The Meatrix

[DukeP]

Perhaps its just me, feeling assured of my oratorial ability to suave someone else to join in.

But its really a matter of being able to look further ahead than the next day.
Its called planning. I would imagine that it woul take me alone a couple of months of hard work, to dig such a channel (a bit more, if I would want it to be closed, to avoid drying out in the heat of the day).

If I didnt build this channel/aquaduct/whatever, I would have to use 5hours a day anyway, just to fetch water. Forever.

Im certain that You Umfriend and I could set up a small operation, where we dug the channel together, and then sold water at the town when the channel was fininshed = only 2 months of work, a nice living for the rest of our years.

Its all in the mindset.

~~DukeP~~

[KvHagedorn]

I think it's an interesting study to see how Dutch people who went to the cape colony 400 years ago encountered this polar opposite culture and became "racists", while the exact same people who stayed home and had no contact with any other culture at all decided that all people are exactly the same and there is no excuse for racism.

[Umfriend]

DukeP, but if we had reason to fear that after finishing the project, we would be driven away by others who would then benefit from our efforts, it might be a different story.

KvH, I don't think that at the time the Dutch who remained were less racist than the colonists over there. We became smarter way later

[az]

DukeP, if you had to walk five hours per day just to get water, and toil the rest of the day to get enough food and maybe a roof above your head, maybe you COULDN'T dig a channel without starving your family?

AZ

[DukeP]

Az, I think I would move my family together with my project. That way everybody could lend a hand.

And since I would have NO internetacces, I would have time applenty.

~~DukeP~~

[az]

...if the landlord or whoever is lucky enough to live close to the water allow you to, and there is enough soil and other circumstances to allow living there, yes. And of course if the water source is suitable for feeding a canal (ie it is no deep well).

AZ

[DukeP]

You are persistent.

Well, I cant give you the papers and show you the interview (they in print only, and they are resting safely somewhere in the basement pf our apartment block).

When I was reading and watching the interwiew etc, it was (for me) quite shocking, how little was done. There where plenty of time to sit around doing nothing, I can assure You of that!!

I immediately thought about how different i would have handled the situation.

But yes, off course, it might still have been impossible to build a canal - but there where plenty of sheet metal around - something else could have been done. Would have been done if I were there.

~~DukeP~~

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Umfriend
KvH, I don't think that at the time the Dutch who remained were less racist than the colonists over there. We became smarter way later

No, here's what I think is closer to reality (bluntly put as someone mentioned as being my wont.)

1) Dutch in 1600: Blissfully ignorant of the pitfalls of multiculturalism (with the negligible exception of rule by the Spanish Habsburgs), but unencumbered by political correctness.

2) Afrikaners in 2000: Informed by experience. Anyone who criticizes these people is thoroughly ignorant of what they went through in the 1800s just to survive.

3) Dutch in 2000: Still blissfully ignorant, but you believe you are not, being indoctrinated by tenets of a childish idealism which tells you how things should be, but neglects a reality which you are only now beginning to experience.

[Umfriend]

1) Dutch in 1600: Blissfully ignorant of the pitfalls of multiculturalism

True, but they were recist nonetheless. They were ignorant in the sense that they did not grasp any *concept* of multiculturalism

2) Afrikaners in 2000: Informed by experience. Anyone who criticizes these people is thoroughly ignorant of what they went through in the 1800s just to survive.

No. The branding of people based on race and the subsequent disabling of any of such race to try to develop as best they can is simply very bad. What you might want is a society where people who do not want to achieve anything will fail. But exluding ppl from society based on race alone is simply not OK.

3) Dutch in 2000: Still blissfully ignorant, but you believe you are not, being indoctrinated by tenets of a childish idealism which tells you how things should be, but neglects a reality which you are only now beginning to experience.

Calling me stupid does not prove your point at all. I wish you'd simply stop that for once.

[KvHagedorn]

I'm not calling you stupid, but you are awfully stubborn, and don't really get what I am saying again. I was saying that people who have not experienced the same things firsthand really can't judge others as harshly as they do. Apartheid came about as a mechanism for survival, pure and simple. If you were a minority and the majority wanted to kill you, you would do the same or die. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with South African history and the Great Trek, where the Zulus tried to utterly wipe out the Afrikaners. Apartheid branded people according to race, yes, but it was really about a clash of cultures that would have wiped out the Europeans otherwise (and is arguably doing that today.)

