"That is not the issue. You asked for an example where whites are being abused, killed and disowned by the government which they also support and in a country in which they are equal citizens as the others. before the apartheid ended, blacks were lacking certain rights.
So in other words. If 2 men are equal citizens under the law, one black and one white, there is no reason for one citizen to get away with with murder if he kills a white man.
But if there are 2 men who are not equal under the law, then the dynamic changes. As long as one is not covered by the rights that the other has, there is no illegality. It may be immoral... but there is no illegality. So the fact that blacks weren't allowed to enter certain public offices in south africa during apartheid, no laws were broken. So there is no law that punishes people for not letting blacks be part of government. It is immoral, certainly, but law has nothing to do with morality. but once apartheid fell, such actions would be criminal and prosecuted under the law.
Got it? There are differences and they matter. And there is no excuse for the mass killings and abuses decent white people in south africa, who weren't part of the ruling elite, to suffer what they did. Because they were the ones who suffered. Most of the ones who were part of the ruling class either fled the country or were granted special privileges... or were put in prison. But the down to earth white man, who had his family and minded his own business, living in accordance to the law, shouldn't have had to pay the price because some blacks decided that all that white man had, wasn't his ,despite the fact that he owned it. Legally, morally and any other way you want."
Where have I accused you of doing something? I hadn't. And I never said you were correct, only that you were a joke of a debater. And that seems to be the truth since you said I accused you of something in this comment... where as... I hadn't.