Carryfast:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Rhodesia being a more legitimate African state than the PC renamed Zimbabwe in my eyes.Which includes the ‘racist’ view that ethnic Europeans could run Africa and farm Africa better than the indigenous African population could/can.
The fact that whites are still the better farmers is to be expected, because they are better educated and more experienced, but the idea that you expect as a white person to live like a class of royalty forever more has thankfully been dislodged. The mentality of entitlement, based on the colour of your skin, has gone.
No I really do think that ethnic Europeans are generally superior in terms of know how and making the best use of machinery.Whether it’s the illiterate farm hand or the rich farm owner.
There’s no clear evidence of that. The Boers’ migration to South Africa predates both machinery and literacy. What white migrants from European societies always had is cultural, worked experience running farms. That is, in the history of European society, many more people had accumulated experience managing farms, not merely as farm hands but as communities of heritable landholders. The blacks haven’t been involved in agriculture before, and of course the policies of apartheid were designed to prevent going forward.
Later migrants from Europe (partlcularly in the early and mid 20th) were skilled and trained people more generally (coming as they did from a developed industrial society), both to provide more skilled labour for a developing economy, and to provide more ballast for the white population. There are many in the white working class who have no particular gumption for either farming or management generally, but of course whites who migrated tended to be higher skilled than the norm - no mere farm hand in Britain migrated to Southern Africa unless he had the confidence and aspiration to run a farm, because if he went to be a mere farm hand then he’d have had to accept black wages.
The real losers in Southern Africa have not been whites generally (notwithstanding the political aggravation they caused), but the rump layer of whites who were really lesser naturally skilled and competent than many blacks, but who had a sense of entitlement and were neither willing to accept the going rate for their skills in an open market, nor argue for socialism and fairness for all. That’s why many blacks curse Nelson Mandela, because although there are now rich blacks and middle class blacks, the reality for most people is that they’re still living in the dirt - no longer because of the colour of their skin, but simply because of their class position in a capitalist society.
It’s the same in America, where they’ve had a black president (who has proved to be one of the better ones for a very long time, in his competence as a politician), and although America has a serious hangover from racism and there are too many pockets of racial prejudice, the reality is that the main problem for blacks in America today is simply that they are poor, and most of the prejudices are sustained from the fact that they are associated (correctly, if unfortunately) with being poor and being from poor communities.
The difference between a Nationalist v an uncaring Tory or a vicious ■■■■ being that while I recognise that superiority I’d want to use that superiority to help those among my ethnic African neighbours not hurt them.Just as I actually believe Powell’s so called ‘racist’ ideas that if we import enough of the third world ethnic groups here then we become the third world ourselves and then we can’t help anyone even if we want to.
And that was the key problem with apartheid, that whether you think the whites’ superiority is due to their breeding or their rearing, everyone could see that the policy was not benevolent but was designed to suppress the development even of those blacks who were capable of better as individuals, and to maintain their communities as an underclass.
As for Powell, his arguments were nonsense. The real connection between migration and “becoming the third world”, is that migration is used disproportionately to create inequalities and sustain poverty wages. Even when the economy is overheating and needs to draw in labour (as it did in the 50s and 60s), they never draw in an equal proportion of doctors and nurses to the proportion of unskilled workers - they always draw in more of the latter (proportionally, compared to their existing proportions in the economy), as a dose of discipline on the settled working class and to control or force down working class wages, compared to the wages of professionals and the profits of businessmen. Enoch Powell actually argued for such policies in the 50s - it was only afterwards that he stepped up the rhetoric against it, once there was a clear working class reaction against it and political capital to be made from opposing the very policies that he had previously supported.
Not unlike the Tory party today, who have been promising to control immigration endlessly, and have actually done nothing about it - even the income thresholds for non-EEA migrants, are set at £18k a year, which is nowhere near even the median wage, let alone the level you’d expect in genuine “shortage occupations”. It’s the sort of wage you’d probably be getting as a toilet cleaner in London, not because toilet cleaners are well-paid but because of the cost of living there, including rents and shop prices.
