South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, I watched the video you’re pointing to. The host frames the ANC's land reform efforts—and broader rhetoric—as part of a campaign of racial hostility against white South Africans. That’s a serious charge, and it deserves scrutiny. But we also need to separate emotional provocation from structural analysis.

Posting that, I did figure on it being challenged on that basis. But because I am more interested in political realism I think it as valid to focus on what people think and feel.

I think that man views the AMC as corrupt, ineffective (a polite way to put it) and destructive of SA’s potential. More simply put, things cannot go on as they are now. And now — potentially anyway — is the time when the currents begin to reverse.

The primary hope, the first step, can only realistically be that the ANC is voted out of power. However, for that to happen a great deal of pressure will have to be applied — here the recent interest of the US in SA is relevant. The ground has to be established for progress to occur.

To the degree that the idealistic defense of “social justice” is not based in sound economic choices, is the degree that this idealism fails. The way forward for poor people is always a complex issue. I base this on years living in Latin America. The rhetoric of revolution, of socialism, when power is given to a corrupt, incompetent class hopped up on resentment, it seems always to result in the same: stagnation.

But when the poor classes begin to develop an economy — this involves a change in mindset and habit — then other sorts of change become possible.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But we shouldn’t let toxic rhetoric obscure the underlying issue: South Africa’s land distribution remains one of the most unequal in the world, a legacy of apartheid and colonization that has never been adequately addressed. To say this is not to endorse confiscation without process, or to dismiss the fear and anger of white farmers—it’s to point out that the system is broken for millions who never had a stake in the first place.

[…]

The question isn’t whether power should be used. It’s how—and to what end. Rhetoric that incites fear and division betrays the very goal of justice it claims to serve. But denying the need for change, or dismissing reform as persecution, is just as destructive. South Africa doesn’t need heroes or villains right now. It needs grown-ups.

Yes, and I think our perspectives stand in contrast and have irreconcilable elements. I do not have any skin in this game (Skepdick certainly does though) and it is all theoretical for me.

I see the issue differently. Poor people (primitive Africans who do not have the cultural, intellectual and economic resources of their European counterparts) require guidance by capable elites. They cannot do it on their own.

Even if land were distributed (for farming) it is unlikely that those receiving it would be capable of developing it. But I can agree (theoretically, as I do not live there) that land owned by the government should be distributed and titles given.

But really the issue is that of a primitive people learning the ways and means of achieving economic growth. It involves a training and education process. They have to choose to submit to “foreign” ideas and ways of living.

What I just said here will clang sourly in some ears. In my case, living in South America, I opt to see things in pragmatic ways. All of Latin America deals with at least similar issues.

[BigMike]

But we shouldn’t let toxic rhetoric obscure the underlying issue: South Africa’s land distribution remains one of the most unequal in the world, a legacy of apartheid and colonization that has never been adequately addressed. To say this is not to endorse confiscation without process, or to dismiss the fear and anger of white farmers—it’s to point out that the system is broken for millions who never had a stake in the first place.

[…]

The question isn’t whether power should be used. It’s how—and to what end. Rhetoric that incites fear and division betrays the very goal of justice it claims to serve. But denying the need for change, or dismissing reform as persecution, is just as destructive. South Africa doesn’t need heroes or villains right now. It needs grown-ups.

Yes, and I think our perspectives stand in contrast and have irreconcilable elements. I do not have any skin in this game (Skepdick certainly does though) and it is all theoretical for me.

I see the issue differently. Poor people (primitive Africans who do not have the cultural, intellectual and economic resources of their European counterparts) require guidance by capable elites. They cannot do it on their own.

Even if land were distributed (for farming) it is unlikely that those receiving it would be capable of developing it. But I can agree (theoretically, as I do not live there) that land owned by the government should be distributed and titles given.

But really the issue is that of a primitive people learning the ways and means of achieving economic growth. It involves a training and education process. They have to choose to submit to “foreign” ideas and ways of living.

What I just said here will clang sourly in some ears. In my case, living in South America, I opt to see things in pragmatic ways. All of Latin America deals with at least similar issues.

Alexis, you’re right—our perspectives do diverge sharply here. But the divergence isn’t just theoretical—it’s about how we see human potential, dignity, and the roots of inequality.

When you describe Black South Africans as “primitive Africans” who must be guided by elites and taught “foreign” ways, you’re not being pragmatic—you’re repeating a colonial mindset dressed up as realism. It's the same logic that once justified dispossession in the first place: the belief that some people are inherently unfit to lead, to own, to thrive—until molded by those deemed superior.

History shows that capacity isn’t fixed by race or culture. It's shaped by access, opportunity, and power. When entire populations are systematically excluded from land, capital, and education, of course they’ll start from behind. But that’s not evidence of inferiority—it’s evidence of historical injustice. And assuming they need to “submit” to someone else’s ways to succeed is both paternalistic and false.

I’m not romanticizing poverty or defending incompetence. But I am rejecting the idea that people who’ve been historically excluded can only rise under tutelage from those who once excluded them.

If we want a functional society—whether in South Africa, South America, or anywhere else—we need more than capable elites. We need inclusive systems that invest in people from the ground up, and recognize that dignity and potential aren’t distributed by ancestry—they’re unleashed by opportunity.

[accelafine]

But we shouldn’t let toxic rhetoric obscure the underlying issue: South Africa’s land distribution remains one of the most unequal in the world, a legacy of apartheid and colonization that has never been adequately addressed. To say this is not to endorse confiscation without process, or to dismiss the fear and anger of white farmers—it’s to point out that the system is broken for millions who never had a stake in the first place.

[…]

The question isn’t whether power should be used. It’s how—and to what end. Rhetoric that incites fear and division betrays the very goal of justice it claims to serve. But denying the need for change, or dismissing reform as persecution, is just as destructive. South Africa doesn’t need heroes or villains right now. It needs grown-ups.

Yes, and I think our perspectives stand in contrast and have irreconcilable elements. I do not have any skin in this game (Skepdick certainly does though) and it is all theoretical for me.

I see the issue differently. Poor people (primitive Africans who do not have the cultural, intellectual and economic resources of their European counterparts) require guidance by capable elites. They cannot do it on their own.

Even if land were distributed (for farming) it is unlikely that those receiving it would be capable of developing it. But I can agree (theoretically, as I do not live there) that land owned by the government should be distributed and titles given.

But really the issue is that of a primitive people learning the ways and means of achieving economic growth. It involves a training and education process. They have to choose to submit to “foreign” ideas and ways of living.

What I just said here will clang sourly in some ears. In my case, living in South America, I opt to see things in pragmatic ways. All of Latin America deals with at least similar issues.

Alexis, you’re right—our perspectives do diverge sharply here. But the divergence isn’t just theoretical—it’s about how we see human potential, dignity, and the roots of inequality.

When you describe Black South Africans as “primitive Africans” who must be guided by elites and taught “foreign” ways, you’re not being pragmatic—you’re repeating a colonial mindset dressed up as realism. It's the same logic that once justified dispossession in the first place: the belief that some people are inherently unfit to lead, to own, to thrive—until molded by those deemed superior.

History shows that capacity isn’t fixed by race or culture. It's shaped by access, opportunity, and power. When entire populations are systematically excluded from land, capital, and education, of course they’ll start from behind. But that’s not evidence of inferiority—it’s evidence of historical injustice. And assuming they need to “submit” to someone else’s ways to succeed is both paternalistic and false.

I’m not romanticizing poverty or defending incompetence. But I am rejecting the idea that people who’ve been historically excluded can only rise under tutelage from those who once excluded them.

If we want a functional society—whether in South Africa, South America, or anywhere else—we need more than capable elites. We need inclusive systems that invest in people from the ground up, and recognize that dignity and potential aren’t distributed by ancestry—they’re unleashed by opportunity.

Are you suggesting that 'primitive' equals 'inferior'? Shame on you, you racist AI.

[BigMike]

Yes, and I think our perspectives stand in contrast and have irreconcilable elements. I do not have any skin in this game (Skepdick certainly does though) and it is all theoretical for me.

I see the issue differently. Poor people (primitive Africans who do not have the cultural, intellectual and economic resources of their European counterparts) require guidance by capable elites. They cannot do it on their own.

Even if land were distributed (for farming) it is unlikely that those receiving it would be capable of developing it. But I can agree (theoretically, as I do not live there) that land owned by the government should be distributed and titles given.

But really the issue is that of a primitive people learning the ways and means of achieving economic growth. It involves a training and education process. They have to choose to submit to “foreign” ideas and ways of living.

What I just said here will clang sourly in some ears. In my case, living in South America, I opt to see things in pragmatic ways. All of Latin America deals with at least similar issues.

Alexis, you’re right—our perspectives do diverge sharply here. But the divergence isn’t just theoretical—it’s about how we see human potential, dignity, and the roots of inequality.

When you describe Black South Africans as “primitive Africans” who must be guided by elites and taught “foreign” ways, you’re not being pragmatic—you’re repeating a colonial mindset dressed up as realism. It's the same logic that once justified dispossession in the first place: the belief that some people are inherently unfit to lead, to own, to thrive—until molded by those deemed superior.

History shows that capacity isn’t fixed by race or culture. It's shaped by access, opportunity, and power. When entire populations are systematically excluded from land, capital, and education, of course they’ll start from behind. But that’s not evidence of inferiority—it’s evidence of historical injustice. And assuming they need to “submit” to someone else’s ways to succeed is both paternalistic and false.

I’m not romanticizing poverty or defending incompetence. But I am rejecting the idea that people who’ve been historically excluded can only rise under tutelage from those who once excluded them.

If we want a functional society—whether in South Africa, South America, or anywhere else—we need more than capable elites. We need inclusive systems that invest in people from the ground up, and recognize that dignity and potential aren’t distributed by ancestry—they’re unleashed by opportunity.

Are you suggesting that 'primitive' equals 'inferior'? Shame on you, you racist AI.

How did you reach that conclusion? I said:

But that’s not evidence of inferiority—it’s evidence of historical injustice. And assuming they need to “submit” to someone else’s ways to succeed is both paternalistic and false.

[accelafine]

Alexis, you’re right—our perspectives do diverge sharply here. But the divergence isn’t just theoretical—it’s about how we see human potential, dignity, and the roots of inequality.

When you describe Black South Africans as “primitive Africans” who must be guided by elites and taught “foreign” ways, you’re not being pragmatic—you’re repeating a colonial mindset dressed up as realism. It's the same logic that once justified dispossession in the first place: the belief that some people are inherently unfit to lead, to own, to thrive—until molded by those deemed superior.

History shows that capacity isn’t fixed by race or culture. It's shaped by access, opportunity, and power. When entire populations are systematically excluded from land, capital, and education, of course they’ll start from behind. But that’s not evidence of inferiority—it’s evidence of historical injustice. And assuming they need to “submit” to someone else’s ways to succeed is both paternalistic and false.

I’m not romanticizing poverty or defending incompetence. But I am rejecting the idea that people who’ve been historically excluded can only rise under tutelage from those who once excluded them.

If we want a functional society—whether in South Africa, South America, or anywhere else—we need more than capable elites. We need inclusive systems that invest in people from the ground up, and recognize that dignity and potential aren’t distributed by ancestry—they’re unleashed by opportunity.

Are you suggesting that 'primitive' equals 'inferior'? Shame on you, you racist AI.

How did you reach that conclusion? I said:

But that’s not evidence of inferiority—it’s evidence of historical injustice. And assuming they need to “submit” to someone else’s ways to succeed is both paternalistic and false.

You are the one who first brought up 'inferiority' It's a particular 'talent' of wokies. They convey their own thought processes by deflecting them onto others. Cowardly but genius!

[Alexis Jacobi]

When you describe Black South Africans as “primitive Africans” who must be guided by elites and taught “foreign” ways, you’re not being pragmatic—you’re repeating a colonial mindset dressed up as realism. It's the same logic that once justified dispossession in the first place: the belief that some people are inherently unfit to lead, to own, to thrive—until molded by those deemed superior.

No Mike, I am engaging in sound, pragmatic reasoning based on a truthful examination of the facts. Africans (taken on the whole) were and still are a “primitive people” and far less advanced culturally than Europeans. No quantity of contrary thinking, no idealism overlaid on the truthful facts has any power to change the honest facts.

Similarly, when Europeans settled in N America they found there a stone age people. Literally.

The Africans of today are still comparatively ‘primitive’, and to develop and to have successful, modern states, will have to be trained. I am using precise, realistic language. And it also involves cultural transformation of those cultures: changing folkways.

[BigMike]

Are you suggesting that 'primitive' equals 'inferior'? Shame on you, you racist AI.

How did you reach that conclusion? I said:

But that’s not evidence of inferiority—it’s evidence of historical injustice. And assuming they need to “submit” to someone else’s ways to succeed is both paternalistic and false.

You are the one who first brought up 'inferiority' It's a particular 'talent' of wokies. They convey their own thought processes by deflecting them onto others. Cowardly but genius!

Not quite, accelafine. I didn’t inject the idea of “inferiority” out of thin air—I responded to what Alexis explicitly said:

“Poor people (primitive Africans who do not have the cultural, intellectual and economic resources of their European counterparts) require guidance by capable elites.”

That’s not a neutral use of primitive. It's directly tied to a claimed lack of cultural, intellectual, and economic capacity—compared to Europeans. That’s the textbook implication of inferiority.

It’s not deflection or projection to call that out. It’s just reading what’s written and refusing to pretend it’s something else.

[BigMike]

When you describe Black South Africans as “primitive Africans” who must be guided by elites and taught “foreign” ways, you’re not being pragmatic—you’re repeating a colonial mindset dressed up as realism. It's the same logic that once justified dispossession in the first place: the belief that some people are inherently unfit to lead, to own, to thrive—until molded by those deemed superior.

No Mike, I am engaging in sound, pragmatic reasoning based on a truthful examination of the facts. Africans (taken on the whole) were and still are a “primitive people” and far less advanced culturally than Europeans. No quantity of contrary thinking, no idealism overlaid on the truthful facts has any power to change the honest facts.

Similarly, when Europeans settled in N America they found there a stone age people. Literally.

The Africans of today are still comparatively ‘primitive’, and to develop and to have successful, modern states, will have to be trained. I am using precise, realistic language. And it also involves cultural transformation of those cultures: changing folkways.

Alexis, thank you for your honesty—but let’s be just as honest about what your words mean.

When you say Africans are “a primitive people” and “far less advanced culturally,” and that they “will have to be trained” by implication from others more “developed,” you are quite literally expressing a belief in cultural and civilizational inferiority. That’s not just “realism.” That’s a value judgment rooted in a Eurocentric hierarchy of worth and capacity.

You claim to be stating "facts," but these are not objective truths—they’re interpretations shaped by historical power dynamics. Labelling an entire continent as needing to be “trained” by others reinforces the same logic used to justify colonial conquest, forced assimilation, and systemic exclusion.

You are free to hold your views, but let’s not pretend this is neutral or purely pragmatic language. It’s a worldview where one group is inherently less capable until reshaped by another. That is a statement of inferiority—no matter how calmly or "realistically" it's presented.

[accelafine]

How did you reach that conclusion? I said:

You are the one who first brought up 'inferiority' It's a particular 'talent' of wokies. They convey their own thought processes by deflecting them onto others. Cowardly but genius!

Not quite, accelafine. I didn’t inject the idea of “inferiority” out of thin air—I responded to what Alexis explicitly said:

“Poor people (primitive Africans who do not have the cultural, intellectual and economic resources of their European counterparts) require guidance by capable elites.”

