Union of South Africa

Current violent crime rate is lower today than it was in the later parts of Apartheid, ZA has also seen major economic growth since 1994.

Cuck. South Africa was based. It wasn't going to collapse. Apartheid works. It's not retarded like communism lol.

>arbitrarialy closing off your workforce not based on merit
>not even giving some semblance of self rule to seperated communities
>has your government infested with natsocs
>but apartheid isn't as retarded, if not more, then communis,

>South Africa.
>Unique.

Literally just heartless Anglos and Germans shitting on black people for two hundred years.

Gee, how original.

I think I've seen how this ends too: with whitey bitching the fuck out like always, shirking payback slavery like a hypocrite, and a whole lot of very dead Skinheads going down with the ship.

Is the current state of South Africa primarily due to the colonization? I am not too familiar with the history but I do know the European powers also invested heavily in India and China and in much more modern contexts, Japan.

What has resulted in South Africa been so unhinged and dangerous today? Has it been primarily due to the colonization of the western powers or is it also partially due to the natives and their culture?

Could their culture have developed up to the same scope as the modern west today if they had been left unmolested ?

I am genuinely curious because the traditional view of African countries is they are hell on earth in the main bar a few. I also know in South Africa that security industry is booming and they have gated communities.

Without pushing the envelope to racial behaviour and genetics, culturally speaking was this something which was inevitable regardless?

>South Africa is getting better
M8
It's pretty demonstrably getting worse

It's objectively better than when blacks do it such as now.

Letting the Boers run things crashed it

Boers are farmers right? I guess to make my question more focused:

Why did other countries colonized by Britain and other western powers like India and China predominantly benefit and excel even after they left and the African countries in the main have not?

What factors distinguished them?

Very nice post pickle rick, you totally deconstructed South Africa!
You mean better for whites? If so then you are right, but thats all you really care about right?
I'm not a fan of the ANC at all user but the apartheid reigime denied all parties save the whites basic human rights for decades. And GDP per capital is still like a thousand points over the apartheid years.

I'll try to explain the mess that is South Africa as far as I can explain based on what I know

South Africa was basically a mess around the time the British have colonised the Cape.You have the Boers who are just farmers escaping the Cape Colony because of the constant clashes between the Native Africans and the British Army.Another factor was the fact that the British ensured that English was the main medium of communication in the Cape as well as the abolition of Slavery in South Africa which caused tensions between the Boers and the British.

The British however had their own reasons why the control of the Cape was important to them.This was a time when the Suez was not built so they had to go around the Cape to India.If this route was gone then they'd have no way of sailing across safely.Another factor was the mines of Kimberley located in the Boer States as well as the race against other powers to colonise Africa.

Not the user that you are responding to but still thats fucking based and redpilled. Whites are showing them that they need to know their place.

By the time the Anglo-Zulu war has ended,the Boers claimed that 1877 British Annexation of Transvaal has been a violation of their 1852 Treaty and their 1854 Bloemfontein Convention.The events exploded after a Boer Farmer refused to pay an illegally inflated tax which resulted in his confiscation of Wagon to be auctioned off which was halted by other Boers.After their declaration of Independence of Transvaal,Boer forces fired at Potchfestrom which led to the First Boer War.Ending in 1881 because of the desire to not get caught in a costly war overseas,Livingstone made a truce with the Boers.However,the discovery of Gold in Wittwatersrand also fuelled the continuation of the Boer Wars

Bullying your lesser is just the kind of nigger behavior you accuse them of.

The Anglo-Boer War,also known as the 2nd Boer War was fought in 1899 until 1902 in which the main reason was because of the Wittwatersrand Gold Mines.Although the Boers were well equipped and managed to wage a successful guerrilla war,the British managed to fight back under the command of Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener.This War basically saw the first use of Concentration Camps was Boer prisoners where interned in Harsh Conditions as well as the British being viewed negatively around the World.By the time the Boers signed the surrender,they supported the new political system to be put in place.This War then led to the Unification of South Africa and the creation of the Union

So now you have this Union run by Boers which always butted heads against each other due to the collective memories of the Boer Wars as well as those who supported British Rule over the Union.One of those people was Jan Smuts who at first supported Apartheid but after the release of the Fagan Commission went back and claimed that rather than treating blacks as contracted workers,the should be given Permanent Residency which was against what the Nationalist wanted which was to fully segregate Africans from Boers

The only places that could be said in any way to benefit from British colonization are Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and that's almost entirely because Chinese people are really fucking good at capitalism when given the right legal framework (which until the 80s did not exist in mainland China). And even then, those colonies were not in any way governed for the benefit of the natives, or even Chinese migrants.

