i need to know too.
The Dutch were there as part of the Dutch East India company around the Cape and they were later followed by French Huguenots who were some religious groups. Those groups along with some Germans coalesced around an Afrikaans identity.They created what they called Boer republics around the area which were mostly farms. They were an unsophisticated group compared to the British who later on colonized the place. There was also a battle to control the sea routes along Cape Town and that attracted the British who fought the Afrikaners or Boers in the Anglo-Boer war and later on fought against the Zulu and poured a lot of money into trying to conquer the various groups in SA. I think they created the modern map of SA around 1910 with some protectorates after some other groups like the Tswana negotiated with them. The discovery of diamonds and gold increased European migration as they imported a lot of people to work on the mines , at the time SA accounted for much of the worlds production of gold and diamonds and they were hiring diggers to work the Gold Fields and people like Cecil John Rhodes and Oppenheimer later on monopolized the business. In the later years decolonization led to an increase in European population as SA represented some last stand for whites in Africa. Some Portuguese went there after Mozambique and Angola became independent in the 70s, Belgians from the Congo, some Kenyan settlers, and a lot of former Rhodesians after Zimbabwe's independence.
how is it the mines are owned (or have been owned) by europeans like the rothschilds who are european jews. and managed to stay in power all through colonization and apartheid.
Why on earth would you pick Japan for this comparison? They technically don't even have the right to defend themselves militarily at the moment
The dutch like i said were mostly farmers , if i am not mistaken they were actually at the ports to give food to ships sailing across the place. They never had capital or connections like the English. Cecil John Rhodes, and Ernest Oppenheimer were British and German respectively. They had access to capital from London and New York whereas the Boers were farming to survive, they were the ones that had to compete with Africans the most. The mines were consolidated by Rhodes and Oppenheimer because they had the advantage of having more capital and employed more diggers in the mines and obviously strong armed some competitors. Rhodes had the British and Oppenheimer was financed in part by JP Morgan. They formed Anglo American which by the end of Apartheid accounted for more than half of the country's stock exchange.
Why on earth would you pick Japan for this comparison? They technically don't even have the right to defend themselves militarily at the moment
Confuse the major point? Japan is under the paternalistic branch of the United States total. In fact, if we weren't there guarding it, the victims of the former 'greater asia co-prosperity sphere' would have probably annihilated it.
)Confuse the major point? Japan is under the paternalistic branch of the United States total. In fact, if we weren't there guarding it, the victims of the former 'greater asia co-prosperity sphere' would have probably annihilated it.
I'm just saying, bad choice. Why not India or China (
Why are you getting so emotional? Im simply questioning your choice of country in your argument. And I have nothing against the Swedes or any European nation maintaining control of their countries.
