Don’t be a fool. They would have still sold the land, however they acquired it.

Read Jean-Paul Ngoupande, a former prime minister of the Central African Republic, and author of some very good books on contempory Africa. No books written in the black Diaspora are worth reading – they are all full of the Kwanza mythology.

Ngoupande wrote:

There is practically no country or civilization in the world which has not been someone else’s colony at some point in its history: France under the Romans for six centuries, Spain under the Arabs etc…I don’t think it can explain, for example, the destruction of a country like the Ivory Coast, which had got off to a good start…It is the Africans of today who are responsible”

And the clincher in SA and Zimbabwe is that BOTH black and white were colonialists – the indigeneous people were the Khoisan (whom the blacks killed like animals, and the whites protected). Never mind all the tribes that Shaka Zulu enslaved; and the Mfengu (Fingo) that the Xhosa enslaved.

The blacks migrated here from the Congo basin; and the whites from Europe.

This is a pathetic, illogical attempt at justification of colonialism. How did it come that the Brits were in a position to grant the land in the first place? Were they God or did they first have to take the land from the Griqua? And if the land belonged to the Griqua then surely they were entitled to sell it if they so wished? And which Boers were mining magnates before they accidentally stumbled across some diamonds? You can’t seriously believe that if the British thought there were diamonds they would have simply handed over land to the natives. But, oh, I forget, they did actually go to war against the Transvaal in order to hand the goldfields over to the deserving Sothos – or was it the Na’vi?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by mgthoughtleader: The ‘bonus’ of polygamy, but only if you’re ‘indigenous’ (Part 1) http://tinyurl.com/ydqlmqs...

Abraham only married those other wives after Sarah had died; then he repented and sent all their sons away – far from Isaac.

The excuse for polygamy is that it reduces adultery – but it is not doing so in Zuma’s case is it?

I don’t mind if Zuma practices polygamy, but I do mind him pretending to be a Christian (Matthew 19: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife and the TWO will become ONE – NOT the 4 become one) I do mind Zuma having unprotected sex with women not his wives, and I do mind his many children when we need family planning. These are bad examples for the youth.

X-cepting

The Cullinan diamond was on Griqua land which the Brits had granted them, and which their leaders SOLD to the mining magnates, which is WHY the Homelands were formed (so that the boers could not buy and the chiefs not sell)

No the Brits were keeping the boers from taking all the land. Nothing to do with apartheid at all. The missionaries were teaching in those homelands – and they taught people like John Dube and other to a level of education far higher than the Afrikaner had at that time – which meant the Afrikaner could not compete when jobs became scarce.

Lesotho is not a Bantustan, and it has never been one, in fact, it played a major role in the liberation of south Africa. Jeff Radebe, Prof. Ndebele and the late Chris Hani can witness this.

Your facts about Abraham are totally distorted. Genesis 25 is very clear that Abraham had many wives, prominent amongst them was Keturah who bore him seven children.

I still maintain that, the case of Zuma having many wives and sleeping with the daughter of his friend is only drummed up, negatively by bitter man and women who are jealous of him.

I am surprised the ANC Womens League is not vocal about the president’s behaviour. My conclusion if that, it is because there is no clause in the party constitution against extra marital affairs and polygamy.

I, for one, am a grandson of a man that had four wives, all of them, from one family. My father had two and I am a product of the second marriage.

the world needs polygamy to reduce adultery, due to the scarcity of men, unless one accepts prostitution as a way of life.

The adult woman does it to the girl child or no man will marry her when she grows up.

That is how cultural suppression of women always works.

And the men say “it is women’s business”

Ask any man in Egypt about FGM and that is the answer you will get.

That is why cultures try and build in protections. In Zulu culture the “my child is your child” protection is the taboo that Zuma has broken – twice.

Unless you are comparing grown African women with 5 year old Chinese girls, I don’t see the relevance of this. Can you not differentiate what an adult does of their own free will and what is done to a child?

The Koran forbids mutilation of the body so the Imams should discourage not encourage Female Genital Mutilation (they say they don’t iterfere with “cultural practices”)

Also the Koran forbids slavery but only of other Muslims – which is why the Arab slave traders only converted half the tribes and armed them to catch the other half to be slaves (because they were not Muslim – neat trick was it not?)

The Arabic word for “slave” and “black” are the same word by the way.

The Homelands were not started by the Apartheid Nats; but by the Brits and the Missionaries to keep the black chiefs from selling the land to the boers.

This was after the Griqua sold the vast area granted them to Rhodes (which included all the diamond fields). Now the ANC is moaning about the cost of the Griqua land claims – they don’t even know the history! Are they going to pay for the land twice?

And the Homelands included Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland which the boers expected were going to be incorporated into the Union of SA but the Brits said No. Only Botswana took the advice of the missionaries and has been the most successful democracy in Africa since its independence – until it slipped to second with the vast cost of the Aids epidemic.

The Nats bought more land and expanded the homelands for their bantustan policies.

And when the area of Zululand was defined – it was 8000 acres per family!