>Why did other countries colonized by Britain and other western powers like India and China predominantly benefit and excel even after they left
>even after they left

They succeeded because the britbongs left. India's real GDP per capita was lower at the end of British rule than it had been during the 1600s. It got poorer, less industrialized, and less urbanized for most of the colonial period. You also can't really say that India has excelled, it's still piss poor and has lagged behind much of the rest of Asia in economic growth.

It still isn't as much of a shithole as most of Africa because most of Africa didn't have the same history of advanced government. Even after any competent local government was destroyed in India, there was still a local elite with a history of education, literacy, and work in government.

South Africa is actually doing a lot better than India in every way except crime rate, because it had what amounted to a first world society and government living within a sea of undeveloped native Africans. It'd be doing a lot better today if the Boers weren't retarded Dutch rednecks who thought that they could maintain that situation forever while constantly shitting on the black majority around them.

The only way South Africa could have turned out well is if the government invested heavily in educating and integrating blacks into the mainstream European society.

However,Because of Smut's low popularity,his detractors which was the national Party made a rival commission called the Sauer Commission which called for "Practical Segregation" which got implemented instead.

>The definition of the true savage is that he laughs when he hurts you; and howls when you hurt him.

>Whites are showing them that they need to know their place.
>GDP per capita increased after apartheid ended, even though rich white people have been leaving in droves

As in every other part of the world, whites are parasites.

Sounds exactly like Europoors.

Found the savage.

Thanks anons. I suppose in a round about way, though I don't think its suitable for Veeky Forums. Why is it then that the Africans when trying to integrate in other societies, East or West, tend to generate crime and no-go zones. Is that related to the South African/African culture?

Well you could go by /pol/ standards which basically goes down to "niggers are uncivilised bla bla bla" but in reality they're actually quite civilised.Even African Americans had to riot over universities or colleges accepting Nigerian students and some Africans do hate how African Americans act.But the problem is where those Africans come from.If they come from Cities or are well educated then they'll have no problem fitting in.It's just those who came from bumfuck nowhere that are the problem afaik

poverty is a disease that's inherited from one generation to the next, that's really the biggest factor

Not exactly /pol/ its just that looking at crime stats, predominantly speaking African populations tend to have poor issues integrating and make ghettos and no-go zones.

I am wondering is that because a lot of people from these populations, if its solely poverty or if culture plays a part. Other populations have come too from poor regions and integrate but there is a clear distinct problem with integration and African populations who are poor.

The thing you /pol/tards seem to forget about Rhodesia and South Africa is that anyone can say their country is "successful" or "modern" when you only count some teeny minority who can loot everything and everyone else in the country and hoard its wealth. I guess you think Maoist China was a success because Mao and his cronies were living the high life.

triggerd the libtards epic style fellow MAGApede! XD kek

Are Boers the new Jews, destined to wander the Earth because nobody likes them?

Those are african american families that have been around here for generations
1st generation well educated african immigrants do better than the average white person in nearly every way

>productive, industrious European descendants
>no one wants them

Which is why they enter countries like the US and Australia as highly paid engineers and consultants. You could take Boers and settle them in agriculturally rich areas almost anywhere on Earth and they'd prosper. Take for example the Mississippi Delta, inhabited by roughly 1/3 of a million American blacks who have taken what was once the richest agricultural area of the United States to the poorest of the poor in a matter of generations. Boers could turn that around in a decade.

Africa is a breadbasket and those who learn to successfully cultivate survive there. Any other population dies out, becomes hunter gatherers, or becomes dependent on foreign aid.

If we're still talking South Africa, most of the soil is shit and farmers rely heavily on chemical fertilizers. Boers fed themselves but it's not like they were getting rich on exporting their produce. It's cow country.

