Why have things gone so differently in Zimbabwe and South Africa?

[pecksniff]

They started out in the same place -- British-founded postcolonial states in Africa, preserving the colonial system of a white minority ruling a black majority. In each case that system was overthrown. Zimbabwe became a military dictatorship with occasional anti-white pogroms officially sanctioned, and a completely dysfunctional economy. SA became a mostly stable and functional and prosperous republic whose worst problems are crime and AIDS. Whites are mostly safe in SA, though sometimes they are attacked in the rural hinterlands, but never with state complicity -- Mandela, as president, was determined to give the whites no reason to emigrate, and nobody has broken that precedent.

Why the difference?

 

[CornusKousa]

They started out in the same place -- British-founded postcolonial states in Africa, preserving the colonial system of a white minority ruling a black majority. In each case that system was overthrown. Zimbabwe became a military dictatorship with occasional anti-white pogroms officially sanctioned, and a completely dysfunctional economy. SA became a mostly stable and functional and prosperous republic whose worst problems are crime and AIDS. Whites are mostly safe in SA, though sometimes they are attacked in the rural hinterlands, but never with state complicity -- Mandela, as president, was determined to give the whites no reason to emigrate, and nobody has broken that precedent.

Why the difference?

SA is a violent crime ridden shit hole run by lunatics, quit trying to church it up.

 

[Rightguide]

SA is a violent crime ridden shit hole run by lunatics, quit trying to church it up.

How many people did Winnie Mandela roast in the streets of SA?

 

[pecksniff]

How many people did Winnie Mandela roast in the streets of SA?

Well, I don't think it's right to hold a man responsible for his wife's behavior, especially while he's in prison.

 

[Rightguide]

Well, I don't think it's right to hold a man responsible for his wife's behavior, especially while he's in prison.

You reveled in using Trump's wife to get at him.

 

[pecksniff]

You reveled in using Trump's wife to get at him.

I never did. Always felt sorry for her. She never wanted to be First Lady.

 

[SyLent]

whites live behind gates

and

farmers are KILLED


but that better then Rhodesia!

 

[Earthlyone]

SA was a useful strategic ally to NATO during the cold war and so the apartheid government was propped up by the western powers. The release of Nelson Mandela and collapse of the apatite system seemed to coincide with the end of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin wall.

 

[domroger]

Mandela was a gentleman in every sense of the word .

 

[rackofdawn]

Trumps fault?

They started out in the same place -- British-founded postcolonial states in Africa, preserving the colonial system of a white minority ruling a black majority. In each case that system was overthrown. Zimbabwe became a military dictatorship with occasional anti-white pogroms officially sanctioned, and a completely dysfunctional economy. SA became a mostly stable and functional and prosperous republic whose worst problems are crime and AIDS. Whites are mostly safe in SA, though sometimes they are attacked in the rural hinterlands, but never with state complicity -- Mandela, as president, was determined to give the whites no reason to emigrate, and nobody has broken that precedent.

Why the difference?

I just checked with a delegate from the "Universal Woke Festival" and they said that it must be Trump's fault or white people in general. More proof of CRT.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

You reveled in using Trump's wife to get at him.

She hates him almost as much as the majority of americans do, besides, shes a whore so who cares?

 

[pecksniff]

The topic here is the difference between Z and SA. Does nobody have any ideas?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

They started out in the same place -- British-founded postcolonial states in Africa, preserving the colonial system of a white minority ruling a black majority. In each case that system was overthrown. Zimbabwe became a military dictatorship with occasional anti-white pogroms officially sanctioned, and a completely dysfunctional economy. SA became a mostly stable and functional and prosperous republic whose worst problems are crime and AIDS. Whites are mostly safe in SA, though sometimes they are attacked in the rural hinterlands, but never with state complicity -- Mandela, as president, was determined to give the whites no reason to emigrate, and nobody has broken that precedent.

Why the difference?

Mandela and the aura of the man after his passing largely kept a lid on things and the country on a path to a successful future. That all changed when the idea of equity entered the picture. Now the country is coming apart at the seams, and will soon look like Zimbabwe in many regards.

 

[pecksniff]

That all changed when the idea of equity entered the picture.

When did that happen? The governing coalition included the Communists from the beginning.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

When did that happen? The governing coalition included the Communists from the beginning.

Read the article I posted in my thread.

 

[pecksniff]

Read the article I posted in my thread.

The recent disruptions have nothing to do with any Beautiful Idea, they're SA's 1/6, done by the personal followers of the highly popular ex-President Zuma reacting to his arrest.

 

[Dribble]

The topic here is the difference between Z and SA. Does nobody have any ideas?

Interesting question. Is success random? Or did the early years of Apartheid provide enough stability to grow? And no....I do not support Apartheid.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The recent disruptions have nothing to do with any Beautiful Idea, they're SA's 1/6, done by the personal followers of the highly popular ex-President Zuma reacting to his arrest.

That was the spark. The kindling was the push for "equity," which, to the shock of no sensible person, required massive initiatives for discrimination, corrupt contract awards, etc. with the attendant economic collapse, heightened (then dashed) expectations.

 

[pecksniff]

Interesting question. Is success random? Or did the early years of Apartheid provide enough stability to grow? And no....I do not support Apartheid.

Well, that wasn't a difference, Rhodesia had its own form of Apartheid, they just never gave it a Dutch name.

 

[oggbashan]

In Zimbabwe, the African government was ruled by a corrupt money-grabbing President and those who benefitted from the money flow.

In South Africa, the ANC tried to reconcile white and black but their massive electoral majority led, after Mandela, to corrupt money-grabbing politicians like Zuma who has a tribal following.

Redressing the balance of economic growth across South Africa will take decades and people aren't prepared to wait, believing promises that cannot be met from politicians who live millionaire lifestyles while their supporters starve.


Edited for PS. One of our local friends used to own, with her husband, a very productive farm in Zimbabwe. They employed 300 workers who supported their families. When the President's 'veteran soldiers' tried to take over the farm, the workers resisted them but the owners had to bribe them to stay away. Two years later the husband had a heart attack (not connected to the troubles) and died. The wife sold out to an African owned company who took over the farm and continued to run it for five years until their assets were 'stolen' by a government minister.


The farm is now occupied by about fifty families living a bare subsistence on subdivided plots. They are all poor, barely existing, compared with the comparative affluence enjoyed by the 300 worker's families originally. The government minister doesn't care. He lives in a luxurious, guarded villa with every comfort money can buy.

Our friend is glad she left when she did.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

In Zimbabwe, the African government was ruled by a corrupt money-grabbing President and those who benefitted from the money flow.

In South Africa, the ANC tried to reconcile white and black but their massive electoral majority led, after Mandela, to corrupt money-grabbing politicians like Zuma who has a tribal following.

Redressing the balance of economic growth across South Africa will take decades and people aren't prepared to wait, believing promises that cannot be met from politicians who live millionaire lifestyles while their supporters starve.

By the time they get all that balancing figured out, there won't be anything left to balance, like in Zimbabwe.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You reveled in using Trump's wife to get at him.

Not as much as she was used as a hooker in the Eastern Bloc.

 

[oggbashan]

By the time they get all that balancing figured out, there won't be anything left to balance, like in Zimbabwe.

The current SA President is trying to root out the corrupt politicians in the ANC but he has an almost impossible task because corruption is so prevalent.

Zuma is just the first of a long list of targets.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The current SA President is trying to root out the corrupt politicians in the ANC but he has an almost impossible task because corruption is so prevalent.

Not to mention he's got much bigger fish to fry now that his nation is falling into tribal civil war.

 

[oggbashan]

Not to mention he's got much bigger fish to fry now that his nation is falling into tribal civil war.

Tribes are the cause of much of the difficulties in Africa, in Zimbabwe and in SA.

The European colonists ignored tribal boundaries that had been causing wars for centuries. The same was true of the former Yugoslavia, with different ethnic groups only at peace because of Tito's fierce control. During WW2, some groups in Yugoslavia were allied to the Nazis, some were violently against and both sides committed war crimes. People don't forget...