South Africa: Still a destination for emigrants?

El Weirdo

Stinicker wrote: »

South Africa was a great country one time and was probably given higher preference for Emigration than Australia back in the day as it was a nearer destination to Sail to. White settlers made it into a great country however with the end of Apartheid came the collapse of a great economy, many of the black people who are now unemployed were employed back in the day, there was health care and law & order. All the South African people I have ever met have pretty negative views of their homeland and how things were better in the past before the natives took control.

Similarly in Zimbabwe a country with massive economic output and some of the worlds best farmland, both SA and Zimbabwe were excellent under white rule however when the native peoples took control they just reverted to a typical African tinpot dictatorships and the amount of white settlers that have been brutalised and killed on both countries in frightening. A common urban myth there is that if you are infected by Aids you can get rid of the virus by raping a virgin. I think a woman is raped in South Africa every three minutes and white people have taken to living in gated communities and armed themselves to the teeth to prevent this and other sorts of crimes.

The native south africans so far have proven they are doing a bad job of ruling themselves and time will tell if this remains the case. I done alot of research into SA as I had planned to travel there this time last year for the World Cup until Thierry Henry robbed Ireland. SA is very unsafe and I couldn't see why any white person would want to travel to a country where they are so discriminated against there. Unless you were on some sort of high paying short term contract work I wouldn't go there.

Are you saying that Apartheid was a good thing?

Because it certainly sounds like it.

oppenheimer1

El Weirdo wrote: »

Are you saying that Apartheid was a good thing?

Because it certainly sounds like it.

I think hes saying SA had a better economy under apartheid. I don't think hes moralising it, just stating a fact.

Nodin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I think hes saying SA had a better economy under apartheid. I don't think hes moralising it, just stating a fact.

His facts happen not to be facts however.

Stinicker

El Weirdo wrote: »

Are you saying that Apartheid was a good thing?

Because it certainly sounds like it.

Apartheid was good for white people in that they were protected, ultimately it was bad for the natives but under Apartheid the economy was better, despite the embargos etc. Apartheid never really ended in South Africa, the teams just switched sides, now it is White people who are discriminated against and the economy of the entire region is going to hell in a canoe.

The authorities in SA wanted the white players to be removed from the SA Rugby team despite they being the best players in the world, this tells you the sort of racism that exists down there.

The Americans and Australians effectively had their own version of Apartheid in their own countries as did the British in Ireland.

Nodin

Stinicker wrote: »

Apartheid was good for white people in that they were protected, ultimately it was bad for the natives but under Apartheid the economy was better.........

....for the governing elite, based on race. There was no health care and the poor were herded into bantustans. The poverty and inequality in SA is a legacy of apartheid.

Benny_Cake

Stinicker wrote: »

Apartheid was good for white people in that they were protected, ultimately it was bad for the natives but under Apartheid the economy was better, despite the embargos etc. Apartheid never really ended in South Africa, the teams just switched sides, now it is White people who are discriminated against and the economy of the entire region is going to hell in a canoe.

The authorities in SA wanted the white players to be removed from the SA Rugby team despite they being the best players in the world, this tells you the sort of racism that exists down there.

The Americans and Australians effectively had their own version of Apartheid in their own countries as did the British in Ireland.

So Apartheid = good racism then, Black Economic Empowerment = bad racism. And GDP growth of 4.8% in the first quarter of the year doesn't quite match what I would see as "going to hell in a canoe": http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/gdp-growth

Blobby George

later10 wrote: »

The man is still very wary of people walking close behind him in the street in Ireland, because he has been so conditioned to worry for his personal safety.

Is he living in Limerick?

El Weirdo

Stinicker wrote: »

Apartheid was good for white people in that they were protected, ultimately it was bad for the natives but under Apartheid the economy was better, despite the embargos etc. Apartheid never really ended in South Africa, the teams just switched sides, now it is White people who are discriminated against and the economy of the entire region is going to hell in a canoe.

The authorities in SA wanted the white players to be removed from the SA Rugby team despite they being the best players in the world, this tells you the sort of racism that exists down there.

I'm sorry, but you can't compare the way the blacks and coloureds were treated during Apartheid with they way whites are being treated under the new regime.

Black and coloureds had it a little worse than not being allowed to play rugby for SA.

Stinicker

Stinicker wrote: »

Apartheid was good for white people in that they were protected, ultimately it was bad for the natives but under Apartheid the economy was better, despite the embargos etc. Apartheid never really ended in South Africa, the teams just switched sides, now it is White people who are discriminated against and the economy of the entire region is going to hell in a canoe.

The authorities in SA wanted the white players to be removed from the SA Rugby team despite they being the best players in the world, this tells you the sort of racism that exists down there.

The Americans and Australians effectively had their own version of Apartheid in their own countries as did the British in Ireland.

No they didnt, they wanted a certain quota number. This is still in place, mainly seen on the subs bench.

Stinicker

Nodin wrote: »

....for the governing elite, based on race. There was no health care and the poor were herded into bantustans. The poverty and inequality in SA is a legacy of apartheid.

