A Little Perspective on Health and Wealth Around the World

[devilock76]

Aparthied or not, there were and still are masses of poor ignorant uneducated peoples, all over the world. It's been over 15yrs now since that system has been gone, and it's worse there now.

So are you saying if there had not been apartheid then it would be just as bad or worse?

Ken

[raptor]

It's worse there now because the white South Africans have been compounding the situation by continuing their racist tendencies. Because whites are no longer exclusively in control they believe their status is compromised and therefore leave the country. Can't blame the blacks on that.

[tom502]

I think it would have been worse, judging the state of affairs in surounding countries(Zimbabwe, Nigeria) that did not have aparthied. So, a question for you, is SA better than the surrounding countries because of apartheid?

[devilock76]

I think it would have been worse, judging the state of affairs in surounding countries(Zimbabwe, Nigeria) that did not have aparthied. So, a question for you, is SA better than the surrounding countries because of apartheid?

Actually yes it is, if we are talking crime it is number 2 in the world crime wise, so only one neighboring country could possibly be worse than them. All things considered. And do keep in mind that Apartheid wasn't only practiced in South Africa, it just lasted there the longest.

Ken

[tom502]

Well, I agree. The idea of aparthied is not good, separating people based on color and treating people differently because of that(SA still does that), but in many areas, like crime, economics, education, poverty, SA is worse now.

[raptor]

I don't know if you can qualify that it is actually worse now than during Apartheid. I think the statistics for South Africa during that timeframe did not include that of the black farm areas where all the indigenous Africans were put. Same goes for Israel, which only counts the Israeli parts of the country, not the West Bank and Gaza, in official statistics.

So, basically, the extent of poverty and crime in black Apartheid settlements is probably not fully known as it was kept very quiet at the time.

[devilock76]

I don't know if you can qualify that it is actually worse now than during Apartheid. I think the statistics for South Africa during that timeframe did not include that of the black farm areas where all the indigenous Africans were put. Same goes for Israel, which only counts the Israeli parts of the country, not the West Bank and Gaza, in official statistics.

So, basically, the extent of poverty and crime in black Apartheid settlements is probably not fully known as it was kept very quiet at the time.

Well since Apartheid crime has gone up. And the government is embarrased about it enough to fudge numbers. However I had a hard time finding any figures regarding crime before apartheid ended. Also I agree that any figures would be looked upon with skepticism by most.

Ken

[sgreger1]

First, I think it is hilarious (though not surprising) that Tom would of course add apartheid regimes to his list of best governments ever.


However, let me ask a question. Try to answer this with as little racial charge as possible: Why does it seem that no matter where you look, white people seem to always find the upper hand? Really, think about it, even in somewhere like SA where blacks are the CLEAR majority, whites manage to take over and make things in their favor, whilst the blacks sit there and take it. Same with the ghettos, have you been to one lately? The US is the richest country, and the average citizen lives better than do most people on earth, and yet the ghettos are always predominantly one race.

Why? Why is it that black people always get the short end of the stick, and why do white people always end up running whatever system they find themselves in.


I have always wondered this. Not the "how", we know "how" certain races get to the top (in this case, oppression, usery etc), but rather why. Why are some races seemingly predisposed to being "in charge", while others seem to always end up being the peons no matter where they are geographically, or what system they find themselves in.



If one were to take a group of 100 people to mars, and the demographics were 90 black guys and 10 white guys, it seems as though the 10 white guys would end up runnig the place and never working, whilst the 90 black guys work like slaves to get ahead, yet are forced to live in constant poverty in order to support their white masters. Why? Why do we see this scenario constantly replay itself no matter the circumstances?



Any rational asnwers are appreciated. This has nothign to do with racism or anything, just my personal observation. Whites always seems to be the oppressor, even in areas where he is clearly in the minority. If this is the case, than how did he end up running the place? It's been like this for 1,000 years, why?

[tom502]

sgreg- u will be called racist for saying those things. Even if they are true. I think it's largely ethnical culture. Look at Africa, a land so large and firtile, yet, largely speaking, a socal, and agrecultural failure. Europe flourished with civilization, yet Africa did not, even before whites went there. Apatheid SA was doing better than the surrounding countries? Why?

