USA & Canada-- prosperous

All they banked on was farming because Boers have a hard on for it.

You know Bantu's have been there for a long ass time. they are the natives too

The initially wave of Protestent colonists from Dutch, central and south central Europe landed on the cape in the mid 1650. The Anglican Brits set up Cape Colony in 1790s and 40 years later, the Voortrekkars headed north. imho, it was the religions and administration of two different white societies that clashed from the very start. One big debate that was never concluded was which language to use in the courts, Dutch or English, not to mention the eventual mining rights. Australia, NZ, Tahiti, North America, etc.: no powerful and established societies in these places for the British to not only conquer, but also administer.

Not that I disagree but I am a little surprised this board seems to be fairly unanimous that it's because of the Boers that the country is not the same level as other settler colonies

I guess Zimbabwe would be a different story, as there are an insignificant number of boers there

>the natives
Kek

Most Afrikaans speakers are Coloureds by a big margin.

only in the cape. Overwhelming majority of Afrikaans speakers in Pretoria/Joburg are white

1. Not being able to neutralize the threat of their natives (whether by pacifying them or destroying them).
2. Getting fucked over by Britain and international organizations.
3. Not getting enough white immigrants, with white pop. remaining much smaller than black pop.

Really the best thing to do would have been to divide up land between whites and blacks and let each group rule themselves.

Communists

>Really the best thing to do would have been to divide up land between whites and blacks and let each group rule themselves.
They tried that with the bantustans it was a complete disaster
fighting the commies was arguably when these nations were at their peak

No, possibly it would follow a different development path but the 2nd Boer War was about gold mines and those gold mines under British and then Union of SA control contributed to it's prosperity. Also quite frankly the Boers were getting demographically cucked by Anglo prospectors so them staying independent is quite unlikely

The trouble came when they took over

maybe I'm missing something here but wasn't only Congo-Brazzaville communist?

What’s up with that little strip of SA over that blue country?

that's the Caprivi strip and the blue country is Botswana. Caprivi Strip is the result of an NBA-style trade between UK and the krauts before ww1, Germany wanted Heligoland back (tiny island in the baltic) from UK, and offered up Zanzibar, basically the most famous part of Tanganyika, and UK threw in this bit of land to sweeten the deal, and give the krauts access to the zambezi river and a kind of buffer zone with portugal

The bantustans were a lazy attempt at it. They were practically designed to fail. Full seperate-and-equal nation-states are needed. I would personally give all of the former Boer lands north of Jo-berg to the Afrikaners and let the blacks have the rest.

>I would personally give all of the former Boer lands north of Jo-berg to the Afrikaners and let the blacks have the rest.
So you think the solutions to the bantustans is "more or less the same, except with whites instead"

> I would personally give all of the former Boer lands north of Jo-berg to the Afrikaners and let the blacks have the rest.

But that land was black land though. Like it's smack dab in several tribes lands

>Really the best thing to do would have been to divide up land between whites and blacks and let each group rule themselves.

Then whites lose all their dirt cheap labour which is South Africa's only saving grace in the global economy to tract it's resources.

NP weren't bloodthirsty fucks balls deep in ideology so they KNOW the major utility in having a large labour base. That's why Apartheid was never complete separation. No one wanted to lose that money and living like a king with 5 house servants.

my roommate's Venda, he would be pissed. If all the Boers were restricted to Limpopo, they'd be overrun by zim and the zulus in a matter months

nationalize the mines when

brump

If you're talking about the south then no Somalia was too,but Tanzania held heavy socialist sympathies and supported a lot of Afro-nationalist movements. It wasn't really until 1974-1975 that communism started to take off in Africa.

>(tiny island in the baltic)
*The North Sea. The rest of your comment is accurate, though.

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

>end Apartheid
>country goes to shit
Hmmmm

To the north its just jungle, what are they supposed to do? Also when ivory became outlawed after the whole Belgium fiasco there wasn't any point in further development because their main resource was scrapped

Nope, for the early settlers to get to Oz and Nz they had to sail past S.A. This is until the Suez canal was built

It was always shit to be fair.

Neat

Yeah basically this, the apartheid made sure that freedom came on their terms

During apartheid the black population were kept at an african standard of living to fund the white population having a californian standard of living

But now the blac population has a somali standard of living and the whites more resembel beverley hills.

>make no effort to properly integrate or educate the black majority
>be surprised when they fuck up the country

Thanks user. I'm sure none of us could've figured out what OP was getting at without your help.

They let blacks in

The redpill on South Africa is that it the Whites were there before the Blacks