losing their freedom, remember that most of these idyllic peoples used violence to keep their freedom rather than learn progress and assimilate to civilization. It's still about choices and if you choose violence, well then you've lost my sympathy and support.  

Rather than wishing for a world in which nothing bad ever happens, maybe some of us should learn to appreciate all the blessings that have accrued to us since British colonies began donating massive amounts of raw material to British industry. That is what jump started the global civilization we live into day.

[Dill]

(03-08-2018, 10:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol let me get this straight.   It’s not genocide when you blatantly target black and brown babies via abortions in today’s civilized world.    But back when the world was developing some aggressive steps were taken to colonize and modernize these undeveloped areas of the world.    

Were there some harsh things that happened to the natives..... yes.    Is it pleasant ..... no.    Do we wish we lived ina world where nothing bad ever happened to people.... yes .   But it didn’t and it does no one any good to bash those colonists today.    You can’t walk it back and you can’t punish some poor afrikan who may Have had a relative alive during some of these tough times.  

Same reason why the Indians blaming us today has zero effect.   Or blacks.....    none of us did it and no one is responsible for the poor choices of their relatives.   Let alone their distant relatives.  

The only pertinent genocide happening today is the mass abortions of black and brown children in this country and around the world.    Or are you only interested in past because we can’t do anything.

1. I have never understood history to be about "bashing." Can we maybe learn something from all that colonial history? And that is why we revisit it when assessing alternatives today?   Are you sure it is a history of THEIR poor choices alone?

No doubt coming from Africa to America to be a slave was a poor choice, as was deciding to prevent Americans from owning Indian lands that Americans would make better use of.  But I keep thinking there might be another angle from which history might be viewed, one that allowed civilizers to apply to themselves the same standards which they apply to others. The choice NOT to do that--what sort of choice is that?

Is there a glimpse of a possibility that comfort with past "unpleasantness" might still inform current politics when Americans deal with countries still digging out from under the legacy of "harsh things" necessary for the progress of European countries?

2. And are you saying that you are VERY against what you call abortion-genocide nowadays because you hold some standard which makes all human life valuable regardless of race? Not to be taken for the convenience of others?  Yet you are not against all the necessary unpleasantness of "modernizing" the world that you suppose ended sometime back--an unpleasantness which entailed genocide?

The notion that fetuses have "souls" and are already human beings is a conclusion of ancient and medieval metaphysics. Why isn't acceptance of abortion a feature of modernity? Why isn't your resistance to it a "bad choice" in the face of progress?

[*bfine32*]

I must admit this story has me kind of lost with the back and forth. Can someone Barney it down for me?

Is the SA government actually proposing/ passing legislation that removes people from their homes based on skin color?

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I must admit this story has me kind of lost with the back and forth. Can someone Barney it down for me?

Is the SA government actually proposing/ passing legislation that removes people from their homes based on skin color?

Yes.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 11:46 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. I have never understood history to be about "bashing." Can we maybe learn something from all that colonial history? And that is why we revisit it when assessing alternatives today?   Are you sure it is a history of THEIR poor choices alone?

No doubt coming from Africa to America to be a slave was a poor choice, as was deciding to prevent Americans from owning Indian lands that Americans would make better use of.  But I keep thinking there might be another angle from which history might be viewed, one that allowed civilizers to apply to themselves the same standards which they apply to others. The choice NOT to do that--what sort of choice is that?

Is there a glimpse of a possibility that comfort with past "unpleasantness" might still inform current politics when Americans deal with countries still digging out from under the legacy of "harsh things" necessary for the progress of European countries?

2. And are you saying that you are VERY against what you call abortion-genocide nowadays because you hold some standard which makes all human life valuable regardless of race? Not to be taken for the convenience of others?  Yet you are not against all the necessary unpleasantness of "modernizing" the world that you suppose ended sometime back--an unpleasantness which entailed genocide?

The notion that fetuses have "souls" and are already human beings is a conclusion of ancient and medieval metaphysics. Why isn't acceptance of abortion a feature of modernity? Why isn't your resistance to it a "bad choice" in the face of progress?

Afrikaners was what I typed. The auto correct changed it to Afrikans. I was trying to keep it on SA.

You can’t cry over spilled milk. And when people complain about British and Dutch colonists it just annoys me because we can’t roll back what happened. I do think think there is legit complaints over French and Spanish colonies.

In todays modern and civilized society he fact we promote killing minority’s babies is just gross. Shame on us.

[BmorePat87]

(03-08-2018, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I must admit this story has me kind of lost with the back and forth. Can someone Barney it down for me?

Is the SA government actually proposing/ passing legislation that removes people from their homes based on skin color?

Yea. Hopefully the courts strike it down or they're going to have major problems. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-08-2018, 10:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol let me get this straight.   It’s not genocide when you blatantly target black and brown babies via abortions in today’s civilized world.    But back when the world was developing some aggressive steps were taken to colonize and modernize these undeveloped areas of the world.    

No one blatantly targets black or brown babies with abortion.

When you say "some aggressive steps" you're referring to the systematic killing of a group of people. It's the very definition of genocide, no matter how you attempt to sugar coat it. 

Quote:Were there some harsh things that happened to the natives..... yes.    Is it pleasant ..... no.    Do we wish we lived ina world where nothing bad ever happened to people.... yes .  

"harsh things"
I get that you support the murder, but it's genocide, let's call it what it was.

Quote: But it didn’t and it does no one any good to bash those colonists today.    You can’t walk it back and you can’t punish some poor afrikan who may Have had a relative alive during some of these tough times.  

At no point have I ever expressed an opinion that this move was good. I've consistently called it a racist policy that will cause problems. I'm not sure what the point of bringing this up to me is.

Quote:Same reason why the Indians blaming us today has zero effect.   Or blacks.....    none of us did it and no one is responsible for the poor choices of their relatives.   Let alone their distant relatives.   

I'm not suggesting we punish ourselves. I'm just suggesting we acknowledge that it was genocide and not celebrate it like you are.

Quote:The only pertinent genocide happening today is the mass abortions of black and brown children in this country and around the world.    Or are you only interested in past because we can’t do anything.

That's not genocide. 

[Dill]

(03-09-2018, 01:17 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Afrikaners was what I typed.   The auto correct changed it to Afrikans.  I was trying to keep it on SA.  

You can’t cry over spilled milk.   And when people complain about British and Dutch colonists  it just annoys me because we can’t roll back what happened.    I do think think there is legit complaints over French and Spanish colonies.  

In todays modern and civilized society he fact we promote killing minority’s babies is just gross.   Shame on us.

So it was the Afrikaner who took land from Africans.

People who "complain" about the residual inequities of colonialism know their effort is not to "roll back what happened."
They are trying to create a more just present.

I don't think anyone promotes killing minority babies except maybe people who think that some races are better than others.
In any case, that reference will never successfully divert discussion from the thread's topic, which a current issue in South African politics.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2018, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I must admit this story has me kind of lost with the back and forth. Can someone Barney it down for me?

Is the SA government actually proposing/ passing legislation that removes people from their homes based on skin color?

Yes. Pretty much all of us agreed this was not a good thing pretty early on. Then the thread went in a different direction.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-09-2018, 02:20 AM)Dill Wrote: So it was the Afrikaner who took land from Africans.

People who "complain" about the residual inequities of colonialism know their effort is not to "roll back what happened."
They are trying to create a more just present.

I don't think anyone promotes killing minority babies except maybe people who think that some races are better than others.
In any case, that reference will never successfully divert discussion from the thread's topic, which a current issue in South African politics.

By trying to create a more just present you take away personal freedoms. What happened in the past is unfortunate but it happened. Trying to go back now just takes away someone else’s stuff that had nothing to do with any injustices from the past.

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2018, 09:35 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: By trying to create a more just present you take away personal freedoms. What happened in the past is unfortunate but it happened. Trying to go back now just takes away someone else’s stuff that had nothing to do with any injustices from the past.

To say that they had nothing to do with it is not entirely accurate. They benefit from those injustices. Their property, their social status, those exist because of those injustices. This isn't to say I think reparative takings should happen. The reality of the situation is just not as black and white as you are making it seem.

[Benton]

(03-09-2018, 09:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. Pretty much all of us agreed this was not a good thing pretty early on. Then the thread went in a different direction.

Yup. I think any sane person would not try to justify the righteousness of taking everything a person has and forcinG them out of their property. Because there’s no framework where that’s ok.

[GMDino]

(03-09-2018, 01:17 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Afrikaners was what I typed.   The auto correct changed it to Afrikans.  I was trying to keep it on SA.  

You can’t cry over spilled milk.   And when people complain about British and Dutch colonists  it just annoys me because we can’t roll back what happened.    I do think think there is legit complaints over French and Spanish colonies.  

In todays modern and civilized society he fact we promote killing minority’s babies is just gross.   Shame on us.

What about the ones that cry about Spanish colonists?  Why isn't that "crying over spilt milk"?