This story is unavailable.

Well Mr. Molefe, I’d like you to consider a proposition. Equipped with certain facts, one can always go and paint a picture to fit in with your world view. Even if that world view is utterly at odds with the reality and is fraught with false propositions, as is the case with your writing. Perhaps an example of using facts to paint such a picture is in order?

At the turn of the twentieth century there existed in South Africa two independent republics composed of people who was known as Boers and had left Europe for good, as such these republics was not tied to any colonial European powers. And they were founded on land bought from the local black tribes, sometimes with cattle, sometimes by recovering cattle stolen by raiding enemy tribes. Within these free Republics the white and black people lived and worked side by side and the children would go to school together at the local little farm school and grow up as friends. Unfortunately for them their next door neighbour was the British Cape colony. Now, unlike the ex-Europeans of the free Republics, the British had various social classes (and this is probably still true today). The British also had no qualms about slavery or “indentured workers”. When gold was discovered within the borders of one of these republics relations broke down rapidly between the Boers and the Brits. With hind sight it is easy to identify the British as the aggressors, but the Boers was not entirely blameless. The Boers, true to their name, would literally sit on a gold mine and insist on farming all over it. The British on the other hand was desperate for the gold because it would give them the edge in a rapidly changing and very challenging Europe. It would have been possible for both parties to come to an agreement and avoid war. When the war started the Boers informed the various black tribes with whom they had an alliance to not come to their aid, because they reasoned that this would be a war between white people. Notwithstanding this nonsensical idea a fair slice of the people that fought and died on the Boer side was black. There was also Russians, but that’s a different story. The British on the other hand brought troops from all over the empire and had also eagerly recruited any local black people willing to be mercenaries. The result of the war was the birth of modern South Africa under British rule.

It would not be entirely fair to accuse the British of establishing white supremacism in South Africa. True, you could have expected “whites only” signs in any of their other colonies as well, be it India, China or Australia, but it would be more accurate to accuse them of British supremacism, of which white supremacism was but a small component. It would also be accurate to say that much of what is currently called “the legacy of apartheid” is in fact the legacy of British Colonialism. For their ill acquired new mines the British needed large numbers of manual labourers, vastly more than what one would typically need for, say, farming. Since they completely controlled the country at this stage it was easy for them to create laws that allowed them to move people (black people usually) to where they needed them. The British was quite skilled at this sort of thing. There is usually much pride in the old statement “Britania rules the waves”, but having controlled the major sea routes also meant being responsible for the bulk of the slave trade that sees millions of black people living on the North and South American continents today.

The British have not, nor will they ever apologize for what they did in the past. What I find fascinating is the fact that people like yourself know these things and yet you would eagerly sing “Kill the Boer” but you hold the British completely blameless. Personally I don’t expect the British to either compensate or apologize for what they did in the past, because it should always be possible to forgive. But not to forget.

As for your friend’s scribbling to try and hurt a waitress, in a country rife with unfair treatment and discrimination against minorities (not to mention outright xenophobia) this is pretty vile in many ways. It turns out that land restitution as run by your government is a very clever and profitable scheme. The steps are very simple. First, scare the hell out of the white farmer by having his neighbours slowly tortured, raped and butchered. Second, offer to buy his farm for a fairly low price, chances are he’ll take the offer. Third, bring in the happy black would be farmer, promise him the heaven and the earth, but make him sign a contract that stipulate that he loses the farm if he fails to be productive within a set period. Fourth, leave the new farmer high and dry, waiting for the help that never comes, then take back the farm. Fifth and final step, rent out the farm to big agricultural firms and make a handy profit, all the while spreading the lie that white people own the bulk of the land even though the government does. And then you and your buddies gets angry based on these lies and go and murder more white people so the process can continue. But it is of course impossible for you to contemplate that these sorts of things are happening in reality, not with such a sweet innocent guy like Zuma at the helm.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.