Classify two heroes of the late 20th century

[Tooting Carmen]

The former ended Communism, i.e. state-imposed equality, while the latter ended Apartheid, i.e. state-imposed inequality.

Mikhail Gorbachev
http://chartleaders.com/static/profile/98e/mikhail_gorbachev/photo.jpghttps://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/131106142318-26-gorbachev-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg

FW De Klerk
https://businesstech.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/FW-de-Klerk.pnghttps://mybroadband.co.za/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=57577&d=1372751467&stc=1

[Smeagol]

De Klerk was certainly no hero.

[Newsboy]

Gorbachev can pass as Spanish I think.

Also, he is almost exactly the same age as my surviving grandfather.

[Tooting Carmen]

Anyone else?

[Xacal]

Alpine-Med and Borreby

[Odin]

1. Gorid.
2. Borreby.

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[The Blade]

Gorbachev - Alpine
De Klerk - textbook Borreby

[Newsboy]

Gorbachev can pass as Spanish I think.

Also, he is almost exactly the same age as my surviving grandfather.

And yes, De Klerk is Borreby

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[Abu Bakr]

They are both villains.

Gorid
Borreby

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[frdfgcg]

De Klerk released a terrorist Mandela from jail, legalized ANC and gave power to monkeys.
Is he a hero?
Rather a fool.

[Columella]

Seems a classic Euro/Cental North Euro mix of Nordic/Mediterranean and Alpine elements.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/1f/b5/071fb50b0449dc9e31eb89b1004ef83f.jpg

[Tooting Carmen]

Seems a classic Euro/Cental North Euro mix of Nordic/Mediterranean and Alpine elements.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/1f/b5/071fb50b0449dc9e31eb89b1004ef83f.jpg

What about Gorbachev?

[Joso]

i don't like communism but i dont think any politician can qualify as hero.
gorbachev only did what anyone should have done.

[Tooting Carmen]

i don't like communism but i dont think any politician can qualify as hero.
gorbachev only did what anyone should have done.

The point is that, after initially thinking it could be possible to modify and reform Soviet Communism, he was intelligent and decent enough to realise it was beyond redemption and had to go. Not everyone would have been like that - would his predecessor Andropov have come to the same realisation? Certainly in comparison with e.g. Yugoslavia, the dissolution of the USSR was relatively peaceful, and Gorbachev was a major reason why.

Similarly, De Klerk initially thought it was possible to modify and reform South African Apartheid, but realised it was not sustainable from either a moral, diplomatic or economic point of view. Not only did it take great courage to argue that from within the NP, but the way in which he firstly released Mandela and then negotiated with him in order to eventually carry out the transition to Black majority rule was skillful and considered.

[Cristiano viejo]

Two heroes, he says :rolleyes:
And I thinking I would meet Franco and Hitler when I joined the thread...


Gorbachev can pass as Spanish I think.

lol, never thought about that but yes he could :lol:

You know, kids sometimes are very cruel. When I was young a kid of my school had a birth sport in the face. His classmates called him Gorbachov, what a motherfuckers...

[Tooting Carmen]

https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/fw-de-klerks-great-leap-forward-revisited-ii
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/two-new-faces-of-democracy-both-gorbachev-and-de-klerk-tried-to-dismantle-untenable-regimes-history-1434677.html?fbclid=IwAR06NDTvA_AHBLkus6RRX_kjEGvA 2ItPWrStFGK86lSZce3XZO77X89eWAM

[gixajo]

"Democracy"

[XenophobicPrussian]

The South African government during Apartheid can be called oppressive(and of course anti-democratic because blacks couldn't vote nor did they have local autonomy in the cities, they actually somewhat did in the bantustans but of course the Afrikaners didn't want to let resources or cheap labour go so didn't support full independence) because it did actually forcibly relocate people really early on during Apartheid, but I'd really like to know the logic on how "blacks can't use this public facility or live here" AND also "whites can't use this public facility or live here" can be unequal? How is that not equality? It's the same rules for everyone. because this is what most of you lefties refer to when talking about segregation, not the actual bad stuff. Yes, the whites had better facilities, it's called tax revenue, it's the same old equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity argument.

[Tooting Carmen]

The South African government during Apartheid can be called oppressive(and of course anti-democratic because blacks couldn't vote nor did they have local autonomy in the cities, they actually somewhat did in the bantustans but of course the Afrikaners didn't want to let resources or cheap labour go so didn't support full independence) because it did actually forcibly relocate people really early on during Apartheid, but I'd really like to know the logic on how "blacks can't use this public facility or live here" AND also "whites can't use this public facility or live here" can be unequal? How is that not equality? It's the same rules for everyone. because this is what most of you lefties refer to when talking about segregation, not the actual bad stuff. Yes, the whites had better facilities, it's called tax revenue, it's the same old equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity argument.

The Whites having better facilities was not called "tax revenue" - it was called "dictatorship deliberately rigs the economy and services to favour Whites".

[XenophobicPrussian]

The Whites having better facilities was not called "tax revenue" - it was called "dictatorship deliberately rigs the economy and services to favour Whites".
Very arguable - again, I don't deny the bantustan system was unfair because they did straight up get the worst land, so your point can relate to that, but for blacks who decide(or weren't forced) to live in the Bantustans, for a black living in Pretoria for example, name a policy that deliberately made it harder for blacks than whites, ala making black business ownership illegal, blacks legally unable to get an education, race quotas in the workplace, etc, and also do you also think the modern US(modern, I'm guessing you think the same of Jim Crow US as you do Apartheid, slavery era US is obviously undeniable) deliberately is rigged for the benefit of whites over blacks?

[XenophobicPrussian]

Also, I'm not convinced Gorbechov is a hero. The period after the USSR fell was horrible, and while it was temporary, it did last awhile and Russia still only caught up to peak USSR GDP per capita in 2009, while the rest of the former-USSR(save Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, the Baltics) have still not caught up and in most cases are extremely far behind.

Anyway, to stay ontopic, De Klerk isn't a Borreby, face is way too long. I'd say North Atlantid+minor Brunn.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/af/thumb/5/5b/Marike_Willemse_en_FW_de_Klerk_op_universiteit.jpg/460px-Marike_Willemse_en_FW_de_Klerk_op_universiteit.jpg

https://cansa-active.org.za/files/2019/07/MEYER-AND-DE-KLERK.jpg

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Lq72JUhSpEQ/TdfzauhOZ9I/AAAAAAAAAVk/uXbYzn3HWGc/s1600/Marike%2Ben%2BFW.png

Gorbachev is a Gorid I think.

[Tooting Carmen]

There is plenty of evidence to show that, even with the official restrictions gone, Blacks are still often discriminated in the US (and to a degree in SA too) in terms of employment, housing and dealings with the legal system. (Study after study shows that Blacks get heavier sentences than Whites for equivalent crimes).

As for Gorbachev, it took an enormous amount of courage to not only attempt to seriously reform and modernise the USSR, but ultimately to realise that it was utterly beyond redemption and rotten to the core, saying to those around him "party's over". While my heart goes out to those Russians who lost their savings and became thoroughly impoverished during the 90's, the ending of one of the world's worst totalitarian tyrannies was a massive leap for human freedom and decency.

[XenophobicPrussian]

There is plenty of evidence to show that, even with the official restrictions gone, Blacks are still often discriminated in the US (and to a degree in SA too) in terms of employment, housing and dealings with the legal system. (Study after study shows that Blacks get heavier sentences than Whites for equivalent crimes).

As for Gorbachev, it took an enormous amount of courage to not only attempt to seriously reform and modernise the USSR, but ultimately to realise that it was utterly beyond redemption and rotten to the core, saying to those around him "party's over". While my heart goes out to those Russians who lost their savings and became thoroughly impoverished during the 90's, the ending of one of the world's worst totalitarian tyrannies was a massive leap for human freedom and decency.
Well, that tells me everything I needed to know. The legal system point(and housing, atleast today for housing) is a myth, they are not "equivalent crimes", they are equivalent charges. Every case is different and the judge acts accordingly. You can literally shoot someone with a 9mm handgun or stab someone with a knife and be charged with felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, whilist some drunk guy who gets in a bar fight and hits someone with a beer bottle or a brick outside gets charged with the same thing. Obviously, the former is going to get a longer sentence. Whether people show remorse, etc also factor in. There are also mandatory increased sentencing for crimes against "member of a protected class, such as a police officer, healthcare provider, social services worker, or developmentally disabled or elderly person.". Some studies do, but some of these studies don't even account for repeat offences, obviously repeat offenders get higher sentences. Any studies that don't account for these types of things are meaningless, as the most likely explanation is black crimes are more gruesome on average rather than university educated judges being racially bias.

