State sponsored crime

[nkt]

Interesting mention of the US prison population, and execution rates. If we accept the fact that all races are of the same ability, if the prison population is 75% black, and they are only 12% of the population, and you assume that the judges and jurys who've sent them to prison aren't biased, then that's proof of systematic social discrimination throughout US society, starting from grade school. Will the world see that as a crime?

This is a dangerous area, but one that needs to be explored. Boerseun, you are in South Africa, and will have a very much different perspective on this issue to some others.

 

Now, I'm not going to say that this applies in all cases, and counter examples will be forthcoming, I am sure, but is the situation in South Africa since the fall of the white leadership better in any way than the situation before? (I obviously except the main one, which is that white, black and coloured now have the same rights)

 

Have any of the African countries given independance actually improved themselves since being given independance? We have had a long thread on African debt relief, but we never came to any conclusions as regards the true causes of the problems.

 

But it can't just be something simple, like melanin makes you violent or stops your brain working. A look at some of the idiylic places around the world shows that there isn't always a problem in tropical locations. I know that Jamaica isn't one of them, however. Yet I know people in the UK of Jamaican decent who are perfectly nice and normal, and black as the ace of spades. One of the lads at my school is now a well-known Jazz musician of masterful ability, as well as being very intelligent. He had no violent tendancies as far as I saw.

 

On the other hand, I know one lad who is quite a handful for his mother - but then, he is in his late teens. Still, he doesn't go round beating people to death.

 

So, does anyone have any suggestions or ideas as to why this is the case? Low levels of education combined with multimedia that glamourises "Gangsta" crime and wealth is certainly a part of it, but surely is not the entire story. Higher rates of mental health problems is also noted in blacks, but I'm not sure of the source for that.

 

It certainly isn't that the system is set up against them, however, since the ratio of black prisoners is higher in the UK as well, especially for murder, where a bias in the system would have least effect. If anything, the system is set to help them more (Positive discrimination, we call it!) then the white who finds himself in the same settings.

 

Comments?

[Chacmool]

This is a dangerous area, but one that needs to be explored. Boerseun, you are in South Africa, and will have a very much different perspective on this issue to some others.

 

Now, I'm not going to say that this applies in all cases, and counter examples will be forthcoming, I am sure, but is the situation in South Africa since the fall of the white leadership better in any way than the situation before? (I obviously except the main one, which is that white, black and coloured now have the same rights)

nkt, I also live in South Africa. And you're right - our perspective might be different from that of someone living in the USA or Europe.

 

Asking whether the situation has improved in our new democracy is not so simple. It has improved for some, stayed quite a lot the same for others, and for some it has even worsened.

 

Now I suppose your first reaction might be to think the last category I mentioned refer to white people. However, while this is true in some cases, I would say that black people, and especially coloureds, still suffer the most. Those who came into power inherit an already flawed and corrupt system of government - on national, provincial and local level. Sadly, the injustices have in many cases just been continued.

 

For example:

- The national government is dragging its feet over the Aids policy, and people in need of medication (most often black people in impoverished rural areas) aren't getting it. Also, our education system has become a joke - there are high levels of corruption (especially involving exam fraud) and the standards keep on dropping.

- The delivery of basic services (sanitation, water supply, electricity) has definitely worsened for most people. Roads are falling into disrepair, power failures are becoming more frequent, and our water is filthy. Again, the worst off are the poor people in rural areas - those who voted the current government into power.

 

Our middle class, which has to carry a large chunk of the tax burden and do a lot of the work - is shrinking. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. The fat cats in government are only looking after themselves, and not after their voters, let alone the rest of the country.

 

So formerly wealthy whites are still doing OK, and some are even prospering more than before. The number of poor, destitute and unemployed whites is increasing at an alarming rate. The noveau riche blacks are getting disproportionately richer, but that wealth isn't being invested back into poor communities. The impoverished blacks are struggling even more than before - even less jobs and less services for them. And the coloureds are still the worst off - previously they were too black, and now they are too white.

 

So, do you think our situation is better or worse than before? :shrug:

[nkt]

nkt, I also live in South Africa. And you're right - our perspective might be different from that of someone living in the USA or Europe.

 

Asking whether the situation has improved in our new democracy is not so simple. It has improved for some, stayed quite a lot the same for others, and for some it has even worsened.

<snip>

So, do you think our situation is better or worse than before? :shrug:

From what you write, it sounds like the majority of people are, in fact, worse off. Yes, they may have political freedom, but without clean drinking water, electricity, etc. they are far worse off in reality.

 

I'm also aware of the scary levels of violent crime over there - something which isn't going to be helped by the new restrictions on guns, since, as you say, there is a lot of corruption and many outside the law, and so only the richer and more easily targeted people will be affected.

 

In spite of Apartheid, South Africa was, for about 20 years, the only thing that could be regarded as a success story (by any measure) in Africa.

[Skippy]

I agree. In fact, the US made one hell of a mess when they meddled in the Angolan war. I'm just lucky that my dad got out of that horror alive - many others weren't so lucky.

So I think the freedom I currently enjoy is not thanks to the US, but despite them.

I wonder how far south the Nazis would have gone in Africa if not for The U.S.?

[Chacmool]

I wonder how far south the Nazis would have gone in Africa if not for The U.S.?

Well, we'll never know. Everything is just theoretical speculation. But my guess is that South Africa would have been able to defend itself against the Nazis quite well. And as a former colony of England, we could probably have counted on their help, if necessary.

 

In any case, how would the Nazis have reached us back then? They didn't have satellite-guided missiles to fly halfway around the world. An attack by land would have been very difficult, given the fact that you have to cross some of the roughest terrain and largest continent to get here. Similarly, an air attack would by difficult because most of Africa was even less developed then than it is now, and there wouldn't have been places to land and refuel the planes of the day. And then our coast is notorious for its rough seas, so an attack by sea would also be improbable.

[Chacmool]

From what you write, it sounds like the majority of people are, in fact, worse off. Yes, they may have political freedom, but without clean drinking water, electricity, etc. they are far worse off in reality.

 

I'm also aware of the scary levels of violent crime over there - something which isn't going to be helped by the new restrictions on guns, since, as you say, there is a lot of corruption and many outside the law, and so only the richer and more easily targeted people will be affected.

 

In spite of Apartheid, South Africa was, for about 20 years, the only thing that could be regarded as a success story (by any measure) in Africa.

Right on, nkt. Freedom means very little if you're bearly able to survive.

 

Just to illustrate my point further: this past weekend a went on a day trip - we went there in a luxury bus, and it cost R250 (about US$40) per person. I'm a normal, working-class person, and that's not a small amount of money to me, but I can afford it without starving for the rest of the month. By contrast, close to our destination we went past a public bus crammed full of people on their normal commute; the bus was carrying at least twice its capacity, and the vehicle was so run-down that it was leaning precariously to the one side.

 

I could afford to travel in safety and comfort, to a place I didn't really need to be. These other people had to rely on dangerous public transport just to get home. And the government is doing NOTHING to make things better for them.

 

And you're right - violent crime has reached frightening levels. I have many friends, family members and acquaintances who have been the victims of armed robberies, muggings, hijackings and even murder over the past ten years. Yet, our government denies that there is a problem, and they refuse to release official crime statistics.

 

It is a sad fact that this is by far the most successful country in Africa. Just imagine what's happening on the rest of the continent.

[Biochemist]

..But my guess is that South Africa would have been able to defend itself against the Nazis quite well. And as a former colony of England, we could probably have counted on their help, if necessary....

It is pretty unlikely that England would have been able to assist without US help. They were in pretty dire straits in WII. Then agian, it is hard to believe that the Nazis would have gone that far South. But if the US has waited and let the Nazis colonize North Africa, the Nazis might have consoloidated and then taken over the whole continent.

 

It is speculation. But it is pretty unlikely that the Brits could have helped SA under any scenario.

[nkt]

It is pretty unlikely that England would have been able to assist without US help. They were in pretty dire straits in WII. Then agian, it is hard to believe that the Nazis would have gone that far South. But if the US has waited and let the Nazis colonize North Africa, the Nazis might have consoloidated and then taken over the whole continent.

 

It is speculation. But it is pretty unlikely that the Brits could have helped SA under any scenario.

Not at all true! What is power? It is knowledge and know-how. The UK helped the USA, and it would have helped any of it's allies. Sure, we were running low on physical stuff, but we were still managing.

 

Inventions like the jet turbine (which was given to the Germans because the UK MOD couldn't see any advantage!), RADAR, microwaves, computing engines (years before the USA) and more. The US ships could not have coped nearly as well without the UK's radar technology to find and destroy the north Atlantic "Wolf packs". Without Bletchley park, and the code breaking efforts (and the first automated computers, details of which were destroyed down to the last part), any aid would have been far, far harder to bring over and use effectively, be it arms, men or food.

 

Aid like that was what won the war, as much as the sheer numbers. After all, the Germans never had the troop numbers, they were just better, both better trained and armed. They had tanks (that really worked) and they had tank tactics (that really really worked!) but by the middle of the year, they were struggling, since we had converted more of our industrial base to war production, and more effectively. We had three tank variations, the Germans had 14 for one Panzer model alone!

 

Further, the Germans were only *developing* a heavy long range bomber at the end of the war! We had them long before. If they had had, things might have turned out differently. But then, we still had radar worth something, and used it to good effect. Germany had no real naval power, and the channel stood in the way.

 

The switch from targetted airfield bombing to the "blitz" tactics was also a bad idea, as we responded in kind, with Dresden. It also let us get our factories and air bases working more effectively, since they weren't getting attacked.

 

In reality, corruption sank them. Corruption and fear. The Germans made a few silly mistakes, and it cost them the war.

 

Without the USA, things might have gone on for a long, long time, or they might not. And it could have gone either way. Odds are it would have been a stalemate for a long, long time.

[Biochemist]

Not at all true! What is power? It is knowledge and know-how. The UK helped the USA, and it would have helped any of it's allies. Sure, we were running low on physical stuff, but we were still managing.

Nkt-

 

I would be the last guy to critique the effort, valiance or dedication of the Brits during WWII. I was discussing above whether the Nazis would have taken South Africa. It would have been quite a stretch for the Germans to do that, and it would have been an even greater stretch for the Brits to help out SA, given the distance.

 

The US contribution to the war in Europe was mostly manpower. American technology was no match for the Germans tanks or their fighters.

 

The US and the Brits had pretty good ground tactics. We also had more money at the end. It has been argued that they ran out of bullets first. There are individual battles where that really seemed to be true.

 

But in war, power is knowledge, know-how and logistics and assets. You have to have things (people, weapons, gasoline), and have them in the right place at the right time. Knowledge and know-how is outmaneuvered if you are out of bullets and out of time.

[infamous]

 

Will our economic actions, in the future, be seen as state sponsored crimes? If there's one thing our state does sponsor (so to speak), it's the capitalist system. Environmental sustainability is at the bottom of the barrel- will we be seen as commiting eco-crimes, completely legally?

 

!

This is an extremely important issue bumab, Nazi Germany, as has already been mentioned, commited crimes against humanity with only a minimal outcry from it's countrymen. Eventhough it's true that, by the time it's citizenry understood the trap they had fallen into, open criticism would have been delt with most severely. It's nearly impossible to regain freedoms once lost, and most Americans recognize this fact. How history will view the decisions we make today is also a difficult thing to predict.

 

This one thing I'm confident of; It really matters not which nation is in current control of economic and military power, weather it be America, France, China, or any other nation one would choose to name. Most other nations, because of their relative economic position will naturally find fault with the one in prominence. There will surely come a day when America will no longer reign at the top of the economic ladder, and when it comes, which nation will we then find occasion to criticize. Do we have any volunteers for this position of leadership. Remember this position brings with it a responsibility to not only pay the bills for the UN but also bear the greater portion of the military burden. To be the provider for those which cannot provide for themselves, to be the human rights leader in the world, on , and on, and on, and on.

 

I'm confident that many here, will now take the opportunity to remind us all of America's short comings. I will admit we have our share, and I will not try to just sweep these facts under the rug. We have problems that we need to deal with, and that goes for just about every other nation out there. So I will end this with just one question for all you folks that think that we Americans are doing so badly. Which nation would you have preferred to take on these responsibilities for the last 100 years??

[Skippy]

Not at all true! What is power? It is knowledge and know-how. The UK helped the USA, and it would have helped any of it's allies. Sure, we were running low on physical stuff, but we were still managing.

Without the USA, things might have gone on for a long, long time, or they might not. And it could have gone either way. Odds are it would have been a stalemate for a long, long time.

I think Churchill aptly compared the people of Britain to the bulldog whose slanted nose allows it to stay in the fight a long time because when it bites it deosn't have to let go to breathe. Remember though that the US was sending aid to Britain before 12/7/41. And the events of that day opened the US up to war with Japan, we could have focused all efforts there, lost fewer American servicemen and ended the Pacific campaign much sooner (without the N-bomb). But FDR chose to fight a two front war when Germany declared war on the US. Think Germany would have had trouble taking South Africa? They already had control of Northern Africa... to fight a war with The US, The US had to come to them. given enough time, the Nazis would have solidified its hold on Europe and North Africa and then moved on. Thank God, and our ancestor's resolve (UK and USA) this is all speculative.

 

I think we have successfully gotten off topic now. :shrug:

[Skippy]

A survey released in May by pollster Instituto Opina said 62 percent of Spaniards support the government's action on gay marriage, and 30 percent oppose it. Sounds like a majority to me, but then again I am just a trashy teacher...

I want to say publicly I am sorry for that. :shrug:

 

I would love to see the actual poll you refer to. I could write a poll and get 97% of Evangelical Christians in The US to say they were 'For' gay marriage. Example - "Should gay marriage be legal or should gays be sent to concentration camps?" The report would say, "On the question of whether gay marriage should be legal, 97% of evangelicals said "Yes."" No comment about the other half of the question. Check out pollsters questions as well as the answer options, you cannot rely on the pollsters results.

[bumab]

This is an extremely important issue bumab, Nazi Germany, as has already been mentioned, commited crimes against humanity with only a minimal outcry from it's countrymen. Eventhough it's true that, by the time it's citizenry understood the trap they had fallen into, open criticism would have been delt with most severely. It's nearly impossible to regain freedoms once lost, and most Americans recognize this fact. How history will view the decisions we make today is also a difficult thing to predict.

 

True, true.

 

This one thing I'm confident of; It really matters not which nation is in current control of economic and military power, weather it be America, France, China, or any other nation one would choose to name. Most other nations, because of their relative economic position will naturally find fault with the one in prominence. There will surely come a day when America will no longer reign at the top of the economic ladder...

 

A good thing to remember. It's also good to note that most nations become really decripit and impotent near the end of their reign, bloated even. Note the Roman and Grecian empires. Seems many nations are founded on high ideals, and far futher and futher afield as time goes on.

 

 

I'm confident that many here, will now take the opportunity to remind us all of America's short comings. I will admit we have our share, and I will not try to just sweep these facts under the rug. We have problems that we need to deal with, and that goes for just about every other nation out there. So I will end this with just one question for all you folks that think that we Americans are doing so badly. Which nation would you have preferred to take on these responsibilities for the last 100 years??

 

Yeah, it's turned into a bash America opportunity. That's not what I intended at all. I merely wanted to investigate the possibility that our laws, which we cherish, might be considered immoral or even criminal in later times, by later cultures. Nobody has brought up abortion yet- it's legal. Will that be considered a crime against humanity in the future? (i'll score one for the other side, there :shrug:)

 

Anyway, I hope no one mistook my intention to bash America. That was certainly not it- I wanted to raise the posibility in any country that legal actions may, in fact, be horrible. And we may not recognize them.

[infamous]

:shrug:)

 

Anyway, I hope no one mistook my intention to bash America. That was certainly not it- I wanted to raise the posibility in any country that legal actions may, in fact, be horrible. And we may not recognize them.

Absolutely bumab, I for one understood your motives but some members have, as is customary, used this thread to bash America. I find this attitude to be quite insulting. America is not perfect and by the tenor of their retoric, many that find pleasure in this criticism may not be so perfect either.

[Boerseun]

Anyway, I hope no one mistook my intention to bash America. That was certainly not it- I wanted to raise the posibility in any country that legal actions may, in fact, be horrible. And we may not recognize them.

Bumab, I'm with you there - and the only reason I've raised issues against the USA was just to prove your point, seeing as the US is seen as the 'Defenders of Freedom'.

 

If the 'Defenders of Freedom' has shortcomings, then ANY imaginable government can have. I think we have successfully proved your point, and the US could have been substituted for any other government.

 

The subjective response of patriotic indignation by a few US citizens regarding slander against their country, is actually more proof of what you're talking about. They will try to defend their country, regardless of what its being blamed for, sometimes coming with evidence to the contrary, sometimes coming with an attempt to dodge the topic and focus the attention somewhere else - "Yes, but what about country X doing this and that...", "If it wasn't for the US in 1940, then...", etc., etc.

 

They don't see the forest for the trees, and might be unknowing accomplices in matter x that they successfully ignore.

 

Nationalism is dangerous. Patriotism is dangerous. State-sponsored propaganda, combined with nationalism and blind patriotism, is fatal.

[Boerseun]

Regarding the hypothetical nazi invasion of South Africa:

 

Little-known history...

 

In 1936 at the Berlin olympics, Hitler approached a South African boxer, Robey Leibbrant. Leibbrant was wined and dined and was very impressed with the pomp and ceremony of the Reich, and Hitler, being the Feuhrer that he was, smooth-talked Leibbrant into becoming a spy for Germany. Leibbrant spent more than two years in Germany, undergoing intensive training, and was inserted back into South Africa with a U-boat on the Western Cape coast. Genuine. If you give me a day or so, I can even get you the U-boat's number. The U-boat was packed with munitions to be used in terrorism acts against the Union Government, by the 'Ossewa Brandwag (OB)', a underground party that got banned in the war for its nazi sympathy and oratory, as well as terrorism.

 

Robey Leibbrant was to chaperone the munitions to the OB, and the next step in his mission was to get close to Jan Smuts, the prime minister of the Union of South Africa, with the sole intention to kill him to pave the way for an OB coup de'tat. Which would, in effect, be a nazi takeover. The feeling against the government at that stage was already pretty bad, seeing as South African men were dying in droves not only in the European theater, but also in North Africa. So, a coup de'tat was not unimaginable.

 

Robey Leibbrant got caught a few weeks before the planned assasination of Jan Smuts, and was tried for terrorism and conspiracy, and espionage, and was executed before the end of the war. Jan Smuts became one of the 'Founding Fathers' of the United Nations, and was one of the main contributors towards the UN charter.

 

So, yes - the nazis didn't take over SA, but not because they didn't want to. It was just too far from Europe, so the closest they wanted to be involved in SA was through a puppet government via the Ossewa Brandwag. The US and the UK would probably have engaged the nazis in SA if it came to that, because the sea-route around the Cape of Good Hope is vital to the West in the case of a Suez-closure (much like what happened in the sixties). They would have engaged the nazis in SA militarily, for their own interests. So - we can swing this hypothetical war either ways :shrug:

[nkt]

Regarding the hypothetical nazi invasion of South Africa:

 

Little-known history...

Wow, that's something I had never even heard about. Thanks!

 

The coup would have been very much a state-sponsored crime, too!