Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Why Apartheid?

  1. #11
    Moderator
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Stormraaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    960
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    51
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ouma View Post
    The British killed thousands of women and children, in order for them to stop them expanding the nation. This is the reason why SA whites is in the minority today.
    Those thousands were indeed a significant proportion of the Boer population back then. Fifty percent of all Boer children had died in those camps.

    It was very deliberate as well, judging from Kitchener's quote:
    flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organized like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children.... It was the clearance of civilians—uprooting a whole nation—that would come to dominate the last phase of the war.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 11:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,919
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    I think the example of South Africa needs to be used alot more by nationalists today, as an example of a society where racial policies were enforced, but where there weren't any gas chambers or ovens. The argument that the left often makes is that racial policies inevitably equals holocaust by making insinuations or flat out accusations which goes something like this: "in nazi Germany it started off small by introducing meassures like the ones you are suggesting now, and with time this escalated into the horrors of the holocaust" and then they name drop KZ camps in the hopes of evoking the pre-programmed emotions of people.

    By using the example of South Africa, and also the American South, we can hopefully get away, to some degree at least, from discussing the third reich.

    Apartheid and segregation were flawed systems because they could not be expected to be upheld indefinately, but what we want to see here in Europe is ethnically "homogenous" countries, just like we had up until 50 years ago or so, where there is no need for segregation since there is only one racial element present.

    The leftists' equation is simply wrong, and history proves them wrong, but the average person must be made to understand this. We need to get them to admit that yes, introducing racial policies does not pave the way for gas chambers and 6 million jews, even if our sworn political enemies (always truthful and objective and never biased or partisan) say so.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Ragnar Lodbrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 1st, 2011 @ 01:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Irish
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Occupation
    freelance writer/college student
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Religion
    Odinism
    Posts
    381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rozenstorm View Post
    It's funny though how the moral crusade against Apartheid in S-Africa (even though blacks had a bigger life-standard in S-Africa than in ANY other black country) was so large and enduring resulting in various boycots and sabotage while Israel does the same with walls and terror and nobody talks about that.

    Sad to see...
    I really don't approve of Apartheid anywhere, be it institutional racism and racial domination laws inflicted by either SA Dutchmen or British, SA Communists or Isreali Zionists. The Isreal-Firsters and Jewish Supremacists being the reason why I boycott hollywood films and levi jeans. To be honest about the sitution in South Africa from what I've heard about it though, I think if I was a young white South African that I would be applying for either an Australian or USA passport. South Africa is unconquered and unsettled land anyway, if I moved to Australia I'd largely be amongst my own people and where I belong.

  4. #14
    Moderator
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Stormraaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    960
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    51
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuana_of_Persia View Post
    I really don't approve of Apartheid anywhere, be it institutional racism and racial domination laws inflicted by either SA Dutchmen or British, SA Communists or Isreali Zionists.
    I notice you have your politics defined as "white separatist" on your profile. You're aware, of course, that apartheid is Afrikaans for separatism. I won't blame you for disapproving of a particular implementation thereof, but being generally opposed to the idea while calling yourself a separatist is simply contradictive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuana_of_Persia View Post
    South Africa is unconquered and unsettled land anyway, [...]
    That's not a very informed opinion. The Dutch settled without much resistance, and when Boers needed to fight the "native" population for their safety and their land, they generally succeeded, only to succumb to another European power later on. Under colonial and Boer rule, all of our arable land was developed for agriculture, keeping in mind that SA is a comparatively arid country. The problem isn't one of inadequate conquest or settlement, but of an unchecked bantu population increase and unrestrained invasion into historically European settlements.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Ragnar Lodbrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 1st, 2011 @ 01:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Irish
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Occupation
    freelance writer/college student
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Religion
    Odinism
    Posts
    381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormraaf View Post
    I notice you have your politics defined as "white separatist" on your profile. You're aware, of course, that apartheid is Afrikaans for separatism. I won't blame you for disapproving of a particular implementation thereof, but being generally opposed to the idea while calling yourself a separatist is simply contradictive.


    That's not a very informed opinion. The Dutch settled without much resistance, and when Boers needed to fight the "native" population for their safety and their land, they generally succeeded, only to succumb to another European power later on. Under colonial and Boer rule, all of our arable land was developed for agriculture, keeping in mind that SA is a comparatively arid country. The problem isn't one of inadequate conquest or settlement, but of an unchecked bantu population increase and unrestrained invasion into historically European settlements.
    I know that it sounds contradictive but I mean it as racial separatism as opposed to racial supremacy. A nation and race shouldn't be integrated into another or dominated or subjected by that other nation or race.

  6. #16
    Moderator
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Stormraaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    960
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    51
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuana_of_Persia View Post
    I know that it sounds contradictive but I mean it as racial separatism as opposed to racial supremacy. A nation and race shouldn't be integrated into another or dominated or subjected by that other nation or race.
    I agree that no form of integration is justifiable, whether the foreign elements are added as lawful equals or as a type of underclass.

    It can be argued, though, that Apartheid in SA was in its origins a reaction against the danger of eventually being dominated by a race hostile to Afrikaner and Anglo society, namely the Bantus. I don't doubt many Apartheid-era whites had that same sentiments, but they would have had to weigh dominating against being dominated.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Thread split from Affirmative Action Racist, Says De Klerk

    Quote Originally Posted by MacAdder View Post
    Define ‘previously advantaged’.
    I was from a divorced family and lived middle class etc. etc.

