More proof that South Africa is going down the crapper

[Hababi]

"South Africa's police chief said Monday that violence directed at foreign nationals had killed 22 people over the past week.
Police carry an unidentified Malawi national on an improvised stretcher after he was badly beaten in Reiger Park township.

The attacks have been concentrated in Johannesburg's poorest areas, and many of the victims were Zimbabweans who have fled repression and dire economic circumstances.

The Nelson Mandela Foundation issued a statement condemning the "senseless violence" that police say was sparked a week ago in Johannesburg's Alexandra Township.

"We join the rest of South Africa in deploring this violence," said Achmat Dangor, CEO of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, according to a statement released on Monday.

"Whatever the underlying causes they have to be addressed, but this senseless violence is not a solution."

Police said those behind the attacks accused the foreigners of stealing jobs, carrying out criminal activities and benefiting from social services -- such as free housing -- meant to benefit South Africans."

Rest of article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_re_af/south_africa_immigrant_attacks;_ylt=Aq_UfjTCiiFbek vbTqVc98K96Q8F
-------------------------------
Which African countries will emerge as leaders in the coming decade? Will South Africa continue its decline? Or discuss anti-immigrant sentiment :p

[mph4ever]

there was about 20,000 polities in africa before white man went down there and fu'cked it all up. they sliced it up into 40 odd states with no consideration for tribal relationships. its almost as if the whiteman thinks that black africa has one race of people. as we have seen in rwanda recently and other places, this is not the case. they have heritage that they are very aware of.

as people from different traditional polities migrate across the white mans imposed borders then the immigrants stand out like a sore thumb. they are bound to attract attention and bound to be considered as a threat to the locals who are already living in decay and squalor.

thing about africa is, or certainly sub saharan africa, white man legged it 50 years ago, they all left around the same time, they could see what was coming and really were not interested in helping the african nations deal with the challenges that lay ahead. south africa delayed its decline by continuing to have apartheid, its just catching up now.

[Jude]

Better yet there's more genetic diversity within Africa than outside of it.

Unfortunately that also means there's more potential for retarded ethnic blood feuds within it than without it.

[YDtoad]

there was about 20,000 polities in africa before white man went down there and fu'cked it all up. they sliced it up into 40 odd states with no consideration for tribal relationships. its almost as if the whiteman thinks that black africa has one race of people. as we have seen in rwanda recently and other places, this is not the case. they have heritage that they are very aware of.


Rwanda and Burundi are fundamentally the same as their ancient tribal holdings (there were semi-autonomous Hutu groups in northwest and southwest Rwanda, but that's a fairly minor addition).

Blaming whitey for all the problems facing African countries is as stupid as would be saying colonialism has no negative legacy.

[mph4ever]

Blaming whitey for all the problems facing African countries is as stupid as would be saying colonialism has no negative legacy.


i don't recall blaming whitey for all africas problems. they were just the crew that abandoned ship with all the passengers still on board, not knowing how to steer it. sure there are loads of reasons for africas problems, reasons they could solve for themselves if so willing. they could have done without our interference, or once we made a boll0x of it then they could have done with our help, it was just too easy to walk away due to the unrest.

and using the analogy of "colonialism has no negative legacy" is just plain silly