Examining the conflict between: Whites only abandoning apartheid under obligation vs a moral choice.
Among whites was a vast spectrum of political views, some were liberal tea sipping ladies who supported Helen Suzman, some were hard-line conservative farmers, but unlike Rendi3r's outlandish claim that white protested their government, a large percentage of us just passively and obediently went along with the Apartheid current. There were tentative attempts at reform such as the Kwazulu\Natal Indaba; capitalising on the province's egalitarian political traditions in an attempt to short-circuit apartheid legislation during the mid 1980's.
Far from Khaya's over simplistic view that whites were strictly out to protect their own privilege and interests, I will also level a supplementary proposal that that methods employed by Liberation movements and the exploitation by sinister foreign political interests also did well to provide an obstacle to reform. In spite what Khaya may think, at the time the situation was far more ambiguous for White South Africans.
Some feel: Defeat at Cuito Cuarnavale, rolling mass action, sanctions meant whites had no choice but to end Apartheid due to sheer force of the liberation movement, and thus Whites remain guilty forever.
In defence others claim SA agreed to withdraw SWA & Angola after a no win situation, Sanctions never had much effect and they voted to end apartheid by moral choice.
These arguments are used to justify or dispute and joust over the ethics of political agenda such as: AA, BEE etc...
In this video I will float the theory white SA never had a choice before or after 1989 based on the global political climate.
On the subject of understanding terrorism I recommend this vid:
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=TxwNOZQZzLk&feature=user
This is my first real video so excuse my shoddy pompous narration and beastly savagery with which I lit and smoked that cigar...
Great video.
marinus86 3 years ago