Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: South Africa | |
Author: David Hicks | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 21:03:39 11/13/04 Sat I know this came up here in an idiotic form, but what's the stance towards expanding the FC? Surely SA is a little bit different to the rest of Africa, having a higher GDP than Papua New Guinea, and many Caribbean islands proposed for the FC. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: the Crown | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:39:26 11/13/04 Sat For the moment, we are restricting ourselves to countries of the Crown Commonwealth, in part because they have never been seriously at odds with each other, but also because it would be far simpler to merge countries that already have the same monarch. South Africa, while presenting many characteristics that would certainly welcome immediate inclusion, has at least this one major difference. It chose, at one point, to cease being part of the British family, so it would be a far more difficult step to choose to start being a part of it again. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Choices | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:54:58 11/13/04 Sat South Africa chose at some point to turn its back on links with the British world... this is quite true. And what is even more telling is that the choice was made by the Dutch, who could outnumber the British South Africans. The Dutch, in their turn, have now been outnumbered by African South Africans (if that makes sense), and they show no sign of wishing to re-enter the fold. True, Mandela's first act as president was to rejoin the Commonwealth, but he is of a different generation from the current lot. So, the largest and second largest ethnic groups in the Union of... sorry, in the Republic of South Africa are quite keen on a non-British republic. This leaves the third largest (British) and fourth largest (Indian) as pro-monarchy and pro-Britain, and frankly I wouldn't count on the Indians. I really think that we have 'lost' in that country. I know it's cynical and perhaps not politically correct, but the reason is quite simply that, alone amongst the dominions, in South Africa we never outnumbered non-British inhabitants. In Australia and Canada and New Zealand, no matter how anyone else felt, we could out-vote them. Not in RSA. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: I'm not sure that it's reasonable to lump all of the "African" South Africans into one "ethnic group" | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:55:56 11/14/04 Sun Try telling a Zulu that he is of the same "ethnic group" as a Xhosa and you'll see how sharp his spear is. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Quite so. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:12:39 11/14/04 Sun But the Apartheid years united the black South Africans by presenting them with a common enemy... or at least a common cause for resentment. And now the successor to the Afrikaaners is the Marxist ANC, and Marxists are not known for distinguishing between ancient cultural distinctions. How long black South Africans will continue to live harmoniously, Zulu, Xhosa, Bantu, Lemba, west African immigrants et al., remains to be seen. Although, frankly, I doubt that you'll see anything like the Hutu vs. Tutsi situation which exploded in Rwanda. And, more pertinently to this forum, I doubt that any of them, whatever their differences between themselves, would see a return to royal dominion status as a desirable move! Okay, so we treated the black South Africans better than the Boers did, but that is not saying much and they have a right to be sceptical as to just how liberal we are... especially as we agreed not to enfranchise more black people at the time of the Union, just to keep the Dutch on side and not cause ourselves political problems. Frankly, if I were a black South African, I would conclude that British good intentions do not always prevail over British pragmatism. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: ...especially if the rest of us choose the Crown. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:05:30 11/13/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: SA | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:36:09 11/15/04 Mon I don't think you could rely on much black support - but at the same time, the Queen and Britain are both highly thought of across much of SA society, including the Zulu and Bantu nations, and even a few Boers. It's still the case, for example, that the SA press portray Britain as being on 'their side' in EU negotiations, etc. which I doubt is the case among the current dominions. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Yes... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:36:36 11/15/04 Mon Although it occurs to me that RSA might turn out to be a candidate for federation AFTER a core FC were established and proved successful. The EU argument, loath as I am to admit it, applies here: "Well, they're all doing it, so why shouldn't we? We don't want to miss the bus, you know." [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |