Were blacks better off under apartheid?

Jewish World Review ^ | Jan. 9, 2001 | Walter Williams

[Trident/Delta]

Yeah, and in the mean-time we will be the recipeints of terrorism and blackmail... We don't HAVE a few years to wait. It is far beyond that. Sorry to burst your feel-good bubble.

Semper Fi

[Don Myers]

bttt

[Don Myers]

"From the liberal's point of view, it might even be racist to expect blacks to adhere to civilized standards of behavior. "

So they think that blacks are savages and expect them to act that way.

[AMMON-CENTRIST]

Disagreement. There should be no laws of racial seperatism. They reduce freedom.

[Tis The Time''s Plague]

I just KNOW I am going to be flamed for this, but, can anyone point to a black governed nation that is successful????

Since you didn't bother to define what (and who) is a black governed nation: The United States of America. Mark all those boxes on the census - be all that you can be.

[Sci Fi Guy]

Well, it probably would have helped if they had not embraced totalitarians, communism, and socialism after the colonial governments left.

Your are right, but India has struggled because they sent their future leaders to England to be educated. English schools is where they learned socialism. Even today Socialism is entrenched in India's political class.

[notyourregularhandle]

I usually like him, but it is easy for him to say it since he didn't have to live under it. Sorry, folks, racial subjugation is always wrong.

I hope that "FOLKS" doesn't include me...I agree... RACIAL SUBJUGATION IS WRONG UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE...EVEN YOUR OWN RACE!!!

C-O-M-M-O-N-S-E-N-S-E

[SauronOfMordor]

European colonialism interfered with the natural development of the local cultures, and when they left, they left vacuums in education and infrastructure, all because they sucked the economic life from the colonies while transferring little in return.

Glib explanation. Please account for the difference in outcome between sub-Sahara Africa and the European colonies of Hong Kong, Formosa (Taiwan), and India.

Could it be that the Asian colonies were composed of people who were already familiar with the concepts of civilization? While the African colonies were natively populated by savages who were taught English and given pants to wear, but otherwise retained their pre-civilized customs?

Do you seriously think that people who had not progressed past the Paleolithic stage by the time the Europeans arrived, would have magicly caught up if they had been left alone?

[StoneColdGOP]

Really? I'd think some of us would be used to this kind of thing by now...

[SauronOfMordor]

You have a much greater opinion of Indian culture than I do, and a different definition of success.

I have a very basic definition of success:

1. Are the people able to live in relative peace?
2. Are economic conditions basicly improving on the long-term trend?

India is growing economicly, people are not starving, and you hardly ever hear of thousands being massacred by machete-wielding thugs -- which is distinctly different from how things are in sub-Sahara Africa.

There is something inherently wrong with cultures which cannot seem to get their acts together no matter what anybody might try in order to help them.

[SauronOfMordor]

Wow. That is a pretty sickening post to find on Free Republic.

What about it was sickening? That it happened to be true?

[ExpandNATO]

Wow. That is a pretty sickening post to find on Free Republic.

As the cliche goes, if you cannot argue the facts, attack the messenger.

[PaulKersey]

Take a trip to South Africa and see how things were there in the 1980s. Then compare that with today and see if anyone is better off.