Questions about crime in SA

[Brechun]

I've been looking for the longest time to get.... some objectivity about a number of issues regarding crime in SA- can anyone get back to me on the following?

-Why did crime skyrocket so shortly after Apartheid?
-Why was barely any of this crime seen in the apartheid-era townships?
-Were there any reports during Apartheid to indicate the black population was this pathological?
-If the blacks of SA are this profoundly violent, why would you say they didn't overrun the whites long ago?
-Why are these behaviors not seen at all in other southern african nguni peoples?
-Is it true that certain black ethnic groups commit most of the crime?
-How much do the zimbabwean illegals and nigerian syndicates contribute?

[Count Sudoku]

I've been looking for the longest time to get.... some objectivity about a number of issues regarding crime in SA- can anyone get back to me on the following?

-Why did crime skyrocket so shortly after Apartheid?

Probably because the black government is incompetent and doesn't care (probably celebrates) black crime against whites.

-Why was barely any of this crime seen in the apartheid-era townships?

I'm sure there was a ton of crime in Apartheid ere townships.

-Were there any reports during Apartheid to indicate the black population was this pathological?

I'm sure some ignorant racist white people living there would have told you what would happen if blacks were free to roam the country.

-If the blacks of SA are this profoundly violent, why would you say they didn't overrun the whites long ago?

A small disciplined force can usually defeat an undisciplined mob.

-Why are these behaviors not seen at all in other southern african nguni peoples?

Never heard of the Nguni people.

-Is it true that certain black ethnic groups commit most of the crime?

Probably some are worse than others.

-How much do the zimbabwean illegals and nigerian syndicates contribute?

Probably a lot.

[Brechun]

I'd like some answers with actual backups. Not that I doubt much of this.

Also,

Never heard of the Nguni people.

It's a broad collective term for most of the bantu ethnic groups in southern africa.

[Farkas]

-Why did crime skyrocket so shortly after Apartheid?

Because a black, anti-White, communist government took over and blacks may roam wherever they please. The justice system is a laugh because the perps are nearly never arrested due to an incompetent police force and if the criminal is caught, he'd be released within an hour. Mandela also releases 30.000 random prisoners every year.

-Why was barely any of this crime seen in the apartheid-era townships?

Because the police force was fantastic during that time, armed with good equipment and skilled police officers. But there was a lot of crime within the townships and somewhat outside the townships too.

-Were there any reports during Apartheid to indicate the black population was this pathological?

Plenty. Apartheid was made for a good reason.

-If the blacks of SA are this profoundly violent, why would you say they didn't overrun the whites long ago?

Because the police force and army were of the best at that time. South African mercenaries are high in demand because they are the very best.

-Why are these behaviors not seen at all in other southern african nguni peoples?

Because you live in the Jewnited States and don't hear any stories from South Africa at all. All black tribes are violent, but the one more violent than the other.

-Is it true that certain black ethnic groups commit most of the crime?

Of course.

-How much do the zimbabwean illegals and nigerian syndicates contribute?

I don't know about the Zimbabwean kaffirs, but the nigerians run a whole prostitution and drugs empire.

[Larrikin]

Because a black, anti-White, communist government took over and blacks may roam wherever they please. The justice system is a laugh because the perps are nearly never arrested due to an incompetent police force and if the criminal is caught, he'd be released within an hour. Mandela also releases 30.000 random prisoners every year.

Isn't Mandela in retirement for several years by now?

Because the police force was fantastic during that time, armed with good equipment and skilled police officers. But there was a lot of crime within the townships and somewhat outside the townships too.

And of course you statistic look much better if you simply don't count the crimes that are committed by the scores of poor people you decided to lock away in townships.

Plenty. Apartheid was made for a good reason.

True. Keeping the whites in power and rich in a land that didn't belong to them. For 10% of the population that was good reason. For the other 90% not very much so.

Because the police force and army were of the best at that time. South African mercenaries are high in demand because they are the very best.

Gunning people down when they gather for political reason to stifle any attempts to be overthrown sure is tactic. Not one to be very proud of for most people, but it sure works for a time.

[Winston]

True. Keeping the whites in power and rich in a land that didn't belong to them. For 10% of the population that was good reason. For the other 90% not very much so.

So who did the land belong to?

[Larrikin]

So who did the land belong to?
To the black tribes that lived there for thousands of years and that all the time were the majority of people inhabiting the region?

[Gregz]

True. Keeping the whites in power and rich in a land that didn't belong to them. For 10% of the population that was good reason. For the other 90% not very much so.

