South Africa to take land from white farmers without compensation

[Theodarzna]

Again, you're ignoring time as a factor.

Okay, let's unpack this. You can't say I am ignoring Time as a factor when I've addressed it multiple times. You not liking the answer isn't just for you to just reiterate your point as if I'd ignored it. Cut it out.

I've stated that any use of time as a factor is ultimately arbitrary. The case of South Africa directly reveals that as lands held have been held for generations, not one generation so next to none of the land held by Boers can be said to have been acquired through say conquest in the same generation. The Palestinians might be able to level such a claim, a few have keys to homes they cannot get to anymore, but as of yet no Bantu speaker can turn up keys or even show "that was mine" except in a sense of "This is black people land and it should be held by blacks!" Which is a case that any ethnic group can use, including my own.

You're trying to place the race card, and it won't work. I'm not playing any favorites with regards to race, I'm arguing time and logistics and practicality.

Time which is debunked, and logistics and practicality shouldn't matter if this is a claim to morality and justice. If it was about logistics and practicality than there is no reason to take the land other than ones sense of racial justice, or a misguided belief that Africa is somehow uniquely a continent that only Sub-Saharan African looking people have a right to live upon or call home and anyone else is merely an invader.

I have to admit that the Native American issue is a thorny one, because we have been continually and consistently fucking them over since we arrived. I would be open to a caveat to my position with regards to Native issues, because of the very point you make.

Cool. Then your original case falls apart into a purely arbitrary set of exceptions, maybes and distinctions that makes me wonder if again, this isn't just about what feels good to you politically.

Of course you assume so much about someone from a complete place of ignorance. I'll let this go, but please stop trying to pull some race/ridiculous card on me, it won't work and it's entirely inaccurate.

Given assumptions made about me by a very special cohort of posters here, of which you are apart of, I think you are in no position to talk. Heck you and that same cohort often argue with other posters and decide its me as I occupy this special place in your mind as this ever present enemy despite a complete lack of evidence.

Precisely. We can't go back 300 years and try and make reparations (Native issues in the US might be an exception, thanks @Theodarzna!) but otherwise it's all but impossible, impractical, and illogical. But we can do it for people who are still alive.

Except we have documentary accounts, oral traditions, legends, records of battles, corpses ect to show many acts of dispossesion, destruction, marginalization and invasion. Where you draw the line reflects a certain level of ignorance of historical data (which is forgivably, few research that stuff too deeply, especially Americans).

You can't really factor in time in a way that isn't ultimately arbitrary.

[Spectral]

I'm not a consequentialist, but from a consequentialist perspective it seems pretty obvious that this is going to end terribly. No matter what you think the just outcome is here, you can bet the proverbial farm that land expropriation will end in suffering for those confiscated from and a waste of resources on the national level. Will any good come from it? Eh, I suppose for a few people that are receiving the spoils. For everyone else, this will go badly and have entirely predictable results that are more or less in line with the Rhodesia experience.

[ParanoiD84]

Motherfuckers.

[FeinHammer]

Zimbabwe did a similar thing a while ago, and it’s been a disaster

[cubby]

I've stated that any use of time as a factor is ultimately arbitrary. The case of South Africa directly reveals that as lands held have been held for generations, not one generation so next to none of the land held by Boers can be said to have been acquired through say conquest in the same generation. The Palestinians might be able to level such a claim, a few have keys to homes they cannot get to anymore, but as of yet no Bantu speaker can turn up keys or even show "that was mine" except in a sense of "This is black people land and it should be held by blacks!" Which is a case that any ethnic group can use, including my own.

If the case of South Africa now is that the only land they are talking about returning is land that has been held by the Boers for generations, then yes, they have a problem. Are you saying that the only land that is being returned falls into that category? It was my understanding that was not the case, but as always, I'm open to have been wrong (misunderstood in this case).

[tangers58]

no it doesnt, look at the annexation of kuwait, it got reversed as soon as it happened, and now the fuss with crimea is the same

Kinda proving his point sweetie. Iraq couldn't hold onto Kuwait, so far Russia has held the Crimea.

[Theodarzna]

If the case of South Africa now is that the only land they are talking about returning is land that has been held by the Boers for generations, then yes, they have a problem. Are you saying that the only land that is being returned falls into that category? It was my understanding that was not the case, but as always, I'm open to have been wrong (misunderstood in this case).

I've not seen a case that any policy exists over any specific case that exists within recent memory. If that was the case then that is what would be the policy. Right now this consists of confiscating land because it is the opinion of the ANC that not enough people of Sub-Saharan African appearence own the land and those of White South African heritage own too much.

