PDA

View Full Version : 'Activists'.


Avitor
18th Oct 2011, 11:32
I have no vested interest in the core item....residents at Dale Farm, I live nowhere near the place. It seems the locals have had a belly full of them and have urged their council to evict them. All the legal requirements appear to have been met and they have to go.
My question is....why do 'activists'..amnesty and other outfits lend physical support to these so called travelers? Do they have an issue with the fed up local people?

pvmw
18th Oct 2011, 11:39
As someone who works about 1/2 mile from Dale Farm, I might claim a legitimate passing interest.

The point about "Activists" is that they have no interest in the inhabitants or their rights per se. Their only purpose in life is to ferment trouble in the belief that it will bring closer the "Socialist Paradise" that they desire.They are simply using it as another cause in what they believe to be their war against society

I'd love to hear what the Dale Farm inhabitants actually say about their "supporters" (including that waste of space Regrave) in private. I'd imagine they actually despise them, and simply look on them as useful idiots.

Parapunter
18th Oct 2011, 12:04
The trouble with intellectual laziness is that by extension of this poverty stricken thinking, Martin Luther King, Emily Pankhurst, Maya Angelou, heck, even Abraham Lincoln if you like were nothing but trouble makers!

corsair
18th Oct 2011, 12:14
I think there's an element of truth to that. I would say the Travellers probably wouldn't have much regard for them or trust them. Travellers within their own terms are quite conservative, religious and arch Capitalists. They're happy to rip off anyone or steal anything that generates a profit. They're happy to draw social welfare but not pay taxes or pay any attention to the general rules of society It's their culture if you can call it that.

Now this isn't some diatribe against people who chose to lives their lives outside society's norms. That is simply the way they are. Any contact with them proves that.

I'm pretty sure the activists will quickly become disillusioned with them. Meanwhile the Travellers will move on having lost this one. Soon they will be camping near you!

corsair
18th Oct 2011, 16:38
corsair, Wouldn't you consider taking the Pikeys back - please?
No thanks, besides most of them are British born going back a long way. Despite their accents. They're all yours.

We have plenty as it is. We keep them halting sites tucked away from ordinary people. Although once they realise how much of a soft touch you guys are. They'll be on the boat with their caravans.:ok:

Storminnorm
18th Oct 2011, 16:42
I can't help but wonder when "Rentamob" will get involved?

Lon More
18th Oct 2011, 18:34
Redgrave has moved on too. She's now campaigning for equal rights for butterflies in Sussex.

OFSO
18th Oct 2011, 18:52
I know this will be regarded with incredulity, but there's an "abandoned" house down the hill in our urbanisation which has been occupied illegally by gypsies, I think from Andalucia, and they drive a large red Ferrari with Toledo numberplates. Somewhat shabby, but a Ferrari nevertheless.

Capetonian
18th Oct 2011, 18:59
I drove past a 'gypsy' settlement the other day, I doubt if any of the cars was more than two years old, most of them were Mercs or Beamers, and all the trailers (I'm using the world deliberately) had satellite dishes.

Avitor
18th Oct 2011, 19:40
The bailiffs move in tomorrow 8/8.30am. :sad:

Parapunter
18th Oct 2011, 20:11
It's not.

However it's not about Dale farm & the pikeys per se. What makes my balls itch is the assumption that activism = communism or some such similar fifth columnist suspicious activity. In fact the aching irony of those small c conservative middle Englanders, many of whom love to stand four square behind our plucky brave forces upholding the bright light of democracy around the world are so often the same intellectual midgets who find certain manifestations of the the very same democracy in free protest so unpalatable.

In other words, cake & eat it.

Tankertrashnav
18th Oct 2011, 21:04
A while back we had a thread on Irish "ghost estates". One of them would seem to be an ideal new home for the Dale Farm evacuees as they appear to have developed a liking for fixed abodes rather than trailers. Michael O'Leary could give them all cheap flights home (Stanstead's not far away) and in his new guise as would-be president, Martin McGuiness could welcome them back to the ould country and show them to their new (nearly finished) homes, thus ensuring many votes for himself in the forthcoming elections (!)

Sorry Corsair, but we've had them long enough, it's your turn again.

yotty
19th Oct 2011, 08:01
Let's not forget about half the site is a legit encampment. If the travellers were more respectful of other people then I don't expect the vast majority would mind them. My only 2 experiences with them were when my In-laws had both their mowers nicked from their garden, and also when the Travellers occupied a 2 acre field just south of LGW for 2 weeks and left a festering rubbish dump when they departed. You reap what you sow!

sitigeltfel
19th Oct 2011, 08:22
In fact the aching irony of those small c conservative middle Englanders, many of whom love to stand four square behind our plucky brave forces upholding the bright light of democracy around the world are so often the same intellectual midgets who find certain manifestations of the the very same democracy in free protest so unpalatable.

There is a vast difference between peaceful protest and the anarchy these groups participate in. They are nothing more than chippy, privileged yobs masquerading as the righteous. They care nothing about the causes they profess to support, in most cases they actually serve to tarnish them even further by their hooliganism. It is just another opportunity to have a stab at the very democracy they pretend to support.
Hiding behind burning barricades, wearing face masks and crash helmets while throwing rocks, bottles and other objects with the sole intent of maiming is criminal activity...full stop.

By the way, not a "Little Englander", but a six foot, fifteen stone Jock! :p

Al Fakhem
19th Oct 2011, 08:40
"Activists" seem to be people with an awful lot of time on their hands. One suspects that their only income is from benefits (i.e. tax money paid by the establishment they are so keen to oppose). :mad:

pvmw
19th Oct 2011, 08:44
The trouble with intellectual laziness is that by extension of this poverty stricken thinking, Martin Luther King, Emily Pankhurst, Maya Angelou, heck, even Abraham Lincoln if you like were nothing but trouble makers!
It must be some form of pretty perverse logic that manages to equate Vanessa Redgrave to Abraham Lincoln!!

Parapunter
19th Oct 2011, 08:49
There is a vast difference between peaceful protest and the anarchy these groups participate in. They are nothing more than chippy, privileged yobs masquerading as the righteous. They care nothing about the causes they profess to support, in most cases they actually serve to tarnish them even further by their hooliganism. It is just another opportunity to have a stab at the very democracy they pretend to support.
Hiding behind burning barricades, wearing face masks and crash helmets while throwing rocks, bottles and other objects with the sole intent of maiming is criminal activity...full stop.

By the way, not a "Little Englander", but a six foot, fifteen stone Jock!

My hearty congratulations, you are clearly statistically well ahead of your average countryman. Keep up the good work!

Once again, however, I note with a heavy heart the oh so familiar inability to distinguish between a particular occurrence and a sweeping generalisation that supports an inherent prejudice. At school, I was on occasion chastised in examinations for failing to read the question. You my friend are failing to read the answer.

Avitor
19th Oct 2011, 10:22
Troublemakers! Every one of them!
WTF is Maya whatsername? :)
and now we have the attention of the fish - the long cast
Seriously, though; what did King or Pankhurst do for us? Absolutely nothing - and King was a nasty piece of work.

Pankhurst inadvertently or otherwise gave us Ms Harperson, for that she should never be forgiven. :=

tony draper
19th Oct 2011, 10:29
Watched a documentary recently that showed Lincoln was not exactly what one would call a very nice chap either.
:rolleyes:

Parapunter
19th Oct 2011, 10:41
and now we have the attention of the fish - the long castYou do Baz. Please feel free to contribute anytime. I'll be responding if it's remotely interesting. Remotely is probably the right word in your case though. :)

arcniz
19th Oct 2011, 10:56
It must be some form of pretty perverse logic that manages to equate Vanessa Redgrave to Abraham Lincoln!!

Albeit in differing ways, they're both summat funny lookin'.

pvmw
20th Oct 2011, 13:28
So far 34 arrests have been made at Dale Farm. Strangely, in the light of Parapunters jibe at intellectual laziness, none of them are apparently of the travelling community.

Didn't see Ms. Regrave fighting for tha cause tho'. Don't think Abraham Lincoln was there either!!

Parapunter
20th Oct 2011, 13:41
Strangely, in the light of Parapunters jibe at intellectual laziness, none of them are apparently of the travelling community.Which has what to do with what I said? I could explain it to you again, but I'm all out of plasticine & stickle bricks and the nurse is coming with the pills.;)

pvmw
20th Oct 2011, 13:44
..........but I'm all out of plasticine & stickle bricks and the nurse is coming with the pills.

Thats OK, you play with your toys and leave worrying about society to the adults.

Parapunter
20th Oct 2011, 13:47
oooh, now that is a jibe. And there's me thinking you could rise above all that, being a grown up and all!

Storminnorm
20th Oct 2011, 15:59
I think the travellers handcuffed Ms Redgrave.
Then buried her.

RedhillPhil
20th Oct 2011, 18:04
Where was Nelson Mandela?
One day the truth will come out about him in his younger days.

Tankertrashnav
22nd Oct 2011, 14:29
Now that Dale farm has been pretty well cleared, can this thread now serve to talk about that bunch outside of St Pauls?

Seems they want to protest about global capitalism, but when challenged as to what they want to put in its place, no-one seems to have any sort of coherent plan. Sure, they are against those bankers who got us into this mess (aren't we all) but what are the protesters for?

Storminnorm
22nd Oct 2011, 14:56
I think the biggest statement they make is that protesting
about Capitalism is far better than actually getting a job and
creating your own bit of Capitalism.

Rollingthunder
22nd Oct 2011, 16:34
Seems they want to protest about global capitalism, but when challenged as to what they want to put in its place, no-one seems to have any sort of coherent plan.

Well. considering most of them have not actually worked a day in their lives...can more be expected?

Fitter2
22nd Oct 2011, 18:21
If you feel inclined to a little light baiting

That would be the action of a Master baiter, I guess...........

Capetonian
22nd Oct 2011, 19:06
I used to enjoy bating the pathetic 'anti-apartheid' and 'Free Mandela' protesters outside South Africa House and when they came to demonstrate at the SA stand at World Travel Market.

I had an account at Barclays for many years because, on a trip to London, I saw a bunch of demonstrators outside a local Barclays with placards asking people not to bank with Barclays because they 'supported racism in South Africa'. When I asked them what this was all about and I got a half cocked explanation I told them it sounded like a bloody fine idea and I went in and opened an account!

sitigeltfel
22nd Oct 2011, 20:19
I think the biggest statement they make is that protesting
about Capitalism is far better than actually getting a job and
creating your own bit of Capitalism.

I had to laugh when the ministers in charge of St Pauls allowed them to use the courtyard, as they agreed with their anti capitalist motives. They now want them to piss off because the cathedral is losing £16,000 a day. :rolleyes:

ZOOKER
22nd Oct 2011, 20:59
Are 'activists' the same as 'anarchists'? Or does one lead to the other?
Can a person be both? Could this be represented on a Venn Diagram?

Rollingthunder
24th Oct 2011, 03:55
.....................Foreign looters from 44 countries have been locked up over the riots which scarred the country in August.

Robbers, vandals and thugs from as far afield as Afghanistan, Cuba, Ethiopia and Samoa joined in as shops were plundered and businesses set ablaze, causing millions of pounds worth of damage.

The sheer number from different corners of the globe who took part in the mayhem is one of the strongest indicators yet that the riots had nothing to do with political protest or civil unrest, but was born of greed and opportunist criminality

KAG
24th Oct 2011, 04:17
pvmw: The point about "Activists" is that they have no interest in the inhabitants or their rights per se. Their only purpose in life is to ferment trouble in the belief that it will bring closer the "Socialist Paradise" that they desire.They are simply using it as another cause in what they believe to be their war against society
Without "activists" you would probabely work as a slave for some Lord somewhere. Science wouldn't even exist. People died for their ideas, as simple as saying the earth was not flat, or not accepting bank/finance being the new noble cast of the 21 first century. All of them were seing as trouble makers.
Activists are simply killed in China.

There are no activists among others animals than human beings.

I understand activists when it means better environment, better health, better social justice, better future.

OFSO
24th Oct 2011, 11:25
Foreign looters from 44 countries have been locked up over the riots which scarred the country in August (in the UK)

When the G7 riots took place in Barcelona last year (or maybe the year before, time is passing every more quickly) at least half of those arrested for causing massive damage and GBH were not even EU citizens, and of those, half were in Spain illegally.

Yes it's about time we got a grip on the situation, in Europe and the USA.

stuckgear
24th Oct 2011, 11:39
When the G7 riots took place in Barcelona last year (or maybe the year before, time is passing every more quickly) at least half of those arrested for causing massive damage and GBH were not even EU citizens, and of those, half were in Spain illegally.

Yes it's about time we got a grip on the situation, in Europe and the USA.

Do i see see a niche market for business...

Anarchy Tours, set light to cars in different countries; hotel and flights included.

Mechta
24th Oct 2011, 12:20
I had to laugh when the ministers in charge of St Pauls allowed them to use the courtyard, as they agreed with their anti capitalist motives. They now want them to piss off because the cathedral is losing £16,000 a day. The cathedral has a captive market outside. It only need the cafeteria to produce hot meals at prices the protesters can afford and they should be queueing up.

As for whether the protesters should be there or not, the church should be asking, 'Would Jesus have supported them?' (I'm speaking as an agnostic/atheist). If the answer is 'yes', how can the church possibly turn them away?

As Jesus is claimed to have overturned money lender's tables in the temple, I suspect he might not have been too worried if a gift shop in a cathedral to his and his god's glory had to close for a few weeks.

The hypocrisy is that so much of the vast wealth of the various churches is tied up in investments in the very activities to which the protesters object.

Sort that one out!

P.S. Stuckgear, glad to see you are back.:ok: What is it like in the 'banned' wilderness? Did you get all those round-tu-it jobs done? :)

stuckgear
24th Oct 2011, 12:33
oh Tish Basil,

the greatest shot I've seen so far is the protesting anarchists queueing up outside starbucks for their lattes and to use the toilets.

we could do a range of services from 'tent and hiking boots included', to 'flights, tent and starbucks gift voucher included' to the top end scale, 'flights and 2* hotel and tesco's vouchers included'.

Job done ! it's a winner i tell you! theres so many disaffected, that don't want to impinge on their own lifestyles.

Oh! oh! how about the G20 tour and regular trips to the save Eurozone conference meetings, there's been 14 in the past two years.

we've been missing out !

It'll improve the load factors and yield for us in the aviation industry..

we could even launch a sister company, AGW/CC protest tours!

Mechta
24th Oct 2011, 12:34
There are no activists among others animals than human beings.

How can you say that? It might have been Martin Luther Snail that you trod on when getting out of the car yesterday.:}

Mechta
24th Oct 2011, 12:41
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/304198_10150326572573163_270202103162_8392566_1013223980_n.j pg

stuckgear
24th Oct 2011, 12:42
P.S. Stuckgear, glad to see you are back.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif What is it like in the 'banned' wilderness? Did you get all those round-tu-it jobs done? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif


Cheers Mechta :ok:

To be honest i've several round tu-it's that i've been collecting, even in the last week :\

stuckgear
24th Oct 2011, 12:51
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/17/article-2049722-0E6A735000000578-827_634x468.jpg
Contradiction: Scores of people, some of whom were protesting against capitalism, wait in line for toilets and refreshments at a central London branch of global chain Starbucks


oooh look ! lattes !

Parapunter
24th Oct 2011, 13:01
oooh look ! lattes !

Louise Mensch / HIGNIGY: "If you buy coffee you can't protest" - YouTube

Mechta
24th Oct 2011, 13:24
There was a queue outside Starbucks because they were willing to 'take the piss' out of the protesters, but the church wouldn't... :}

KAG
24th Oct 2011, 14:09
Stuckgear: glad to see you back. You are a real activist of your kind... ;)

Storminnorm
24th Oct 2011, 14:17
I'm so OLD I've become an "Inactivist."

stuckgear
24th Oct 2011, 15:08
Stuckgear: glad to see you back.



Cheers KAG. :ok:

wow, all thi welcome back for lil' ol' me ! i'm touched ! all i need is a welcome back from my comrade buddy in the politburo and i'll be on the floor.

You are a real activist of your kind... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif


aww thanks ! :ok:

pr00ne
24th Oct 2011, 16:03
Capetonian,

"I used to enjoy bating the pathetic 'anti-apartheid' protesters outside South Africa House.."


Wow! Someone who is prepared to be proud of apartheid policy?


What a loathsome human being you must be.

radeng
24th Oct 2011, 20:07
It has always seemed to me that the actions against the white farmers and their employees in Zimbabwe was apartheid. Although I don't believe the Boers went in for rape. The ones I've met were Boers by name and Bores by nature....

ShyTorque
25th Oct 2011, 01:11
St Paul's... aaah, the memories, the pomp, the circumstance, the deeply religious atmosphere. We visited there with our twelve year old daughter. We gave her all the good information, like good parents do.

So what was the one thing she remembered about the visit?

This:

During the prayer service, a little old lady came in and sat down next to us. We thought she was bending over to pray but in fact she was tying her shoe lace. As she did so, she let go an almighty rip snorter of a fart. I think it could still be reverberating around the whispering gallery.

My daughter collapsed on the floor in a fit of giggles. I joined in with the hiccups. We had to leave shortly afterwards (but tactically mind, so it didn't seem like it was us).

We get the story retold every time London is mentioned.

Sorry, almost totally irrelelevant to this topic. But a little light relief, so to speak, (especially for the little old lady).

KAG
25th Oct 2011, 02:19
Right pr00ne, haven't seen that one from capetonian:
I used to enjoy bating the pathetic 'anti-apartheid' and 'Free Mandela' protesters outside South Africa House and when they came to demonstrate at the SA stand at World Travel Market.


Somebody who might miss the past...
Stinky post.

If white people never came to Africa, apartheid wouldn't exist.

Personaly I would prefer living in a tribe that would be mine than in a modern country were aliens would be the leaders and see my kid bowing to them.

rh200
25th Oct 2011, 03:03
I used to enjoy bating the pathetic 'anti-apartheid' and 'Free Mandela' protesters outside South Africa House and when they came to demonstrate at the SA stand at World Travel Market.

Maybe he just enjoyed giving the ferrels a good seeing to, its always humorous to watch them get dragged off kicking and screaming, secure in there belief that they have moral superiority, no matter the cause. The sad thing is some of these causes have merit, but more often than not the genuine people are overshadowed by the ferrels.

If white people never came to Africa, apartheid wouldn't exist.

Maybe so, but history says it would have just been someone else to try and impose there view and culture.


Personaly I would prefer living in a tribe that would be mine than in a modern country were aliens would be the leaders and see my kid bowing to them.

Or if your tribe grew strong enough it would have expanded to have someone else's kid bowing to your tribe, or forcibly intergrated.

KAG
25th Oct 2011, 03:11
Or if your tribe grew strong enough it would have expanded to have someone else's kid bowing to your tribe, or forcibly intergrated. We all know the argument "if I didn't do it, somebody else would have" to avoid responsabilities, but at one point real events (and not imaginary ones) have to be assumed by the ones involved, whoever they are, without trying to escape.





Mandela should be one of the "things" South Africa have to be proud of, not the target of a stinky joke.

rh200
25th Oct 2011, 03:27
Mandela should be one of the "things" South Africa have to be proud of, not the target of a stinky joke.

I personelly don't like Mandela's politics, but respect him greatly for what he achieved. I like the way he gave up power, was sort of hoping it would set a good example.

We all know the argument "if I didn't do it, somebody else would have" to avoid responsabilities, but at one point real events

Its actually being about the real world, and our continued judging people of different cultures by our own values. We did what we did, because we thought it was right at the time. This was perfectly natural and every other culture has done the same when it could. Its about evolving socially, actually its more like stumbling though life like the keystone cops.

hellsbrink
25th Oct 2011, 05:16
If white people never came to Africa, apartheid wouldn't exist.

Apart from that being absolute horsecrap, since "apartheid" has existed in human culture since time immemorial, it can be argued that if Africans didn't migrate to Europe we would not have Frenchmen living in China who sit there and spout off nonsense on subjects they have no clue about whilst somehow feeling "superior" to the rest of us because of their race......

hellsbrink
25th Oct 2011, 05:20
BTW, this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053068/We-10--Nine-tents-remain-overnight-St-Pauls-camp.html) says it all about these numpties at St. Paul's

stuckgear
25th Oct 2011, 08:47
Somebody who might miss the past...
Stinky post.

If white people never came to Africa, apartheid wouldn't exist.

Personaly I would prefer living in a tribe that would be mine than in a modern country were aliens would be the leaders and see my kid bowing to them.


*cough*


Kenya as recently as 2007:
Aid agencies believe more than 100,000 people have been displaced, fields full of maize lie untended, the much-needed harvest left to rot. At least 250 people have been killed, countless women have been raped and dozens of civilians have been disfigured. In one incident 13 people had their ears chopped off.
Remi Carrier, the head of mission for Médecins Sans Frontières (French!), the only international aid agency currently working in the area, said the situation had deteriorated "below human dignity".

Ivory Coast:
possibly a million people are thought to have fled their homes, about 100,000 of which have crossed over into neighboring Liberia. Thousands of civilians have been killed in what observers have found to be mass human rights violations. There have also been reports of massacres and mass graves.

DRC/Zaire:
Since the outbreak of fighting in August 1998, 5.4 million people have died
It has been the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II
Although 19% of the population, children account for 47% of the deaths
Although many have returned home as violence has slightly decreased, there are still some 1.5 million internally displaced or refugees
Some 45,000 continue to die each month


Nigeria:
religious and inter-communal violence that has seen Muslims and Christians killing each other and by Nigeria’s political leaders’ “near-total impunity for massive corruption and sponsoring political violence”.

Violence in the Niger Delta kills some 1000 people each year, on par with conflicts in Chechnya and Colombia.

Sierra Leone:
Sierra Leone has seen serious and grotesque human rights violations since 1991 when the civil war erupted. According to Human Rights Watch, over 50,000 people have been killed to date, with over one million people having been displaced.

Ethiopia / Eritrea:
30 years of war and conflict continued as Eritrea attempted to gain independence, joined by Ethiopian guerilla forces that were also fighting against the harsh dictatorship.

The May 1998 - June 2000 war alone resulted in 100,000 deaths

in Ethiopia, a large number of Eritreans are being detained just due to their Eritrean origins and that use of child soldiers on the front lines continue.

750,000 Eritrean refugees are thought to have fled their homes.

Rwanda:
huge scale genocide.

Sudan..
Somalia..
etc etc.

Capetonian
25th Oct 2011, 08:59
If white people never came to Africa, apartheid wouldn't exist.

Apart from that being absolute horsecrap, since "apartheid" has existed in human culture since time immemorial, it can be argued that if Africans didn't migrate to Europe we would not have Frenchmen living in China who sit there and spout off nonsense on subjects they have no clue about whilst somehow feeling "superior" to the rest of us because of their race......

I guess the original quote came from a certain Monsieur KAG (he is on my ignore list), judging by the response. Maybe KAG should go and live in Africa and help out those poor folk instead of living a life of luxury as an expat in China if he feels so strongly about it.

Hellsbrink : :ok::ok::ok::ok:

Capetonian
25th Oct 2011, 09:12
pr00ne

Capetonian,

"I used to enjoy bating the pathetic 'anti-apartheid' protesters outside South Africa House.."

Wow! Someone who is prepared to be proud of apartheid policy?

What a loathsome human being you must be.

If I thought for one moment that you might know what you were talking about, or had understood what I'd written, I'd probably be insulted by your comment. As it is, I'm not, and it says more about you and your ignorance and inability to understand English than it does about me.

Can you show me where I stated that I was "proud of apartheid policy"?

MagnusP
25th Oct 2011, 09:27
Capetonian, same behaviour can be seen on the alcohol thread. It's an unattractive trait to distort the statements of others, and to draw incorrect inferences, rather than debate the substantive points being made. I don't see that as particularly mature behaviour. Ah well.

stuckgear
25th Oct 2011, 11:39
Does anyone else find it slightly ironic that yesterday we saw a critical point in the democratic system of the power of the voting classes.

Where were the protestors that decry the capitalism and the elite ruling over the people ?

Sipping their lattes and pontificaing elswhere?

How did the party candidates that represents the working man or the liberal middle ground vote ?

Good on the 111 that actually stood by the democratic principles, as for the other 400+, well there's a significant saving on the public purse right there.

parabellum
25th Oct 2011, 12:02
Mandela should be one of the "things" South Africa have to be proud of, not the target of a stinky joke.


I have never felt the urge to be proud of a convicted criminal myself. Life sentence for conspiracy to cause explosions, (intended to kill people), avoided the death sentence by an inch because he was a skillful young lawyer, on completion of the life sentence, fourteen years, Mandela, now head of the ANC, refused to renounce violence as a means to the ends of the ANC and was kept in custody under the emergency laws for a further thirteen years. Don't see a lot there to be proud of KAG. When released from jail Mandela didn't actually do a lot, he was a very popular figure head among the ANC and anyone outside SA, to the left of centre, who supported him and the ANC.

Pretty well all ex convicts in their later years look like harmless friendly old fellows, even the murderers and rapists. Be interesting to see which way the journos jump when Mandela dies.

stuckgear
25th Oct 2011, 12:54
ahh Parabellum, there's nothing like a good bit of rhetoric from the left when it comes to Mandela..

Mandela's closest friends include(d) communists and dictators like Fidel Castro, Moammar Qaddafi, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein.

in terms of politics, Mandela advocated democracy and freedom as the highest ideals one day and hold up Cuba or Libya as shining examples for the world to follow the next day.

In May of 1990 Mandela, visiting America, went on record, referring to Cuba:

There's one thing where that country stands out head and shoulders above the rest. That is in its love for human rights and libertyA week later in Libya, he lauded Qaddafi's:
Committment to the fight for peace and human rights in the world. was himself originally incarcerated, not for his political views, but for involvement in 23 different acts of sabotage and conspiring to overthrow the government. He and his fellow conspirators of the ANC and the South African Communist Party were caught by the police while in the possession of 48,000 Soviet-made anti-personnel mines and 210,000 hand-grenades!*

It is also interesting to note that in later years Mandela was offered his freedom by none other than the South African President Botha if he would simply renounce the use of terrorism, but Mandela refused to do this.

Winnie Mandela has been equally fulsome in her praise of Communism and violence. In 1986 she was reported in Moscow's communist party newspaper Pravda as saying:
The Soviet Union is the torch-bearer for all our hopes and aspirations. We have learned and are continuing to learn resilience and bravery from the Soviet people, who are an example to us in our struggle for freedom, a model of loyalty to internationalist duty. In Soviet Russia, genuine power of the people has been transformed from dreams into reality. The land of the Soviets is the genuine friend and ally of all peoples fighting against the dark forces of world reaction.and again at Munsieville, on April 13, 1986, she said:
With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.referring here to her own specific brand of democratic political activity whereby anyone who opposed her would be bound hand and foot and then burned to death by means of a tyre filled with gasoline being placed around the neck and set on fire.


* The full list of munitions and charges read as follows:

• One count under the South African Suppression of Communism Act No. 44 of 1950, charging that the accused committed acts calculated to further the achievement of the objective of communism;
• One count of contravening the South African Criminal Law Act (1953), which prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving any money or articles for the purpose of achieving organized defiance of laws and country; and
• Two counts of sabotage, committing or aiding or procuring the commission of the following acts:
1) The further recruitment of persons for instruction and training, both within and outside the Republic of South Africa, in:
(a) the preparation, manufacture and use of explosives—for the purpose of committing acts of violence and destruction in the aforesaid Republic, (the preparation and manufacture of explo- sives, according to evidence submitted, included 210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder);
(b) the art of warfare, including guerrilla warfare, and military training generally for the purpose in the aforesaid Republic;
(ii) Further acts of violence and destruction, (this includes 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963);
(iii) Acts of guerrilla warfare in the aforesaid Republic;
(iv) Acts of assistance to military units of foreign countries when involving the aforesaid Republic;
(v) Acts of participation in a violent revolution in the aforesaid Republic, whereby the accused, injured, damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or unserviceable, put out of action, obstructed, with or endangered:


(a) the health or safety of the public;
(b) the maintenance of law and order;
(c) the supply and distribution of light, power or fuel;
(d) postal, telephone or telegraph installations;
(e) the free movement of traffic on land; and
(f) the property, movable or immovable, of other persons or of the state.
Source: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, 1963-1964, Indictment.

KAG
25th Oct 2011, 16:24
Kenya as recently as 2007:
Aid agencies believe more than 100,000 people have been displaced, fields full of maize lie untended, the much-needed harvest left to rot. At least 250 people have been killed, countless women have been raped and dozens of civilians have been disfigured. In one incident 13 people had their ears chopped off.
Remi Carrier, the head of mission for Médecins Sans Frontières (French!), the only international aid agency currently working in the area, said the situation had deteriorated "below human dignity".

Ivory Coast:
possibly a million people are thought to have fled their homes, about 100,000 of which have crossed over into neighboring Liberia. Thousands of civilians have been killed in what observers have found to be mass human rights violations. There have also been reports of massacres and mass graves.

DRC/Zaire:
Since the outbreak of fighting in August 1998, 5.4 million people have died
It has been the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II
Although 19% of the population, children account for 47% of the deaths
Although many have returned home as violence has slightly decreased, there are still some 1.5 million internally displaced or refugees
Some 45,000 continue to die each month


Nigeria:
religious and inter-communal violence that has seen Muslims and Christians killing each other and by Nigeria’s political leaders’ “near-total impunity for massive corruption and sponsoring political violence”.

Violence in the Niger Delta kills some 1000 people each year, on par with conflicts in Chechnya and Colombia.

Sierra Leone:
Sierra Leone has seen serious and grotesque human rights violations since 1991 when the civil war erupted. According to Human Rights Watch, over 50,000 people have been killed to date, with over one million people having been displaced.

Ethiopia / Eritrea:
30 years of war and conflict continued as Eritrea attempted to gain independence, joined by Ethiopian guerilla forces that were also fighting against the harsh dictatorship.

The May 1998 - June 2000 war alone resulted in 100,000 deaths

in Ethiopia, a large number of Eritreans are being detained just due to their Eritrean origins and that use of child soldiers on the front lines continue.

750,000 Eritrean refugees are thought to have fled their homes.

Rwanda:
huge scale genocide.

Sudan..
Somalia..
etc etc.

You want to compare who/what to Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Zaire... Are those your politic standard?

KAG
25th Oct 2011, 16:29
Parabellum: I have never felt the urge to be proud of a convicted criminal myself. Life sentence for conspiracy to cause explosions, (intended to kill people), avoided the death sentence by an inch because he was a skillful young lawyer, on completion of the life sentence, fourteen years, Mandela, now head of the ANC, refused to renounce violence as a means to the ends of the ANC and was kept in custody under the emergency laws for a further thirteen years. Don't see a lot there to be proud of KAG. When released from jail Mandela didn't actually do a lot, he was a very popular figure head among the ANC and anyone outside SA, to the left of centre, who supported him and the ANC. Quite a nice curiculum there... Don't forget the peace Nobel Prize.

KAG
25th Oct 2011, 16:34
Capetonian: KAG (he is on my ignore list)
If you start the story, at least finish it. Why am I on your ignore list? You would have to explain you came many times on the french forum those past 3 years to post in english, pissed of everybody, the moderator deleted you many times, and you didn't like the way I answered you, you thought I would accept to be insulted.

Storminnorm
25th Oct 2011, 16:49
It's no good asking KAG, you're on his Ignore list.

hellsbrink
25th Oct 2011, 16:58
You want to compare who/what to Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Zaire... Are those your politic standard?

He was merely pointing out how Africans are quite capable of carrying out policies of "apartheid" based on what tribe and/or religion they belong to without any help from "the white man", as these examples show.

KAG
25th Oct 2011, 17:01
It's no good asking KAG, you're on his Ignore list.

If I am on his ignore list, so why should he speak to me? Did he wrote KAG in his post yes or not?
So because of his personel choices I should accomodate him by ignoring that while ignoring me he speaks about me?
Me being on his ignore list, this is HIS problem, you get that?

Storminnorm
25th Oct 2011, 17:03
I generally ignore most things I read on Pprune.

KAG
25th Oct 2011, 17:05
;)



---------------------------------

stuckgear
25th Oct 2011, 18:09
Don't forget the peace Nobel Prize.


Which doesnt account for much KAG, Obama got the Nobel for errrm, not being Bush.

:ok:

KAG
25th Oct 2011, 18:18
Which doesnt account for much KAG, Obama got the Nobel for errrm, not being Bush.

Not wrong, but what about the remaining 250 awards he got? They all count for nothing?

KAG
25th Oct 2011, 18:28
That's the full list, take the time to read it...



List of awards and honours bestowed upon Nelson Mandela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nelson_Mandela_awards_and_honours)

stuckgear
25th Oct 2011, 19:14
That's the full list, take the time to read it...



Sure KAG,


1960s

1964 - Elected Honorary President of the Students' Union, University College London
1965 - Elected Honorary President of the Students' Union, University of Leeds
1970s

1973 - A nuclear particle discovered by scientists at the University of Leeds is named "Mandela particle"[2]
1975 - Honorary life membership of the Students' Union, University of London
1979 - Awarded Honorary Doctorate of Law, University of Lesotho, Maseru, 29 September[3]


There's a lot of Honourary president of:

A lot of freedom of the city of:

A lot of honourary citizen of the town of:

and a lot of hourary degrees, bestowed upon.

The fact of the matter is KAG, it's all PR and B/S. As much as any certain group or ideology make like to hide the facts, deny the truth, follow the window dressing fall for the hype, there are others that look at the facts behind the brochures in the pretty pictures and see the festering hole that exists.

But the you are entitled to your opinion, as am i, and i respect that.

But cannot deny the irony of bestowing the Nobel Peace Prize on a person that was imprisoned for 193 acts of terrorism was in posession of 48,000 Soviet-made anti-personnel mines and 210,000 hand-grenades and the group of which he was involved with, the ANC committed the violent hideous acts of atrocities on their own people.



http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/TER3_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tpp3.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/ter2_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tpp2.jpg)[image 1] This victim of a necklace murder still has his arms tied behind his back. Although it is unthinkable for the normal human mind that people can dance and chant around a burning and begging human being, it actually happened in more than 400 reported cases. Why? One should ask the so-called 'Mother of the (Azanian) Nation', Mrs Mandela, what she meant, when she said, quote : "With tyres and matches we will liberate this country", unquote...

[image 2] Still another victim of the "necklace" murders by supporters of the ANC/Communist alliance. Note the steel rings of the tyre still around the bodies' neck. All of these people were civilians, and they were murdered for such reasons as "not taking part in illegal strikes", not adhering to party policy and not obeying "non-shopping orders" Many mother's were forced to eat the borax and washing-powder they bought for their households because "they dared to challenge ANC's orders not to buy from whites".
http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas1_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas1.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas2_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas2.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas3_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas3.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas4_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas4.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas7_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas7.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas8_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas8.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas12_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas12.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas13_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas13.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas16_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas16.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas17_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas17.jpg) http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas18_small.jpg (http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/images/tPlaas18.jpg)[above]Terrorism did not stop when the ANC/Communist alliance officially ended its terror war

Capetonian
25th Oct 2011, 19:32
I signed out in order to read KAG's comments. I wish I hadn't bothered but as I wasted a few minutes trying to understand them I may as well do the man the courtesy of replying.

Why am I on your ignore list? You would have to explain you came many times on the french forum those past 3 years to post in english, pissed of everybody, the moderator deleted you many times, and you didn't like the way I answered you, you thought I would accept to be insulted.
You are on my ignore list because the stuff you write is worthless to me and pretty hard to make sense of too. I'm quite happy to debate with people whose opinions are contrary to mine, but not the way you go about it. You accused me of being racist simply because of my screen name 'Capetonian' How short sighted is that?
I didn't 'think you would accept to be insulted', I just had my say, you didn't like it. 'Tant pis pour toi' as you would say.
'Pissed of (sic) everybody'. No, pissed you off perhaps, did you solicit the opinions of 'everybody' to see if they were pisssed off or did you just make the sweeping statement based on your own myopic view of the world?


If I am on his ignore list, so why should he speak to me? Did he wrote KAG in his post yes or not?
So because of his personel choices I should accomodate him by ignoring that while ignoring me he speaks about me?
Me being on his ignore list, this is HIS problem, you get that?
I am entitled to ignore you, why don't you do the same to me? Yes, I referred to something you had said, now I've read it and my judgment was sound.

Now, to get back to African politics.

Mandela is revered and respected by most South Africans of all colours. A few believe he was evil, I believe that should be reserved for his ex-wife, but most of us admire and respect him for his conciliation and lack of bitterness. Whether he is a criminal, a terrorist, or a saint is determined by one's perspective. He may well have been all three at different times in his life. He was given many accolades and probably deserves the majority of them. I have met the man, he has an aura of kindness and gentleness about him which I've rarely encountered in any other human being. Unfortunately saying this at the 'wrong' time and place led to me being cast out by a group of people with whom I'd previously been good friends. So be it. I stand by my opinion regardless of the consequences.

Now, the likes of KAG need to look a little at the history of Africa to learn that Africans are more brutal, more racist, and more full of hatred and brutality than the whites ever were. Sadly, people like Robert Mugabe and Julius Malema rise, like scum on water, to the top. The continent has a history of evil despots who plundered their countries and eliminated their opponents. Dozens of them (Google African dictators / despots to save me typing out the whole long list).


If white people never came to Africa, apartheid wouldn't exist.
Here I'm partly addressing Basil's question.
It wouldn't exist by that name, as its (approximate) meaning is 'separation', and it might not have existed at all as the dominant tribes would have exterminated most of the others in an ongoing series of wars, so there would have been no reason for 'apartheid', it would have been 'uitskakeling' or 'eliminatie'. Nobody on earth is more racist, corrupt, and brutal than Africans towards each other.

As far as SA is concerned, it's still Zulu vs. Xhosa. The Zulu are fine people, proud, warriors, intelligent, resourceful. Unfortunately, they are given a bad name by the ruling elite who are largely Zulus. Mandela is a Xhosa, one of the reasons he was 'eased out' by his predecessors.

Fareastdriver
25th Oct 2011, 19:42
As far as SA is concerned, it's still Zulu vs. Xhosa. The Zulu are fine people, proud, warriors, intelligent, resourceful. Unfortunately, they are given a bad name by the ruling elite who are largely Zulus. Mandela is a Xhosa, one of the reasons he was 'eased out' by his predecessors.

Is it me, or does that need editing?

stuckgear
25th Oct 2011, 19:44
NB: Aplogies to Capetonian, SRT and the other saffers/okes/biscuits//bru's for the links in previous post, dark days and sad times of which i'm sure you dont need reminding.

some however were not exposed to such brutality every day and so the facts get lost in legend without a 'stark' reminder.

Capetonian
25th Oct 2011, 19:48
Is it me, or does that need editing?

Yep, badly written.

As far as SA is concerned, it's still Zulu vs. Xhosa. Most Zulus are fine people, proud, warriors, intelligent, resourceful. Unfortunately, the majority are given a bad name by their ruling 'elite'.
Mandela is a Xhosa, one of the reasons he was 'eased out' by his predecessors.

Is that clearer? If not, perhaps I should go to beer and have another bed!

skydiver69
25th Oct 2011, 20:17
Dragging the thread back to the Occupy London activists, Met Police have found that 80% of the tents outside St Pauls are empty at night. To me that suggests that Tarquin and Clarissa are popping home at night to get tucked in with their teddies, cocoa and Socialist Worker but apparently that's wrong. According to Samuel Carlisle these activists are actually leaving the site at night in order to look for more places to occupy. Silly me.

BBC News - The tents are empty for a reason, says protester (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15450234)

TZ350
25th Oct 2011, 21:27
KAG [quote]
If white people never came to Africa, apartheid wouldn't exist.

Personaly I would prefer living in a tribe that would be mine than in a modern country were aliens would be the leaders and see my kid bowing to them. [quote]

In a way it is sad that the Europeans tried to bring civilization to Africa, had they waited a little longer the natives would have exterminated themselves through wars,starvation and disease.....................:E Colonization was a lifeline ( rejected ) which appears to have delayed the inevitable demise.

We always said in NZ that it's racial troubles wouldn't exist if , instead of the Brits, the Dutch had colonized the country when they discovered it............:ok:

KAG
26th Oct 2011, 04:49
If you want to ignore somebody, just do it, and don't use it as an argument when convenient to you! We are back to middle school it seems... This the style: Oh wait, it doesn't count this time! Interesting...
This is what happens when you are on somebody's ignore list, a HUGE post just for me ;) : I signed out in order to read KAG's comments. I wish I hadn't bothered but as I wasted a few minutes trying to understand them I may as well do the man the courtesy of replying.


Quote:
Why am I on your ignore list? You would have to explain you came many times on the french forum those past 3 years to post in english, pissed of everybody, the moderator deleted you many times, and you didn't like the way I answered you, you thought I would accept to be insulted.

You are on my ignore list because the stuff you write is worthless to me and pretty hard to make sense of too. I'm quite happy to debate with people whose opinions are contrary to mine, but not the way you go about it. You accused me of being racist simply because of my screen name 'Capetonian' How short sighted is that?
I didn't 'think you would accept to be insulted', I just had my say, you didn't like it. 'Tant pis pour toi' as you would say.
'Pissed of (sic) everybody'. No, pissed you off perhaps, did you solicit the opinions of 'everybody' to see if they were pisssed off or did you just make the sweeping statement based on your own myopic view of the world?



Quote:
If I am on his ignore list, so why should he speak to me? Did he wrote KAG in his post yes or not?
So because of his personel choices I should accomodate him by ignoring that while ignoring me he speaks about me?
Me being on his ignore list, this is HIS problem, you get that?

I am entitled to ignore you, why don't you do the same to me? Yes, I referred to something you had said, now I've read it and my judgment was sound.

Now, to get back to African politics.

Mandela is revered and respected by most South Africans of all colours. A few believe he was evil, I believe that should be reserved for his ex-wife, but most of us admire and respect him for his conciliation and lack of bitterness. Whether he is a criminal, a terrorist, or a saint is determined by one's perspective. He may well have been all three at different times in his life. He was given many accolades and probably deserves the majority of them. I have met the man, he has an aura of kindness and gentleness about him which I've rarely encountered in any other human being. Unfortunately saying this at the 'wrong' time and place led to me being cast out by a group of people with whom I'd previously been good friends. So be it. I stand by my opinion regardless of the consequences.

Now, the likes of KAG need to look a little at the history of Africa to learn that Africans are more brutal, more racist, and more full of hatred and brutality than the whites ever were. Sadly, people like Robert Mugabe and Julius Malema rise, like scum on water, to the top. The continent has a history of evil despots who plundered their countries and eliminated their opponents. Dozens of them (Google African dictators / despots to save me typing out the whole long list).


Quote:
If white people never came to Africa, apartheid wouldn't exist.

Here I'm partly addressing Basil's question.
It wouldn't exist by that name, as its (approximate) meaning is 'separation', and it might not have existed at all as the dominant tribes would have exterminated most of the others in an ongoing series of wars, so there would have been no reason for 'apartheid', it would have been 'uitskakeling' or 'eliminatie'. Nobody on earth is more racist, corrupt, and brutal than Africans towards each other.

As far as SA is concerned, it's still Zulu vs. Xhosa. The Zulu are fine people, proud, warriors, intelligent, resourceful. Unfortunately, they are given a bad name by the ruling elite who are largely Zulus. Mandela is a Xhosa, one of the reasons he was 'eased out' by his predecessors.

Sorry, haven't read it completely, the first line was funny enough already: it was quite amusing to see you pretending something and doing the opposite. Some lack of honesty here.

KAG
26th Oct 2011, 04:52
Stuckgear, at least admit you quoted the awards that had little value, I could reply in quoting the most important ones, as all Europe and the US gave him awards, including governments. No need, right? You see where I am going.

He had many awards, including Nobel Prize. You can deny their value for some of them, but not that they exist.

Now give me an other terrorist name in the world who has a nobel prize and 250 awards from the whole world please.

Terrorist is a convenient name we gave him during apartheid, but always remember he wanted to become free in his own country, and I entirely understand him, while I don't understand terrorists.


Stuckgear, if an allien force came to your country, to take control of it, entirely, completely, and practiced apartheid against you, your family, all the people of your kind, you wouldn't fight?

KAG
26th Oct 2011, 05:19
TZ 350: In a way it is sad that the Europeans tried to bring civilization to Africa, had they waited a little longer the natives would have exterminated themselves through wars,starvation and disease..................... Colonization was a lifeline ( rejected ) which appears to have delayed the inevitable demise.

We, western white people, don't have any mission to bring civilization anywhere, we will have to stop to think that way, this is something of the past.


Anyway, let's face it, all studies on the matter tells us that Europeans brought instability and big wars to Africa in changing their boundaries and corrupting there government. Before Europeans arrived, Africans where more stable and more peaceful.

I know you want to be proud anyway, Europeans (mainly France, UK I beleive?) cannot be proud of what they did to Africa, and finding an excuse to our own mistakes in the African man drawbacks won't do it. France did huge mistakes, admited it and left all the african countries we use to control.


I don't fool myself, I know that most of you on JB are white, and more or less related to the common wealth (hence with the willing to defend it whatever it takes). So I know that what I say won't please your hears, I just ask a bit of honesty here.

Slasher
26th Oct 2011, 06:02
Spent just a little time in SA many yonks ago in JNB and CPT
and read this particular book written by one of the Malan clan
members -

http://www.proteatours.de/fileadmin/media/suedafrika/reiseinfos/Literatur/Rian_Malan_-_My_Traitor_s_Heart.jpg

Dunno if it was all that accurate (except that historical Great
Fish River jaunt by his ancestor etc) and was pretty damning
about the system of the time (1980s) but one can understand
the real reasons for 1948 that Milan didn't mention. But has
any Afrikaaner read it at all and vouch for its accuracy?

Cape?

Mechta
26th Oct 2011, 13:17
KAG, what is your evidence for this:

Before Europeans arrived, Africans where more stable and more peaceful.

As far as I am aware, Africans were fighting with their neighbours and enslaving the vanquished, long before the white man or even the Arab arrived. All the white man did was to provide a new outlet for the slave trade.

KAG
26th Oct 2011, 13:21
We were supposed to be the civilized ones in Africa anyway.

I don't deny what you say, never thought that Man (whatever his color) is an angel.

stuckgear
26th Oct 2011, 13:40
Stuckgear, if an allien force came to your country, to take control of it, entirely, completely, and practiced apartheid against you, your family, all the people of your kind, you wouldn't fight?


Bonjour, Mon Ami !

i take your point KAG, however, that is an overt over simplification of the history of SA..

Portugese:
Although the Portuguese basked in the nautical achievement of successfully navigating the cape, they showed little interest in colonisation. The area's fierce weather and rocky shoreline posed a threat to their ships, and many of their attempts to trade with the local Khoikhoi ended in conflict. The Portuguese found the Mozambican coast more attractive, with appealing bays to use as way stations, for prawning, and as links to gold ore in the interior.
The Portuguese had little competition in the region until the late 16th century, when the English and Dutch began to challenge the Portuguese along their trade routes. Stops at the continent's southern tip increased, and the cape became a regular stopover for scurvy-ridden crews. In 1647, a Dutch vessel was wrecked in the present-day Table Bay at Cape Town. The marooned crew, the first Europeans to attempt settlement in the area, built a fort and stayed for a year until they were rescued.


then the Dutch:

Shortly thereafter, the Dutch East India Company (in the Dutch of the day: Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, or VOC) decided to establish a permanent settlement. The VOC, one of the major European trading houses sailing the spice route to the East, had no intention of colonising the area, instead wanting only to establish a secure base camp where passing ships could shelter, and where hungry sailors could stock up on fresh supplies of meat, fruit, and vegetables. To this end, a small VOC expedition under the command of Jan van Riebeeck reached Table Bay on 6 April 1652.[2]
While the new settlement traded out of necessity with the neighbouring Khoikhoi, it was not a friendly relationship, and the company authorities made deliberate attempts to restrict contact. Partly as a consequence, VOC employees found themselves faced with a labour shortage. To remedy this, they released a small number of Dutch from their contracts and permitted them to establish farms, with which they would supply the VOC settlement from their harvests. This arrangement proved highly successful, producing abundant supplies of fruit, vegetables, wheat, and wine; they also later raised livestock. The small initial group of free burghers, as these farmers were known, steadily increased in number and began to expand their farms further north and east into the territory of the Khoikhoi.
The majority of burghers had Dutch ancestry and belonged to the Calvinist Reformed Church of the Netherlands, but there were also numerous Germans as well as some Scandinavians. In 1688 the Dutch and the Germans were joined by French Huguenots, also Calvinists, who were fleeing religious persecution in France under King Louis XIV.
In addition to establishing the free burgher system, van Riebeeck and the VOC also began to import large numbers of slaves, primarily from Madagascar and Indonesia. These slaves often married Dutch settlers, and their descendants became known as the Cape Coloureds and the Cape Malays. A significant number of the offspring from the White and slave unions were absorbed into the local proto-Afrikaans speaking White population. With this additional labour, the areas occupied by the VOC expanded further to the north and east, with inevitable clashes with the Khoikhoi. The newcomers drove the Khoikhoi from their traditional lands, decimated them with introduced diseases, and destroyed them with superior weapons when they fought back, which they did in a number of major wars and with guerrilla resistance movements that continued into the 19th century. Most survivors were left with no option but to work for the Europeans in an exploitative arrangement that differed little from slavery. Over time, the Khoisan, their European overseers, and the imported slaves mixed, with the offspring of these unions forming the basis for today's Coloured population.[3]
The best-known Khoikhoi groups included the Griqua, who had originally lived on the western coast between St Helena Bay and the Cederberg Range. In the late 18th century, they managed to acquire guns and horses and began trekking north-east. En route, other groups of Khoisan, Coloureds, and even white adventurers joined them, and they rapidly gained a reputation as a formidable military force. Ultimately, the Griquas reached the Highveld around present-day Kimberley, where they carved out territory that came to be known as Griqualandalina.


then the British

As the 18th century drew to a close, Dutch mercantile power began to fade and the British moved in to fill the vacuum. They seized the Cape in 1795 to prevent it from falling into French hands, then briefly relinquished it back to the Dutch (1803), before definitively conquering it in 1806. British sovereignty of the area was recognised at the Congress of Vienna in 1815.
At the tip of the continent the British found an established colony with 25,000 slaves, 20,000 white colonists, 15,000 Khoisan, and 1,000 freed black slaves. Power resided solely with a white élite in Cape Town, and differentiation on the basis of race was deeply entrenched. Outside Cape Town and the immediate hinterland, isolated black and white pastoralists populated the country.
Like the Dutch before them, the British initially had little interest in the Cape Colony, other than as a strategically located port. As one of their first tasks they tried to resolve a troublesome border dispute between the Boers and the Xhosa on the colony's eastern frontier. In 1820 the British authorities persuaded about 5,000 middle-class British immigrants (most of them "in trade") to leave Great Britain behind and settle on tracts of land between the feuding groups with the idea of providing a buffer zone. The plan was singularly unsuccessful. Within three years, almost half of these 1820 Settlers had retreated to the towns, notably Grahamstown and Port Elizabeth, to pursue the jobs they had held in Britain.
While doing nothing to resolve the border dispute, this influx of settlers solidified the British presence in the area, thus fracturing the relative unity of white South Africa. Where the Boers and their ideas had before gone largely unchallenged, white South Africa now had two distinct language groups and two distinct cultures. A pattern soon emerged whereby English-speakers became highly urbanised, and dominated politics, trade, finance, mining, and manufacturing, while the largely uneducated Boers were relegated to their farms.
The gap between the British settlers and the Boers further widened with the abolition of slavery in 1834, a move that the Boers generally regarded as against the God-given ordering of the races. Yet the British settlers' conservatism stopped any radical social reforms, and in 1841 the authorities passed a Masters and Servants Ordinance, which perpetuated white control. Meanwhile, numbers of British immigrants increased rapidly in Cape Town, in the area east of the Cape Colony (present-day Eastern Cape Province), in Natal. The discovery of diamonds at Kimberley and the subsequent discovery of gold in parts of the Transvaal, mainly around present-day Gauteng led to a rapid increase in immigration of fortune seekers from all parts of the globe, including Africa itself.


So, it's not simply the case of the whites turning up planting a flag and whipping the natives into apartheid. The whole history of SA as a state is actually very interesting. a potted history can be found here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa) and what the whites (current European counterparts) did to each other in SA is equally reprehensible. While the Nazi's are often accredited with the invention of the concentration camp, that is not quite the truth:


Polish historian Władysław Konopczyński has suggested the first concentration camps were created in Poland in the 18th century, during the Bar Confederation rebellion, when the Russian Empire established three concentration camps for Polish rebel captives awaiting deportation to Siberia.

The earliest of these camps may have been those set up in the United States for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s; however, the term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–1878) and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).[6]
The English term "concentration camp" grew in prominence during the Second Boer War (1899–1902), when they were operated by the British in South Africa.


The point is, if you want to delve into activism and point the finger then you open a whole can of worms. To cite about a foreign nation landing on a shore overthowing a foreign government and enacting apartheid as a case of argument for SA, it's really a false argument as that is not what happened. Although history can be re-written to some extent by a populist viewpoint, it doesn't change the facts.

À bientôt :ok:

KAG
26th Oct 2011, 14:00
A lot of quote there stuckgear, from the portugese navigators to the polish camps... Not saying it's not interesting, but honestly you ve lost me.

Mechta
26th Oct 2011, 15:25
KAG,

Stuckgear's message is very simple. We and our ancestors are/were all as bad as each other. For every oppressed ancestor, you are likely to have equally many who were oppressors.

It never ceases to amaze me how selective people are when looking at their family trees.

stuckgear
26th Oct 2011, 15:31
Well, KAG, the point was that at no time did Mr big bad white man turn up in SA, with its established government and democratic basis and instill apartheid and overthrow a democratic political representation of the indigenous peoples.

there was some 400 years of European involvement in the region before black/white apartheid was introduced.

However, further to the above, apartheid was not a principle black white issue, predating that, European settlers were engaging in apartheid on each other.

Like i said, leave the 'populist doctrine' on the side and look at the true history, i even posted the data for you to get you going.

cheers.

hellsbrink
26th Oct 2011, 16:49
Before Europeans arrived, Africans where more stable and more peaceful.

That is the most ignorant, ill-thought, untruthful and stupid comment you have ever come out with, KAG. You obviously do not include the Egyptians with their treatment of the "Nubians" in your concept, you do not include the notion of the tribal warfare across the entire continent in your ideal, and you obviously have no concept of the history of the continent in any way whatsoever.

Take your ignorance back to whining about tobacco and alcohol and leave this debate to those who either have some knowledge or have the decency to actually do a little research into the subject they are wishing to make a comment on.

pvmw
26th Oct 2011, 17:03
That is the most ignorant, ill-thought, untruthful and stupid comment you have ever come out with, KAG

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
(with apologies to Hellsbrink, comment directed toward KAG - not him)

Capetonian
26th Oct 2011, 17:16
Slasher : I read Riaan Malan's book when it came out, just after he returned from exile. The title tells you, as do the circumstances, that he was pretty confused. The book is a personal memoir and whilst I'm sure that most of what he relates would have been true, and he was a neighbour of mine in Tamboerskloof so I can relate to it, it would have been his interpretation. We all know that one can embellish, or omit, in order to illustrate points.
And BTW : But has any Afrikaaner read it at all and vouch for its accuracy? I hope you don't think that all Caucasian South Africans are Afrikaaners!

Stuckgear thank you for that interesting potted history! I hope some of the ignoranti who've been pontificating on here will learn, and take heed, from it.

As for KAG's comments. He's on my ignore list, perhaps you can now see why! In SA English there are a couple of words for people like him. They are both four letters and both end with an 's'.

Slasher
26th Oct 2011, 17:26
I hope you don't think that all Caucasian South Africans are Afrikaaners!

Of course not Cape, but an Afrikaaner would probably be a
better judge of that book than a Soetie. Anyway thanks for
the feedback.

Capetonian
26th Oct 2011, 17:39
Fine Slasher, just wanted to make sure! There's many that don't know the difference! Soetie indeed. I wonder how many people know what that means!

Definitions here : soutpiel - Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soutpiel) and Urban Dictionary: soutpiel (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soutpiel)

stuckgear
26th Oct 2011, 18:38
Result is that UK ran away and France had to fight alone.


Now, i'm no military historian, or military strategist, but:


By 26 May, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and the French First Army were bottled up in a corridor to the sea, about 60 mi (97 km) deep and 15–25 mi (24–40 km) wide. Most of the British were still around Lille, over 40 mi (64 km) from Dunkirk, and the French still further south. Two massive German armies flanked them: General Fedor von Bock's Army Group B was to the east, and General Gerd von Rundstedt's Army Group A to the west.

