True Landowners in South Africa


I have attended meetings regarding colonialism and who has done what and is entitled to what in South Africa, addressed by various respected individuals including academics with high qualifications, that incline me to the view that everyone including these people are abysmally (perhaps wilfully) ignorant in respect of many important facts. One of the most ridiculous ailments is Colonialism Benefit Myopia* — an illogical inability to notice the benefits to settlers of all races that arose out of the colonial era in South Africa. For, according to the concise presentation below, only the San and Khoikhoi peoples are entitled to be regarded as truly indigenous. The rest, Black, White or Asian, are settlers.

PLEASE STUDY WHAT STANDS BELOW AS SET OUT BY D. LŐTTER, AND SEE HOW MUCH OF IT, IF ANYTHING,  CAN BE CORRECTED WITH PROVEN FACTS (NOT MYTH OR EMPTY RHETORIC).

“For anyone interested in history, or what is happening in South Africa today:
In the 3000 years since the end of the Stone Age, the native people of Africa could not manage to create an infrastructure, could not mine or produce exports, could, in fact not succeed in building anything higher than one storey and could not write down anything as reference for future generations, because they could not manage to master the art of writing.
When the first Europeans arrived on April 6, 1652, it was 1,974 years after Ptolemy I built the magnificent library of Alexandria, and in Southern Africa, the indigenous people still could do no more than a few rock paintings and a clay pot with patterns on it. Today, this development, this contribution of the descendants of Europe has become a threat to the Black South African. He cannot compare. He has no contribution that can remotely compare to what the white man created and therefore he has to fall back on what primal instinct tells him to do: Destroy that which is a threat to you!
It is against this background that the white South African is demonised as a ‘slaver and murderer who stole land’. Let us put this in perspective:
In the first place: The Europeans who came with Van Riebeeck had no intention to stay at the Cape. We can clearly determine this from the repeated application for transfer to Batavia or Amsterdam made by almost every Company servant. The few men who decided to make this their homeland, did so because they came to love the land. They wanted to develop and grow here. And in the written evidence, left us by the men who did not intend to stay and therefore had no reason to lie; it is written down over and over again that the Europeans settled on the uninhabited land.
They exchanged land for cattle and money and traded with the nomadic indigenous people. The Company decided to import slaves. I emphasize import because no indigenous person in this country was ever put into slavery.
The slaves who were brought in from Madagascar and Batavia and Ceylon and East Africa were the ancestors of an entirely new group of people: the Coloured nation of South Africa who adopted the customs and culture of the Europeans. Ever wondered why they did not adopt the customs of Africa? Because they were not exposed to it, that is why! Nobody at the Cape ever set eyes on a black person for 130 years before the first Trekboere met the Xhosa in the Valleys of the Amatola around 1770!
These slaves also added to the bloodline of the European settlers, as did the French Huguenots of 1688 and the British Settlers of 1820. The White South African was a new nation, born in Africa. This nation called its language, Afrikaans, after Africa. This nation called itself after Africa, Afrikaners.
On the first of December 1834, slavery was abolished in the Cape Colony. This is two years before the start of the Great Trek. The white man in South Africa knew nothing of the existence of the Zulu, the Tswana, the Sotho, the Venda…and he was at war with the Xhosa. It is chronologically impossible that indigenous people could be held in slavery if the so-called slave masters did not even know of their existence before the abolition of slavery.
Let us look at the ‘great’ Shaka Zulu and the Zulu nation. Remember that the Europeans landed in South Africa in 1652. Shaka Senzaghakohona was born around 1787. He managed to unite, through force and murder and rampage, a number of small tribes into the Zulu nation around 1819. Before that year, there were no Zulu people.
A question of mathematics: The Zulu nation only came into existence 167 years after the arrival of Van Riebeeck. What logic can possibly argue that the Europeans took anything away from the Zulu-people? So when did the black man establish himself in South Africa and how? The answer lies in the Mfecane: Mfecane (Zulu: [m̩fɛˈkǀaːne],[note 1] crushing), also known by the Sesotho name Difaqane (scattering, forced dispersal or forced migration[1]) or Lifaqane, was a period of widespread chaos and warfare among indigenous ethnic communities in southern Africa during the period between 1815 and about 1840.
As King Shaka created the militaristic Zulu Kingdom in the territory between the Tugela River and Pongola River, his forces caused a wave of warfare and disruption to sweep to other peoples. This was the prelude of the Mfecane, which spread from there. The movement of peoples caused many tribes to try to dominate those in new territories, leading to widespread warfare; consolidation of other groups, such as the Matebele, the Mfengu and the Makololo; and the creation of states such as the modern Lesotho. Mfecane is used primarily to refer to the period when Mzilikazi, a king of the Matebele, dominated the Transvaal. During his reign, roughly from 1826 to 1836, he ordered widespread killings and devastation to remove all opposition.
He reorganised the territory to establish the new Ndebele order. The death toll has never been satisfactorily determined, but the whole region became nearly depopulated. Normal estimates for the death toll range from 1 million to 2 million.
The black man established himself in this barren land now known as South Africa a full 174 years after the white man. How dare you then call me a settler when you are nothing more? If I don’t belong here then neither do you.
The land was stolen from the black man? No. The land occupied by the Boer-people was land that nobody lived on, for the pure and simple reason that the original people of South Africa were massacred and wiped out in a racist genocide by the ancestors of the current black population of South Africa.
It is the very same thing that is now happening to Europeans. The European has a full and legal and historical claim to his part of this country, including land. And the black man who disputes that is welcome to bring evidence of the contrary.
Remember, popular liberal myth, propagandistic expressions and loud shouting and burning and looting to hide your own incapability is not evidence. It is barbarism.
The popular myth of “the end of colonialism” is a lie also. Colonialism in South Africa ended on 31 May 1961 when the country became a Republic. White minority rule was not colonialism, because the white South African belongs here, you cannot colonise your own country. The entire uproar about white oppression and white guilt and white debt is based, exactly like the concept of the rainbow nation and its Africa-democracy, on one big lie.
In Afrikaans, a language of Africa, we say: However swiftly the lie might travel, the truth will catch up one day. Black South Africa might as well realise that the time of the lie is running out. Stereotyping of the white man and apartheid as the cause of everything, cannot hold much longer. You cannot hide rotting meat under gift wrap for eternity.
Sometime in the very near future you will have to own up and explain how you could hold a small minority of oppressed people responsible for the disaster that you have made of a country which has the potential of being a place of safety, a welcome and hospitable home, to all its children whether they be black, white, coloured on Indian.
The black man holds the key to the final destruction of what is left, or the final realisation that we have no other choice but to peacefully co-exist. The black South African can no longer avoid admitting that the destruction of the white South African necessarily means the destruction of everything and everyone left on the southern tip of Africa.”
~ D Lötter.

*(Myopia as in lack of intellectual insight)

During Apartheid, many non-whites were removed from land or resettled by force. There is no denying that these wrongs need to be righted, but the issue is complicated by the fact that the vast majority of present occupants were not simply given property but paid fair value for it. Many will be buyers several times removed from the original ones, even in cases where the original grant was irregular.
If one applies the ‘cannot acquire a better right than the previous owner/s’ rule, as with stolen goods, then it harks back to the only ones with true rights being the Khoi and San.

© September 2018 Colonialist
Advertisements

About colonialist

Active septic geranium who plays with words writing fantasy novels and professionally editing, with notes writing classical music, and with riding a mountain bike, horses and dinghies. Recently Indie Publishing has been added to this list.
This entry was posted in Africa, Ancestry, Current Affairs, History and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to True Landowners in South Africa

  1. Sue Vincent says:

    I cannot comment on the truth of this exposition, being ignorant of all the facts and unable to accept this (or any other) perspective without doing my own research. One thing it does highlight, though, is ‘civilsation’s’ determination to make everyone live in what its sees as a more advanced society. The indigenous peoples of all colonies, not just Africa, were probably quite happy with their own social structures before we arrived… and were certainly doing less harm to the earth. Granted, had we let such societies evolve at their own pace, they would currently lack the benefits of, and be unable to compete in, the modern world…but would they have wanted to?
    In all cases that I can think of, and in spite of the unarguable benefits of education, scientific and medical advances etc, we have imposed an unnatural advance on the countries we have invaded and/or appropriated, leaving the indigenous populations struggling with an unfamiliar world at best, and slaughtered, enslaved or relegated to a disadvantaged underclass at worst.
    I wonder what our values really were as ‘civilised’ societies bent on colonisation? It is difficult to see a happy outcome if the incomers arrive intially with only a desire to profit from the acquisition of lands, resources and wealth, see the indigenous peoples as ‘savages’ and with a determination to impose a social, religious and political system upon them that is completely foreign to their way of life.

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      It is easy to be judgmental from the perspective of a few hundred years on. However, if placed in exactly the same circumstances I am sure that our perceptions of the situation would be exactly the same as that of the settlers. Note, too, that the evidence suggests that at the time the white ones arrived the black ones hadn’t yet, at least in the south.

      Like

      • Sue Vincent says:

        Hindsight comes with apparent clarity… and doubtless the ethos of the time would have affected us all equally. Even so, mankind has always been driven by the need to cal things his own…be it a watering hole, a country or a diamond mine. It probably stems from the survival instinct when we had to protect essential resources, and now seeks other outlets.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. afrowhiz says:

    I beg to disagree with your logic against the backdrop that black South Africans were settlers just like the white…….can you give a possible date the black invaders settled in South Africa just like we all know that the Europeans arrived in 1652. It very interesting how you tell of history as if it a person living behind your yard. We talk about democracy and we talk about justice and objectivity but we humans are just too poor to take our own pills.

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      Disagreement should be based upon facts.
      Facts that were carefully compiled from great numbers of independent records made during the period involved, and as borne out by scientific research, are as follows:
      The white settlers arrived 174 years before the blacks.
      The Nguni of the time were nomadic herders drifting down from the north.
      The people violently displaced by both groups were the San and Khoi. The latter have an unbroken record of having been resident in the area many centuries before, and were there from the beginning of other arrivals.
      The dates of uninterrupted black development and movement in the region are as set out in the article quoted, and certainly come nowhere near pre-dating those of the whites.
      You are challenged to produce any reliably documented evidence to the contrary.

      Like

      • afrowhiz says:

        It is not a challenge and disagreement is not only based on fact and figures manufactured by the same people who are the problem. I bet you have never visited South Africa or maybe be you have (or you might even claim to be a white South African). The inhumanity of what is going on in South Africa and other African countries will continue to challenge all theories we have used to claim superiority for ourselves as humans. You arrived in 1652 and you are quoting a history 3000 years before. Who did the recording if you have never been there to conclude that the land was uninhabited. I bet your aim is to prove that the whites settled in South Africa even before the blacks. One day the blacks will say enough is enough and the world we see what exactly we have been hiding up our sleeves then we will look for another black man to glorify just to make us feel good or buy us time for another round of hypocrisy and subjugation of the blacks.

        Like

        • colonialist says:

          I don’t think you meant it that way, but one must agree that the ‘narrative’ some blacks are using in support of land claims is, in fact, manufactured by them in entirety. It is not supported by documented historical fact which is, as has been said repeatedly, that in the period concerned the whites did settle well before the blacks. Forced removal, however, was unforgivable and must be redressed.
          Long past or potential future accomplishments do not enter into the debate.
          It is not clear what the drive or intent of your latter paragraphs is intended to be. Inhumanity in Africa, in recent years, has been black on black and has been motivated by greed and criminality with no regard for the common people. To conceal this, the ‘lizard’s tail’ of other races being to blame is left to wriggle enticingly while the real lizard escapes. The fact that you appear to have bought into these lies shows how effective the stragegy is.

