Nairaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1259940 members, 1702749 topics. Date: Sunday, 26 October 2014 at 02:07 AM

Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) - Culture - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Culture / Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) (39823 Views)

Nairaland Girls, Your Thoughts On Chimamanda's Speech / Why Can't Nigerians Talk For A Long Time Without Speech Mannerisms / Ivan Sertima Rips It In This Speech (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (Reply) (Go Down)

Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by queenblack(f): 8:20pm On Mar 16, 2009
(Read this very carefully guys and take a close look at yourself and the environment that you live in today) Botha speech 1985:
THE FOLLOWING is a speech made by former South African President P.W. Botha to his Cabinet. This reprint was written by David G. Mailu for the Sunday Times, a South African newspaper, dated August 18, 1985.

"Pretoria has been made by the White mind for the White man. We are not obliged even the least to try to prove to anybody and to the Blacks that we are superior people. We have demonstrated that to the Blacks in a thousand and one ways. The Republic of South Africa that we know of today has not been created by wishful thinking. We have created it at the expense of intelligence, sweat and blood. Were they Afrikaners who tried to eliminate the Australian Aborigines? Are they Afrikaners who discriminate against Blacks and call them Nigge*rs in the States? Were they Afrikaners who started the slave trade? Where is the Black man appreciated? England discriminates against its Black and their "Sus" law is out to discipline the Blacks. Canada, France, Russia, and Japan all play their discrimination too. Why in the hell then is so much noise made about us? Why are they biased against us? I am simply trying to prove to you all that there is nothing unusual we are doing that the so called civilized worlds are not doing. We are simply an honest people who have come out aloud with a clear philosophy of how we want to live our own White life.

We do not pretend like other Whites that we like Blacks. The fact that, Blacks look like human beings and act like human beings do not necessarily make them sensible human beings. Hedgehogs are not porcupines and lizards are not crocodiles simply because they look alike. If God wanted us to be equal to the Blacks, he would have created us all of a uniform colour and intellect. But he created us differently: Whites, Blacks, Yellow, Rulers and the ruled. Intellectually, we are superior to the Blacks; that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the years. I believe that the Afrikaner is an honest, God fearing person, who has demonstrated practically the right way of being. Nevertheless, it is comforting to know that behind the scenes, Europe, America, Canada, Australia -and all others are behind us in spite of what they say. For diplomatic relations, we all know what language should be used and where. To prove my point, Comrades, does anyone of you know a White country without an investment or interest in South Africa? Who buys our gold? Who buys our diamonds? Who trades with us? Who is helping us develop other nuclear weapon? The very truth is that we are their people and they are our people. It's a big secret. The strength of our economy is backed by America, Britain, and Germany. It is our strong conviction, therefore, that the Black is the raw material for the White man. So Brothers and Sisters, let us join hands together to fight against this Black devil. I appeal to all Afrikaners to come out with any creative means of fighting this war. Surely God cannot forsake his own people whom we are. By now every one of us has seen it practically that the Blacks cannot rule themselves. Give them guns and they will kill each other. They are good in nothing else but making noise, dancing, marrying
many wives and indulging in sex. Let us all accept that the Black man is the symbol of poverty, mental inferiority, laziness and emotional incompetence. Isn't it plausible, therefore that the White man is created to rule the Black man? Come to think of what would happen one day if you woke up and on the throne sat a Kaff*ir! Can you imagine what would happen to our women? Does anyone of you believe that the Blacks can rule this country?

Hence, we have good reasons to let them all-the Mandelas-rot in prison, and I think we should be commended for having kept them alive in spite of what we have at hand with which to finish them off. I wish to announce a number of new strategies that should be put to use to destroy this Black bug. We should now make use of the chemical weapon. Priority number one, we should not by all means allow any more increases of the Black population lest we be choked very soon. I have exciting news that our scientists have come with an efficient stuff. I am sending out more researchers to the field to identify as many venues as possible where the chemical weapons could be employed to combat any further population increases. The hospital is a very strategic opening, for example and should be fully utilized. The food supply channel should be used. We have developed excellent slow killing poisons and fertility destroyers. Our only fear is in case such stuff came in to their hands as they are bound to start using it against us if you care to think of the many Blacks working for us in our houses.

However, we are doing the best we can to make sure that the stuff remains strictly in our hands. Secondly, most Blacks are vulnerable to money inducements. I have set aside a special fund to exploit this venue. The old trick of divide and rule is still very valid today. Our experts should work day and night to set the Black man against his fellowman. His inferior sense of morals can be exploited beautifully. And here is a creature that lacks foresight. There is a need for us to combat him in long term projections that he cannot suspect. The average Black does not plan his life beyond a year: that stance, for example, should be exploited. My special department is already working round the clock to come out with a long-term operation blueprint. I am also sending a special request to all Afrikaner mothers to double their birth rate. It may be necessary too to set up a population boom industry by putting up centres where we employ and support fully White young men and women to produce children for the nation. We are also investigating the merit of uterus rentals as a possible means of speeding up the growth of our population through surrogate mothers.

For the time being, we should also engage a higher gear to make sure that Black men are separated from their women and fines imposed upon married wives who bear illegitimate children. I have a committee working on finding better methods of inciting Blacks against each other and encouraging murders among themselves. Murder cases among Blacks should bear very little punishment in order to encourage them.

My scientists have come up with a drug that could be smuggled into their brews to effect slow poisoning results and fertility destruction. Working through drinks and manufacturing of soft drinks geared to the Blacks, could promote the channels of reducing their population. Ours is not a war that we can use the atomic bomb to destroy the Blacks, so we must use our intelligence to affect this. The person-to-person encounter can be very effective.

As the records show that the Black man is dying to go to bed with the White woman, here is our unique opportunity. Our Sex Mercenary Squad should go out and camouflage with Apartheid Fighters while doing their operations quietly administering slow killing poison and fertility destroyers to those Blacks they thus befriend. We are modifying the Sex Mercenary Squad by introducing White men who should go for the militant Black woman and any other vulnerable Black woman. We have received a new supply of prostitutes from Europe and America who are desperate and too keen to take up the appointments.

My latest appeal is that the maternity hospital operations should be intensified. We are not paying those people to help bring Black babies to this world but to eliminate them on the very delivery moment. If this department worked very efficiently, a great deal could be achieved.

My Government has set aside a special fund for erecting more covert hospitals and clinics to promote this programme. Money can do anything for you. So while we have it, we should make the best use of it. In the meantime my beloved White citizens, do not take to heart what the world says, and don't be ashamed of being called racists. I do not mind being called the architect and King of Apartheid. I shall not become a monkey simply because someone has called me a monkey. I will still remain your bright star,

His Excellency Botha. "
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Ikomi(m): 10:16pm On Mar 16, 2009
With all the wealth and good life he had, he still died before Madela who lived in prison.

Who says the gods dont have there own ways. Time will tell.

Am not sure how authenthic this is, but its good reading it. cheesy
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by queenblack(f): 12:55am On Mar 17, 2009
It was forwarded to me from a yahoo group of which I am a member. I hope all descendants in Africa and the Diaspora will wake up and see what is really happening with us.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Ikomi(m): 5:31pm On Mar 17, 2009
queenblack:

(Read this very carefully guys and take a close look at yourself and the environment that you live in today) Botha speech 1985:
THE FOLLOWING is a speech made by former South African President P.W. Botha to his Cabinet. This reprint was written by David G. Mailu for the Sunday Times, a South African newspaper, dated August 18, 1985.

"Hedgehogs are not porcupines and lizards are not crocodiles simply because they look alike. If God wanted us to be equal to the Blacks, he would have created us all of a uniform colour and intellect. But he created us differently: Whites, Blacks, Yellow, Rulers and the ruled.

His Excellency Botha. "

But queenblack imagine if u were not black, wont you for a moment think Petr Botha was right there, I sometimes wonder myself.

The lizard, the aligator and the crocodile. They all look the same, but the day the lizard looks into the aligators eye, it is by it own hands calling for its death.

So also an aligator would never say it is the equal of a crocodile, not in size nor strength.

To be honest with you I really think of this things sometimes, is it the gods trying to amuse themselves at humans not been able to see beyond there skin and tribe with all the technological advancement, or they are just sitting together wondering what exactly they did wrong in just trying to be a little creative by using different colours.

Queenblack are u black or brown, I wish I had a say in it, I would have asked the gods to make me green.  undecided
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by morpheus24: 6:07pm On Mar 17, 2009
queenblack:

It was forwarded to me from a yahoo group of which I am a member. I hope all descendants in Africa and the Diaspora will wake up and see what is really happening with us.

Whats happening to us, may I ask?
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by morpheus24: 6:11pm On Mar 17, 2009
Ikomi:


The lizard, the aligator and the crocodile. They all look the same, but the day the lizard looks into the aligators eye, it is by it own hands calling for its death.

So also an aligator would never say it is the equal of a crocodile, not in size nor strength.


Can a lizard mate with an aligator? Can a lion mate with a panther? Can a aligator mate with a wall gecko?

After asnwering this questions then ask yourself about different human beings then you will get your answer?
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Ikomi(m): 9:35pm On Mar 17, 2009
Where have u seen an Eagle playing with pigeons kwanu. Although they are all birds. undecided
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by morpheus24: 10:41pm On Mar 17, 2009
Ikomi:

Where have u seen an Eagle playing with pigeons kwanu. Although they are all birds. undecided

So oyinbo man is not Eagle and black man pigeon.

You need to look up the world "species"
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Ikomi(m): 12:22pm On Mar 18, 2009
I spent the whole of yesterday serching for the word species, I could not find it. Av given up though. undecided

morpheus24:

So oyinbo man is not Eagle and black man pigeon.

You need to look up the world "species"

Can u please explain to me what ur getting at. So we can reasonably continue this conversation. angry
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by morpheus24: 3:13pm On Mar 18, 2009
Ikomi:

But queenblack imagine if u were not black, wont you for a moment think Petr Botha was right there, I sometimes wonder myself.

The lizard, the aligator and the crocodile. They all look the same, but the day the lizard looks into the aligators eye, it is by it own hands calling for its death.

So also an aligator would never say it is the equal of a crocodile, not in size nor strength.

To be honest with you I really think of this things sometimes, is it the gods trying to amuse themselves at humans not been able to see beyond there skin and tribe with all the technological advancement, or they are just sitting together wondering what exactly they did wrong in just trying to be a little creative by using different colours.

Queenblack are u black or brown, I wish I had a say in it, I would have asked the gods to make me green.  undecided

The conversation stems from your above analogy. If I am right what you are trying to say is that some animals look alike yet vary in terms of size, strength or intellect and this should be applied to humans as well.

Lizards and aligators are not the same species. They belong to the same family of reptiles.

All birds cannot mate with each other yet they belong to the same family or phylum.

All humans belong to the same family, same breed, the same characteristics,  are able to procreate with each other, therefore are the same SPECIES, therefore are able to pass on the same traits from one to the other. Therefore only "circumstancies" account for their differences in intellect or any other difference for that matter.

Point is all humans have the same abilities.