>ranching isn't agriculture

That sounds like everyone

>if we don’t account for where people live crime is almost non existent

The state of Veeky Forums

South Africa should have just prevented the Blacks from migrating down into their territory

South Africa was a big agricultural exporter retard, before the ANC destroyed the country.

So the success of South Africa (relative to much of the rest of Africa) stems from the fact that it was settled fairly early compared to the rest of Africa, and, unlike the rest of Africa, it was settled for actual permanent settlement rather than just a commercial venture. So thanks to that, you had a fair amount of effort actually put into making the area Europeans would want to live rather than just investing the bare minimum to support traditional colonial infrastructure. Given a few hundred years, this let South Africa establish itself as a fairly advanced colonial domain similar to Australia or Canada.

Unfortunately, the original colonizers - the Boers - were pretty hilariously racist. They relied heavily on slavery early on, which wasn't particularly out of the ordinary in Africa in the 1600s, but racism seems to have been heavily ingrained by the time the British took over. And if you think the Confederates in America were autistic for seceding over slavery, the Boers are even worse - when the British decided to outlaw slavery in the Cape, the Boers were so mad that they uprooted their whole lives and trekked hundreds of miles into uncharted hostile wilderness to form the Orange Free State and Transvaal. All so they could keep their slaves.

After the Boer Wars, the British were actually surprisingly light on the Boers, and Boer culture ended up dominating South African politics. Unsurprisingly, that entailed lots of racism, which culminated in Apartheid. As postwar liberal ideals about equality spread through the world through not just US policy but the UN and OAU, Apartheid obviously ran into some problems at home and abroad. Worse, for South Africa, was the fact that they were also under heavy international pressure to withdraw from Southwest Africa (Namibia).

>cont

>cont

Ultimately, the inequalities within society led to unrest and violence. Peaceful equality movements failed, so the ANC and SWAPO (Namibian rebels) resorted to violence. These movements set up shop in southern Angola, causing South Africa to get itself stuck in a secret war there. As the Portuguese and Rhodesian regimes fell and decolonized in the '70s, South Africa found itself gradually surrounded by hostile states while sanctions took increasingly heavy tolls on the economy and the SADF's ability to fight the various rebel groups.

Like Rhodesia, they refused to really look for a political solution until fairly late, instead relying on heavy-handed violence and leveraging ethnic groups against eachother - neither of which are going to foster particularly good sentiments when apartheid inevitably fell. Really it's a miracle the country held together at all after 1994, and Mandela's efforts went a long way to fixing a lot of the damage done by Apartheid. But unfortunately Apartheid really left a lasting impact on much of the black culture there and (perhaps rightfully) associated the Boers with many of the lingering problems, making them the target for much of the animosity.

They have improved since the end of Apartheid, when the country was on the verge of collapse, but the legacy of Apartheid lingers on, and it's going to take a few generations for things to "normalize."

As for the rest of Africa, there's a whole clusterfuck of reasons why things went so bad that I could go into if you're interested.

>I could go into if you're interested
I am, please go on prof. user sir

Again, the old R&M poster was MUCH better at this than you. You need to really go all out, type up a wall of text.

Any particular part of Africa you're looking for?

The general excuse given for the failure of Africa is that the colonies weren't set up to be independent - which is somewhat true, but it ignores much of the story. Apart from notable instances like the Belgian Congo, the decolonizing portions of Africa in 1960 (when the process started) actually looked surprisingly promising. The British went out of their way to try to prepare the colonies, with notable instances like Somalia where they tried to forge a national identity to unite the tribal society. Growth rates across the continent were high, and for much of the '60s Africa actually looked like it was doing better than most of Asia.

The problem was that much of this growth was predicated on less than desirable things. Much of the growth came from foreign loans (especially the IMF) that leveraged off of low oil prices, and many new states (particularly French ones) were still heavily economically dependent on their former masters. A few notable instances like the Congo, where the government tried to break away economically from their former masters, were pretty brutally suppressed. In the Congo, Belgian-backed mercenaries and rebels killed the Prime minister and several foreign states supported the pro-Belgian Katanga breakaway state. A similar situation was seen in oil-rich Biafra in Nigeria, and, to a much lesser degree, the efforts of Sankara in Burkina Faso were cut short by a French-backed coup.

But the real problem was the Oil Crisis. When oil prices spiked, a lot of African economies couldn't keep up. Many defaulted on loans, and, rather than working with the nations to salvage their economies, many foreign investors and the IMF were more content to let nations fall apart than restructure debt. The failure of economies and states paved the way for rebellions and coups, with new dictators turning to cronyism to bolster their positions.

>cont

>cont

Cold War politics getting involved only made things worse. Mobutu in the Congo/Zaire found he could maintain his position fairly easily by buddying up with the US and playing nice with the Belgians as an anti-communist ally. NATO didn't care what he did domestically as long as he kept the commies out, so he was content to let corruption run rampant and the country rot as long as he remained in power. In the Horn of Africa, the Soviets pumped money and weapons into Somalia that were turned around and sent to Somali rebels in Ethiopia and Kenya in exchange for a naval base at Berbera. Later, when the Somalis ejected the Soviets for failing to help their war against Ethiopia, the Soviets threw their support behind the newly-communist Ethiopians, who would ultimately be propped up through two and a half decades of civil war by Soviet support.

Southern Africa ended up a massive clusterfuck thanks to a combination of minority rule governments and cold war politics. Angola became a warzone as the Cubans and Soviets tried to support the ruling MPLA, while South Africa and the US backed UNITA and China, North Korea, and the US backed the FNLA all to overthrow the communists. Mozambique ended up a shitshow as RENAMO, a group created by Portugal to counter the FRELIMO rebels before Portugal left, ended up backed by Rhodesia and South Africa in order to hamstring the newly independent FRELIMO government that was hostile to the white minority rule states. Rhodesia also worked to destabilize Zambia, which hosted ZAPU, and domestically fostered plenty of ethnic tensions domestically to fight ZANU.

In general, ethnic tensions ended up being a problem in most places because borders were created without consideration for ethnic groups, and OAU policy from its inception was to keep borders static no matter what. So separatist movements are incredibly rare (only Eritrea has succeeded, and even then only with the consent of Ethiopia).

>cont

>cont
As strange as it sounds, there really is an "excuse" for most every African failed state. There's often patterns of problems that span regions or even the continent with certain events like the 1970's Oil Crisis (which crashed economies) or the end of the Cold War (which saw many states and rebel groups abandoning communist ideals), while usually every country also has its own problems unique to its particular situation, often stemming from some colonial legacy. In some cases, the issues span countries themselves, the most famous of which is Southwest Africa in the '80s - the Angolan Civil War was the interlocking of anti-apartheid conflict, Namibian independence movements, Cuban and Soviet attempts to expand communist influence into South Africa, NATO's efforts to dislodge communists, and UNITA's political and ethnic struggle for control or at least influence in the country's political process.

One of the more recent problems African states are running into is generally referred to as Neocolonialsm. That tends to be expressed in a couple of ways, the most simple of which being having foreign business interests effectively controlling the economies of the nations. Off the top of my head, both Zambia and former French Africa have huge problems with that, as these foreign companies tend to manipulate things so that they pay very little taxes while they extract huge amounts of wealth from the country. One of the other major issues is the trade imbalance. Most African countries are reliant on export of raw materials due to the lack of major established industries that can compete on the international stage. Unfortunately, raw materials are very cheap compared to finished goods, so these countries often rack up massive trade deficits importing essential items for their economy. And foreign companies can dump goods far cheaper than they can be made domestically (or aid can do it for them), killing any local industry.

Cool stuff

Yes but I was also considering the no-go zones in Sweden, Britain and France, also predominantly ethnically African. Is it their culture which brings it out on them or poverty?

>muh highly qualified redneck farmers
LOL no, anybody with technical knowledge has already left the shithole of South Africa in the 1990s. All that's left are the poorfag low class boers just waiting to get genocided because they can't get out.

The poorest white majority municipality also has less crime than the richest white majority municipality.

You should probably research the talking points you parrot.

