You have made incorrect assumptions and placed your own twist on what I said.
Allow me to tell you what I know:
Wrong, it's what you think, pure supposition. You know nothing about me.
You currently paint yourself as a disillusioned moderate. Although you didn't vote for the ANC in '94, you were willing to give them every chance to succeed in government.
No, that's your inference. I have never voted anywhere as I have a conscientious objection to voting for anything political.
I was not 'willing' to give them a chance to succeed. There was no choice. I expected the worst. I got it wrong. They they got off to a slower start than I expected but are now making up for lost time.
Prior to '94, you might've voted Nat, but it's doubtful because of your inherent dislike of the apartheid system. However, you didn't dislike it enough to relinquish your priviledged lifestyle, schooling, job, etc.
I also might have been a Martian. However, having an inherent dislike of apartheid (where did I say that?) would not preclude one from voting Nat as they got a lot of things right. Also, there weren't many choices realistically.
And you certainly weren't about to relocate to a shack in Guguletu with no running water or electricity, as a show of solidarity with the masses. You just tut-tutted about the plight of the vast majority of the population, but hey, the infrastructure is the best in Africa, so what are they complaining about? In short, you did nothing.
You don't know that I didn't go and live in a shack, but as it happens you are correct, you got something right. As a show of solidarity it would have achieved absolutely nothing other than, as you call it, a show. Pointless.
You don't know where I lived then, in the past, or now.
You are either unwilling to admit or incapable of understanding that the current situation in the country is largely of your own making.
And that would be why?
Now, if I'm right about my assessment of you - and I'm pretty sure I am - what gives you the right to occupy the moral high ground on any human rights issue?
As you are not right, the second part of your statement is redundant. Nevertheless, I'll answer it. Anyone has the right to speak out about any human rights issue. You may think I have no right to criticise you for beating your wife if I beat mine, but that does not deny me the right to criticise your action, it just makes me a hypocrite.
P.S. Apologies - you did do something. You attempted to move everybody with a 'low reflective index' to the seven 'homelands'. Well done on that - well thought out. I can't understand why it didn't catch on with those ungrateful people.
Don't apologise, it's patronising in the extreme.
This is the part I really don't get.
You attempted to move everybody with a 'low reflective index' to the seven 'homelands'. Officially recognised as four independent ones, there were originally 10, but the number is irrelevant as well as debatable. I referred to to the homelands policy as
'idiotic' but you still accuse me as if I had a personal responsibilty for it, or approved of it. From whence did you deduce that?
Whilst trying to avoid making this personal, I have to say that you come across as being somewhat bitter and twisted for some reason. Perhaps you could elaborate as you may have had some personal involvement with South Africa.