Watson arrived in the U.K. midweek to promote his new book, which will be out Oct. 22. He was scheduled to speak Friday at the Science Museum in London, but the museum announced the day before that it would cancel the event, as Watson had “gone beyond the point of acceptable debate.” The University of Edinburgh then axed Watson’s scheduled appearance for Monday, calling the scientist’s remarks “entirely incompatible with the spirit” of the lecture series in which he was supposed to participate. And an event organizer in Bristol, which had booked the DNA pioneer for Oct. 24, dropped Watson as well, saying the Sunday Times Magazine remarks were “unacceptably provocative.”
By noon on Friday, a beleaguered Watson had canceled his remaining engagements and was flying back to the U.S. “His decision to leave the country, I believe, was due to things going on at Cold Springs Harbor,” says his publicist Kate Farquhar-Thomson, referring to the Long Island lab where Watson is chancellor. Though Farquhar-Thomson declined to speculate what those “things going on” might be, odds are they include the lab board’s decision yesterday to suspend Watson’s administrative responsibilities
Oh look! The authorities did not even try to object and immediately set all
the dogs on him so that he had to evacuate. No wonder that he tries to avoid this illegal persecution.
I don’t take umbrage with any of these comments, however I do know some are incorrect.
For example, there was in fact state supported education and health care.
But seperate and unqual. The South African blacks lived in parallel society of shanty towns and were largely excluded from the cities after hours…
The prosperity of which you speak has continued, unfortunately it has continued to decrease with the onset of each poorly organised financial directive from on high.
As to the last light-hearted comment, my black South African friends to a man, express complete horror at the prospect ! :o
Perhaps. And I’m not defending some of the asshats in the ANC, as there are indeed irrational fools (some of the comments regarding AIDs are just appalling and would be comical if they weren’t so scary) as much as in any other movement that began in circumstances of conflict and violence. However, I’ve been under the impression that Mandela was widely popular and was seen as almost messianic by and large. I’ve even read interviews with extremist SA white supremicists neo-Nazis that admired Mandela and decided that it wasn’t worth it to stir up trouble, because of his popularity and even they admitted that he was an excellent overall leader that prevented any wide spread support for their cause amongst whites seeking a partition.
Furthermore, I think one can call the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to be one of the more enlightened bodies to ever exist. In a sense, it was almost a societal “turning of the cheek.”
Quite an open question, there is vast yardage of large tomes dedicated to the subject.
Do you mean on a political, social or personal level ?
Well societal of course. I’m not saying whites were evil fascists that burn Africans alive or anything. In fact, the film on Steven Biko illustrated a rather interesting collaboration. Biko was beaten to death by the intelligence wing (death squad) of the SA Police. But the man who exposed his extra-judicial murder was a white journalist who was essentially put in a self-imposed exile after he was also threatened by the govt for writing the story…
I’d have said that he’s merely a tribal leader, a very poor one admittedly, but traditional nonetheless.
He was a guerrilla commander that, to my knowledge (and correct me if I am wrong) that came to power after the overthrow of the Rhodesian gov’t in some sort of power sharing arrangement. He’s no more a “tribal leader” than Lenin was.
But he certainly is an even bigger prick…
Out of interest whereabouts and in which subjects did you teach, and why did you stop ?
Well we’re getting a bit personal, but I taught English full time and substitute taught for a bit…
I stopped simply because I hated the administrative aspects of the job, and realized that the people I was working for were in no ways idealists, but just people who were self-serving careerists earning a pay check. That’s fine I guess, but it wasn’t worth the stress…
In any case, I probably will return to teaching college in some form or another…
He was scheduled to speak Friday at the Science Museum in London, but the museum announced the day before that it would cancel the event, as Watson had “gone beyond the point of acceptable debate.” The University of Edinburgh then axed Watson’s scheduled appearance for Monday, calling the scientist’s remarks “entirely incompatible with the spirit” of the lecture series in which he was supposed to participate. And an event organizer in Bristol, which had booked the DNA pioneer for Oct. 24, dropped Watson as well, saying the Sunday Times Magazine remarks were “unacceptably provocative.”
You see Kato, this is where the cusp of your eugenics and racial argument begins to fail. Ethiopians have dark skin, but are more akin to Arabic (Egyptian) culture, as indeed some Arabs may appear “black” but are not “negroid” or whatever the term is. In fact, Ethiopia boasts a rather significant population of Jews (straight out of the Old Testament). So many Ethiopians in fact have much in common with European Jewry genetically.
Are Jews less intelligent too?
In fact, there is little actual “genetic science” regarding IQ and there is no actual study regarding a genetic difference between those with lighter skin and those with darker skin. It’s all based on “culturally biased” IQ studies that fail to take into account the differences in class and educational opportunities.
But, then, that would take away from the fun and self-esteem derived from ones’ belief of inherent superiority based on skin color…
Is it illegal is they refuse to have an extremist, idiotic black US college professor that espouses views such as Africans are the “people of the sun” and white(devil)s are “the people of ice” and are inherently evil and manipulative?
But seperate and unqual. The South African blacks lived in parallel society of shanty towns and were largely excluded from the cities after hours…[/quote]
Those areas of black housing that were (and still are) composed of shacks are the illegal settlements or ‘squatter camps,’ ie those not officially sanctioned. Someone had just decided that they were going to build their home there.
There are areas of Soweto where the most humble of houses would be far beyond my means, and most probably out of reach of the vast majority of members here.
Reference being “excluded from the cities,” that’s not quite how this aspect of Apartheid functioned.
Many years ago, unless one had definite reaon for entering a residential area set aside for people of a different ethnicity, one was liable to be arrested. This held true for people of all colours, not only for blacks.
Do you know when Apartheid ended ?
Perhaps. And I’m not defending some of the asshats in the ANC, as there are indeed irrational fools (some of the comments regarding AIDs are just appalling and would be comical if they weren’t so scary) as much as in any other movement that began in circumstances of conflict and violence. However, I’ve been under the impression that Mandela was widely popular and was seen as almost messianic by and large. I’ve even read interviews with extremist SA white supremicists neo-Nazis that admired Mandela and decided that it wasn’t worth it to stir up trouble, because of his popularity and even they admitted that he was an excellent overall leader that prevented any wide spread support for their cause amongst whites seeking a partition.[/quote]
Madala received very many white votes during the parody of an election in '94, and was indeed a popular president across the board. Twenty-seven years of reflection had made him realise that for the country to function properly, widespread co-operation was necessary.
He made the very sensible decision to increase his longevity by only standing for one period of the presidency. He was at most risk from the second and third eschelons of his own party.
Which “extremist SA white supremicists neo-Nazis” (can you get any more adjectives into one title ?) were interviewed, ET ?
The TRC, was an idea that had a great deal to recommend it, unfortunately the wheels fell off.
It was suggested to the ANC at the bargaining table after they had demanded that all those who committed crimes ‘during the struggle’ should be absolved.
Absolved they were, if the perpetrator said that it was done for politial reasons and announced his contrition. Can you see the flaw ?
When it came to their ideological aims the ANC had not thought the TRC through, as members of the SAP, (amongst others,) also stepped forward and did the same.
We now have a situation where people who wished to draw a line under the excesses on both sides are being charged with a crime for which they have already received absolution and pardon. Any guesses as to which racial group these might belong ?
One of the many reasons the TRC rapidly received the moniker ‘LHC’ (Lies and Hatred Commission.)
He was a guerrilla commander that, to my knowledge (and correct me if I am wrong) that came to power after the overthrow of the Rhodesian gov’t in some sort of power sharing arrangement. [/quote]
The Rhodesian government was not overthrown by any internal strife, it was sold down the Zambezi by the British Government reneging on treaties entered into in good faith.
Uncle Bob was never a guerilla/terrorist/freedom fighter leader. He was a politician who unilaterally took command of ZANU when Chitepo was killed, and scant months later ZANU was split along tribal lines due to his manoeuvering other Shona into various positions of power within the organisation.
Growing increasingly annoyed with having to discuss political proposals with his tribal enemies in ZAPU, (while conducting COIN Ops against ZIPRA,) he combined both parties and announced a one party state.
He tried unsucessfully to have Nkomo killed then attempted to arrest him for treason. Nkomo, (the man who laughed on tv when questioned about the attack on the Viscount and subsequent rape and murder of the survivors,) fled the country and was given political sanctuary in the UK.
If only you could tell that to the tens of thousands of Matabele women, children and madalas he had murdered by his ‘elite’ maShona 5 Bde, a unit answerable only to himself.
And people talked of ethnic cleansing in FRY…
Mugabe’s death toll hasn’t reached the dizzy heights of Lenin. Yet.
But give him time…
You see Kato, this is where the cusp of your eugenics and racial argument begins to fail. Ethiopians have dark skin, but are more akin to Arabic (Egyptian) culture, as indeed some Arabs may appear “black” but are not “negroid” or whatever the term is. In fact, Ethiopia boasts a rather significant population of Jews (straight out of the Old Testament). So many Ethiopians in fact have much in common with European Jewry genetically.
In the photo one can see the typcal negroids. They have curly hair, wide lips the typical structure of skulls. Ethiopians are Orthodox Christans and so they have nothing in common with Arabs or their culture. The relations of Christan Negros with Arabs were and are hostile ( modern Sudan)
Are Jews less intelligent too?
Jews nd Arabs belong to the ethnical Semetic group. Jews that left Israel 2000 years ago and settled in Europe, later in America mixed with whites. It even led to almost full extinction of their language Hebrew.
In fact, there is little actual “genetic science” regarding IQ and there is no actual study regarding a genetic difference between those with lighter skin and those with darker skin. It’s all based on “culturally biased” IQ studies that fail to take into account the differences in class and educational opportunities.
The racial differences are evident. Black pupils and students log behind whites and asians. Those who point out these evident things are immediately called “culturally biased”
But there are Christian Arabs (Lebanese Maronite’s/Iraqis/Syrians etc.?) and are of similar “racial stock” as Jews. Arabs also have curly hair, their facial features are distinguishable from other Africans. In addition, Ethiopians are an ethnic subset as immigrants in the US often refuse to mingle with other, “darker” Africans. This is also the central problem in the Sudanese civil war, where moderate Muslim predominately Arabic-Sudanese regard the black Sudanese as a troublesome minority to be gotten rid of…
BTW, Ethiopia is one of the more stable nations in Africa. Certainly not perfect, but they made peace with Eritrea have rejected the communist ideology (which contributed to the famine as it was used as a weapon in their civil war) and they drove Islamic fanatics out of Somalia adeptly.
Jews nd Arabs belong to the ethnical Semetic group. Jews that left Israel 2000 years ago and settled in Europe, later in America mixed with whites. It even led to almost full extinction of their language Hebrew.
Then why did Israel fly a bunch of Jewish Ethiopians out during the 80s famines? Why are a number of Ethiopians Jewish, as they always have been going back to ancient Egypt?
You failed to answer this question.
I also noticed that you failed to account for the theory of some African American ‘black nationalists’ that much of the very successful Egyptian Empire was at least partially run by black Africans, not Arabs. BTW, I’m not endorsing this theory since it’s largely irrelevant and based on flimsy, self-serving scholarship (much like the studies indicating blacks as dumber than white)…
The racial differences are evident. Black pupils and students log behind whites and asians. Those who point out these evident things are immediately called “culturally biased”
Which is completely shit according to the scientific method. Because only relevant study scientifically would be to measure groups of asians, whites, and blacks raised in identical circumstances factoring in class, schools districts, access to technology, proper nutrition, housing with lead paint, proximity to factories, crime rates, drug use, and a whole litany of factors. Again, your falling into the racists’ obsession with “nature” and ignoring “nurture” of the fact that scores are biased towards the “dominant culture.” A culture I know far better than you do…
True. So you acknowledge that there is a massive disparity of wealth in South Africa, and that Afrikaners tended in the past to also hold those of Indian origin (like Gandhi) and even Euro-Africans (whites) that were culturally from the UK in contempt?