You don't know what the hell your talking about. The problem in SA that rising inequity amongst the Kaffirs, is destabilising the entire country.

Jacob Zuma, the newly elected leader of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) was charged with fraud, tax evasion and money laundering and is due in court in August. Whilst Jackie Selebi, the head of the police is being charge with corruption and “defeating the ends of justice”. :rofl:

[Larrikin]

You don't know what the hell your talking about. The problem in SA that rising inequity amongst the Kaffirs, is destabilising the entire country.

And apartheid is hardly an answer to that.
South Africa never was an especially properous and happy place to live in for the last decades for most of its people, but since it was only kaffirs in the townships paying the price, no one gave a shit. Now that whites start to pay the price, too, it is suddenly a hell-hole.

Jacob Zuma, the newly elected leader of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) was charged with fraud, tax evasion and money laundering and is due in court in August. Whilst Jackie Selebi, the head of the police is being charge with corruption and “defeating the ends of justice”. :rofl:
African countries are generally punished with the worst govenments imaginable. The struggle for independece most often brought people to power that are mostly completely unfit to hold such powers. Cliques of veterans rarely are adapt and trustworthy.

If Smith hadn't forced a fight on Zimbabwe, the country would most likely have been spared a moron like Mugabe as a hero and leader.

[Gregz]

And apartheid is hardly an answer to that.
South Africa never was an especially properous and happy place to live in for the last decades for most of its people, but since it was only kaffirs in the townships paying the price, no one gave a shit. Now that whites start to pay the price, too, it is suddenly a hell-hole.

African countries are generally punished with the worst govenments imaginable. The struggle for independece most often brought people to power that are mostly completely unfit to hold such powers. Cliques of veterans rarely are adapt and trustworthy.

If Smith hadn't forced a fight on Zimbabwe, the country would most likely have been spared a moron like Mugabe as a hero and leader.

You overlook the fact that since segregation in the US ended in the 1960's. That the US along with it's white population has been in decline.

SA is a developing country and the realities of life are very diffrent than they are in the west. It's a mistake to try and impose western values on a relatively undeveloped nation.

Whilst the blacks who live in rural areas, have always been dirt poor and more of less live a substance life style. Do not confuse townships with squatter camps. Not all black townships where especially bad places to live under apartheid and some where far more affluent than others.

During the apartheid era the only reason why unemployment was so high in SA is that it was under severe international sanctions. None the less, SA still had a massive problem with illegal immigration from Mozambique and other Southern African nations.

Who do you think South Africa's architects where the blacks? No other African nation apart from Botswana (which has always sucked up to whites) has anywhere near as sophisticated industry as South Africa and none have such a highly developed infrastructure.

Mugabe and the other crazy Marxist African leaders, who emulate him have crossed the Europeans, by handing Africa on a plate to the Asians and their are now over a million Chinese farmers who have settled in Africa.

However these Chinese settlers have no idea what they are getting involved with and sooner or later the Africans will violently eject them.

[Larrikin]

None of the people there are aboriginal but the Dutch have been there the longest out of the lot. Just because the introduced Zulu population exploded in the mid-20th century due to modern housing and medicine, it does not give them more right to be there due to their population size.

Oh, come on, you might wanna argue which black tribe was dominant, maybe vote for San or Khoisan if you please or any of the Nguni-Bantu, but it's sure not the Dutch.

South Africa was no terra nullia when the Europeans came in just because there was Völkerwanderung in the region before them. That's like arguing that Spain rightfully belonged to the Arabs or granting the Mongols native status to East Germany.

The dutch were an alien minority ruling class in a country which people never accepted that. It is true however that they acted as a unifying element to African tribes that where competing otherwise and we now see these this tribal lines breaking up again.

Ian Smith only did so because the U.K. declared that it was going to return Rhodesia to the Blacks via decolonisation. No Independence Before Majority African Rule (NIBMAR) would have seen a Mugabe take over and Ian Smith tried to stop this.
A transition in the 60s (even better in the late 50s, but then the Brits weren't ready for it) would most likely not have involved much violence and Mugabe would have played no major part in it at all. Mugabe wasn't very influential in the NDP/ZAPU which Smith banned, he wasn't the leading figure in the ZANU and came to first "merits" simply by being detained till the mid-70s.

Sithole and Chitepo were more moderate and reasonable and if Smith hadn't stopped the process for all he could, there would have been no murder of Chitepo -which THEN brought Mugabe to power, favoring him over moderate Sithole by turning the new ZANU into his private Shona-club (the Zanu was both Ndebele and Shona before).

