South Africa to take land from white farmers without compensation

[sarahtasher]

How does this land redistribution happen? The natives kill the farmers, the government takes the farm and gives it to a loyal friend?

While a peaceful variation is much more preferable, violent land reform is not exactly unprecented or exclusive to third world backwater. And when it's not violent, it's still often a gunpoint, by outright confiscation.

[Deleted]

why the hell is their ball always wearing sunglasses?

[Deficineiron]

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

kuwait is actually an excellent example - they couldn't hold it (because someone much bigger took it away from them and returned to the original owners).

Crimea appears to support the notion as well and I think the matter is pretty much closed, because I see no signs russia is giving it up, much less sevastopol (the main issue involved).

the poster who noted that land belongs to whoever can hold it is correct. How can anyone believe that this is anything but true? cite me any historical example.

- - - Updated - - -

Violence or violence is a third world solution. Civilized nations use laws and diplomacy.

On the surface, you're right. But that's a Machiavellian approach to politics. From that perspective, a dictatorship is a perfectly legitimate form of government.

well it does seem to work for most of the world, and has for all of recorded history. no one guarantees these types of places are good to live in for the majority of subjects.

western republicanism and democracy is a very unusual thing. Why do people think it is in any way normal? even when it has happened, it is very fragile. democracy in particularly had some spectacularly bad outcomes in the greek states at various times.

Not understanding that violence is a political tool and a means to an end is very naive, imo, and willfully ignores how reality works, in favor of an ideal of how the world 'ought to work.'

[Deleted]

kuwait is actually an excellent example - they couldn't hold it (because someone much bigger took it away from them and returned to the original owners).

it was the UN who ordered the liberation of kuwait, the us and its allies just acted as the un's enforcing arm, so one can consider that the world does no longer allow powers to hold on land they can annex

russia's case is more along the lines of you getting married and giving her a ring, but when she divorces you, youll reclaim that ring

[Deficineiron]

Not really, basically the whole world did an enormous coverage of this year's election in Brazil.

brazil is a huge and still-growing economy and major oil producer. it gets attention because it, in particular, really is important. one-hex no-wheres are not the same in any sense.

[Confucius]

like 20% of South African population have HIV. This land problem will resolve itself, in time

[Deficineiron]

it was the UN who ordered the liberation of kuwait, the us and its allies just acted as the un's enforcing arm, so one can consider that the world does no longer allow powers to hold on land they can annex

russia's case is more along the lines of you getting married and giving her a ring, but when she divorces you, youll reclaim that ring

the US set that up and used the UN to provide political support for allied involvement as well as for domestic reasons in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

It's going to be tragic, when like other African nations, their entire infrastructure crumbles and the famine begins.

I think the rule on this is don't say things like this now, be optimistic, and when it actually happens blame someone else.

[igualitarist]

brazil is a huge and still-growing economy and major oil producer. it gets attention because it, in particular, really is important. one-hex no-wheres are not the same in any sense.

Yeah, except that never before the world gave a shit about brazilian democracy.

When we were electing far left people its was fine, according to the world.

Also, South Africa is one of the most, if not the most, important country of sub-saharan Africa, a member of BRICS, and one of the biggest ore producers in the world. Its not irrelevant as you paint.

By no meaning the world media and the human rights organizations should ignore whats going on there. But they do. On the other hand, both the world media, and human rights organizations went ape shit crazy because we elected a guy that, well, all crimes attributed to him belong to the future.

[d00mGuArD]

But when unjust laws created a situation where 9% of the population own more than 70% of arable land, then something is quite wrong there, and there has to be a way to balance things without violence or anything like that.

So in SA 9% of the population own 70% of the land? That is better than the U.S. where 10% of the population own 79% of the wealth

[Kiri]

So in SA 9% of the population own 70% of the land? That is better than the U.S. where 10% of the population own 79% of the wealth

Actually, no. That is just a different metric. SA is also the country with the biggest wealth gap - 1% of the population owns 71% of the wealth. I think the world bank index for inequality (closer to 0=closer to equality) for the US is like 40, for SA it is 60.

[Dendrek]

well it does seem to work for most of the world, and has for all of recorded history. no one guarantees these types of places are good to live in for the majority of subjects.

western republicanism and democracy is a very unusual thing. Why do people think it is in any way normal? even when it has happened, it is very fragile. democracy in particularly had some spectacularly bad outcomes in the greek states at various times.

Not understanding that violence is a political tool and a means to an end is very naive, imo, and willfully ignores how reality works, in favor of an ideal of how the world 'ought to work.'

That "seem to work" is a generous overstatement. The western world you're belittling is highly economically and socially stable. Even with its periods of social unrest, outside of starting actual wars, that unrest usually just results in protests or political shifts. It's also not fragile at all. Ironically, you're suggesting that nations which sometimes have civil wars are less stable than nations at constant threat of civil wars or worse. And you had to pick an example from over a thousand years ago to justify the "spectacularly bad outcomes" you're trying to suggest democracy results in.

How would a nation ruled by violence be more stable than one that's not? It's literally the opposite. Despots, ethnic cleansing, wars, police states: these are dangerous places to live and you hail them as the standard. They are economically and socially unstable. Just because they're common does not mean they work.

[Themerlin]

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?

Considering the short history of colonization of whites in southern Africa, all those white settlers should have their land taken from them, no questions asked.

To those that have had their land taken away, can ask compensation from their Dutch/British colonial forefathers.

The South Africans don't need any reason for their acts. Blaming racism in this case makes you a very little minded person, only focused on the now (like a dog), not on what occurred only a generation ago....

I say get rid of all the whiteys.

Btw I lived in Africa for 12 years (Morocco, Benin, Togo, Nigeria, ROC, etc), you think S Africans are racist? You have no idea buddy. Try being white in Lagos during an oil riot between tribes. I would live in S Africa any day compared to Nigeria. When you actually take history into account, I understand why Nigerians hated me. When I saw the immense divide between whites and blacks in terms of class, and all these companies exploiting the country (Shell, Texaco, BP, etc), yeah....FUCK WHITEY!

We are the biggest snowflakes possible. I mean any other peoples, if you said that Africans are racist against whites, would laugh at your fucking face if you even mentioned racism.

You are mistaking racism, for pure hate towards what you are and represent. You could be purple for all they care, and that hate... the remembering of your kind doing harm, is more than enough.

They don't care for your concepts of racism and apathetic ideologies.

The harm and still prevalent oral memory of what "the whites" have done in Africa is felt by every African.

Consider a population that is 4 times bigger than the US, collectively feeling this towards you.

...and Africa is not alone...



Enjoy.

[Sarange]

Considering the short history of colonization of whites in southern Africa, all those white settlers should have their land taken from them, no questions asked.

To those that have had their land taken away, can ask compensation from their Dutch/British colonial forefathers.

The South Africans don't need any reason for their acts. Blaming racism in this case makes you a very little minded person, only focused on the now (like a dog), not on what occurred only a generation ago....

I say get rid of all the whiteys.

Btw I lived in Africa for 12 years (Morocco, Benin, Togo, Nigeria, ROC, etc), you think S Africans are racist? You have no idea buddy. Try being white in Lagos during an oil riot between tribes. I would live in S Africa any day compared to Nigeria. When you actually take history into account, I understand why Nigerians hated me. When I saw the immense divide between whites and blacks in terms of class, and all these companies exploiting the country (Shell, Texaco, BP, etc), yeah....FUCK WHITEY!

We are the biggest snowflakes possible. I mean any other peoples, if you said that Africans are racist against whites, would laugh at your fucking face if you even mentioned racism.

You are mistaking racism, for pure hate towards what you are and represent. You could be purple for all they care, and that hate... the remembering of your kind doing harm, is more than enough.

Gj trying to make a point. Too bad it is nonsense.

[Themerlin]

Gj trying to make a point. Too bad it is nonsense.

Na.

I think you just don't understand my point.

Or are incapable to, since you are a white westerner, as I am.

Only difference between us is I lived in Africa for over a decade, I understand it better. More to the point I spent most of my time in the Ivory Coast, Benin, Togo, and Nigeria, ...where most of the slaves from Brazil and the US originated from. The "Slave Coast".

[stevenho]

Considering the short history of colonization of whites in southern Africa, all those white settlers should have their land taken from them, no questions asked.

Don't forget to take all land from US farmers and give it back to Indians.
I support your lunacy 100%

[CaptainAwesomer]

It's South Africa's loss. Nobody wants to invest in a country where the government confiscates land without fair compensation.

I hope you realize that's exactly what the American Civil War was fought about. It wasn't about the right to continue owning slaves. It was about not being compensated for the loss of the slaves. Sure, it wasn't right for them to be able to buy people with money, but it was legal at the time, just like it was legal to take the lands from the Native Americans. The government decided to give the slaves back their freedom, but offered no return on the investment that the plantation owners had put forth.

This is not about whether or not an activity is moral. It's about the government changing its rules, then telling the affected citizens, "tough sh*t."

[PC2]

I hope you realize that's exactly what the American Civil War was fought about. It wasn't about the right to continue owning slaves. It was about not being compensated for the loss of the slaves. Sure, it wasn't right for them to be able to buy people with money, but it was legal at the time, just like it was legal to take the lands from the Native Americans. The government decided to give the slaves back their freedom, but offered no return on the investment that the plantation owners had put forth.

This is not about whether or not an activity is moral. It's about the government changing its rules, then telling the affected citizens, "tough sh*t."

This is about human rights. All collective or group punishment is a human rights violation. So the only way SA can confiscate a plot of land without violating human rights is if they form a legal case against a farm owner as an individual.

[Themerlin]

Don't forget to take all land from US farmers and give it back to Indians.
I support your lunacy 100%

Lets not begin with the US and Canada....

What has been done to the Indian population was a cultural genocide.

Some restitution was demanded, and received....

Our Canadian government was able to admit they attempted to wipe Indian culture from the provinces.

Through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Government has apologized to the indigenous people for past crimes. This one, was given by Prime Minister Harper for the Indian Residential Schools (that were also used in Australia to great affect as well on Aboriginal people).


The North American continent is already taken over completely by the colonial forces.... culturally and geographically, having 340 million people deported is lunacy.

At least the US can take steps in admitting its past genocide on its inhabitants.

The formal apology for slavery and Jim Crow issued by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008 was unprecedented, even after decades of lawmakers trying to push the government to finally apologize. In introducing the resolution, Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tenn), noted that despite the government issuing an apology for interning Japanese citizens and later pressuring Japan to apologize for forcing Chinese women to work as sex slaves during World War II, the American government had never formally recognized and apologized for slavery. While the apology was primarily symbolic, by officially recognizing its role in perpetuating the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow, the American government took a step forward in addressing and atoning for one of its greatest wrongs.

2008!

When compared to the 10 million Indigenous Indians that were killed off in the US, wow. Its not enough that individual states or counties apologize for past doings, the whole country as a whole needs to understand their history and harm that came from it, which is why a formal apology is still on hold from the US to its Indians.

Now S Africa...

...is a different case.

Mostly Black community, with some of its culture still intact, even though the colonial roots of faith and trade are still in.
IT DOES NOT COMPARE TO THE U.S.!

It is not fully culturally dead from its roots.

Calling yourself Afrikan does not make you African lol

Another words, "Fuck off back to where you came from, we don't want you here anymore."

And I agree with them .



It would be like allowing the murderer of your family, to be your next door neighbor.

No one wants that.

Just go away so we can move on into something new.

[stevenho]

Lets not begin with the US and Canada....

What has been done to the Indian population was a cultural genocide.

Some restitution was demanded, and received....

Our Canadian government was able to admit they attempted to wipe Indian culture from the provinces.

Through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Government has apologized to the indigenous people for past crimes. This one, was given by Prime Minister Harper for the Indian Residential Schools (that were also used in Australia to great affect as well on Aboriginal people).


The North American continent is already taken over completely by the colonial forces.... culturally and geographically, having 340 million people deported is lunacy.

You don't have to DEPORT anyone, you just REMOVE land from US farmers and GIVE IT BACK to the rightful owners - Indians.
US farmers are a tiny fraction of the 340 mil you're talking about. Keep coming up with reasons why it can be done in RSA but vannot be done in the USA.

[PC2]

You don't have to DEPORT anyone, you just REMOVE land from US farmers and GIVE IT BACK to the rightful owners - Indians.
US farmers are a tiny fraction of the 340 mil you're talking about. Keep coming up with reasons why it can be done in RSA but vannot be done in the USA.

It would be wildly unethical in both locations. Since there's never a justification for ethnic group punishment.