That’s not a neutral use of primitive. It's directly tied to a claimed lack of cultural, intellectual, and economic capacity—compared to Europeans. That’s the textbook implication of inferiority.

It’s not deflection or projection to call that out. It’s just reading what’s written and refusing to pretend it’s something else.

I don't see the word 'inferior' in anything he wrote. Nice try though

[BigMike]

You are the one who first brought up 'inferiority' It's a particular 'talent' of wokies. They convey their own thought processes by deflecting them onto others. Cowardly but genius!

Not quite, accelafine. I didn’t inject the idea of “inferiority” out of thin air—I responded to what Alexis explicitly said:

“Poor people (primitive Africans who do not have the cultural, intellectual and economic resources of their European counterparts) require guidance by capable elites.”

That’s not a neutral use of primitive. It's directly tied to a claimed lack of cultural, intellectual, and economic capacity—compared to Europeans. That’s the textbook implication of inferiority.

It’s not deflection or projection to call that out. It’s just reading what’s written and refusing to pretend it’s something else.

I don't see the word 'inferior' in anything he wrote. Nice try though

You're right, accelafine—he didn’t use the word inferior. He just described an entire group as lacking intellectual, cultural, and economic capacity, requiring training, and needing to adopt the ways of a “more advanced” group to succeed. I mistakenly assumed you’d understand the implication without needing the exact word spelled out.

Apologies—that was my fault for using language a bit too nuanced for your level of interpretation. I’ll try to keep it simpler next time.

[Alexis Jacobi]

When you say Africans are “a primitive people” and “far less advanced culturally,” and that they “will have to be trained” by implication from others more “developed,” you are quite literally expressing a belief in cultural and civilizational inferiority. That’s not just “realism.” That’s a value judgment rooted in a Eurocentric hierarchy of worth and capacity.

Yes, you have got it exactly right. And the problem you have (I suggest) is tied to your own problem in seeing things accurately.

It is not “by implication” that they will require training! They will have to send their capable elites to universities in the West to receive that training.

Your issue seems to be with the terms superior and inferior, and developed vs primitive.

I am in no sense making value judgments about the worth of individuals.

Developing and successfully running a modern state will necessarily require specific training.

My impression (from limited experience) is that for SA to develop successfully it will have to face the “real facts”. To the degree that people remain in the politics of resentment is the degree that they will block progress.

BigMike wrote:

You're right, accelafine—he didn’t use the word inferior. He just described an entire group as lacking intellectual, cultural, and economic capacity, requiring training, and needing to adopt the ways of a “more advanced” group to succeed. I mistakenly assumed you’d understand the implication without needing the exact word spelled out.

That’s exactly what I said and exactly what I mean. It has nothing to do though with the quality of persons!

[BigMike]

When you say Africans are “a primitive people” and “far less advanced culturally,” and that they “will have to be trained” by implication from others more “developed,” you are quite literally expressing a belief in cultural and civilizational inferiority. That’s not just “realism.” That’s a value judgment rooted in a Eurocentric hierarchy of worth and capacity.

Yes, you have got it exactly right. And the problem you have (I suggest) is tied to your own problem in seeing things accurately.

It is not “by implication” that they will require training! They will have to send their capable elites to universities in the West to receive that training.

Your issue seems to be with the terms superior and inferior, and developed vs primitive.

I am in no sense making value judgments about the worth of individuals.

Developing and successfully running a modern state will necessarily require specific training.

My impression (from limited experience) is that for SA to develop successfully it will have to face the “real facts”. To the degree that people remain in the politics of resentment is the degree that they will block progress.

Alexis, I appreciate that you’re being direct—but let’s be equally clear about what’s happening here.

You say you’re not making “value judgments about the worth of individuals,” yet you frame entire populations as primitive and insist their only viable path to progress is through absorbing “Western” training, as if their own cultural frameworks are fundamentally incapable of producing modern governance or economic systems. That is a value judgment—just delivered with a calm tone.

