Here is the article from Time Magazine: Time to Take Charge.
Read it, and post at least one comment on the blog. Comments for this assignment can be either questions on things you do not understand, general discussion questions, or answers to others' questions. They should not be random ramblings on the article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was a bit confused when the article mentioned how "It was an event without historical precedent in the days of sweeping decolonization in Africa three decades ago, or even in 1980 when the former British colony of Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, because 5 million former rulers are not leaving." What do the former rulers of South Africa have to do with Zimbabwe?
ReplyDeleteI am curious about Winnie Mandela and the controversy with her being elected the head of the A.N.C Women's League. It says in the article, “she was convicted in the kidnapping of a township youth, who was later murdered”, but the article is very vague regarding the incident. Do you think the A.N.C really struggles with accountability, or is this just the opinion of the author?
ReplyDeleteIt means in Africa the precedent was that the white rulers left after power was turned over to the Black citizens. In South Africa political power was given to the black citizens by being able to vote, yet the white Afrikaners stayed in South Africa. There is correlation between the 5 million Afrikaners and Zimbabwe in that in Zimbabwe white citizens stayed after the shift in power also. In both instances the white's had huge sources of incomes through farms, which in both countries was one of the most compelling reasons for the white citizens to stay.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Annelies's question...
ReplyDeleteI think (and correct me if I am wrong) that this statement is referring to the fact that the all-powerful white government basically handed over the government to the majority black Africans. Unlike in South Africa, the whites did not relinquish their power peacefully like the white-government of South Africa. In Zimbabwe, the blacks attacked the whites causing death and destruction. In this case, power was traded peacefully resulting in a seemless reversal of power control.
And to answer your question more directly, you are right when you say that the former rulers of South Africa have nothing to do with Zimbabwe because that is true. What the author intended for the reader to get out of this is that the power-control change in South Africa was remarkably peaceful and democratic compared to the violent uprising that occured in Zimbabwe
I dont understand what the author of the article means when he says the 4 of the 10 black homelands pretend to independence. Do they mean that the Afrikaans wanted them to look as if they were independent but really weren't?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Annelies's question, both Colton and Kyle are partially right. Remember that this article was written in 1994, before the land seizures in Zim. But in every other instance in Africa, when whites have given over power to the blacks, they have left. Now some stayed in Zimbabwe, but the government itself left, and went back to Britain, as all of the colonial governments did across Africam whether in the 1960s, or in Zimbabwe's case, in 1980. But in South Africa, they remained to work with the new government, in large part b/c they did not see themselves as colonizers who had a place to go, but rather as South Africans, as Afrikaners.
ReplyDeleteThe Winnie Mandela stuff is confusing. Though she stood by Mandela while he was in prison, they split when he was released, largely b/c Nelson wanted to work with white son a moderate course of compromise, and Winnie was much more radical, resorting to violence, and in one case kidnapping. The film we are going to watch tomorrow will touch on this.
The date of the article is May 9th 1994 and in the ended of the article, it was stated that Mandela worked 50 years to achieve liberation. This means Mandela is at least 65 years old and probably much older. The life expectancy in South Africa is about 50 years. How do they expect him to stay alive all his term? He can get sick too and not be able to even run its government.
ReplyDeleteI think that the ANC should have been handed the governmental role over in a slower more training fashion from what i read i do not believe they are prepared to govern a country. De klerk should have educated the new leaders before allowing them to take office.
ReplyDeleteI was confused on how in the section on "who pays the bill" the article says that South Africa will rely on friendly governments and "... it would be good if we can generate billions from around the world." i was under the impression that the world was excluding South Africa. Did they take sanctions off right after Mandela became president?
ReplyDeleteTo Kira..i think that the way they expect Mandela to stay alive is similar to how most of our presidents are in there 50s and 60s and how in the past election about 40-45% of the country voted for a 72 year old man! Im pretty sure he gets very good treatment as far as his health.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how the ANC is going to hold up during their time in office. It sounds like they have a lot of problems to resolve, very high expectations and extremely difficult times to pull them off in. How is the ANC going to please everyone with so much pressure to make the country better and the posibility of a rebelion if things go wrong? Are they able to and do they have enough resources and the right people to make good things happen for the better of the country?
ReplyDeleteI wonder how would the ANC get 19 billion dollars when 18 million black familes earn less than $220 a month. How are they going to collect such huge amount money? I also didn't get the part about Winnie Mendela.
ReplyDeleteNearing the end of the article, there reads a line stating that Mandela is stressing the fact that the other minority races (Whites, Asians, Coloreds) have nothing to fear from his government and will be valued for their contributions. Why is this being pointed out? It almost sounds as if some other races were worried that an apartheid would start up against them, which leads me to wonder why they would question such a thing. If racial segregation against blacks was as wrong as it was, why would it even have the possiblity of starting up against any other race?
ReplyDeleteMandela turned 90 this summer.
ReplyDeleteThe $$ issues were and are serious. The outside world ended their sanctions when Apartheid ended, so that was to help, and they were counting on aid from those 1st world countries as well, but trying to provide adequate housing, education, running water, electricity, etc. to millions who had previously been denied such things was going to be expensive. Today's presentations on the problems South Africa has faced since Apartheid demonstrate the scope of the issue and the scope of the cost, even a decade and a half later.
Finally, there was great concern that Mandela and others would take out a century of frustration and mistreatment on the other races in South Africa ... like Mugabe did in Zimbabwe: steal land, state sponsored violence against whites, destroy businesses, etc. Part of Mandela's genius was that he was able to get the masses to resist such radical (and in the end destructive) measures. that is why he is a hero to the whites as well as the blacks of South Africa.
I found it interesting that the white rightists that tried to stop Apartheid from ending not only failed in stopping Apartheid from ending, but also failed to disrupt the process of the election. Why do you guys think that the white rightists did not pose much of a fight? I find it hard to believe myself that there were so few of them that they could not have made a difference even if they wanted to.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how the western world view an African country, how they fear that South Africa might end up like Zimbabwe one the government is in the hands of the Africans.
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to Nick's Question…
ReplyDeleteCountries removed their sanctions on South Africa after there were visible changes taken to move toward the end of the apartheid t were visible, so some of the sanctions were taken off before Mandela became president and some were taken off right after. Now South Africa is now very much so connected to the rest of the world but I am not exactly sure that all sanctions have been removed there may still be some sanctions on South Africa during the time this article was written. Since south Africa is moving toward change they will probably be able to get money from other countries that are willing to help, and the country needs the money because they are building homes and giving people electricity and running water and someone needs to pay for it but the blacks don’t not have the miens to do, so the government has to pay. The government does not have a lot of money they can dedicate to recovery so they seek help from the outside world.
i was confused that the whites that were trying to upkeep apartied didn't fight back as hard when the black south africans were able to vote and they let their insane world slip away because of a lack of response which in this case was good for the world.
ReplyDeleteHow is it that the election could have remained peaceful if the week before there was bombing throught Souh Africa? Wouldn't the most violent time be during the election? THey do not have enough police either right? And if they did it would all have to be there at the polls but the polls were not all in the same place? I am confused.
ReplyDeleteto answer Claire's question, i don't think the article was saying that the whole country was peaceful during the election, just that the voters themselves were peaceful during them
ReplyDelete