if that was true then they wouldn't lose their shit at black dominated towns or the great migration
there was an explicit desire to keep these people down, not just segregate them out of society; if someone was successful despite it or tried to move away then they would be targeted
>If the non-white people were in charge of things, South Africa would be a total shithole
It actually was a shithole during Apartheid as well. Many whites basically had to operate with the blinders or be in very laughboe extreme denial to ignore the fact that SA was an unstable state in conflict. Many families had dead sons and father's in the wars SA was in up north and those names were shown at night before broadcast was finished for the night. Some families lost multiple ken to the war.
Jews were actually one of biggest supporters of both for and against Apartheid. The issue is that like the other non-Afrikaans speaking white groups that had most members who supported or benefitted from Apartheid, they got memory holed hard. Said memory holing is something you'll notice in the white African communities.
>We operate best when seperate and in their own lane.
But the reality was whites basically taking all the resources for themselves and keeping the other groups as a permanent labour underclass to prop up their industries.
The vast majority of the SA blacks were descendant of people who immigrated because the whites had built a prosperous civilization. How were they entitled to rule over the whites? If the issue was land, they had the rest of Bantu Africa to go to.
I don't know exactly how justly the system worked in practice but surely it wasn't wrong in principle.
Now look at South Africa. The country is falling apart. Everyone, blacks included except for a small elite, is worse off economically, crime is rampant, etc.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Now look at South Africa. The country is falling apart. Everyone, blacks included except for a small elite, is worse off economically, crime is rampant, etc.
Crime, racial riots and poverty were also rampant under apartheid, not to mention that it was an unsustainable powder keg; you can't just be a small racial minority who rules over a disaffected majority and not expect the system to collapse in some way.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>racial riots
you mean those organized by commies
My point is that if SA is worse off now that under apartheid, then maybe it existed for a reason.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you mean those organized by commies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_riots
2 years ago
Anonymous
So blacks kill indians and somehow it's the fault of whites.
And communism was encouraging blacks to be violent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And communism was encouraging blacks to be violent.
These blacks were Zulu nationalists
2 years ago
Anonymous
>How were they entitled to rule over the whites?
Because they were there first, they are the majority, and the government displaced them from their original land.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Khoisan were there first, and they were nomadic. The Zulu were literally imperialist invaders, but no one cares because they're black
2 years ago
Anonymous
When whites came, the region was sparsely populated, and by bushmen rather than bantus (these are completely different peoples). Most bantus came later, to get jobs from whites.
Same as the US I guess.
Which is?
I don't want to even think about them, put them in their own part of town the hell away from me so I don't have to see them
This
Yet full segregation was never really tenable socially or economically
if that was true then they wouldn't lose their shit at black dominated towns or the great migration
there was an explicit desire to keep these people down, not just segregate them out of society; if someone was successful despite it or tried to move away then they would be targeted
>just don't loik em simple as
>If the non-white people were in charge of things, South Africa would be a total shithole
It actually was a shithole during Apartheid as well. Many whites basically had to operate with the blinders or be in very laughboe extreme denial to ignore the fact that SA was an unstable state in conflict. Many families had dead sons and father's in the wars SA was in up north and those names were shown at night before broadcast was finished for the night. Some families lost multiple ken to the war.
The people understood that it was not their fault Cuba of all places decided to invade Angola.
Agreed, they should have just repatriated all the blacks to neighboring countries instead.
>Because they were there first
The bantus genocided the actual natives.
same justification as Israel.
Jews were very strong supporters of apartheid in south africa
I don't feel sorry for Palestinians
It's been 70 years, get over it already
Jews were actually one of biggest supporters of both for and against Apartheid. The issue is that like the other non-Afrikaans speaking white groups that had most members who supported or benefitted from Apartheid, they got memory holed hard. Said memory holing is something you'll notice in the white African communities.
Which israelites were pro-apartheid?
Mostly Israelis, not South African israelites.
Like?
>We operate best when seperate and in their own lane.
But the reality was whites basically taking all the resources for themselves and keeping the other groups as a permanent labour underclass to prop up their industries.
'Separate development.'
What's the problem with that exactly?
It was obviously bullshit.
How?
The vast majority of the SA blacks were descendant of people who immigrated because the whites had built a prosperous civilization. How were they entitled to rule over the whites? If the issue was land, they had the rest of Bantu Africa to go to.
I don't know exactly how justly the system worked in practice but surely it wasn't wrong in principle.
Now look at South Africa. The country is falling apart. Everyone, blacks included except for a small elite, is worse off economically, crime is rampant, etc.
>Now look at South Africa. The country is falling apart. Everyone, blacks included except for a small elite, is worse off economically, crime is rampant, etc.
Crime, racial riots and poverty were also rampant under apartheid, not to mention that it was an unsustainable powder keg; you can't just be a small racial minority who rules over a disaffected majority and not expect the system to collapse in some way.
>racial riots
you mean those organized by commies
My point is that if SA is worse off now that under apartheid, then maybe it existed for a reason.
>you mean those organized by commies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_riots
So blacks kill indians and somehow it's the fault of whites.
And communism was encouraging blacks to be violent.
>And communism was encouraging blacks to be violent.
These blacks were Zulu nationalists
>How were they entitled to rule over the whites?
Because they were there first, they are the majority, and the government displaced them from their original land.
Khoisan were there first, and they were nomadic. The Zulu were literally imperialist invaders, but no one cares because they're black
When whites came, the region was sparsely populated, and by bushmen rather than bantus (these are completely different peoples). Most bantus came later, to get jobs from whites.
Racism
Blacks are stupid and violent and the people who actually build and maintain the civilization need to be protected from them.