Clear enough for you!
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Ikomi(m): 3:49pm On Mar 18, 2009
You sure made ur point.

In other words Mr Botha's analogy is dead wrong. That is what we have clearified.

You sure made ur point young man. cheesy
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Ikomi(m): 4:11pm On Mar 18, 2009
I will ask u again just for the sake of the conversation. Since am a strong believer that all men are born equall.

Lets give Mr Botha a chance that he might be right.

Coming from ur own definition of species, just because we have the same characteristics, are able to procreate with each other, therefore are able to pass on the same trait (mind u when u mention trait, it could be in-between). In the case of a white mother and black father. The fathers eye might be black while the mothers eye is blue with the childs eye coming out grey. Just for the conversation still, and therefore in-between.

Could we by any chance apply the same theory to monkeys and orangutans. Since they both share the same characteristics, and are able to procreate. But naturally would not mate.

I dont know if u get where am coming from. Except u would tell me they are not of the same specie. Then I might have to take u up on that.

Like I said just for the conversation, I would quite like it to be polite and coherent. Thank u.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by morpheus24: 9:58pm On Mar 18, 2009
Ikomi:

I will ask u again just for the sake of the conversation. Since am a strong believer that all men are born equall.

Lets give Mr Botha a chance that he might be right.

Coming from ur own definition of species, just because we have the same characteristics, are able to procreate with each other, therefore are able to pass on the same trait (mind u when u mention trait, it could be in-between). In the case of a white mother and black father. The fathers eye might be black while the mothers eye is blue with the childs eye coming out grey. Just for the conversation still, and therefore in-between.

Could we by any chance apply the same theory to monkeys and orangutans. Since they both share the same characteristics, and are able to procreate. But naturally would not mate.

I dont know if u get where am coming from. Except u would tell me they are not of the same specie. Then I might have to take u up on that.

Like I said just for the conversation, I would quite like it to be polite and coherent. Thank u.



Your analogy is inconsistent with your reasoning. You cannot ponder on Aligators, lizards and different types of birds in comparison to Human beings.
if you believe all men are equal then you would not have used that analogy in the first place knowing that it does not apply to human beings in any shape or form.

Monkeys are not in the same taxanomic family grouping as great apes(orangutans). What do you mean by they are able to procreate but naturallly would not?

Again my problem is with your analogy as compared to Botha's statement. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with his analysis on racial isolationism and so called god's creation of different peoples or do you se the differencies in people as mere mutations and adaptational reactions to their enviroment.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Ikomi(m): 12:06am On Mar 19, 2009
Now like I said for the sake of the conversation. I stated my believe in other that you would understand that whatever I write here on this thread is contrary to my believe, that all men are born equal, so that you will not confuse my stance in this conversation with my view of life.

So I hope that answers the question you posed here.
morpheus24:

Again my problem is with your analogy as compared to Botha's statement. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with his analysis on racial isolationism and so called god's creation of different peoples or do you se the differencies in people as mere mutations and adaptational reactions to their enviroment.


However I would like for a moment to take a stand on the side of Mr. Botha that all men are not created equally. I know my initial analogies do not really hit the mark, but I shall try to convince you that Mr Bothas view of life is not totally flawed by citing orangutans and monkeys as compared to humans.

When you use the words taxonomy and specie, then I would like to define what this words mean so that we don't at any point confuse ourselves with vocabularies.

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring Wekipedia
Species - like form or kind mariam webster

Species - a set of animals or plants, members of which have similar characteristics to each other. cambridge dictionary

Taxonomy - a system for naming and organizing things, especially plants and animals, into groups which share similar qualities cambridge dictionary

Taxonomy is the practice and science of classification Wekipedia

Taxonomy - the study of the general principles of scientific classification mariam webster

From this definitions we could easily deduce that the words Taxonomy or Species has to do with the grouping or classification of animals and plants.

Now do you by any means agree that Orangutans and Monkeys fall into the category of Apes - either great or non great, although different subspecies. But yet they don't breed with each other. Could it be that it is only for this reason that they don't breed with each other has scientists decided to group them differently, such that if an incident of an orangutan and a monkey engaging in the act of reproduction could be proved then there is a chance the monkeys would fall into the category of the great apes. Even though the same scientists that placed the monkey and the orangutan in different groups still believe that they both share the same characteristics, except for the fact that the orangutan has longer arms, different colour and of course higher intelligence.

In Mr Bothas view - which am standing by now (and please its just for the sake of the conversation) - this same situation matches his view of how humans should live. Is it not those same scientists that classified us as blacks, Caucasians and orientals. If the definition of Taxonomy is to be followed then are we of the same specie. Yes we might be of same specie just like the monkey and the orangutan is but definitely not of the same subspecie.
Then comes a summary of Mr Bothas point, if orangutans and monkeys do not breed with each other although they might be of the same specie but not of the same subspecie, why should the Caucasian breed with an oriental or black since they are not of the same subspecie. Believe it or not there are millions of people who share this view and would stand by it strongly.

In conclusion, I personally believe that all men are born equally, but like I said and I repeat for the sake of the conversation, I have taken Mr Botha's view just to point out to you that we humans as members of same specie but of different subspecie has gone in contrast to the natural incline that animals of same specie but of different subspecie should not breed with each other, as is the case of the orangutan and the monkey, or vice versa.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by morpheus24: 4:36pm On Mar 19, 2009
Ikomi:


However I would like for a moment to take a stand on the side of Mr. Botha that all men are not created equally. I know my initial analogies do not really hit the mark, but I shall try to convince you that Mr Bothas view of life is not totally flawed by citing orangutans and monkeys as compared to humans.