Do you know when Apartheid ended ?
Not exactly, but I’m going to guess about 1989? Pretty close to the fall of communism, when Americans could no longer justify dealing with the Apartheid regime…
Madala received very many white votes during the parody of an election in '94, and was indeed a popular president across the board. Twenty-seven years of reflection had made him realise that for the country to function properly, widespread co-operation was necessary.
He made the very sensible decision to increase his longevity by only standing for one period of the presidency. He was at most risk from the second and third eschelons of his own party.
Which “extremist SA white supremicists neo-Nazis” (can you get any more adjectives into one title ?) were interviewed, ET ?
Yes well, I’ve read that the ANC is fracturing a bit as a unified political force and we’re now seeing the possibility of traditionally white dominated parties increasing their power. I’m not going to research this part, so you can tell me if I am correct, as South Africa is somewhat neglected by my media with the Iraq War and all that…
And as far as the “adjectives,” I guess I could have added “militant Afrikaners?”
And no, I cannot recall from memory exact details of a Time or US News & WR article read probably 13 years ago. But that was the gist of the article.
Why, do they not exist?
The TRC, was an idea that had a great deal to recommend it, unfortunately the wheels fell off.
It was suggested to the ANC at the bargaining table after they had demanded that all those who committed crimes ‘during the struggle’ should be absolved.
Absolved they were, if the perpetrator said that it was done for politial reasons and announced his contrition. Can you see the flaw ?
When it came to their ideological aims the ANC had not thought the TRC through, as members of the SAP, (amongst others,) also stepped forward and did the same.
We now have a situation where people who wished to draw a line under the excesses on both sides are being charged with a crime for which they have already received absolution and pardon. Any guesses as to which racial group these might belong ?
One of the many reasons the TRC rapidly received the moniker ‘LHC’ (Lies and Hatred Commission.)
Yes, well, societies such as El Salvador, Angola, and South Africa that have fought long and bitter civil wars are going to go through these sorts of things, aren’t they? But I think overall, there has not been the vengeful and violent anti-white backlash that has happened in the past. I’m not defending political hacks using the TRC for what are partisan ends…
The Rhodesian government was not overthrown by any internal strife, it was sold down the Zambezi by the British Government reneging on treaties entered into in good faith.
LOL Utter bollocks. Yeah, this is amongst the silly stuff you throw out there…
The British gov’t could no longer stomach the embarrassment of supporting a gov’t that was only democratic for a few, and used their own “state terror” to maintain power…
Uncle Bob was never a guerilla/terrorist/freedom fighter leader. He was a politician who unilaterally took command of ZANU when Chitepo was killed, and scant months later ZANU was split along tribal lines due to his manoeuvering other Shona into various positions of power within the organisation.
Growing increasingly annoyed with having to discuss political proposals with his tribal enemies in ZAPU, (while conducting COIN Ops against ZIPRA,) he combined both parties and announced a one party state.
He tried unsucessfully to have Nkomo killed then attempted to arrest him for treason. Nkomo, (the man who laughed on tv when questioned about the attack on the Viscount and subsequent rape and murder of the survivors,) fled the country and was given political sanctuary in the UK.
If only you could tell that to the tens of thousands of Matabele women, children and madalas he had murdered by his ‘elite’ maShona 5 Bde, a unit answerable only to himself.
And people talked of ethnic cleansing in FRY…
There’s some factual stuff along with semantics heavily laden with opinion. Uncle Bob was leading a guerrilla movement that used terror. What sort of bastard he was and how he got to the top is inconsequential, as there were also plenty of bastards “fighting terror” with state terror in the Rhodesian Army and security forces at the time. There’s no way the UK was going to continue to support that in light of international condemnation. And I’m not defending Mugabe in any way. But there was viciousness and brutality used on both sides…
Mugabe’s death toll hasn’t reached the dizzy heights of Lenin. Yet.
But give him time…
Hopefully he’ll die soon and his end is only a matter of time. And some newer, better order will take his place. And as you pointed out, his critics are far from only white farmers. And Lenin at least somewhat cared for the people he was murdering in the name of…
True. So you acknowledge that there is a massive disparity of wealth in South Africa, and that Afrikaners tended in the past to also hold those of Indian origin (like Gandhi) and even Euro-Africans (whites) that were culturally from the UK in contempt?[/QUOTE]
Some did, most didn’t. Very much like it is in every country in the world regardless of ethnicity.
Yes well, I’ve read that the ANC is fracturing a bit as a unified political force and we’re now seeing the possibility of traditionally white dominated parties increasing their power. I’m not going to research this part, so you can tell me if I am correct, as South Africa is somewhat neglected by my media with the Iraq War and all that…[/quote]
The ANC with it’s Xhosa grass roots, were supported by the SACP throughout the struggle and into the first election. Once they had come to power they discarded them as the Communists’ redistribution of wealth plans went further than the ANC had planned.
The IFP (Inkatha Freedom Party) which has favoured non-violent action (although there was a minority of ‘self defence groups’) is still a Zulu dominated party, but because of it’s tradition of negotiating many other ethnic groups have flocked to them and they have steadily increased their profile in the National Assembly.
The founder and present leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi (famous for his portrayal of Cetshwayo in the film ‘Zulu’) said yesterday he would not be leading the party into the next election.
The DA (Democratic Alliance) is what you might call a white-dominated party, although as with most parties there are members of all skin hues, and it is the official opposition in parliament. It too has gained seats in the National Assembly.
Elections in South Africa are somewhat different to those in the western world, and the theft and sorting of ballot boxes is not that uncommon, so recorded percentages of the vote are not that indicative of actual public support.
All in all each major party have increased their position in parliament, due in no small part to the minor parties giving up after '94, but that’s another discussion.
You do seem to have a problem with Afrikaaners, any particular reason ?
Yes there were a couple of extremist groups Wit Wolwe being the ones that were most dangerous though thouroughly penetratd by SAP informers, and the AWB who were in general rather laughable and as insecure as WW.
I was just wondered which individuals were involved in the interview you’d read.