Oh, and do not put words in my mouth. I never said Apartheid SA was a "best" government ever. I said I did not agree with racial sepratism, or different treatment based on that. I did say, and I think it's true, that Apartheid SA was "doing better" as a nation, than post aparthied.

[devilock76]

I could I list ancient Egypt as a "semi" exception to your supposition?

The answer lies in military, industrial and economic advancement.

Ken

[devilock76]

sgreg- u will be called racist for saying those things. Even if they are true. I think it's largely ethnical culture. Look at Africa, a land so large and firtile, yet, largely speaking, a socal, and agrecultural failure. Europe flourished with civilization, yet Africa did not, even before whites went there. Apatheid SA was doing better than the surrounding countries? Why?

Oh, and do not put words in my mouth. I never said Apartheid SA was a "best" government ever. I said I did not agree with racial sepratism, or different treatment based on that. I did say, and I think it's true, that Apartheid SA was "doing better" as a nation, than post aparthied.

No his statement was an observation, you place causality on it to it being "ethnical culture" (a so transparent way to avoid saying race).

How can you idolize apartheid and deny it being a racist statement. Who was it better for? The answer was the whites, and that was it.

Ken

[tom502]

This is getting stupid. When did I "idolize" aparthied? I made an observation that it seemed to produce some better social stability than afterwards, and was "doing better" nationally than it's surrounding nations that did not have this. I also said I did not agree with sepratism of different treatment.

And the term ethnical culture means, perhaps, people(ethnic cultures) may differ from each other in some ways. Their abilities and social ideals may differ. Not that ones is better or worse.

Why do Asians score higher worldwide in eduction? Does race play any role in this?

[sgreger1]

sgreg- u will be called racist for saying those things. Even if they are true. I think it's largely ethnical culture. Look at Africa, a land so large and firtile, yet, largely speaking, a socal, and agrecultural failure. Europe flourished with civilization, yet Africa did not, even before whites went there. Apatheid SA was doing better than the surrounding countries? Why?

Oh, and do not put words in my mouth. I never said Apartheid SA was a "best" government ever. I said I did not agree with racial sepratism, or different treatment based on that. I did say, and I think it's true, that Apartheid SA was "doing better" as a nation, than post aparthied.

LOL, i'm just messing with you Tom. Don't take it too seriously.

And I don't care if some faceless forum poster thinks i'm racist, because I know I am not. I do hold my own biases, but they hardly amount to "racism", which is stereotyping an entire race based on their skin color alone.

The question I am asking, is why do I keep observing this trend. Are white people just better oppressors or somethign? I don't get it.

[Roo]

You really going to ask those questions on an oral tobacco, majority American internet forum? lol. just kidding folks.

Did you finish reading "Guns Germs and Steel"? Those theories have been around for a while (see Marvin Harris), but a lot of what he researches and lays out in that book answers your questions to a degree. Tom would do well to read it with his post above. Prehistoric civilizations prospered and expanded wherever ideas and crops and animals could spread across similar latitudes and climate zones (Eurasia). Ideas, crops and animals did not spread easily across longitudes. Africa and North America's north-south alignment put their inhabitants at a disadvantage from the start, and those continents had to wait for the advent of transoceanic travel, at which time of course they were subjugated by centuries of technological advancements... and horses. The domestication of animals is probably the biggest factor of all. Look at what South Africa and all of sub-Saharan Africa had to work with: safari animals. No pigs, no cows, no horses. It's all geographic, as is the reason there are "races" in the first place.

[sgreger1]

Why do Asians score higher worldwide in eduction? Does race play any role in this?

Race plays a huge roll in it. Well, kind of. I mean the color of their skin doesn't make them better at algebra, but their culture, as a race, places a heavy importance on education. The parents of the super asian bookworm kids are usually SUPER strict, and often times will beat them if they get a B or an A-. It's crazy, me and my wife were just talking about this the other day, about how when we were in school some of the asian kids would just beat themselves up if they got a B, whereas white kids are like "Oh wow, a "C", YAY I PASSED!


That's more about culture than race, but I consider it a racial thing, since that culture is largely confined to that particular race.