Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It can go in several ways:
1) They can be killed off and/or expelled like it happened to Italian civilians in Libya in 1969 and European colonists (Pieds-noirs) in Algeria in 1962.
2) They can intermarry with local people like it increasingly happened in Mozambique, Angola and São Tome or with Italians in Eritrea
3) They can hold out (apartheid, keeping separate culture, surviving etc) like Boers and whites in Zambia and Zimbabwe with a different degree of discrimination
4) A mix of the former.
The Afrikaners were their own worst enemy - not mixing with the blacks, virulently opposing black rights, opposing immigration (because they saw other Europeans as being a threat to their culture), and supporting the National Party for decades, They refused to accept so called "Coloureds" (mixed race Afrikaners) as Afrikaners, despite having the same culture and customs. South Africa should have done the exact opposite of what it did and it would be in better shape now.
Pretty much this. South Africa's problems today in large measure can be laid at the feet of the National Party and the Afrikaaners who supported it for all of its existence. To try put the blame for the problems solely on the National Party and absolve "ordinary Afrikaaners" of complicity with its actions is as hypocritical as attempting to absolve "ordinary Germans" of complicity with the Nazis.
In the US, we paid dearly for enslaving Africans for 250 years with the blood bath that was the Civil War. We're now paying for another century of Jim Crow, although the price for that hasn't been nearly so high.
Pretty much this. South Africa's problems today in large measure can be laid at the feet of the National Party and the Afrikaaners who supported it for all of its existence. To try put the blame for the problems solely on the National Party and absolve "ordinary Afrikaaners" of complicity with its actions is as hypocritical as attempting to absolve "ordinary Germans" of complicity with the Nazis.
In the US, we paid dearly for enslaving Africans for 250 years with the blood bath that was the Civil War. We're now paying for another century of Jim Crow, although the price for that hasn't been nearly so high.
That is true. While I do not fault individual Afrikaners, who can be good, bad, or in between, Afrikaners as a group bore a lot of responsibility for what South Africa has become. SA would have been a better place if the United Party had remained in power in 1948.
I am not talking about expats as there will always be a few of them around. I refer instead to white citizens of African nations who are descendants of people that have been living in those countries for generations. Their populations have been declining since the beginning of decolonization. I was just wondering what others think.
Sub Saharan Africa is a huge land mass of Africa stretching from the Congo, going far south as South Africa, rounding east towards to horn of Africa and West as far north as Senagal a former French colony. The European exploitation and colonization of Africa is a very sad one. Spaniards and Portuguese opened up trading stations were goods from Europe and the Americas were traded for slaves and so on. Other powers wanted to grow and get in the game, French, Dutch and the British competed heavily for Africa's markets. By the industrial revolution and a thirst for Asia's markets and raw goods lead Europe to scramble for Africa with the French taking much of West Africa, Belgium taking the Congo, Britain taking everything from North as Egypt to South as Capetown. Germany took, Tanzania, and Namibia, Portuguese had control of Mozambique, Angola, Togo and some other African islands. Spain only had Morocco, Western Saraha and Equitorial Guinea. New Countries like Germany and Italy wanted African colonies especially since countries like Spain, France Britain had empires that were fueled by overseas colonies.
Southern cone of Africa has an interesting history. I don't blame the Afrikaners for what is going on in South Africa. I blame British Empire and its thirst for riches and control of sea ports. Even though British navy and British merchant ships can by pass Africa through Egypt and on its way to India and the Orient. Its even worse if an enemy ship wanted to sail through British controlled Egypt but cant. A good example of this is Imperial Russia and Germany. Their ships can not sail through British canal zone, and are forced to sail around Africa again into British waters of controlled South Africa. Their was no real reason for the British Empire to make war with the African Boers in Free state and Transvaal. I'm not sure but South Africa was also rich in resources like Diamonds and Gold. Cecil Rhodes, Roth Childs and other Britain elites wanted Britain to control South Africa. Britain made two wars against the Dutch colonies of Free State and Transvaal. The war was a very bloody event, a good portion of the war was guerilla warfare with hit and run tactics. After the war plenty of Dutch were placed in concentration camps and were prisoners of war by the British. For a period the British treated the Dutch of South Africa as secondary citizens. This is one of the biggest mistakes the British had made which will pave the way for Apartheid in South Africa was miss treatment of the Dutch. Also the British mistreated the Africans as well. The British fought plenty of tribes in South Africa.
The ANC in South Africa is no different than the Aparthied government, and no different than British Imperial region, and its the poor who still get screwed over. Plenty of South African whites have been moving to Australia. Then again the situation in Europe downfall of the Euro, Portuguese are moving to former colonies looking for work and Angola was one of them. Zimbabwe also known as Rhodesia named after Cecil Rhodes, plenty of white land owners have declined in recent years. Back to South Africa. Lets not forget that Ghandi birth and activism began there when he was a lawyer. His mistreatment by the British in South Africa gave him a blind eye against what the Empire stood for.
