Doctor Fate wrote:So, while there is more violence against white commercial farmers, overall the murder rate has halved. Overall, this must be seen as an improvement, yes?

As long as you're not a white farmer.[/quote]But you were making assertions about both the situation for farmers and overall. I take it you concede on the latter?

I never disputed the figures on white farmers, by the way. It is terrible that people are facing violence like that.

Maybe you're not familiar with the difference between ethnicity and race. Read up. Maybe it passed you by. http://www.differencebetween.net/scienc ... -and-race/

I am well aware of the difference - when it comes to it, racial differences are a subset of ethnic differences. And racial tensions are indeed similar to ethnic ones. South Africa has ethnic as well as racial tensions, by the way.

Which is why I did not refer to race in Yugoslavia, but it is a parallel - a country that suddenly went from a repressive system and went into ten years of civil wars and bloodletting over ethnic differences (religious, 'national' and political), compared to a company that left a repressive system and despite massive ethnic differences (racial, tribal, political) has not exploded.

="DF"]Now, I did not say "apartheid is good." What I did imply is that there is more to taking a nation beset by a racist system and making it "good" than simply putting blacks in charge.

That is not what happened. What happened was that over 5 years the apartheid system was broken down by the National Party government of de Klerk. And part of that was allowing democracy. The ANC won that democratic election. The fear had been (given that the ANC was close to the SACP and COSATU) that it would embrace hard left policies, but in reality the economic policies were more centrist (liberal/social democratic).

I would argue they simply became more corrupt.

Obtuse. I like it.

Also, the ANC is not "black". There always were and still are prominent white members and leaders.

Yeah, not focused on race at all. http://www.politicsweb.co.za/party/this ... nc-govts-r [/quote]well, race is a big issue there. As it was in the USA in the "reconstruction" and "post-reconstruction" eras. But that article is written by an opponent and uses the "logical consequences" argument. It was also written before the outcome of the case Solidarity raised against the DCS. Which Solidarity won, so the judiciary have overturned the use of national AA targets applied at a provincial level. The case will go up to their equivalent of the Supreme Court.

But you were talking about the "blacks" taking over government (or being handed control, because of course they have no agency themselves, right?). Just looking at the current list of Ministers in SA, I see some whites:

Lynette Brown
Rob Haydn Davies
Derek Hanekom

And a fair number who appear to be of Asian or mixed origin.

South Africa is not a paradise. And it always was pretty crappy for the vast majority of people. But it is better than it used to be.

A dubious claim. Again, take a visit. I've not been, but two of my best friends have been there a few times. Their harrowing tales would stop me from going.

Well, yes, anecdotes trump any data. I tell you what, I'll go when you have, if you are not too frit.

Overall, crime has been falling: http://www.voanews.com/content/continue ... 58800.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/osca ... th-africa/

Yes, crime is high. But the trends over the last 10 years or so are good. I know that doesn't play into your narrative of "descent into chaos"...

I suspect the government is now under-reporting crime. I suspect the government is corrupt. No, I don't suspect it, it is. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pound.html

[/quote]While I agree that Zuma is personally corrupt, that is not evidence of fiddling crime stats.

Mind you, we see that the US is under-reporting the killing of people by police. Is that corruption?

danivon wrote:But you were making assertions about both the situation for farmers and overall. I take it you concede on the latter?

Only on the reported rate, which I find dubious. The SA government is corrupt through and through.

Obtuse. I like it.

You should. It's your stock in trade.

Well, yes, anecdotes trump any data. I tell you what, I'll go when you have, if you are not too frit.

Right. Like with Tutu.

On the other hand, if the data has been manipulated to make the government look good . . . Oh, let me anticipate your next semi-insightful riposte: "Can you prove the data has been manipulated?" No, no more than you can prove it's accurate. If you want to stand up for the honesty of the SA government, feel free.

While I agree that Zuma is personally corrupt, that is not evidence of fiddling crime stats.

Right, because corrupt politicians rarely manipulate data in an effort to maintain their power and ability to maintain the corrupt system that enriches them.

Mind you, we see that the US is under-reporting the killing of people by police. Is that corruption?

If your allegation is that Obama is corrupt, I'll withhold judgment. I'm tired of you all running him down.