The blacks get arrested more for soft drug offences despite having the same rate of soft drug use as whites is another study you libs love to bring up. Firstly, the drug use rates are based on a study of college kids :picard1:, secondly, yes, black neighbourhoods are policed more frequently, because they have higher crime rates, of crimes that cannot be blamed on police bias or random stops such as murder, assault, robbery, but are usually reported by civilians. A lot of drug offenses are also usually tied with another crime that happened, which the study also doesn't account for, and it could be reasonably assumed that blacks on average use drugs in public more(i.e homeless people, or black "kickin' it on the block" culture", which is a big reason by the way why blacks have higher Covid infection rates than whites), while whites more often use them in the privacy of their own home or on private property. This kind of stuff needs to be accounted for.

The rest I can agree with you on, I'm not one of those right-wingers who denies white privilege(seems like a nice thing to want to try and keep tbh, I dunno, maybe that makes me a sociopath, who knows), I even know of a personal example of a white woman getting hired over an Indian woman where I worked despite the Indian woman being far more qualified. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that this wasn't a case of lookism, and that a better looking Indian woman would've gotten the job over some inbred looking white(the opposite happens in minority owned businesses too though i.e the taxi industry in Ontario, which is why separation is the best, or atleast most fair solution). Thing is, white privilege is not a government issue. It is an opinion a portion of the public has formed of black people through their own experiences and through the actions of black people, not any sort of government policies or propaganda campaigns. What do you want the government to do about this, re-education camps? and while white privilege is a thing, it's also overstated(go look at government employees in the DC/Northern Virginia area or post office employees in the Chicago area and tell me the vast overrepresentation of blacks there is white privilege lol), and the steps the government actually HAS taken far outweighs white privilege, i.e higher government spending on education(yes), government programs, scholarships, etc. Has nothing to do with the government or whether Apartheid, segregation or "separate but equal" is fair or not.

As for Gorbachev, he was definitely a brave man, but most important reforms had already happened before him. Gulags were already a thing of the past by 1960 for example, Gorbachev did a lot of democracy but that's about it.

[JamesBond007]

There is plenty of evidence to show that, even with the official restrictions gone, Blacks are still often discriminated in the US (and to a degree in SA too) in terms of employment, housing and dealings with the legal system. (Study after study shows that Blacks get heavier sentences than Whites for equivalent crimes).

So what ? Black people are obviously stupid. For instance, the Irish, Chinese and Jews were oppressed but they were smart enough to figure a way out of it. Tammany Hall, anyone ? Think about you are a maze and you have to find your way out -- you have to be smart to find yourself a way out in a timely fashion. That is a simplified model of oppression but it is the truth. Only 1 in 6 black people are as smart as the average white person. That is the problem in the nutshell. Also, liberals deny intelligence differences but soon genetics will prove it and liberals will go apeshit or try to surpress it.


THINK ABOUT IT GENETICS NOT SIMPLY AN IQ TEST :

James Watson godfather of DNA must be pretty confident genetics will confirm IQ differences in the future :

In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.”

I think it is safe to say James Watson has a higher IQ than you mister liberal.:p

[Tooting Carmen]

So what ? Black people are obviously stupid. For instance, the Irish, Chinese and Jews were oppressed but they were smart enough to figure out a way out of it. Tammany Hall, anyone ? Think about you are a maze and you have to find your way out -- you have to smart to find yourself a way out in a timely fashion. That is a simplified model of oppression but it is the truth. Only 1 in 6 black people are as smart as the average white person. That is the problem in the nutshell. Also, liberals deny intelligence differences but soon genetics will prove it and liberals will go apeshit or try to surpress it.


THINK ABOUT IT GENETICS NOT SIMPLY AN IQ TEST :

James Watson godfather of DNA must be pretty confident genetics will confirm IQ differences in the future :

In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.”

I think it is safe to say James Watson has a higher IQ than you mister liberal.:p

Unlike many leftists, who lean increasingly towards post-modernist thought, I don't deny there are objective genetic differences between different ethnic groups. However, the scale and importance of those differences are still mostly unknown, and (in the US at least - Europe is of course another matter) none of those three groups you mentioned endured anything like the oppressive legal restrictions on their lives that Blacks did.

[Tooting Carmen]

It has been announced that De Klerk has died - RIP.