Re: MANDELA DEAD : Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:50 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Are you suggesting I am a racist? if so come out have the courage of your convictions and say so - if not I suggest you clarify exactly what you are inferring...

I'm not sure: I suspect not.

But your posts on this suggest that you are falling into an old trap played by racists.

The trap is to talk of Africa as a whole in terms of violence and genocide – the 'argument' doesn't mention any other continents, as though no other continent has seen such things; as though genocide and civil war and corruption etc are unique to Africa and are the whole and only picture. And the 'argument' cites the current situation in South Africa itself as making it questionable as to whether things were not actually better under apartheid: ie when those blacks were all kept in their place and before they had democracy.

Now you might not think that's what you're meaning, and it's most certainly not a sort of comment that's unique to you, but that's most certainly what is implied by it.

Sal Paradise wrote:

On SA I have suggested what could have been done by showing examples of how peaceful protest has exacted regime change in countries - outside of Africa - where the populous was treated every bit as bad if not worse than the blacks in SA, so I have answered your question - the fact it doesn't suit your argument isn't my issue - it seems your difficulty with reading/comprehension continues...

No. You haven't. You have – as you say – given other historic examples. But what makes you believe that those can be applied to South Africa? Peaceful protest had been tried. It made not a jot of difference. It was schoolchildren protesting peacefully that were murdered by the South African regime. So why do you persist in claiming that it would have worked? When would it have worked?

Sal Paradise wrote:

Where did I ever suggest living conditions were similar to apartheid?

Where did anyone mention "living conditions". I mentioned "the current situation". That is not a synonym for "living conditions".

Sal Paradise wrote:

... What I asked was have things improved - the same could be argued of Eastern Europe since the dismantling of communism. You need to read what things actually say not what you want it to say...

See above. And the point is spurious, since whatever else one says about communism, it was not a system that aimed to keep the majority of the population oppressed, economically, legally and politically, while the minority could enjoy the results and all the rights.

However, it seems that you're questioning whether getting rid of an undemocratic, brutal, murderous regime was a good thing? The situation now in South Africa is far from perfect, but what do you imagine is so, so awful, by comparison with the past, that the question can even be asked with a straight face as to whether things are better than under apartheid, a system that disbarred the majority of the population from full participation in the economic and political life of the nation?

Are you suggesting that democracy itself is a bad thing? It might be useful for you to define democracy in that case and explain why it's not really a good thing for everyone.

Sal Paradise wrote:

It is a pity your constant asking for questions to be answered isn't mirrored by your own behaviour - you seldom ever answer questions. Your pronouncements from a perceived on high illustrate your weakness in debate - it would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. For one of the management of the site you set very poor standards of protocol of how debates should be chaired and monitored.

Get over yourself. I answer questions all the time. It's not my fault if you cannot understand that.

Re: MANDELA DEAD : Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:48 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I'm not sure: I suspect not.

But your posts on this suggest that you are falling into an old trap played by racists.

The trap is to talk of Africa as a whole in terms of violence and genocide – the 'argument' doesn't mention any other continents, as though no other continent has seen such things; as though genocide and civil war and corruption etc are unique to Africa and are the whole and only picture. And the 'argument' cites the current situation in South Africa itself as making it questionable as to whether things were not actually better under apartheid: ie when those blacks were all kept in their place and before they had democracy.

Now you might not think that's what you're meaning, and it's most certainly not a sort of comment that's unique to you, but that's most certainly what is implied by it.

No. You haven't. You have – as you say – given other historic examples. But what makes you believe that those can be applied to South Africa? Peaceful protest had been tried. It made not a jot of difference. It was schoolchildren protesting peacefully that were murdered by the South African regime. So why do you persist in claiming that it would have worked? When would it have worked?

Where did anyone mention "living conditions". I mentioned "the current situation". That is not a synonym for "living conditions".

See above. And the point is spurious, since whatever else one says about communism, it was not a system that aimed to keep the majority of the population oppressed, economically, legally and politically, while the minority could enjoy the results and all the rights.

However, it seems that you're questioning whether getting rid of an undemocratic, brutal, murderous regime was a good thing? The situation now in South Africa is far from perfect, but what do you imagine is so, so awful, by comparison with the past, that the question can even be asked with a straight face as to whether things are better than under apartheid, a system that disbarred the majority of the population from full participation in the economic and political life of the nation?

Are you suggesting that democracy itself is a bad thing? It might be useful for you to define democracy in that case and explain why it's not really a good thing for everyone.

Get over yourself. I answer questions all the time. It's not my fault if you cannot understand that.

Unlike you I don't need to get over myself, I don't feel rush from being a keyboard despot!!

Now just answer the original question I posed!!

You fall into the trap that many do especially the chattering classes on here - anyone who dares to question the behaviour of non whites must be a racist - making certain topics off limits, cleaning discussion that you find unpalatable. It comes back to my point about your inability to chair a thread to any sensible degree.

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between dictatorship and how dissenters are controlled e.g. South America/Russia/Cambodia and out and out wanton violence/genocide for the smell of the blood such as Rwanda. If you did understand the difference you would not be comparing them as they are chalk and cheese.

The power of the majority will usually win out - sheer weight of numbers is a difficult force to restrain. Did violence actually force change? No it didn't, apartheid remained in place 30 years after Mandela was arrested. International political will, boycotts and isolation did in the end so my point was proved - change can be effected without violence.

Under communism that is exactly what happened a very few enjoyed the riches - the political leaders - whilst most really struggled to survive on virtually subsistence rations. Why - outside of Cuba and N Korea - has communism virtually disappeared?

I ask the question about SA because I was there two years ago - beautiful country, great wine - but it is difficult to imagine the streets in the cities being more dangerous under apartheid than they are now. This situation can only get worse as tribal tensions continue to heat up.

Re: MANDELA DEAD : Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:00 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

- anyone who dares to question the behaviour of non whites must be a racist

Yes it does because you are taking a racial group and making an assumption about the whole racial group.

That doesn't just suggest you are a racist, it suggests you are stupid as well

Re: MANDELA DEAD : Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:26 am  

cod'ead wrote:

That doesn't just suggest you are a racist, it suggests you are stupid as well

If you're ruling out the first point "that doesn't suggest", how can there be a second point, or an "as well"?


Why do you constantly feel the need to belittle, name call or refer to people as stupid? Thing is, you mirror the behaviour of the very type of people you despise. Consider that Cod'ead.

Re: MANDELA DEAD : Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:29 am  

The only things I'd criticise Mandela for were allowing the ANC-non-ANC split amongst black south africans to become so damaging, and perhaps doing more to reign in the power of the Presidents and governments that succeeded him. But given that the actions of Zuma et al are actually thier repsonsibility not Mandela's I can't see those as his failings as much as theirs. After all, it should be remembered that he was an old man with no actual experience of governing when he became President.

I don't blame him for taking up arms at all. TBH were I in the same position as he was, I'd hope to have had the bottle to do the same, but suspect not.

In any event, the truly important thing Mandela did was after he left prison. His own personal forgiveness (at least publicly) basically neutered any attempts from either side to create a civil war scale conflict. Its easy to forget that haters from both sides of the race divide would quite happily have seen a bloodbath occur. That Mandela prevented it, and gave an example to the world of how a democratic transfer of power can occur under such circumstances is easily the greatest act of leadership I've seen in my lifetime.

Re: MANDELA DEAD : Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:40 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

If you're ruling out the first point "that doesn't suggest", how can there be a second point, or an "as well"?


Why do you constantly feel the need to belittle, name call or refer to people as stupid? Thing is, you mirror the behaviour of the very type of people you despise. Consider that Cod'ead.

Did you deliberately fail to read the word "just"?

I caled him stupid because his comment was simply errrrrmmmmmmm stupid

I rest my case m'lud

Re: MANDELA DEAD : Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:16 am  

For anyone who may have missed it, may I suggest watching John Pilger's excellent documentary Utopia on ITV player. The Australian reporter goes back to his homeland to document the continuin plight of the First Australians. Even now, some of the attitudes and actions towards the Aborigine bear more than a passing resemblance to apartheid South Africa Dons tin hat and awaits incoming from our Antipodean contributors

For anyone who may have missed it, may I suggest watching John Pilger's excellent documentary Utopia on ITV player. The Australian reporter goes back to his homeland to document the continuin plight of the First Australians. Even now, some of the attitudes and actions towards the Aborigine bear more than a passing resemblance to apartheid South Africa Dons tin hat and awaits incoming from our Antipodean contributors

Re: MANDELA DEAD : Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:41 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Unlike you I don't need to get over myself, I don't feel rush from being a keyboard despot!!

Indeed. In "The Real World" you just claim that, err, homecare workers have expense accounts etc and that anyone who disagrees with me is banished from the forums. Oh, but you're still here. Now how did that happen? Could it be paranoid waffle on your part?

Sal Paradise wrote:

Now just answer the original question I posed!!

What "original question"? You came on, backing up Rumples, and claiming that it was "an interesting question" about "tribal violence" in Africa. You didn't pose any question about it.

Sal Paradise wrote:

You fall into the trap that many do especially the chattering classes on here - anyone who dares to question the behaviour of non whites must be a racist - making certain topics off limits, cleaning discussion that you find unpalatable. It comes back to my point about your inability to chair a thread to any sensible degree...

Really, you should learn to read. If someone is going to start a 'the rest of Africa is so bad, therefore ...' theme, then the same theme could be applied to any other continent.

However, the same people who posit that argument seem remarkably reluctant to do that.

Nobody has said that the topic is "off limits". Personally, I have responded – quite clearly – in pointing out that, if someone is going to start with the 'Africa is just so violent' type of argument, then the same can be applied to any other continent.

