Evidence of the black curse.

PurpleHouse: All these aren't the handy work of South Africans! The South Whiters Built all these!

Don't hate bra, and the whites in south africa are still south african none the less. So stop your jelousy.

Well, in abuja the Lebanese own most of those beautiful properties we love posting here.

One day, the statue of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, M. K. O Abiola, Tinubu, Fashola and co. will stand in the squares of Eko Atlantic! As the different peoples of Nigeria (if Nigeria remains) swarms to live and work in the prosperous lands of the Yoruba South West, they will have the privilege to see some of our early leaders standing tall above them all as Mandela's statue does in the Nelson Mandela Square!

Travelista:

Some may take it as consolation but it's still true no matter how you slice it. Don't you realize had SA attained independence when the rest of Africa did, they'd be in the same boat infrastructure-wise?

But they are not in the same boat. That's the reality of the situation.

CraigB:

But they are not in the same boat. That's the reality of the situation.

It is nonetheless beyond doubt that the oyinbo people made it all happen. . . .this effectively waters down any bragging rights the SA black populace might purport to have about not being in the same boat with other African countries.

Come to think of it, Botswana is the only wholly 'black' country in the world that has any semblance of development and economic prosperity. If not for Botswana, it would have been plausible to argue that active 'white' input and participation is necessary to achieve development and prosperity. It's a crying shame.

pro01:

It is nonetheless beyond doubt that the oyinbo people made it all happen. . . .this effectively waters down any bragging rights the SA black populace might purport to have about not being in the same boat with other African countries.

Come to think of it, Botswana is the only wholly 'black' country in the world that has any semblance of development and economic prosperity. If not for Botswana, it would have been plausible to argue that active 'white' input and participation is necessary to achieve development and prosperity. It's a crying shame.

Wrong!

Gold and platinum made it happen. No country in africa has more mineral resources.

If you wish to be recolonized, so you can prove your theory - be my guest.

Fact of the matter is South Africa made the best use of its circumstances. As did America. As did Europe. As did Australia. All these countries have a history.

What did you do with your oil, by the way? Did you fail to use it to your advantage because you're "black"?

South Africa isn't interested in being "wholly black". Only successful.

CraigB:

Wrong!

Gold and platinum made it happen. No country in africa has more mineral resources.

If you wish to be recolonized, so you can prove your theory - be my guest.

Fact of the matter is South Africa made the best use of its circumstances. As did America. As did Europe. As did Australia. All these countries have a history.

What did you do with your oil, by the way? Did you fail to use it to your advantage because you're "black"?

South Africa isn't interested in being "wholly black". Only successful.

This is circumlocution my friend, you are not addressing the simple issue at stake. The ugly, nàked truth remains that SA's development was made entirely possible by its white population, not necessarily by its mineral resources. Simple. Besides, since when did natural resources have anything to do with development? Ever heard of the 'resource curse'?

Black Africa needs to take a long, hard look at itself and put its acts together. Consolatory and escapist arguments like yours wouldn't detract from the ugly truth that stares us in the face.

Well, in abuja the Lebanese own most of those beautiful properties we love posting here.

says Who?

Is this a caucasian state or what?, where are the blacks?

pro01:
This is circumlocution my friend, you are not addressing the simple issue at stake. The ugly, nàked truth remains that SA's development was made entirely possible by its white population, not necessarily by its mineral resources. Simple. Besides, since when did natural resources have anything to do with development? Ever heard of the 'resource curse'?

Black Africa needs to take a long, hard look at itself and put its acts together. Consolatory and escapist arguments like yours wouldn't detract from the ugly truth that stares us in the face.

"Black Africa". How cute. Where is the white England? White US? White France and white Holland? Nowhere! Such doesn't exist. You are a victim of colonisation.

You are only trying to make yourself feel better about your own failures.

When you look at the US, you don't scream: "slavery made it possible!".

You don't look at the US and scream: "black Americans can't brag about their country's success"

The same goes for the increasingly multiracial Europe.

The fact of the matter is that if south africa had no gold or platinum, it wouldn't be be where it is today. Borzia-Herzegovina was entirely white, but look at what happened to it. It failed. It's not whiteness that brings success. Just responsibility in leadership: which South Africa has, notwithstanding some mistakes. The Sandton square picture that you're looking at is post-apartheid development, in fact.

The world belongs to diverse nations and that's the end of the matter.

Your "SA is made entirely by whites" argument is not only pathetic, but it's also quite revealing: you are upset that another African country is better than yours. So you do everything in your power to argue that a section of its citizens can't feel like they are part of its story. Well, I have news for you: they are!

South Africa is not Nigeria, where divisionism and tribalism rule the day. Just look at this thread: barely ten pages in and tribalism has reared its ugly head. You can't use your standards on South Africa. And if that makes us unAfrican, so be it.

pro01:

It is nonetheless beyond doubt that the oyinbo people made it all happen. . . .this effectively waters down any bragging rights the SA black populace might purport to have about not being in the same boat with other African countries.

Come to think of it, Botswana is the only wholly 'black' country in the world that has any semblance of development and economic prosperity. If not for Botswana, it would have been plausible to argue that active 'white' input and participation is necessary to achieve development and prosperity. It's a crying shame.

Errr... Not quite. Who told you Botswana was "wholly black"?
Check their history. They've still got lots of white people running things from the background.

If we're talking about a largely black country with a prosperous streak, that would be The Bahamas.

the warrior72: Is this a caucasian state or what?, where are the blacks?

I see lots of blacks in those pics. Unless, you want to close your eyes to it. I could point them out if you wish. In fact, there are less whites than there are other races in those pics. And this is only the square. Most people are inside or sitting in the restaurants around the square.

By the way, to answer your question: South Africa is a proudly multiracial country. Unique and unfathomable to some.

homesteady: Banana island unko?

why always banana island...can't we develop other places too

Is it just me or are there no rich blacks in SA? I always see whites in rich places in the country.

Anyway, SA became what it is due to the early partnership it had with the west. Trade between them was better during apartheid, they shared full technological knowledge with SA, assisted with infrastructural development, protected SA like a baby with no strings attached. while the same westerners purposely deprived other African countries this privileges till date. Thanks to the rise of China, all these are gradually changing as Africa moves towards China as it has proved to be a better business partner.

African countries are now growing with speed, infrastructures are springing up, middle class is growing etc. But a lot still needs to be done. And guess what, it's all thanks to China's growth and change of balance in power

Good for SA sha but I hate those boars

Dis Guy:

i keep reading things like these, is this a way to console ourselves in nigeria?

Man, I tire.

okpara ugo: Where are the eko ni baje propagandists ?

This place supercedes every part of Lagos or Abuja..

You see what envy has turned okpara to?

He is now a sadist

chris365: Is it just me or are there no rich blacks in SA? I always see whites in rich places in the country.

You dey go SA at all?
Rich blacks full there.

Travelista:

Some may take it as consolation but it's still true no matter how you slice it. Don't you realize had SA attained independence when the rest of Africa did, they'd be in the same boat infrastructure-wise?

[b]Go and study and learn before typing garbage. South Africa was already a fully developed nation by the 1940s because the colonial rulers did not steal the country blind like they did in the fully black territories like Nigeria, Ghana etc - countries where they exported natural resources and put nothing back for 100 years. In South Africa, some of their gold exports proceeds were reinvested in the country by the rulers. Why? Because there was a white settler community there whom the colonial rulers felt responsible for.. That is why SA is ahead of other African nations today. If the British had re-invested just half of Nigeria's exports back into Nigeria, Nigeria would have been a fully developed nation in 1960 like South Africa. Instead they robbed the nation blind and left us with bush at independence, meaning we had to start from scratch in 1960, which is why we are playing catch up to SA today. Same applies to the other black African nations looted blind by the colonialists.[/b]

The richest back tribe in the whole of Africa is in South Africa.

The Bafokeng nation. Built their land from scratch, they did.

South Africa ploughs its riches back into the community. That's how development happens. The celebration of individual billionaires in destitute countries is the reason why "black africa" will never prosper.

Read and learn.

Is that south africa or south California?
Cuz all I see is white people everywhere

Or is it true that the blacks are restricted from entering some places in there own country?


God have mercy,


Nice pictures though

Abbey2sam: That south africa or south California?
Cuz all I see is white people everywhere

Or is it true that the blacks are restricted from entering some places in there own country?


