RIP Mr. Mandela.

[cr9527]

cr9527,

When India was liberated from Britain, the quality of life didn't go up until 25 to 30 years later when India finished putting in the necessary building blocks for a modern society because most of the tools and resources were denied to 99% of Indians for nearly 200 years.

It takes time. Look at South Africa. It is not imploding. You still have a viable democratic functioning government listening to the will of the people. You still have an economy and is growing. People are learning how to govern themselves and build a strong modern society.

The white rulers didn't do it for 95~99% of the black population and exploited all the resources for its white people only. I am sure that if you have a country where the 5% lives off the 95%, the 5% come across looking so good but the 95% didn't fare well. You know it is funny that you compare the statistics of today's South Africa to the statistics of apartheid South Africa when the statistics only cover hallmarks or resources expressly reserved for the white people only. It takes on a whole different meaning when you start opening up resources to the 95% population that has been denied those resources.

They were not allowed to have anything more than subsistence farming or middle to large scale business and the small businesses they had only employed only few passable skills needed for a modern society.

"Roads to Rome wasn't build in a day" Same thing with South Africa. The modern society of South Africa that people aspire to will come but it will not come overnight. It will take decades but South Africa will get there.

The defenders of apartheid South Africa are probably bitching about having to give up their power, resources and start sharing the riches and resources that they have denied for over a half century and trying to exploit the problems that they themselves created in the first place.

It is like Britain taking credit for the economic successes that India had, which is utter bullshit. Before you start going in how Britain build the necessary foundation, a quick cursory look at the facts and statistics at the time Britain left India shows to be an utter lie. 95~99% of the native population did not enjoy the resources that the British and its servants had in India. It took time for the resources to spread throughout the majority of the population. Like South Africa, India will get to the level of modern society in time as India learns to govern itself more efficiently and develop its resources more efficiently and productively.

While yes, the blacks did not have access to those resources before the apartheid, they weren't taken away or destroyed after it ended. So they did eventually fall into the hands of the Blacks. Plus they provided a great model for how to do things. To say that the HDI doesn't accurately describe the black situation because they didn't have access to the resources, that means the blacks would've been denied access to fresh water, foods, doctors, etc. Were they? I don't know the rules of the apartheid enough other than just a separation between races.

While Britain cannot take the credit for India's economic "success", they did provide a model to India of how to become industrialized, did they not?

Really? That isn't obvious? Four letters: AIDS. Accounts for most or all of that drop. In this case there is blame to go around. The epidemic took hold in black communities during the last decade of Apartheid. Given the lag time between infection & death many (if not most) of those who died during that big slide from '95-2005 would have been infected during that period. Fair to say that dealing with HIV infections....or the health of the non-white community in general....wasn't high on the list of priorities. Unfortunately the ANC is just as much to blame for the course of the epidemic. its refusal to accept that AIDS was an issue & the denial by Thabo Mbeki that HIV was even causing AIDS is one of the worst policy failures of a democratic government in my lifetime. It is a failure that Sth Africa will continue to pay for for generations.

IRIN Africa | SOUTH AFRICA: Life expectancy drops | South Africa | HIV/AIDS (PlusNews)

How does AIDS spread that fast in only a few years when it wasn't nearly as big of a problem a few years earlier? Did the government suddenly say AIDS doesn't exist or something?

[Guest]

I would argue that the optimism created by Mandela was always going to fade once the scale of the problems facing the nation became clear. Governing is hard. So is satisfying expectations. Even mandela struggled with that as President. I'm not interested in defending the failings of the ANC. They are many and there is no doubt they could have done a better job. Personally I would like to se a change of government - I think it would be good for the nation.

However, the failings of the ANC in government shouldn't be used to minimize the scale of the problems they inherited or the scale of what Mandela did achieve.

I think we can both agree a new change in government in South Africa will definitely move things forward.

[Bigfella]

How does AIDS spread that fast in only a few years when it wasn't nearly as big of a problem a few years earlier? Did the government suddenly say AIDS doesn't exist or something?

