Damaging Monuments to White South African History

Secondly, whites are angry because those in charge of the country, and those acting like barbarians, are such hypocrites: such “selective transformation” advocates.  They pick and choose what they want to retain from “white” culture and achievements.  They love their cars, cellphones, fancy suits, designer dresses, watches, luxury homes, international flights – all the fruits of the expertise and genius of Europeans, and people of European origin.  But while they swan around enjoying these fruits, they condemn white South Africans at every opportunity as the cause of all the problems in the country.

Thirdly, and most importantly, whites are angry because of the deeper, far more sinister aspect to this whole business.  It’s not just about the defacing of statues; it’s about what this defacing represents. Whites know that the damaging of statues is just a symbol of the barbaric hatred which so many blacks feel towards whites – all thanks to the constant anti-white message emanating from the former terrorists now in power.  As the Jews watched the destruction of their heritage occurring in 1933, they must have felt a growing unease, a sense of foreboding, of dark clouds gathering on the horizon.  This is what white South Africans are feeling.  They watch the barbarity, the hatred, the anti-white racism, and they wonder: is it statues today, real people tomorrow?

Indian South Africans

And what of Indian South Africans?  Throughout the terrorist revolution against South Africa, spearheaded by the ANC, many Indian South Africans sided with the revolutionaries; but they were naive in the extreme if they thought that after the revolution was over, radicalised blacks would accept them as true South Africans.  Although not on the same level as radical black hatred for Afrikaners and English South Africans, radical black hatred for Indians is very real.  At best, they view Indians merely as useful pawns to achieve their objectives; at worst, they hate Indians and view them as non-South Africans, people who (like the whites) should not be in the country and should be treated as second-class citizens.  And this was shown, yet again, when suddenly, right in front of the ANC’s Johannesburg offices, a group of people wearing ANC caps brazenly defaced a statue of Mahatma Gandhi.  As they arrived with their paint, they had placards that read: “Racist Gandhi Must Fall.”  They also defaced a nearby plaque containing information about Gandhi.  One of the men was caught by a security guard, but the guard said: “He said he’s not worried because he’ll just make a call and his leader will get him out of prison.  He was relaxed, and said they know what they’re doing.  They said we shouldn’t stop them because Gandhi was a racist.”

Truthfully, Gandhi was a racist (by today’s standards).  He did not think much of blacks at all.  He looked down on them.  I have written about this in my article, Gandhi: “Struggle Hero” or Segregationist and Indian Supremacist?  But the point of the assault on a statue of Gandhi is that it reveals the kind of anti-Indian hatred that exists within sectors of the black community.  For the attacks on statues are merely a symptom of the underlying hatred of blacks towards whites, and blacks towards Indians, in this country.

Historical Truths which Radicals Ignore

The utter ignorance of real history displayed by the radicals seeking the destruction of the statues to Afrikaners’ and English South Africans’ history is blatantly evident.  To these uneducated fools, any and all “white” history is about the oppression of blacks.  This just shows how little they know.

Dick King, whose statue was defaced in Durban, was not a Colonialist “oppressor”.  He was a trader and colonist in Port Natal, the British trading station where the great city of Durban stands today.  He was commemorated by the statue for his historic 1842 horseback ride from Port Natal to Grahamstown to obtain reinforcements for the British troops who were besieged by the Boers (note to black radicals: both British and Boer troops were white).  It was a journey of well over 900km through a vast wilderness, and involved the fording of some 120 rivers as well as the constant danger from wildlife and wild tribes, and he completed it in just 10 days – probably the greatest horseback ride in recorded history anywhere in the world, a feat of endurance and courage that deserves to be remembered for all time.

And why deface a monument to World War Two, or to the fallen animals of the Boer War?  Are such monuments “Colonialist” as well?  Are people really so stupid?  Where would South Africa’s blacks be today if the Allies had not won World War Two?

And what about the statue to General Louis Botha, the Boer hero and first prime minister of the Union of South Africa?  As pointed out by Dr Corné Mulder, following the Bambatha uprising in Natal in 1908, the Zulu king, Dinizulu, was incarcerated by the British.  Louis Botha was actually a friend of the king, and when he became prime minister one of his first decisions was to order the release of the king immediately, and to ensure that he was given a farm to live on.  “Today, the statues of Louis Botha and Dinizulu stand next to each other in Durban in recognition of these facts.”  How sad that ignorant black radicals blindly see everything through the foggy lens of “white oppression/black suffering”.

Then there is Paul Kruger, who served as president of the Transvaal Republic.  “President Paul Kruger largely dedicated his life to the struggle against British imperialism and colonialism,” said Dr Pieter Mulder, the Freedom Front Plus leader.  “It started with the Great Trek in which he took part to get away from under the authority of the British authority and ended with two wars, 1881 and 1889, against the colonial power of Britain.  Kruger died in Switzerland because he said that he had been born under a British flag but was not prepared to die under a British flag.”  This is not the place to go into the issue of rebellion against the authorities, which is wrong for a true Christian; but the point is that the black radicals who deface such statues and shout and scream about “Colonialism” and “oppression” and all the rest of it, actually have no idea what they are even gabbing on about.  They just toe the party line, fed to them by their leaders.  They deface the statue of a man they accuse of being a “Colonialist” and “oppressor”, even though he himself fought against Colonialism.  Such ignorance is almost beyond belief.

As far as Kruger being the racist, black-hating monster today’s blacks make him out to be, well, the real facts are somewhat less –shall we say – black and white.  “The Kruger family’s good ties with black people is seen in the fact that the valuable family Bible, in which Kruger had himself written the family genealogy was given to Magato near Rustenburg during the Anglo-Boer War for safe-keeping against the British.  Kruger also played a positive role in the history of the Royal Bafokeng who are described as the wealthiest tribe in Africa today,” Mulder said.  “In 1887 Kruger signed an agreement with Lobengula, the Matabele Chief.  During this time the British and Rhodes were interested in Lobengula’s land, the current Zimbabwe.  Kruger sent Piet Grobler as a special consul to Lobengula.  Kruger’s message to him was: ‘You must not give your land away to others but keep it for your children.’”  Even allowing for the likelihood that motives other than mere interest in Lobengula’s welfare motivated Kruger (although that may have been part of it) – for politicians are motivated by many things, especially the welfare of their own people – the fact remains that history is always more complicated than radicals make it out to be.

Monuments to Radical Black “Heroes”

And while these radicals seek to destroy the monuments to white history, they are raising statues to black “heroes” who were far worse than any of those whites of the past (yes, including Cecil John Rhodes).

Take King Shaka Zulu.  He was a dictator, a tyrant, so much worse than any of the whites whose statues are being vandalised that even to make any comparison is futile.  He was a mass murderer, which neither Rhodes nor Kruger were, nor any of the other white South Africans whose monuments are under assault.