One in four South African men are rapists

P.C.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Wait, so your say that Apartheid, a system that kept black people poor and uneducated, has NOTHING to do with the current generation of south africans (most of whom would have been of schoolin' age while apartheid was still on the go) being uneducated.


Wow

Totally incorrect interpretation of Aparthied!

I met a german man who was a german soldier in the second world war. He was even a prisoner of war in Russia. He gave a talk about the area that we were visiting. At the end of the talk he said - German forever, but never a Nazi!

Why do you blame 'Aparthied'?
Why not blame the laws at the time, or the politicians, or even the people who voted for the politicians.

Why do you assume that 'Apartheid' was the law?

P.C.

PaulieD wrote: »

How many South African males reside here? The figure who admitted to rape is 31%, that is closer to 1 in 3. Once they land in Dublin airport their urges dont change.

Why are we importing such a problem here?

This is disgusting.

Irish people have moved to all parts of the world over the years, and they have been welcomed by most cultures. But look at what they have done to their own people.

Clean your own house before you criticise someone else for having a dirty house.

K-9

P.C. I'd be interested in a response to Dudess's question. Could you give your opinion?

P.C.

johnathan woss wrote: »

Could someone tell me all the African countries that have improved since the evil white man was kicked out of government ?

It must be a really really really long list but take your time and include them all.

Namibia
Botswana
Malawi

P.C.

Dudess wrote: »

Well then what was it?

K-9 wrote: »

P.C. I'd be interested in a response to Dudess's question. Could you give your opinion?

A Direct translation of Aparthied is: seperate development.

Apart = sepeate (apart)
Heid = 'ness

It was sold to the'educated english speaking' South African poeple of the 70's as a way to develop the uneducated people of the country at an 'acelerated pace', in a sereate education system.

The voting people of the time thought that this was not a bad idea - education for the masses.

P.C.

Unfortunately, you have to go further back into the history of Southern Africa and Europe to understand what is happening in Southern Africa at the moment.

I am too tired to be giving history lessons at the moment, and am going away for the weekend.

But if you want, you can do a bit of reading on the Mfecane for a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difaquane

K-9

P.C. wrote: »

A Direct translation of Aparthied is: seperate development.

Apart = sepeate (apart)
Heid = 'ness

It was sold to the'educated english speaking' South African poeple of the 70's as a way to develop the uneducated people of the country at an 'acelerated pace', in a sereate education system.

The voting people of the time thought that this was not a bad idea - education for the masses.

So like some voting FF, seemed a good idea at the time.

tallaght01

The issue really is multifactorial, but I'm sure apartheid is at the heart of it. I think even most white south africans agree with that.

The fallout from apartheid is that the blacks are still poor. You can remove legalised apartheid, but you still essentially have an apartheid system.

When they abolished apartheid, the blacks were still living in shanty towns, and the whites were well off. The blacks weren't overnight able to afford to send their kids to university. They were allowed live in the white neighbourhoods, but they couldn't afford it.

They were poor, but no-one has attempted to break the poverty cycle. There is still economic and healthcare apartheid in south africa. The A+E where I worked was just for backs. Not because whites weren't allowed. But because they wouldn't be seen dead there. In al my time there, I only saw one white patient, and that was because he was transported there with the black prostitute who was in his car that crashed.

Blacks are still dirt poor. Just because the legislation now says they don't have to be poor doesn't help their socio-economic situation.

themont85

tallaght01 wrote: »

The issue really is multifactorial, but I'm sure apartheid is at the heart of it. I think even most white south africans agree with that.

The fallout from apartheid is that the blacks are still poor. You can remove legalised apartheid, but you still essentially have an apartheid system.

When they abolished apartheid, the blacks were still living in shanty towns, and the whites were well off. The blacks weren't overnight able to afford to send their kids to university. They were allowed live in the white neighbourhoods, but they couldn't afford it.

They were poor, but no-one has attempted to break the poverty cycle. There is still economic and healthcare apartheid in south africa. The A+E where I worked was just for backs. Not because whites weren't allowed. But because they wouldn't be seen dead there. In al my time there, I only saw one white patient, and that was because he was transported there with the black prostitute who was in his car that crashed.

Blacks are still dirt poor. Just because the legislation now says they don't have to be poor doesn't help their socio-economic situation.

They might not have a choice, it been an A and E and all...

anonymous_joe

Dudess wrote: »

It was "superior" in terms of safety, but at a horrific cost.

The cost was brutal racism, but I'd ask this - is it now better? I honestly don't know which is better. I truly hate racism, but has there been a moral improvement?

P.C. wrote: »

Namibia
Botswana
Malawi

Namibia's still got lots of whities, Botswana for definite. The diamond industries made it very wealthy. Shame about the frightening aids problem.

Malawi's awful as far as I know? A friend's mum's done a lot of work out there for charity, I understood it was fcuked up beyond our comprehension.

tallaght01 wrote: »

The issue really is multifactorial, but I'm sure apartheid is at the heart of it. I think even most white south africans agree with that.

The fallout from apartheid is that the blacks are still poor. You can remove legalised apartheid, but you still essentially have an apartheid system.

When they abolished apartheid, the blacks were still living in shanty towns, and the whites were well off. The blacks weren't overnight able to afford to send their kids to university. They were allowed live in the white neighbourhoods, but they couldn't afford it.

They were poor, but no-one has attempted to break the poverty cycle. There is still economic and healthcare apartheid in south africa. The A+E where I worked was just for backs. Not because whites weren't allowed. But because they wouldn't be seen dead there. In al my time there, I only saw one white patient, and that was because he was transported there with the black prostitute who was in his car that crashed.

Blacks are still dirt poor. Just because the legislation now says they don't have to be poor doesn't help their socio-economic situation.

The real problem is that black South Africans don't appear to have done anything to combat poverty. From Whinnie Mandela to the joke that is Zuma there's been frightening corruption. Like most African countries. THat's a scary problem...

tallaght01

anonymous_joe wrote: »

#


The real problem is that black South Africans don't appear to have done anything to combat poverty. From Whinnie Mandela to the joke that is Zuma there's been frightening corruption. Like most African countries. THat's a scary problem...

black people are, by and large, not in the influential positions to do anything about poverty. Black politicians are a different story, and have been mostly failures.
But there have been improvements. I was starting to see a few black med students, and the uni was elatively colourful. It will just take a long lon time to reverse hwat apartheid has done to that country.

I remember being in the soweto wondering how any of the 4 million people there will ever break the poverty cycle in a practical sense, regardless of the legal right to work and get an education.