Yes, well, societies such as El Salvador, Angola, and South Africa that have fought long and bitter civil wars are going to go through these sorts of things, aren’t they? But I think overall, there has not been the vengeful and violent anti-white backlash that has happened in the past. I’m not defending political hacks using the TRC for what are partisan ends…[/QUOTE]
One of the points I tried to get across was that any criminal who had been imprisoned could try for releae if he claimed that he ‘only’ stole, raped or murdered “for the struggle.”
There has been an increase in violent crime due to two rulings brought in by the ANC, the first being the abolishment of capital punishment and the second restrictions on firearms and their use. This, together with the reorganisation of the SAP into the corrupt SAPS, gave a green light to habitual criminals that their use of lethal force would go lightly punished in the unlikely event of their capture.
LOL Utter bollocks. Yeah, this is amongst the silly stuff you throw out there…[/quote]
Oh really ?
Just calling something you don’t agree with “bollocks” or “silly” is hardly an argument, please give your reasons.
What do you mean that it was only democratic for a few, and what do you mean by “state terror” ?
There’s some factual stuff along with semantics heavily laden with opinion.[/quote] SOME factual stuff ?
Please be so kind as to inform me which parts of my post were incorrect.
As to “semantics heavily laden with opinion” - I gave a choice of titles for the position which you incorrectly assumed he held, so you can hardly blame me if you don’t like your own choice.
Once again I’d like to hear more about this “state terror” of which you speak.
Unless you kept within a very small group of politicised people throughout the Seventies then there wasn’t that much “international condemnation.”
Due to the Apartheid system in Rhodesia ?
Hopefully he’ll die soon and his end is only a matter of time. And some newer, better order will take his place. And as you pointed out, his critics are far from only white farmers. And Lenin at least somewhat cared for the people he was murdering in the name of…[/QUOTE]My bold.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the last line, could you explain please ?
The ANC with it’s Xhosa grass roots, were supported by the SACP throughout the struggle and into the first election. Once they had come to power they discarded them as the Communists’ redistribution of wealth plans went further than the ANC had planned.
The IFP (Inkatha Freedom Party) which has favoured non-violent action (although there was a minority of ‘self defence groups’) is still a Zulu dominated party, but because of it’s tradition of negotiating many other ethnic groups have flocked to them and they have steadily increased their profile in the National Assembly.
The founder and present leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi (famous for his portrayal of Cetshwayo in the film ‘Zulu’) said yesterday he would not be leading the party into the next election.
The DA (Democratic Alliance) is what you might call a white-dominated party, although as with most parties there are members of all skin hues, and it is the official opposition in parliament. It too has gained seats in the National Assembly.
Elections in South Africa are somewhat different to those in the western world, and the theft and sorting of ballot boxes is not that uncommon, so recorded percentages of the vote are not that indicative of actual public support.
All in all each major party have increased their position in parliament, due in no small part to the minor parties giving up after '94, but that’s another discussion.
Interesting. Though, maybe they need Diebold to run their elections:)…
You do seem to have a problem with Afrikaaners, any particular reason ?
I have no idea what you mean. you’ll have to provide examples of my “problems” with Afrikaners. But rest assured, I do not dream up new ways to abuse them. I have wondered in the past if you have a “problem” with Americans. But Then I realized that I really don’t care much one way or another…
Yes there were a couple of extremist groups Wit Wolwe being the ones that were most dangerous though thouroughly penetratd by SAP informers, and the AWB who were in general rather laughable and as insecure as WW.
I was just wondered which individuals were involved in the interview you’d read.
I believe the WW emblem was pictured come to think of it…But it was over decade ago now…
One of the points I tried to get across was that any criminal who had been imprisoned could try for releae if he claimed that he ‘only’ stole, raped or murdered “for the struggle.”
I got your point. I just don’t know what the alternatives are, but it would be a bit silly to let rapists out because they’re acts were “revolutionary.” You might contrast this with some extremist blacks that feel the ANC has not gone far enough…
There has been an increase in violent crime due to two rulings brought in by the ANC, the first being the abolishment of capital punishment and the second restrictions on firearms and their use. This, together with the reorganisation of the SAP into the corrupt SAPS, gave a green light to habitual criminals that their use of lethal force would go lightly punished in the unlikely event of their capture.
Crime has always been a problem there. I think South Africans are amongst the heaviest armed in the world and I’ve heard stories of openly carrying guns around. And I’ve yet to see any study that provides a correlation between lower crime rates and the use of the death penalty as a deterrent. Indeed, some of the most violent states in the US are the ones putting the most people to death. And the US statistically puts less people to death now than ever, yet it’s rates of murder have dropped since the early 1970s…
Oh really ?
Just calling something you don’t agree with “bollocks” or “silly” is hardly an argument, please give your reasons.
Just that any one could summarize that much history by blaming it all on the UK. The argument is that the Rhodesians were living in colonial past that Britain wanted no part of…
What do you mean that it was only democratic for a few,
Minority rule…
and what do you mean by “state terror” ?
Counterinsurgency campaigns with the use of torture, executions, and a military that largely had a free hand to do what it needed…
SOME factual stuff ?
Please be so kind as to inform me which parts of my post were incorrect.
As to “semantics heavily laden with opinion” - I gave a choice of titles for the position which you incorrectly assumed he held, so you can hardly blame me if you don’t like your own choice.
You gave an “opinion.” And how could give me ‘choice titles’ of positions I “incorrectly assumed he held?” He either held positions of power or he didn’t. And you’ve confused me because you claim rightly that he was a “politician,” but then say he was not a “freedom fighter/guerrilla/terrorist” but mention that he had his own terror goon squad answerable only to him, which is a bit of a contradiction. Isn’t it? And he was in command of his forces and ordered terror, or he did not. He was still the leader of ZANLA…
Once again I’d like to hear more about this “state terror” of which you speak.
The above post. I could always link the Amnesty International report, but that would be getting a bit silly at this point…
Unless you kept within a very small group of politicised people throughout the Seventies then there wasn’t that much “international condemnation.”