Botha's views were based on an understanding of human populations as a result of late 18th century/ 19th century studies on Race which were filled with all kinds of racist ideologies and misconceptions. The Africans nationalist party were heavily aligned to Nazi ideology concerning race matters which undoubted left an imprint in the mind of the Afrikaaner peoples and most simple minded people at that point in history.

It is very true all men are not created equal. Equality in this instance is based on ones attributes and how it applies to their enviroment and is a very relative term in relation to what you are comparing.

Ikomi:

Now do you by any means agree that Orangutans and Monkeys fall into the category of Apes - either great or non great, although different subspecies. But yet they don't breed with each other. Could it be that it is only for this reason that they don't breed with each other has scientists decided to group them differently, such that if an incident of an orangutan and a monkey engaging in the act of reproduction could be proved then there is a chance the monkeys would fall into the category of the great apes. Even though the same scientists that placed the monkey and the orangutan in different groups still believe that they both share the same characteristics, except for the fact that the orangutan has longer arms, different colour and of course higher intelligence.
If we are to follow the reasoning of the above statement then it would be very strange why dogs who undoubtedly are not created equal in the same capacity as humans have the instinct to breed with each other irrespective of physical or mental traits.

Ikomi:

In Mr Bothas view - which am standing by now (and please its just for the sake of the conversation) - this same situation matches his view of how humans should live. Is it not those same scientists that classified us as blacks, Caucasians and orientals. If the definition of Taxonomy is to be followed then are we of the same specie. Yes we might be of same specie just like the monkey and the orangutan is but definitely not of the same subspecie.
Then comes a summary of Mr Bothas point, if orangutans and monkeys do not breed with each other although they might be of the same specie but not of the same subspecie, why should the Caucasian breed with an oriental or black since they are not of the same subspecie. Believe it or not there are millions of people who share this view and would stand by it strongly.

Socially controlled processes of natural selection is not "natural selection". It is not unatural for humans to interbreeed with each other depending on the rule of survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest is relative to the situation at hand.
If you put a male and female of different 'races" on a desolate island and they are compelled to survive. They will breed with each other. That's natural instinct.
If the average temperature of the whole planet were to hit and average of 120 degrees celsus. As a result a large number white people begin to die from skin cancer and their numbers begin to deplete an an astronomical rate. Inversely blacks survive this phenomena and out live their counter parts.

Who is more superior in this instance?

What do you think would be the ultimate response as far as breeding patterns are concerned. I would almost gurantee you that you would see a lot of mixed babies popping of everywhere.

My point is Botha's point is flawed because it is selective in its reasoning. As much as people want to hold on to that school of thought. They would change their view in an instance when presented with an alternate reality.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Ikomi(m): 10:14pm On Mar 19, 2009
I would like to remind you again of what I told you at the beginning of this conversation, it should be coherent.

In other that I don't get lost in my own rhetoric as well, I will not answer to your reply paragraph by paragraph, but I would rather sum up my understating of your reply before I finally give my answer to your reply while I try to keep you on track on the subject of this conversation.

We are not in any way trying to establish where Mr Bothas analogy, view or understanding of how humans of different specie or taxonomy - I still stick to those words which you used in your first reply, since I noticed you have carefully avoided them in your last reply - should live comes from. The article that was given to us did not at any point tell us that Mr Bothas view comes from his leaning on the ideology of the Nazis, No. Mr Botha clearly stated what his view is based on when he gave the analogy that Hedgehogs are not porcupines. Infact he even pointed out that the west is against them, but although they - the govt. in power in South Africa then - know that the west is secretly racist.

So with that said I would not branch into Nazism or racism otherwise we might loose focus on the subject of this conversation. What is the subject of this conversation you might ask me? The conversation at hand is, is it natural or somewhat strange that animals of the same taxonomy but of different sub-specie, to breed with each other. This I believe is also Mr Bothas argument, as stated in the article. My answer to this question is that it is strange that animals or plant of different sub-specie to breed with each other. My answer is so as I have volunteered to take the side of Mr Botha.

I see that you brought your focus back to the subject when you gave an instance of dogs, that are of different sub-specie but could breed with each other, while you gave that acceptable instance you also asked a question, if the act of dogs of different sub-specie breeding with each other is strange. My answer to your question is Yes. Dogs of different sub-specie breeding with each other is definitely a strange act.

But you also digressed from the subject when you tried to equate the reason for different sub-species breeding with each other as a case of the survival of the fittest. Your analogy there is strongly flawed. Since you might not be able to point to a time when there was only one monkey in an Island and only one orangutan, such that in other for them to survive they decide to breed with each other. I also had a problem with your analogy of the temperature some time hitting 120 degrees, there you really digressed from the subject because Mr Botha is not really concerned about unforeseen circumstances, he was merely concerned that as long as there are different traits between a Caucasian and a black, which has necessitated them to be classified in different groups, whether socially or naturally, then they should not breed with each other. So on that single presumption of Mr Botha, there I shall make my stand and there I shall continue this conversation.

With all that said, then I shall only answer to the paragraph in your reply that stayed on the subject.

If we are to follow the reasoning of the above statement then it would be very strange why dogs who undoubtedly are not created equal in the same capacity as humans have the instinct to breed with each other irrespective of physical or mental traits.

Naturally in the wild there are different specie of dogs, as the monkey and the orangutan are in the wild.

Dogs of the same sub-specie in the wild would not breed or even hunt with dogs of different a sub-specie. But humans have eventually tamed this animals and thereby in one way or the other subjected to intimate starvation. Such that a dog would now mate with another dog of different sub-specie, which it would not do normally if it were in its natural habitat in the wild.