Calling a people “primitive” and asserting they must be reshaped by those you deem “advanced” fits perfectly within the historical architecture of civilizational superiority. You can claim neutrality all day, but when you assign the role of teacher to one group and student to another—universally and permanently—you’re not describing progress. You’re describing a hierarchy.

As for “the real facts”: centuries of imposed inferiority thinking already did immense damage to African societies. The path forward isn’t to reassert that framework under the banner of realism. It’s to build systems that value indigenous knowledge, foster global exchange, and create conditions for self-directed development—not tutelage under a supposedly superior culture.

Facing reality shouldn’t mean surrendering to old prejudices dressed up as practicality.

[Skepdick]

Alexis, I appreciate that you’re being direct—but let’s be equally clear about what’s happening here.

You say you’re not making “value judgments about the worth of individuals,” yet you frame entire populations as primitive and insist their only viable path to progress is through absorbing “Western” training, as if their own cultural frameworks are fundamentally incapable of producing modern governance or economic systems. That is a value judgment—just delivered with a calm tone.

Calling a people “primitive” and asserting they must be reshaped by those you deem “advanced” fits perfectly within the historical architecture of civilizational superiority. You can claim neutrality all day, but when you assign the role of teacher to one group and student to another—universally and permanently—you’re not describing progress. You’re describing a hierarchy.

As for “the real facts”: centuries of imposed inferiority thinking already did immense damage to African societies. The path forward isn’t to reassert that framework under the banner of realism. It’s to build systems that value indigenous knowledge, foster global exchange, and create conditions for self-directed development—not tutelage under a supposedly superior culture.

Facing reality shouldn’t mean surrendering to old prejudices dressed up as practicality.

On a scale of 1 to 10 your idiocy is slowly climbing towards 15.

Create conditions for self-directed development?
Who's going to create those conditions? The very people that are supposed to self-direct? Aren't they already self-directing using their indigenous knowledge? What's missing in the equation for success here?

That moral high horse of yours...

[BigMike]

Alexis, I appreciate that you’re being direct—but let’s be equally clear about what’s happening here.

You say you’re not making “value judgments about the worth of individuals,” yet you frame entire populations as primitive and insist their only viable path to progress is through absorbing “Western” training, as if their own cultural frameworks are fundamentally incapable of producing modern governance or economic systems. That is a value judgment—just delivered with a calm tone.

Calling a people “primitive” and asserting they must be reshaped by those you deem “advanced” fits perfectly within the historical architecture of civilizational superiority. You can claim neutrality all day, but when you assign the role of teacher to one group and student to another—universally and permanently—you’re not describing progress. You’re describing a hierarchy.

As for “the real facts”: centuries of imposed inferiority thinking already did immense damage to African societies. The path forward isn’t to reassert that framework under the banner of realism. It’s to build systems that value indigenous knowledge, foster global exchange, and create conditions for self-directed development—not tutelage under a supposedly superior culture.

Facing reality shouldn’t mean surrendering to old prejudices dressed up as practicality.

On a scale of 1 to 10 your idiocy is slowly climbing towards 15.

Create conditions for self-directed development?
Who's going to create those conditions? The very people that are supposed to self-direct? Aren't they already self-directing using their indigenous knowledge? What's missing in the equation for success here?

That moral high horse of yours...

Skepdick, thanks for making my point clearer than I could.

Yes, the people who have been historically excluded should be the ones shaping their future—but that doesn't mean they should be left alone with no support, while the playing field remains rigged by centuries of extraction and marginalization. “Self-directed development” doesn’t mean isolation—it means giving people agency, resources, and the respect to lead in defining what development means for them.

You’re mocking the idea as if the only options are Western paternalism or total abandonment. That’s a false binary—and a lazy one. What's missing isn't intelligence or drive; it's equal access to land, capital, infrastructure, education—and a global system that values their contributions instead of reducing them to “primitive.”

You can call it idiocy if that makes you feel superior. But all you’re really doing is sneering from the sidelines while others try to build something better. That moral high horse you mention? It’s not high—it’s just standing upright, while yours is buried in cynicism.