Of course, most of the African liberation movements was both ideologically and financially backed by communists. That uprising Africans had to turn there to seek help didn't exactly help African devolopment either, but it was simply the best back-up they could come up with at the time being.

In the summary: Ian Smith didn't try to stop Mugabe, but any attempt of any blacks ruling the land and drove them into civil war by clinging to his powers and privileges.

[Farkas]

Isn't Mandela in retirement for several years by now?

He still has a large amount of influence at this time. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he has more priviliges than the current president.

And of course you statistic look much better if you simply don't count the crimes that are committed by the scores of poor people you decided to lock away in townships.

What the fuck are you talking about?

True. Keeping the whites in power and rich in a land that didn't belong to them. For 10% of the population that was good reason. For the other 90% not very much so.

Whites didn't see any kaffirs in the first fifty years of their arrival. Nevertheless, the Volkstaat should exist since the Boers bought land legally and fair of the Bantu and they only occupied the areas that did not have any inhabitants in.

Gunning people down when they gather for political reason to stifle any attempts to be overthrown sure is tactic. Not one to be very proud of for most people, but it sure works for a time.

Let's say that it was more than just a political gathering. Guns were seen at Sharpeville despite the black rain of rocks and Soweto had many wounded officers and even some dead.

[Farkas]

And apartheid is hardly an answer to that.
South Africa never was an especially properous and happy place to live in for the last decades for most of its people, but since it was only kaffirs in the townships paying the price, no one gave a shit. Now that whites start to pay the price, too, it is suddenly a hell-hole.

You obviously have no idea what on earth you're talking about. Most, if not all, of the people I have met there said that they were much happier during the Apartheid days. This includes liberals and even some blacks.

For blacks it wasn't that bad either. They were educated, had their own property within the townships, had more jobs, etc. The only thing that changed after Apartheid is that blacks are now free to roam everywhere, hence the crime rates.

If Smith hadn't forced a fight on Zimbabwe, the country would most likely have been spared a moron like Mugabe as a hero and leader.

What the hell should he have done then? Sit on his ass and see how blacks ravage White farms and kill White families? War was the only solution.

[Larrikin]

What the hell should he have done then? Sit on his ass and see how blacks ravage White farms and kill White families? War was the only solution.

That's not what happened and not what was Smith feared. There were no major threats against white settlers, even during and after the liberation wars.
How many white families and farmers where killed in the decolonizing countries? Very few indeed. Were there cleansings against the whites after the liberation wars? Hardly.
Many/most farmers retained their properties. The land reform in Zimbabwe was delayed forever until moron Mugabe decide to rebuy his power from the veterans by allowing them to plunder farms more nearly two decades later.
Zimbabwe was a nice place to live in the 80s/90s. Also for whites, race relations weren't bad.

[Larrikin]

Do you believe that the Europeans, Africans, and Asians should just leave the U.S. because the Native American Indians were there first?

As I recall, the Native Ameriacans are now not really the majority of people in North America and are granted the same rights as everyone else. Quiet a difference from the apartheid state were the majority was powerless.

And I never said, that Bures/Whites should leave South Africa, but that they had to hand over control to the majority of people.

A few sparse tribes does not a nation make. If we were to assume that a Zulu tribe once lived in SA, it does not automatically give other Zulu from all over Africa the right to demand citizenship just because they are genetically related from some distant ancestor.

But a few white settlers don't make a nation either. Why should white Bures have a right to SA you don't want to grant Bantus?

You assume that Blacks are able to govern themselves. I have yet to see evidence of this. Your faith in their abilities amuses me greatly.

Ghana or Cameroon are quite well established stable countries given the short period of independence they have. To compare governing instituitions in young African nations to European standardsi is nonsense.

He didn't try and stop Mugabe specifically as Mugabe was only one member of a larger movement.

Yes, he did try to stop all of the Zimbabwean independence movement. A movement that intended to end the minority rule of white aliens to the land.
Had he cooperated and assisted a peaceful transition much damage would have been avoided, many lives spared and problems would most likely be much less today.

The whole idea of telling them that they were oppressed was just to defeat a Western stronghold in a world sized chess game known as the Cold War.

Don't blame the East for playing in a game the Westerners brought to perfection. They had no business in colonizing the world and they couldn't ecpect everyone else, natives as well as other imperial powers to sit aside and watch in awe.

That Africa was a pawn in an imperial chess game was not for the best of Africa, but the struggle for independence and rightful rule over native lands is older than that. If Westerners had ceased their imperialism quick and peacefully, the communist support whould have not been needed at all.

I wonder why Larrikin? Perhaps the Whites had something to do with that, having turned Rhodesia into the bread basket of all of Africa.

