submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That explains the neutral tone. It's something important far away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Also that newspaper is called "The Fatherland".

    It's a pretty good hint of where they stand in the whole Left-Right political spectrum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Which is super weird in it self. I mean, do South African white people call their colonist nation their "Fatherland"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    FYI- South Africa is kind of unique in that it was settled by a ruling class as opposed to the normal dregs like most other places.

    The maintained their close relationship to home and superior status to their slaves/servants much longer than other places.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Well, the Union of South Africa were participants in the war against Germany, so that's still a bit weird. Don't know about the affiliation of the magazine in question, but the support for joining the allies wasn't clear cut, but only a narrow majority among the ruling white class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    There was a strong pro-Nazi contingent amongst (mainly) Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. That's not to say by any stretch that Afrikaners were mostly pro-Nazi, though. Jan Smuts was an Afrikaner and was both a Field Marshal in the South African defence forces and the prime minister during WW2 - he wasn't exactly pro-British (he fought against them in the second Boer war), but he was very strongly anti-Nazi.

  • source
  • parent