<p>People change over time and so does how they vote. </p>
<p>For years and years, Americans though homosexuals should not marry for whatever stupid reason. Now there are many states voting to allow gay marriage even though very few of those voting for gay marriage are gay themselves or would otherwise benefit from gay marriage. They are supporting gay marriage because it is the morally right thing to do and more and more people are realizing that. The same was true for whites in South Africa.</p>
<p>This only further underscores your sheer ignorance of the history of SA and how racial policies favoring the White minority were implemented and brutally enforced by colonialists and later, the White Afrikaner dominated Apartheid regime from 1948 - the early '90s. </p>
<p>You’re also forgetting that SA had many trappings of an authoritarian regime more similar to WWII Fascist regimes than Western democracies.</p>
<p>Its military/police routinely ignored rule of law…especially against non-Whites who had no meaningful political voice or vote in that society, they had strong press/public information censorship laws, strict restrictions on internal travel, internal security surveillance agencies with powers similar to those held by their authoritarian counterparts on either side of the political spectrum, and laws against political dissent/dissidents. </p>
<p>Also, during the apartheid regime, White Afrikaner political and social culture also placed much more premium on social, religious, and political conformity than what one would find in most Western European democracies or here in the US. While there was some dissent, even dissenting Whites had to be extremely careful to avoid the wrath of the authoritarian Apartheid state.</p>
<p>While I don’t agree with him on most issues, he’s right on target regarding SA’s history, how colonialist/apartheid regime racial policies factored into Mandela’s activism/actions, the brutish authoritarian nature of the apartheid regime, the evolution of Mandela’s activism/outlook to becoming a conciliatory mediator/statesman, and more.</p>
<p>Incidentally, he was one of the few members of his party to go against the Reagan administration’s initial policy of not condemning SA’s Apartheid regime back in the '80s…</p>
<p>A reference from the Eugene Register-Guard from December, 1984:</p>
<p>Cobrat, your preaching to the choir. Nobody is arguing in favor of apartheid or returning to the white-ruling South Africa. However, none of this negates the deteriorating situation in South Africa today. The ANC has failed miserably, and if the country was truly democratic, they would have been thrown out of power a long time ago.</p>
<p>BTW, although I agree that apartheid was not a sustainable policy given the harsh sanctions against South Africa by the rest of the world, one should not discount the 68% of the white voters who cast their vote against apartheid in the referendum of 1992. There was significant black violence in the country during this period and whites had every reason to fear retribution by a black-ruling govt, but they were able to cast aside their fears and do the right thing. I don’t think you need to totally discount the contributions of many white citizens in South Africa for the end of apartheid.</p>
<p>Violence prompted by at least a century of racial policies and brutishly oppressive enforcement of them which effectively excluded the Black majority from having any meaningful say or political voice in their native land. </p>
<p>When you brutalize and oppress people for a long period of time in the ways SA’s Apartheid regime combined with the treatment they received from White-dominated colonialists before that…bitter anger and hatred tend to be natural byproducts. You can’t murder, torture, or otherwise brutalize and oppress a given population and then expect them to automatically be forgiving and expect everything to be rainbows and sunshine. </p>
<p>Hence, Mandela’s efforts to mediate to avoid what could have been a retributive bloodbath and civil war and his success was far from a very sure thing back in the early '90s. </p>
<p>Without mentioning the prior brutalization and oppression, just mentioning “Black violence” plays not only to long-standing racist stereotypes held by many Whites in Europe, North America, and other parts of the world, but also omits the contextual history and root causes for the situation in SA right before the end of Apartheid. </p>
<p>Especially considering there were plenty of White hotheads with Eugene Terre’blanche and his White supremacist Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging(AWB) extremists being one notable example. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t totally discounting them. However, it does a disservice to history to omit mentioning the self-interested factors having little to do with moralistic considerations for non-Whites which dominated and factored into de Klerk’s and most of his constituents’ considerations to vote to end apartheid.</p>
<p>People can express opinions all they want about how whites were bad and blacks were good and there can be no gray area. It’s silly but I can’t control that. What I can deal in is fact. </p>
<p>It is a fact that Mandela was locked up until de Klerk let him out. Mandela was 71 and de Klerk did not know what he looked like because pictures of Mandela had not been circulated for years. If de Klerk had not done so, Mandela would remained in prison forever. </p>
<p>It is a fact that de Klerk moved his own party and the country to end apartheid. If he had not done so, apartheid would not have ended unless some other white politician chose to end it. </p>
<p>de Klerk’s speech shows there were many things motivating him. Equality for all and justice were a central part of his motivation. de Klerk, not Mandela was the one who began the ending of apartheid. He should receive that credit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The steps that have been decided, are the following:</p>
<p>One cannot take speeches…especially those written by politicians at complete face value without further scrutiny of the background history, political context, and more. </p>
<p>While de Klerk eventually went through his own evolution, the fact there were self-interested factors involved is not in dispute. Hey, he’s a politician…albeit one with above-average vision compared with many senior politicians within his own party/constituency. He gets credit for that much which is a lot considering the prevailing political establishment at the time. </p>
<p>If he was as much of a public starry-eyed idealist as you or that speech portrayed him when he was running for president or more importantly, starting his political career, that career…especially with the ruling party would have been a non-starter. </p>
<p>Not to mention he himself may have ended up being summoned by the Apartheid regime’s law enforcement authorities for some questioning about his politics and loyalty to the regime and its apartheid policies. </p>
<p>A large part the sentiments of that speech would have been considered “treasonous” and “subversive” by the prevailing SA apartheid authorities just a few short years before. Heck, it was considered as such by many more conservative members of his own party along with White hotheads like AWB leader Eugene Terre’blanche.</p>
<p>It’s not like the aparteid regime made it easy for a transition to democracy. It could have been a lot worse, a bloodbath, if it weren’t for Nelson Mandela.</p>
<p>Sally, I am not placing all the blame for the current situation in South Africa at the feet of Mandela. OTOH, I am not entirely absolving him either. Although we can give him credit for averting the bloodshed and attempting to unify the country without violence, it is undeniable that he led a corrupt and ineffectual political party which has brought the country to its knees.</p>
<p>Mandela was a charismatic man who was uniquely capable of shepherding the country into a post-apartheid era, but it is equally true that he was disinterested in the mechanics of governing and essentially delegated most of the day-to-day administration of his govt to the Vice President who succeeded him. Mbeki, as history has shown, was an unmitigated disaster for the people of South Africa.</p>
<p>Hmmm. I wonder why there has not been a wholesale exodus of whites from South Africa, since the country is the fiasco that Goldenpooch claims it is.</p>
<p>And Cobrat is quite right about the reach of Afrikanner repression, even in the white community. Just ask the late newspaper editor Donald Woods. A personal anecdote; a white lawyer from South Africa spoke at a forum on our campus. This was during the Reagan Administration years. He spoke generally about politics in his home country. When a questioner asked him specifically about the impact of international economic sanctions, he politely declined to answer, saying that even discussing the sanctions (in a university forum abroad, no less) was definitely illegal per the law of the Apartheid government.</p>
<p>the migration of White South Africans is only a small proportion of the overall White SA population. The article cites a figure of 15% and as of 2011, the trend has actually reversed itself as more White South Africans who migrated abroad are now coming home.</p>
<p>20% of the white population leaving their homeland is not low. Many skilled blacks and mixed-race citizens have left as well. There is a reason why there is a shortage of skilled professionals in the country.</p>
<p>Sure, some are going to return. They still may have family there and because of the shortage of doctors, teachers, high tech professionals, etc, they can make a decent living. Most live in segregated communities with armed bodyguards.</p>
<p>I like how the author of the article casually cites the 25% unemployment rate (closer to 40%) as if it didn’t have an impact on their economy. In the US we freak out with a 7% unemployment rate.</p>
<p>Whites in SA have lived in segregated, gated communities with armed guards since apartheid was in effect. This is not a new thing. </p>
<p>Many people in the US live in similar neighborhoods with armed guards and high walls. Of course, they are not segregated intentionally by race but in many cases they may as well be.</p>
<p>Apparently, the Dalai Lama wasn’t invited to Mandela’s funeral. He has not been able to obtain visas to go to South Africa in the past. Critics, such as Desmond Tutu, have accused the government of capitulating to the demands of China in order to appease them.</p>
<p>How ironic is it that someone who has been denied the right to live in his homeland as a free man is forbidden to go to the funeral. This action by the government speaks volumes about the hypocrites who are in charge in SA.</p>
<p>You might be right. From what I’ve read in the past few years, China has expended much effort to immerse itself into Africa, politically and otherwise.</p>