Because Mugabe hadn't begun to turn the country to shit for the sole purpose of clinging to power because of his aggravated megalomania.
Whites and blacks lived on quite good grounds and the economy worked right. There was the opportunity of a orderly transition, if plans for a land reform would have been implemented. When Mugabe turned from this path to violent racist rampaging, he effectively killed the nations developement.

It didn't get dicey until the commies started telling the Blacks that they were oppressed and that they needed to be "liberated". We see now that they were in fact "liberated" from their food, liberty, and whatever wealth they might have had. Good going guys!
Shona chimurenga against the colonial rule dates back to the 19th century, this has nothing to do with commie propaganda. People won't live stripped of basic rights by a minority of foreigners for ever.

Asians won't have it, Africans won't have it and Whites wouldn't have it either, it is a basic principle of regional souvereignity. Colonialism tried to ignore this and impose foreign rule to far off lands, but in the end, it wouldn't work.

[klipgeit]

I'd like some answers with actual backups. Not that I doubt much of this.

Also,



It's a broad collective term for most of the bantu ethnic groups in southern africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguni_people

[klipgeit]

To the black tribes that lived there for thousands of years and that all the time were the majority of people inhabiting the region?

oops.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20070818112430857C147272

[klipgeit]

And apartheid is hardly an answer to that.
South Africa never was an especially properous and happy place to live in for the last decades for most of its people, but since it was only kaffirs in the townships paying the price, no one gave a shit. Now that whites start to pay the price, too, it is suddenly a hell-hole.
We have apartheid in reverse and it does not work.Mbeki dislikes the whites and I have no problem with that.
Mbeki-because of his dislike-is making so many mistakes that it affects the blacks more than the whites.
Lets take name changes of towns and streets,this is so funny and stupid.
Marie Antoinette is supposed to have said:"If the poor are hungry let them eat cake."
The Anc government-nationally and locally-are saying :"If the poor are hungry let them eat name plates.
Here we have a government that wishes to fight poverty,but are spending millions and millions of dollars to change names.These name changes do not harm the white community as a whole,they could not care two hoods whether they live in Warmbath or Bela Bela.
The Afs are a joke and have been a joke for 100dreds of years.
They do know how to sit under a tree and drink Magau,while debating for days the tribulation of a 16 year old pregnant girl without a husband,or how to fix a flat tyre.
I am quite happy with the present hell-hole situation.:)


African countries are generally punished with the worst governments imaginable. The struggle for independece most often brought people to power that are mostly completely unfit to hold such powers. Cliques of veterans rarely are adapt and trustworthy.

If Smith hadn't forced a fight on Zimbabwe, the country would most likely have been spared a moron like Mugabe as a hero and leader.
I am 100 percent in agreement with your statement

[klipgeit]

You overlook the fact that since segregation in the US ended in the 1960's. That the US along with it's white population has been in decline.

SA is a developing country and the realities of life are very diffrent than they are in the west. It's a mistake to try and impose western values on a relatively undeveloped nation.

Whilst the blacks who live in rural areas, have always been dirt poor and more of less live a substance life style. Do not confuse townships with squatter camps. Not all black townships where especially bad places to live under apartheid and some where far more affluent than others.

During the apartheid era the only reason why unemployment was so high in SA is that it was under severe international sanctions. None the less, SA still had a massive problem with illegal immigration from Mozambique and other Southern African nations.

Who do you think South Africa's architects where the blacks? No other African nation apart from Botswana (which has always sucked up to whites) has anywhere near as sophisticated industry as South Africa and none have such a highly developed infrastructure.

Mugabe and the other crazy Marxist African leaders, who emulate him have crossed the Europeans, by handing Africa on a plate to the Asians and their are now over a million Chinese farmers who have settled in Africa.

However these Chinese settlers have no idea what they are getting involved with and sooner or later the Africans will violently eject them.

Good post and the Chinese are already feeling the brunt.

[klipgeit]

Oh, come on, you might wanna argue which black tribe was dominant, maybe vote for San or Khoisan if you please or any of the Nguni-Bantu, but it's sure not the Dutch.

South Africa was no terra nullia when the Europeans came in just because there was Völkerwanderung in the region before them. That's like arguing that Spain rightfully belonged to the Arabs or granting the Mongols native status to East Germany.

The dutch were an alien minority ruling class in a country which people never accepted that. It is true however that they acted as a unifying element to African tribes that where competing otherwise and we now see these this tribal lines breaking up again. I do not agree.