So my answer to ur question is YES, it is very strange that dogs of different sub-specie breed with each other, and my answer to your question, compliments my argument that: humans as members of same specie but of different subspecie has gone in contrast to the natural incline that animals of same specie but of different subspecie should not breed with each other, as is the case of the orangutan and the monkey or that of the dogs of different sub-specie.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Afam4eva(m): 7:15am On Mar 20, 2009
morpheus24:

Can a lizard mate with an aligator? Can a lion mate with a panther? Can a aligator mate with a wall gecko?

After asnwering this questions then ask yourself about different human beings then you will get your answer?

What do u mean, even if a lizard can't be an aligator, then tell me which is the lizard and which is the aligator.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by morpheus24: 3:02pm On Mar 20, 2009
Ikomi:

What is the subject of this conversation you might ask me? The conversation at hand is, is it natural or somewhat strange that animals of the same taxonomy but of different sub-specie, to breed with each other. This I believe is also Mr Bothas argument, as stated in the article. My answer to this question is that it is strange that animals or plant of different sub-specie to breed with each other. My answer is so as I have volunteered to take the side of Mr Botha.
Okay lets get straight to the point then.

What is "strange' about it. Those are opinions by both you and Botha and hold not merit in todays scientific field.

If your arguement is "natural" vs "Strange" tendencies then you are scientifically inaccurate  in your observation.

Please see the article on definitions of sub- species below and take into account the part which mentions the conditions the species most meet to be catergorized as sub species as well as monotypic and polytypic species

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

Humans are a monotypic species.

Neanderthal is a subspecies of the Homo sapiens

Modern Man Homo sapien sapien is a subspecies of Homo sapiens

A black man is not a  subspecies of the Human population
A white mans is not a subspecies of the Human population.

Therefore if there is a perfectly "natural" tendency for interbreeding patterns to occur within  a population they are normally not classified as subspecies and if there has been a natural tendency for gene flow as is evident and has been evident for millenia concerning The single Human "race",I don't see how the opinion that it is unatural should hold any water.


Ikomi:

Dogs of different sub-specie breeding with each other is definitely a strange act.

Again what is strange about this. If its a natural tendency then it cannot be strange. Dogs were not forced to interbreed. No one put a shot gun around their necks and compelled them to do so.

Ikomi:


But you also digressed from the subject when you tried to equate the reason for different sub-species breeding with each other as a case of the survival of the fittest. Your analogy there is strongly flawed. Since you might not be able to point to a time when there was only one monkey in an Island and only one orangutan, such that in other for them to survive they decide to breed with each other. I also had a problem with your analogy of the temperature some time hitting 120 degrees, there you really digressed from the subject because Mr Botha is not really concerned about unforeseen circumstances, he was merely concerned that as long as there are different traits between a Caucasian and a black, which has necessitated them to be classified in different groups, whether socially or naturally, then they should not breed with each other. So on that single presumption of Mr Botha, there I shall make my stand and there I shall continue this conversation.
You obviously don't get my point concerning survival of the fittest rule so I'll leave that one out so we can keep to the main point.

Mr Botha is not mother nature nor does he make much sense using such animals in comparison to human beins.  Therefore he should not be allowed to dictate outdated opinions on the "natural"' tendencies of Human beings.
If you and Mr. Botha find breeding patterns of dogs and humans "strange" then thats basically an opinion and I can accept that on that level.

However if he or your point is to drive home the mindset that it is "unatural" or "strange" for human populations to interbreed. What is the basis for the opinion? That humans are repulsed at the site of one another based on race? That humans are not attracted to people of the opposite so called "race. What is the evidence that this is unatural.

He should likewise have commented as well on those Hot spanish sailors who openly bred with the native Indians as very unnatural behaviour.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Ikomi(m): 8:06am On Mar 22, 2009
Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[color=#990000][/color]
Wekipedia.

"An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
Mayr 1969

Phenotypically similar, therefore monotypic, does not mean indifferent, according to Mayr they could still be in different taxonomic ranking.

Don't tell me humans can not be classified into taxonomic ranks in the specie of Homo Sapien, as this is still being argued amongst scientist as far as I know.

You may have chosen to be on the line of thought that believe humans should not be further subdivided, but I and Mr Botha can clearly see the difference and would stand for the thought that humans should be be subdivided into the taxonomic ranks in the specie of Homo Sapien.

And I must warn you that scientist don't in most cases look for the origins, they try to explain the result.

If I and Mr Botha can not clearly point out any animal or plant apart from humans - which I believe you yourself have not done - of different taxonomic rank that have freely interbred with each other, then we say that humans which should be of different taxonomic rank breeding with each other is strange.

I asked you in your example of dogs, show me anywhere in the wild, the natural habitat of dogs, where dogs of different taxonomy have freely interbreed with each other. Am sure you could not, but you would rather refer to the dogs that have been tamed by humans, such that, these same humans have successfully passed there corrupt nature of breeding with each other to the dogs.

What Mr Botha is saying in a nut shell is that we should reverse back to how it was, whether he is mother nature or not. And clearly you are not mother nature to say "since it is as it is now, lets just live on".

All am trying to tell you is that Mr Botha has a point which might not be a populist idea today. Although it is solidly based on the fact that no other animal or plant apart from humans of different taxonomic rank have freely interbred.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by morpheus24: 5:43pm On Mar 23, 2009
Ikomi:

Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[color=#990000][/color]
Wekipedia.

"An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
Mayr 1969

Phenotypically similar, therefore monotypic, does not mean indifferent, according to Mayr they could still be in different taxonomic ranking.