    ‘Previously disadvantaged’ means BLACK so it is a racist thing no question. Anyone born after 1991 can’t be ‘previously advantaged’ because these were not born but if you or me happen to be white we are seen as the “previously privileged” so victimized.
    Sorry that I have to interrupt here. But it was especially Black people that benefited from "Apartheid", while Whites had to bear the tax and developmental burden of it. One only needs to compare the living standards of Blacks in South Africa with Blacks elsewhere in Africa or Haiti, this will easily demonstrate who was disadvantaged and who not.
    http://www.praag.org/opstelle15.htm
    "And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

  8. #18
    Account Inactive
    MacAdder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, July 20th, 2009 @ 06:12 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celtic
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Location
    Cape Town / Bellville
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Non
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    24
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    No, I disagree with your opinion on who you suggest benefited from the "Apartheid" system. This system was enforced to give one group a godlike superiority over another. It made sure that everyone knew their place using strength of tyranny.
    This created divisions of victims and the abuse of power. This very one sided affair can be seen today on the other preverbal foot.
    This will never end till both agree to “play fair”.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Stygian Cellarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, May 12th, 2012 @ 04:59 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    England, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Wales
    Subrace
    Sindarin
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Maryland Maryland
    Location
    Nargothrond
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Ontological Cryptanalyst
    Politics
    1011000
    Religion
    Spiritual Agnosticism
    Posts
    218
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    I'm not all that knowledgeable in South Africa History. In order for me to pass judgment, I need to know a few things.

    When Europeans arrived and began building a civilization, what was the degree of conflict between natives and colonizers? Were the Europeans just minding their own business, building their homes, farms and schools when Natives voluntarily crossed into the Afrikaner cultural sphere? Or did the Europeans round up Natives and force them into their cultural sphere? Or did the Afrikaner cultural sphere displace the native cultural sphere, dispossessing the natives of a critical piece of real estate in which their survival was dependent? This is a very important point for me.
    yDNA: R1a1a1
    mtDNA: H4a1
    Ancestry Painting: 100% European
    23andme Global Similarity: Dead center of English Cluster

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MacAdder View Post
    No, I disagree with your opinion on who you suggest benefited from the "Apartheid" system.
    Do the socio-economic indicators of Blacks and Whites compared to Blacks and Whites elsewhere contradict my statement? The link I provided gives some good hints.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacAdder View Post
    This system was enforced to give one group a godlike superiority over another.
    That statement is utter nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacAdder View Post
    It made sure that everyone knew their place using strength of tyranny.
    Meaning what? The state simply enforced the laws of the day. Equally one could call the trafic laws "strength of tyranny".
    Quote Originally Posted by MacAdder View Post
    This created divisions of victims and the abuse of power.
    That something you'd have to demonstrate and anecdotal, hearsay evidence will not substitute for this.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacAdder View Post
    This very one sided affair can be seen today on the other preverbal foot.
    Whites did rule White South Africa preserving their interest, while Blacks got the opportunity to evolutionary opt out of it. Yet many Blacks came to work for Whites in the White South Africa. It seems it hasn't been that bad as the Marxists did portray it.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacAdder View Post
    This will never end till both agree to “play fair”.
    Which is of course a phantasy from fairy land, since politics isn't about fair play, but power. That countries tend to have fair play in their societies are White and relatively homgeneous.


    Quote Originally Posted by infratetraskelion View Post
    I'm not all that knowledgeable in South Africa History. In order for me to pass judgment, I need to know a few things.
    This is to welcome since most Westerners have the audacity to pass judgement about South Africa, without have even the most basic knowledge.
    Quote Originally Posted by infratetraskelion View Post
    When Europeans arrived and began building a civilization, what was the degree of conflict between natives and colonizers? Were the Europeans just minding their own business, building their homes, farms and schools when Natives voluntarily crossed into the Afrikaner cultural sphere? Or did the Europeans round up Natives and force them into their cultural sphere? Or did the Afrikaner cultural sphere displace the native cultural sphere, dispossessing the natives of a critical piece of real estate in which their survival was dependent? This is a very important point for me.
    .
    The answer would depend on the era and area you are talking about - And of course the historians that do the reporting. For starters the VOC had the guideline to interact piecefully with any natives (as long as they were peaceful). The first people they met in Cape were Hottentots and Bushmen and the encounters were mainly peaceful. There was however some disputes of cattle that let to conflict. The Cape was also very sparsely populated with them mentioned group being either nomadic or hunter and gatherers roaming the fields. There is also the possibility that they (the natives) in part descended from stranded people.
    Also note that Whites were not a monolithical block You've got the VOC, the Burgers and Treckboers as well. The VOC did also import slaves from elsewhere

    During the Great Trek, the Boers came to agreements with people like the Barolongs or the Zulus and sometimes stuff had to be fought out like at Bloedrivier or with Mzilikats. The High Veld was however not really inhabitat during the period of the Great Treck, so most of the land the Boers gained, they got via homesteading. Blacks working for Boers did usually do that as migrant labor.
    "And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Apartheid Revisionism
    By Bittereinder in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, February 6th, 2010, 06:39 PM
  2. Apartheid Myths
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, July 16th, 2009, 11:13 AM
  3. Why I Am Sorry About Apartheid
    By Horagalles in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Sunday, June 7th, 2009, 07:13 PM
  4. What Do You Think of an Apartheid System?
    By Nachtengel in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, May 9th, 2009, 06:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •