South africa tops NZ as greatest country on earth

[nzoomed]

I would have thought it would have been way down on the bottom of the list given the high rate of crime!
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/07/12/nz-no...in-decade/

[R2x1]

Is whatever the reporter was drinking actually legal to consume without a customs officer and fire appliance present?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Maybe some of our Saffa imports would like to go back?

[R2x1]

Check Browns Bay for any signs of an exodus?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

My thought as I posted that rather dicey question..

[R2x1]

Who said wishful thinking

[Lilith7]

Maybe some of our Saffa imports would like to go back?

They can bugger off if they're racist; we have an ample sufficiency of our own idiots here without importing them.

[Olive]

That Telegraph list is ridiculous.  I have ex-SA friends who have family members in various parts of SA including Capetown, Johannesburg and a rural town.  Their reports of quotidian violence, corruption and power outages are hair-raising.

[dken31]

Do any of you see the irony in wishing that immigrants of a specific ethnicity would "go back where they came from" while implying that it is they that are racist?

[harm_less]

Do any of you see the irony in wishing that immigrants of a specific ethnicity would "go back where they came from" while implying that it is they that are racist?

Are you not confusing ethnicity with nationality?

[king1]

Do any of you see the irony in wishing that immigrants of a specific ethnicity would "go back where they came from" while implying that it is they that are racist?

Where is the implication of racism?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Do any of you see the irony in wishing that immigrants of a specific ethnicity would "go back where they came from" while implying that it is they that are racist?

Yes, I do. I also acknowledge my own racism in posting the first challenging comment, while understanding that racism is an acquired attitude. In my case acquired from living for some years in Brown's Bay as the suburb was slowly transformed into an enclave of wealthy white South African imports who brought with them their own acquired attitudes and habits. It was an interesting time.

[dken31]

Do any of you see the irony in wishing that immigrants of a specific ethnicity would "go back where they came from" while implying that it is they that are racist?

Are you not confusing ethnicity with nationality?

No, I meant ethnicity.  I assumed that by "South Africans" people were really referring to white South Africans which is why I didn't use "nationality".  And, with the first European settlers arriving almost 400yrs ago (settling most of South Africa before the now majority Zulu ethnic group), I think it is fair to consider them an ethnicity distinct from their Dutch/German/English ancestors.

[Lilith7]

Do any of you see the irony in wishing that immigrants of a specific ethnicity would "go back where they came from" while implying that it is they that are racist?

'IF' -  you may have missed that little word.

[dken31]

Do any of you see the irony in wishing that immigrants of a specific ethnicity would "go back where they came from" while implying that it is they that are racist?

Yes, I do. I also acknowledge my own racism in posting the first challenging comment, while understanding that racism is an acquired attitude. In my case acquired from living for some years in Brown's Bay as the suburb was slowly transformed into an enclave of wealthy white South African imports who brought with them their own acquired attitudes and habits. It was an interesting time.

So you're saying that your racisim is justified because you've seen firsthand that lots of white South Africans are a certain undesirable way so it is fair to generalise that they're essentially all that way.  However, have you ever thought that perhaps white South Africans think the way they do about others because they've lived amongst those others and have seen their "acquired attitudes and habits"?  Because, lets face it, South Africa has turned into an absolute basket case in recent years and it is pretty obvious what white South Africans were trying to guard themselves from and very clear that the new system isn't working.

I will qualify all of that with two very important points:  
1. Your implying the classic racist "they should go back where they came from" isn't remotely comparable to Apartheid, other than that they're both racist.  Your racism is the very thin edge of the wedge whereas Apartheid is a wedge 1,000km wide, however even the thin end is a bad start. 
2. My comment re. the new system in South Africa not working isn't an argument for reverting back to the old system.  However, I do think it shows that the antidote to one form of racism is never the reverse of that racism (or racism of any sort).  Mandela could bang on all he liked about "Rainbow Nation" and peace & forgiveness, however the system he set up has proved to still be incredibly racist.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Do not tell me what you think I am saying. My statement is quite clear and unequivocal, it isn't a justification, and not an excuse.


While we are on the racist theme, just how do you think your comment on Mandela comes across? Maybe you need to examine your own acquired attitudes.


And btw, it's you're, in that context, not your.

[dken31]

Do any of you see the irony in wishing that immigrants of a specific ethnicity would "go back where they came from" while implying that it is they that are racist?

'IF' -  you may have missed that little word.

Oh come on now, you know full well what you were implying.  No-one had explicitly mentioned racisim (although you were replying to Oh_hunnihunni's clear implication) but you suggest they should leave if they're racist.  If you're not generalising (aka being racist), why not say "if they're murderers/rapists/tax dodgers etc., they can leave?

If I said about Samoans: "If they're thieves, they can go back to Samoa", would that be racist?  We all know that "I'm only saying IF" would be a pretty pathetic excuse in that case as it is in yours.

[dken31]

Do not tell me what you think I am saying. My statement  is quite clear and unequivocal, it isn't a justification, and not an excuse.


While we are on the racist theme, just how do you think your comment on Mandela comes across? Maybe you need to examine your own acquired attitudes.


And btw, it's you're, in that context, not your.

I could counter with "do not tell me what I can or can't say", however, in truth, I meant the first sentence to be a question and just forgot the question mark.  But, if your statement wasn't a justification or excuse, I'm guessing it's simply an explanation?  To me, acknowledging something (i.e. that your initial comment was racist) and then explaining why you made that comment without suggesting that you perhaps shouldn't have, certainly comes across like a justification.

My comment on Mandela is solely based on his conduct, the people he associated with and his legacy (i.e. the ANC).  It isn't remotely related to his skin colour/ethnicity.  The modern "if you say something negative about a non-white, it's because you're racist" (along with the comparable "if you say something negative about a women, it's because you're a misogynist") is absolutely no way to conduct reasoned debate.

When pointing out mistakes, it is always advisable to be absolutely certain that you're correct before you do.  In this case, you're quite wrong as I indeed did mean the possessive "your" and not the contraction "you're".  I'm was referring to your implication, rather than stating that "[you are] implying...".  Also, if you feel the need to point out one grammatical or spelling error within a fairly lengthy post, it really does suggest that you're scratching around trying to find a "point to score".  I'm sure that, if I trawled back through your various posts, I could find a mistake or two.

[Lilith7]

'IF' -  you may have missed that little word.

Oh come on now, you know full well what you were implying.  No-one had explicitly mentioned racisim (although you were replying to Oh_hunnihunni's clear implication) but you suggest they should leave if they're racist.  If you're not generalising (aka being racist), why not say "if they're murderers/rapists/tax dodgers etc., they can leave?

If I said about Samoans: "If they're thieves, they can go back to Samoa", would that be racist?  We all know that "I'm only saying IF" would be a pretty pathetic excuse in that case as it is in yours.

What I said is that IF they're racist they can bugger off. THAT is precisely what I meant.

I'm not sure that it can be put more plainly, but just in case you missed the actual meaning rather than what you think it said - any non racist is welcome to remain here if they prefer, its just the racists we can do without. We have more than enough of our very own idiots.

And as it happens - I strongly doubt that I'm the only person who's heard a little of racist Saffas here & how they've behaved on occasion.

BTW - IF Samoans had behaved in a way which showed them to be racist, then they too would be welcome to bugger off.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Yeah, solely based on his conduct, I think not. Based on your attitude to his conduct? Very likely.

One of the reasons I have acquired an antipathy to some South Africans is the way they first generationally ruined a nation and then fled with all their wealth and expertise to a safe haven, leaving their home country to fall apart. Had they done that quietly and respectfully, these few migrants that I know rather well, might have slotted in well to their new country, but instead this group set about transforming a community into a carbon copy of the one they had left. Complete with gated communities, unpleasant attitudes to our tangata whenua and tikanga, arrogant expectations, and not a little violence in thought and deed.

But maybe you had to be there. With luck most of that original lot have now died out. Regrettably, my suspicion of them has not.