I disagree, had South Africa never been colonised like Ethiopia it would still be a basket case like Ethiopia and much of Africa today, if it had joined the other African countries in the 1960's and became Independent of the White man it would probably have become another tin-pot dictatorship where the elite would be black instead of white and the poor would still remain the same, South Africa caught up with its neighbours in this regard when Mandela took over and instead of white people in charge you had the locals in charge and things started going downhill for White people shortly afterwards, as anything that goes wrong they are scapegoated or in Zimbabwe's case just ethnically cleansed.

When Ireland won Independence in 1922, we killed and ran the British out of here. We then got a Fianna Fail regime that paraylsed the country for years and installed a Catholic Dictatorship which made any non Catholic out to be the anti-Christ; they wrecked the economy multiple times. The similarities between Ireland and South Africa pre & post colonisation are remarkable, they got the Aids epidemic and Ireland had the TB epidemic. Apartheid was wrong, however I still think SA would be in a bad place today if the White Man never started meddling there.

Benny_Cake

Team photo from last year. As you can see 10% of the population are being very unfairly discriminated against.:rolleyes:

Benny_Cake

Stinicker wrote: »

I disagree, had South Africa never been colonised like Ethiopia it would still be a basket case like Ethiopia and much of Africa today, if it had joined the other African countries in the 1960's and became Independent of the White man it would probably have become another tin-pot dictatorship where the elite would be black instead of white and the poor would still remain the same, South Africa caught up with its neighbours in this regard when Mandela took over and instead of white people in charge you had the locals in charge and things started going downhill for White people shortly afterwards, as anything that goes wrong they are scapegoated or in Zimbabwe's case just ethnically cleansed.

When Ireland won Independence in 1922, we killed and ran the British out of here. We then got a Fianna Fail regime that paraylsed the country for years and installed a Catholic Dictatorship which made any non Catholic out to be the anti-Christ; they wrecked the economy multiple times. The similarities between Ireland and South Africa pre & post colonisation are remarkable, they got the Aids epidemic and Ireland had the TB epidemic. Apartheid was wrong, however I still think SA would be in a bad place today if the White Man never started meddling there.

Ireland was a "Catholic dictatorship". Really - you sure about that?Catholic church had way too much influence-sure.But a dictatorship?!

Also,the notion that white South Africans are not "local" is a new one on me,and I wouldn't mention it in a bar if you ever pluck up the courage to head over there (how many tourists were murdered during the World Cup by the way).

Think you need to consider your thesis a bit harder.

later12

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Team photo from last year. As you can see 10% of the population are being very unfairly discriminated against.:rolleyes:

How do you know they are being discriminated against? There are lots of cultural possibilities as to why rugby is still a whites-dominated sport in South Africa.

One reason is that black kids just don't want to identify themselves with it - not everyone of all backgrounds grew up with rugby, yes partially for racial reasons, but also one has to consider family reasons and school reasons. Not everybody enjoys rugby the same amount.

It's similar to the way that in Ireland rugby has traditionally had a disproportionately high selection from voluntary schools. Colour in those on the Irish team who attended fee paying schools white, and colour those who attended non fee paying schools black, and see what results you come up with.

Benny_Cake

later10 wrote: »

How do you know they are being discriminated against? There are lots of cultural possibilities as to why rugby is still a whites-dominated sport in South Africa.

One reason is that black kids just don't want to identify themselves with it - not everyone of all backgrounds grew up with rugby, yes partially for racial reasons, but also one has to consider family reasons and school reasons. Not everybody enjoys rugby the same amount.

It's similar to the way that in Ireland rugby has traditionally had a disproportionately high selection from voluntary schools. Colour in those on the Irish team who attended fee paying schools white, and colour those who attended non fee paying schools black, and see what results you come up with.

Think you misunderstood - it seemed as if some posters were comparing modest efforts at increasing the representation of non-white players with Apartheid.I don't think there is any discrimination going on at all,it is likely that rugby will be a largely "white" sport for some time to come,although it would be better for the Springboks if this was to change over time. Completely agree with your point about the Irish team btw!

Nodin

Stinicker wrote: »

I disagree, had (......)ethnically cleansed.
.

Your assertion re the economy was disproved in an earlier post.

Stinicker wrote: »

When Ireland won Independence in 1922, we killed and ran the British out of here. .

Funny, we never covered that in history in my day. Perhaps you might link to a source so I might educate myself.

Stinicker wrote: »

We then got a Fianna Fail regime that paraylsed the country for years and installed a Catholic Dictatorship .

...the first fianna fail government was elected 10 years after independence.

What was the name of the countrys first 'catholic dictator'?

fiona12

I'm South African, I am not joining the pissing contest up there about apartheid - In my opinion, if you haven't been there, and lived it, you shouldn't really comment. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but please ensure that you have the correct facts before voicing your opinion.

As for living in South Africa, I haven't lived there for over 10 years, and I wouldn't go back if you paid me, not the way things are at the moment. I miss it so much that I still get cry when I hear a South African song or think of my childhood.

I think it is so sad that I can't return to my home country, and that is not because I don't want to, it's because I really can't. I can't imagine what it must feel like to always be worried about your children - whether they are safe.

Every single South African person I know, knows someone that has been raped, murdered, hijacked, robbed, etc