SIGH!

The disease does not manifest symptoms for years yet the patient can infect others. This includes children in the womb or during birth. The lag time between infection & death can be as long as 8 years. The epidemic took hold in the black community in the late 80s & early 90s. Personally I distrust the early figures for infection rates because I'm not sure how comprehensive testing was. My bet is not very, so the rates were probably higher than official figures show. So the first big demographic impact was in the mid-90s. HIV infections have spread farther & faster in Africa because poorer health care means that conditions that make it easier for the disease to spread - a variety of venereal & non-venereal diseases - are more prevalent. Additionally, the resources for education & prevention campaigns, including effective means of communication & religious/cultural issues, have made education campaigns more difficult.

There should have been concerted government campaigns to slow the spread of the disease from the late 80s as there were in Western nations. Somebody once said 'AIDS is the first disease in history that can be stopped by education'. While overstating the case, it contains a truth. Education campaigns about how the disease is transmitted combined with ready access to condoms, clean needles & good healthcare are the keys to stopping the spread of the disease. Unfortunately Sth Africa had first a government that wasn't much interested & then one that denied that the disease was transmitted they way it was transmitted. This failure has led to hundreds of thousands of infection & deaths that need never have happened. AIDS is expensive to treat & the most effective drugs are still only available to a minority in Sth Africa. Worse, the disease often impacts on people in the prime of their productive lives rather than the weaker members of society who are most often killed by disease. So the impact on the economy is devastating from two angles.

As of 2007 5.7 million Sth Africans had been infected with HIV. The figure would be higher now. At it peak rate something like 50% of deaths in Sth Africa were from AIDS. Because these are overwhelmingly people under 40 it punches an even bigger hole in life expectancy than old people dying.

HIV/AIDS in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[cr9527]

SIGH!

The disease does not manifest symptoms for years yet the patient can infect others. This includes children in the womb or during birth. The lag time between infection & death can be as long as 8 years. The epidemic took hold in the black community in the late 80s & early 90s. Personally I distrust the early figures for infection rates because I'm not sure how comprehensive testing was. My bet is not very, so the rates were probably higher than official figures show. So the first big demographic impact was in the mid-90s. HIV infections have spread farther & faster in Africa because poorer health care means that conditions that make it easier for the disease to spread - a variety of venereal & non-venereal diseases - are more prevalent. Additionally, the resources for education & prevention campaigns, including effective means of communication & religious/cultural issues, have made education campaigns more difficult.

There should have been concerted government campaigns to slow the spread of the disease from the late 80s as there were in Western nations. Somebody once said 'AIDS is the first disease in history that can be stopped by education'. While overstating the case, it contains a truth. Education campaigns about how the disease is transmitted combined with ready access to condoms, clean needles & good healthcare are the keys to stopping the spread of the disease. Unfortunately Sth Africa had first a government that wasn't much interested & then one that denied that the disease was transmitted they way it was transmitted. This failure has led to hundreds of thousands of infection & deaths that need never have happened. AIDS is expensive to treat & the most effective drugs are still only available to a minority in Sth Africa. Worse, the disease often impacts on people in the prime of their productive lives rather than the weaker members of society who are most often killed by disease. So the impact on the economy is devastating from two angles.

As of 2007 5.7 million Sth Africans had been infected with HIV. The figure would be higher now. At it peak rate something like 50% of deaths in Sth Africa were from AIDS. Because these are overwhelmingly people under 40 it punches an even bigger hole in life expectancy than old people dying.

HIV/AIDS in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Huh, I didn't know that AIDS began in South Africa only first in 1980s. I thought it had been there for a long time. Good to know.

[Mihais]

The disease was discovered in the 70's-80's.It could have been there for longer periods.

[Mihais]

I am not tracking your question.

Sir,most Westerners are in the blame the Boer game.Many SA blacks are in the kill the Boer mood.
We have plenty of groups willing and able to go the route of Zimbabwe.The is not likely to be a peaceful event.

So I'm curious who will you support.Whites or blacks?

[cr9527]

The disease was discovered in the 70's-80's.It could have been there for longer periods.

So, Wikipedia said this:

In 1983, AIDS was diagnosed for the first time in two patients in South Africa.[20] The first recorded death owing to AIDS occurred in 1983.[20] By 1986, there were 46 recorded AIDS diagnoses. Estimates from 2000 indicated that 5% of actual infections and only 1% of actual deaths due to AIDS were reported prior to 1990. Prior to 1990, AIDS was more common among homosexual people. By 1990, less than 1% of South Africans had AIDS. By 1996, the figure stood at around 3% and by 1999 the figure had reached 10%.[21] AIDS infection started reaching pandemic proportions around 1995.[22]

Does this mean AIDS spread from a few cases to being 10% of the population? Or that they started diagnosing for this in 1983, and discovered many more because of the diagnosis?

Thanks.

[Bigfella]

Huh, I didn't know that AIDS began in South Africa only first in 1980s. I thought it had been there for a long time. Good to know.

There were probably isolated cases in the late 60s or 70s but they were most likely mis-diagnosed because nobody knew what they were looking for or looking at. It is believed the disease came to America from central Africa via Haiti in the late 60s but until a cluster of cases appeared in young gay men in the very early 80s nobody knew they had a new disease or what to look for. It is unlikely the disease was very widespread at that point in terms of number of infections. People have carefully looked back thorough the history of unexplained deaths that might fit AIDS & that is the general conclusion (there are extremely rare conditions that can produce similar general symptoms, so looking back for such deaths at a point when they would have been very rare it can be difficult to be sure).

In any case, with a disease that is as difficult to transmit as AIDS & which takes so long to show symptoms it takes years for the number of people with the disease to increase in the initial stages. Once you pass a particular point that number can increase dramatically unless something is done to stop it. Eventually you hit a sort of 'ceiling' as the number of people in high risk groups is less than 100% of the population.

My bet is that there were more cases than were being detected in the 80s, but that the number in the early 80s was still relatively small & it exploded by the late 80s/early 90s. Broadly speaking that is how the disease tracked elsewhere. By the time the ANC took power in '94 the number of infected was probably in the millions.

[cr9527]

There were probably isolated cases in the late 60s or 70s but they were most likely mis-diagnosed because nobody knew what they were looking for or looking at. It is believed the disease came to America from central Africa via Haiti in the late 60s but until a cluster of cases appeared in young gay men in the very early 80s nobody knew they had a new disease or what to look for. It is unlikely the disease was very widespread at that point in terms of number of infections. People have carefully looked back thorough the history of unexplained deaths that might fit AIDS & that is the general conclusion (there are extremely rare conditions that can produce similar general symptoms, so looking back for such deaths at a point when they would have been very rare it can be difficult to be sure).

In any case, with a disease that is as difficult to transmit as AIDS & which takes so long to show symptoms it takes years for the number of people with the disease to increase in the initial stages. Once you pass a particular point that number can increase dramatically unless something is done to stop it. Eventually you hit a sort of 'ceiling' as the number of people in high risk groups is less than 100% of the population.

My bet is that there were more cases than were being detected in the 80s, but that the number in the early 80s was still relatively small & it exploded by the late 80s/early 90s. Broadly speaking that is how the disease tracked elsewhere. By the time the ANC took power in '94 the number of infected was probably in the millions.

Hmm, interesting.

[Blademaster]

While yes, the blacks did not have access to those resources before the apartheid, they weren't taken away or destroyed after it ended. So they did eventually fall into the hands of the Blacks. Plus they provided a great model for how to do things. To say that the HDI doesn't accurately describe the black situation because they didn't have access to the resources, that means the blacks would've been denied access to fresh water, foods, doctors, etc. Were they? I don't know the rules of the apartheid enough other than just a separation between races.

No the whites didn't provide a model for how to do things efficiently. They only showed a model how to exploit the masses and enjoy the benefits for a few.

While Britain cannot take the credit for India's economic "success", they did provide a model to India of how to become industrialized, did they not?

Nope, wrong again. The model was predicated on full exploitation of India's resources and carting away the riches back to England. Under 200 years, they systematically destroyed the local industry and forced Indians to buy made British goods. The only things that India produced before Independence were commodities or raw materials. Even the great Indian Railways were not set up for the Indian people but for the system of carting away valuable ores and raw materials to the ports of Mumbai and Kolkata.

India had to follow US and USSR, not Britain's system. The Indian bureacracy which indians inherited from the British was only of limited value. Its limitation was confined to control and order, not to building a successful economic system.

[Albany Rifles]

Sir,most Westerners are in the blame the Boer game.Many SA blacks are in the kill the Boer mood.
We have plenty of groups willing and able to go the route of Zimbabwe.The is not likely to be a peaceful event.

So I'm curious who will you support.Whites or blacks?

Whoever the South African people choose.

It's not my place to choose sides in an internal conflict.

And I never decide by race.....I am color blind.

[cr9527]

No the whites didn't provide a model for how to do things efficiently. They only showed a model how to exploit the masses and enjoy the benefits for a few.



Nope, wrong again. The model was predicated on full exploitation of India's resources and carting away the riches back to England. Under 200 years, they systematically destroyed the local industry and forced Indians to buy made British goods. The only things that India produced before Independence were commodities or raw materials. Even the great Indian Railways were not set up for the Indian people but for the system of carting away valuable ores and raw materials to the ports of Mumbai and Kolkata.

India had to follow US and USSR, not Britain's system. The Indian bureacracy which indians inherited from the British was only of limited value. Its limitation was confined to control and order, not to building a successful economic system.

The extensive railway network built under British Raj connected major cities in India. Regardless of its original use.

Also, I thought the reason why processed goods from India ceased was due to the industrialization of Britain, devaluing the need for Indian goods such as textiles.

[Blademaster]

The extensive railway network built under British Raj connected major cities in India. Regardless of its original use.

To major cities where the majority of British rulers resided but not with towns or villages. It was only after the Independence, that India started connecting the railways to towns and villages and give them means of transportation. In the days of the British Raj, people would have to hike tens of miles or hundreds of miles to get to the nearest station and then start riding on top of the train. The inside train was only reserved for the elites and there was a segregation policy in effect. It was whites, anglolized mixed Indians, then educated english speaking English, and then native Indians.

Also, I thought the reason why processed goods from India ceased was due to the industrialization of Britain, devaluing the need for Indian goods such as textiles.

No it wasn't. The British forbade any manufactured goods in India and forced Indians to buy British goods. They did that over 100 years and as a result, the local industry was destroyed. India had to start from scratch.

[cr9527]

To major cities where the majority of British rulers resided but not with towns or villages. It was only after the Independence, that India started connecting the railways to towns and villages and give them means of transportation. In the days of the British Raj, people would have to hike tens of miles or hundreds of miles to get to the nearest station and then start riding on top of the train. The inside train was only reserved for the elites and there was a segregation policy in effect. It was whites, anglolized mixed Indians, then educated english speaking English, and then native Indians.



No it wasn't. The British forbade any manufactured goods in India and forced Indians to buy British goods. They did that over 100 years and as a result, the local industry was destroyed. India had to start from scratch.

Well, as I've said, regardless about the original use of the railways, it became quite an extensive network connecting the majority of the cities. When the Brits left, they could've used it for whatever purpose they wanted to.

Could you provide a source regarding how the Brits forbade industry in India? I find it hard to believe.

[Guest]

A truly great man. He had his failings but he always kept his eyes on the prize.

He could have been president for life but chose instead to step away after one term to allow democracy to grow. He refused to allow the ANC and South Africa go the way of so many liberation movements after gaining power....just look to Zimbabwe and Mogabe.

His embrace of the Springboks did as much to units South Africans as anything else he did in his life.


Cool..

RIP, sir.


Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. UThixo ke woxolo makabe nani nonke. Amen.

Its just beyond imagination.