On 24 May, Hitler had visited General von Rundstedt's headquarters at Charleville. Von Rundstedt advised him the infantry should attack the British forces at Arras, where they had proved capable of significant action, while Kleist's armour held the line west and south of Dunkirk in order to pounce on the Allied forces retreating before Army Group B.[1] This order allowed the Germans to consolidate their gains and prepare for a southward advance against the remaining French forces. The terrain around Dunkirk was considered unsuitable for armour,[9] so the Allied forces' destruction was initially assigned to the Luftwaffe and the German infantry organised in Army Group B. Von Rundstedt later called this "one of the great turning points of the war."


so, if the UK forces didn't give a toss about the Frenchies and left them to fight or surrender...

1. What were the UK forces doing in north France in the first place ? hardly visting for cheap wine and saussion!

2. You seem to forget the huge investment the UK and commonwealth countries, including the US, Canada, South Africa etc etc. made in defending it's ally, France, in cost both monetary and human throughout the second world war. lets not even bring into it the first world war and the huge expense of UK and commonwealth life as well as many other nations when French military arrogance placed all on the maginot line which was well frankly a fallacy.

3. seeing as on the last day the UK evacuation managed to exfil some 26,000 french troops..

a) where were the french civilians / military with their boats assisting the UK in the exfil ?

b) seeing as 40,000 french troops were left behind with enough equipment for 8-10 divisions, did they fight to the death or reach for the sky ?

4. In 1940, de Gaulle obtained special permission from Winston Churchill to broadcast a speech via BBC Radio over France. In the speech, de Gaulle reminded the French people that the British Empire and the United States of America would support them in an effort to retake their land from the Nazis. On June 18, 1940, at 19:00, de Gaulle's voice was broadcast nationwide.

- Clementine Churchill: "General, you must not hate your friends more than you hate your enemies"
- De Gaulle (in English): "France has no friends, only interests."

Parachuted behind enemy lines on a mission to train French resistance fighters, he was a hero of the Second World War.
Captain Peter Lake trained dozens of members of the Maquis - rural resistance fighters - in sabotage and guerilla warfare and was decorated by the French and the British.

So when Lake finally met General Charles de Gaulle - the leader of the Free French Forces - he might have expected at the very least a warm welcome.

What he got was a distinct froideur.

De Gaulle - whose country had only just been liberated with help from the likes of Lake - questioned what the British officer was doing in France and in no uncertain terms told him 'go home'.


You know, the thing is KAG, such comments like this completely exemplify why the UK should not be part of the EU (as per your other thread) due to the instilled general dislike toward the UK from the European body..

pvmw
26th Oct 2011, 18:40
UK ran away, escaped, retreated. France army fighted until death, then France and Belgium got invaded.
Damn! Every history book I've ever read has it wrong. I never realised that France and Belgium got invaded after the French army had fighted to the death.

Wasn't there some place called Vichy, and a chap called Petain involved in it somewhere as well?? Probably just another error in those pesky history books - I'm sure the French ones won't be referring to them.

stuckgear
26th Oct 2011, 18:56
Aww KAG,

i noticed you pulled your post and was about to pull mine too in solidarity.



Remember you started it in your post to mention UK and France in 1945... You started it.



No Kag, Germany did by invading Poland :ok:

the point i was raising about 1945 was to do with Vietnam, where the French engaged in territory claim and reclamation, which incidentally was the precurser to and the ignitor of the Vietnam war, that was directly relating to the citation of your statement:


if an allien force came to your country, to take control of it, entirely, completely, and practiced apartheid against you, your family, all the people of your kind, you wouldn't fight?


and was in no way a launch in WWII. the situation in vietnam was after VE day.


Thing is the Dunkirk evacuation is the most important run away from the history,


if you want to see tactical withdrawl as that ? like i said perhaps the french sensitivities would have been better pleased if 338,226 men, including 139,997 French, Polish and Belgian troops, together with a small number of Dutch soldierswhere annhiliated instead?


and to celebrate it you treat us as cheese eating surrending monkey because we said no to IRAQ



um, no that phrase was coined in the US media, if anything the UK rather admire the French the culture, the language and the food.

Anyway i have to go eat now.. catch up with you later on KAG, no offence taken here and I hope none made. :ok:

KAG
26th Oct 2011, 19:22
Read again my post #100, I put France into the equation, so you coming with your list against France in your post #108 got on my nerves maybe. Nothing too bad. No offence Stuckgear, it was off topic anyway.
Cheers.

hellsbrink
26th Oct 2011, 19:30
Your post #100 had some truth in it, but the biggest problem is the other things you have said.

I refer you to my posts #69 and #109 (will I link to them to make it easier for you), which point out how you were wrong.

And I won't go into how you rewrote history again regarding WW2 as my previous post was spuriously deleted, but, suffice to say, it would be nice to know how the German Army invaded France before Belgium since the Germans bypassed the Maginot Line by going through the Ardennes.

Capetonian
26th Oct 2011, 19:45
The French education system is not 'bad' in the conventional sense of the word, but it teaches an incredibly narrow minded and Franco-centric view of history and the world. It is not surprising that a lot of French people believe that they single-handedly won every world war, liberated most of the world from the oppressors, and invented everything that moves on land, in the air, and on or under water, as well as being 'weltmeisters' of cuisine, drink, fashion, and beauty.

Shame, it's not their fault, but they need to get out more and take off the blinkers. A lot of French people are very nice!

hellsbrink
26th Oct 2011, 19:50
I have to disagree with that, Cape, since I know French people who do not have that viewpoint. That may have been true for an "older generation", but I don't think that applies in more modern times...


Or maybe I've just been lucky

stuckgear
26th Oct 2011, 19:52
to be honest many educational systems are distorted to reflect history from an internal perspective. The sad thing is when politics drives education then we end up with a distorted view of reality and then we end up with activists demonstrating over subject matter with demands that are ill informed and illogical.

(see what i did there !)

Listening to the radio today in the car an interview with one of these activists set forth the premise that countries should do away with banks completely.

yeah, that'll work ? trade on an international, national, even local level. hmm need to fill the car up, i'll load some sheep in the car and barter for a tank of petrol. hows that airplane ticket going to be paid for ? ram a gold watch down the phone ?

nutters !

hellsbrink
26th Oct 2011, 20:38
yeah, that'll work ? trade on an international, national, even local level. hmm need to fill the car up, i'll load some sheep in the car and barter for a tank of petrol. hows that airplane ticket going to be paid for ? ram a gold watch down the phone ?

nutters !

Is that one of these "nutters" who has a cellphone, buys a tent made by a certain manufacturer from a certain store, eats certain branded foods from certain stores and used his branded laptop whilst using the free wifi after standing in the biggest queue the Starbucks nearest to St. Pauls?



All because of "family" money.......... Don't ya just hate these effwits that have never done a decent day's work in their lives trying to tell us with jobs how to live our lives?

stuckgear
26th Oct 2011, 20:52
nah hells' that, in my book, is a hypocrite :ok:

yet while some of these hypocrites as you point out delight in the convenience of consumerism, decry capitalism. yes a difference but hypocritical just the same.

Parapunter
26th Oct 2011, 21:10
I love you Stuckgear. You're worth a dozen cinema tickets.:ok:

First there is a gross distortion of history:

You seem to forget the huge investment the UK and commonwealth countries, including the US, Canada, South Africa etc etc. made in defending it's ally, France, in cost both monetary and human throughout the second world war. lets not even bring into it the first world war and the huge expense of UK and commonwealth life as well as many other nations when French military arrogance placed all on the maginot line which was well frankly a fallacy.

I think you'll find we were more interested in keeping the Nazi war machine away from our shores. Further more, I think you will find that Churchill wanted very badly to go in via Trieste & lubljana & not through France in Operation Overlord, but was batted away by the Americans. In fact after 1944, we probably made no further meaningful strategic contribution to WW2. Still, you put one over KAG eh?


Then you post this:
yet while some of these hypocrites as you point out delight in the convenience of consumerism, decry capitalism. yes a difference but hypocritical just the same. Which neatly ignores the notion that it is possible to consume goods and services maufactured in a capitalist economy and still be able to protest at the widespread damage inflicted upon people by certain elements of that same economy without in actual fact being a contradiction in terms or a hypocrite.

It is black and white playground thinking and also a repetition of what you posted in this very thread a few days ago & so exhibits a lack of imagination on a par with a very second rate MP, and third rate chick lit author, whose identity and similar demolition on live tv bears posting again. If this is the offer the right makes, you can keep it. I get better and more accurate from my teenage niece.



Louise Mensch on Occupy London (HIGNFY) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3252FSW7OC4)

stuckgear
26th Oct 2011, 21:28
para, nice little selective quoting:

UK and commonwealth countries, including the US, Canada, South Africa etc etc.

the british continued to play a major strategic role in even after 1944. After breaking the Lorenz code with colossus, the UK provided much key intel to it's allies and following the situation with Russia after WWII, when the Russians used the lorenz cipher and equipment removed from germany after the fall of Berlin the use of colussus continued and proved relevent in providing the Uk and its allies with valuable intel into the 60's.

FYI. kag and I have also been communicating by PM, as we do. if you care to note, it was nothing to do with putting one up on KAG, but both KAG and myself have removed posts from the thread, so while you weigh in with your size 7 1/2's you've missed some points in the dialogue.

So as for your infantile statement and snide remarks...


I get better and more accurate from my teenage niece.



Fair do's.. if you stretch yourself you may even be able to hold an equal conversation.

Fareastdriver
26th Oct 2011, 21:32
In fact after 1944, we probably made no further meaningful strategic contribution to WW2

There wasn't much left of the 2nd World War after 1944. What did happen was that Churchill was prevented from advancing to Berlin by the Americans who were buddies with the Russians at the time. Luckily for Denmark, Montgomery pushed the British forces to the Kiel Canal therebye stopping the Russians sweeping up into Scandinavia.

parabellum
26th Oct 2011, 22:03
because we said no to IRAQ


France said NO to Iraq because, despite the sanctions they, along with China and Russia, were doing business with Iraq. Remember the French aircraft that landed in Baghdad and entertained the crowd with some dancing on the tarmac? Whilst that was going on the city suited business men were in the terminal building negotiating the contracts, for some reason Iraqi TV didn't show that!

Parapunter
26th Oct 2011, 22:12
as for your infantile statement and snide remarks...

oooh look ! lattes !
Come off it.

As for strategic contributions in WW2, you acknowledge no doubt that I am correct in my assessment. Yet you implied we acceded to Overlord as a fraternal effort to support our French chums, which is guff & bunkum of the highest water and you did so in order to score a point. I call bullhonkey & you don't like it - fair enough, but don't go on to call me a child playing with grown ups - not when you've been caught out, frankly, it's...juvenile, more so than the rubbish about protesters who don't fit into your view of the world.

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 03:08
Sorry not to insist on UK and US victories here concerning WW2, but this past century we have heard enough of it to be aware and thanksful.

I just want to remind us what we seem to have forgoten with the years.

Nazi and their allied became a threat to the world. They started to invade, kill. They wanted to control the world. They went to war against small countries in Europe. UK and France, Belgium (and some other countries) decided to go to war against the Nazi.

Result? UK gave up, US remained neutral, and France fighted like they could the Nazi, true they lost and very fast. Let's face it, if at that time the US army or the UK one had been in the same situation, they would have lost too. But they didn't take this risk as we already said it, one retreating, the other being neutral.

So, like all the others smaller european countries around us we have been defeated and occupied, humiliated, seing in this situation what is best and worst in a human being during that kind of time.

During all those years, even if the french resistance were fighting, we have suffered the worst time of our history to be only observed and watched by our US friends and UK friends who didn't come, for YEARS.