You mean like the US and UK governments? The UN? Amnesty Int’l?
Due to the Apartheid system in Rhodesia ?
Due to colonial-style minority rule in Rhodesia…
My bold.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the last line, could you explain please ?
I don’t how this is relevant. But suffice to say, Lenin was flexible enough to allow the peasants to hold on to their land and appeared to not really profit personally from his brutal excesses. I don’t think Mugabe could state the same…
I have no idea what you mean. you’ll have to provide examples of my “problems” with Afrikaners. But rest assured, I do not dream up new ways to abuse them. [/quote]
When you mentioned racism or extremist groups you called them “Afrikaners” [sic] when it would be so much more accurate to say whites.
I’ve never had a problem with any nationality, race, creed or colour, I treat everyone as individuals and on a case-by-case basis.
We used to have an odd gentleman here on the site who went by the screen name of ‘IRONMAN.’
He was, and I imagine still is, a complete space cadet who plucked ‘facts’ out of the air as they winged their way through his psychedelic imagination.
He is also American, but I wouldn’t for one moment suggest that all Americans are even fractionally as stupid as he.
Do you have any examples that might give you cause to believe I have a “problem” with Americans ?
I got your point. I just don’t know what the alternatives are, but it would be a bit silly to let rapists out because they’re acts were “revolutionary.” You might contrast this with some extremist blacks that feel the ANC has not gone far enough…[/quote]My bold.
The higher echelons of the ANC may be corrupt, but they’re in no way stupid. They know that for the country to prosper, or at least continue to function, they must ensure that the white-run farms and businesses need to remain as they are. The thinkers in the ANC realise that far-reaching anti-white legislation would be a shot in the foot, both at home and abroad.
My bold.
You are more likely to see people openly carrying firearms on the street, especially military rifles, in Switzerland than South Africa. Besides, in ZA firearms, if worn, must be concealed.
My bold.
I know it’s a different discussion, but might that not be due in part and more recently to the carry laws that the majority of States have implemented ?
Just that any one could summarize that much history by blaming it all on the UK. The argument is that the Rhodesians were living in colonial past that Britain wanted no part of…[/quote]I didn’t mean to summarize the entire history of Rhodesia by blaming it on the UK, perhaps I phrased it incorrectly. The point I was ineptly trying to put across was that the situation in Zimbabwe was not brought about by insurgent military action, but by political manoeuvers primarily within certain sections of the British political scene.
You say that “Rhodesians were living in colonial past that Britain wanted no part of.”
Britain had no part of Rhodesia anyway, as the previously mentioned regeneing on treaties had forced the hand of the Rhodesian government into UDI.
The hand of Communism, both from Moscow and Peking was more prevalent, working via their agents and proxies in an attempt to gain control of southern Africa’s mineral wealth.
Minority rule…[/quote]
Ah yes, democracy. I’m sure it is close to your heart and you would do your utmost to ensure it continues in the United States.
In the same way there are also some very committed Commnists over in Cuba, they believe above all else that Communism is the way forward and would fight to retain it.
But which one of you is correct ? Possibly neither, more likely both, at least to an extent.
You both embrace an ideologies that seem to be ideal for your particular countries, and each has a history of success in your respective countries.
But what about African politics ? It is traditional for black communities to have a headman with whom all the village converse and discuss to address any affairs concening their lives.
The headman take the village decision to the area chief who in turn takes it to the Paramount Chiefs who hold an indaba.
From there any concerns are taken to the legislature, this ensures that matters of even small importance to individuals have the opportunity of being heard at the highest level.
Traditions are important to most people the world over, and not least in sub-Saharan Africa.
What gives the western world the right to impose a ‘european’ (or ‘western’ if you prefer,) system on an African country ?
If imposition of values works in one direction then, in fairness, it works in the other.
So in the spirit of equity you should have no problem with some foreign values being imposed on your own land.
If you truly believe that you may obtrude your principles on another country, would you object to Sharia law being brought into your criminal justice system ?
An object lesson in this was given to me by a woman I have known for many years and for whom I have the utmost respect.
While talking about the then upcoming '94 elections and her thoughts on the new-found ‘freedom,’ she intoned, “Mandela is a dog and Buthelezi is a liar. Voting ? That should be left to whites, we have our ways.”
Another incident concerned a madala to whom I was chatting about ‘The New South Africa’ a couple of years ago. He told me, “Before I could not vote but now I have that freedom. It is not so good, you cannot eat a vote.”
Counterinsurgency campaigns with the use of torture, executions, and a military that largely had a free hand to do what it needed…[/quote]
Why do you say that the military had a free hand to do what it needed ?
Are you against all taking of human life such as legal executions ?
You gave an “opinion.” [/quote]
No, I presented some corroborated facts, although knowing you believe my opinion is the same as fact could be considered flattering.
Do you mean ‘how’ or ‘why’ ?You assumed that he was a “guerrilla commander” and I presented three titles that people give to such depending on their political leanings.
He held the position of leadership of ZANU, and I stated as much.
Not in the slightest. Fifth Bde was formed in 1981, over a year after he had become Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and as such the de facto head of state.
After Five Bdewas formed they were answerable only to the Prime Minister, Mugabe.
As a British cabinet minister said a couple of years ago, “They do things differently in Africa” - as if that excuses ethnic cleansing.
He became the ZANLA leader by default after the loss of Tongogara, but by that time he had little to do as the war was drawing to a close and he had bigger fish to fry in international politics. Actual comd of ZANLA fell to subordinates.
[quote="“Nickdfresh”"]
The above post. I could always link the Amnesty International report, but that would be getting a bit silly at this point…[/quote]
You are completely correct, AI’s report would be silly.
While they have some laudably lofty ideals their definition of torture is often bodering on the ridiculous.
For example, a few years ago they accused the police in Denmark of all places of torture.
It transpired that they had cuffed violent criminals in a manner known as ‘hog-tying,’ where the arrested man has his legs held by his handcuffs.
This is not torture or even a stress position, although it does prevent the individual from fleeing justice.
I’m sure that there were individuals that went over the mark during interrogation of captured
terrs, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule in the same way that the vast majority of US troops in Iraq comport themselves in an honourable manner. There was no ‘free hand’ for state sponsored torture.
Then why did Israel fly a bunch of Jewish Ethiopians out during the 80s famines? Why are a number of Ethiopians Jewish, as they always have been going back to ancient Egypt?
The limited number of negros that were evacuated to Israel were jews only in religious sence. That humanitarian gesture was made out of religious considerations. Besides Israel wasn’t and isn’t a very popular place among ethnical Jews for emigration. The Jews from the compass of the former Soviet Union have preferred to move to well-to-do and safe Europe, especially post-war Germany, USA etc. The jews who already live in Europe and the US are reluctant to move to Israel as well.
I also noticed that you failed to account for the theory of some African American ‘black nationalists’ that much of the very successful Egyptian Empire was at least partially run by black Africans, not Arabs. BTW, I’m not endorsing this theory since it’s largely irrelevant and based on flimsy, self-serving scholarship (much like the studies indicating blacks as dumber than white)…
The Egyptian Empire was run by black Africans at the last stage of its existence.
As a result of it the Egyptian Empire completely degenerated, collapsed and was conquered by non-black nomads.
It is just an example what is to happen to a nation when it is run by black Africans.
NO. I said MILITANT Afrikaners. There’s a big difference there mate. I think you project too much…
And I have indeed also referred them as “whites” and “Euro-Africans” (not sure if that is even a term, but if it is, it would be a term that would strip black-African militant racists like Mugabe - although I’m unsure if he hates whites to any greater extent that he can exploit them politically to enrich himself and to oppress all Zimbabweans) of a lot of their anti-white arguments, since white Afrikaners are NO LESS Africans than are the blacks…
I’ve never had a problem with any nationality, race, creed or colour, I treat everyone as individuals and on a case-by-case basis.
We used to have an odd gentleman here on the site who went by the screen name of ‘IRONMAN.’
He was, and I imagine still is, a complete space cadet who plucked ‘facts’ out of the air as they winged their way through his psychedelic imagination.
He is also American, but I wouldn’t for one moment suggest that all Americans are even fractionally as stupid as he.
Do you have any examples that might give you cause to believe I have a “problem” with Americans ?
Not really, although I have seen some idle speculations around here of “septic” Yank and some have stated that the US had a premeditated plan to strip Britain of her empire post-WWII. (and I am not saying it was you - just making a general comment) I never was offended and saw it as more funny than anything. But whatever. Apparently you infer things in my posts that are not there.
My bold.
The higher echelons of the ANC may be corrupt, but they’re in no way stupid. They know that for the country to prosper, or at least continue to function, they must ensure that the white-run farms and businesses need to remain as they are. The thinkers in the ANC realise that far-reaching anti-white legislation would be a shot in the foot, both at home and abroad.
That’s the impression that I have gotten. That the ANC’s tradition, unlike some others and despite some reprehensible acts of terror they were behind in the War, is a genuine ideal of wanting the best for their nation…
My bold.
You are more likely to see people openly carrying firearms on the street, especially military rifles, in Switzerland than South Africa. Besides, in ZA firearms, if worn, must be concealed.
Perhaps. Same with Israel. But that doesn’t change the fact the SA is one of the most armed countries on earth, and that’s not a criticism since I would surely own a small arsenal myself if I lived there.
My bold.
I know it’s a different discussion, but might that not be due in part and more recently to the carry laws that the majority of States have implemented ?
No. If anything, firearms laws have become more restrictive overall, but not by much.
The drop in crime rate is mostly seen directly correlating to economic factors and the gradual waining of societal upheavals of the 1960s and early 70s, and possibly better, more enlightened law enforcement concepts such as “community policing”…
I didn’t mean to summarize the entire history of Rhodesia by blaming it on the UK, perhaps I phrased it incorrectly. The point I was ineptly trying to put across was that the situation in Zimbabwe was not brought about by insurgent military action, but by political manoeuvers primarily within certain sections of the British political scene.
You say that “Rhodesians were living in colonial past that Britain wanted no part of.”
Britain had no part of Rhodesia anyway, as the previously mentioned regeneing on treaties had forced the hand of the Rhodesian government into UDI.
The hand of Communism, both from Moscow and Peking was more prevalent, working via their agents and proxies in an attempt to gain control of southern Africa’s mineral wealth.
Yes, but the British pretty much detached itself from any official status with Rhodesia after the 1960s I think. Certainly the Cold War, “third world liberation movements,” and the general rise of anti-colonial feeling during the period all contributed. Of course ZALA and the other group were armed by various members of the communist bloc, although a lot of individual countries adhering to world wide revolution were themselves just neo-imperialists competing against each other. But of course, there is another view, that if the leaders of Rhodesia had engaged in a more moderate course of pluralistic politics and engaged “the hearts and minds” earlier, they would have avoided the politics of extreme discontent that the Soviets and Chinese were able to exploit rather adeptly, although one can say even they f—ed up what advantages they often had.
The question begs: would Mugabe and the other tyrants that road to power on the back of black nationalist ‘third world liberation’ even exist if Rhodesia had liberalized itself with reforms much earlier? I don’t think we can say one way or another. But the assumption that letting blacks govern their nations would lead to a complete breakdown and failed states was as much a self-fulfilling prophecy caused by some Whites trying to maintain a two-color state as it was in any way inevitable…
I know the Rhodesian Army was quit effective and was never defeated on the battlefield, but the US can say the same in Vietnam…
Ah yes, democracy. I’m sure it is close to your heart and you would do your utmost to ensure it continues in the United States.
In the same way there are also some very committed Commnists over in Cuba, they believe above all else that Communism is the way forward and would fight to retain it.
But which one of you is correct ? Possibly neither, more likely both, at least to an extent.
You both embrace an ideologies that seem to be ideal for your particular countries, and each has a history of success in your respective countries.