          Like

          • afrowhiz says:

            Well, I wish you best of luck in this quest for the true land owners of South Africa. It is clear that Mandela didn’t have what it takes to challenge the land issue so he was left alone, just thinking about it Mbeki didn’t survive, Zuma questioned it and all of a sudden he became the most corrupt human being and now Cyril is likely going to fall in line……..then we hear how he has been part of Zuma’s corruption and has mismanaged the country. You have documented history to refer to while the history of black people in South Africa is laid waste at the museum for entertainment. Am glad you recognised that even the lizard has a tail.

            Like

            • colonialist says:

              One is left wondering if this is offering rather obscure satire, or if it reflects the astonishing extent of actual misconceptions.

              Like

              • afrowhiz says:

                I will take that as a compliment. For when a person sees the standard of all things through their misguided conceptions, one only need to wait for history to nudge such individual back to reality as has always been the case.

                Like

                • colonialist says:

                  Hey, you are slipping; I can understand this!
                  I totally agree that the sooner you are nudged into reality the better. I won’t say ‘back’, because indications are that you haven’t been there yet.

                  Like

  3. We had no sophisticated music you say? every musical element – rhythm, harmony, melody, timbre, and the basic forms of jazz – is essentially African in background and derivation”.

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      That is simply not true. There is no record of sophisticated music in Africa. Just as it is decreasing at great speed now, but that is with black and white alike as well as several shades in between.

      Like

  4. In the early 1900s the aesthetics of traditional African sculpture became what the Met Museum in New York describes as “a powerful influence among European artists who formed an avant-garde in the development of modern art”.

    Like

  5. nO aBiLiTy To CoNsTrUcT bEyOnD oNe StOrEy

    Like

  6. Navigation
    Most of us learn that Europeans were the first to sail to the Americas. However, several lines of evidence suggest that ancient Africans sailed to South America and Asia hundreds of years before Europeans. Thousands of miles of waterways across Africa were trade routes. Many ancient societies in Africa built a variety of boats, including small reed-based vessels, sailboats and grander structures with many cabins and even cooking facilities. The Mali and Songhai built boats 100 feet long and 13 feet wide that could carry up to 80 tons (2). Currents in the Atlantic Ocean flow from this part of West Africa to South America. Genetic evidence from plants and descriptions and art from societies inhabiting South America at the time suggest small numbers of West Africans sailed to the east coast of South America and remained there (2). Contemporary scientists have reconstructed these ancient vessels and their fishing gear and have completed the transatlantic voyage successfully. Around the same time as they were sailing to South America, the 13th century, these ancient peoples also sailed to China and back, carrying elephants as cargo (2).

    People of African descent come from ancient, rich and elaborate cultures that created a wealth of technologies in many areas. Hopefully, over time, there will be more studies in this area and more people will know of these great achievements.

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      Much of the ‘evidence’ for this speculation, as well as for other proponents of and advanced Africa, is contested. Again, why the decline instead of the steady advance seen in Europe?

      Like

    • afrowhiz says:

      I bet he should read “the development of scientific medicine in the African Kingdom of Bunyoro-Kitara” by J.N.P Davies.

      Liked by 1 person

      • colonialist says:

        You left out the apostrophes. It is ‘scientific’ for the reason that it was not truly based on science. Granted, however, that a knowledge of primitive (some not so primitive) surgery and medicine was observed in the Lakes area of Africa at that time. Speculation is rife, however, whether this knowledge was developed there, or was originally taught by visitors.

        Like

        • afrowhiz says:

          just as one can also conclude that your ability to refer to documented history in trying to prove your ownership of South Africa is also a speculation. I also wonder which dictionary taught you that ‘scientific’ is not based on science or are we back to the old story that whiteness ‘MUST’ be part of the equation. Snap out of that fantasy and look around you.

          Like

          • colonialist says:

            Just a little lesson in language usage: when we write simply scientific we mean based on science, but if it is expressed as ‘scientific’ the term is used to reflect that it is so-called, but not really as such.
            I have no need to prove being South African with all the rights as such; this is already established and documented beyond doubt. Can you do so in your case, though?