Nobody – yourself included – has been able to rebut that. Yet you persist in pretending that one continent can be seen in isolation, when the worst behaviour is not worse than behaviours and actions that have been seen historically in all other continents, and not that long ago.

The genocide of Rwanda was horrific. But was it somehow worse than the Holocaust? Or what happened in Cambodia? In those situations, tribalism was not the cause, was it? So is tribalism the problem – or something else?

And if the Holocaust was so bad, would that mean that those countries where it took place and where citizens participated in it should be subsequently denied democracy and equality etc?

If not, then what different conditions are you applying to Africa and to African nations, and why?

And I'm not 'chairing a thread', FFS.

Sal Paradise wrote:

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between dictatorship and how dissenters are controlled e.g. South America/Russia/Cambodia and out and out wanton violence/genocide for the smell of the blood such as Rwanda. If you did understand the difference you would not be comparing them as they are chalk and cheese.

And you seem to be misunderstanding that I did not raise that comparison – other people did and you have picked up on elements of the same 'argument' ('he raises an interesting question').

Sal Paradise wrote:

The power of the majority will usually win out - sheer weight of numbers is a difficult force to restrain...

Ah. So they should have just waited patiently, let the state murders continue and just bred away. Okay, got you now.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Did violence actually force change?...

I haven't said it did. I have said that the armed struggle contributed to the eventual change, along with other things.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Under communism that is exactly what happened a very few enjoyed the riches - the political leaders - whilst most really struggled to survive on virtually subsistence rations. Why - outside of Cuba and N Korea - has communism virtually disappeared?

Ask the Chinese.

Sal Paradise wrote:

I ask the question about SA because I was there two years ago - beautiful country, great wine - but it is difficult to imagine the streets in the cities being more dangerous under apartheid than they are now. This situation can only get worse as tribal tensions continue to heat up.

I am aware of the state of the country. I have family living there – who have lived there since the 1960s.

As I mentioned earlier, I have done things myself such as travel in combis – entirely safely (and my mother in law has done the same for years) – though the reactions of her neighbours and friends is one of shock and a conviction that she (I) will be murdered brutally and probably raped as well. This in spite of their knowing nobody that such a thing has happened to.

Jo'burg is a mess and I wouldn't visit, personally, unless I was going to be going around with contacts. But there are parts of London I wouldn't toddle around on my own either.

There are serious issues of crime. There are also still serious economic issues. Much progress has been halted because of the edicts and demands of the unelected, unaccountable World Bank, IMF etc (a story repeated across the developing world: 'Oh no – you can't let poor people have free water: it has to be privatised so someone can make money from it' is a snapshot of a situation that occurs all over the place). In the first years after the end of apartheid, housing programmes were a key component of government policy, but as subsequent governments took office they fell more and more into abiding by the demands of neo-liberalism (World Bank, IMF etc).

So I repeat: the idea that the current situation is so, so bad that the question can be asked as to whether the end of apartheid was such a good thing leaves an impression of not considering it as necessary that democracy, equality and equality of opportunity should be for all if you are going to build a healthy society.

Re: MANDELA DEAD : Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:47 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Did you deliberately fail to read the word "just"?

I caled him stupid because his comment was simply errrrrmmmmmmm stupid

I rest my case m'lud

No I missed it... whilst reading it on a bus. No doubt that makes me "stupid"

You really are a truly fascinating human being. The level of arrogance, the belittling of others, the need to call people names, the need to correct people's spelling, despite not noticing his own, the need to continually say how "stupid" others are, compared to yourself.

Yet why? Because they say something you don't like? Have a different opinion to you? Have a different political opinion to you?

Your behaviour is exactly the same as the fascist bully boys you despise, yet you can't recognise that. So you behave like others who you call stupid. I love the irony in that.

I share several of your opinions, political or otherwise. So maybe I am stupid after all.

Though I'm not some northern monkey, who left the North because it was that good, a champagne (or peri in your case) socialist who is a nobody, or someone who was told by his mum or father how stupid he was on many occasions growing up. See, anyone can chuck shıt around. It just makes one look stupid.

Re: MANDELA DEAD : Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:51 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

No I missed it... whilst reading it on a bus. No doubt that makes me "stupid"

You really are a truly fascinating human being. The level of arrogance, the belittling of others, the need to call people names, the need to correct people's spelling, despite not noticing his own, the need to continually say how "stupid" others are, compared to yourself.

Yet why? Because they say something you don't like? Have a different opinion to you? Have a different political opinion to you?

Your behaviour is exactly the same as the fascist bully boys you despise, yet you can't recognise that. So you behave like others who you call stupid. I love the irony in that.

I share several of your opinions, political or otherwise. So maybe I am stupid after all.

Though I'm not some northern monkey, who left the North because it was that good, a champagne (or peri in your case) socialist who is a nobody, or someone who was told by his mum or father how stupid he was on many occasions growing up. See, anyone can chuck shıt around. It just makes one look stupid.

Congratulations.

Anything to add to the debate?