[Umfriend]

KVH, it may be my very limited understanding of English, but telling someone is stubborn goes like this AFAIK: "You are stubborn" or, more politely: "My friend, I think you are stubborn". Calling someone stupid can go more like this: "You are blissfully ignorant, but you believe you are not, being indoctrinated by tenets of a childish idealism which tells you how things should be, but neglects a reality..." etc. etc.

And yes, it was appaling what the Zulu's did, wasnt it? I Mean, the Afrikaners were there first, and then them zulus try to imigrate, take over society and change it into something suversive and and and. eh, oh no, wait it was like this: the Afrikaners came and clearly showed they were going to learn Zulu language and adapt fully to Zulu culture and errhm, no not that either....

It was not about a clash of cultures. You sound like a marxist who spells "class" as "culture". If it is not about "culture", it does not exist. It was about conquest. Sure, the Zulu king ordered the murder of the Voortrekkers in "his" lands, shit happens, and for one who can be apologetic for Christianities crimes, you are very unforgiving towards the Zulus in SA. What about the Indians that were over there as well? (The "Kleurlingen", remember Mr. Know It All?).

There was no excuse for Apartheid, it was not about culture, it was about WEALTH, LAND, WATER, MINERALS and stuff like that. Apartheid did NOT allow ANY black in SA to gain himself anything . There was a persistant effort to keep blacks down, to ensure that they would not "fit" in society, lest they might become as good as whites.

So yes, I stand by everything I said in post 39 in this thread and feel that ytour post 40 did not refute or weaken anything.

rubuttal?

[DukeP]

Not to interrupt, or anything, but the Afrikaans where there before the Zulus...

The original negroes of the south afrika was killed off 100 years before the first Zulu emigrated to the south - an emigration that was more ore less driven by the money that where available around the "new" south afrika.

The Afrikaans wherent the original natives, off course not
But they WHERE natives, when the Zulu's arrived.

I believe that the original natives where the "Hottentot":
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Hottentot

Definition: any of the Khoisan languages spoken by the pastoral people of Namibia and South Africa

SYLLABICATION: Hot·ten·tot
PRONUNCIATION: htn-tt
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. Hottentot or Hot·ten·tots
Offensive 1. A Khoikhoin. 2. Any of the Khoikhoin group of languages.
ETYMOLOGY: Afrikaans.

From the BBC "The story of Africa files": http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/af...ection12.shtml

"In the early part of the 19th century the history of southern Africa is marked by the massive expansion of the Nguni empire under the military leadership of Shaka. This had a knock on effect throughout southern Africa displacing other peoples."

According to this, the Zulu's under the leadership of a great and charismatic warchief and emperor named Shaka, invaded the territories of the south.

This was the beginning of Apartheid, a defence against the overwhelming masses of the Zulu's - of which there were SO many, that the genocide inflicted upon the Hottentots where impratical.


Im no historican, so I had to go and do some research. I think its mostly right, but feel free to check it out

~~DukeP~~

Edit: To get a small insight into the timeline: The Dutch East India Company was founded at Cape of Good Hope in the year of 1487 - roughly 350 years before the first Zulu arrived in Namibia.

[Umfriend]

Indeed, Shaka was expanding his territory and Afrikaners had been in South Africa before that time, but when they met the Afrikaners, the Arikaners were spreading out of Cape Town area towards the Zulu's in the south-east.

Shaka died (was murdered actually) in 1824. As far as I know, the Zulus did not seek expansion thereafter. The Great Trek started in 1836 or close to that time, so still a bit later.

edit 2: So DukeP, when we argue about who was there first, my question is "where is *there*?". As The Great Trek was mentioned, I assume we mean the area the "Trek" was going to. ("Trek" is sort of a journey"). I think, but am not sure, that even without that, Afrikaners and/or Brits attacked/invaded Zulu controled land, not the other way around.

edit: Oh, and the VOC, the East India Company, was founded in 1602.

[DukeP]

Originally posted by Umfriend
Oh, and the VOC, the East India Company, was founded in 1602.

It was? Dang - just goes to show how far You can trust BBC.

I guess they where referring to the portoguise(sp?) Bartholomeu Dias that landed there first - and then just meant that the East India Company was founded thereafter.

Non the less, it was the Zulu's themselves, that where the original oppressors, they killed out most of what their 40.000 man army passed through on their way south (not at all unlike the Danes from northen Jutland, that went on a small hike towards the gates of Rome some 1500 years ago).

After the dead of their leader, they continued to expand, but then mostly through settlements (nope, no connection to palastine).

~~DukeP~~

[NuGGeTTi]

it is funny :P but gaytrix ownz it!