- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Has it? Is that government (1) confiscating the land because the owners are white, or are they (2) confiscating the land because the whites who are there stole it not so long ago from the blacks? I don't know. I do know that it would indeed be tragic if they went down the same road that Zimbabwe did...but again, that was a different nation. South Africa enforced Apartheid for generations and only ended it less than thirty years ago...but I'm not aware that Zimbabwe ever had Apartheid.
This is why one shouldn't make assumptions without digging a bit first to find out what the "why" really is, especially when it comes to other nations and cultures. Please note that I am NOT endorsing either side - what I'm saying is that before we judge, we MUST educate ourselves concerning not only what is happening but also why it is happening.
Rhodesia didn't have apartheid. There was segregation in Rhodesia, no worse than anything seen in any first world country. Rhodesians, black and white, invisioned one Rhodesia, not black, not white. Proof that blacks and whites in Africa could live together in a prosperous society. It would have been example that would have spread across the whole continent.
That dream died when the world community turned it's back on Rhodesia and allowed the communists to take over. Thanks to the world community, eaten up with white guilt, communist savages like Mugabe and Mandella were allowed to control the continent. For that we got The Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and now South Africa.
Truth be told, this is a communist government confiscating private property, not the government confiscating white peoples's property.