Go take your meds Jonny, no idea what you are waffling about, there was no South Africa when Rhodes first went there, it was called Natal and was run by the Dutch boers, who already had segregation or if you like, Appartide, but as we weren't even in the country, we can't have invented it doh, but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit stories. South Africa came into being in 1910, that's 258 years after the Dutch first colonised it.They had slavery, segregation etc or Appartide as Jonny would call it, but not official till 1948 when the Dutch boer government made it official, and made more stringent in 1956.
Spain cases have gone up this week because they are recounting all the data to make sure the numbers are correct. We end lockdown on the 21st, but will still have to social distance and wear masks, sanitize hands in every shop bar etc. In Andalucia, where I live, population 8.5m, size 3/4 of England, there has been only 1404 deaths, 17000 cases and 15000 of these are cured, active cases is around 1300.
Britain certainly didn't start slavery. The article that I referenced relates to how the actions of two prominent Brits exacerbated racial preferencing in Southern Africa and how these actions formed the basis of the Apartheid system. That's what I thought you were talking about.
Yes as I posted the Dutch boers did the racial preferencing 258 years before the British started to arrive,Britain banned slavery in the country many years later, but as the country is predominantly Dutch boers as the white minority who won the elections and started to run the country again, they then brought in Appartide 1948.
The period that the article relates to is about 1890 - 1910, When Rhodes was PM of the then Cape Colony, The Boer Wars Won by the British and the establishment of the Union of South Africa, a self governing dominion of the British Empire. As a result there was a system in place where all people were not equal, something that was not the case in other parts of the empire. Based on this inequality and those that existed even before the area was part of the British Empire apartheid was born. The country that is now South Africa stopped being a part of the British Empire, and theoretically ruled by the Queen in 1961. I suppose therefore as apartheid was legislated in 1948 it actually started under British Rule.
You've got it all wrong again, the Queen is leader of the commonwealth not leader of the countries of the commonwealth, as you as an Aussie should well know, South Africa didn't even join WW2 straight away, they declared as neutral first and it was only after their parliament got rid of their leader they took our side. Britain didn't change the Dutch boers rules, but that's not the same as inventing them is it, again as you should well know.South Africa independence 1931,so the whole basis of your post is wrong.
That's why I wrote "theoretically ruled" It wasn't until the Australia Act of 1986 that the British officially stopped interfering in Australian politics and probably inferred in South African politics right up to 1961 when South Africa became a republic. The British didn't invent the apartheid rules but they potentially sowed the seeds of their formation.
There was huge Nazi sympathy in SA during WWII, which almost caused a civil war. As many have mentioned, the Boer War pitted Great Britain against the Afrikaner. I am sure some here will attempt to deny it, but the British created concentration camps, where they interred many Afrikaners - men, women and children, where many died due to the terrible conditions imposed by the British. Primarily due to these acts, and not a small amount of ant-Semitism, many in the Afrikaner community supported the Nazis, just as the Irish did. Definitely cases of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Deny it all you like, there is no doubt that Britain practiced and later approved/condoned apartheid during its rule in South Africa years before it was legislated!
The real and complete story: Following the defeat of the Boers in the Anglo-Boer or South African War (1899–1902), the Union of South Africa was created as a self-governing dominion of the British Empire on 31 May 1910 in terms of the South Africa Act 1909, which amalgamated the four previously separate British colonies: Cape Colony, Colony of Natal, Transvaal Colony, and Orange River Colony. The country became a fully sovereign nation state within the British Empire, in 1934 following enactment of the Status of the Union Act. The monarchy came to an end on 31 May 1961, replaced by a republic as the consequence of a 1960 referendum, which legitimised the country becoming the Republic of South Africa. Do the math - 51 (1910 - 1961) years of rule during which Britain practiced apartheid in South Africa. Its your history, own it!
So the Queen who had no power over the country was at fault, your arguments are rediculas you x colonialists are very bitter.
Well she sacked our PM, Gough Whitlam, in 1975, well her appointed representative, the Governor General, did.
FYI Britain had no legal authority in SA after the early 1930's. Black Africans actually provided many of the blacks sold into slavery in previous centuries. It's black history. Blacks need to own it. Several African countries STILL have black v black conflicts and take slaves.
There’s no one in his head, so no good knocking, keeps pointing out the wrong facts hoping it will change to being right. Got a feeling he's Donald Trump.
Aussie John Kerr sacked him, you Aussies don't like taking responsibility for anything do you ? Do you all stand in a big circle pointing at each other ? Just the same when you cheat at cricket, always someone else's fault.
Johnny's very confused, even he has no idea what he's on about. Talking about concentration camps, still got all them boat people and Abbo's locked in em ?