>no-go zones
>anywhere in europe
go back to pol

When was the last time you went to Johanesburg?

southern africa in the earl 70s was fukn nuts, you had portuguese owned angola and mocambique, rhodesian governed zimbabwe, apartheid SA and namibia. You had the border war with namibia, the angolan civil war with hellluh cubans and commies and shit, rhodesia was a clusterfuck with ian smith, nkomo and mugabe, basically all sorts of shit going on

...

...

Just wish my cousins south of the equator managed to get their own state one day.

Great posts. I am interested in Africa and I have some questions I couldn't find answers to.

1. What really was UNITA and what did they want? I've read absolutely contrasting opinions on them.
2. What caused the Boers to give away power rather than cling to it to the bitter end?
3. Why Mobutu's regime fell so rapidly after crushing so many rebellions before?
4. What really were the Bantustans?

US President Barack Obama has given South Africa 60 days to remove barriers to US farm produce or face sanctions in a long-running row over chicken exports.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-afr

>The South African Poultry Association argues that more American chicken on South African plates would result in the loss of 6,500 jobs and threaten the development of black-owned, small-scale chicken farms.
economist.com/news/midd
>Imported chicken is slaughtering the local industry, says poultry association
city-press.news24.com/Busine

mg.co.za/article/2017-11-10
>Victims of the EU’s shockingly immoral approach to trade in poultry include, to date, Cameroon, Senegal, Ghana and, more recently, South Africa. As a consequence of a flood of imports, 70% of broiler operations in Senegal closed. In Cameroon, 120000 people lost their jobs. In Ghana, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, poultry processing plants were reduced to operating at 25% of capacity, and feed mills were reduced to 42% of capacity.

>At the 2016 UN General Assembly, Ghana’s President John Mahama claimed that the imported chicken crisis was a key factor for many people migrating from Africa to Europe. Ghanaians who embark on the risky journey to Europe are poultry farmers or entrepreneurs who “sell their shops and undertake the journey because they can no longer compete with the tonnes of frozen chicken dumped on African markets annually”.

You might be interested in the book "democracy as Death" by Jason Hickel.

If you are genuinely curious, then I recommend this article which goes into the end of apartheid. It's not too technical, but it's good journalism and won't take long to read.

What we need to realise is that the end of the colonialism didn't mean that western nations isolated the former colonies, they continued to trade and this brought it's own forms of exploitation.

naomiklein.org/articles/2011/02/democracy-born-chains

forgot the article

bumping so the thread doesn't die while I type out answers

>What really was UNITA and what did they want? I've read absolutely contrasting opinions on them.
UNITA was initially a breakaway group from the FNLA and later a rebel group aimed at replacing the MPLA as the ruling party. A lot of its origins were in ethnic tensions - they leveraged off of complaints that the MPLA was too heavily reliant on mestizos and ethnic groups that were concentrated around Luanda - but at the same time, plenty of it likely had to do with your standard power-hungry warlord wanting control of the country. Their political motivations are suspect -
Savimbi claimed to be a Maoist at one point, but didn't really have any qualms with being anticommunist once he realized he could get US support. Like many African rebel movements and postcolonial governments, political ideologies of the Cold War seemed more a mechanism to secure outside support than any real intention for governing.Breakaway factions of independence movements in Africa were fairly common, it's just that UNITA actually succeeded in becoming a powerful movement unlike so many others.

Post-Cold War UNITA very much seemed to be an unabashed power grab by Savimbi. UNITA did have some legitimate grievances during the Cold War, where the MPLA refused to hold free elections and had brutally suppressed opposition, but the elections that followed the withdrawals of Cuba and South Africa are generally considered to be free and fair, and the MPLA by all accounts won those elections fair and square, so Savimbi's decision to go back to war really ended up seeming like a temper tantrum more than anything else. Take that with a grain of salt, though - my knowledge of Angola is mostly limited to the Cold War era, and I don't know too many details past the end of the Border War.

>all this bitching about muh international regulations
>dude just give away free shit lmao
>Raising the minimum wage during a period of high unemployment
Is this person actually retarded?
>NO IS NOT ENOUGH - RESISTING TRUMP'S SHOCK POLITICS AND WINNING THE WORLD WE NEED
Nevermind

>What caused the Boers to give away power rather than cling to it to the bitter end?
I don't know for sure, but probably a realization that the writing was on the wall for Apartheid, and fighting to the bitter end instead of trying to get a workable solution while things were still in their favor would only lead to a situation like Zimbabwe on steroids.

