Nelson Mandela

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you make a fair point with respect to crime statistics before and after apartheid. Crime in non-white probably wasn’t counted very well. With respect to life expectancy you don’t. The figures I cited are after apartheid and they show life expectancy steadily declining to a low of 52.07 in 2008. See for yourself:</p>

<p>[South</a> Africa - Life expectancy at birth](<a href=“http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/south-africa/life-expectancy-at-birth]South”>South Africa - Life expectancy at birth)</p>

<p>It’s pretty hard to fake death statistics. The bottom line is that if most of the parents on this forum lived in South Africa, we would already be dead. If the whites are not in control you cannot blame them for the decline in life expectancy. Under Mandela’s presidency, life expectancy dropped approximately five years. Maybe he helped stop blacks from killing whites but he didn’t help people in general live longer.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And the Apartheid era regime and the colonialist regime before it where the White minority governments…whether British colonialist or after 1948, Afrikaner dominated…meant well over 90%+ of SA’s overall population had absolutely no vote or voice in the government due to strict voting requirement laws which effectively barred practically all non-Whites from meaningful practice of the voting franchise. </p>

<p>As I said before…the Apartheid regime in practice…especially the actions of its military/law enforcement in safeguarding the regime foundations and apartheid policies, severe censorship laws, strict internal travel restrictions/racial segregation, and especially the fact non-Whites had no meaningfully effective rights meant it operated much more like an authoritarian dictatorship…especially for the non-White populations and political dissidents. </p>

<p>From some accounts I’ve heard from even Afrikaner emigrants back in the early '90s…the level of surveillance practiced by law enforcement and security agencies during the Apartheid era to ferret out internal political dissidents resembled those one would find in every authoritarian/totalitarian regimes on either end of the political spectrum.</p>

<p>Cobrat, no one is defending the Afrikaner regime during the apartheid era. My only point is that living conditions for blacks in the country have REGRESSED since Mandela became President of the country. Very few would argue the country has not been governed by corrupt and incompetent leaders. If there was a real functioning democracy in South Africa, the African National Congress would have been voted out of office a long time ago.</p>

<p>So you think that the AIDS epidemic, which is the reason for lower life expectancy, would not have happened had apartheid continued. Really? Source for that?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As mediocre as the ANC has been at governing and solving the RSA’s various problems, that is still an improvement over the previous NP governments which intentionally caused those problems that the ANC has not been all that effective at solving.</p>

<p>[Political</a> Systems and Health Inequity: Connecting Apartheid Policies to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in South Africa | Journal of Global Health](<a href=“http://www.ghjournal.org/jgh-print/spring-2011-issue/political-systems-and-health-inequity-connecting-apartheid-policies-to-the-hivaids-epidemic-in-south-africa/]Political”>http://www.ghjournal.org/jgh-print/spring-2011-issue/political-systems-and-health-inequity-connecting-apartheid-policies-to-the-hivaids-epidemic-in-south-africa/)</p>

<p>This is an interesting read on the subject. </p>

<p>The rate of HIV/AIDs among Black South Africans is about 45 times that of white South Africans. IMO, the rates probably would’ve been much worse had Apratheid continued due to health system inequalities. At least now there is funding for the problem. (I stress this is my opinion.)</p>

<p>Yes, President Thabo Mbeki did a terrible, terrible disservice by not acknowledging the real cause of AIDs, but that is not that much different from the denials that our own presidents did during the first decade or so of the AIDs epidemic in America. </p>

<p>There is no source that can tell you whether or not HIV/AIDs would’ve spread in South Africa with Apartheid still in place. Only speculation because we don’t have time machines or goggles into alternate universes.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Maybe? MAYBE???</p>

<p>Oh yeah, just a minor thing. </p>

<p>Haters gonna hate. </p>

<p>Carry on. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Actually my comments are not related to the AIDS problem in South Africa. I am referring to the dire economic conditions in South Africa and the myriad of statistics which show that blacks are suffering even more in a system where not only their declining health status, but also the degradation of living conditions continue unabated.</p>

<p>I think it is interesting that life expectancy rates in South Africa were increasing in the 1980’s when the death rates (at least in the US) were at its highest and decreasing after the African National Congress assumed power, despite the rapidly declining incidence of AIDS in the US since the early 1990’s.</p>

<p>“Haters gonna hate.”</p>

<p>I prefer not to idealize our political leaders; it is rarely warranted.</p>

<p>If people here want to pay their respects to a truly capable African leader who died recently and actually improved living conditions in his country through democratic means, they ought to take a look at John Atta Mills of Ghana.</p>

<p>HIV likely reached the US in 1969, fourteen years before the first AIDS diagnosis in 1983 in South Africa, which only started mass surveying to determine HIV infection in 1990. So the peak in the US naturally occurred earlier than in South Africa.</p>

<p>From 1990-1994, the last years of NP rule in South Africa, the percentage of pregnant women with AIDS rose almost 11-fold, from 0.7% to 7.6%.</p>

<p>The reality is that the credit for ending apartheid rests more with President de Klerk than with Mandela. de Klerk cause a vote by whites only about whether to end apartheid. The whites voted yes. If the whites had voted no, apartheid would have remained. de Klerk is the one who released Mandela from prison. He did not have to do that. de Klerk is the one who negotiated with the ANC and Mandela.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>He and his party weren’t doing it completely or even mostly out of the altruistic goodness of their hearts. There were some serious economic, geopolitical, and military issues at stake at the time. </p>

<p>Some include the increasing negative impact international sanctions and divestment were having on SA’s economy and military technology procurement and the overextension of SA’s military and police forces. </p>

<p>The last was especially serious as due to the military conscription policies, Apartheid mentality, and more, practically all of SA’s military and police forces were made up of White citizens subjected to increasingly frequent mandatory periodic callups to perform military operations and/or internal policing operations to suppress political dissent or rebellions against their heavy-handed rule…especially by non-White populations chafing under decades of being treated as second-class citizens at best and sometimes as non-entities in their own native land. </p>

<p>A heavy burden considering Whites are a minority within the overall SA population* and when involved in internal policing operations to suppress political dissent or rebellions, are often vastly outnumbered demographically. </p>

<ul>
<li>A figure I spotted on wikipedia stated in 1977, they made up a little under 17% of the overall SA population.<br></li>
</ul>

<p>

</p>

<p>If the Whites had voted no, the overextension of SA’s military and police forces in waging war and internal anti-dissident/rebellion operations would have exploded. </p>

<p>Up until the early '90s, those forces were involved in waging wars in Namibia which SA claimed as its own territory against Namibians who wanted independence, Angola and Mozambique, and internal policing operations to brutally suppress dissent and those who had enough of the authoritarian White Afrikaner dominated Apartheid regime. </p>

<p>With the sanctions impact on the Afrikaner White dominated national economy and military procurement along with the increasing burden of the White minority males being called up more frequently to be involved in military and internal suppression operations both outside and within SA, the economic and demographic factors were increasingly becoming less favorable as time went on. </p>

<p>I’m not sure if the callups approached those of a nation formerly known as Rhodesia where every White male citizen and visitor who stayed more than a few weeks were liable for being called up to perform one week of internal security military duties involving heavy combat around every month and a half. However, if de Klerk and the Whites opted not to end Apartheid, SA may have eventually ended up in a siege-like military situation that similarly White minority dominated Rhodesia* faced between the late '60s till the early '80s. </p>

<p>Those military/policing callups and duties don’t only take a toll on the conscripts themselves, but also the overall national economy as the time called up and being involved in military/internal security duties is time away from their jobs. A serious issue considering most of the highly educated and technically skilled workforce are drawn from the White minority due to discriminatory policies against non-Whites in all areas of life in those countries…including education. </p>

<p>Moreover, with the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, the few Western nations still clandestinely providing military and financial support were becoming far less likely to risk international political opinion when SA’s usefulness in the Cold War was no longer needed. </p>

<ul>
<li>Now known as Zimbabwe.</li>
</ul>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, right now there’s only one viable party, and yes, Mandela has been idealized. What did you expect? He only liberated a nation.</p>

<p>South Africa is an infant democracy. It wasn’t to be expected that they’d blossom into a full-fledged western-style democracy in 20 short years. When the Mandela glow wears off, which may take a few more years, then the voters, both black and white, will start entertaining the idea of competing parties. The back-and-forth of several parties will produce the beginnings of solutions to the problems of poverty and disease and corruption. But you couldn’t expect the black majority to be anything but euphoric about Mandela and his party while he lived. This has been a 20-year celebration, and understandably so.</p>

<p>Las Mas, that is a tortured explanation for the incompetency and corruption of the current leaders and the dire economic conditions confronting the country.</p>

<p>The country is on the wrong trajectory and is in danger of becoming a failed state, which may have already happened. If you don’t believe me, read this from Friday’s LA Times editorial:</p>

<p>"But South Africa has taken a turn for the worse. The country’s economic, racial and social problems pose a challenge to its democracy, and the competence and integrity of successive ANC governments have been called into question.</p>

<p>Crime rates are high — especially those of rape and sexual assault. Allegations of corruption are widespread. Between 1998 and 2011, the infant mortality rate doubled. According to the Washington Post, a quarter of South Africans lack proper housing and a quarter have no electricity. Unemployment remains stubbornly high. The disparity between rich and poor has widened since the end of apartheid.</p>

<p>The country’s leaders have failed to rise to the occasion. Former President Thabo Mbeki’s denial that the HIV virus causes AIDS so hampered the distribution of anti-retroviral drugs that an estimated 330,000 people infected with HIV died prematurely between 2000 and 2005. The current president, Jacob Zuma, has fought off accusations of graft and bribe-taking."</p>

<p>[WATCH:</a> Maya Angelou’s Poem For Nelson Mandela : The Two-Way : NPR](<a href=“WATCH: Maya Angelou's Poem For Nelson Mandela : The Two-Way : NPR”>WATCH: Maya Angelou's Poem For Nelson Mandela : The Two-Way : NPR)</p>

<p>Some of you might enjoy Maya Angelou’s poem released yesterday.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That is completely untrue. de Klerk had more to do with liberating South African than did Mandela.</p>

<p>Mandela’s greatest gift is usually unnoticed. He chose to serve only one term when he could have been elected for life. He chose to try to make a democracy work instead of a dictatorship like we now have in Russia and most African countries.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>de Klerk did what he did because he and his White Afrikaner constituents were facing an increasingly untenable long-term situation economically, demographically, geopolitically, and militarily if the then Apartheid status quo was continued. </p>

<p>If that’s the case, this thread would probably be taking about wartorn SA wracked with brutal civil wars with spillover effects in Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, and possibly other regional Southern African nations. With that comes serious impacts on the international economy due to the natural resources in the region, international calls for peacekeeping/combat troops to intervene on humanitarian grounds, regional instability due to the spillover effects of that war, White supremacist individuals from Western countries…including the US flocking over there to exacerbate the fighting on behalf of the embattled White minority authoritarian Apartheid regime*, and more. </p>

<ul>
<li>This happened with the brutal fighting taking place between various Black African rebel groups and the White minority dominated government of the nation formerly known as Rhodesia from the late '60s till the early ‘80s. Only differences are that in the hypothetical SA case where Apartheid continued…they couldn’t credibly say they were doing it to “fight communists” as the Cold War ended with the collapse of the USSR and crumbling of Combloc nations along with the fact that regime’s government would be on the US’ s&*tlist for selling advanced weapons to Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime right before Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-91.</li>
</ul>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is also largely untrue. As others have pointed out, the whites were at risk of being killed if the blacks took over. The whites faced continued economic difficulty under apartheid or risking giving blacks power to kill them. If they voted in their own interests, they would have voted to continue apartheid rather than risk being killed. That’s an obvious choice. Instead they did what was morally right and voted to end apartheid. If they really wanted to end apartheid but retain power, they could have divided the country into two or more countries with one section ruled by whites. They didn’t do that because that would also be morally wrong.</p>

<p>Razorsharp, it is interesting that you believe those men voted the way they did because it was “morally right”’. If they possessed such morals, then why were they fine with apartheid for decades? Why were they fine with the mistreatment, oppression, and slaughter of Black South Africans at the hands of whites? They voted the way they did because they were trying to save themselves, period. It was not altruistic, no matter how you try to make it so. Furthermore, de Klerk did not free Mandela out of the goodness of his heart :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The difference was allow Nelson Mandela to act as an effective mediator and have some protection/goodwill from the international community in case that happened versus continuing apartheid with the associated lack of Mandela’s mediation, continued and increasingly unsustainable wars/rebellions, and with international condemnation/scorn* against de Klerk and his White Afrikaner constituents. </p>

<ul>
<li>One very likely reaction if he and the White population voted to continue Apartheid…along with some international feeling that whatever negative consequences suffered by the White minority was self-inflicted “just desserts” by that very decision.<br></li>
</ul>

<p>Especially considering the animosity driving those consequences are due to past history of White-dominated colonialist and later apartheid racial policies and brutish enforcement of them against the non-White majority going back at least a century. </p>

<p>Some scholars studying White racial fears against Black populations in nations like SA or the US have also mused about how much of those fears of being killed are really projections based on what they/their ancestors done to them before.</p>