Will it be reported any more African women arrested; disturbing the peace by wearing tight trousers?

Saggin' pants will land you in hot water in many jurisdictions, but if you plan to visit the South of Sudan, make sure your pants aren't too tight, ladies. It is YOUR fault if men are disturbed.

Stop the insanity!

For a fascinating and easily understandable examination of this issue see the animated work; Persepolis.

Westerners are NOT aware of African customs and sensitivities. I lived more than 25 years on the continent of Africa, which does NOT make me an authority on tribal customs, but I can tell hubdubbers a bit more about this one...

The FRIENDLIEST black African nation is without a doubt: Malawi, located in South Central Africa. If you collect postage stamps, you will remember seeing it as Nyassaland (Kenya, Tanganyika and Nyassaland). A former British colony, it was ruled for very many years by a benevolent dictator (such a thing actually exists), who was revered by his people for most of his reign. Most of the citizens speak reasonable English in addition to tribal dialects and are very friendly and hospitable (notably different to other African nationalities).

Malawians do have one unusual quirk: they are offended by women who do not wear a dress or skirt. Female travellers are warned in advance NOT to take pants to Malawi and definitely not to wear them into the country. As recently as my last visit there in 1993, female passengers wearing pants landing in Malawi were politely but firmly invited to "change clothes" in the airport before being processed through customs. Refusal would result in non-admittance to Malawi. Other than this unusual quirk, female visitors to the country were treated very well and warmly, the same as males. Malawi was a favorite holiday destination for all, and this cultural preference was regarded as minor.

Thanks for the info....very interesting!

Well randburg south africa has the highest rape rates in the world. So accourding to my statistics that makes you a rapist!

Black African children tend to be raised by their Mothers and/or their "Grandmothers". Grandmothers are often NOT blood-related. They tend to be a combination of Aunts, relatives, friends, neighbors or others who have taken them in and raised them. It's not unusual for a child to have seven or eight Grandmothers, all of whom are important to the child. Needless to say, the Father is often unknown...

You seem awfully knowladgable about those procceedings. The kind of knowledge you might gain out of experience...

I was a management consultant in those days, and White African employers would often get irritated with Black African employees who would take a couple of days leave to attend their "Grandmother's funeral". The funeral would last two days (actually two all night wakes), and the employers would get suspicious when they were up to Grandmother number five or six.

A South African I knew immigrated to the US and hoped he would become an American citizen: a WHITE African American. I think Barack Obama would understand, but I don't think Jesse Jackson would go for it...

(Not me. I'm just a plain ol' white American who lived in Black Africa for awhile...)

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Your confusing me with the white african thing. Are they citizens who moved from a different country and became citizens or people whos parents moved there and married the locals generations ago, or just temporary visiters like you?

White Dutch sailor Jan Van Reebeck (affectionatly known as "Jannie" in South Africa) arrived and settled in the Cape in 1652, and essentially founded what is know as CapeTown today. So South Africa has four races: white Africans who are descendents of Jannie and Company OR the British who arrived later, Cape Coloreds (who are a distinct identifiable race, a combination of white and black), the Indians (from India, Indians with a dot rather than Indians with a feather), and the majority from 22 Black African tribes (who don't all get along very well)...

Ah africa. Why do you have to make things so bloody complicated. Its like a melding pot but instead of forming together to make something better they form together to make something wierd.

You've got it! South Africa USED TO BE a "1st World 3rd World country". Not anymore.

By the way, a lot of similar settlings and racial combinations happened in other African countries as well, no surprise.

What is a "1st world 3rd world country"? I know what a first world and a third would country are but other than that you lost me.

<font size=500> I wonder if this will work. </f>

Nope

How about this?

Sweet.

Was gone for the afternoon. "a 1st World 3rd World country":

South Africa easily had the strongest economy on the African continenet, rich in minerals and diamonds, and thriving business. World sanctions slowly wore that down, and the new government finished off much of what was left.

South African cities looked much like American cities would have looked "about ten years ago". About the same creativity, innovation and design, as it would have looked about ten years ago (at any given time). Very beautiful, very comfortable way of life, perfect weather (better than California), but very DANGEROUS.

This is really interesting - thanks randburg (and dragon, for asking all those questions! don't understand the 500 point font interlude, but anyway ... !)

Sorry, however i saw a couple instances where people made there font come out crossed out, or bold or italic and i didnt understand how. Then i finally went to this site from my cell phone and for some reason it i kept seeing things like or . Then i realized they did it using html. However i wasnt sure if it was just some weird thing my cell did or if it was actually how they did it so i tried it out on here.

It wo

rked!

Oops. That time it didnt really work.

randburg,

So you said your last trip to South Africa was in 93. Did you ever go there during apartheid and if so what was that like? I know this is kind of off topic but I'm curious. I just can't imagine.

apa what?

I lived in South Africa during apartheid from 1971 to 1995. I last visited MALAWI in 1993. South Africa refers to the Republic of South Africa, a very large country with four main cities that you will have heard of: Johannesburg, Capetown, Pretoria, and Durban. Johannesburg to Capetown is a two hour flight by jet. Capetown to Cairo is approximately a ten hour non-stop flight. The African continent is HUGE.

South Africa was very prosperous under apartheid. The twenty-two tribes, that tended to war regularly with one another, were kept separate and safe in their own individual homelands. The infrastructure and life in these homelands was vastly better than most other African countries. It was not easy for the South African government to keep peace between four races and twenty-two warring African factions. What they accomplished under the circumstances was quite remarkable, but had the negative factor of limited mobility for the blacks.

One big difference between US law and South African law: In the US, if a situation proved that constitutional law and rights were being violated, an immediate change would be declared and take place (whether or not the public was ready for the change). Under South Africa law (Roman Dutch Law), when the people were ready for the change, it would take place. For example, from the time I arrived in South Africa the old offensive "whites only" signs started disappearing. No fanfare, no headlines, the changes reflected the people who were ready for the changes. Most people didn't even notice for a while. International governments wanted faster change and tightened sanctions, while the South African government resisted and continued with their policy that change reflects the will of the people as they are ready...This system worked very well with the many groups that needed to be accomodated in peaceful change.

F.W. De Klerk was the last white president of South Africa. Initially he was ultra right-wing and slowly saw both the direction South Africa was moving and what was best for his country. He changed his own stance and re-steered his government towards the black cultural revolution that was pending. F.W. De Klerk and Nelson Mandela (a moderate by South African standards) accomplished a bloodless change of power in South Africa and jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize for their effort. They remained friends after the change of power.

Randburg, thank you so very much!

International Sanctions -- where were aimed at "bringing down the apartheid regime" in South Africa -- seriously harmed the African people of all races. Sanctions did far more damage than good and did not actually bring about the change in government.

How did it harm the people? After approximately a year and a half of sanctions, companies "went into hiding" for about a month and sat in meetings to determine HOW they were going to financially survive sanctions. The solution? Reduce the number of employees by 25% - across the board. All races treated equally. What happened to productivity after these cuts? PRODUCTIVITY WENT UP, as the remaining people wanted to keep their jobs and worked harder.

A couple of years later, the same thing happened again. And 25% of the remaining staff were trimmed to survive with the cost of sanctions. AND PRODUCTIVITY WENT UP AGAIN. This same situation happened several times. At the end, unemployment was astronomical, theft and crime just to eat and survive was HUGE, and a relatively small percentage of the workforce remained employed. Everyone else had been cut to survive sanctions. AND PRODUCTIVITY HAD GONE UP EACH TIME. Companies were far more prosperous with small trim work forces, than when EVERYONE was employed and the companies were fat.

When the cultural revolution had been accomplished and the sanctions had been dropped, South African business was encouraged to restore it's original work force. And they said WHY? We are far more efficient and prosperous WITHOUT all of those additional employees. And South African business has not been the same since...

I didn't know it was possible to make racism sound so great.

What do you mean? I hear no racism here.

Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government of South Africa between 1948 and 1990.

Ah.

The ruling party in most governments has some advantages over those it rules, especially in third world countries. Today, the ruling ANC party in South Africa will have certain advantages over those it governs, including the white minorities.

The South African government has worked to protect the integrity of ALL of it's many and diversified peoples. This goes beyond race, as one of the largest differences in opinion and culture has been between the English and Afrikaans speaking South Africans (both groups are WHITE, if we attach race to this comment). Northern and Southern Civil War rivalry in the US couldn't be more fierce, and yet all of the cultures are protected and have their place.

And the AMAZING PART: with FOUR main race groups -- two rival white groups, the Cape Coloreds, the Indian community, and twenty-two black African tribes, South Africa has the MOST LIBERAL constitution in the world, written in 1996 after the cultural revolution...

And if you think I was joking about the most liberal constitution in the world: South Africa has the ONLY national constitution in the world with GAY RIGHTS written into the constitution...

http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/index.htm

Apartheid was basically the equivalent of Jim Crow laws. The policy was blatantly racist. I didn't even think that was debatable. Obviously that policy has been abandoned. How did you live there for 24 years and be insulated from this? I know I asked you what it was like over there, I just didn't expect a justification for apartheid.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! THE LIBERALS!!! THEYVE TAKEN AFRICA!!!! WHERES PAUL REVERE? TELL HIM THAT THE LIBERALS ARE COMING THE LIBERALS ARE COMING!
Africans. Not afrikaans.

It's a bit different to read a bit about another country (especially in the news headlines), than to actually LIVE there and actually see what is going on...and why...

We have all seen in the last five years that the American system of democracy is not going to work in Iraq: Iraq has it's own culture that is radically different from the US. We will eventually do well to leave Iraq alone again to govern itself in it's own culture...Of course, there are radically different viewpoints these days as to how we are going to get to that point.

An American or international approach as to how to govern South Africa has been equally difficult, but hasn't stopped a number of countries from trying to interfere. Now that there is a majority black African government, the media says little and fails to report that most of the old problems still exist...and some new ones, i.e. a seriously deteriorated economy.

Well dont you think we should give it a go :) After all we have dealt successfully in africa for years! The colonization of africa by europe for example! When that happened they underwent there most successful period in the history of africa!

Intriguing. As someone who grew up in the UK during apartheid, when it was considered reasonable to have comedy records with B sides like 'I've never met a nice South African', I'd consider myself naturally opposed to the concept of white minority rule. Given several of the more bizarre actions of the ANC government since the handover, including the terrible denial of AIDS and the support for the terribly corrupt regime in Zimbabwe this opposition is naturally weakened, although I would maintain that the problem is caused by the apartheid issue dominating politics and creating a single natural party of power - some form of entropy is vital to the democratic process. The lack of this has led to Mbecki having power way beyond what it is sane and reasonable for a sane and reasonable man to have, and he is neither.

This is not in support of apartheid, which was, in spite of Randburg's assurances to the contrary, a sickening way for a minority ruling class to maintain an unreasonable stranglehold over a country. My friend's grandmother (a cosseted rich white whose son owns a large multinational corporation) claims even to this day that the problems of the country are caused by 'the blecks, because they don't want to work'. Coming from somebody who has never done a day's work in her life this is a little rich, but is an all-too-common attitude amongst whites born prior to 1990.

Either way, this is one of the most interesting discussions I have seen on the site.

As the famous saying goes, democracy is not the voice of the majority. Its the voice of the minority. If democracy was the voice of the majority every aethist law suit would have come up as a no. And yet if the US puts a "under one god" in the pledge of allegiance they get sued. I know that seems wrong but there are cases of the minority speaking out against the majority and winning most of the time. I think that both you and randburg are right. We shouldnt have any legalized racism but the south africans got it right. Do it slowly and as randburg said "when the public is ready".

That "the blacks are not willing to work" was a refrain I often heard from intolerant people, who were often fairly lazy themselves. Of course there are both industrious and lazy groups in most populations, and the blacks in South Africa are no different to anyone else. Like most of us, they do respond well to being organized and given a gentle push to get started in the right direction...Good management tends to get good results. (You can tell I was a management consultant).

While Nelson Mandela had been in jail for genuine terrorist activities, he was regarded as a moderate by the whites and a national hero by the blacks. He was acceptable to both groups, which made the transition much easier. His successor, Thabo Mbecki is a bit less moderate, but a moderate just the same. Right now, there is a "caretaker" president with "no teeth", while the new president who wishes to take over in the new year is fighting SERIOUS CORRUPTION CHARGES. What? And he isn't a moderate: he has strong communist leanings. WHAT?

In other words, South Africa is headed into tough times, possibly volatile...No one wants South Africa to look like Zimbabwe under Mugabe, and it's a distinct possibility at this time.

Well lets hope these tight panted ladys spread the peace enough to help South Africa.

Man, I don't know exactly what a management consultant does but apparently it involves a lot of spin. I'm dizzy.

my personal definition of a good market.... generates lots of discussion and 40+ posts.

:)