[cubby]

I've not seen a case that any policy exists over any specific case that exists within recent memory. If that was the case then that is what would be the policy. Right now this consists of confiscating land because it is the opinion of the ANC that not enough people of Sub-Saharan African appearence own the land and those of White South African heritage own too much.

I'm seeing indications that this is all in response to the South Africa’s Natives Land Act of 1913, which stripped most black people of their right to own property, a policy reinforced decades later by the National Party and its system of apartheid.

If they are just taking land from [insert white person] and giving it to [insert black person] without any legal reasoning, because the ANC is sucking hind tit overall, then I would like to respectfully withdraw my original position. I'm still trying to find more info about any specific policy they are looking at or enacting. Shout if you find something - I will do the same.

[Deja Thoris]

I'll write something on this later because I've spent most of my life in South Africa, if its done right it's not completely unwarranted.

People here are just fishing the headlines without appreciating nuance.

[stevenho]

We've known that they were trying to pass this since Spring, but they're now going through with it.




And to anyone who says that this is what should've been done...

The moment you start talking about how people should return "stolen lands", you've suddenly de-legitimatized every single nation on Earth, yours included. Oh yeah, you could take the land that was "stolen" by colonizers and invaders and return them to the people who were previously there... who in turn had killed the people who had lived there before and took their lands, and so on. Under that premise, you're going to punish the children of dead ancestors by taking the land that they've grown up on and have poured their lives into developing and give it to the descendants of the dead people further down the chain who arrived at that land first, who were either wiped out, or whose blood is now mixed with the conquerors who came later. "Native Americans" wouldn't receive "their" land back, most Africans alive today wouldn't receive "their land" back. Punishing people for the sins of their fathers and trying to right a wrong with another wrong that benefits the wrong party? Is that the kind of world you want? Yeah, I thought not.

Land belongs to no one but the person living there.

The current nation of Israel was established in the wake of a British territory, which was established after the British took the land from the Ottomans, who took it from the Egyptians, who took it from the Mongols, who took it from the Crusaders, who took it from the Arabs, who took it from the Byzantines, who took it from the Romans, who took it from the Macedonians, who took it from the Persians, who took it from the Babylonians, who took it from the Israelis, who took it from the Caananites, and so on.

Are you going to kick "white, South African" farmers off of their land and give it to uneducated, "black, South Africans" who may or may not have the skills required to farm and maintain the land, simply because colonialist powers two hundred years ago took the land from the tribes that were there? Oh, but wait, those people were living on land that was stolen from the Khoisan people by the Zulus! Will you return the land to them?

Great Britain? The Normans invaded Britain, which belonged to the Saxons, who killed the Celts, who overthrew their Roman overlords, who took the island over from the Celts. Are you going to give the Britain to the relative few (compared to the people currently living in Britain) with the most amount of trace Celtic DNA?

America? The colonists settled along the coast peacefully, as the Indians had no semblance of "ownership of land". Several decades later, Americans wanted to push past the Appalachian Mountains, resulting in some tribes being paid to move and others fought against. Oh, did I mention that the tribes were killing each other for thousands of years?

We have name for this. It's called racism, where you judge people not by their actions, but by their skin color and the history of their race. Is that what you want to support?

Your post makes no sense.
It gives 4096 examples of how taking land from someone occured over the centuries and is a part of the process.
Then you say they can't take land in 2018.

Huh?

[Theodarzna]

I'm seeing indications that this is all in response to the South Africa’s Natives Land Act of 1913, which stripped most black people of their right to own property, a policy reinforced decades later by the National Party and its system of apartheid.

If they are just taking land from [insert white person] and giving it to [insert black person] without any legal reasoning, because the ANC is sucking hind tit overall, then I would like to respectfully withdraw my original position. I'm still trying to find more info about any specific policy they are looking at or enacting. Shout if you find something - I will do the same.

Let us critically analyze this, you are now contradicting yourslef. The Land acts of 1913? That is 105 years ago and well outside even the parameter of "people alive today" of which maybe Johanna Mazibuko can claim connection to.

It draws from practicality to say that I could make a cohesive argument about reparations to South Africans because I can point to the people, who were wronged and are still alive, and give them some quantification of goods.

For them to still be alive and to have personally been wronged they would have to own land in 1913, which would make that person over 105 years old. They would have had to have been adults in 1913 as well.

You might wish to respectfully withdraw your position since by your own standards, as arbitrary as they are, do not even address the facts of this situation. There is only one person in South Africa alive today (I think) who is theoretically old enough to have even been a land owner at the time and I am unsure women could even own land at the time in either culture, even if she was a land owner and could own land in 1913 under either cultures legal customs, this confiscation law is not planning to give land to Johanna Mazibuko.

[Jinpachi]

The Necromongers said it best, "You keep what you kill." The land is yours as long as you can repel anyone else from taking it from you.

[Gadion]

If my father was a cirminal, making millions by comitting crime, it wouldn't be right, to consider that now "My money" wouldn't it? I wouldn't go to jail, but I shouldn't be allowed to keep the stuff, gathered by crime.

Fantastic example. If I might carry it further, in regards to the American and Britain examples, if your ancestor from 10 generations ago was a war criminal, and your family fortune is build upon that, you wouldn't be expected to return anything to anyone. It's too far gone and through too many innocent people (so to speak).

And before anyone else says it, yes, it's a slippery slope - it would be almost impossible for it not to be. And then that begs the question, how far back can you go? There is no perfect answer to that question.

But going back 40 years is ok. And going back 400 is not. That isn't difficult at all.

You're oversimplifying the issue significantly.

Worth noting, the amendment to Section 25 of the Constitution is not aimed only at farmland, but all land could be subjected to it. There has been no mention of explicitly targeting only white South Africans' property either, as far as I know, even if the prevailing political atmosphere and popular opinion makes that a mere formality.

The EFF, which is one of the significant parties that want to amend the Constitution, have no intention of giving land to anyone. They have stated repeatedly and explicitly that they want all land to be nationalised and that everyone will have to pay rent to even be allowed to live there. So, they have no real wish to compensate the already poor and neglected black majority for past wrongs by the Apartheid government. They are however quite aggressive and confrontational towards white South Africans. Personally, I consider them a hate group with political backing.

The ANC may want to give land back to dispossessed black South Africans, but they are grossly exaggerating the issue and conflating criminals with ordinary South Africans because of skin colour. It is a fact that many black South Africans were dispossessed before and during Apartheid in favour of white South Africans. However, this may not even be the majority case for that time. And since, people have not stood still either. What I mean is that many white South Africans acquired their farms long before ever encountering the Bantu groups in Southern Africa; before and during Apartheid, unaffiliated white South Africans took economic initiative and acquired land legally and by economic means from other individuals and even the local tribes; after the end of Apartheid white South Africans still acquired land that was unoccupied through legal means without disadvantaging any previous owners.

Painting all white South Africans as criminals and illegal owners of the land is wrong and illogical. As mentioned before, all land could be subject to expropriation, even residential property in urban areas. What's more, the majority of white South Africans aren't extravagantly rich as the media would have you believe. You know who owns the land?... the bank. Houses and farms all across South Africa are being paid for by middle class working white South Africans who now stand to lose their livelihood because they are painted as criminals due the colour of their skin.

Black South Africans for their part don't have a real lot to gain from this either, unless you take residential property from hardworking honest white South Africans in the cities so that more black South Africans can have property in urban areas. The black middle class is larger than the entire white population and they stand to lose a lot from expropriation too. Farmlands are generally not near the cities and in areas where most job seeking black South Africans have little interest in, so giving that to them is counterproductive, since you would be moving economic participants out of the major economic zones into areas most of them don't want to be.

You may think that I am exaggerating, but the government has given us little evidence of actually being able to rule the country competently and have proven to be outright aggressive on many occasions. Excuse their violation of human rights at the cost of your own conscience.

lul colonizers salty because they are losing lands that they stole in the first place hahahahahahah

Nothing to see here, they stole the lands couple centuries ago and are being stolen back now....

Apartheid wasn't a couple of centuries ago.
Land that was acquired before Apartheid, was for the most part done by trade or occupied before ever meeting any of the Bantu peoples. When they did encounter one another they often traded favours, goods or cattle for territory. When they came into conflict, it was by no means a straight slaughter of the black South Africans, who were actually the aggressors on a number of occasions.

Oh you didn't like it? then gtfo to your ancestors land.

Ancestor's land? Oh, you mean the place my family had actually fled for fear of death because they weren't Catholic? Yeah, they totally should have just stayed there and died. Complete no-brainer.

That aside, there aren't exactly any takers for people that haven't lived in your country for hundreds of years. It's simple, a country isn't responsible for the citizens in another country. They have their own people to take care of. I have no means to emigrate either. A working class income with no savings and no assets of any value doesn't really afford one to move to another country (that doesn't want you and has strict entry policies) without having a job lined up on the other side.

I wasn't even born during Apartheid, but I suppose that since I can't afford to move I just have to shut up and die, right?

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Land actually belongs to whoever can hold it. This has always been true, and remains true today. The fact that you live in a society that has a state monopoly on the use of force and simultaneously has some rules about how that force aught to be applied has zero bearing on the fundamental truth. If the government of SA decides that's how the land aught to be distributed, then so be it. Their land, their country, their decision. You don't like it? Revolution (democratic or violent are equally effective) or emigrate. The end.

You’re not wrong. That being said, it’s important to bring up these incidents and hold them out for everyone to see to counteract the grievance narrative that is peddled in countries where white westerners are the majority.

[cubby]

Let us critically analyze this, you are now contradicting yourslef. The Land acts of 1913? That is 105 years ago and well outside even the parameter of "people alive today" of which maybe Johanna Mazibuko can claim connection to.

For them to still be alive and to have personally been wronged they would have to own land in 1913, which would make that person over 105 years old. They would have had to have been adults in 1913 as well.

You might wish to respectfully withdraw your position since by your own standards, as arbitrary as they are, do not even address the facts of this situation. There is only one person in South Africa alive today (I think) who is theoretically old enough to have even been a land owner at the time and I am unsure women could even own land at the time in either culture, even if she was a land owner and could own land in 1913 under either cultures legal customs, this confiscation law is not planning to give land to Johanna Mazibuko.

I guess you missed the part where I already said I might need to rethink my position. It's like you're answering someone else's post while quoting mine. Here, let me quote the part of my post you completely ignored (did I do that right? ).

I'm seeing indications that this is all in response to the South Africa’s Natives Land Act of 1913, which stripped most black people of their right to own property, a policy reinforced decades later by the National Party and its system of apartheid.

If they are just taking land from [insert white person] and giving it to [insert black person] without any legal reasoning, because the ANC is sucking hind tit overall, then I would like to respectfully withdraw my original position. I'm still trying to find more info about any specific policy they are looking at or enacting. Shout if you find something - I will do the same.

I'll wait for your apology (keeping in mind that I've already admitted I'm more than likely wrong).

[ArguesWithStrangers]

No, they should not be taking that land, unless they can unequivocally show that the current landowner stole it from someone else.

As for the mentioning of Israel, it is rather ironic, considering they are currently practicing their own version of apartheid, and are also seeking to take even more land from the Palestinians.

Apartheid and establishing settlements aren’t the same thing no matter how bad you want it to be. For one, it’s not racially motivated, as Israeli Arabs, yes even the Muslims, have full sufferage and all the rights of other Israeli citizens, which is more than can be said for the “Palestinians” living in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq or any other Arab country. As for the West Bank and Gaza, Israel conquered them in war, but ceded them and withdrew multiple times in hopes of a peace agreement. They offered to recognize a border, dismantle settlements, etc, and every time the Palestinians rejected the offer demanding Israel withdraw to pre 1967 borders, as though you can demand the victors of a war you wanted give up their spoils just because you’re still butthurt about it a generation on. Drawing equvalence with that and the institutionalized racism that was South Africa’s Apartheid is ignorant at best and deliberately disingenuous otherwise.

[cubby]

You're oversimplifying the issue significantly.

Worth noting, the amendment to Section 25 of the Constitution is not aimed only at farmland, but all land could be subjected to it. There has been no mention of explicitly targeting only white South Africans' property either, as far as I know, even if the prevailing political atmosphere and popular opinion makes that a mere formality.

The EFF, which is one of the significant parties that want to amend the Constitution, have no intention of giving land to anyone. They have stated repeatedly and explicitly that they want all land to be nationalised and that everyone will have to pay rent to even be allowed to live there. So, they have no real wish to compensate the already poor and neglected black majority for past wrongs by the Apartheid government. They are however quite aggressive and confrontational towards white South Africans. Personally, I consider them a hate group with political backing.

The ANC may want to give land back to dispossessed black South Africans, but they are grossly exaggerating the issue and conflating criminals with ordinary South Africans because of skin colour. It is a fact that many black South Africans were dispossessed before and during Apartheid in favour of white South Africans. However, this may not even be the majority case for that time. And since, people have not stood still either. What I mean is that many white South Africans acquired their farms long before ever encountering the Bantu groups in Southern Africa; before and during Apartheid, unaffiliated white South Africans took economic initiative and acquired land legally and by economic means from other individuals and even the local tribes; after the end of Apartheid white South Africans still acquired land that was unoccupied through legal means without disadvantaging any previous owners.

Painting all white South Africans as criminals and illegal owners of the land is wrong and illogical. As mentioned before, all land could be subject to expropriation, even residential property in urban areas. What's more, the majority of white South Africans aren't extravagantly rich as the media would have you believe. You know who owns the land?... the bank. Houses and farms all across South Africa are being paid for by middle class working white South Africans who now stand to lose their livelihood because they are painted as criminals due the colour of their skin.

Black South Africans for their part don't have a real lot to gain from this either, unless you take residential property from hardworking honest white South Africans in the cities so that more black South Africans can have property in urban areas. The black middle class is larger than the entire white population and they stand to lose a lot from expropriation too. Farmlands are generally not near the cities and in areas where most job seeking black South Africans have little interest in, so giving that to them is counterproductive, since you would be moving economic participants out of the major economic zones into areas most of them don't want to be.

You may think that I am exaggerating, but the government has given us little evidence of actually being able to rule the country competently and have proven to be outright aggressive on many occasions. Excuse their violation of human rights at the cost of your own conscience.

I hate to admit it, but I think I lept before I looked here. Your analysis seems spot on to what is actually happening. The land seizures seem more like political moves to make up for their lack of competency rather than any meaningful reparations.

The practical implications of what they are doing and how it will be an already failed policy seem legion compared to what they claim they are actually trying to do.

Thanks for the great summary and history, it's much appreciated.

[Theodarzna]

I guess you missed the part where I already said I might need to rethink my position. It's like you're answering someone else's post while quoting mine. Here, let me quote the part of my post you completely ignored (did I do that right? ).

I'll wait for your apology (keeping in mind that I've already admitted I'm more than likely wrong).

Legal reasoning? The reasoning has been spelled out already and you've only conjectured what you think that reasoning is and then went on to contradict yourself.

As for rethinking your position, yes, even with that law you cite, nobody alive could possibly claim they were directly dispossessed, thus your whole schtick about time being a factor is defeated by even your own arbitrary metric.

[Machismo]

Apartheid and establishing settlements aren’t the same thing no matter how bad you want it to be. For one, it’s not racially motivated, as Israeli Arabs, yes even the Muslims, have full sufferage and all the rights of other Israeli citizens, which is more than can be said for the “Palestinians” living in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq or any other Arab country. As for the West Bank and Gaza, Israel conquered them in war, but ceded them and withdrew multiple times in hopes of a peace agreement. They offered to recognize a border, dismantle settlements, etc, and every time the Palestinians rejected the offer demanding Israel withdraw to pre 1967 borders, as though you can demand the victors of a war you wanted give up their spoils just because you’re still butthurt about it a generation on. Drawing equvalence with that and the institutionalized racism that was South Africa’s Apartheid is ignorant at best and deliberately disingenuous otherwise.

Don't tell that to the Palestinians who are being ethnically cleansed from their own land.

It's apartheid, the systematic oppression of an indigenous population.

[cubby]

Legal reasoning? The reasoning has been spelled out already and you've only conjectured what you think that reasoning is and then went on to contradict yourself.

As for rethinking your position, yes, even with that law you cite, nobody alive could possibly claim they were directly dispossessed, thus your whole schtick about time being a factor is defeated by even your own arbitrary metric.

Wow, you absolutely suck at reading comprehension. I mean like downright plain awful. I was admitting I was wrong. And instead of being a gracious winner in an anonymous forum where intellectual honesty is at a premium you go ahead and prove that the worst of humanity is still out there, just beating me up for being a good loser - twice. Even after I pointed out - twice - that I was admitting I was wrong.

You mentioned earlier about being in a select group of people on this forum, and while I ignored the obvious bait, I will say I am part of that group, the group that has you on ignore because you're a piss poor communicator and can't see past your own point to anyone else's perspective. We'll add "sucks at winning" as well - how that's even possible on a forum is beyond me, but you've some how managed to do it.

And it's downright perplexing that you continue to push this I was right mentality when I have already pointed that out - twice. But please, keep going on about arguments that only you seem to think exist, we're all enjoying the self-motivated melt down you seem to be having.

And, for the record, I'm conceding nothing regarding time being a substantial factor when it comes to historical and modern reparations. I would love to have a conversation with a rational adult about that topic, shout if you can think of one that is interested.