was south Africa better off during white rule over black rule

https://origins.osu.edu/article/sou...sa-zuma-corruption?language_content_entity=en


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/apartheid-s-africa-better-run-says-poll-1.1107160

I knew a couple of white south African women who were in a exchange program ,that worked for me. They both told me it was dangerous there and women both black and white faced a extreme danger of being raped and farmers were in danger of being run off their land by force and the result was often a failed farm .
At the time it was around 2003 and I didn't know much about the subject and suspected that it ws due to thier possibly not liking blacks , but if you look it looks as if they were right .

 

I didn't vote because the correct answer should be "Other", in some ways it's better, it's some ways it's worse. Zimbabwe was what supporters of Apartheid always pointed to, saying black majority rule would turn SA into a clone of it. Looks like they were right to a degree but that doesn't mean it was wrong

 

I agree but I also think it matters which side of the fence your on to some extent

 

Another question:

Is South Africa now better of since woke people said it would be racist to name the Southern part of Africa "Black Africa" and invented the woke term "Sub-Sahara"?

 

Maybe the state of India would also be better of if it was named "Sub-Tibet?"

 

It sucked to be black during white controlled south africa and now it suck to be white in black control south africa. But in all honesty, whites should've never occupied and colonize any part of africa. Colonial rule as never been a good thing for any native population. It was 100% exploitation and theft.

 

I think the term sub Sahara has been round for awhile ,

In the 1970s the term “black Africa” became popular among scholars, including some in Africa. It was only in the 1980s that the phrase “sub-Saharan Africa” gained purchase, though it began circulating earlier (The Economist first used it in 193.

What is sub-Saharan Africa? | The Economist
(0.84 seconds)

 

The term Sub-Saharan Africa is not new, and there is nothing woke about, and it also has nothing to do with South Africa, when 75% of the continent is part of it.

There is Sub-Himalayan Region

Topography and the location of northern sub-Himalayan region in the map of Pakistan

 

No, the British Empire was the greatest force for good in human history, finding our colonies slave owning tyrannies and leaving them free and democratic societies, spreading the ethos of Magna Carta, the Glorious revolution, Bill of Rights and Act of Toleration.

 

Africa is about to get abused through trade by China.

Leave em be.

Oh and if you are white and still in South Africa? God speed.

 

There are some 4.6 million whites there and I am sure they appreciate your concern.

 

Yes the Mau Mau genocide was clearly one of the greatest acts of British colonialism.

 

They can use that for comfort while they are getting raped and murder by militia over farm land.

 

You got it!

And because Germany is such an emberassing name we now call it Sub-Denmark or Westpoland or Aboveswitzerland or Easternfrance.

 

Call it anything you want.

Whatever makes you happy.

I am not in business of whining about what some region is, or should be called.

 

This is true

 

Good!

 

It is not ME!
It is those woke Pharisees who constantly want to change names!
Like with "Curry" now.

 

You are the only one here who wants to re-name Germany etc.

The term Sub-Sahran Africa is NOT new, and neither is Sub-Himalayan region.

What do you care what people call them when no one stops you from calling them whatever you want?

 

I want nothing of the sort.
Obviously you do not understand irony.

 

I do, and I also understand whinery, which is what I see in your complaints about how people refer to parts of Africa.

 

What about re-naming the USA as Sub-Canada - or as Uebermexico?
Woke people would rejoice!

 

Always the Law of Unintended Consequences to deal with.

If whites still ran South Africa, the forces of anti-white separatists would be much stronger and more violent, so
there might very well be more violence than there is now.

One never knows - if the US had remained part of England, then slavery would have been abolished by a vote in 1833, rather than
a Civil War in 1860 that left marks we still feel today.

 

We had a poster here, haven't seen her for a while, @scarlet witch who IIRC often discussed how SA had descended into one big rapist free-for-all. She started a thread about it HERE.

 

From where I’m from we call Canada sub Detroit.