Well, I guess there are worse things than democracy. And as for Fidel- well, before communism, Cuba’s way was to be run by despotic and corrupt military dictatorships. Because they were run by Batista in conjunction with organized crime - does that make that an inherent Cuban value? Casinos, rich Americans vacationing, etc are not necessarily Cuban values. You have to go back to the Spanish imperial occupation to get an actual feel for Cuban culture, but the Cubans that have emigrated to the US after the revolution do not seem to be inherently fascist (well, we could argue I suppose…:)) and have adeptly influenced the political system to their often short sighted ends. Apparently being run by strongmen is a value, but then, it has been said that Castro was never really ideologically a complete adherent to the ideology of Marxism, but is just used it as reflection of his megalomania after being a bit spurned by the Eisenhower Admin and then simply gave himself, and Cuba, over to the Soviet bloc. Castro’s done quit well personally from the deal it is said. There were many Cuban socialists and liberals in the Revolution that objected to this…But Castro is himself a product of colonialism, not of the reform of it…
But what about African politics ? It is traditional for black communities to have a headman with whom all the village converse and discuss to address any affairs concening their lives.
The headman take the village decision to the area chief who in turn takes it to the Paramount Chiefs who hold an indaba.
From there any concerns are taken to the legislature, this ensures that matters of even small importance to individuals have the opportunity of being heard at the highest level.
Traditions are important to most people the world over, and not least in sub-Saharan Africa.
Not ALL black African societies work this way. Indeed there are cultural differences indemic to each tribe. Some tribes for instance are maternal, where women are dominant, etc. That seems to be a bit of a blanket statement. In any case, the black Africans have had over century of Euro-political models in which an emperor, king, queen presided over a feudal system of the royally titled. Does that mean white culture is immune to populist democratic concerns? A gradual system of reform in conjunction with economic realities have devolved power into a democratic ideal that varies according to cultural model.
What gives the western world the right to impose a ‘european’ (or ‘western’ if you prefer,) system on an African country ?
If imposition of values works in one direction then, in fairness, it works in the other.
So in the spirit of equity you should have no problem with some foreign values being imposed on your own land.
If you truly believe that you may obtrude your principles on another country, would you object to Sharia law being brought into your criminal justice system ?
I thought most of the white Rhodesians in effect thought of themselves as a European nation transplanted to Africa?
Yeah, well, you cannot eat or vote in Mugabe’s fascist gangster state either. Well, I suppose you can vote, as long as it’s for Mugabe. I think South Africans are eating, and reforms are gradual. The right to vote does not necessarily translate into flowers growing everywhere and the smell of incense permeating the air.
Would the Irish complain about their political system today? Is there an Irish movement to return to the crown? Do Irish-Protestants living in Dublin view themselves as anything other than Irish today? No, not really. And yes, people are bitter when they have to give up something. But sometimes you have to grow up, and realize that sacrifice to the greater good is what makes civilization possible, not just rubber hoses, tear gas, and live ammunition being fired into civilian housing areas…
Why do you say that the military had a free hand to do what it needed ?
Oh sorry, my bad. The Rhodesian Army pranced around throwing flowers with the preeminent concern for human rights and dignity… That’s what nasty counterinsurgencies are all about.
I mean, there was virtually no real restricitions on what their special operations troops could do. I suppose internment, torture, secret executions, no autonomous oversight, etc. - don’t count as having a free hand under a “state of emergency?” I’m sure some Rhodesian soldiers were arrested for some excesses. But I doubt it was very many. And the state of emergency did indeed give a free hand to those in the fighting. And Rhodesian intelligence was not exactly noted for its concern with blacks cooperating with the insurgents…
Are you against all taking of human life such as legal executions ?
You mean like the “legal” ones Hitler or Stalin performed? No, I’m not big on the death penalty, but I’m not exactly marching against it either. But putting that aside, there was very clearly a duel judicial system used to treat “terrorist” suspects differently than a white criminal, was there not?
No, I presented some corroborated facts, although knowing you believe my opinion is the same as fact could be considered flattering.
You presented an emotional, partisan opinion. No different than some black nationalists calling the leaders of Rhodesia “white colonial overlords” in an attempt to dismiss one’s enemy in every way possible, even to the point of contridiction. Mugabe is easy to dismiss, and I’m aware he was no “guerilla” warrior of note, but he was in command of a politcal-military movement, one that used terrorism as a tactic. Your pointing to the “letter of the law” whilst forgetting the “spirit” of it…
Do you mean ‘how’ or ‘why’ ?You assumed that he was a “guerrilla commander” and I presented three titles that people give to such depending on their political leanings.
He held the position of leadership of ZANU, and I stated as much.
Well, what was his command of “his ‘elite’ maShona 5 Bde?” Did he "command guerrillas or not?! Did he use “terrorist” methods or not. You indeed said that he’s “not (a) terrorist.” Mate, your fumbling all over your semantic definitions here, and I find it a tad insulting. But whatever, you’ll you continue to act as I’ve offended you then throw out these easily dismissible red herrings. Whatever. But you can’t just attempt to dismiss him as an oafish corrupt politician and then indite him as a vicious brute in command of paramilitary and terror organs. It’s a silly contradiction. How could he have committed policies such as “conducting COIN” operations against the forces of his rivals if he wasn’t a “guerrilla commander?” Then was he an army commander?
Not in the slightest. Fifth Bde was formed in 1981, over a year after he had become Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and as such the de facto head of state.
So what did he do during the War? Wait for everyone to fight it out and then swoop in and take power? That seems a bit unlikely. But fine, we’ll agree to disagree. He was an army commander then since the 5th BDE is an army formation.
After Five Bdewas formed they were answerable only to the Prime Minister, Mugabe.
As a British cabinet minister said a couple of years ago, “They do things differently in Africa” - as if that excuses ethnic cleansing.
So he’s still not a “terrorist” then?
He became the ZANLA leader by default after the loss of Tongogara, but by that time he had little to do as the war was drawing to a close and he had bigger fish to fry in international politics. Actual comd of ZANLA fell to subordinates.