Don't tell me humans can not be classified into taxonomic ranks in the specie of Homo Sapien, as this is still being argued amongst scientist as far as I know.

You may have chosen to be on the line of thought that believe humans should not be further subdivided, but I and Mr Botha can clearly see the difference and would stand for the thought that humans should be be subdivided into the taxonomic ranks in the specie of Homo Sapien.

And I must warn you that scientist don't in most cases look for the origins, they try to explain the result.

If I and Mr Botha can not clearly point out any animal or plant apart from humans - which I believe you yourself have not done - of different taxonomic rank that have freely interbred with each other, then we say that humans which should be of different taxonomic rank breeding with each other is strange.

I asked you in your example of dogs, show me anywhere in the wild, the natural habitat of dogs, where dogs of different taxonomy have freely interbreed with each other. Am sure you could not, but you would rather refer to the dogs that have been tamed by humans, such that, these same humans have successfully passed there corrupt nature of breeding with each other to the dogs.

What Mr Botha is saying in a nut shell is that we should reverse back to how it was, whether he is mother nature or not. And clearly you are not mother nature to say "since it is as it is now, lets just live on".

All am trying to tell you is that Mr Botha has a point which might not be a populist idea today. Although it is solidly based on the fact that no other animal or plant apart from humans of different taxonomic rank have freely interbred.



Again Botha's or your stance is not scientifically valid as there is no historical or biological evidence to group humans into subspecies. Please reference to the rules that apply to rules that apply to subspecies. There are too many gradations between so called  human"races" to define a group as a subspecies. Why stop at races to define subspecies. Why not hair color, morphology, eye color

Again the opinion that it is 'strange" behaviour for subspecies of Animals (in this case "races' of human populations) to breed with each other is nothing more than an opinion.

When in the history of man was there never an interbreeding of populations as to suggest a "reversal' back to normal breeding patterns.  "Strange" in this case can be subsituted with "unique" depending on who is presenting the information.

What is plain to infer is Mr Botha's true agenda of the opinion which obviously is to state that intebreeding of so called races in this case white and black  is unatural and somehow diminishes the ability of his subspecies to survive. Therefore the suggestion of a reversal. Which was never the case to begin with.



On the dog issue "where is the natural habitat of dogs?Are you talking about wild dogs in the kalahari or wild dingos in Australia as compared to domesticated animals. Are you trying to state that somehow behavioural breeding patterns of domesticated dogs ha been manipulated by human intervention to undo the natural tendency of the dog to isolate itself from other dog species.  Areyou saig this is the case for human so called subspecies as well.

Can you point me to any scientific data or studies which indicate this as an unatural manipulation of the innate nature of subspecies of dogs to interbreed


The burden is on you to prove this activity as "strange behaviour" among so called subspecies of humans to an extent where this is not normal behaviour amongst the species from time memorial. If you or Mr. Botha's only proof is to point out practices among subspecies of other near human populations as evidence of this then sorry can't accept that as a valid arguement. As there are many other "strange/Unique" behaviours/traits inherent in human populations when comparing their selection of breeding partners in comparison to lizards,Hedgehogs or crocodiles enough to assert that interbreeding is a 'natural' occurence amongst the Human population/species.

Further more it can be argued that this interaction/inter breeding has ensured the survival of the species as a whole.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by dunesurfer: 12:47pm On Sep 18, 2009
Hi Everyone. Interesting discussion.

I just want to add that this is in actual fact a hoax going around. Now I just want to make myself clear. I am not defending PW Botha. I am attacking a Lie. Only one reason and that is because Lies like these are used by some selfish people on the internet to hype up racial hatred.

HOAX PW BOTHA'S 'SPEECH' TO THE CABINET

This reprint was written by David G. Mailu for the Sunday Times, a South African newspaper, dated August 18, 1985.

www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/News/Article.aspx%3Fid%3D914664+hogarth+pw+botha+speech&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za">http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:C_9jtvRg5X0J:www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/News/Article.aspx%3Fid%3D914664+hogarth+pw+botha+speech&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za


http://www.southafrica.to/history/Apartheid/PW_Botha/Hoax_PW_Botha_speech_1985.htm


The real 'Rubicon' Speech'

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/action/media/downloadFile?media_fileid=1065
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by Easypizzy(f): 1:56pm On Sep 29, 2009
Hmmm!
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by queenblack(f): 5:27am On Jul 21, 2010
I am not trying to hype up any racial hatred whatsoever, I was just reading how he referred to our people. Even in the diaspora many centuries ago,our ancestors were not even counted as a person to even vote, however it was on their blood, sweat and tears that this US was built on.
Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by roroone(m): 3:24pm On Jul 10, 2012
A Critique of P.W Botha Speech (Part 1)
P.W Botha’s speech, what a great speech, a speech filled with a lot of thinking and rethinking. The Black race, a race that has been marginalized to this day, a race the whites feel nothing good can come out from, a race with great intellects, creativity, opportunities, life and hope for the future. The Black race, filled with beauty, love and respect for humanity and God. The black race, filled with strength, charity, procreation, etc. Writing a critique on late Botha’s speech looks like doing nothing because the person involved is no longer alive, but we should all understand especially Africans that have travelled to the white man’s land that they are a lot of Botha’s to this day. Whites that think like Botha, whites that have the mentality of Botha, Whites that behaves like Botha and whites that sees Africa and Africans as the wretch of the world. It is of my view that something’s needed correction, just like Botha’s speech 27 years ago. Some will make us believe that all about the speech is a truism because of what is happening in South Africa and other parts of Africa today. Look at President Jacob Zuma of South Africa marrying many wives, but can we compare that to Silvio Berlusconi of Italy having sex parties and sleeping with 17 years old girl? Just like Black Zuma, there are a lot of whites all over the world involved in various sex scandals.
First and foremost, who was Botha? P.W Botha was the unapologetic leader of South Africa during the apartheid-era, who led his country into deepening and serious political crisis and racial violence as head of state from 1978-1989. Botha’s regime was to promote apartheid and nothing more or less. So therefore, in analysing and doing justice to Botha’s speech an account of each statement will be taken into consideration:
Firstly, let us look at why the speech was made? Going by who Botha was and as a leader of Apartheid South Africa and believing Apartheid will last forever such kind of speech is expected from him. For the likes of Botha of the world that believes in subjugation, oppression, superiority, anarchy, etc. such speeches should still be expected. We will conclusively say that the speech was made to promote Apartheid in South Africa and to make the world believe that nothing good can come out from a Blackman.
Secondly, Botha said they (whites) are not obliged to prove to anybody and even to the blacks that they are superior people and they have shown that more than 1001 times. The word superior is relative, relative in the sense that, at what point is the white more superior to the blacks or other races? Is it in physical strength or mental strength? Is it in evil or good? Is it in beauty or handsomeness? Etc. I will agree with Botha that the whites are more superior mentally than the blacks, but further to say that, the blacks are more superior physically to the whites. At this point we need a balance, one creates the other build. Creating without building leads to nothing, Botha’s definition of white and black shows that each need one another to arrive at a balance. All the great ideas put together by Botha’s White today, were built by a Botha Black. The sky scrapers, palaces, ships, irrigation, etc. were all built by blacks that were forced out of Africa as slaves, blacks that were made slaves in their own land, surface to say, to be mentally stable you need peace and a friendly environment. Botha South Africa never provided for that. Botha South Africa removed all mental thoughts from the blacks and gave them physical thoughts. Botha South Africa and Botha’s of the world never gave the blacks any recognition, blacks are judged by the colour of their skin and not by their thoughts, ideas and creativity.
Thirdly, Botha said the Republic of South Africa was not created by wishful thinking, but was created at the expense of intelligence, sweat and blood, this is true. True in the sense that lives were lost, wars were fought, people were dehumanized and Molested, and children were rendered homeless and killed. The Republic of South Africa that was not created by wishful thinking but with intelligence, sweat and blood was built with foolishness, oppressions, Molests, killings, etc. The Republic of South Africa was built at the expense of the blacks but created at the expense of the whites. The Republic of South Africa today like before is a black nation and will always remain so. The republic of South Africa has moved on and is still moving on with and without the likes of Botha. For Botha and his likes the white man’s intelligence is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction at the expense of blacks, the manipulation of black leaders to fulfil their selfish (White man’s) end.
Fourthly, Botha said they do not pretend like other whites that they like Blacks; this again is true to this day. My entire sojourn abroad, UK, USA, Canada etc., I have come to a final conclusion that the whites don’t like blacks and the likes of Botha don’t pretend about it. If not so, why do we still have racism eating very deep in the so called Whiteman’s land? The governing system of the world today is so pathetic against the blacks and Africa. Look at the world super powers and what distinguishes them from others, weapons of mass destruction. No African nation is allowed to have it and why? Because to the Botha’s white they don’t like us and we cannot have it. Africans cannot be trusted and you cannot like someone you don’t trust.
Fifthly, another very interesting part in Botha’s speech was and I quote “I believe that the Afrikaner (Afrikaner are white people of South Africa whose ancestors were Dutch) is an honest, God fearing person, who has demonstrated practically the right way of being”. Firstly, I am happy Botha in his life time realised there is a God, and that God need to be feared. But saying the Afrikaner is an honest person put to question their activities in South Africa, like the massacre of blacks over their own land; the Molesting of black women because of their beauty; killing of children, etc. If the Afrikaner way of being according to Botha is the right way, I do not think someone like Obama will ever become president of America.
Furthermore, Botha said blacks cannot rule themselves. This again is a truism. How can the blacks rule themselves when they are been perceived as the wretch of the earth; How can the blacks rule themselves when they are inferior to the Botha’s of the world; How can the black rule themselves when the system/yardstick of ruling is alien to them; How can the blacks rule themselves when everything they do is white; How can the blacks rule themselves when imperialism is still in existence; How can the blacks rule themselves when they are been denied the means to; The world politics does not make rules for the blacks to govern themselves that is what we have been subjected to since colonialism. Black leaders need corrections and permissions from white leaders to govern their states.
Botha also said and I quote “Give them guns and they will kill each other”. This again is the truth, but at whose expense? The blacks kill each other to fulfil the dream and greed of the Whiteman. Who created the gun and why was the gun made? Was the gun created by the blacks? For what purpose the gun was made? At whose expense gun was created and build? The only way the white could and can claim superiority to the black is the power of the gun, the gun has given them so much power that any rubbish the white man says today hold sway. What did Hitler used to kill his fellow whites? What did Stalin used to oppress his people? What did Mussolini used to subjugate his own people? All these people mentioned were they given gun to kill each other? The answer is capital No, they all manufactured their own guns and started killing each other, but the Africans were given guns to kill each other by the white man. The gun is what was used to colonise Africa and impoverish us. The gun is what was used to enslave Africans even in their own land. The gun the power of the gun, unlimited in its firing power;
Another interesting part of Botha’s speech is and I quote “They are good in nothing else but making noise, dancing, marrying many wives and indulging in sex”. Again this is true. The blacks love dancing and singing, that is why today blacks hold the entertainment world. Blacks like Michael Jackson, Quincy Jones, Whitney Huston, Puff Daddy, just to mention but few sang their way to success and recognition in life. Yes, the average black man love sex, but do we really love sex more than the white man? What about white leaders like Silvio Berlusconi of Italy having sex parties in his palatial villa, Straus-Khan Dominique, Bill Clinton, etc. just to mention but few that engaged themselves with prostitutes. Let’s come to think of it properly, I don’t think I know any black man of my age taking Viagra or any sex enhancement drug, but all the white men I know even under my age are involved in one sex enhancement drug or the other. Is it that the white man is jealous of the black man sex prowess? Late Botha is not the only one that is complaining or has complained about this issue of the black man and sex. Recently in the UK I was made to understand by a white woman that any white woman that has made love to a black man cannot and will not marry a white man. I was confused and perplexed when I heard it and I further asked why? The answer I got was beyond my imagination and I think it should be left for another day discussion. The issue about sex and the black man is not about who love it most but who has the strength for it most and I strongly believe the white man indulge in sex more than the black man but don’t have the strength of the black man.
Botha also said and I quote “Let us all accept that the Blackman is a symbol of poverty, mental inferiority, laziness and emotional incompetence”. This I don’t agree with. The system in Africa does not make room for laziness; we don’t have benefits from government to depend on in Africa. The average African works to take care for his/herself in Africa. It is only in the white man’s world we have people depending on benefits all their lives. The black man’s poverty is the white man’s wealth, Africa and Africans have been impoverished to develop and feed the white man. Look at our natural resources; we cannot use it to take care of ourselves but rather to build the white man’s world. Oil, termed black gold is in Africa but has caused more problems for Africa than any other thing. Look at the Niger Delta Area in Nigeria, filled with oil deposits but very underdeveloped, the white man will tell you it’s the blacks man problem but my question has been who is drilling the oil? At whose expense the oil is been drilled? Who is benefitting from the oil? By the white man’s design the black man is lazy but by God the black man is very strong. If the black man is not strong going by what they have passed through since colonialism and slavery, Africa would have been a farm land for the whites according to Hitler’s design for Africa.
This is another wonderful statement by Botha and I quote “Isn’t it plausible? Therefore that the Whiteman is created to rule the Blackman……And here is a creature (Blackman) that lacks foresight….. The average Black does not plan his life beyond a year”. This also I disagree. The white man is not created to rule over the black man, but the white man designed it to be so. President Obama is the President of the most powerful nation in the world today and he is a black man. Former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa is a Black man, this write-up is not about black successes but a critique on Botha’s statement and I will want it to be so. Blacks all over the world have excelled in their various fields and endeavour and they will continue to do so without minding the likes of Botha and company. How can the black man plan when no matter what he plans for and will benefits of his people will not see the light of day as long as the white man’s interest is not included. Look at the humiliation Chief Olusegun Obasanjo (Nigeria’s former President) got on the issue of Charles Tailor. A gentleman’s agreement was breached because of the interest of some people that don’t care about what happens in Africa. Look at Gadhafi of Libya, when he was against the West and enemy to them nothing happened to him but immediately he embraced them he died. The so called West will let us believe that the Libyans revolted against him; why didn’t they revolt when he was their enemy? A famous Black Reggae legend by name Bob Marley once sang a great song that has in it lyrics that goes like this “ You can fool some people sometimes but you can’t fool all the people all the time”. Some blacks/Africans have been fooled but not all blacks/Africans can be fooled.
Conclusively therefore, I will want us to do a very quick reminiscence of the evils of the world and try and identify what colour they represent, Adolph Hitler of Germany; Joseph Stalin of USSR; Benito Mussolini of Italy; Mao Zedong of China; Leopard II of Belgium, the man who pushed for the colonisation of Africa and Asia, who also amassed a huge personal fortune by exploiting the Congolese through forced labour, Vlad Dracula of Romania, Gaius Caesar of Rome, King John of England, etc. These people or leaders are not blacks and like Botha all these had their own perception about the black man and we still have people like them in the world today. The major problem facing black Africa is leadership. Africa is saddled with leadership crises from North to South, West to East. Africa needs leaders that can hold their heads high to prove to the white man that we can indeed rule ourselves. Ghana has done it and there is nothing wrong in copying from our black brother Ghana.
My fellow Africans, we should not allow Botha’s speech to derail us but continue to fight for good governance for Africa. Africa is suffering from leadership crises. The only good thing I have seen coming from the white man’s world to Africa is democracy. We should embrace democracy like never before for Africa to move forward. Democracy can and will transform Africa from what the Botha’s of the world thought and are still thinking about us. Like Asia, Africa is the next level in terms of trade, technology, peace and love. With democracy we can achieve greater height and do greater things.
By Collins Clarke

1 Like

Re: Botha's Speech 1985 (a Must Read!) by AiyeKootoHIM: 9:27am On Aug 18, 2012
I read this speech sometime back and like many Africans I was miffed with anger at such condescending words from a leader.

Eventually anger gave way to reason and then I removed the direct insults from the speech and took a closer look at it juxtaposed with the Nigerian environment.

When you do this, a seeming truth will emerge from Botha's perspective.

Its left for us to either wallow in anger or find a lasting solution to the challenge that will forever crippe Africa if left unchecked. The challenge of LEADERSHIP.

(0) (Reply)

Teach Me Naija Slang Please / If You Are From Cross River Or Akwa Ibom, This Topic Is For You. Sosongo. / Nigerian Baby Names

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2014 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See Nairalist and How To Advertise. 243
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.