The Meatrix

[rylan]

This made me hungry for some bacon

[Tjalfe]

mmmmmmm...Bacon *drool*

[Umfriend]

LOL

[Umfriend]

Originally posted by DukeP
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

I never said the Zulus were nice guys at that (or any other) time. My arguments were directed at the statement:

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
...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.)

, which came in defense of

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.

And my attempt at sarcasm bites me in the buttocks. So let me try again:
1. The clash between the Zulus and the Afrikaners was about control of land
2. Where that clash took place, the Zulus were there earlier (albeit not by long and by conquest of themselves)
3. In no way has SA tried or allowed non-whites to integrate, to work to form one nation, to become equal, even if different.
4. Apartheid has furthermore served to maintain huge economical differences, In this respect, (3) above holds as well.
5. Apartheid was aimed not at zulus alone, also at the Indians for instance who were "brought" to SA by the British.

At the time of the Great Trek, Afrkaners and the British did not control large poarts of South Africa. The seizure of lands in the interior occured later.

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by 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.

Ignorant: 1. Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed.
*example: I am ignorant of the Shinto religion, and it is likely that Albert Einstein was also, yet this ignorance does not mean that either of us is stupid.

Stupid: 1. Wanting in understanding; in a state of stupor; stupefied. 2. Sluggish in understanding; slow-witted; crassly foolish. 3. Resulting from, or showing, mental dullness; foolish; witless.
*example: Umfriend was not stupid, but his immense stubbornness to concede any point, or to admit the obvious when confronted with it, often made him seem so.

I knew a Dutch guy who insisted that the North Star was the brightest star in the sky, even when it was obvious that it was not, and his error could be proven to him in a book. This stubborness must be some mania that comes on you folks from trying to hold back the sea for so long.

as to..

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?

I doubt that it matters what I say. You will not accept it, and probably barely read it for what I'm saying, preferring instead to invest my words with your preconceived idea of what you believe I mean.

There has been greed and avarice forever, and yes, this was probably part of the reason for apartheid (notice how I can concede a point when you make a good one?) Don't try to tell me that it is not about culture, though. The South here in the USA had something akin to apartheid, but there was no vast mineral wealth there, and land ownership was not affected. This sort of institutionalized racism is an attempt by ordinary people to deal with vast cultural divides. My point is that you (and I mean the PLURAL you, Umf, as in "Dutch folks in general") have not had to deal with this problem. You have been, until recently, unacquainted with it. That is why I said you (plural again) were ignorant. Different groups of people have different ways of viewing their world, and it has always been so. One of the reasons the Serbs are so fierce and angry is that they had to live under the yoke of the Ottomans for so long.. the outlook and the religions did not mix, and for centuries they had to fight to maintain their own identity. The Jews and the Palestinians have the same ongoing problem. This is why we have nations with different plots of land assigned to them. Each can be happy and mind his own business and live by his own idea of how things should be. But now comes this idea of "multiculturalism," where vast numbers of people from other cultures are allowed to enter a previously content nation and proceed to continue with their own value systems, in rude contempt of the nation that allowed them to live there. People don't like this (I'm talking about real people.. not college students and politicians and others who are out of touch with reality.) Multiculturalism is evil. It is a lie. It is something forced upon society by greed and ignorance and a belief in unrealistic ideals. Sure, people can get along on some shallow level, and the top 1% on the intelligence scale can relate with each other pretty well while matters remain intellectual, but there remains the conflict.. there can be only one common value system in a nation, and to have peace, one of the two must throw away their identity. It is a basic need in the psyche of man to have a home, a place where he can relate to those around him on every level, where he does not have to compromise his values for the sake of greater corporate profits or the indignant voices of unrealistic idealists. People need this peace and repose. It takes centuries to achieve and days to sunder, and those who do sunder it or advocate the same are criminals of the highest order. They are the traitors to their countrymen who dwell in the lowest level of hell in Dante's Inferno. They are the people who create the crucible of strife and malcontent. Enough already.

[Umfriend]

That's a lot of text that I'll need some time to consider, but this one:

Umfriend was not stupid, but his immense stubbornness to concede any point, or to admit the obvious when confronted with it, often made him seem so.

Is one of the best things I've read in a long long time

One point though, it wasn't the ignorance on itself that got to me, but that combined with "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..."

It says not only that I am unaware of soemthing, but that I am that despite having thought about it (apparent in the "but you believe you are not") and that I am simply brainwashed (or "indoctrinated", not neccisarily the same thing). May not fit the description of "stupid" 100%, but you know darn well what I mean.

Nevertheless, the 2nd example: ROFLMAO