Wie was die slegste en wreedste in Geskiedenis
Die informasie hieronder is vir die stupid donners wat net will sien wat hulle wil. Name: Paul Kruger, Paule Naude, Chris Meyer en Naartjie Bunker ( Dieselfde persoon met verskillende name) en dit herinder my aan Nude Raider ook. Hierdie ou se trade mark is die manier wat hy bOER skrywe. Mugabe and Idi Amin must be your type of fuck heads that you love. Child molesters, rapist and killers. So Naartjie or whatever your name is, why dont you fuck off to aids ridden Idi Amin and lick his ass.You love them so much What did the English do in America, They killed Red Indians till nearly none left. What did the English do in Australia, They killed Aboriginals till only a handfull left and the rest they removed from their mothers What did the Spanish do in South America, They killed all the Inka Indians -none left. What did the Portugese do in Africa, They exported blacks to America and other countries What did the Germans do in Europe, They killed millions of people under cover of two wars What did the muslims do, They killed many people that is branded as infidels (dogs) What did the Catholic Church (Italians) do, They killed many under the inquition. WHAT DID THE BOERS DO, THEY BROUGHT THE BIBLE AND SUPPLIED WORK AND THEN HAD APPARTHEID. Except for the Boers in South Africa or aboard, if you are any of the above( including the meide naiers that fled South Africa and now try and shit on it from a distance) then I tell you to F--K off and go and shit in your own backyard , eat it and hope to get wise. Including the name underneath "Paule Naude"
Re: Wie was die slegste en wreedste in Geskiedenis
APPLAUS!!! I live in Holland, but with the help of my South African wife, (Dutch descent) I have studied South Africa now for 12 years. I can only agree with you...... Again: applaus!! But did you know that the aveage Dutch person thinks Mandela is some sort of god?? They only believe what the TV says... Some 8 years ago I wrote an article already about South Africa.... people here didn't believe me.... Amongst other things I stated: "We must stop NOW with giving help to Africa, so the blacks MAY parhaps get off their butts and do something. They expect us to help them all the time." I lost most of my friends because of this article. "Those poor blacks!" they said. I wish you all the luck!! Cor
Hier is die ou artikel. Ek hoop jy kan Hollands lees: ======================================= Wat was en is er nu eigenlijk aan de hand in Zuid Afrika? In dit artikel over Zuid Afrika wordt zo hier en daar naar voorbeelden gegrepen, om aan te geven, dat hetgene waar Zuid Afrika door de rest van de wereld voor veroordeeld wordt en werd, op heel veel plaatsen op diezelfde wereld voorkwam, en nog voorkomt, OOK in de z.g. "beschaafde" naties. Waar is Nederland mee bezig de laatste tijd? Wat weet men hier van het woord apartheid? Men kent het woord, men denkt dat het datgene is, wat de media ons willen laten geloven, maar IS het dat ook? Kan men zomaar geloven, wat er op het televisiescherm komt, en op de radio? Is het niet veel beter, om het uit de eerste hand te horen, om erheen te gaan met een neutrale blik? Hoe is deze vorm van apartheid ontstaan? Ik zeg expres "deze vorm", omdat er meedere vormen zijn. Kijkt U maar naar wat er de Indianen is aangedaan, bijvoorbeeld. En daarbij, is het niet zo, dat wij eerst de hand in eigen boezem moeten steken?? Bijvoorbeeld hier in dit zo z.g. "christelijke" Nederland, waar wij allemaal zo tegen de apartheid zijn, is het nog steeds zo, dat wanneer er bijvoorbeeld Turken naast Nederlanders komen wonen, het koophuis van die Nederlanders minder waard wordt..... Hoe was dat spreekwoord ook weer, dat over de hand en de eigen boezem ?? Laten we elkaar nu even geen mietje noemen, OK? Maar goed, laten we teruggaan naar Zuid Afrika..... Waarom is daar de apartheid ontstaan? Om het heden te begrijpen, moet men toch eerst het verleden kennen. En, in een land, wat niet eens een Europees, maar een Afrikaans land is, met meerdere stammen en voor ons Hollanders onbegrijpelijke gebruiken, spelen meerdere redenen. Dit zijn ook redenen, die voor ons zogenaamd nuchtere Nederlanders onbegrijpelijk en soms zelfs wreed zijn, maar in Zuid Afrika zeker bij de zwarte bevolkingsgroep normaal zijn, maar laten we bij een beginnen. We schrijven omstreeks 1948....Kenya, Oost Afrika. In Kenya komt langzaam maar gestadig een beweging op gang, die later bekend zal worden als de MAU MAU. Behalve dat erover deze beweging een behoorlijke schat aan informatie te vinden moet zijn in elke goede bibliotheek, kunnen we hier ook verwijzen naar het boek van Robert Ruarck, getiteld "Something of Value." Dit boek is vertaald, ook in het Nederlands, en heet dan "Iets van Waarde". Ook het boek "Turning Wheels" van Stuart Cloethe, in het Nederlands "Wentelende wielen" geeft een goede indicatie van de zwarte en de witte man in het verleden in het zuiden van Afrika. In dit geval tijdens de "Grote Trek", die de witte Nederlandse mensen begonnen om aan de overheersing door de Engelsen te ontkomen. Voor veel mensen is het onbekend, maar tijdens de dagen van Jan van Riebeeck aan de Zuidpunt van het continent Afrika waren er geen zwarte mensen daar. De zwarten woonden toendertijd veel meer naar het noordoosten..... Aan de Kaap waren alleen Bosjesmannen en Hottentotten. Terwijl de Bosjesmannen zich terugtrokken naar het Noorden, mengden de Hollanders zich met de Hottentotten. Zo ontstond een ras mensen, wat men nu kent als "Kleurling". In 1992, dus tijdens de z.g. Apartheid-dagen, was Miss Suid Afrika een Kleurlinge...... Om de reden van de apartheid, zoals deze gedurende de laatste 30 jaren in het leven geroepen is, te begrijpen, zijn de boeken die net zijn genoemd, een regelrechte aanrader. Iedereen, die de andere kant van de zwarte man, maar ook van de witte man in Afrika wil zien, MOET deze boeken lezen, want zonder deze kennis is het gewoon niet mogelijk om goed te oordelen, zo er al iets te oordelen valt. En, wie is de Europeaan, en zeker de Amerikaan om te oordelen?? Want, de andere kant van de zwarte is niet de rol van diegene die altijd maar uitgezogen is, zeker niet. Goed, de zwarte mensen werkten op de farms van de blanken. Maar, in een land met een klimaat wat veel warmer is dan Europa, werkt men anders. Met begon 's ochtends heel vroeg, om 5 uur. Om ongeveer 8 uur was het tijd voor het ontbijt. Dan werd er doorgewerkt tot ongeveer 1 uur in de middag. De middagpauze was erg lang, want het was gewoon te warm om te werken. Om ongeveer 4 uur begon men weer, tot ongeveer 7 uur, waarna het tijd was voor het avondeten. De zon gaat in Zuid Afrika veel eerder onder dan hier, en om 8 uur was het echt donker. Wat kreeg zo'n zwarte man nu betaald? Hij kreeg een loon, in geld, maar dat was niet veel. Wel kreeg hij van de farm zijn eten. Dit bestond uit meel, melk, eieren, maismeel, vlees, (een half schaap per week per gezin, of meer als zijn gezin groter was) en hij en zijn gezin hadden gratis "Medical", oftewel Ziekenfonds. Vrijwel elke farmer had een school op zijn land. De kleding (inclusief school-uniformen) voor de zwarte mensen kwam ook van de farm. Dit werd gedaan door de farmers-vrouw. Dus eigenlijk was hun loon in geld niet meer dan zakgeld. Veel farmers hadden een kleine "winkel van sinkel" op hun land. Dit was erg practisch, gezien de enorme afstanden naar de eerstvolgende stad of dorp. En, de zwarten kregn nog eens korting in die winkel ook. Maar dankbaar? O,ja, de meesten waren "Die Baas" dankbaar, maar zoals het zo vaak gaat, waren er hier ook individuen, die het "beter wisten".... Bereid U maar vast voor op bloed..... Een bekend spreekwoord gaat hier op: "Hij bijt de hand die hem voedt." Om een voorbeeld uit die tijd te geven: In de late jaren 40, zitten een blanke dokter met zijn hoogzwangere blanke vrouw in hun huis in Kenya. Het was een lange dag, en er waren die dag veel patienten geweest. Het was hun eigen keus, om naar Afrika te gaan; ze hadden hun leven gewijd aan het welzijn van de lokale bevolking. Iedere dag maar weer, dag in, dag uit, waren zij bezig met de patienten. Veel had het hun gekost, om het vertrouwen te winnen van de zwarten: de meesten van hen gingen immers liever naar de medicijn-man. Toch was het hen gelukt, om levens te sparen, dankzij de moderne geneesmiddelen. Een klop op de de deur.... de bediende komt binnen. (een bediende was heel gewoon, en de bediende zag het als een hoge eer, om bij de witman te mogen werken, want daardoor steeg zijn aanzien t.o.v. de anderen, en wat deden de Hollanders in Indie met bediendes??) Maar goed, even terug naar het verhaal.... "Ja, Moses?" "Bwana, achter het huis zijn een paar mensen, die U willen spreken!" "O.K., Moses, zeg ze maar, dat ik er aankom." De bediende gaat weer. De dokter staat op, en loopt naar achteren. Hij zou nooit meer terugkomen.... Een panga scheidt zijn hoofd van zijn romp. (Een panga is de Afrikaanse klewang of machete, m.a.w. een zwaar kapmes) De doktersvrouw, benieuwd naar het lange uitblijven van haar man, gaat ook naar achteren, waar zij onthaald wordt op een regelrechte zeer brute verkrachting door meerdere mannen. Daarna wordt haar buik opengesneden, en de baby wordt voor haar ogen gedood. Onder deze folteringen sterft ook de moeder. Gruwelijk? Voor de zwarten die het deden was het gewoon.... De mensen in Europa, toen in 1948, en hier in de jaren '90, schijnen maar niet te KUNNEN begrijpen, dat we hier te maken hebben met zwarten, die duizenden jaren lang hun eigen leven hebben gehad, zonder inmenging van buitenaf. Dit kan men niet binnen een tijdsbestek van 40 of 50 jaar goedmaken, als er al iets goed te maken valt. Die manier van leven, was HUN leven, en het is zeer zeker niet aan ons, witten, om daarover te oordelen. Zeker, zij waren in onze ogen wreed, maar hoe waren wij, 400 jaar en meer geleden, bijvoorbeeld met de folterkamers? Om maar te zwijgen over de Rooms Katholieke Inquisitie.... Zelfs in de tegenwoordige tijd komt het nog voor, dat er op scholen gekeken wordt naar het geloof wat je hebt. Ben je katholiek, dan speel je op dat schoolplein, ben je protestant, dan speel je op het andere... De witte kolonisten zaten intussen wel met het probleem..... Stammenoorlogen waren heel gewoon, en in de ogen van de zwarten WAS het ook gewoon. Toen in de vorige eeuw aan de machtige ZULU-koning Shaka werd gevraagd, hoe hij zijn mannen noemde, was het antwoord: "Dit zijn mijn Impi's!" (Een impi was een soldaat, en niet meer of minder dan dat) Ook het woord Kaffer is nogal beladen... Oorspronkelijk komt dit woord uit het Arabisch, "CAFIR", en het betekent "ongelovige", of "heiden". De zwarten namen het over. Eerst in deze eeuw is het tot een scheldwoord geworden. Er werd in het Zuid Afrika van 1948 een wet uitgevaardigd, dat alle zwarte mensen een speciale pas moesten hebben, om van de ene kant van het land naar het andere te reizen. Nu werd eigenlijk gewoon officieel gemaakt, wat door de lokale chiefs altijd al was gedaan, en vandaag de dag nog steeds voorkomt: Eerst toestemming, dan reizen. En reken maar niet, dan een Zulu ooit toestemming kon krijgen, om door Xhosa-land te reizen, of andersom. Dat betekende zelfmoord. De andere stam zou hem afmaken... Hetzelfde geldt voor alle andere stammen, Venda, Tswana, Matabele, enz. Het schijnt aan de mensen in Nederland en daarbuiten ook nog steeds niet duidelijk te zijn, dat er zoiets als 50 stammen leven in Zuidelijk Afrika, en de meeste kunnen elkaars bloed wel kunnen drinken. Om dat te voorkomen, is deze vorm van "apartheid" ingesteld, niet meer, niet minder. Het betekende in het begin niet meer dan dat de stammen zich onderling niet mochten mengen. Het betekende OOK voor de witten apartheid: ook de witten mochten niet komen op plaatsen die speciaal voor zwarten waren ingesteld, want dat was HUN grond. Maar dat weet men hier niet....Ja zeker, er werden speciale gedeelten van Zuid Afrika voor de zwarte mensen ingesteld, de z.g. "Thuislanden." En dat waren zeker niet de minst vruchtbare delen! Men denkt hier, dat de blanken alles mochten, en de zwarten niets. Niets is minder waar.... De blanken mochten zeer zeker in de avond niet in de "zwarte" woonoorden komen, maar wie liepen er 's avonds en 's nachts door de "witte" woonoorden ?? Zwarten. Neem bijvoorbeeld Durban, een luxe badplaats, had een groot eigen stuk strand "SLEGS VIR NIE BLANKES" en geen enkele witte mocht daar komen. Veel mensen hier denken, dat de witten alle macht hadden, en maar konden doen en laten wat zij wilden, maar dat was zeker niet zo. En dat is nog steeds niet zo. Wanneer een blanke zich bevond in een thuisland, geldt ook voor die blanke de wet van dat thuisland. Ook een witte ging naar de gevangenis omdat hij in het thuisland bijvoorbeeld een snelheidsovertreding niet kon betalen..... Een ander voorbeeld: Een zwarte gaat in Zuid-Afrika naar de hypotheek-bank, om een huis te kunnen kopen. Hij kan zijn hypotheek krijgen, met 9,5 percent rente, looptijd 99 jaar. (overdraagbaar aan kinderen) Een witman doet hetzelfde, en kan zijn hypotheek krijgen, met 23,5 percent rente, looptijd 25 jaar, niet overdraagbaar. Dit is een van de voordelen, om in Zuid Afrika zwart te zijn. Er zijn er meer te noemen.... 50 Randcent voor een doktersconsult, en 2 Rand voor de medicijnen, tegen voor de witte 28 rand voor enkel het doktersconsult....om van de medicijnen maar te zwijgen. De mensen in Europa, en speciaal Nederland, die met de Boeren in Zuid Afrika een sterke band zouden moeten voelen, zien waarschijnlijk voor hun geestesoog landen als Biafra, waar ooit grote hongersnood heerste.... of die beelden van die lieve kleine negertjes op moeders arm. MAAR: In Zuid Afrika is ten tijde van de z.g. "blanke overheersing" nog NOOIT hongersnood geweest.... De schrijver dezes daagt alle mensen uit, om zich eens heel goed te informeren over een land als Rhodesia, nu dan Zimbabwe. Hoe was Rhodesia ten tijde van de witte Premier Ian Smith? Hoeveel werkloosheid was er toen? Hoe is datzelfde land nu, onder de zwarte Robert Mugabe? Ik daag U uit, om U heel goed van deze verschillen op de hoogte te stellen. Het is toch met meerdere farms gebeurt in bijvoorbeeld Kenya, ten tijde van Yomo Kenyatta, dat de regering tegen de farmer zei, dat 50 percent van de winst direct naar de regering moest, en de andere 50 percent verdeelt moest worden onder de zwarte werkers op de farm. Wanneer de farmer dan protesteerde, zeggende dat hij alles wat hij had, aan het land had gegeven, en er niet aan dacht om zijn bezit zomaar weg te geven, dan werden zijn dieren verminkt. Met panga's (grote kapmessen) werden de poten direct onder de knieen afgeslagen....Hij kon ze dan alleen nog afschieten.... Moet dit ook met Zuid Afrika gebeuren? En de Nederlandse regering laat dan zomaar toe, dat er zoveel geld aan 1 partij in Zuid Afrika wordt gegeven, onder de noemer "democratie". Democratie betekent wel even wat anders! Het komt van het Griekse "DEMOS" oftewel "volk". Met andere woorden: ALLE mensen. En, van een zeer betrouwbare bron is intussentijd vernomen, dat er nogmaals geld naar de partij van Nelson Mandela is verstuurd: R 50.000.000,- oftewel VIJF- en TWINTIG MILJOEN GULDEN!!! Dat staat dan niet in de kranten hier. Met dat geld hadden de Nederlandse oude mensen, die voor DIT land gewerkt en gevochten hebben, nu een wat betere oude dag kunnen hebben, om maar eens een voorbeeld te noemen. Geen wonder dat deze mensen nu hun eigen partij oprichten! Zij voelen zich verraden door hun eigen regering, die hen afknijpt, terwijl er zoveel geld naar andere landen gaat, bijvoorbeeld Zuid Afrika, waar mensen als Nelson Mandela het geld heel goed kan gebruiken om via Mozambique wapens te kopen, om daarmee afstammelingen van o.a. Nederlandse immgranten te laten vermoorden. En, wat staat er tegenwoordig in de kranten?? Zoveel miljoenen aan steun voor o.a. Afrika is weggegooid geld geweest....Ja, waarom zou een zwarte in Afrika werken?? De witman geeft toch genoeg ?? Men moet NU stoppen met het sturen van geld. Het moet daar duidelijk worden, dat men moet werken om iets te bereiken, en niet zielig moet zitten doen. Hulp, om de zwarte mensen te leren, hoe ze zichzelf kunnen leren is prima, maar vooraleerst is scholing nodig, heel veel scholing. U zult zien, als U meerdere landen van Afrika onder de loupe neemt, dat er in de gehele zuidelijke helft van het continent Afrika eigenlijk maar 2 landen zijn, waar het rustig is, en die het best wel goed doen op dit moment: Malawi en Swaziland. In Malawi heeft meer dan 95 percent van de bevolking werk, en er is geen hongersnood, de vooruitzichten zijn goed. Het kostte President Banda van Malawi wel het inzetten van een behoorlijk totalitair systeem, maar het werkt wel! Tegenwoordig moet je zeggen "werkte", want ook President Banda is afgezet. Waarschijn-lijk zal ook dit land het "voorbeeld" van de andere nu volkomen zwarte landen volgen...... Swaziland is een rustig koninkrijk waar ook de meeste mensen werk hebben, wat het moet hebben van landbouw en toerisme. Er is een tijd geweest dat men van Kaapstad naar Cairo kon rijden zonder ook maar eenmaal het paspoort te moeten laten zien....Alles was Engels protectoraat. En, er was werk. Kijk eens naar de film "Out of Africa"...en nu goed. Kijk nu eens naar die landen, daar aan de Oostkust van Afrika...... Men wilde toch zonodig onafhankelijkheid?? Somalia, etc. En nu dan Rwanda.....ook daar is de witman weg..... Terug naar begin jaren 50.... Onder leiding van een tegenwoordig nogal bekend persoon, waarop ik later terug zal komen, wordt intussen in Zuid Afrika, net zoals in Kenya, de roep "MAU MAU" steeds luider.... Intussentijd probeert Rusland zijn invloed op het zwarte continent te verstevigen, door vooral uit Oost Afrika jonge jongens mee te nemen, hen in Rusland op te voeden, en een commando-opleiding te geven. Na hun opleiding komen deze jongens, die volkomen gedrild en gehersenspoeld zijn, maar nog steeds de eigen taal spreken, en de gebruiken kennen, terug in Oost Afrika. (zie ook: Iets van Waarde, passage: Kimani vroeg over "Hij die in Rusland woont...") En, als U wilt weten wat voor de blanken de dagelijkse routine was, kijk eens naar het begin van hoofdstuk 6. Dit boek is geen fictie, het is gebaseerd op FEITEN!! Zie ook, als U het Engels machtig bent: "Black Chameleon" van Martin Booth. Vergeet U intussentijd niet, dat de meeste pioniers in Oost- en Zuid Afrika van West- Europese oorsprong waren? De Koude Oorlog tussen Oost en West was intussen uitgebroken, weet U nog? De "Mau Mau" ontketende in Oost Afrika ware slachtingen onder de emigranten, EN onder zwarten die trouw waren aan hun bazen. Na een lange periode van ongeloof, MOEST de Britse regering wel geloven, dat er wat aan de hand was in haar kolonie, en stuurde troepen. Veel blanken, de zwarte terreur meer dan beu, vluchtten naar Zuid Afrika.... OP DIT MOMENT BEGINT HETZELFDE IN ZUID AFRIKA !!! Ik ben net terug van een reis van twee maanden in het land, en gedurende die tijd zijn 8 farms uitgemoord. ... En ik heb een contact in het Zuiden van Zuid Afrika, en volgens deze man, ook een farmer, gaat het moorden maar door..... Zuid Afrika, met haar rijkdom aan diamanten, koper, uranium, en tal van andere dure delfstoffen, was echter ook heel interessant voor de Russen..... Maar, Zuid Afrika was een te grote kluif voor de Russen. Het werd nog wel geprobeerd door langs de kusten van het land te patrouilleren (Er is al eens een Russische onderzeeer gesignaleerd in de haven van Port Elizebeth) maar de Russische invloed in het land wat de wereld toen kende als de "Unie van Zuid Afrika" was toch aanzienlijk minder dan in Kenya. Toch was de invloed merkbaar....Toendertijd nog verboden partijen zoals ANCP werden steeds actiever. De regering bood intussen kansen aan de zwarten: De zwarte hoefde ook niet te reizen op eigen kosten, er werd voor transport gezorgd. Vergeet U niet, dat mensen, die nog nooit, of maar zelden voor een baas hadden gewerkt, geen geld konden hebben, om de lange reis (en terug) te betalen. De mijnen zorgden voor transport van de aankomende mijnwerkers, zij kregen behalve hun opleiding hun onderdak in z.g. hostels, hun eten en drinken, hun kleding, hun "medical" (ziekenzorg). Tegenwoordig zijn er mensen, die zeggen, dat de hostels zeer armoedig waren..... maar vergelijkt U een hostel eens met het hutje waar veel van de zwarte mijnwerkers uitkwamen. Tussen haakjes, de mijn-hostels werden als eerte gesticht, niet door Hollanders, maar door de Engelsman Cecil John Rhodes, naar wie Rhodesia later werd genoemd; Met andere woorden: dus niet door de Afrikaners van Hollandse oorsprong..... De Engelse invloed was intussen zeer groot in de Unie van Zuid Afrika. De toestand in de hostels kan dan ook voor een groot deel aan de Engelsen worden toegeschreven, niet alleen aan de z.g. Afrikaners. Terwijl de vrouwen thuis onder de bescherming van de stam en het dorp leefden, en elke maand hun geld toegestuurd kregen, waarmee zij beter voor de kinderen konden zorgen, etc, werkten de mannen in de mijnen, in ploegendiensten. Zij hadden een contract voor achttien maanden, en dan waren ze zes maanden vrij. Voor transport terug werd gezorgd. Allerlei soorten zwarten werkten in de mijnen....Zulu's, Xhosa's, Matabele's, enzovoort. Helaas, hier was ook de oude, onderlinge haat.... Mijnwerkers van verschillende stammen werkten niet samen, dit kon ook hier niet, men zou elkaar ombrengen. De directie van de mijnen zag er streng op toe, dat elke ploeg uit alleen mensen van 1 stam bestond. Met andere wooren, er waren dus hostels voor elke stam. Maar: Zelfs binnen de stam was nog vaak ruzie: de Xhosa-stam bijvoorbeeld, is verdeeld over de thuislanden Ciskei en Transkei. Met andere woorden, om 1 ploeg mijnwerkers samen te stellen, was heel wat voor nodig. Maar het lukte! Overredingskracht deed al een hele hoop... Tot die ene, rampzalige dag, in een plaats genaamd Sharpville..... In Sharpville liep het helemaal uit de hand. In een mijnhostel werd hard gevochten tussen de zwarten onderling, zelfs zo hard, dat de beveiligingsmensen (waaronder ook zwarten!) van de mijn het niet meer aankonden. Hoe langer het duurde, hoe meer mensen zich ermee gingen bemoeien... Uiteindelijk werd het leger ingezet. Toen was het vrij snel voor elkaar....en kon men de doden van de vechtpartij gaan tellen. Het was een slachting geweest.... En een logische slachting. Zou U geen scherpe patronen gebruiken, als U bij de politie was, en U had de keus uit wapenstok of pistool, en er staat iemand, zwart, blauw, groen, wit, of wat dan ook tegenover U, met een panga, klaar om Uw hoofd in tweeen te splijten?? Ik wel! Nog steeds waren de Russen bezig in de achtergrond... In feite gebruikten de Russen de onderlinge stammentwisten in Zuid Afrika. Ze moedigden ze aan, en probeerden er toch een slaatje uit te slaan. De Russen maakten de Zuid-Afrikaanse zwarten wijs, dat zij ook zo konden leven als de witten deden, ze moesten daarvoor alleen maar precies doen wat de Russen wilden. Veel zwarten werden onder invloed van de Russische beloften communist, en voerden orders uit, orders die het land werden ingesmokkeld. Aanslagen op winkelcentra, aanslagen op afgelegen farms, etc. Een zwarte jongeman, een plaatselijke leider, die zich bijzonder had onderscheiden op dit bloedige gebied, werd begin jaren '60 ingerekend en opgesloten. Hij had o.a. georganiseerd, dat er enige zware bommen o.a. in het station van Johannesburg werd geplaatst. Deze bom ging af tijdens het spitsuur. Honderden mensen werden toen gedood....velen meer zwaar gewond... En dat was niet de enigste maal....De ANC, en dus ook hun leider, had de hand in meerdere bom-aanslagen. En, voor diegenen die het nog niet weten, de A.N.C. had vroeger een andere naam, namelijk "A.N.C.P.". African National Communist Party..... Afrikaanse Nasionale Communistiese Party. De regering antwoordde met een hard, totalitair apartheids-systeem......maar ook om de mensen in feite tegen zichzelf te beschermen. De al eerder genoemde jongeman had met Zuid Afrika niet zo heel veel van doen.... Hij kwam zelf uit het door de Zuid Afrkaanse regering onafhankelijk gemaakte Transkei, een land, wat door de regering in Pretoria volkomen op poten was gezet. Scholen, ziekenhuizen, leger, noem maar op, was betaald door de blanke Zuid Afrikaanse belastingbetaler, o.a. door middel van een ac cijns van R 0,08 per liter op benzine. De Rand is nu niet veel meer waard...maar toendertijd had met voor twee Rand 1 Engelse Pond, die in Holland FL 10,- waard was.... Reken maar uit... Alleen al dit feit, de devaluatie van de Rand vertelt in feite al, dat Zuid Afrika zo'n dertig jaar geleden een machtig land was, en nu niet meer.... De z.g. "pasjeswet" was intussen al enige jaren van kracht geworden. Geen zwarte mocht zonder toestemming van chief en regering reizen. De Russische invloed in Zuid Afrika werd eigenlijk zoveel mogelijk in de kiem gesmoord. De regering vond ook, dat het maar eens uit moest zijn met de eeuwige onderlinge vechten, maar kreeg dat alleen maar voor elkaar, door de pasjeswet, het eigenlijk begin van de apartheid waartegen geprotesteerd werd door de rest van de wereld. De zwarten, die wilden, konden werk krijgen. Werk genoeg! En als men ook zo wilde wonen als de witman, moest men er voor werken. Samen werken, wel te verstaan. Men moest de ondelinge vetes opzijzetten, en SAMENWERKEN. Want, alleen samen ben je sterk. Als U nou de kans zou hebben om naar Soweto te gaan, kijkt U daar eens goed rond. Het is echt niet alleen maar armoede....Er staan ook zeer veel huizen, waar menigeen in Holland zich de vingers bij af zou likken.... Samen ben je sterk..... Dat houdt dus in, dat wanneer zwart persoon voor een baas werkt, deze persoon ook 5 dagen moet werken, en niet 3 dagen, en dan eerst zijn geld gaat opmaken. Daarna, als het geld op is, zou iemand in Europa ontslagen worden, maar niet in Zuid Afrika.... Een baas moet een zwarte weer aannemen... Dit werkt dus niet, niet hier, en ook niet daar. Alleen samen ben je sterk...... Dit is nu wat de F.J. De Klerk altijd wilde... In feite is wat ex-president De Klerk wil hetzelfde als wat premier Jan Smuts, belangrijke mede-oprichter van de Verenigde Naties aan het eind van de jaren 40 wilde. Mede onder invloed van Engeland werd Zuid Afrika in het begin van de jaren '60 getransformeerd van de Unie van Zuid Afrika naar de Republiek Zuid Afrika, en er kwam helaas een regering, die meer neo-nazi georienteerd was. Kijkt U in de bibliotheek maar onder "Broederbond". Negatieve apartheid kreeg helaas meer en meer kans... President Vorster en Pres. Verwoerd werden berucht.... Echter, President Bota deed de kansen keren, en de ex-presient De Klerk ging verder met die koers. Bedenkt U wel, dat het onder de druk van de wereld-opinie is, en alleen dat, dat er nu een zwarte president is, en een nieuwe vlag. Is het U opgevallen hoeveel deze vlag lijkt op die van de PLO? Weet U ook, dat Yasser Arafat, en de huidige president van Zuid Afrika op heel goede voet staan met elkaar ?? En, wat vindt U nu van het bezoek van President Mandela aan Lybi�? Als de zwarten dezelfde kansen willen, als de witten, dan kan dat. Maar, het komt niemand zomaar aanwaaien, er zal net zoals de witten hebben moeten doen, voor gewerkt moeten worden. We kunnen natuurlijk niet werken zoals die zwarte jongeman, die plaatselijke leider, die jarenlang in de gevangenis heeft gezeten voor zijn aandeel in de MAU MAU en de inbreng van het communisme, en het meeste van al die bomaanslagen in Zuid Afrika. Nee, niet zoals Nelson Mandela, de huidige president, want die is het. Waarom vraagt niemand zich af, waarom hij in de gevangenis heeft gezeten? Waarom vraagt niemand zich af, wat de Zuid Afrikaanse regering gedurende al die jaren heeft gedaan voor het welzijn van de zwarten? Hoe de thuislanden op poten zijn gezet door de regering? Leger, scholen, universiteiten, huizen, werk, en ga zo maar door. Waarom vraagt niemand zich af, hoe het komt dat er een Soweto-dag is? Hierom: Omdat er door bepaalde groeperingen zwarten in het (toen) officieel twee-talige land geen Afrikaans geleerd wilde worden, brandde men dan maar de basisscholen plat.... Tegenwoordig wordt er geklaagd, dat er geen scholen zijn. Ja, hallo!! We blijven niet aan de gang!! Waarom geloven de Xhosa's hun leider op zijn woord? Hij belooft hen koeien met gouden hoorns, maar ik betwijfel zeer sterk, dat hij het klaarspeelt om zijn beloftes te houden. Iedereen, die op hem stemt, zal een huis, een auto, werk, etc. krijgen..... Maar WERKEN, daar wordt niet over gesproken door Mandela. Hij wil dat alles aan zijn mensen "geven". Hij betreurt het intussentijd wel, dat "witte kennis" het land verlaat in een massa-exodus. (De z.g. "Chicken-run") Ja, dat haal je de koekoek!! Hoe het ook zij, er zijn in het verleden door beide partijen fouten gemaakt, ook zeer zeker fouten die niet meer goedgemaakt kunnen worden, van beide kanten. Gelijkheid? Prima. Gelijke betaling voor hetelfde werk? Prima. Maar dan ook voor hetzelfde werk, en niet voor minder, want net zoals iedere witman moet leren, dat de zwarten een andere levensstijl hebben, die niet per defintie minder waard is, en dat de zwarten geen minderwaardige mensen zijn, zo zal de zwarte moeten leren, dat datgene, waar hij nu voor vecht, voor het grijpen ligt, mits hij ervoor werkt.... Het is natuurlijk belachelijk, dat een zwarte, die zijn lagere school niet heeft afgemaakt, nu een goedbetaalde baan krijgt, omdat het zijn "democratisch recht" is. En dat gebeurt!! Er is nu een wet met de naam "Affirmative Action"... Zwarten hebben absolute voorrang in alles, omdat zij zwart zijn, niet omdat ze gestudeerd hebben. En niet alleen in banen, maar ook in sport. Absoluut belachelijk!! Het kan ook anders, het kan ook beter.... Er zijn ook zwarten die wel hun kansen hebben benut: Neem nu als voorbeeld eens die rijke zwarte, die Managing Director van een van de maatschappijen in Zuid Afrika. Deze man heeft een inkomen waar veel blanken alleen maar van kunnen dromen....Hij zegt: "Ondanks mijn rijkdom, zal ik NOOIT mijn oude stam-gebruiken de rug toekeren!" Maar, niemand vraagt dat ook aan hem. Blanke nationalisten zeggen dan: "Je kan een kaffir wel uit het bos halen, maar het bos nooit uit de kaffir." Ik vraag dan op mijn beurt: " Is het slecht om je eigen identiteit te behouden?? De gemiddelde Zuid Afrikaanse blanke zegt nu tegen de zwarten: "Ga je gang, als je de capaciteit er voor hebt kan jij ook die baan hebben. Je krijgt die baan niet, omdat je zwart bent. Blijf je echter je hand ophouden, zodat de wereld kan zien hoe "zielig" je wel bent, dan blijkt, dat ik, met mijn fouten die ik met de apartheid heb gemaakt, toch al die tijd gewoon gelijk heb gehad." Want het is nu ook aan jou, zwartman!" Maak WAAR die grote woorden, en laat Zuid Afrika niet eindigen zoals de rest van de landen van Afrika! Want "De Stem van Suid Afrika" zal in wat voor taal dan ook, voor ALLE mensen, zwart, wit en bruin moeten klinken: Uit die blou van onse hemel, Uit die diepte van ons see, Oor ons ewige gebergtes Waar die kranse antwoord gee, Deur ons ver-verlate vlaktes, Met die kreun van ossewa- Ruis die stem van ons geliefde Van ons land Suid Afrika. Ons sal antwoord op jou roepstem, Ons sal offer wat jy vra: Ons sal lewe, ons sal sterwe, Ons vir jou, Suid Afrika. En dan nu Zimbabwe... Het houdt nooit op....
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:16:23 +0200, "a.deemter" wrote: > APPLAUS!!! > > I live in Holland, but with the help of my South African wife, (Dutch > descent) I have studied South Africa now for 12 years. > I can only agree with you...... Again: applaus!! > > But did you know that the aveage Dutch person thinks Mandela is some sort of > god?? They only believe what the TV says... > > Some 8 years ago I wrote an article already about South Africa.... people > here didn't believe me.... > Amongst other things I stated: "We must stop NOW with giving help to Africa, > so the blacks MAY parhaps get off their butts and do something. They expect > us to help them all the time." > I lost most of my friends because of this article. "Those poor blacks!" they > said. > > I wish you all the luck!! > > Cor > > Hallo Cor, jy kan gerus in Nederlands skryf. Dit is tog een van die dialekte van Afrikaans, so almal hier sal jou verstaan. Is jy dalk die Cor in Nederland met wie ek somtyds oor Photoshop gesels? Hotmail adres? Cenakroon? ' ' Hier is vir jou iets om te lees en tot jou eie gevolgtrekking te kom. Dit kan jy gerus ook vir jou vriende gee. ********************************** ek het 'n vorige keer baie moeite gedoen om so brief te panelbeat, en daar was geen waardering daarvoor nie. Julle kan dus nou self die sinne beter in lyne kry. ********************************** [Here in his most famous speech, Mandela laid out the politics and policies of the African National Congress on a wide range of issues. Today Mandela is feted with praise all over the world. But when it was given, few supported him outside of black South Africans, members of African liberation movements on the continent, and leaders like Malcolm X in the United States. Members of the South African and other Communist Parties, and Cuba were firm supporters of Mandela and the ANC's struggle from the earliest days. Mandela visited Cuba shortly after he was released from prison after 17 years, to express his appreciation for Cuba's solidarity. Some may have forgotten what Mandela fought for, but this is a good time to remind ourselves. Mandela was accused of being a terrorist and a Communist then. Washington was in apartheid's corner then. Full social justice remains to be accomplished in South Africa, but much has been accomplished. Some seem to have forgotten that today.-WL] African National Congress (South Africa) http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html "I am Prepared to Die" Nelson Mandela's statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the Rivonia Trial, Pretoria Supreme Court 20 April 1964 I am the First Accused. I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Arts and practised as an attorney in Johannesburg for a number of years in partnership with Oliver Tambo. I am a convicted prisoner serving five years for leaving the country without a permit and for inciting people to go on strike at the end of May 1961. At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion made by the State in its opening that the struggle in South Africa is under the influence of foreigners or communists is wholly incorrect. I have done whatever I did, both as an individual and as a leader of my people, because of my experience in South Africa and my own proudly felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said. In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case. Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites. I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962. In the statement which I am about to make I shall correct certain false impressions which have been created by State witnesses. Amongst other things, I will demonstrate that certain of the acts referred to in the evidence were not and could not have been committed by Umkhonto. I will also deal with the relationship between the African National Congress and Umkhonto, and with the part which I personally have played in the affairs of both organizations. I shall deal also with the part played by the Communist Party. In order to explain these matters properly, I will have to explain what Umkhonto set out to achieve; what methods it prescribed for the achievement of these objects, and why these methods were chosen. I will also have to explain how I became involved in the activities of these organizations. I deny that Umkhonto was responsible for a number of acts which clearly fell outside the policy of the organisation, and which have been charged in the indictment against us. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, but to demonstrate that they could not have been authorized by Umkhonto, I want to refer briefly to the roots and policy of the organization. I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence. But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the Court is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the whole history of our organization bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt. I want, therefore, to say something about the African National Congress. The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven years - that is until 1949 - it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights. But White Governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: "who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all". Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At this time, however, there was a change from the strictly constitutional means of protest which had been employed in the past. The change was embodied in a decision which was taken to protest against apartheid legislation by peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations against certain laws. Pursuant to this policy the ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in which I was placed in charge of volunteers. This campaign was based on the principles of passive resistance. More than 8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to jail. Yet there was not a single instance of violence in the course of this campaign on the part of any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were convicted for the role which we played in organizing the campaign, but our sentences were suspended mainly because the Judge found that discipline and non-violence had been stressed throughout. This was the time when the volunteer section of the ANC was established, and when the word 'Amadelakufa' was first used: this was the time when the volunteers were asked to take a pledge to uphold certain principles. Evidence dealing with volunteers and their pledges has been introduced into this case, but completely out of context. The volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army pledged to fight a civil war against the whites. They were, and are. dedicated workers who are prepared to lead campaigns initiated by the ANC to distribute leaflets, to organize strikes, or do whatever the particular campaign required. They are called volunteers because they volunteer to face the penalties of imprisonment and whipping which are now prescribed by the legislature for such acts. During the Defiance Campaign, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed. These Statutes provided harsher penalties for offences committed by way of protests against laws. Despite this, the protests continued and the ANC adhered to its policy of non-violence. In 1956, 156 leading members of the Congress Alliance, including myself, were arrested on a charge of high treason and charges under the Suppression of Communism Act. The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in issue by the State, but when the Court gave judgement some five years later, it found that the ANC did not have a policy of violence. We were acquitted on all counts, which included a count that the ANC sought to set up a communist state in place of the existing regime. The Government has always sought to label all its opponents as communists. This allegation has been repeated in the present case, but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist organization. In 1960 there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which resulted in the proclamation of a state of emergency and the declaration of the ANC as an unlawful organization. My colleagues and I, after careful consideration, decided that we would not obey this decree. The African people were not part of the Government and did not make the laws by which they were governed. We believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that 'the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the Government', and for us to accept the banning was equivalent to accepting the silencing of the Africans for all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead went underground. We believed it was our duty to preserve this organization which had been built up with almost fifty years of unremitting toil. I have no doubt that no self-respecting White political organization would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no say. In 1960 the Government held a referendum which led to the establishment of the Republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70 per cent of the population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not even consulted about the proposed constitutional change. All of us were apprehensive of our future under the proposed White Republic, and a resolution was taken to hold an All-In African Conference to call for a National Convention, and to organize mass demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted Republic, if the Government failed to call the Convention. The conference was attended by Africans of various political persuasions. I was the Secretary of the conference and undertook to be responsible for organizing the national stay-at-home which was subsequently called to coincide with the declaration of the Republic. As all strikes by Africans are illegal, the person organizing such a strike must avoid arrest. I was chosen to be this person, and consequently I had to leave my home and family and my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest. The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organizers and members to avoid any recourse to violence. The Government's answer was to introduce new and harsher laws, to mobilize its armed forces, and to send Saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed to intimidate the people. This was an indication that the Government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto. Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I believe none of it is irrelevant because it will, I hope, enable the Court to appreciate the attitude eventually adopted by the various persons and bodies concerned in the National Liberation Movement. When I went to jail in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss of life should be avoided. I now know that this was still so in 1963. I must return to June 1961. What were we, the leaders of our people, to do? Were we to give in to the show of force and the implied threat against future action, or were we to fight it and, if so, how? We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was how to continue the fight. We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. It may not be easy for this Court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time the people had been talking of violence - of the day when they would fight the White man and win back their country - and we, the leaders of the ANC, had nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to pursue peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a nonracial State by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism. It must not be forgotten that by this time violence had, in fact, become a feature of the South African political scene. There had been violence in 1957 when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was violence in 1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass raids; there was violence in 1960 when the Government attempted to impose Bantu Authorities in Pondoland. Thirty-nine Africans died in these disturbances. In 1961 there had been riots in Warmbaths, and all this time the Transkei had been a seething mass of unrest. Each disturbance pointed clearly to the inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that violence was the only way out - it showed that a Government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it. Already small groups had arisen in the urban areas and were spontaneously making plans for violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against Africans, as well as Whites, if not properly directed. Particularly disturbing was the type of violence engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland, and Pondoland amongst Africans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle against the Government - though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife amongst themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve anything other than a loss of life and bitterness. At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the Government met our peaceful demands with force. This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the Government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is Exhibit AD, we said: "The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices - submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom". This was our feeling in June of 1961 when we decided to press for a change in the policy of the National Liberation Movement. I can only say that I felt morally obliged to do what I did. We who had taken this decision started to consult leaders of various organizations, including the ANC. I will not say whom we spoke to, or what they said, but I wish to deal with the role of the African National Congress in this phase of the struggle, and with the policy and objectives of Umkhonto we Sizwe. As far as the ANC was concerned, it formed a clear view which can be summarized as follows: 1. It was a mass political organization with a political function to fulfil. Its members had joined on the express policy of non-violence. 2. Because of all this, it could not and would not undertake violence. This must be stressed. One cannot turn such a body into the small, closely knit organization required for sabotage. Nor would this be politically correct, because it would result in members ceasing to carry out this essential activity: political propaganda and organization. Nor was it permissible to change the whole nature of the organization. 3. On the other hand, in view of this situation I have described, the ANC was prepared to depart from its fifty-year-old policy of non-violence to this extent that it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence. Hence members who undertook such activity would not be subject to disciplinary action by the ANC. I say 'properly controlled violence' because I made it clear that if I formed the organization I would at all times subject it to the political guidance of the ANC and would not undertake any different form of activity from that contemplated without the consent of the ANC. And I shall now tell the Court how that form of violence came to be determined. As a result of this decision, Umkhonto was formed in November 1961. When we took this decision, and subsequently formulated our plans, the ANC heritage of non-violence and racial harmony was very much with us. We felt that the country was drifting towards a civil war in which Blacks and Whites would fight each other. We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war could mean the destruction of what the ANC stood for; with civil war, racial peace would be more difficult than ever to achieve. We already have examples in South African history of the results of war. It has taken more than fifty years for the scars of the South African War to disappear. How much longer would it take to eradicate the scars of inter-racial civil war, which could not be fought without a great loss of life on both sides? The avoidance of civil war had dominated our thinking for many years, but when we decided to adopt violence as part of our policy, we realized that we might one day have to face the prospect of such a war. This had to be taken into account in formulating our plans. We required a plan which was flexible and which permitted us to act in accordance with the needs of the times; above all, the plan had to be one which recognized civil war as the last resort, and left the decision on this question to the future. We did not want to be committed to civil war, but we wanted to be ready if it became inevitable. Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision. In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. This is what we felt at the time, and this is what we said in our Manifesto (Exhibit AD): "We of Umkhonto we Sizwe have always sought to achieve liberation without bloodshed and civil clash. We hope, even at this late hour, that our first actions will awaken everyone to a realization of the disastrous situation to which the Nationalist policy is leading. We hope that we will bring the Government and its supporters to their senses before it is too late, so that both the Government and its policies can be changed before matters reach the desperate state of civil war." The initial plan was based on a careful analysis of the political and economic situation of our country. We believed that South Africa depended to a large extent on foreign capital and foreign trade. We felt that planned destruction of power plants, and interference with rail and telephone communications, would tend to scare away capital from the country, make it more difficult for goods from the industrial areas to reach the seaports on schedule, and would in the long run be a heavy drain on the economic life of the country, thus compelling the voters of the country to reconsider their position. Attacks on the economic life lines of the country were to be linked with sabotage on Government buildings and other symbols of apartheid. These attacks would serve as a source of inspiration to our people. In addition, they would provide an outlet for those people who were urging the adoption of violent methods and would enable us to give concrete proof to our followers that we had adopted a stronger line and were fighting back against Government violence. In addition, if mass action were successfully organized, and mass reprisals taken, we felt that sympathy for our cause would be roused in other countries, and that greater pressure would be brought to bear on the South African Government. This then was the plan. Umkhonto was to perform sabotage, and strict instructions were given to its members right from the start, that on no account were they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out operations. These instructions have been referred to in the evidence of 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z'. The affairs of the Umkhonto were controlled and directed by a National High Command, which had powers of co-option and which could, and did, appoint Regional Commands. The High Command was the body which determined tactics and targets and was in charge of training and finance. Under the High Command there were Regional Commands which were responsible for the direction of the local sabotage groups. Within the framework of the policy laid down by the National High Command, the Regional Commands had authority to select the targets to be attacked. They had no authority to go beyond the prescribed framework and thus had no authority to embark upon acts which endangered life, or which did not fit into the overall plan of sabotage. For instance, Umkhonto members were forbidden ever to go armed into operation. Incidentally, the terms High Command and Regional Command were an importation from the Jewish national underground organization Irgun Zvai Leumi, which operated in Israel between 1944 and 1948. Umkhonto had its first operation on 16 December 1961, when Government buildings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban were attacked. The selection of targets is proof of the policy to which I have referred. Had we intended to attack life we would have selected targets where people congregated and not empty buildings and power stations. The sabotage which was committed before 16 December 1961 was the work of isolated groups and had no connection whatever with Umkhonto. In fact, some of these and a number of later acts were claimed by other organizations. The Manifesto of Umkhonto was issued on the day that operations commenced. The response to our actions and Manifesto among the white population was characteristically violent. The Government threatened to take strong action, and called upon its supporters to stand firm and to ignore the demands of the Africans. The Whites failed to respond by suggesting change; they responded to our call by suggesting the laager. In contrast, the response of the Africans was one of encouragement. Suddenly there was hope again. Things were happening. People in the townships became eager for political news. A great deal of enthusiasm was generated by the initial successes, and people began to speculate on how soon freedom would be obtained. But we in Umkhonto weighed up the white response with anxiety. The lines were being drawn. The whites and blacks were moving into separate camps, and the prospects of avoiding a civil war were made less. The white newspapers carried reports that sabotage would be punished by death. If this was so, how could we continue to keep Africans away from terrorism? Already scores of Africans had died as a result of racial friction. In 1920 when the famous leader, Masabala, was held in Port Elizabeth jail, twenty-four of a group of Africans who had gathered to demand his release were killed by the police and white civilians. In 1921, more than one hundred Africans died in the Bulhoek affair. In 1924 over two hundred Africans were killed when the Administrator of South-West Africa led a force against a group which had rebelled against the imposition of dog tax. On 1 May 1950, eighteen Africans died as a result of police shootings during the strike. On 21 March 1960, sixty-nine unarmed Africans died at Sharpeville. How many more Sharpevilles would there be in the history of our country? And how many more Sharpevilles could the country stand without violence and terror becoming the order of the day? And what would happen to our people when that stage was reached? In the long run we felt certain we must succeed, but at what cost to ourselves and the rest of the country? And if this happened, how could black and white ever live together again in peace and harmony? These were the problems that faced us, and these were our decisions. Experience convinced us that rebellion would offer the Government limitless opportunities for the indiscriminate slaughter of our people. But it was precisely because the soil of South Africa is already drenched with the blood of innocent Africans that we felt it our duty to make preparations as a long-term undertaking to use force in order to defend ourselves against force. If war were inevitable, we wanted the fight to be conducted on terms most favourable to our people. The fight which held out prospects best for us and the least risk of life to both sides was guerrilla warfare. We decided, therefore, in our preparations for the future, to make provision for the possibility of guerrilla warfare. All whites undergo compulsory military training, but no such training was given to Africans. It was in our view essential to build up a nucleus of trained men who would be able to provide the leadership which would be required if guerrilla warfare started. We had to prepare for such a situation before it became too late to make proper preparations. It was also necessary to build up a nucleus of men trained in civil administration and other professions, so that Africans would be equipped to participate in the government of this country as soon as they were allowed to do so. At this stage it was decided that I should attend the Conference of the Pan-African Freedom Movement for Central, East, and Southern Africa, which was to be held early in 1962 in Addis Ababa, and, because of our need for preparation, it was also decided that, after the conference, I would undertake a tour of the African States with a view to obtaining facilities for the training of soldiers, and that I would also solicit scholarships for the higher education of matriculated Africans. Training in both fields would be necessary, even if changes came about by peaceful means. Administrators would be necessary who would be willing and able to administer a non-racial State and so would men be necessary to control the army and police force of such a State. It was on this note that I left South Africa to proceed to Addis Ababa as a delegate of the ANC. My tour was a success. Wherever I went I met sympathy for our cause and promises of help. All Africa was united against the stand of White South Africa, and even in London I was received with great sympathy by political leaders, such as Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Grimond. In Africa I was promised support by such men as Julius Nyerere, now President of Tanganyika; Mr. Kawawa, then Prime Minister of Tanganyika; Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia; General Abboud, President of the Sudan; Habib Bourguiba, President of Tunisia; Ben Bella, now President of Algeria; Modibo Keita, President of Mali; Leopold Senghor, President of Senegal; Sekou Toure, President of Guinea; President Tubman of Liberia; and Milton Obote, Prime Minister of Uganda. It was Ben Bella who invited me to visit Oujda, the Headquarters of the Algerian Army of National Liberation, the visit which is described in my diary, one of the Exhibits. I started to make a study of the art of war and revolution and, whilst abroad, underwent a course in military training. If there was to be guerrilla warfare, I wanted to be able to stand and fight with my people and to share the hazards of war with them. Notes of lectures which I received in Algeria are contained in Exhibit 16, produced in evidence. Summaries of books on guerrilla warfare and military strategy have also been produced. I have already admitted that these documents are in my writing, and I acknowledge that I made these studies to equip myself for the role which I might have to play if the struggle drifted into guerrilla warfare. I approached this question as every African Nationalist should do. I was completely objective. The Court will see that I attempted to examine all types of authority on the subject - from the East and from the West, going back to the classic work of Clausewitz, and covering such a variety as Mao Tse Tung and Che Guevara on the one hand, and the writings on the Anglo-Boer War on the other. Of course, these notes are merely summaries of the books I read and do not contain my personal views. I also made arrangements for our recruits to undergo military training. But here it was impossible to organize any scheme without the co-operation of the ANC offices in Africa. I consequently obtained the permission of the ANC in South Africa to do this. To this extent then there was a departure from the original decision of the ANC, but it applied outside South Africa only. The first batch of recruits actually arrived in Tanganyika when I was passing through that country on my way back to South Africa. I returned to South Africa and reported to my colleagues on the results of my trip. On my return I found that there had been little alteration in the political scene save that the threat of a death penalty for sabotage had now become a fact. The attitude of my colleagues in Umkhonto was much the same as it had been before I left. They were feeling their way cautiously and felt that it would be a long time before the possibilities of sabotage were exhausted. In fact, the view was expressed by some that the training of recruits was premature. This is recorded by me in the document which is Exhibit R.14. After a full discussion, however, it was decided to go ahead with the plans for military training because of the fact that it would take many years to build up a sufficient nucleus of trained soldiers to start a guerrilla campaign, and whatever happened the training would be of value. I wish to turn now to certain general allegations made in this case by the State. But before doing so, I wish to revert to certain occurrences said by witnesses to have happened in Port Elizabeth and East London. I am referring to the bombing of private houses of pro-Government persons during September, October and November 1962. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, nor what provocation had been given. But if what I have said already is accepted, then it is clear that these acts had nothing to do with the carrying out of the policy of Umkhonto. One of the chief allegations in the indictment is that the ANC was a party to a general conspiracy to commit sabotage. I have already explained why this is incorrect but how, externally, there was a departure from the original principle laid down by the ANC. There has, of course, been overlapping of functions internally as well, because there is a difference between a resolution adopted in the atmosphere of a committee room and the concrete difficulties that arise in the field of practical activity. At a later stage the position was further affected by bannings and house arrests, and by persons leaving the country to take up political work abroad. This led to individuals having to do work in different capacities. But though this may have blurred the distinction between Umkhonto and the ANC, it by no means abolished that distinction. Great care was taken to keep the activities of the two organizations in South Africa distinct. The ANC remained a mass political body of Africans only carrying on the type of political work they had conducted prior to 1961. Umkhonto remained a small organization recruiting its members from different races and organizations and trying to achieve its own particular object. The fact that members of Umkhonto were recruited from the ANC, and the fact that persons served both organizations, like Solomon Mbanjwa, did not, in our view, change the nature of the ANC or give it a policy of violence. This overlapping of officers, however, was more the exception than the rule. This is why persons such as 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z', who were on the Regional Command of their respective areas, did not participate in any of the ANC committees or activities, and why people such as Mr. Bennett Mashiyana and Mr. Reginald Ndubi did not hear of sabotage at their ANC meetings. Another of the allegations in the indictment is that Rivonia was the headquarters of Umkhonto. This is not true of the time when I was there. I was told, of course, and knew that certain of the activities of the Communist Party were carried on there. But this is no reason (as I shall presently explain) why I should not use the place. I came there in the following manner: 1. As already indicated, early in April 1961 I went underground to organize the May general strike. My work entailed travelling throughout the country, living now in African townships, then in country villages and again in cities. During the second half of the year I started visiting the Parktown home of Arthur Goldreich, where I used to meet my family privately. Although I had no direct political association with him, I had known Arthur Goldreich socially since 1958. 2. In October, Arthur Goldreich informed me that he was moving out of town and offered me a hiding place there. A few days thereafter, he arranged for Michael Harmel to take me to Rivonia. I naturally found Rivonia an ideal place for the man who lived the life of an outlaw. Up to that time I had been compelled to live indoors during the daytime and could only venture out under cover of darkness. But at Liliesleaf [farm, Rivonia,] I could live differently and work far more efficiently. 3. For obvious reasons, I had to disguise myself and I assumed the fictitious name of David. In December, Arthur Goldreich and his family moved in. I stayed there until I went abroad on 11 January 1962. As already indicated, I returned in July 1962 and was arrested in Natal on 5 August. 4. Up to the time of my arrest, Liliesleaf farm was the headquarters of neither the African National Congress nor Umkhonto. With the exception of myself, none of the officials or members of these bodies lived there, no meetings of the governing bodies were ever held there, and no activities connected with them were either organized or directed from there. On numerous occasions during my stay at Liliesleaf farm I met both the Executive Committee of the ANC, as well as the NHC, but such meetings were held elsewhere and not on the farm. 5. Whilst staying at Liliesleaf farm, I frequently visited Arthur Goldreich in the main house and he also paid me visits in my room. We had numerous political discussions covering a variety of subjects. We discussed ideological and practical questions, the Congress Alliance, Umkhonto and its activities generally, and his experiences as a soldier in the Palmach, the military wing of the Haganah. Haganah was the political authority of the Jewish National Movement in Palestine. 6. Because of what I had got to know of Goldreich, I recommended on my return to South Africa that he should be recruited to Umkhonto. I do not know of my personal knowledge whether this was done. Another of the allegations made by the State is that the aims and objects of the ANC and the Communist Party are the same. I wish to deal with this and with my own political position, because I must assume that the State may try to argue from certain Exhibits that I tried to introduce Marxism into the ANC. The allegation as to the ANC is false. This is an old allegation which was disproved at the Treason Trial and which has again reared its head. But since the allegation has been made again, I shall deal with it as well as with the relationship between the ANC and the Communist Party and Umkhonto and that party. The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of African Nationalism. It is not the concept of African Nationalism expressed in the cry, 'Drive the White man into the sea'. The African Nationalism for which the ANC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfilment for the African people in their own land. The most important political document ever adopted by the ANC is the 'Freedom Charter'. It is by no means a blueprint for a socialist state. It calls for redistribution, but not nationalization, of land; it provides for nationalization of mines, banks, and monopoly industry, because big monopolies are owned by one race only, and without such nationalization racial domination would be perpetuated despite the spread of political power. It would be a hollow gesture to repeal the Gold Law prohibitions against Africans when all gold mines are owned by European companies. In this respect the ANC's policy corresponds with the old policy of the present Nationalist Party which, for many years, had as part of its programme the nationalization of the gold mines which, at that time, were controlled by foreign capital. Under the Freedom Charter, nationalization would take place in an economy based on private enterprise. The realization of the Freedom Charter would open up fresh fields for a prosperous African population of all classes, including the middle class. The ANC has never at any period of its history advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure of the country, nor has it, to the best of my recollection, ever condemned capitalist society. As far as the Communist Party is concerned, and if I understand its policy correctly, it stands for the establishment of a State based on the principles of Marxism. Although it is prepared to work for the Freedom Charter, as a short term solution to the problems created by white supremacy, it regards the Freedom Charter as the beginning, and not the end, of its programme. The ANC, unlike the Communist Party, admitted Africans only as members. Its chief goal was, and is, for the African people to win unity and full political rights. The Communist Party's main aim, on the other hand, was to remove the capitalists and to replace them with a working-class government. The Communist Party sought to emphasize class distinctions whilst the ANC seeks to harmonize them. This is a vital distinction. It is true that there has often been close co-operation between the ANC and the Communist Party. But co-operation is merely proof of a common goal - in this case the removal of white supremacy - and is not proof of a complete community of interests. The history of the world is full of similar examples. Perhaps the most striking illustration is to be found in the co-operation between Great Britain, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union in the fight against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to suggest that such co-operation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into communists or communist tools, or that Britain and America were working to bring about a communist world. Another instance of such co-operation is to be found precisely in Umkhonto. Shortly after Umkhonto was constituted, I was informed by some of its members that the Communist Party would support Umkhonto, and this then occurred. At a later stage the support was made openly. I believe that communists have always played an active role in the fight by colonial countries for their freedom, because the short-term objects of communism would always correspond with the long-term objects of freedom movements. Thus communists have played an important role in the freedom struggles fought in countries such as Malaya, Algeria, and Indonesia, yet none of these States today are communist countries. Similarly in the underground resistance movements which sprung up in Europe during the last World War, communists played an important role. Even General Chiang Kai-Shek, today one of the bitterest enemies of communism, fought together with the communists against the ruling class in the struggle which led to his assumption of power in China in the 1930s. This pattern of co-operation between communists and non-communists has been repeated in the National Liberation Movement of South Africa. Prior to the banning of the Communist Party, joint campaigns involving the Communist Party and the Congress movements were accepted practice. African communists could, and did, become members of the ANC, and some served on the National, Provincial, and local committees. Amongst those who served on the National Executive are Albert Nzula, a former Secretary of the Communist Party, Moses Kotane, another former Secretary, and J. B. Marks, a former member of the Central Committee. I joined the ANC in 1944, and in my younger days I held the view that the policy of admitting communists to the ANC, and the close co-operation which existed at times on specific issues between the ANC and the Communist Party, would lead to a watering down of the concept of African Nationalism. At that stage I was a member of the African National Congress Youth League, and was one of a group which moved for the expulsion of communists from the ANC. This proposal was heavily defeated. Amongst those who voted against the proposal were some of the most conservative sections of African political opinion. They defended the policy on the ground that from its inception the ANC was formed and built up, not as a political party with one school of political thought, but as a Parliament of the African people, accommodating people of various political convictions, all united by the common goal of national liberation. I was eventually won over to this point of view and I have upheld it ever since. It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African politicians so readily accept communists as their friends. But to us the reason is obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this stage. What is more, for many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us, and work with us. They were the only political group which was prepared to work with the Africans for the attainment of political rights and a stake in society. Because of this, there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with communism. They are supported in this belief by a legislature which brands all exponents of democratic government and African freedom as communists and bans many of them (who are not communists) under the Suppression of Communism Act. Although I have never been a member of the Communist Party, I myself have been named under that pernicious Act because of the role I played in the Defiance Campaign. I have also been banned and imprisoned under that Act. It is not only in internal politics that we count communists as amongst those who support our cause. In the international field, communist countries have always come to our aid. In the United Nations and other Councils of the world the communist bloc has supported the Afro-Asian struggle against colonialism and often seems to be more sympathetic to our plight than some of the Western powers. Although there is a universal condemnation of apartheid, the communist bloc speaks out against it with a louder voice than most of the white world. In these circumstances, it would take a brash young politician, such as I was in 1949, to proclaim that the Communists are our enemies. I turn now to my own position. I have denied that I am a communist, and I think that in the circumstances I am obliged to state exactly what my political beliefs are. I have always regarded myself, in the first place, as an African patriot. After all, I was born in Umtata, forty-six years ago. My guardian was my cousin, who was the acting paramount chief of Tembuland, and I am related both to the present paramount chief of Tembuland, Sabata Dalindyebo, and to Kaizer Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the Transkei. Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society, an attraction which springs in part from Marxist reading and, in part, from my admiration of the structure and organization of early African societies in this country. The land, then the main means of production, belonged to the tribe. There were no rich or poor and there was no exploitation. It is true, as I have already stated, that I have been influenced by Marxist thought. But this is also true of many of the leaders of the new independent States. Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah, and Nasser all acknowledge this fact. We all accept the need for some form of socialism to enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of this world and to overcome their legacy of extreme poverty. But this does not mean we are Marxists. Indeed, for my own part, I believe that it is open to debate whether the Communist Party has any specific role to play at this particular stage of our political struggle. The basic task at the present moment is the removal of race discrimination and the attainment of democratic rights on the basis of the Freedom Charter. In so far as that Party furthers this task, I welcome its assistance. I realize that it is one of the means by which people of all races can be drawn into our struggle. > From my reading of Marxist literature and from conversations with Marxists, I have gained the impression that communists regard the parliamentary system of the West as undemocratic and reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an admirer of such a system. The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world. I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country's system of justice. I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration. The American Congress, that country's doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments. I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this has led me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be absolutely impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no particular system of society other than of socialism. I must leave myself free to borrow the best from the West and from the East . . . There are certain Exhibits which suggest that we received financial support from abroad, and I wish to deal with this question. Our political struggle has always been financed from internal sources - from funds raised by our own people and by our own supporters. Whenever we had a special campaign or an important political case - for example, the Treason Trial - we received financial assistance from sympathetic individuals and organizations in the Western countries. We had never felt it necessary to go beyond these sources. But when in 1961 the Umkhonto was formed, and a new phase of struggle introduced, we realized that these events would make a heavy call on our slender resources, and that the scale of our activities would be hampered by the lack of funds. One of my instructions, as I went abroad in January 1962, was to raise funds from the African states. I must add that, whilst abroad, I had discussions with leaders of political movements in Africa and discovered that almost every single one of them, in areas which had still not attained independence, had received all forms of assistance from the socialist countries, as well as from the West, including that of financial support. I also discovered that some well-known African states, all of them non-communists, and even anti-communists, had received similar assistance. On my return to the Republic, I made a strong recommendation to the ANC that we should not confine ourselves to Africa and the Western countries, but that we should also send a mission to the socialist countries to raise the funds which we so urgently needed. I have been told that after I was convicted such a mission was sent, but I am not prepared to name any countries to which it went, nor am I at liberty to disclose the names of the organizations and countries which gave us support or promised to do so. As I understand the State case, and in particular the evidence of 'Mr. X', the suggestion is that Umkhonto was the inspiration of the Communist Party which sought by playing upon imaginary grievances to enrol the African people into an army which ostensibly was to fight for African freedom, but in reality was fighting for a communist state. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the suggestion is preposterous. Umkhonto was formed by Africans to further their struggle for freedom in their own land. Communists and others supported the movement, and we only wish that more sections of the community would join us. Our fight is against real, and not imaginary, hardships or, to use the language of the State Prosecutor, 'so-called hardships'. Basically, we fight against two features which are the hallmarks of African life in South Africa and which are entrenched by legislation which we seek to have repealed. These features are poverty and lack of human dignity, and we do not need communists or so-called 'agitators' to teach us about these things. South Africa is the richest country in Africa, and could be one of the richest countries in the world. But it is a land of extremes and remarkable contrasts. The whites enjoy what may well be the highest standard of living in the world, whilst Africans live in poverty and misery. Forty per cent of the Africans live in hopelessly overcrowded and, in some cases, drought-stricken Reserves, where soil erosion and the overworking of the soil makes it impossible for them to live properly off the land. Thirty per cent are labourers, labour tenants, and squatters on white farms and work and live under conditions similar to those of the serfs of the Middle Ages. The other 30 per cent live in towns where they have developed economic and social habits which bring them closer in many respects to white standards. Yet most Africans, even in this group, are impoverished by low incomes and high cost of living. The highest-paid and the most prosperous section of urban African life is in Johannesburg. Yet their actual position is desperate. The latest figures were given on 25 March 1964 by Mr. Carr, Manager of the Johannesburg Non-European Affairs Department. The poverty datum line for the average African family in Johannesburg (according to Mr. Carr's department) is R42.84 per month. He showed that the average monthly wage is R32.24 and that 46 per cent of all African families in Johannesburg do not earn enough to keep them going. Poverty goes hand in hand with malnutrition and disease. The incidence of malnutrition and deficiency diseases is very high amongst Africans. Tuberculosis, pellagra, kwashiorkor, gastro-enteritis, and scurvy bring death and destruction of health. The incidence of infant mortality is one of the highest in the world. According to the Medical Officer of Health for Pretoria, tuberculosis kills forty people a day (almost all Africans), and in 1961 there were 58,491 new cases reported. These diseases not only destroy the vital organs of the body, but they result in retarded mental conditions and lack of initiative, and reduce powers of concentration. The secondary results of such conditions affect the whole community and the standard of work performed by African labourers. The complaint of Africans, however, is not only that they are poor and the whites are rich, but that the laws which are made by the whites are designed to preserve this situation. There are two ways to break out of poverty. The first is by formal education, and the second is by
a.deemter wrote: > APPLAUS!!! > > I live in Holland, but with the help of my South African wife, (Dutch > descent) I have studied South Africa now for 12 years. > I can only agree with you...... Again: applaus!! > > But did you know that the aveage Dutch person thinks Mandela is some sort > of god?? They only believe what the TV says... > > Some 8 years ago I wrote an article already about South Africa.... people > here didn't believe me.... > Amongst other things I stated: "We must stop NOW with giving help to > Africa, so the blacks MAY parhaps get off their butts and do something. > They expect us to help them all the time." > I lost most of my friends because of this article. "Those poor blacks!" > they said. > > I wish you all the luck!! > > Cor Hi Cor, Where can I read this article you wrote? Should be interesting to compare it with the situation at present. Can you perhaps post it here if you still have it? TIA -- _______ WalkTall What a tragedy!!