            Like

      • It’s actually a she. And yes. We all should 😊

        Like

  7. Medicine
    Many treatments we use today were employed by several ancient peoples throughout Africa. Before the European invasion of Africa, medicine in what is now Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa, to name just a few places, was more advanced than medicine in Europe. Some of these practices were the use of plants with salicylic acid for pain (as in aspirin), kaolin for diarrhea (as in Kaopectate), and extracts that were confirmed in the 20th century to kill Gram positive bacteria (2). Other plants used had anticancer properties, caused abortion and treated malaria — and these have been shown to be as effective as many modern-day Western treatments. Furthermore, Africans discovered ouabain, capsicum, physostigmine and reserpine. Medical procedures performed in ancient Africa before they were performed in Europe include vaccination, autopsy, limb traction and broken bone setting, bullet removal, brain surgery, skin grafting, filling of dental cavities, installation of false teeth, what is now known as Caesarean section, anesthesia and tissue cauterization (3). In addition, African cultures preformed surgeries under antiseptic conditions universally when this concept was only emerging in Europe (2)

    Like

  8. Various past African societies created sophisticated built environments. Of course, there are the engineering feats of the Egyptians: the bafflingly raised obelisks and the more than 80 pyramids. The largest of the pyramids covers 13 acres and is made of 2.25 million blocks of stone (3). Later, in the 12th century and much farther south, there were hundreds of great cities in Zimbabwe and Mozambique. There, massive stone complexes were the hubs of cities. One included a 250-meter-long, 15,000-ton curved granite wall (9). The cities featured huge castlelike compounds with numerous rooms for specific tasks, such as iron-smithing. In the 13th century, the empire of Mali boasted impressive cities, including Timbuktu, with grand palaces, mosques and universities (2).

    Like

  9. Many advances in metallurgy and tool making were made across the entirety of ancient Africa. These include steam engines, metal chisels and saws, copper and iron tools and weapons, nails, glue, carbon steel and bronze weapons and art (2, 7).

    Advances in Tanzania, Rwanda and Uganda between 1,500 and 2,000 years ago surpassed those of Europeans then and were astonishing to Europeans when they learned of them. Ancient Tanzanian furnaces could reach 1,800°C — 200 to 400°C warmer than those of the Romans (8).

    Like

  10. Astronomy
    Several ancient African cultures birthed discoveries in astronomy. Many of these are foundations on which we still rely, and some were so advanced that their mode of discovery still cannot be understood. Egyptians charted the movement of the sun and constellations and the cycles of the moon. They divided the year into 12 parts and developed a yearlong calendar system containing 365 ¼ days (3). Clocks were made with moving water and sundial-like clocks were used (3).

    A structure known as the African Stonehenge in present-day Kenya (constructed around 300 B.C.) was a remarkably accurate calendar (5). The Dogon people of Mali amassed a wealth of detailed astronomical observations (6). Many of their discoveries were so advanced that some modern scholars credit their discoveries instead to space aliens or unknown European travelers, even though the Dogon culture is steeped in ceremonial tradition centered on several space events. The Dogon knew of Saturn’s rings, Jupiter’s moons, the spiral structure of the Milky Way and the orbit of the Sirius star system. Hundreds of years ago, they plotted orbits in this system accurately through the year 1990 (6). They knew this system contained a primary star and a secondary star (now called Sirius B) of immense density and not visible to the naked

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      All most interesting, but irrelevant in context.

      Like

      • All that is irrelevant in context of you terming Africans as undeveloped people who seemingly needed the white man’s saving? Oh please.

        I’m done now. Please block me. I don’t want to ever come across such degrading writings. Africa will one day return back to her rightful position.

        Continue as you were.

        Like

        • colonialist says:

          All it needs for you to come to grips with is that the past glories, if they existed, are utterly immaterial. The facts in the article I have reblogged remain unrefuted.
          Simply stated, there is no way that the Africans of this area could have reached their present state of advancement without intervention from the north at this stage of history. The fact that they were undeveloped is pure naked fact. Just as the inhabitants of Britain were not in the same class of development as the invading Romans. Again, whether there was an earlier bunch of Britons more developed than the Romans is of no consequence in that context.
          How can simple facts be degrading?
          Thanks, anyway, for providing an enlightening picture of what all this erroneous thinking is based on.

