Did you mean to say, "Would the Afrikaners have lost power and caved?" The members of the ANC that were fighting the Afrikaners were also citizens of the RSA.

The Black People in the USA were also in theory Citizens. Even when there was still Slavery I think it was Virginia tried to get the Blacks who out numbered Whites in the Stated to be consider Citizens for the purpose of gaining (White) Representatives in the Government but certainly were not going to change their Slave Status.

OK did the Afrikaners cave in mainly from the pressure from other "White" Nations or from the Various fources they were Fighting; some of whom were Communist sponsered/supported?

The ANC and the other Factions that fought against the Afrikaners were not winning until the the other Nations cam out agaist the Afrikaners Policies.

__________________
84 300D, 82 Volvo 244Gl Diesel

So who was President of the US when our nation turned it's back on the RSA?

Why, that would have been R. Reagan. I guess Reagan hated white people?

Read up on the Afrikaners history during World War 2. Smuts wanted to side with the Nazi's since they were such fine people who shared Smuts world view. This did not take place since the RSA was a Commonwealth Country and the King put his foot down by telling Smuts if they wished to join with the Nazi's they could and after the war was over Smuts could be hung with the rest of them.

This thread derailed a loooong time ago

I would disagree. With over 700 posts, the themes of federalism, law and order and a media created western hero figure, shifted along with the news that the hero is a flawed one.

If the thread discussion veered over to voter fraud, homosexuality, the validity of religious belief, the Ukraine or whether air conditioning in older cars was a curse or virtue, that would have been a derailment.

"In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat."

where are the movies and cries for justice for these lost souls? surely the suffering of one group of humans is as important as another. Is it because as a society we ignore this because the descendants of those who survived "look like us" or do we not care? ALL human suffering from this blight is horrible, so please don't forget the earth of this country is soaked not only with the blood of the black man...

Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia

as you can see, this was AFTER we became a nation.....

They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America: Michael Hoffman: 9780929903057: Amazon.com: Books

"Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.

Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands"

Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude

This quote taken out of context suggests that half of all our slaves were white. In reading the article I find that very misleading.

And so you posted it to prove what? Were there black folks enslaving them?

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

It's a tough one for me because I too get burnt out on the likes of Sharpton and his ilk who make a career out of pouting and spewing righteous indignation. In my own experience I've had lousy and great interactions with blacks.

The Sterling guy is a moron but I find parts of the black outrage at him ironic, especially the part about him not wanting his girlfriend to hang out with blacks. Back when I was a sort of good looking young rake, I had a couple of dalliances with attractive black woman and a couple of times I was seriously worried that some black men were going to jump me, so obvious was their distaste at seeing me with her.

And I'm well aware of Sharpton's thing with Twanna Brawley. And his non-addressing of his lunacy on that.

But like I said, the most shocking thing about the whole drama for me was the treatment of blacks post emancipation. The blacks alive in that day had no part in their being here, nor their ancestors. The specter of the KKK and their cross burnings and terrorizing of black families is shocking stuff, particularly since it was their ancestors who were responsible for blacks being here.

And I get that acting out of guilt and the giving of support, such as welfare has a serious downside. I'm not sure what the best course of action is, opportunity for work/training is probably the best way to go.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Sharpton, like Rush or anyone else is out there for themselves. They found a niche where people would like to listen to them so they pander to them. It doesn't have to be more complex than that.

Yes, while I agree that it was a raw deal for black people and other minority groups, dwelling on the past does nothing but keeping the pot of bad feelings stirred. I'm constantly reminded of what your so and so did to my so and so. So if you keep rubbing salt in that wound, how will it heal?

Maybe just making sure EVERYONE gets the same deal and eventually it will even out. What you are trying to do is rush the process along by tilting the scales. Now the disfavored have a reason to hate the favored and the game goes on and on

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

In my opinion, the major sin was not slavery, which was a normal estate of man from earliest history. True, it was incongruent with the strongly asserted fundamental reason for forming the country. The Founders clearly recognized that fact and came to a gentleman's agreement (broken by southerners) to do-away with slavery after the demise of the southern founders. I think Washington was the only southern slaveowner who followed that agreement, but I could be wrong.

To me, the greater sin was post Civil War. The war settled the issue, the Constitution codified it, but the nation generally rejected it. Some de jure (mostly southern states) and some de facto (nearly everywhere else). The period when equal rights were the standard but not enforced by law, nearly 90 years, is the greater shame on this country. Politically and philosophically we knew better, as a people but did wrong. It took the courage of civil rights workers, especially the NAACP-affiliated groups and various Christian denominations (notably, Quakers) to move the people to where they should have been in 1865.

Prior to the Civil war, the slave holding states granted a 3/5 (or similar) count for slaves in the decision of how many representatives in the House were granted a state. So they counted for that but of course had no rights themselves. It was a sweet deal for the slave owners.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I don't see how it was a deal for slaveowners.

It was a deal to get the southern states into the union as those states feared the larger northern population would overwhelm the House of Representatives.

The northern states at first didn't want any slaves to count for anything. The southern states insisted they count for something so as to balance power in the House. That was the formula written into the Constitution.

Not our finest hour.