Tuesday, December 10, 2019

No, things were NOT better under white rule in South Africa


There seems to be a perennial attempt to insinuate that the only reason things are so bad in South Africa these days is because white supremacist rulers and their policy of apartheid are no longer in charge.  I addressed this at some length in a previous essay (which, if you haven't read it, remains very relevant, IMHO), but there are still plenty of doubters out there.

Now Kim du Toit, another expatriate South African who's now an American citizen, brings his own contribution to the debate.  He concludes:

So there’s no point in reevaluating apartheid:  it was a savagely iniquitous and evil system, and the best thing that can be said about it is that it was no different to any other  tribal system already in existence in Africa — except that it was loudly and proudly unapologetic about its foundation (“Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites”), its goals (“protect the White race”) and intent (“keep the races apart”).

And yes, while apartheid existed South Africa worked better as a country — roads, medical care, electricity generation and distribution, financial systems and the economy all worked well, to the envy of the rest of the continent and even outside Africa.  But it was too evil a system to last, its benefits excluded too much of South Africa’s population and ultimately, its First World efficacy cannot be used to excuse it.

There's more at the link.  Worthwhile reading, for those interested in the topic.  The comments from his readers, and his replies, as well as those on my earlier essay, are also informative - if only to demonstrate that some people just don't get it.

Peter

10 comments:

Angus McThag said...

I think you both need to decide if you're expats or immigrants.

The fact you both went for citizenship implies the latter... but you need to choose.

Larry said...

Huh? I have no idea where that question is even coming from. It's 100% clear to me that both are proud and unapologetic American citizens who were immigrants from South Africa. Are they not to have any opinions about SA now, or pretend not to have had decades of up close and personal experience there? What in the world have either said that makes you think they haven't chosen, loudly and proudly?

rognuald said...

"No, things were NOT better under white rule in South Africa"

"And yes, while apartheid existed South Africa worked better as a country — roads, medical care, electricity generation and distribution, financial systems and the economy all worked well, to the envy of the rest of the continent and even outside Africa."

Old NFO said...

Interesting dichotomy between what y'all say (which I would tend to believe) as opposed to the media presentation of the situation.

Larry said...

"But it was too evil a system to last, its benefits excluded too much of South Africa’s population and ultimately, its First World efficacy cannot be used to excuse it."

The Lab Manager said...

It's too bad the white population became dependent upon black labor to do things for them and the numbers became their undoing.

But let us be honest here, again, Africans are too stupid to run a functional society on par with any Western European one. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule when it comes to people, but I see most blacks here as problems that need to expatriated to Africa which would thus raise our GDP. I realize it's 'da rasis' to say such things, but 'duh-versity' does not work as America and South Africa have shown.

McChuck said...

"Evil" is the only sane response to multiculturalism. Different cultures cannot live together in peace and harmony. (Evidence - all of human history.)

The South Africans should have picked their own cotton.

Tom said...

Reading some of these comments reminds me of what the Romans said about the Celts, Gauls, and Germans when they encountered and colonized them.

Just remember: your forefathers were barbarians who operated at the "tribal village" social level, couldn't organize their way out of a wet paper bag, and were routinely defeated by smaller forces of more disciplined soldiers. And after Rome fell, it took them a millennium to achieve anything close to its level of development.

John T. Block said...

As to the evils of the Apartheid system, I agree completely. So, why haven't governments of the former colony's been unable to function AT ANY CAPACITY,above the level of the strong-man in charge stealing all he can? This is the book All apologists hang their hats on.
I'm not even talking MORAL govt.,( To be wished for, certainly) but functional efficiency....

takirks said...

The real question about South Africa is not the question of "Was apartheid morally right?", but "Can Africans run a modern country, or even just participate as equal partners in doing so?".

Empirical evidence would suggest that the answer to the second question is, at best, "Not yet...". How you get from where we are to where that answer is emphatically "Yes, of course..." would be the follow-on. I'm not sure that it is something you can force; certainly, the track record for "White Man's Burden" efforts being a success anywhere at any point in history is not a good one. Ask the Romans how long it took to turn Gaul into proto-France, and there was an absence of human sacrifice in the bogs and forests.

I suspect that something like what the Uighur are experiencing at the moment will be the eventual future for most of Africa, or it will remain a howling wilderness. It sadly appears that the only way to domesticate feral humans requires an unfortunately thorough culling of the ill-adapted. The Chinese will likely have to either replicate their Uighur program in order to recoup their investment in Africa, and I suspect they will be doing so without much objection from the rest of the world, who will have either succumbed to the ferals themselves during the great migrations, or tired of dealing with them.

It's not a question of "racism", either. What it is is a question of adaptation to the requirements of modern civilization, which empirical evidence amply demonstrates that a majority of African natives simply are not. Some are, but the majority drags the adapted and the adaptable down into the morass of feral behavior, time and time again. You can't teach civilization; you can only cull the ill-adapted to it, and work with those who are amenable to it.

And, before someone gets all SJW and calls me racist, I'll point out that a lot of the pathologies of Africa were present across much of Europe, for many thousands of years. It took a lot of long, hard work before the civilized human being became the majority there, and managed to cull most of the uncivilized behavioral traits out of the population. That hasn't happened spontaneously in Africa, and if it ever does, it will likely be imposed from outside.

The Boers might have managed, being clear-eyed and more ruthless about such matters, but the English insisted on delusional happy-thoughts policies, and we have what we have. Similar idiocy goes on here in the US, which is leading us down the path to chaos and what should be termed "de-civilization" in the urban areas of our nation. Rome fell to barbarians, but we're breeding our own internally.