          Like

  11. I shall not engage further with one who even chooses the name “colonialist”. You can delete my comment but I mean exactly that.

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      It is a name to be proud of, and I suggest you resist the silly brainwashing that has convinced you otherwise. If you disagree with what was said in my post, give facts and figures to substantiate your opposition.

      Like

  12. Oh fuck the white man.

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      That is not exactly an intelligent or constructive comment. Why? Because they took over land? Then what about the black man who did the same?

      Like

      • & Khoisan feel very black to me whichever way you want to categorize us.

        Like

        • colonialist says:

          It doesn’t seem sensible to confuse Nguni races with Khoisan.

          Like

          • It’s all just very sad. AFRICANS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A DEVELOPED PEOPLE !!! Do not reduce us to just clay pot makers. Our destiny, our paths are not yours to determine. From Wikipedia (I didn’t even have to go far) Africa has the world’s oldest record of human technological achievement: the oldest stone tools in the world have been found in eastern Africa, and later evidence for tool production by our hominin ancestors has been found across Sub-Saharan Africa. The history of science and technology in Africa since then has, however, received relatively little attention compared to other regions of the world, despite notable African developments in mathematics, metallurgy, architecture, and other fields.

            Like

            • colonialist says:

              Dream on. Those were different races, and not applicable to the period of Colonialism. At that stage, the Africans who drifted down had no written language, no wheels, little concept of maths, no ability to construct beyond one storey, and rudimentary art and music.
              However the progress made since those beginnings is something to be truly proud of, not dwelling in some mythical past.

              Like

              • NO. YOU DREAM ON !!!!!

                Like

                • Surely only a few of us know that many modern high-school-level concepts in mathematics first were developed in Africa, as was the first method of counting. More than 35,000 years ago, Egyptians scripted textbooks about math that included division and multiplication of fractions and geometric formulas to calculate the area and volume of shapes (3). Distances and angles were calculated, algebraic equations were solved and mathematically based predictions were made of the size of floods of the Nile. The ancient Egyptians considered a circle to have 360 degrees and estimated Π at 3.16 (3).

                  Eight thousand years ago, people in present-day Zaire developed their own numeration system, as did Yoruba people in what is now Nigeria. The Yoruba system was based on units of 20 (instead of 10) and required an impressive amount of subtraction to identify different numbers. Scholars have lauded this system, as it required much abstract reasoning (4).

                  Like

                  • colonialist says:

                    Once again, we are not referring to the same races, and the fact remains that those achievements were not carried forward to the peoples of the period of history we are concerned with. This was dependant on the culture brought by people from Europe.

                    Like

                • colonialist says:

                  Not dreams; reality.

                  Like

  13. disperser says:

    I’d set this aside because of the amount of information in it and just now finished reading it.

    Sadly, as everywhere in our current world, sentiment over facts, idealism over evidence.

    Human history repeats itself and while it generally progresses toward the positive, in the details it’s pretty turbulent. I see nothing but strife ahead (not just there, but everywhere) as “the masses” are easily manipulated by the unscrupulous. The fact that a hundred years from now things might be better is of no comfort now.

    Like

    • colonialist says:

      The versions of history force-fed to the local population is pathetic in how naïve it is. Then, too, the injustices of the Apartheid era, bad as they were, are exaggerated to make them seem far worse than the Holocaust just as hatred for the British was whipped up by the Afrikaners regarding treatment in the concentration camps arising, mainly, out of bumbling mismanagement coupled with a lack of hygiene.

      Like

    • colonialist says:

      You may also find a subsequent exchange with a blogger trying to refute these facts with an irrelevant string of ancient history research results interesting. The string does illustrate what those who claim there was no benefit from colonialism are basing their ‘reasoning’ on.

      Like

      • disperser says:

        I read it all. I mainly wasn’t impressed by his starting the argument with him being a victim because he read your blog. He asked you to block him so he wouldn’t be exposed to your thinking.

