I did a very surface level look into South African history. The whole thing is a moral trash fire. but it will go down in normie history as good vs evil. why dose this kind of simplification happen?
>>18468946I don't know what exactly are you talking about regarding South African history but the broader question you are making about the use of History to paint historical events as good vs evil it's pretty obvious: it's a political tool.
>>18468946>The whole thing is a moral trash fire. How?>it will go down in normie history as good vs evil. It goes down as an example of long term pressure actually worked out.
>>18468950>>18468969so you got your denmark slavery, English colonize them crush them, they leave, get massacred by indigenous tribe. Set up mining town, unionize get fired replaced by indigenous population, rebel, British concurred them again put them in concentration camps. Get free, create apartheid.Then you got ANC whos plan was to bomb and terrorist attack not the ruling class but civilians, including killing a rival native political group with "south african neck ties" put a tire on a guys neck pour gasoline on him and set them on fire. Win, 20 years of gradual decline and slowly lose the rule of law.
>>18468991>Then you got ANC whos plan was to bomb and terrorist attack not the ruling class but civiliansThey mostly targeted government facilties and holdings. >including killing a rival native political group with "south african neck ties" put a tire on a guys neck pour gasoline on him and set them on fire.That's what happens in any movement with multple cells and dealing with collaborators.>Win, 20 years of gradual decline and slowly lose the rule of law.No, the decline was always there. The SA economy was severely outdated even by the mid 20th century but was held static in time to enrich the business elites and government offices. The SA government during and before apartheid NEVER had rule of Law because of the massive state capture and corruption that would make the current ANC shebang seek tame.
>>18469028do you see how you're sliding back to a morality tail?
caring about history by itself is a mistake
>>18469087It's not a mortality tale dumbass. Stop trying to use terms you can't grasp.
>>18469087The anon just stated the historical facts. If you really do have one side bent on capturing all resources for the explicit benefit of a minority while oppressing the majority, there's not many ways to spin that which DON'T read as a "morality tale."
>>18469579I bring up violent actions takenhe mitigates the violent actions by saying the targets of those actions weren't that bad- opinionBring up Necklacing they felt bad after they did it - opininonDecline>it was always gonna happenthis anon can see the future that never was.
>>18469703>he mitigates the violent actions by saying the targets of those actions weren't that bad- opinionWhat was stated was fact. Yeah insurgency target government buildings and institutions. Mandela also took out newspaper ads telling civvies of the following targets.>Bring up Necklacingthey felt bad after they did it.You didn't even read the post dear Christ.>this anon can see the future that never was.We have countless precedents. We are posting on /his/
>>18468946>why dose this kind of simplification happen?Because history is relative to interpretation, which is driven by whatever broader culture is interpreting it.
>>18469028>They mostly targeted government facilties and holdings.https://youtu.be/pClpG8FNuxs?si=ZFIzWp280UsqJWTj&t=677nigger retard