I'm not sure any people have a future in sub-Saharan Africa, if future is means a yet to come era better that the present. It is more likely that what they will have is the past - darkness; culturally, economically and spiritually. That has been the case with Rhodesia and is becoming the it with South Africa. Unless their trajectories change dramatically, it won't be long until it's 1500 again.
I think white people should do their best to get out of Africa. It would be a good idea for European governments to accomodate them as refugees - for each country those groups that are related to them ethnically, but that is unlikely to happen. Let each last European get out and wait to see Africa revert to its original state, before any white ever set foot on it.
What about the Chinese in Africa? Are they accepted? What about the Indians in Africa? Wasn't there conflict between Indian business owners and African leaders? IIRC, weren't Indian businesses run out of one country? I want to say by Idi Amin, but I am really not sure. Anyone have any info?
What about the Chinese in Africa? Are they accepted? What about the Indians in Africa? Wasn't there conflict between Indian business owners and African leaders? IIRC, weren't Indian businesses run out of one country? I want to say by Idi Amin, but I am really not sure. Anyone have any info?
This is what I see happening. I can see Asians grabbing up Africa like the Europeans did. The big problem is that the Europeans left Africa in an horrible state and industries were based off of exploitation. The Asians wont colonize Africa but will set up more free trade agreements with African countries. I mainly see India and China as the main players in Africa. As for South Africa, I don't whites are so much in trouble compred to places like Zimbabwe and Namibia. If the whites leave South Africa, that country is in trouble. Lets not forget that millions of whites still live in South Africa, most notably Anglo Dutch, with minioriies of Germans and Portuguese. Lets not forget that Millions of Asians from India, Malaysia and China also live in South Africa. Out of all the countries in Sub Saharan Africa, South Africa is the most Westernized and the most industrial.
Sub Saharan Africa is a huge land mass of Africa stretching from the Congo, going far south as South Africa, rounding east towards to horn of Africa and West as far north as Senagal a former French colony. The European exploitation and colonization of Africa is a very sad one. Spaniards and Portuguese opened up trading stations were goods from Europe and the Americas were traded for slaves and so on. Other powers wanted to grow and get in the game, French, Dutch and the British competed heavily for Africa's markets. By the industrial revolution and a thirst for Asia's markets and raw goods lead Europe to scramble for Africa with the French taking much of West Africa, Belgium taking the Congo, Britain taking everything from North as Egypt to South as Capetown. Germany took, Tanzania, and Namibia, Portuguese had control of Mozambique, Angola, Togo and some other African islands. Spain only had Morocco, Western Saraha and Equitorial Guinea. New Countries like Germany and Italy wanted African colonies especially since countries like Spain, France Britain had empires that were fueled by overseas colonies.
Southern cone of Africa has an interesting history. I don't blame the Afrikaners for what is going on in South Africa. I blame British Empire and its thirst for riches and control of sea ports. Even though British navy and British merchant ships can by pass Africa through Egypt and on its way to India and the Orient. Its even worse if an enemy ship wanted to sail through British controlled Egypt but cant. A good example of this is Imperial Russia and Germany. Their ships can not sail through British canal zone, and are forced to sail around Africa again into British waters of controlled South Africa. Their was no real reason for the British Empire to make war with the African Boers in Free state and Transvaal. I'm not sure but South Africa was also rich in resources like Diamonds and Gold. Cecil Rhodes, Roth Childs and other Britain elites wanted Britain to control South Africa. Britain made two wars against the Dutch colonies of Free State and Transvaal. The war was a very bloody event, a good portion of the war was guerilla warfare with hit and run tactics. After the war plenty of Dutch were placed in concentration camps and were prisoners of war by the British. For a period the British treated the Dutch of South Africa as secondary citizens. This is one of the biggest mistakes the British had made which will pave the way for Apartheid in South Africa was miss treatment of the Dutch. Also the British mistreated the Africans as well. The British fought plenty of tribes in South Africa.
The ANC in South Africa is no different than the Aparthied government, and no different than British Imperial region, and its the poor who still get screwed over. Plenty of South African whites have been moving to Australia. Then again the situation in Europe downfall of the Euro, Portuguese are moving to former colonies looking for work and Angola was one of them. Zimbabwe also known as Rhodesia named after Cecil Rhodes, plenty of white land owners have declined in recent years. Back to South Africa. Lets not forget that Ghandi birth and activism began there when he was a lawyer. His mistreatment by the British in South Africa gave him a blind eye against what the Empire stood for.
You state: "Even though British navy and British merchant ships can by pass Africa through Egypt and on its way to India and the Orient." Did you finish this sentence or did you have more to add here? India is the "Orient" as it is in Asia.
In addition, how is it you do not include Egypt as part of Africa when you describe the British naval system getting past Africa? Egypt is in Africa.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
