South Africa to take land from white farmers without compensation

[Checkt]

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.

So, I've read and reread your OP trying to figure when you make the case for why this is bad? Every country that was built upon exploitation and colonization should be delegitimatized...so....kudos on making a good pro 'steal back the land argument I guess'?

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?

But then, following all that up with this gem shows that we're not talking to someone who has a solid grasp on the issues being discussed anyway...so..

[Techno-Druid]

Julius Sello Malema (born 3 March 1981) is a Member of Parliament



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8234461.html
"South Africa‘s parliament has passed a motion that could lead to the seizure of land from white farmers without paying them compensation.

Passed by an overwhelming majority of 241 votes to 83 votes against, the proposal to amend Section 25 of the constitution would allow expropriation of land without any financial recompense.

It was put forward by the radical left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, whose leader Julius Malema told the country's parliament: “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.” "


you don't really have any idea how its constantly been getting more and more racist heading towards a genocide there for years now? ignorance is bliss i guess

There's definitely anti-white (especially Anti-Afrikaner) sentiment in South Africa. However, again, what does this have to do with the OP and the thread? Where are the sources on the land extirpation? I'm not denying them, but I won't watch a video by BPS—a man who thinks women destroy civilizations just by not being sexually repressed—and I certainly won't treat it as a credible primary source.

[Kiri]

They should find out what the owner paid for the land and then add some sort of fair mark up percentage plus cost of improvements made. Also a small ownership interest could be exchanged for training and knowledge so the new owners can operate the farms.

That would be too sane for this world, sadly. It would also run into some rather big problems, as not all current owners purchased the lands. Handling those that were passed down from parents or grandparents would be the trickiest part, even in cases where the family did in fact pay someone. Historical records for things before the 1950s are notoriously hard to find, especially when you are basically looking for a receipt. Many will likely have some sort of deed for the land, but not necessarily a proof of what had been paid back then.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I'm literally pointing to the systematic oppression of an indigenous population, it's not irrelevant at all. You trying to justify that oppression is only helping me to make my point. At the end of the day, that is what is going on, whether you find such oppression to be irrelevant, or not.

I don't "need" it to be anything, I'm saying it IS systematic oppression. Once again, that's not anything you can actually refute, all you are doing, is attempting to justify that oppression. Here's a thought, stop justifying oppression.

I have refuted it, repeatedly. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn’t mean it wasn’t done. It’s safe to say you’ve dug your heels in at this point and have nothing new to say. Have a good day my friend. I promise you, Israel will still be here tomorrow protecting their sovereignty regardless of whether you want to score brownie points with the coffee house crowd by hating them.

[Machismo]

I have refuted it, repeatedly. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn’t mean it wasn’t done. It’s safe to say you’ve dug your heels in at this point and have nothing new to say. Have a good day my friend. I promise you, Israel will still be here tomorrow protecting their sovereignty regardless of whether you want to score brownie points with the coffee house crowd by hating them.

No, you have ignored it and tried to justify it... that's a huge difference. I find your second sentence quite ironic.

And you will still be there tomorrow, shilling for the systematic oppression and apartheid.

[zEmini]

If this is as bad as people are saying, then I hope the farmers arm themselves or go into full revolt.

[Techno-Druid]

im not exactly sure how blind you are do you need everything spelt out?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...test-case.html

Passed by an overwhelming majority of 241 votes to 83 votes against, the proposal to amend Section 25 of the constitution would allow expropriation of land without any financial recompense.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...test-case.html
"Governing party The African National Congress (ANC) wants to amend the law so the government can take back land and distribute it.

However, critics say it is likely it will be handed off to their friends rather than dished out to those in need.

Last week the nations politicians fast tracked the set up of a committee which will write the legal change and present it next year.

The motion was adopted with 183 MPs voting yes, 77 voting no and no abstentions in fiery scenes as South Africans battle over land reform.

In the same week, South Africa's High Court rejected a legal challenge brought by a group representing white farmers against President Cyril Ramaphosa's plans for land expropriation without compensation."

do you want a genocide to start before your willing to step in and say this is wrong? is that why your holding off giving an opinion? you want blood and death first ??? is that it

this is the Government doing it to their own people based on race and nothing else these are south africans that are suffering you dont care because their skin is the wrong colour?

anyone at risk of being targeted by their own Government based on their skin colour should be offered asylum in any sane logical 1st world country atm Russia seems to be the only country that's making a serious attempt make a serious offer to these people

Thank you, although your accusations of me being blind are certainly ironic, given the amount of time it took you to comprehend my very straight forward question.

[Jimmy Woods]

I don't know much of what's going on in South Africa, but isn't it hypocritical to be angry that they are taking white farmlands now, but are fine that the colonialists took that land to begin with? Common sense would be angry about both or fine with both.

It's funny reading this thread of all the Right-Wingers who usually have no problems with politicians scapegoating entire populations of people for being the cause of their own societies problems are outraged when a black majority uses the same tactics against a white minority. For all I know maybe the whites are bringing drugs, rapes, murders and some are good people, but maybe something needed to be done to appease the FEELINGS of the black majority. Taking farmland, separating families and jailing children, two sides of the same coin. Blaming other population groups for your problems seems to be all the rage these days. If it wasn't such an effective political tool it wouldn't be this way.

(side note: You see this on how the Right politicizes woman body autonomy. Rather then arguing about tax dollars being spent on non-essential things their argument is either for killing babies or against. No nuance, no discussion and yet no action by Trump's Supreme Court LOLOL because it keeps people angry and divided and voting against their general interests)

[Polyxo]

ITT: racist white people are upset that apartheid's over and they're not allowed to keep the ill-gotten gains from apartheid.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know much of what's going on in South Africa, but isn't it hypocritical to be angry that they are taking white farmlands now, but are fine that the colonialists took that land to begin with? Common sense would be angry about both or fine with both.

It's funny reading this thread of all the Right-Wingers who usually have no problems with politicians scapegoating entire populations of people for being the cause of their own societies problems are outraged when a black majority uses the same tactics against a white minority. For all I know maybe the whites are bringing drugs, rapes, murders and some are good people, but maybe something needed to be done to appease the FEELINGS of the black majority. Taking farmland, separating families and jailing children, two sides of the same coin. Blaming other population groups for your problems seems to be all the rage these days. If it wasn't such an effective political tool it wouldn't be this way.

(side note: You see this on how the Right politicizes woman body autonomy. Rather then arguing about tax dollars being spent on non-essential things their argument is either for killing babies or against. No nuance, no discussion and yet no action by Trump's Supreme Court LOLOL because it keeps people angry and divided and voting against their general interests)

The fact of the matter is that the land distribution situation in South Africa won't work. You can't have an effective monopoly on arable land access, especially not one that was put in place by way of crimes against humanity. This is as much the breakup of a holdover cartel as anything else.

[Alydael]

So, where are the human rights organizations ?

They discriminate against white people too, that's why they are nowhere to be seen........

Funny how that works

[Wermys]

ITT: racist white people are upset that apartheid's over and they're not allowed to keep the ill-gotten gains from apartheid.

- - - Updated - - -



The fact of the matter is that the land distribution situation in South Africa won't work. You can't have an effective monopoly on arable land access, especially not one that was put in place by way of crimes against humanity. This is as much the breakup of a holdover cartel as anything else.

Has nothing to do with the fact they were not involved. They were not the ones who took the land. It happened 100 years ago. Doing so is compounding one great injustice with another. Othewise the obvious logical conclusion is that we *americans* should reimburse Native Americans for what happened. And if South Africans thought they got screwed as a group. They have nothing close to what we did to Indians.

[PACOX]

Race they have said it many times before along with wanting to genocide them. S.A uses whites as a scape goat for everything. Alot in S.A dont want it to happen many of them are fellow farmers and elder they know what happens.