        The thing is, like all discussions, if you bring an opinion to the table it should be based by facts. It’s easy to copy links. Unfortunately, often links are just more opinions and seldom backed by evidence.

        I’m not saying he’s wrong but if he’s writing facts and figures, he should provide a source.

        I almost linked a few things myself, but like many people these days, he or she, wasn’t interested in finding out if what he believes is accurate. Like I said, perhaps there’s something to what he says, but what made it suspect is the almost desperate desire to be cast as a victim.

        I see a lot of that here. I fear that attitude is being fostered by people who benefit greatly from creating strife as a means of forming a power base.

        Again, your fight, not mine; I have many of my own here to worry about but I sympathize.

        Like

        • colonialist says:

          The point that continues to be missed here is that no matter how brilliant your great etc grandfather may have been, it doesn’t prove a thing when it comes to the later generation. That must take on the degree of sophistication found at that time. Perhaps great scientists had degenerated into tribal herders, that doesn’t make them any more than tribal herders.

          Like

        • disperser says:

          I’ve had similar (amazingly so) discussions about religion, especially Islam. It doesn’t matter how tolerant and learned your ancestors were. It doesn’t matter that the Middle East was the cradle of civilization . . . it’s now a cesspool of corruption, religious and ethnic hatred, and willful ignorance (keeping populations ignorant is a favorite tool of people in power).

          I also point to Russia and China . . . those are fairly homogeneous (as much as physical appearance goes) people and they have to find other engines of excuses because sure as effluent flows downhill, no people will admit to being the engines of their own problems.

          Sure, there have been plenty of egregious behavior perpetrated by one culture onto another, but it’s difficult arguing that’s the case right now . . . and so, you look backward.

          I too have a gripe . . . I could have been a star basketball player but my parents were short because no tall people wanted to mate with them. Damn tall people!! I could have been a multimillionaire if only they would have shared their height genes! Bastards!

          Like

      • disperser says:

        I imagine they would not be thrilled with Pastor James David Manning, especially what he says about South Africa and other African countries.

        Like

  14. Reblogged this on LordBeariOfBow and commented:
    This opened my eyes

    Like

  15. How did it all get so complicated? I mean what is in the heart of man that pushes us to treat ourselves as we do? History is often hard to look at but at the same time, we are lost without it. Thanks for sharing this expository article.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. equinoxio21 says:

    Hear! Hear! As a “mzungu” (white man in Swahili) I subscribe to your words. But then, Reason is not much listened to these days.
    A few years ago, I took a cab in Paris to the airport. The driver was a middle-aged african lady whose accent I immediately placed as West African. I asked where she was from, and she said “Guinea.”
    “Conakry? I was raised there!”
    “You don’t say! How wonderful.”
    Then followed a pleasant conversation between the African lady relocated in France and the former “White boy in Africa”. Then she sighed and asked: “But why did the whites leave Africa?”.
    I said nothing, thinking: “well, we weren’t exactly welcome…”
    Best of luck my friend.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Debra says:

    I cannot even quantify the degree of ignorance that I must honestly profess to my personal understanding of the social and political history of South Africa, Les, but you’ve given me a lot here towards opening my eyes and leading me to understand with greater depth. It seems to me that this incredible statement, “You cannot hide rotting meat under gift wrap for eternity” is true within so many societies and contexts…probably all. We are very quick to look for the easy answers and lay blame accordingly. I am not sure humankind will ever be any different, but those of us interested in greater understanding can work towards attaining more information and increasing knowledge before we land on one account and never changing our views. I am so glad you shared your views and experience.

    Liked by 1 person

    • colonialist says:

      My standpoint comes, obviously, from being descended from many colonialists and settlers, and while conscious of their shortcomings being proud of all they accomplished. It therefore makes me blazing mad to see them misrepresented in the hopelessly muddled view of history being force-fed to the wilfully ignorant masses.

      Liked by 3 people

  18. Sue W says:

    What a very interesting article. Thank you

    Like

You have the right to remain silent - but please don't!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s