Although Apartheid South Africa was a pariah among pretty much the entire international community, a good deal of their resilience can be attributed to Cold War politics. The South Africans were ardently anticommunist, and because of that, it became hard for the West to really do anything meaningful to try to force Apartheid to end, lest South Africa fall to the Communists. While South Africa was affected by sanctions for much of the Cold War, they often had direct or indirect Western support even when they were being publicly decried. Operation Savannah - the invasion of Angola in 1975 - is a good example, where the US secretly supported South Africa (along with UNITA and FNLA) in an attempt to overthrow the MPLA in Luanda, only to turn around and act all surprised and outraged when it became public that the South Africans were invading Angola. Later, US support was more aimed at UNITA, but with the South Africans working hand in hand with UNITA in the later years, any support for UNITA was inevitably going to help South Africa.

But with the end of the Cold War, that all changed. With the Soviets unable to support communists in Africa, most rebels and governments abandoned communism. With that, South Africa couldn't hide behind the facade of "fighting communism," making them increasingly vulnerable to sanctions. The populace was already very war weary from the Border War, and sanctions were really starting to hit South Africa hard. Holding out would have meant a violent collapse of the state and creation of a majority rule regime that would have made Zimbabwe look like disneyland for the Boers.

>Why Mobutu's regime fell so rapidly after crushing so many rebellions before?
Similar reasons to why the South Africans abandoned Apartheid. Mobutu got into power thanks to his anticommunist stance and his willingness to turn a blind eye to neocolonial interests and corruption. He supported FLEC and FNLA against Angola, and he worked pretty actively against communist rebels in the Congo region. Because of that, he obviously got a whole lot of US support to keep him propped up. With the US propping him up, there tons of money to go around and few threats to his power, so the aforementioned blind eye turned to corruption ran rampant. Everything about Zaire rotted from within while Mobutu and his cronies blew money on vanity projects (like the palatial estate at Gbadolite complete with an airport capable of handling Concordes).

When the Cold War ended, the US had no reason to prop him up anymore, and all that support suddenly disappeared. Around the same time, neighboring countries had finally gotten sick of Mobutu actively or passively supporting rebels in their countries, so they moved to oust him. The story of that invasion shows just how bad corruption hit the Congolese. The entire Congolese air force had long since been sold off by corrupt officers, and most vehicles were immobile due to everything from gas to ammunition and spare parts - and often the vehicles themselves - being sold off. Uniforms were often hard to come by for soldiers, so training and discipline were out of the question. Mobutu's regime ended up relying on mercenaries from places like France and Serbia to fend off the invaders, but the French were too few in number and the Serbs were even more incompetent than the Congolese, so they did little to stop the invaders.

Pretty much, the First Congo War was everything Hitler expected Operation Barbarossa to be - kicking the door in and letting the whole rotting house fall down.

>What really were the Bantustans?
It's been a while since I've read up on them and I've never really read too much into the details, but they appear to have been something like a more autonomous Indian Reservation in America. The idea was to herd all the blacks onto Bantustans that would represent their new "homelands," often without regard to their actual ethnic or tribal origins. Like the Indian Reservations, the Bantustans were the shittiest parts of the country they could find, but unlike the Indian Reservations, the blacks they were herding onto these lands were the vast majority of the population rather than a sizeable minority.

The real significant part was that South Africa actually tried to make several of them recognized as independent nations. They all were intended to receive varying degrees of autonomy, but four Bantustans were supposed to be entirely independent.

Of course, the idea was retarded - the Bantustans were pretty much without exception economically useless regions without any significant infrastructure that would be effectively ungovernable as independent entities. Even though South Africa tried to "encourage" the entire black population to migrate to the Bantustans, only ~40% of the population was living there by the time the government finally let up on its efforts in 1985.

namibia also had bantustans

>lefties actually believe this
Isn't the electricity in Johannesburg about to shut off?

Here's your (you).

>South Africa's getting better