Talk:South Africa

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for allowing conservative postings!

Thanks for not deleting posts, like done by Wikipedia!

Thanks for allowing the posting of the truth.

Reverted material

All this material has been removed from the main page, and the sources must be vetted for content before reinclusion. RobS 14:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Criticism by the informal media in South Africa

It is widely believed that the South African Government controlls the South African Media. Dr. Snuki Zikalala, the chief of SABC news and a members of the ruling ANC Government, is controlling the content of the news on the SABC. [1]

The Freedom of Expression Institute(FXI) is seriously concerned about the state of media freedom in South Africa [2] According to the formal media in South Africa "Freedom of expression has limits." [3] This is used as an excuse to censor news which is not politically correct, or which does not serve the ruling political party's (political) agendas.

Therefore the public does not have access to uncencored news and information. The informal media is filling this gap by allowing individuals to post unedited information. The informal media (blogs) serves as an outlet for all of those individuals that have the need to say what they really think about the situation in South Africa, or any other topic. [4]

The official South African media criticised the informal media, and questioned its proffessionalism, but some bloggers are actually reporters, or they have worked as reporters in the formal media. Some bloggers are highly intelligent, qualified and degreed, they run their our own successful companies and are well informed on the political situation in South Africa. [5]

The formal media selects the information it wants to publish. When letters are received from the public, only certain letters are published. Not all letters can be published due to a lack of space in a newspaper, but this is not the case with the informal media. Furthermore the formal media selects which letters it wants to publish, according to the political affiliation or agendas of the newspaper. It may deliberately cencor certain individuals or political views, or any other comments on any subject it doesn't support. Distorted points of view can also be provided by selectively deleting sections of any letter or comments made by an individuals. It is easy for the informal media to expose politicians which are protected (even supported) by the mainstream media. Therefore politicians are against the informal media.

The informal media provided the individual with the means to express themselves, and for others to take note.

Why South Africa Sucks is one of the most popular South African Internet Blogs, critical of the crime, Corruption & Genocide in South Africa. It was started on 13 Nov 2006. It recorded 222,006 hits since inception. There are 4 persons contributing to Articles on Why South Africa Sucks.[6] They are:

  • Knorrig
  • Eli the Bearded
  • The Uhuru Guru
  • The Real Realist

Other websites in the informal media is also critical of the government. The mainstream media tries to ignore these websites. They refuse to refer to them.

The website African Crisis reports on issues critical to South Africa. [7]

Other informal websites critical of the situation in South Africa is:

The informal media in South Africa is not only critical about the situation in the country, but it also provide information on a wide range of subjects & differnt points of view.



Freedom of speech written by a guest, May 14, 2007

Real freedom of speech can only exist in a free society. This is not the case in SA. This has never been the case in the past and I believe that real freedom of opinion will become even more dangerous in future. Example Zimbabwe.

The way I feel about what is happening in this place cannot be expressed publicly with my name attached to it. I cannot even openly say what I think except in a small circle of trusted friends.

The Sucs blog serves as an outlet for all of those that have the need to say what they really think about the f*ck*d up situation in this country with a government openly supporting the criminal in some cases where it suites them. Hate speech, but of course only in one direction, is openly practiced by government officials high up and they do all in their power to kill the culture of certain population groups.

On this site I can add my comment but I have to be very careful with my choice of words and I have to make sure not to be too critical.

On the Sucs blog I can add my comment saying exactly what I think and using a nickname of choice.

I think there is a real need for blogs where very disappointed and very angry South Africans can freely comment!


This note was made in the comment section. [10] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John99 (talk)

A perfect article

Since this has been blocked for months, I take it this is the definitive article on South Africa, and never needs to be changed, including the many typos. Ozark 16:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)


Why is this page blocked? Maestro 10:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

There has been some question regarding blogs as sources for alleged "genocide" in South Africa. Ask User:DanH to unlock, and if he's unavailable momentarily I may be able to help. Thank you. RobS 10:38, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

This cannot be allowed to stand if C-pedia wants to retain credibility.

 Genocide in South Africa

The African National Congress is promoting Genocide against the boer in South Africa. [3]. 1860 Farmers were killed in South Africa since 1994. 400,000 Afrikaners are destitute and starving in South Africa.