God have mercy,


Nice pictures though

There are only 7 white people in those pics. Count them. There are more black people in those three pics. And that's the square. No Joburger has any reason to sit under the statue all day. You can see Phillipino tourists in the one picture.

Inside those building are lots of black people. Far more than white people, in fact.

Not that South Africans worry too much about that anyway.

ROSSIKE:

[b]Go and study and learn before typing garbage. South Africa was already a fully developed nation by the 1940s because the colonial rulers did not steal the country blind like they did in the fully black territories like Nigeria, Ghana etc - countries where they exported natural resources and put nothing back for 100 years. In South Africa, some of their gold exports proceeds were reinvested in the country by the rulers. Why? Because there was a white settler community there whom the colonial rulers felt responsible for.. That is why SA is ahead of other African nations today. If the British had re-invested just half of Nigeria's exports back into Nigeria, Nigeria would have been a fully developed nation in 1960 like South Africa. Instead they robbed the nation blind and left us with bush at independence, meaning we had to start from scratch in 1960, which is why we are playing catch up to SA today. Same applies to the other black African nations looted blind by the colonialists.[/b]

My thoughts exactly. SA enjoyed a lot of privileges that other African countries were denied. But I still blame our past leaders for adding to the problems.

AjanleKoko:

You dey go SA at all?
Rich blacks full there.

No I no dey go there. abi na achievement

Last I heard, there more rich whites than blacks and guess who the minority is

That's not the topic anyway. I was talking in reference to the pictures I've been seeing including this which seem to have more whites than blacks in nicer areas.

chris365:

No I no dey go there. abi na achievement

Last I heard, there more rich whites than blacks and guess who the minority is

That's not the topic anyway. I was talking in reference to the pictures I've been seeing including this which seem to have more whites than blacks in nicer areas.

There are only 7 whites in those pics. Upward of at least 12 black people in those pics.

By the way, South African blacks now have more buying power than whites. 19 years, it's been.

10 plus 9.

chris365:

No I no dey go there. abi na achievement

Last I heard, there more rich whites than blacks and guess who the minority is

That's not the topic anyway. I was talking in reference to the pictures I've been seeing including this which seem to have more whites than blacks in nicer areas.

The majority would always be poorer, given that the population distribution is like 70:30 in favor of blacks.
I would say the distribution is more like this:

Lower Class/BOP: Almost exclusively black.
Lower-middle-class: Mix of blacks and coloreds (higher percentage) and whites (lower percentage)..
upper-middle class: mix of whites (higher percentage), and blacks + coloreds (lower percentage).
Upper Class: mix of whites (higher percentage) and blacks (slightly lower percentage) and coloreds (lower percentage).

Though the blacks are much more prominent in government, the whites own the private sector.
So yes, the whites are more prosperous. But the blacks are coming up fast.

the warrior72: Is this a caucasian state or what?, where are the blacks?

Why are people so fixated on race? Race does not exist scientifically or biologically. It is a social construct. We are all the human race. People can move and work anywhere in the world as long as they have a valid visa.

chinaman666:

Why are people so fixated on race? Race does not exist scientifically or biologically. It is a social construct. We are all the human race. People can move and work anywhere in the world as long as they have a valid visa.

I agree with you 100%. In fact, this has been one of my favourite areas of study for years.

That race is a social construct is buttressed by the example of how "black" is defined in the US vs how it is defined in SA.


The US had the "one-drop" rule. SA had the exact opposite - the rule of thumb or classification by observation.

Both these opposing racial classification systems worked for the societies that created them - and they had no scientific basis. The existence of "race" as we define it cannot be scientifically proven.

It was not uncommon during apartheid South Africa for siblings to be classified under different races, based on how they looked. One coloured and the other, black, for example.

People could even switch between races if the classifying officer allowed it. Not only that, they could be exempted from being classified as "black", for example. Educated blacks in apartheid South Africa could apply for exemption, so that they aren't classified as black for the purposes of certain legislation.

In the US, the exact opposite occurred. Someone who may otherwise look white would be deemed black because they have black parentage or lineage somewhere. Looks were irrelevant (in contrast to South Africa).

These classification systems are totally arbitrary.


The problem is that the formerly oppressed and colonised Africans have bought into this classification system and they have been mentally wounded by it. This was, after all the aim of colonisation. So people speak of "black africa" today. But successful Europe has all sorts of "black" people contributing there. It's been like that for centuries. From the time Timbuktu was the main academic authority in the then world to now. No one can tell me that the UK is entirely white, or the US, or France or, or, or...

Why should Africa be?

These are simply people. And South Africa is on to something.

Colonisation has won, so far. The views expressed in this thread and many others are clear evidence of that.

CraigB:

I agree with you 100%. In fact, this has been one of my favourite areas of study for years.

That race is a social construct is buttressed by the example of how "black" is defined in the US vs how it is defined in SA.


The US had the "one-drop" rule. SA had the exact opposite - the rule of thumb or classification by observation.

Both these opposing racial classification systems worked for the societies that created them - and they had no scientific basis. The existence of "race" as we define it cannot be scientifically proven.

It was not uncommon during apartheid South Africa for siblings to be classified under different races, based on how they looked. One coloured and the other, black, for example.

People could even switch between races if the classifying officer allowed it. Not only that, they could be exempted from being classified as "black", for example. Educated blacks in apartheid South Africa could apply for exemption, so that they aren't classified as black for the purposes of certain legislation.

In the US, the exact opposite occurred. Someone who may otherwise look white would be deemed black because they have black parentage or lineage somewhere. Looks were irrelevant (in contrast to South Africa).

These classification systems are totally arbitrary.


The problem is that the formerly oppressed and colonised Africans have bought into this classification system and they have been mentally wounded by it. This was, after all the aim of colonisation. So people speak of "black africa" today. But successful Europe has all sorts of "black" people contributing there. It's been like that for centuries. From the time Timbuktu was the main academic authority in the then world to now. No one can tell me that the UK is entirely white, or the US, or France or, or, or...

Why should Africa be?

These are simply people. And South Africa is on to something.

Colonisation has won, so far. The views expressed in this thread and many others are clear evidence of that.

It's a shame that the legacies of colonialism (not only in Africa, but also in Asia and Latin America) exist today not only in the form of economic inequalities, but worse, in the mind of the victims of colonialism. An inferiority complex is still prevalent in much of the non-Western world, but more and more people are waking up to it, as they're participating more in the economy and becoming more educated.

I'm not saying that places like Sandton should be linquidated to help the poor South Africans. Instead, they should be preserved as the business hubs that they are. However, South Africa must do a better job of redistributing its wealth so that the children of the poor can have a chance at a quality education and a chance for professional employment.

chinaman666:

It's a shame that the legacies of colonialism (not only in Africa, but also in Asia and Latin America) exist today not only in the form of economic inequalities, but worse, in the mind of the victims of colonialism. An inferiority complex is still prevalent in much of the non-Western world, but more and more people are waking up to it, as they're participating more in the economy and becoming more educated.

I'm not saying that places like Sandton should be linquidated to help the poor South Africans. Instead, they should be preserved as the business hubs that they are. However, South Africa must do a better job of redistributing its wealth so that the children of the poor can have a chance at a quality education and a chance for professional employment.

It really is a crying shame. And it's not as if Africa does not produce skilled people. It does, but they would much rather leave to help developed nations further entrench their position atop the food chain.

Africa is not being robbed of its natural resources today. This is nothing that trade and regulation cannot fix (political will permitting). Africa robs itself because it allows corruption and the brain drain to take root. And then in defining its shortcomings, Africa assumes that its problems today are due to the colour of their skin. Well, perhaps that's how the problems started, but that's not how they have been maintained and aggravated. Self-reflection is avoided and problems are externalised. Someone else's success is also trivialised to the extent that it forces the loathed self-reflection.

It's been interesting to see Angola receive expats from Portugal - and Angola today is the third largest economy in Africa by GDP. And it continues to grow as an oil producer. I doubt that Angolans care about the race of the expats.

Attracting talent is the key. And the colour of the talent is irrelevant. Stûpid is the country that wants to turn talent away on the basis that it wants to be "wholly black". Developed countries do not turn African talent away, on the grounds that they want to be "wholly white".

I agree that South Africa does need to do more work. However, after 19 years, there are positive developments, albeit much slower in pace than desired. Missteps along the way, yes. However, I'd say slow steps in the right direction are better than quick steps in the wrong one.

They missed 3-arm Zone in Abuja where politicians and their cronies converge to share national treasury.