So yes it look all nice today for UK/US, but always remember how it started, and you'll understand that the french bashing that started mainly after IRAQ is only political. And interesting enough, France was right about Iraq.
Now what will remain in the history? This is the war that created the 2008 crisis (we are still in the same financial crisis), the war that take its justification into lies, and sadam hussein that has nothing to do with the terrorist attacks in NY.


Capetonian: you say France beleive they invented everything. To start, somebody must have invented/start to build what we have today right? Not everything, but if you do research and get out from the english speaking world, you might be surprised, you'd discover that the first flight in France occured more than half a century before the wright brothers.
France made the first car (steamed at that time) in the history, the first balloon, the first non manned airplane, the first manned airplane, the first fighter airplanes (during WW1, the fighters were mainly french), the first country to be completely connected, what we call today internet... And could go one.

Germany did its incredible load of first too, offset to our view by its troubled recent past with WW2.

Point is that there is a whole world outside the english speaking one that is invisible today to everybody because english is universaly the language of media and information.

Is that called arrogance, what am I doing here with my post? Could be. But if it is, beleive this is aswell the fact that I am fed up with the english speaking world and media rewriting the history to make it nicer to the persons concerned: let's face it, english is the information language today, and don't think this fact of one language telling the world truth goes without its share of bullcrap.

The english world became very arrogant, you might not have noticed it, I just want to re-balance and get closer to reality here.

Mike X
27th Oct 2011, 03:18
KAG, Bonjour.

Give it up.
If wasn't for Europe and America, this would be a German forum.

How good is your Cantonese or MANdarin ?

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 03:24
Yeah, I am a bit stubborn MIKE X, you are right.


How good is your Cantonese?
My cantonese is extremely bad. However my chinese (putonghua, also called mandarin) is not bad at all.
The new world language to come? Will make us miss the previous one?


OK I edit my post: just saw you added "mandarin". My mandarin is fine MIKE X.

Mike X
27th Oct 2011, 03:39
What was the previous lingua franca?

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 03:41
It has already been mentioned in this thread: french ;)

I see where you want to go. It doesn't change the today biased situation.

Mike X
27th Oct 2011, 03:49
I see where you want to go. It doesn't change the today biased situation.

That requires an explanation.

Any language regarded as universal falls under your rules.

N'est-ce pas ?

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 03:59
What I 'd prefer not only doesn't matter (if you really want to know I am for neutrality and fairness), but in addition doesn't change anything. Today they fall under yours, this the subject, don't put us in a time machine to avoid the subject today, 好吧?

Mike X
27th Oct 2011, 04:11
Jeez KAG, you certainly have obedient children and an obedient wife.

don't put us in a time machine to avoid the subject.


Giggle translate is a bugger.

Alors monsieur, je vais dormir. Merci pour le conversation. :ok:

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 05:44
Alors monsieur, je vais dormir.

Have a good night, I live in China, it is midday here. 晚安.

Krystal n chips
27th Oct 2011, 05:51
This makes an interesting read.....albeit a lengthy one....

The 'Good War' Myth of World War Two (http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html)

rh200
27th Oct 2011, 06:06
This makes an interesting read.....albeit a lenghty one....

You know what they say, "History is written by the victor", there is the old "good fact vs true fact" argument.

pvmw
27th Oct 2011, 08:03
Result? UK gave up, US remained neutral, and France fighted like they could the Nazi, true they lost and very fast. Let's face it, if at that time the US army or the UK one had been in the same situation, they would have lost too
...and there, in your second sentence, you reveal the stupity of your words, and your complete lack of understanding of the situation.

If the UK forces had stayed in France they would have been defeated. You've just said it yourself, and if that had occurred you would now be speaking German (actually, it is very unlikely in a Nazi controlled Europe you would have existed in the first place)

The UK tactically (look it up) withdrew across the Channel. It then survived the Blitz (look it up), and spent several years of fighting against the Nazis overseas eg. the N African campaign that finally defeated Rommel (sorry, not even the French can claim to have "won" that one), the war in the Far East, the Atlantic campaign etc. etc. until finally the Allies were strong enough to invade in 1944 - which, I am quite prepared to admit, would probably not have been possible without the USA.

What did the majority of the French do? Fraternized with the Nazis (your history books may not mention Vichy Fance, Marshal Petain etc - look them up) and with the exception of a few brave resistance fighters shrugged their shoulder and got on with life

I love France (I'll be there next week) and the majority of the French. The whining few who think the world owes them a living and that that everything is so unfair because we don't treat them with the respect they think they are owed (but not deserved) I can do without. Noticeably, the inhabitants of Normandy almost without exception are pro the Brits and the Yanks - their race memory is of being liberated by the Allies and they remain grateful for it.
Read this, it might educate you:-
The Vichy government, headed by Marshall Philippe Pétain and Pierre Laval, actively collaborated in the extermination of the European Jews. It also participated in Porrajmos, the extermination of Roma people, and in the extermination of other "undesirables." Vichy opened up a series of concentration camps in France where it interned Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political opponents, etc. Directed by René Bousquet, the French police helped in the deportation of 76,000 Jews to the extermination camps. In 1995, President Jacques Chirac officially recognized the responsibility of the French state for the deportation of Jews during the war, in particular the more than 13,000 victims the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup of July 1942, during which Laval decided, by his own, to deport children along with their parents. Only 2,500 of the deported Jews survived the war. The 1943 Battle of Marseille was another event during which the French police assisted the Gestapo in a massive raid, which included an urban reshaping plan involving the destruction of a whole neighbourhood in the popular Old Port. Some few collaborators were tried in the 1980s for crimes against humanity (Paul Touvier, etc.), while Maurice Papon, who had become after the war prefect of police of Paris (a function in which he illustrated himself during the 1961 Paris massacre) was convicted in 1998 for crimes against humanity

stuckgear
27th Oct 2011, 08:24
As for strategic contributions in WW2, you acknowledge no doubt that I am correct in my assessment. Yet you implied we acceded to Overlord as a fraternal effort to support our French chums, which is guff & bunkum of the highest water and you did so in order to score a point. I call bullhonkey & you don't like it -

the implication is what you extrapolated, and i noted you above, demonstarted your selective extrapolation and selective quoting.


but don't go on to call me a child playing with grown ups - not when you've been caught out, frankly, it's...juvenile, more so than the rubbish about protesters who don't fit into your view of the world.

you would do well to heed your own advice, seeing as it was you who your brought your teenage niece into discussion no-one else.

now if your if you've finished playing the player the player not the ball, we'd like to get back to the thread not *you*.

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 08:43
pvmw: thanks for you quote, I know we have been occupied by the nazi for 5 years, I know french history.

I even beleive I was one of the first to mention Vichy on JB (DSK thread maybe?). Since I did it's coming back now and then. What hapened in Vichy hapened in other occupied countries by the nazi. Priviledge and per diems to be occupied probably...

In France we watch our history and our mistakes straight. We even made movies about it.

Try to be occupied by the Nazi for 5 years (it could have happened if you didn't run away) on your territory, you'll tell me if its great and perfect.


Your post is precisely what have been hapening for half a century: french bashing, pointing out our mistake while we don't ignore them, pointing out our misfortune while we don't ignore it, obviously. Meanwhile the UK is perfect and calls a retreat a victory, and the US is perfect and calls business and neutrality a war.

Read again my post, it's all about re-balance, no denial.

Point me out again and again what we all know already if you want. But you have been doing that for half a century already, you won't convince us of anything and will just piss us of by doing that.

If this is your goal, then perfect continue.

sitigeltfel
27th Oct 2011, 08:50
England was occupied by "Les Normands" over nine hundred years ago. I don't think they ever left.

GANNET FAN
27th Oct 2011, 08:52
Dear God, doesn't that KAG ever put a sock in it???

stuckgear
27th Oct 2011, 08:53
Without doubt KAG neither the UK, or US (or any other nation) is without fault or blemish.

as i understand, you are ex-services yourself i would consider that you would appreciate a tactical withdrawal from a battle that cannot be won.

don't take it French bashing, for sure that is not the case, even as recently as 2006 the French navy were credited with extracting some 15,000 people to safety in the Lebanon war (operation baliste).

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 09:11
The french operation baliste extracted 15000 europeans CITIZEN, (civilians) true.

you would appreciate a tactical withdrawal from a battle that cannot be won.Yes I do. That's still not a reason to look down the ones not able to withdraw all their country with magic behind the channel sea.

stuckgear
27th Oct 2011, 09:21
Yes I do. That's still not a reason to look down the ones not able to withdraw all their country with magic behind the channel sea.


kag, indeed not all the troops were evacuated.

this from wiki:


The British rearguard left the night of 2 June, along with 60,000 French soldiers.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#cite_note-mm-15) An additional 26,000 French troops were retrieved the following night before the operation finally ended.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#cite_note-Liddell-10)
Two French divisions remained behind to protect the evacuation. Though they halted the German advance, they were soon captured. The remainder of the rearguard, largely French, surrendered on 3 June 1940.


I don't think anyone would admonish any of the troops actions.

Capetonian
27th Oct 2011, 09:22
There was a French footballer called Eric Cantona who attacked a spectator (or another player, or a referee, I forget, and it's irrelevant). In his defence in court he said :

When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea.

Having had the misfortune to work with French people in the past, I got used to this type of inane conversation on a daily basis, where they come out with cheap pseudo intellectual drivel rather than shutting up or accepting that they are wrong. That is why KAG is on my ignore list. I don't see any point in engaging with people like that on any level.

pvmw
27th Oct 2011, 09:27
Try to be occupied by the Nazi for 5 years (it could have happened if you didn't run away) on your territory, you'll tell me if its great and perfect.


Your post is precisely what have been hapening for half a century: french bashing, pointing out our mistake while we don't ignore them, pointing out our misfortune while we don't ignore it, obviously. Meanwhile the UK is perfect and calls a retreat a victory, and the US is perfect and calls business and neutrality a war.

Read again my post, it's all about re-balance, no denial.


KAG, you specifically said the UK "gave up" and "ran away". Both were derogatory statements that were manifestly untrue - as has just been pointed out a tactical withdrawal is not "giving up", and had the UK not retreated at Dunkirk you would be speaking German.

Dunkirk wasn't a "victory", but it was an amazing piece of luck (Hitler delaying the final assault), courage (thousands of civilians taking ships across the channel to rescue troops - including French) and a fair bit of determination. To describe it as running away in disingenuous and designed to cause offence.

I don't "bash the French". I do bash Frenchmen (and any other nationality)who try to distort history for their own ends or to demonstrate their own prejudices or ignorance.

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 10:44
Here is capetonian coming back mentioning me and reminding us I am on his ignore list! Regularly it comes back. Awesome. A bit weird though.

Stuckgear: you are right, however which part of your quote is unknown from all of us here? Straight to the point. French troops protected the UK retreat, hold their lines, died for many, been captured, got defeated sent to camps. Anyway remember, dunkirk what not the end for us, it was the begining of a long and bad dream.

stuckgear
27th Oct 2011, 10:52
indeed KAG, it is not forgetten on this side of the channel, in fact it is highly regarded, the sacrifices that many french civilians made , not only as individuals, but as families and entire communities in their work in underground movements and militia against the occupiers and also in networks to recover and repatriate allied service men.

MagnusP
27th Oct 2011, 10:54
Here is capetonian coming back mentioning me and reminding us I am on his ignore list! Regularly it comes back. Awesome. A bit weird though.

Oh, for Heaven's sake, YOU are on his ignore list, but those who quote you are NOT, and he sees the quotes. What on earth is weird about that? Jeez. :ugh:

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 10:56
Like we are thanksful for 1944.
Thing is this is harder and harder to be thanksful as we are expected, more than half a century after, to behave as a shameful gollum who cannot have a viewpoint because France he has been invaded by the nazi.
Anyway thanks for your nice post.


MagnusP: repeating again and again I am on his ignore list is weird. If you want to ignore somebody, just do it. He is not ignoring me, keep mentioning me, even admit he logs out to read my posts. How weird and childish is that..

pvmw
27th Oct 2011, 11:01
So KAG - are you going to withdraw the remarks about "running away" and "give up", or do you still maintain they are an accurate description of the events of 1940?

Awaiting your reply - but without many expectations. An acceptance of reality has never been one of your demonstrated characteristics.

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 11:05
pvmw: sorry, haven't answered you. Well, I agree with your last post that is quite obvious, I don't see there anything particular on which we could desagree.

pvmw
27th Oct 2011, 11:09
pvmw: sorry, haven't answered you. Well, I agree with your last post that is quite obvious, I don't see there anything particular on which we could desagree.
Quite, you haven't answered me.

The question is very simple, try reading it slowly.............

"....the remarks about "running away" and "give up", or do you still maintain they are an accurate description of the events of 1940?"

So, yes or no. Its very simple, but obfuscation and missing the point seems to be the limits of your debating skills.

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 11:13
:confused::confused::confused:


-----------------------------------------

pvmw
27th Oct 2011, 11:19
:confused::confused::confused:

Evidently, but STILL answer there was not.

Solid Rust Twotter
27th Oct 2011, 11:22
Dropping sardines off the back of the trawler (to paraphrase EC) will lead to the continuous feeding of the troll. I'm told they wither and fade away without recognition.

GANNET FAN
27th Oct 2011, 11:37
Can you (inclusive of those "discussing") with KAG, imagine what it would be like to have him at your table and someone mentioned the war? ..................

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 11:38
pvmw: I told you I agree, in addition we were having the same discussion with stuckgear on the SAME SUBJECT right now, to which I agree.

Yes I agree, if UK stayed, they would have had to be defeated and surrender, it was better to retreat and prepare 1944.

Read my post #145, you will see your question has been precisely already answered when I replied to stuckgear, in addtion to my personal answer to you 2 times.

KAG
27th Oct 2011, 11:41
Can you (inclusive of those "discussing") with KAG, imagine what it would be like to have him at your table and someone mentioned the war? .................. I am sure it would be a delight.

However don't try it with the rising far/extreme right wing we have...

MagnusP
27th Oct 2011, 11:43
So according to you, KAG, "retreat and prepare 1944" is the same as "run away and give up"? The latter is what you were asked to defend or retract.

pvmw
27th Oct 2011, 11:50
Can you (inclusive of those "discussing") with KAG, imagine what it would be like to have him at your table and someone mentioned the war? ..................

I am sure it would be a delight.

However don't try it with the rising far/extreme right wing we have...
I can't imagine anything I'd want to do less. A "conversation" with someone who never listen to anyone else's point of view, never answers a question put to him and has a big chip on his shoulder which means he has to take every opportunity to slag off the UK / the USA / anyone else who diasgrees with him.

No way. KAG represents everything that is to be disliked about the French.

Capetonian
27th Oct 2011, 13:10
No way. KAG represents everything that is to be disliked about the French.

:ok::ok::D:D

His attitude reminds me of when I had to register a business in France. Part of the process needed copies of my passport and birth certificate. They spelt my forename wrongly on the documentation, which caused problems. I asked them to correct it, and they said they needed a certfiied copy of my birth certificate and passport. I told them they'd already had them, but they needed new ones as the original ones were now more than 3 months old. So I sent the new ones off, and they returned the documentation to me with my name still spelt wrongly.

When I asked them why they couldn't copy what was on the certificate and passport, they told that my name, the one my parents gave me many years ago, and which has served me without problems through life in many countries, was spelt wrongly on those documents! And of course only the French were right and everyone else was wrong! As always.

parabellum
27th Oct 2011, 23:05
Errr..........................Which 'activist' are we discussing now?

Slasher
28th Oct 2011, 02:00
They spelt my forename wrongly....

Dunno how the Frogs could mess up a simple name like "Cape".

KAG
28th Oct 2011, 07:25
Cape: I know this syndrom. In "our" (your?) own country everything is perfect, never any mistake is done, nobody has an arrogant attitude, never encountered any problem, FLAWLESS, but something wrong in a foreigner country, country being France? Bloody and arrogant french! ;)






pvmw: I can't imagine anything I'd want to do less. A "conversation" with someone who never listen to anyone else's point of view, never answers a question
I am listening and reading your posts.
I answered your question. I even said I agree with you, not completely sure that is something you'd do with me. But "Agreed" was not enough for you!?

Do you want a discussion, or you want me to think exactly like you? I think you don't want us to find a commun ground, you want me to repeat what you say word by word. I can be wrong.


I just want to discuss politely, and I am sure if we'd met in an airport we would be very polite to each other and have a nice time.
Have a good day (morning, evening, night... depending where you are ;) ).

Cheerio for now.

GANNET FAN
28th Oct 2011, 09:05
I'll settle for adieu

Parapunter
28th Oct 2011, 09:12
Greece applies to join euro | Business | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2000/mar/09/emu.theeuro) From March 2000

The European commission welcomed the Greek application as a boost for the fragile euro, which has been shunned by investors in favour of the dollar. "An enlarged euro area will be positive both for the euro zone area and for the countries joining," said commission president Romano Prodi.

Greece failed to meet any of the criteria for membership of the euro when the first wave of countries were chosen in 1998, but has since caught up, lowering inflation, cutting its deficit and debt and keeping the drachma stable.

Prime minister Costas Simitis said joining the euro would bring security and stability to Greece after years of lagging behind its European partners.

"Today is a historic moment for the country. A new era of security, stability, development and wellbeing is beginning," he said.

KAG
28th Oct 2011, 09:15
Adieu Gannet.


Para: there is a thread for Euro ;)

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th Oct 2011, 19:43
Mrs SFFP and I went to Robben Island yesterday and listening to the story from the ex political prisoner who was our tour guide I am really struggling to see the comparison between a masked unidentifiable troublemaker intent on nothing more that law breaking and someone who walks openly into what the anti apartheid folk faced :confused:

The very notion that there is a comparison is just plain daft.

I have no proper understanding of that time and I bow to Capetonian's first hand knowledge but if only some of what we were told was true then us white folk really should hang our heads in shame.

Capetonian
28th Oct 2011, 20:13
Seldomfitforpurpose I hope you are enjoying your visit to Cape Town. A few thoughts on what you've said.


I first went to Robben Eiland in 1975, when it was still a prison. The warders used to organise dances and we went across on a very puke inducing ferry, if I remember correctly from Quay Four, where there is now a lovely restaurant. It wasn't a pleasant occasion, but it gave me a different perspective on the place that I overlooked from my kitchen window, without giving it a thought in those days, as we learned that 'it's jus' a blerry prison where they locked up a few kaffirs'. There was of course no internet, the media in SA were very controlled, and most of us believed what we were fed, mainly because it suited us, living in that paradise, to do so.

As times moved on and resistance to the Nationalist regime in SA gathered momentum, and I was one of the privileged people who had access to the international press (thanks to my ex- who worked at the airport and used to get me the UK newspapers off the weekly direct LON-CPT flight on Sunday morning.) Sunday mornings used to consist of a bit of HR (that's not hand relief by the way) and then reading the papers while she was burning the toast and trying to cook breakfast.

I started to get a different view of things but, perhaps to my shame, never really questioned any of it. As I said in another posting, Nelson Mandela has been held up as a saint, a criminal, and a terrorist, and perhaps he was all three at different times in his life.

Roll on the years, change of government, not for the better for most people but that's another story, and perhaps 6 years ago I went to Robben Eiland, now no longer a prison, on the tourist ferry from the Nelson Mandela Gateway at the Clock Tower in the Harbour, with my family. Before boarding the ferry you are locked into a darkened room to watch a video about the prisoners and what happened in those days. A deeply moving and humbling experience. Of course it's just another view of history from the opposite perspective to what we learned. I, having grown up in SA, was far more moved by it than the overseas visitors.

We were then taken round, as you were, by an ex-political prisoner, and the absence of bitterness and rancour as he addressed us was noticeable.

All South Africans, of all races and poltical persuasions, should have the opportunity to visit Robben Eiland and to learn what went on there. I am not convinced that the change of government in SA has benefited the majority as it was meant to, nor am I an apologist for apartheid - it went on around me and I admit that I benefited from it, but I did not know enough about what it implied to either support or oppose it, and that of course was exactly what the government wanted. It was like the weather, it just happened and was beyond our control, a fact that we accepted.

Indeed, many of us white folk should hang our heads in shame, but so should many of the black leaders of South Africa, in fact of many countries in Africa, now.

This is from the Robben Eiland website :
The entire six square kilometer island is now a UN World Heritage Site. A forlorn yet tranquil atmosphere permeates the place. One can almost hear audible sighs of relief from the island, once a haven for seals and ocean birds before sailing ships rounded the Cape. Sailors relentlessly plundered it for fresh seal meat and penguin eggs. Eventually it became a dumping ground for exiles and criminals. In the 17th century the Dutch were the first to banish their political troublemakers and Muslim leaders from the East Indies. Today there’s a beautiful shrine, called a kramat, built in honor of Tuan Guru. After his release this Muslim holy man went on to found Islam among Cape Town’s slaves.
Xhosa chiefs who rebelled against British rule were shipped to the island from the Eastern Cape. From the mid 1800’s criminals, prostitutes, outcasts, lepers and the mentally ill joined them. All were subjected too much cruelty and abuse.

And I end with a quote from Nelson Mandela :
“Today when I look at Robben Island, I see it as a celebration of the struggle and a symbol of the finest qualities of the human spirit, rather than as a monument to the brutal tyranny and oppression of apartheid. It is true that Robben Island was once a place of darkness, but out of that darkness has come a wonderful brightness, a light so powerful that it could not be hidden behind prison walls…
It's a great shame that the current leaders of SA do not live up to the promises and the expectation of Nelson Mandela.

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th Oct 2011, 22:26
Capetonian,

We arrived in Port Elizabeth just over 2 weeks ago for 2 nights, did a Game reserve just north of there for 3 nights then did Plettenburg Bay, Sedgefield and Hermanus before getting here and we have had the most outstanding time.

But if I may be so bold your last post is probably one of the best I have ever read during my time on Prune and when you say

We were then taken round, as you were, by an ex-political prisoner, and the absence of bitterness and rancour as he addressed us was noticeable.

that really does resonate with both Mrs SFFP and I as that is precisely how we both felt on leaving the still puke inducing ferry once back at the Nelson Mandela Gateway.

Back on thread tho returning to the V and A waterfront today the Robben Island ferry staff are up in arms due to the fact that the CEO takes home, on rough exchange rates £150k whilst the workers get £7500. Their protest involved no masks, no wanton acts of criminality and no civil disobedience.

They simply gathered peacefully on the steps to the Nelson Mandela Gateway and danced and sang their disapproval, what an open an honest contrast to those masked and faceless "freedom fighters" as praised by one or two utter utter berks on here.

I wonder how many of the fearless G20 thugs will appear without a mask and take a brave and sefless stance :ugh:

sitigeltfel
1st Nov 2011, 18:12
I wonder how many of the fearless G20 thugs will appear without a mask and take a brave and sefless stance :ugh:

They can squawk all they want, the CRS are not letting them in to Cannes.