Again, you’re just oversimplifying things on a mission to completely discredit Uncle Bob from both sides of the argument. He is a terrorist and was a leader of guerrillas. Unfortunately the freedom fighter thing was a casualty of actions. Why don’t you leave the politicised discrediting to him, he’s much better at it than you are, mate.
You are completely correct, AI’s report would be silly.
While they have some laudably lofty ideals their definition of torture is often bodering on the ridiculous.
Yeah, screw human rights!
For example, a few years ago they accused the police in Denmark of all places of torture.
It transpired that they had cuffed violent criminals in a manner known as ‘hog-tying,’ where the arrested man has his legs held by his handcuffs.
This is not torture or even a stress position, although it does prevent the individual from fleeing justice.
Um, that looks quite painful actually…What it specifically has to do with argument I know not. But being hog tied can be quite painful. I’ve been! If someone is left long enough in that position, they would certain feel great pain.
That’s like saying throwing someone out in the cold isn’t really torture. Stand naked in the cold enough, and you’ll disagree…
Good luck with the anti-Amnesty International campaign though!
I’m sure that there were individuals that went over the mark during interrogation of captured
terrs, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule in the same way that the vast majority of US troops in Iraq comport themselves in an honourable manner. There was no ‘free hand’ for state sponsored torture.
I’m not arguing they do. But those that have committed rapes, extra-judicial killings, and in some putrid cases that do go far enough on the chain of command - torture, whether it was the result of some uneducated Reserve troops from West Virginia; or part of a greater misuse of a plan to target Islamic insurgents that was grossly misapplied (and a few lower enlisted people used as scapegoats) is an open question and part of another discussion…
In any case, I do not support the occupation of Iraq partly because of the above and for our support for the Shiite gov’t, which uses these methods to a great extent. And to think of what we said about Saddam’s torture chambers. But again that’s another discussion…
You have no idea what you are talking about. You really should stick to the Ukranian stuff where you have a vestige of credibility left…
You failed to answer why some “Negroid” Ethiopians are Jewish, which was the cusp of my point. The flight of “Negroes” to Israel was just a fact…
And immigration to Israel has exploded…
The Egyptian Empire was run by black Africans at the last stage of its existence.
As a result of it the Egyptian Empire completely degenerated, collapsed and was conquered by non-black nomads.
It is just an example what is to happen to a nation when it is run by black Africans.
I’m not even going to bother… :rolleyes: I think RS already has stated why this point is such utter crap…
NO. I said MILITANT Afrikaners. There’s a big difference there mate. I think you project too much…[/quote]
Calm down. I had noticed it a couple of times and was unsure as to why you mentioned Afrikaaners in preference to the other white groups in South Africa.
My bold.
My bold.
True, and refreshing to see it noted.
Not really, although I have seen some idle speculations around here of “septic” Yank and some have stated that the US had a premeditated plan to strip Britain of her empire post-WWII. (and I am not saying it was you - just making a general comment) I never was offended and saw it as more funny than anything. But whatever. Apparently you infer things in my posts that are not there. [/quote]
I don’t believe I inferred anything that wasn’t there when I asked if you had any examples that might give you cause to believe I had a “problem” with Americans, after, in post 112 of this thread, I had read:
That’s the impression that I have gotten. That the ANC’s tradition, unlike some others and despite some reprehensible acts of terror they were behind in the War, is a genuine ideal of wanting the best for their nation…[/quote]Yes, there are very many ANC members who really do want the country to move forward as one, most notably Tutu who seems truly to be a man of peace now, but unfortunately there are also a large number that just want to feather their own personal nest.
This shouldn’t necessarily be seen as corruption, as in the tradition of many Southern African peoples one looks after one’s family, village and tribe, in that order.
Perhaps. Same with Israel. But that doesn’t change the fact the SA is one of the most armed countries on earth, and that’s not a criticism since I would surely own a small arsenal myself if I lived there.[/quote]
I can understand the Israelis having a high percentage of citizens that own or carry firearms, but Switzerland hardly faces a similar level of terrorism and/or violent crime as does Israel or ZA.
I can understand you wishing to own firearms if you lived in South Africa and it is indeed possible, but anyone applying for a licence these days had better be prepared for a lot of bureaucracy and a long wait.
However, ownership per capita is considerably less than a number of european countries.
No. If anything, firearms laws have become more restrictive overall, but not by much. [/quote] Really ? That surprises me considering the availbility of CCW permits, but you live and learn.
Actually it was the other way round, Rhodesia detatched herself from Britain by declaring independence on the eleventh of November 1965, causing Wilson to spit the dummy despite being the cause of it.
The British (Labour) government tried to re-assert it’s influence over Rhodesia just after UDI and again following the '74 election.
Ultimately it was American politicians and ‘celebrities’ that undermined the efforts of the individual grunt on the ground, a slap in the face to those risking their lives.
Plus ça change…
No doubt about it.
Not ALL black African societies work this way. Indeed there are cultural differences indemic to each tribe. Some tribes for instance are maternal, where women are dominant, etc. That seems to be a bit of a blanket statement.[/quote]
My apologies, as we had been speaking of southern Africa in general and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and ZA in particular I erroneously thought you would realise I hadn’t changed the location. I shall endeavour to make this clearer in future posts.
Not in the least, as modern society proves.
Conversely, many Southern African black tribes have an abhorrence of losing any of their traditions, something they perceive to be what makes them the people they are.
This is probably most perceptible in the not unfounded trust and belief in the sangomas* and their muti, even amongst the well-educated.
(*‘Witch doctors’ for want of a better word.)
None of those I know. Indeed those who have moved to other continents still consider themselves displaced Africans.
There are of course some people that moved there and felt themselves to be ex-pats, but then they had a strong feeling for the land of their birth.
You failed to answer why some “Negroid” Ethiopians are Jewish, which was the cusp of my point. The flight of “Negroes” to Israel was just a fact…
Because Ethiopians converted to Judaism when Jews had influence in Ethiopia in ancient times just as other Negros were converted to Christianity in the XIX century
There were many Cuban socialists and liberals in the Revolution that objected to this…But Castro is himself a product of colonialism, not of the reform of it…
)