A transition in the 60s (even better in the late 50s, but then the Brits weren't ready for it) would most likely not have involved much violence and Mugabe would have played no major part in it at all. Mugabe wasn't very influential in the NDP/ZAPU which Smith banned, he wasn't the leading figure in the ZANU and came to first "merits" simply by being detained till the mid-70s.

Sithole and Chitepo were more moderate and reasonable and if Smith hadn't stopped the process for all he could, there would have been no murder of Chitepo -which THEN brought Mugabe to power, favoring him over moderate Sithole by turning the new ZANU into his private Shona-club (the Zanu was both Ndebele and Shona before).

Of course, most of the African liberation movements was both ideologically and financially backed by communists. That uprising Africans had to turn there to seek help didn't exactly help African devolopment either, but it was simply the best back-up they could come up with at the time being.

In the summary: Ian Smith didn't try to stop Mugabe, but any attempt of any blacks ruling the land and drove them into civil war by clinging to his powers and privileges.

I wonder if it was nice living in Zim
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20021030.aspx

[klipgeit]

That's not what happened and not what was Smith feared. There were no major threats against white settlers, even during and after the liberation wars.
How many white families and farmers where killed in the decolonizing countries? Very few indeed. Were there cleansings against the whites after the liberation wars? Hardly.
Many/most farmers retained their properties. The land reform in Zimbabwe was delayed forever until moron Mugabe decide to rebuy his power from the veterans by allowing them to plunder farms more nearly two decades later.
Zimbabwe was a nice place to live in the 80s/90s. Also for whites, race relations weren't bad.

careful ????????????

http://books.google.com/books?id=wCO-LclQEKEC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=Mugabe+killing+spree&source=web&ots=0Y6i_7S2X8&sig=sLdl_wBLPhCKxWAsJSrVVBTI1qo

[Larrikin]

careful ????????????

http://books.google.com/books?id=wCO-LclQEKEC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=Mugabe+killing+spree&source=web&ots=0Y6i_7S2X8&sig=sLdl_wBLPhCKxWAsJSrVVBTI1qo
[/quote]
WEll, I'm not really old enough to remeber much of the early 80s in which of course the internal struggles between ZANU/ZAPU were sometimes harsh, but, as I pointed, this was also due to the previous liebration war in which Mugabe came up -otherwise, ZAPU and Nkomo would likely have had the upper hand in this dispute quite easily.

However, the fightings where NOT directed against the white minority, but were clashes for power between rival black movements. And that was the main point here. Whites were not hunted down and killed or such after decolonization.

In the end of the 80s/90s I have good memories of Zimbabwe which was in a friendly atmosphere mostly with quite good race relations, economically prospering and regarded example of African rule.

Then Mugabe turned it all to shit, because he can't stand the thought of losing the power over "his" Zimbabwe and clings to his seat at no matter what cost to anyone else.

[Larrikin]

I wonder if it was nice living in Zim
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20021030.aspx
[/quote]
Frankly, I have no idea what Mugabe, who is going completly nuts in his last years has in mind or what he is capable of.

He certainly always was pro-Shona and not as much integrating as Nkomo for example and I think he is a most violent men with little regard for the life of people if they are obstacles to his hunger for power.

I think it is not impossible that he, as the article speculates, will turn aginst the Matabele in order to distract his fellow Shona from the decay of the state. It wouldn't be the first time a dictator uses a minority as a scapegoat and fuels tensions to further exercise his rule at the cost of killing of the scapegoat.

Mugabe is a dangerous dictator nowadays, I strongly agree with that.

[klipgeit]

WEll, I'm not really old enough to remeber much of the early 80s in which of course the internal struggles between ZANU/ZAPU were sometimes harsh, but, as I pointed, this was also due to the previous liebration war in which Mugabe came up -otherwise, ZAPU and Nkomo would likely have had the upper hand in this dispute quite easily.

However, the fightings where NOT directed against the white minority, but were clashes for power between rival black movements. And that was the main point here. Whites were not hunted down and killed or such after decolonization.

In the end of the 80s/90s I have good memories of Zimbabwe which was in a friendly atmosphere mostly with quite good race relations, economically prospering and regarded example of African rule.

Then Mugabe turned it all to shit, because he can't stand the thought of losing the power over "his" Zimbabwe and clings to his seat at no matter what cost to anyone else.[/quote]

I fell in love with Zim.
1.The women,who behaved more like adults than the SA.
2.I had Zealous-Scout as a friend and we always met in
Francistown.
Mug-ape is a scoundrel,stange though,He was brought up a Catholic.
Then again look at Aristide form Haiti.:deadhorse::deadhorse: