What is going on in South Africa

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Then, going further, why don't they adapt and learn? Why don't their people revolt for better government?

You explain everything so eloquently-but like a three year old, I still question "why?"

It can't just be color or race. Could there be a genetic violent tendency due to weather, disease etc that we just can't grasp? Is all hope lost? That's a lot of humanity there-I ask because I want to know and I care.

a reply to: 0racle

You seem to want to ignore the races and cultures of Africa-that's not reality. The Europeans, Asians, etc did not cause their inter-fighting, disease and poverty. Americans are the most giving county in the world-not to believe they are takers too but that's a different story.

After much reading here, there does seem to be a racial undertone to their problems-it doesn't sound like Africas want any other races in their continent nor do they wish to expound on the education provided to them. Again, why?
If the true answer is they just want us all out to continue to fight amongst themselves then so be it. Hence, all non-African races need to wake up and get out, fast. The problem is just escalating and wasting the world's resources; but pity the children.

It appears they are attempting genocide upon themselves-and if so-we need to stop trying to change what appears as their natural needs and tendancies-who knows-maybe they can find the peace they so desperately need-let's leave them alone to rule as they see fit.

a reply to: 0racle

No news source in the US will care about this. The evil whites are being killed off and that is a good thing.

At least that's what the "progressives" want you to believe.

a reply to: 0racle

In all ex colonial countries they HAD education, they were never denied it. When the colonials left, they destroyed most of the infrastructure and people were left rudderless. Its no-ones fault but their own in many instances mainly those at the top as I've been saying. Now we have a situation in SA where the stupid at the top are actually asking for whites to return as "advisors".

Yes its about race. So sorry that I don't subscribe to your Utopian idealogy of everyone's the same. All races are different, they were and are supposed to be. We're not robots. At this moment in time the white race is the "superior" race for want of a better word, thousands of years ago the Arabs were the superior race, and so it goes on. No doubt at some point in our future white people will be removed from their majority and some other race will take over but its unlikely to be blacks unless something changes drastically. I am not saying inferior I'm saying they are quite different. It was probably a huge mistake to try and drag Africa into the 20th Century (or even earlier) as they weren't ready but conquerors do what conquerors do and the Africans for whatever reason failed to capitalise on the knowledge and foresight of their conquerors.

Its not racist to recognise the differences you know but today in this wonderful melting pot of liberal ideology yup I'm racist simply for being white so bring it on

a reply to: clodbuster

Amazing results-but no one will read this-just call you racist-there is an obvious correlation to crime ad blacks-we don't mix well and apparently they don't mix well wth even themselves-hence, Chicago.

Maybe it's just "science again" but there's got to be an explanation-it's obviously not the "white man."

a reply to: Justso

According to some researchers disease has played a huge part yes as well as the climate and the inability in certain areas to grow enough food. The result of that hasn't necessarily been violence but certainly has been uncontrolled procreation. Infant mortality was an always has been very high in Africa, so the Africans have more children as they know some will die. Having more children means more to provide for the family, means more workers, but it also means more mouths to feed. Its a vicious circle. The Africans have battled diseases that are unknown to us in the West, and have had to develop certain traits to counter these diseases such as sickle cell which goes some way to countering the effects of malaria. Sickle cell isn't a "black" disease its a counter measure for malaria and can be found wherever there is malaria across the ME and Asia. Most sickle cell affected people are fine with no problems but then some can die but nature decided that the mutation that causes sickle cell and its possible effects were far more important than death from malaria which again lead to more children being created as people lived longer due to sickle cell.

It is said that most tribes in Africa were fairly nomadic, they went where food was, they went where the game was and if another tribe was in their way they destroyed them. It is also said that this nomadic lifestyle is genetic (I have no proof of that sorry) and that because of this the Africans are not well adapted to living in large urban areas. Whilst urban areas have existed for hundreds of years outside of Africa, inside Africa due to its size and low population (in comparison) urbanisation is relatively new. Wherever there is an infrastructure, health services, jobs, education, running clean water etc people will migrate to those areas resulting in urbanisation as well as a huge mix of races/tribes/colours/religions. However, if those services are badly managed and run, you end up with severe poverty, malnutrition and frustration that the promised land isn't what it seems. Africa is badly run we all know that. The result of mis-management are the shanty towns the huge rise in crime and low mortality rates as well as environmental issues such as waste management which in return creates health problems countered by......increase in birth rates. Urbanisation hit Africa quite late and its growth was rapid and little was in place to cope with the influx of migrants from other African states. Urbanisation in South Africa has increased 40% since 1950 however unlike European counterparts, urbanisation has NOT been accompanied by industrialisation and therein lies the problem. The urbanisation occurred in parts where the economy was already stagnant or non existent and the migration from other States exacerbated the problem enormously to where International Aid was necessary.

When those in power saw they could get "money for nothing" they realised they were onto a winner and the only losers were the Africans themselves. There are many stories of Government leaders spending aid money on huge mansions rolls royces airplanes and other such luxuries whilst the people starve. The quandary for those in power was...How can we keep getting this free money? By keeping the people poor and hungry....so yet another cycle was born

a reply to: clodbuster

I read it. And I agree your biology can influence your behavior, but it doesn't determine ones morality. Morality is a discipline that any human being can choose to cultivate. What this study suggests is that some people will find it harder to cultivate moral discipline, but it does not suggest moral discipline is completely out of reach or unattainable.

Ultimately it comes down to what you choose to believe in. If you believe in immorality, you will find it very easy to be immoral, regardless of biology. If you believe in morality you will find it very easy to be moral, regardless of biology.

a reply to: 0racle

South Africa is the future of white nations if they don't stop the dumping of the rest of the world in their countries.

a reply to: Justso

You seem to want to ignore the races and cultures of Africa-that's not reality.

Im not ignoring anything, I am engaging with every point. We just have a different interpretation. You think biology is main factor that determines morality. I think ideology is the main factor that determines morality [to the extent that people have the intellectual capacity to understand ethics, and basic cause and effect].

Im not saying the science is wrong. I'm saying the conclusion drawn from the science are wrong.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

In all ex colonial countries they HAD education, they were never denied it. When the colonials left, they destroyed most of the infrastructure and people were left rudderless.

Sure they may have had BASIC education, but very few black africans had university degrees. Those that did probably emigrated to Europe or America, where Academic culture was well established. Most African countries to this day do not have a well established Academic base.. it's something that takes time to develop, and its the missing pillar of post colonial African nation states. We had a strong academic base when we built our colonies. They did not, and still don't.

Whilst urban areas have existed for hundreds of years outside of Africa, inside Africa due to its size and low population (in comparison) urbanisation is relatively new. Wherever there is an infrastructure, health services, jobs, education, running clean water etc people will migrate to those areas resulting in urbanisation as well as a huge mix of races/tribes/colours/religions. However, if those services are badly managed and run, you end up with severe poverty, malnutrition and frustration that the promised land isn't what it seems. Africa is badly run we all know that.

The issues of mismanagement are due to a lack of expertise in how to manage properly. And now after many decades bad practice has become entrenched and the politicians have become greedy and corrupt.

We both see same picture, were just looking at it from different angles.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: 0racle

In all ex colonial countries they HAD education, they were never denied it. When the colonials left, they destroyed most of the infrastructure and people were left rudderless. Its no-ones fault but their own in many instances mainly those at the top as I've been saying. Now we have a situation in SA where the stupid at the top are actually asking for whites to return as "advisors".

Yes its about race. So sorry that I don't subscribe to your Utopian idealogy of everyone's the same. All races are different, they were and are supposed to be. We're not robots. At this moment in time the white race is the "superior" race for want of a better word, thousands of years ago the Arabs were the superior race, and so it goes on. No doubt at some point in our future white people will be removed from their majority and some other race will take over but its unlikely to be blacks unless something changes drastically. I am not saying inferior I'm saying they are quite different. It was probably a huge mistake to try and drag Africa into the 20th Century (or even earlier) as they weren't ready but conquerors do what conquerors do and the Africans for whatever reason failed to capitalise on the knowledge and foresight of their conquerors.

Its not racist to recognise the differences you know but today in this wonderful melting pot of liberal ideology yup I'm racist simply for being white so bring it on

Well stated.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: 0racle

This has been coming for a long time. SA has one of the highest murder, car jacking, rape, and child rape rates in the world. After Mandela, there was a void in leadership. After the Boer's, there was a void in administrative know how. Things will definitely get far worse before they get better. Unfortunately I think it's just going to be another on the long list of Africa's failed states.

An interesting question is: How would Africa in general have evolved without any intervention from other cultures - no whites, no Chinese, no nothing (except Arabs in the north and east).

"Supremacy people" would probably claim that "they woulnd't have come down from the trees" or other hastily drawn conclusions.

I'm genuinely curious - Africans seem at heart to be "kind and sensitive" - to the point of being easily exploitable - while at the same time doing all this tribal warfare in-fighting stuff.

Without the greed of the Western Civilization, would the resources in Africa have been mined at all? As it is, there has been a whole lot of suffering brought onto the continent by the mere fact that "there's gold in them thar hills" (and diamonds, and... a lot of other stuff).

S+F

a reply to: Uberdoubter

We'll never know the answer to that. The Arab slave trade decimated the population over many years in any event. It just seems that 400yrs ago it was far too early to try and "bring them up to date" with Europeans.

I don't believe they would have mined the gold diamonds copper etc. They had many many years to do so and never did. In many countries they still aren't mining their resources, they allow other countries to do so due to bribery & corruption. Those in power decided it was more financially tempting to take kickbacks and let others take the resources. Had Africa at some point taken control and mined the resources themselves, it could well be a whole different ballgame. But is it really greed to utilise the resources the planet has when others don't/won't? If we are brutally honest, without some of those resources that Europeans et al have mined, the Africans today wouldn't have the technology they currently enjoy.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Uberdoubter

...But is it really greed to utilise the resources the planet has when others don't/won't? If we are brutally honest, without some of those resources that Europeans et al have mined, the Africans today wouldn't have the technology they currently enjoy.

At the end of the day, you have to break eggs to make omelets. Just as the airplanes of today have evolved as a result of thousands of people dying, the suffering and exploitation of whole groups of people have paved way for a lot of what we today take for granted.

We may all pretend to be equal, but there is a food chain. We basically don't like the ones above us in the chain, and don't care for the ones below us.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Um, the N word has nothing to do with the country Niger, and everything to do with the color black...

Niger is also nowhere near the Horn of Africa.

The area of South Africa was also virtually non existant in the slave trade...

Source

Where in the world did you get your information?

a reply to: Uberdoubter

You realize arabs are "supremacy people" and are Caucasian right? You also realize they started the African slave trade right?

a reply to: 0racle

You say the conclusion of science is wrong, but you can't say why. There's the problem with your analysis. Your responses seem more as excuses for a bad child. Apparently, this is like the argument for a god or gods-deeply wanted and needed but without empirical proof. I have, as many, many do a deep empathy for Africans and their plight but it has been shown again and again that we cannot protect them against themselves and they want us to butt out and watch the slaughter from the sidelines which is totally against our nature.

a reply to: 0racle

Unfortunately that's not what any of the papers sourced in that article say. That appears to be a racist, white nationalist, article that has taken several studies out of context.

Feel free to disregard everything it said and continue to rightfully believe that we all can attain the same morality and even behavior.