Mbuisi:

Independence means freedom of the country from colonialism by another country. So, according to you South Africa only became independent in 1991 after apartheid, meaning SA was colonised by Afrikaners who were also recognised as South Africans. This is crazy, is the any possibility that Zulus or Xhosas can colonise South Africa if they are citizens of SA.

For your information, SA under apartheid was independent from Britain, hence it was called Republic of South Africa. Another example will be that of Namibia which became independent in 1990 from South Africa which colonised it then.

sithwell:

It's clear now why Nigerians like all4Naija speak as if white South Africans aren't South African. They are confused about the relationship between independence, the lack of democracy and nationhood.

Funnily, All4Naija is not the only Nigerian that is confused by these basic concepts. Have a look at this tweet by a Nigerian, Adesanya Peter Ayo, who suffers from the same lack of understanding.

It must be something they are taught in school.

Goodnight my people. Catch you when the sun rises on my side. Happy "foruming".

Mbuisi: Independence= freedom of one country from being a colony of another country.

Freedom= relief of one group of society from oppression by another group within the same country.

We must undo the brainwashing that Nigerian teachers have impacted on the innocent brains of those young boys.

Capnd143: go get a life bro! In a WAR BETWEEN nigeria and SA, though i must confess SA have a bit more advanced weaponry than we do, but surely nigeria army will outpower them given its operational capability,weaponry,training and experience! Do you expect a soldier that has been staying inactively in barracks for decades with only training simulations to defeat war hardened battalions of men who have been actively involved in COIN operations(anti boko haram forces), Marine warfare(anti camerounian gendames forces in bakassi), Naval battle(anti militancy in niger delta), Piracy war(anti piracy troops in gulf of guinea)etc as well as somalian,seria leonian,liberian,sudanese war veterans ?
Get a life bro!
--
the funniest part is we are here busy talking of war when the two countries are making more economic,military and political alliances everyday! LOL

Capnd143: go get a life bro! In a WAR BETWEEN nigeria and SA, though i must confess SA have a bit more advanced weaponry than we do, but surely nigeria army will outpower them given its operational capability,weaponry,training and experience! Do you expect a soldier that has been staying inactively in barracks for decades with only training simulations to defeat war hardened battalions of men who have been actively involved in COIN operations(anti boko haram forces), Marine warfare(anti camerounian gendames forces in bakassi), Naval battle(anti militancy in niger delta), Piracy war(anti piracy troops in gulf of guinea)etc as well as somalian,seria leonian,liberian,sudanese war veterans ?
Get a life bro!
--
the funniest part is we are here busy talking of war when the two countries are making more economic,military and political alliances everyday! LOL

sithwell:

It's clear now why Nigerians like all4Naija speak as if white South Africans aren't South African. They are confused about the relationship between independence, the lack of democracy and nationhood.

Funnily, All4Naija is not the only Nigerian that is confused by these basic concepts. Have a look at this tweet by a Nigerian, Adesanya Peter Ayo, who suffers from the same lack of understanding.

It must be something they are taught in school.

Goodnight my people. Catch you when the sun rises on my side. Happy "foruming".

all4naija: What more can I say? That you are very funny as the person your responded to. I don't even take your comment serious any more. The truth is that there are equaling people like you who refuse to understand the reality of your society coming to this forum all the time. Who keep shelving the truth just to feel good. I have said a lot about what is happening in your society with evidences pointing to them as the are, and you refused to accept them due to your lack of telling the truth.

Please, this your comment doesn't make any different in any way nor will it deter me from saying things the way they are. You are quick to support your colleague's comment, when he keeps shunning out wrong information about your history. It is a shame you agree with somebody who said your country had independence when Apartheid began. A person with little or no information about your history. This is somebody who almost claimed to be a South African initially. I have a lot of those claims here only to be fooled and quickly accept their countries of origin.

To conclude it all. The Shakar war resulted in the lost of about 2 million people which was not a modern war as such and how that is a test for your military is still beyond me. The second Boer war was more or less a war fought by the British and the Afrikaan in the then Transvaal Republic that was incorporated into British empire(the Brits won). Those kinds of wars were fought in many countries around the world and can never be used to test the capability of any country military in this present time. A century past wars cannot be used to test your country military power. That is an absolute fact. The British dominating power to annex many countries was meant with different wars around the world and in Africa. It happened in a small scale in Ghana, between Ashante and the British also in Nigerian between the Benin empire and the British Empire. It is clear your colleague has no argument here. He is just dabbing into what he cannot comprehend about national military capability that has been tested.

It is a shame you are supporting such view for the simple reason to exonerate your country in its failure to meet up to its fraudulent militarization. Using the same soldiers who were chased out by child rebels in CAR and flaunt to other African nations.

Indeed, you are beginning to be seen as not intellectually sound as thought. That I would say is a thing not good for educated Africans.

Mbuisi:

Your screws are loose yet again. SA gained independence in 1961 from Britain and Apartheid began in 1948 after National Party which supported Afrikaner nationalism came into power. So I fail to understand your argument here. For your information SA and Britain never fought in a small scale, it is a war that both the British and Boers still honour a lot and have put on their archives. Even to date the two do not meet and do not really see eye to eye.

Mbuisi: Here is another proof that SA fought Britain in two different eras for which in the first war SA won and lost in the second battle a century later due to Britain alliance with Australia and New Zealand.



The South African War was fought between Britain and the self-governing Afrikaner (Boer) colonies of the South African Republic (the Transvaal) and the Orange Free State. (At the outbreak of war, Britain ruled the South African colonies of the Cape and Natal).


The war began on October 11 1899, following a Boer ultimatum that the British should cease building up their forces in the region. The Boers had refused to grant political rights to non-Boer settlers, known as Uitlanders, most of whom were British, or to grant civil rights to Africans. Perhaps more important was the underlying question of control over the gold mines of the Transvaal at a time when the international financial system, and the stability of the British pound, was based on the gold standard. The war was also about Britain's control of South Africa and therefore its 'great power' status

For further reading
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/census/events/britain5.htm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Wars_(1879–1915)

http://www.google.com/search?client=ms-rim&hl=en&q=South%20Africa%20in%20war%20with%20Britain&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&channel=browser

Mbuisi:

Your screws are loose yet again. SA gained independence in 1961 from Britain and Apartheid began in 1948 after National Party which supported Afrikaner nationalism came into power. So I fail to understand your argument here. For your information SA and Britain never fought in a small scale, it is a war that both the British and Boers still honour a lot and have put on their archives. Even to date the two do not meet and do not really see eye to eye.

Mbuisi:

Here is the proof from the British archives of how high do they regard the South African War. Here the truth must be spoken, the British defeated SA only after they went on to reinforce combatants from Australia and New Zealand


http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/census/events/britain5.htm

Here is also the proof of Australian involvement in the South African war.

http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/boer/

all4naija: It is clear you never even read the links you posted. You keep beating around the bush with different information to remain relevant in this topic yet they make you look like somebody who lacks the right information. It is clear you didn't provide information based on your German-South African war before jumping to quote and post those links in your comment. It is okay you are beginning to accept what I told you earlier to make use of Google to carry out researches before posting here. Yet, you choose to accept the information without critically scrutinizing it nor reading what it says properly.

Mind you, what evolved into SA as a nation military you are talking about are different conflicts which ensued the people of that country in time past, from Khoikhoi-Dutch Wars to Second Anglo-Boer War, were nothing about the today's South African military. It is clear those were internal conflicts that spread around different time and regions of the nation. It is about the different people that now makeup the today's South African military. Then the issue of SA fighting the Germans in WW1 can as well be said of other British colony. Nigerians fought along side the Brits so were others. Coming here to say South African military fought Germans speaks volume of your lack of history. Putting things in the right perspective has never been your intention when going about this topic from the start. So, I will take that with a pinch of salt.

So, I would advise you once again to take to doing your researches with comprehensive collation of information and materials including an open mind before posting anything about this particular argument. Don't just come here to support an argument based on sentiment or how you feel about a nation and its people. That is not a expository kind of argument in nay form and it is unacceptable in the light of stating things the way they are. It will not move Africa forward in the right direction. It will make outsiders to see Africans as fallacious and non-exploratory by nature..

all4naija: You must be silly to think that is how SA independence looks like. Dude, get on and make use of Google. You are fooling yourself here. It i absolutely clear you don't know anything about South African history.

Stop fooling yourself. Even South Africans themselves will not support you in this very idea of your independence. It is wrong and absurd.

Mbuisi:

You are sick, Go to my posts you will see where I pasted the link about SA and Germany, or should I perhaps re-paste it again?

andrewza:

What you going on about. Sa became republic in 1961 and has stayed RSA since then. Only you seem to think diffrently.

Technacaly SA was in charge of it's forghin afairs long before ww2 even.

Mbuisi: Here is the proof that SA fought the Germans and defeated them

South African rule and the struggle for independence

South Africa occupied the colony in 1915 after defeating the German force during World War I and administered it as a League of Nations mandate territory from 1919. Although the South African government desired to incorporate 'South-West Africa' into its territory, it never officially did so, although it was administered as the de facto 'fifth province', with the white minority having representation in the whites-only Parliament of South Africa, as well as electing their own local administration the SWA Legislative Assembly. The South African government also appointed the SWA administrator, who had extensive powers

For further reading
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namibia

Mbuisi:

@ALL4NAIJA you surely failed to read this one, but I had to go to it all over again. I hope you will find it user-friendly to read. Just scroll it down to where the " South African rule and the struggle for independence" and start to read it there.

all4naija: .

Although the Union of South Africa was not among the Dominions that needed to adopt the Statute of Westminster for it to take effect, two laws—the Status of the Union Act, 1934, and the Royal Executive Functions and Seals Act of 1934—were passed to confirm South Africa's status as a sovereign state.[8]

all4naija:
@ Mbuisi

This will do you good. Culled from this LINK


[b]"South Africa
Official name: Republic of South Africa
Independence from Britain: 1934
Independence from white minority rule: 1994

In 1652 Dutch settlers arrived at the Cape and set up a refreshment post for the journey to the Dutch East Indies. With minimal impact on the local peoples (Bantu speaking groups and Bushmen) the Dutch started to move inland and colonize. The arrival of the British in the eighteenth century accelerated the process. The Cape colony was ceded to the British in 1814. In 1816, Shaka kaSenzangakhona became Zulu ruler, to be assassinated by Dingane in 1828. The Great Trek of the Boers moving away from the British in the Cape started in 1836 -- leading to the founding of the Republic of Natal in 1838 and the Orange Free State in 1854. Britain took Natal from the Boers in 1843. The Transvaal was recognized as an independent state by the British in 1852 and the Cape Colony was granted self-government in 1872. Zulu War and two Anglo-Boer wars followed, and the country was unified under British dominion in 1910. Independence for white minority rule came in 1934. In 1958 Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, the Prime Minister, introduced the Grand Apartheid policy. The African National Congress, formed in 1912, finally came into power in 1994 when the first multiracial, multiparty elections were held."

[/b]

all4naija: @ andrewza

Onto the military argument. The battle line must be drawn around modern conflicts both nations military have been involved with and their records. That I can attest to with evidences Nigeria has better records than SA.

Let the argument begin, man.

all4naija: @ andrewza

Onto the military argument. The battle line must be drawn around modern conflicts both nations military have been involved with and their records. That I can attest to with evidences Nigeria has better records than SA.

Let the argument begin, man.

Mbuisi: This quote comes from the website of the South African government

In 1961, the NP Government under Prime Minister HF Verwoerd declared South Africa a republic, after winning a whites-only referendum on the issue. A new currency, the Rand, and a new flag, anthem and coat of arms were formally introduced.

South Africa, having become a republic, had to apply for continued membership of the Commonwealth. In the face of demands for an end to apartheid, South Africa withdrew its application and a figurehead president replaced the British queen (represented locally by the governor-general) as head of state

For further reading
http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/history.htm

andrewza:

What better reccords? Please explian this cliam.