There is also a believe that there is a conspiricy to kill white people on a massive scale after the death of Nelson Mandela. One of the operations planned entails 70,000 armed black men "being transported to the Johannesburg city center within an hour" in taxicabs to attack whites. The plans are variously dubbed "Operation Vula," "Night of the Long Knives," "Operation White Clean-up," "Operation Iron Eagle" and "Red October campaign." [4]

The victims of this ongoing onslaught are invariably elderly, law-abiding, god-fearing whites, murdered in cold blood, in ways that beggar belief. For the edification of racism spotters in the West, "Carte Blanche" ought to have pointed out that their assailants are always black. [5]

Someone please remove this passage ASAP. PFoster 10:43, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, there are problems with this article. We need a level headed investigator to check out the sources of these claims, and clean up the article if necessary. The claims are inflammitory, OTOH we don't wish to dismiss them out of hand. Is there an editor willing to check out the sourcing and let us know? One claim the original author states is censorship of South African and other mainstream media. So if someone is willing to see if any portion of the these claims can be verified by another more reputable source, it will be appreciated.
Any volunteers? Then the page can be unlcoked. Thank you. RobS 10:49, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

What would you count as a "more reputable source?" The total dearth of reports on the subject by any major news agency, African or Western? The total dearth of reports from the UN, the African Union, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International? This stuff only exists on the marginal websites cited in the article, and in no mainstream reputable source. PFoster 10:56, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

That is precisely what has to be checked out. The blogs cite various crimes which have occurred, which are hyped into a policy of genocide. It is not surprising that two things exist, (1) crimes against persons in South Africa, and (2) corruption in any governmental institution. Further, it is not surprising that mainstream media sources do not sensationalize Black on White crime in post-apartheid South Africa.
We need an unbiased editor to investigate if certain crimes committed in South Africa which may or may not be racially motived are (a) being fully investigated and prosecuted by the South African government,and (b) being reported by South African or other sources whose credentials are unbiased. RobS 11:03, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

As I said, there is nothing there. It's hard to prove a negative: Nobody is reporting on this stuff - not All Africa News, none of the South African papers, not the Council for Foreign Relations [11], not the BBC, not the NYT, not Fox News, not Le Monde, none of the papers from South Africa's neighbours, none of the African or Western human rights groups. Nobody. Surely C-Pedia does not allow blogs as a refernve Please unlock or take it down. PFoster 11:09, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Genocide Watch [12] reports "Over 1000 Boer Farmers In South Africa Have Been Murdered Since 1991" in a 2002 report. [13] This appears to be a reputable organization. And the figure, "over 1000", is in keeping with the claim of 1860.
Clearly, a minority feels its being targeted and victimized, so the claims need to be investigated for veracity. If the claims are hyped or exaggerated, that reflects on the credibility of the claimants, and portions, if not all, can be dismissed. If on the other hand, government corruptuion and media bias are ignoring a travesty of justice being perpetrated on a voiceless minority, there may be elements of material suitable for this mainspace. RobS 11:24, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

look, Rob, what can I tell you - it ain't there except in the blogosphere. If that's good enough for you and for the wiki writ large, so be it. But there's not a single credible source to back up these horrible - and in my opinion racist - allegations. The onus of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, and I don't believe that any reasonable person would concede that the case is made. I have volunteered, as you asked. I have found nothing in any reputable print or online source that justifies allowing these claims to stand. If that's not good enough for you, what can I say? I'm just appalled that blogs are considered encyclopedic in this particular case. PFoster 11:34, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

What is not reputable about this organization? [14] RobS 11:44, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I've already checked that one out, and in their country watch section, they have a link to one story - ONE story - from last year, carried on ONE news service and not anywhere else. Not enough to validate the claims being made here. PFoster 11:48, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

It would be nice to see some links. And where did Genocide Watch get it's story from ? RobS 11:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

GW - country page for South Africa: [15] The story it links to - which NEVER mentions the terms "genocide," "democide," or "ethnocide": [16] PFoster 11:58, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

So, (A) we need a definition or standard of genocide or democide; and (B) the figure of 311 homicides per 100,000 ethnic Boers is roughly three times the national average of homicide in the United States; Genocide Watch states, "by 2001 (1,000/45,000*100=) 2.2 percent of ethno-European farmers had already been murdered." Further, these do not appear to be random attacks, rather youth being incited by, as WorldNetDaily reports, the current South African Head of Government. These are indeed serious charges. RobS 12:07, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, Rob, in my little world, if I want to discuss human rights abuses in Africa, I stick with the African Union, HRW, AI, the UN, African newspapers from the country in question and its neighbours, the AllAfrica news wire, the ICG, ReliefWeb, and possibly BBC, the Times of London, NYT, Le Monde, Agence France-Presse, Foreign Affairs, and the International Herald Tribune for a Western media perspective. You don't seem to be interested in the fact that these sources have precious little to say on the topic. What is WorldNetDaily? I'm sure Genocide Watch means well, but it seems to be a web-only phenomenon that cobbles together stories but doesn't get cited all that often by human rights groups. Neither of us is going to convince the other, and your sysop status means you de facto win the argument. PFoster 12:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Any while you're debating this, the poorly-written, pooly-sourced, un gramatical accusations are still on the page. Meanwhile, no one else can add anything else about S. Africa. Maestro 18:01, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
It's probably ungrammatical cause the author is a Dutch speaking Boer. RobS 18:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Small correction to the above edit: Afrikaners and Boers don't speak Dutch; we speak Afrikaans, but it did come from Dutch though. Afrikaner 19:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)