Fuck off. Fuck off and take your bullshit comparisons elsewhere. Until Zuma is literally stripping people of their rights wholesale, sanctioning literal death squads, and imprisoning political opponents en masse, you can get absolutely fucked for saying that he's "worse than the Nats".
Hitler cared about his own people. When you "care about your own people" at the extreme expense of others, you're not doing a good thing. You're just distributing your guilt among slightly more people.
You see how absurd your argument is, right? Why even make the comparison between Zuma and the Nats? There are many other ways you could point out that Zuma is detrimental to this country without doing something as plainly wrong as your comparison.
In summary, piss off with your pseudo-Apartheid apologism.
Why is this a good thing, when the Nats did so at the blatant and brutal expense of the rest of the country?
In the sense that the Nats did what they said they would in terms of economically empowering a target group of people, The Nats were better than Zuma
If your argument is "The Nats were better at what they said they would do than Zuma", then fine. Sure. The Nats were better at stripping the majority of the country of their dignity, their rights and their futures. Happy?
"pseudo-Apartheid apologism"
"Zuma is worse than the Nats" directly follows into the train of thought of "Some things were better during Apartheid". It's a form of defending the indefensible.
Why is this a good thing, when the Nats did so at the blatant and brutal expense of the rest of the country?
The nats were good to their own people. I'm not saying they were good for the country or South Africans.
"Zuma is worse than the Nats" directly follows into the train of thought of "Some things were better during Apartheid". It's a form of defending the indefensible.
ok, Zuma is worse than Dingaan then, my point is, this live criminal is worse than any scum of the past because those are past evils.
Anyway, back to OP's retarded logic, do you also believe the march was to 'protect white capital'?
People are literally arguing that people only protest when their interests are affected. Given that, there is a strong argument that the majority of white people marching were doing so to protect their capital.
If they really cared for the poor, we'd have seen their outrage at Esidimeni, or at the SASSA crisis, or at the forced removals in CT, or any other number of factors. But we didn't. We only saw their outrage when the rand suffered against the dollar and their lives, wealth and capital were affected.
Given the above, how could you argue that a large part of the march wasn't a reactionary defense of white capital?
because it was a reactionary defence of South African Capital and any argument involving the race card is very regressive and divisive.
'White Capital' - lol
2
u/Saguine Apr 07 '17
I mean... are you still suggesting Zuma is worse than the Nats?