was the basic gist that blacks were being oppressed because they didn't have access to white society? Is that basically it?

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/pictures/table.jpg

Those blacks there now (the Bantu) moved there to work in white enterprises. The only "blacks" before them living there were bushmen (The Gods Must be Crazy) and hottentots (see pic).

http://freaks.monstrous.com/pictures/sarak_batman_venus_hottentot.jpg

The Bantu chased the hottentots into the Dutch (you know how they like those big asses ie I Like Big Butts) who protected them from an ass-reaming.

there's a lot of junk in that trunk :eek3:

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/pictures/table.jpgBut can we assume it was unfair based on these statistics alone?

I mean whites, and especially white countries have a much higher GDP than their black counter parts, therefore looking at things like the 'share of the national income' might not be sensible.

Althought I agree that one group being taxed more than another is unfair :o

I mean whites, and especially white countries have a much higher GDP than their black counter parts, therefore looking at things like the 'share of the national income' might not be sensible.

Althought I agree that one group being taxed more than another is unfair :o

You're right there. Switzerland GDP is higher than all of sub-Sahara Africa put together. :nice:

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/baker4.html

"external genitalia and secondary sexual characters of the female are the strangest features of Sanid anatomy."

:eekdance:

IBthemissinglink

But can we assume it was unfair based on these statistics alone?

No. Read the history as well. You, as one who believes in people having the right to there own property, must be appalled at the invasion of whites into Africa. :rolleyes:

No. Read the history as well. You, as one who believes in people having the right to there own property, must be appalled at the invasion of whites into Africa. :rolleyes:From what I read the cape horn area was uninhabitated at the time.

From what I read the cape horn area was uninhabitated at the time.

Wait.... South America? I thought you wanted to talk about Africa?

Yeah, right, like the Americas were uninhabited when the Spanish began their conquest of Mexico and the English and French were colonizing what is now the U.S. and Canada.

Or when the Mexicans took control of the "uninhabited" region of California. It was uninhabited all right, they killed so many Native Peoples that the population in CA alone dropped from 300,000 (by most accepted estimates) to 30,000.

Consider who is writing the histories that you read, thumper. You look through the lens of the author.

And Janus, can you provide an academic link for this information that you cite? Or is this just more racist drivel?

Africa, South America, same thing. :rolleyes:

Wait.... South America? I thought you wanted to talk about Africa?http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/hsugh.gif























http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/kekekegay.gif

There was a big chunk of Africa occupied by whites, so yes, most of the area was ocupied by black tribes first. The reason some was not occupied was because it was not in fertile areas, and some was indeed not occupied, which is why the imported black labor.

Not being able to get rich off quickly enough to suit them, the mine owners and big farmers did import a lot of immigrants from other parts of Africa, which kind of screwed it up for the original tribes in many of those areas, hence the seemingly unlikely politics of the Zulus supporting many platforms of the white regimes in their tribal areas, against the interests of other black tribes, complicating the matter further.

There are also many instances of whites in the German and Dutch areas being undeservedly scapegoated and lumped in with the British, french, and Italian held areas where vermin like Cecil Rhodes and that Belgian butcher ruled. They were not all the same, nor were they all ruthless exploiters of black Africans; there were many legitimate colonists who did well by their workers.

Africa, South America, same thing.

Unfortunately, this is becoming more and more true. :(

someone will actually believe that.

What is interesting is the evolution of the Afrikanns word, "Apartheid." It was simply a policy of segregation, which seems to occur naturally on the part of non-Whites, in the Union of South Africa. It was supposed to be a better sounding word than "segregation" since that had negative connotations. The policy began as a result of the differences in religion, culture, general way of life, numerical strength and racial features and the sustained military conflict between Whites and non-Whites there. The Dutch Reformed church form of apartheid was based not on theories of racial superiority, but on the idea that the only peaceful solution in providing Whites with political self-determination, and non-Whites with their own geographic area in which they would eventually govern themselves was separateness. The other form of apartheid implemented was based on the premise that the survival of the Whites depended on policies to protect them because the level of cultural differences and degree of developmental differences was so dramatic between themselves and the local non-Whites, it was hopeless to conceive of a seperate non-White state, and so all government policy must be focused on White survival.

Israel has a similar scenario going on now.

And Janus, can you provide an academic link for this information that you cite? Or is this just more racist drivel?

Why sure, I wouldn't chit my favorite...uh... :D

The Hottentot is one of three tribes of South Africa which may be divided — Bantus, Hottentots, and Bushmen. When the first Europeans (the Portuguese) came to South Africa, they found what is now Cape Colony divided between Bushmen and Hottentots. The Bantu tribes were chiefly north of the Zambesi (see map). The Bushmen were smaller than the Hottentots physically.

http://www.bsur.it/inZambia/zambia/zambesi.gif

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07497a.htm

No one seems to know when the South African Bantu first came into the country now occupied by them. It is certain that the Bushmen, and in some places the Hottentots, were there before them. One proof of this is found in the names of places, and especially of rivers, which in the Cape Province often contain clicks (the Iqora, called by Europeans Bushman's River; the Inxuba, which is the Fish river; and many others); while in Natal and Zululand most of the river-names have a decided Bantu sound-Umgeni, Tugela, and so on. The Bantu came from the north-east, and reached the Kei river about the end of the seventeenth century, when they first came in contact with the Dutch colonists.

http://www.afrikaworld.net/afrel/mlb04.htm

AH-HA! It's the Dutch land more than the Bantu. The Bushmen stayed in their Kalahari Desert. Dutch were like, "Fine keep it." :rolleyes: