|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 16, 2024 22:38:16 GMT
Is a West Indian who was born in the UK British? Yes, because the people who lived in the UK before he and others like him arrived made laws that conferred British citizenship upon. The same didn't happen in South Africa. There were no laws preventing Dutch Migrants from becoming citizens of SA. If 'incomers' to Africa are not real citizens why are incomers to Europe 'real' citizens' - you are being hypocritical. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 16, 2024 22:43:24 GMT
Yes, because the people who lived in the UK before he and others like him arrived made laws that conferred British citizenship upon. The same didn't happen in South Africa. There were no laws preventing Dutch Migrants from becoming citizens of SA. If 'incomers' to Africa are not real citizens why are incomers to Europe 'real' citizens' - you are being hypocritical. What? Oddly enough, the Australian aboriginees had no laws preventing invaders taking their land either. Nor is there a law criminalising space aliens who might take over the earth. Those of African origin who have acquired European citizenship have done so under laws enacted by the citizens of those European countries. Can't you see that that's a completely different thing from invading and taking land from a people without their consent? Jesus Christ, Doc! Can't you do better than that? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 16, 2024 22:44:52 GMT
A nomadic black African. Or are you suggesting that black Africans never lived there? Not at all - I simply wanted a definition. So only Black Africans are allowed - no matter what part of Africa they come from.. I never suggested that was the case, just that they were there before Europeans. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 16, 2024 22:54:18 GMT
There were no laws preventing Dutch Migrants from becoming citizens of SA. If 'incomers' to Africa are not real citizens why are incomers to Europe 'real' citizens' - you are being hypocritical. What? Oddly enough, the Australian aboriginees had no laws preventing invaders taking their land either. Nor is there a law criminalising space aliens who might take over the earth. Those of African origin who have acquired European citizenship have done so under laws enacted by the citizens of those European countries. Can't you see that that's a completely different thing from invading and taking land from a people without their consent? Jesus Christ, Doc! Can't you do better than that? Europe had no Laws governing immigration when West Indians and Africans started arriving here. Immigration Laws were enacted precisely because of that arrival. see2 made the point that ethnicity determined whether you were a real citizen or not, now I'm open to that idea but I would suspect that 2/3rds of London and almost the entire population of Leicester would disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 16, 2024 22:56:40 GMT
What? Oddly enough, the Australian aboriginees had no laws preventing invaders taking their land either. Nor is there a law criminalising space aliens who might take over the earth. Those of African origin who have acquired European citizenship have done so under laws enacted by the citizens of those European countries. Can't you see that that's a completely different thing from invading and taking land from a people without their consent? Jesus Christ, Doc! Can't you do better than that? Europe had no Laws governing immigration when West Indians and Africans started arriving here. Immigration Laws were enacted precisely because of that arrival. see2 made the point that ethnicity determined whether you were a real citizen or not, now I'm open to that idea but I would suspect that 2/3rds of London and almost the entire population of Leicester would disagree. Who made the laws 'precisely because of that arrival'? Was it the West Indians themselves or was it the indigenous British people? It was the indigenous British people. Now, tell us whether the indigenous South African people made the laws that made the Dutch citizens. So, Doc, what was the difference between the French Resistance and Mandela? Both were fighting invading forces who thought they had a right to rule on the basis of racial superiority. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 16, 2024 23:06:59 GMT
Europe had no Laws governing immigration when West Indians and Africans started arriving here. Immigration Laws were enacted precisely because of that arrival. see2 made the point that ethnicity determined whether you were a real citizen or not, now I'm open to that idea but I would suspect that 2/3rds of London and almost the entire population of Leicester would disagree. Who made the laws 'precisely because of that arrival'? Was it the West Indians themselves or was it the indigenous British people? It was the indigenous British people. Now, tell us whether the indigenous South African people made the laws that made the Dutch citizens. So, Doc, what was the difference between the French Resistance and Mandela? Both were fighting invading forces who thought they had a right to rule on the basis of racial superiority. So the you are trying to tell us that descendants of those who arrived before immigration Laws were enacted, families who have been here hundreds of years, are not real citizens because they are not white. FFS - you should be ashamed of yourself.. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 16, 2024 23:21:16 GMT
Who made the laws 'precisely because of that arrival'? Was it the West Indians themselves or was it the indigenous British people? It was the indigenous British people. Now, tell us whether the indigenous South African people made the laws that made the Dutch citizens. So, Doc, what was the difference between the French Resistance and Mandela? Both were fighting invading forces who thought they had a right to rule on the basis of racial superiority. So the you are trying to tell us that descendants of those who arrived before immigration Laws were enacted, families who have been here hundreds of years, are not real citizens because they are not white. FFS - you should be ashamed of yourself.. What on earth are you talking about, Doc? The Dutch were as uninvited in South Africa as the Germans were in France. The Dutch thought they had a right to rule on grounds of racial superiority, just as the Germans did. So, are you going to tell us what the difference between Mandela and the French Resistance is or aren't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 17, 2024 7:43:34 GMT
So the you are trying to tell us that descendants of those who arrived before immigration Laws were enacted, families who have been here hundreds of years, are not real citizens because they are not white. FFS - you should be ashamed of yourself.. What on earth are you talking about, Doc? The Dutch were as uninvited in South Africa as the Germans were in France. The Dutch thought they had a right to rule on grounds of racial superiority, just as the Germans did. So, are you going to tell us what the difference between Mandela and the French Resistance is or aren't you? This idea of yours that you cannot be African unless you are black is not something I would subscribe to. Can you be British if you are not white? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 17, 2024 10:18:39 GMT
France declared war on Germany and Germany won. The Xhosa, Mandela's group, were every bit as much an invading oppressor as were the Dutch and arrived around the same time. They were not native to SA. In France the resistance generally attacked the invading oppressor whilst in SA the Xhosa generally killed their own people. 1) There is evidence which suggests that xhosa-speaking people have been there since the 7th century AD. ' Xhosa History. Historical evidence suggests that the Xhosa people have inhabited the Eastern Cape area from as long ago as 1593 and most probably even before that. Some archaeological evidence has been discovered that suggests that Xhosa-speaking people have lived in the area since the 7th century AD.' 2) The French resistance was very active against its own people (it attacked Vichy France's military and ordinary French people they saw as traitors). So, I'll ask again: what was the difference between Mandela and the French Resistance? The Eastern Cape is a small part of South Africa and the Dutch were in Capetown by the middle 17th century where they encountered the Hottentots the non Bantu peoples, the Xhosa were Bantu speaking. They are not in any way the 'indigenous' people of SA as you implied. Once again France declared war on Germany, Vichy France was a separate political entity. Just as teh US civil war was between two separate political entities. Anyway we are progressing well into history and before WW2 accepted norms of International law were not so clearly defined as they were post WW2. SA were effectively excluded from the International Community due to human rights abuses but the armed struggle of insurgents within a country, no matter the justification of their cause were also subject to the same accusations of abuse of human rights, and there is little doubt that Mandela led a group that were at odds with the International view in terms of what they did no matter how much it was accepted that their cause was justified. The methods in the correct historical context were deprecated. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 17, 2024 16:51:34 GMT
What on earth are you talking about, Doc? The Dutch were as uninvited in South Africa as the Germans were in France. The Dutch thought they had a right to rule on grounds of racial superiority, just as the Germans did. So, are you going to tell us what the difference between Mandela and the French Resistance is or aren't you? This idea of yours that you cannot be African unless you are black is not something I would subscribe to. Can you be British if you are not white? Stop pretending you don't understand what was said, Doc. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 17, 2024 16:53:46 GMT
1) There is evidence which suggests that xhosa-speaking people have been there since the 7th century AD. ' Xhosa History. Historical evidence suggests that the Xhosa people have inhabited the Eastern Cape area from as long ago as 1593 and most probably even before that. Some archaeological evidence has been discovered that suggests that Xhosa-speaking people have lived in the area since the 7th century AD.' 2) The French resistance was very active against its own people (it attacked Vichy France's military and ordinary French people they saw as traitors). So, I'll ask again: what was the difference between Mandela and the French Resistance? The Eastern Cape is a small part of South Africa and the Dutch were in Capetown by the middle 17th century where they encountered the Hottentots the non Bantu peoples, the Xhosa were Bantu speaking. They are not in any way the 'indigenous' people of SA as you implied. Once again France declared war on Germany, Vichy France was a separate political entity. Just as teh US civil war was between two separate political entities. Anyway we are progressing well into history and before WW2 accepted norms of International law were not so clearly defined as they were post WW2. SA were effectively excluded from the International Community due to human rights abuses but the armed struggle of insurgents within a country, no matter the justification of their cause were also subject to the same accusations of abuse of human rights, and there is little doubt that Mandela led a group that were at odds with the International view in terms of what they did no matter how much it was accepted that their cause was justified. The methods in the correct historical context were deprecated. Absurd. There is no difference in principle between what Mandela did and what the French resistance did. If the French resistance were freedom fighters, so was Mandela. It has already been explained to you that xhosa-speaking people are thought to have been in that region since the 7th Century. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 17, 2024 17:46:27 GMT
A nomadic black African. Or are you suggesting that black Africans never lived there? A South African must be black? What a strange notion you have |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 17, 2024 18:19:36 GMT
This idea of yours that you cannot be African unless you are black is not something I would subscribe to. Can you be British if you are not white? Stop pretending you don't understand what was said, Doc. I understand that you were playing racist politics. Can you be Black and British? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 17, 2024 19:16:04 GMT
Stop pretending you don't understand what was said, Doc. I understand that you were playing racist politics. Can you be Black and British? This is thoroughly bizarre. Where has all this nonsense come from? One moment we're comparing the French resistance with Mandela's organisation, the next you're asking absurd off-point questions. Yes, you can be black and British. But every black British person was made a British person through Parliament; that is, by democratic means. Now we've cleared that up, maybe you could return to the topic at hand: what's the difference between Mandela's organisation and the French resistance. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 17, 2024 22:15:14 GMT
I understand that you were playing racist politics. Can you be Black and British? This is thoroughly bizarre. Where has all this nonsense come from? From the claim that only black Africans could be South Africans.. try and keep up ffs.. |
|