So it's due to the theft then. Gotcha.

[Gadion]

You know the white farmers took the land from South Africa without compensation in the first place, right?

Those poor white South African farmers. You know, "whites" make up about 9% of the population of South Africa and own about 70% of the land.

You seem quite content to paint the complex issue as a simple one with your broad brush. Land ownership and who is to blame for the inequalities in our country is not always quite so clear.

Firstly, you're assuming that all farms owned by white South Africans were gotten by ill means. It's convenient to forget that many of these farms were acquired legally through purchase or even settled on before anyone else was around to argue.
Secondly, you're conflating groups with individuals. While whites are around 7.9% of the population, most of them have nothing to do with and don't reside on farms. Why are they being scapegoated too? Exactly who is and who isn't a farmer is also not quite clear.

Considering it was white people who stole the land and oppressed the black population in the first place, who else would be "targeted?"

There once was a man who killed another man. Therefore all men are murderers

Let's say China conquered the US and gave all the land to Chinese people.

If the US finally overthrew China you wouldn't take back the land?

It's not quite that simple. Many of the people who own the land actually do own it legally. What is going on here is however that everyone that looks the same is being treated as a collective instead of investigating each case for individual responsibility.

Or, alternatively (and I'm just spitballing here): Someone shouldn't get a pass on benefiting from criminal activity just because they're white.

If someone actually committed a crime, then yes, they should be held responsible. Their neighbours who weren't even there shouldn't.



Let me discuss this in more detail below...

In November 2017 the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform released their 2015 land audit report (you can Google this with the line South Africa 2017 State Land Audit: Private Land Ownership by Race, Gender and Nationality) in anticipation of the debate on land expropriation. They researched land ownership based on deed ownership in the country, for which they accounted for 94% of the land, with the other 6% being reported as "unregistered state trust land".
The land was then divided into three sub-categories: urban holdings, agricultural holdings and farms (what exactly the difference between agricultural holdings and farms is, escapes me). Combined, farms and agricultural holdings make up about 97% of the surface area of the country.

Of the 114 223 273 hectares of land they reported on, 93 956 125 hectares (82% of the total) were owned privately. 39% of these private owners were individuals, 25% were companies, 4% were community based organisations, 31% were in trusts and 1% co-owned (probably by more than one category of owner). The races of these private owners are not specified. There was a total of 6 470 299 owners of private owned lands according to the report, 6 150 096 of which were individuals.

The very same report shows that the total hectares of farm land owned by individuals was 37 078 289 (or 32.46% of all the land). Of this, the overwhelming majority (72% or 26 663 114 hectares) was owned by white individuals. Some quick napkin math [(26663114/114223273)*100] and you have 23.34% of land in the hands of these individual white farmers. The number of these individual farmers is given as 95 673. Almost 12 000 000 hectares worth of farmland owned by white South African individuals is situated in the Northern Cape province, heavily skewing the numbers.

The stated amount of urban hectares owned by white individuals is 357 507, out of a total of 722 667 (49%). As one would normally expect, the majority of the population should own a higher absolute number of surface area. In 7 of the 9 provinces of South Africa, blacks have more land area than whites (but not proportionally higher). If the Northern Cape, which is basically a desert, is excluded, black South Africans actually own more hectares of urban land than white South Africans.

The total amount of hectares owned by white individuals is then (26 663 114 + 357 507) 27 020 621, which corresponds to 23.66%.

In terms of sectional title ownership, white South Africans are reported as having 5 118 hectares in their possession. If you add this to the hectares owned by white individuals, you get 27 025 739 hectares, corresponding to 23.66% of the hectares reported in their audit.

The total number of private land ownership hectares given by this report was 93 956 125 hectares. So, in proportion of all privately owned hectares of land, the combination of white urban land, farm holdings and sectional titles can be calculated as 28.76% of privately owned land.

In their critique on the land audit report, the Istitute of Race Relations (IRR) come up with even less flattering numbers for the government than mine. They also find glaring flaws in the way the government presents information on the land issue.
1.According to the land audit itself, the amount of privately owned land in the hands of white South Africans makes up less than a third of the surface area of the country, in contrast to numbers as high as 80% being reported on occasions. Apparently, this is less than the area of land owned by the state (according to my calculations, this is untrue).
2. Potential agricultural value of the land is disregarded when considering farming areas. Fertile land which is more useful for farming is considered to be of the same value as dry land which is largely unproductive. The drier western provinces of the country skew the numbers to appear to be more favourable to white South Africans than what may be true in reality.
3. The report largely ignores communally owned land and land owned by the government and other state bodies, in order to make the presented information seem more significant.

Reporting on another land audit done by Agri SA and Landbou Weekblad on News24.com, Jan de Lange observed that black people already owned a majority of land in the fertile Limpopo and Kwa-Zulu Natal Provinces. More significantly, the audit report found that ordinary commercial purchases of agricultural land by black entrepreneurs and farmers have been double the amount restored by the government's efforts to redistribute land.


In the 24 years since 1994 there have been significant strides in the amount of land owned by black South Africans in the eastern parts of South Africa, while progressing rather slowly in the western parts of the country.

Wandile Sihlobo and Tinashe Kapuya published a special report on land redistribution efforts on the 23rd of July 2018. In it, the claim is made that the equivalent of 21% of freehold farmland in South Africa has been transferred from white ownership since 1994 already. They remark that the timing of attempts to amend Section 25 of the Constitution come at a time when land reform efforts have been more successful than those in power would like to admit. Many private transactions between willing white sellers and willing black buyers have also not been included in reports on land reform efforts. Turning to the desirability of farms, note is made that only 4% of all farms in the country actually generate a turnover of over R5 000 000 and most farms are in debt with low returns on equity.
This is relevant to the land debate also, since in many cases, the owners of the properties are actually banks instead of individuals: "...South African agricultural land is heavily indebted: farm debt that is linked to the actual land through title deeds that have already been used to secure loans."
The authors are also of the opinion that economic damage from land expropriation without compensation will be felt throughout society in the forms of loss of opportunities and disinvestment.



All of that in mind, I would like to discuss the matter further.
The land expropriation without compensation being debated does not specify that only agricultural land is up for the taking. The implication is that urban land and homes can be taken from private individuals as well. Businesses are by no means exempt either, unless the government specifies which land is up for grabs.
Fears that the government is merely acting out of spite are not isolated nor completely unwarranted. Allegations are often made that the government is taking these measures as a political stunt while also behaving vindictively. Public submissions on the matter of land expropriation were requested, but the decision to proceed with the expropriation act was taken while half a million of these submissions were still to be processed.


My problem in this discussion is the application of collective guilt.
A small minority of white people have perpetrated crimes against the majority black population, the consequences of which have yet to be resolved. Black people in South Africa have been disadvantaged for very long and neglected by governments both past and present. They do need support, assistance in improving their lives and free access to the economy. The general public and the government should work together to improve their livelihoods. The past can't be fixed, but we can all work together to improve the future. In some cases, this should mean that the perpetrators of the crimes of the past must be located and brought to justice. When it is found that a particular part of land was taken from someone, the guilty party should be made to pay for what they have done. In some cases, this would include jail time. In other cases, economic compensation may be more beneficial to the victims.

On the other hand, you have a population of more than 4.5 million white South Africans, of which many don't own any land either, and most that do are actually working to pay their bank loans. Even if you assume that all farmland was stolen (which is a ridiculous exaggeration), that leaves over 4 million people that don't reside on these areas or have anything to do with it. Yet, they get to be called all manner of bad names and threatened to lose everything that they have worked hard and honestly for for their entire lives. I don't know about you, but being falsely accused of a crime makes me furious, especially when you then tell me I have to pay for it too.

Just because some or even many white South Africans have been vile in the past does not mean that every white South African alive today is responsible for it. Land expropriation threatens to take any property away from people based effectively on the colour of their skin.

If you tell me that I am overreacting and that the government has no interest in residential property of the average person, let me ask you this:
Do you really expect me to trust a government that has no intention of protecting basic human rights for any population in the country?
Do you expect me to trust a government that has proven corrupt and incompetent to such an extent that the country is crumbling and people have died?
Do you expect me to trust a government that shifts the blame for all their failures onto me because of the colour of my skin?
Do you expect me to trust a government that has no qualms about making legislation effectively discriminating against me in every sphere of life?
Do you expect me to trust a government that either threatens or allows others to threaten my life on a regular basis without any real condemnation?


The government's behaviour, accomplishments and attitude speaks for itself. Even looking only at the land audit I discussed earlier, you get the impression of a government that is either incompetent beyond measure or deliberately deceptive. Which is acceptable to you?

- - - Updated - - -

ITT: racist white people are upset that apartheid's over and they're not allowed to keep the ill-gotten gains from apartheid.

ITT: people find it amusing and acceptable to judge and punish people by their skin colour.
More seriously I'm more concerned by people's attitude than efforts to obtain redress for the past. It's like people revel in the misery of others.
Having nothing to do with the situation is irrelevant, you might as well die if you're a white South African.

[Raptor With a Saber]

So it's due to the theft then. Gotcha.

Not after the first time if you wanna say that. It wasnt ever for the theft just race

[Najnaj]

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.

..or the children/ancestors of said people are benefiting from said theft. If someone stole your house and installed their kids there I assume you would still want it back. The problem with land reforms is not the the principles, it is the execution.

[PC2]

..or the children/ancestors of said people are benefiting from said theft. If someone stole your house and installed their kids there I assume you would still want it back. The problem with land reforms is not the the principles, it is the execution.

People are only responsible for their individual crimes though, not group crimes. If SA were bringing a case against farmers as individuals it would be perfectly fine, but that's not what they are doing.

[Machismo]

..or the children/ancestors of said people are benefiting from said theft. If someone stole your house and installed their kids there I assume you would still want it back. The problem with land reforms is not the the principles, it is the execution.

And if it can be unequivocally proven, then there can be something done about it. The wholesale taking of land is simply unacceptable.

[Techno-Druid]

its been in the news for years building up and becoming more serious MY BAD i assumed you were wilfully ignorant about the situation maybe just someone who avoids news

I'm definitely not ignorant of what's going on in SA, but there's a lot of misinformation and half-truths about the subject.

A good example being the attacks on farms, a few groups with specific agendas have promoted them as being purely racially motivated, while various other organization (including at least one far right group in South Africa) have contested this claim, citing it as not being racially motivated but circumstantial, with farms being easy targets for criminals regardless of ethnic identification but white farms happening to overrepresent victimization by virtue of most major farms being Afrikaner-owned.

Really, it's very difficult to distinguish between what's real and what's doctored/misrepresented. So I generally reserve judgement until I can be 99% sure.

[Knaar]

If i was living there, i'd just try to sell off everything i have and move out the country while watching my land been given back to the right ancestry and watch them stand there with a "How the F do i farm all that land now" look on their face.
Fast forward 5 years and they'll all be begging for money and food (that was previously given by the land owners that were stripped of their land). Could be entertaining to watch for sure.

[Polyxo]

Has nothing to do with the fact they were not involved. They were not the ones who took the land. It happened 100 years ago. Doing so is compounding one great injustice with another. Othewise the obvious logical conclusion is that we *americans* should reimburse Native Americans for what happened. And if South Africans thought they got screwed as a group. They have nothing close to what we did to Indians.

White farmers were benefiting from a system that barred non-whites from owning more than a pittance of barely arable land through the 1990s. They're still benefiting from it due to apartheid ending with them holding all the cards.