South Africa to take land from white farmers without compensation

[josykay]

SJW's like him wanting to punish people for the sins of their father's isn't anything new.

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.

[Reverb256]

And this is why 'social justice' ideology is inherently racist and divisive, and encourages prejudice.
It recognizes you for 'what' you are, based on a set of cookie-cutter identities with a bunch of connotations that have nothing to do with you as an individual.
And then it pre-judges you based on them.
It discards 'who' you are' because it teaches people to see you as nothing but a representative of your collective of intersectional identities.
Not as a sovereign individual.

[cubby]

What kind of stuff are you smoking? Recently belonged to black farmers?? Where are you getting your facts from if I may ask, seeing as when the first colonists started moving up from Cape Town to the Transvaal there weren't any black farmers, or black owned land. There were the Khoi who were hunter gatherers and then there were the Bantu tribes like the Zulus (who massacred every other tribe they came upon) and the Xhosa who were nomadic and didn't really settle for long.

Taking white land for no compensation is racist end of story, these are generations of people who worked barren soil to what it is today.

And what was it like when the whites ruled South Africa? All hunky dory? No racist policies or anything like that? And how long ago was that delightfully fair rule of law?

[Kiri]

There isn't much mainstream coverage of this. Unsurprisingly enough nobody gives a shit about what happens in a third world country. Especially when you say "They're only doing this because they're white" to the kind of people that think whites are responsible for everything wrong with the world.

There has been quite some coverage of this a few months back. I distinctly remember seeing reports about this on BBC.

South Africa knows that it's okay to be racist against whites and that the world isn't going to be shocked and willing to stop them with sanctions or whatnot. They will do as they say, and eventually South Africa will starve when the black people who steal these farmlands from the whites are unable to properly work the lands.

And then they want the world to donate because they're so poor and starving. Genocide is okay it seems, as long as it doesn't hurt leftist feelings.

I think this is a very complex issue, to be honest. It is rooted in apartheid, which is always problematic. The only reason why this land redistribution thing seems 'racist' is because there is land to be redistributed from white people to black ones. However, this in and of itself is rooted in something that definitely was racist. So much land in South Africa is owned by white people, as black people had been forbidden to own any of it, and those that had any were driven from it. At the end of apartheid, about 90% of the land there was owned by 10% of the population due to that. Very few black South Africans have the skills and experience necessary to run a farm because, well, there weren't any for them to run, as they were not allowed to until like 20 years ago.
In essence, it is very much a "two wrongs do not make it right" kind of thing to me. The people running those farms were likely not the ones taking them from others a long while ago. On the other hand, most of the farmland in South Africa is owned by a minority, which seems unwilling to share said land or transfer the skills in question. People should not own land just because of the color of their skin, definitely. And yet, that will be the situation here one way or another. Either the minority retains the lands, or others gain them simply due to ancestry. Neither situation seems right to me, to be honest.

It should be noted, however, that South Africa is not going to starve over this measure, one way or another. At maximum, 30% of the farm land is supposed to be even eligible for redistribution, so it should not be catastrophic, even if the new owners fail. Still far from optimal, of course. But as I said, there really is no winning side in this. Either one validates the land grabs and racism of the past, or one risks people failing at what others could do successfully.

[cubby]

How is taking land away from people that may have had nothing to do with the situation you are speaking of not racist?

Policy implementation is never fair to everyone. Not sure where you got the idea that it was. Remind me again what it was like just 40 years ago? All racial equality and fairness in South Africa, right?

[Deleted]

One should also point out that in order of arrivals the Afrikaaners have lived in South Africa longer than most of the Bantu speaking Zulu who arrived after the Boers.

I mean, if we are going by whom was where first, than that would be it.

A rather uncomfortable historical fact to some.

Not that it will matter one iota in the end. The Bantu have the demography and many of them see White South Africans as enemies, period. Interestingly, they also include people from Asia as enemies, as well. Rainbow nation turning really nice.

[cubby]

Isn't that, however, an unfair freezing of history. It gives nobody new a chance to do anything and old entrenched ones may get away free. In the case of Britain, their remains, for example, half a million Welsh speakers and several hundred Cornish speakers and thousands of speakers of Breton. The living descendents of the Britons marginalized by the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

I'm actually against historical reparations - you may not believe it, but I am. The situation in South Africa is monumentally different that Britain and the United States, as the OP willfully ignored. I'm comfortable arguing that reparations are necessary in South Africa, perhaps not the way that government is doing it, but in some way - whereas the situation in America and Britain are not necessary. I'm happy to add details to that argument if you'd like, I know it needs them.

Your point about freezing history is valid, but bringing up long ago acts isn't. It has to be noted that the time differences in the examples are at least an order of magnitude different.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

[Theodarzna]

I'm actually against historical reparations - you may not believe it, but I am. The situation in South Africa is monumentally different that Britain and the United States, as the OP willfully ignored. I'm comfortable arguing that reparations are necessary in South Africa, perhaps not the way that government is doing it, but in some way - whereas the situation in America and Britain are not necessary. I'm happy to add details to that argument if you'd like, I know it needs them.

Your point about freezing history is valid, but bringing up long ago acts isn't. It has to be noted that the time differences in the examples are at least an order of magnitude different.

I'd say you are for it selectively and when it suites you politically, but will cast it aside when it doesn't. On its face it seems the only distinction for you is if it is politically conveniant since the logic of South Africa, given the facts on the ground, applies in nearly all countries and that logic can apply to whole continents. Time differences don't particularly matter in this discussion because any distinction of time is going to be purely arbitrary. Is it events from the last century? last two centuries? Whose horrific atrocity and marginalization counts will ultimately come down to an arbitrary demarcation of time. I charge this demarcation is ultimately going to be politically self serving to whomever is making that demarcation.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Perhaps, but that technically makes all wealth suspect since if traced back, all wealth comes about in nearly the same way.

I'm employed by a University, how did the university get the land? Well, they bought it from a farmer or rancher probably. How did he get the land? He inherited it. But how did that guy get it? He inherited it, and so on, till you arrive at the simple fact that some Anglo-American showed up, shot some Native Americans and proclaimed that patch of dirt his.

You could say only things one generation back count, but in the case of the Boers they've been there since before the Bantu speakers arrived centuries ago.

- - - Updated - - -

A rather uncomfortable historical fact to some.

Not that it will matter one iota in the end. The Bantu have the demography and many of them see White South Africans as enemies, period. Interestingly, they also include people from Asia as enemies, as well. Rainbow nation turning really nice.

It turns out Diversity wasn't their strength after all and they are looking for a purely Bantu speaking ethnostate.

[otro]

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....

"land owners shouldnt lose land without fair compensation" - tell me again which compensation the european man gave back when they stole in the first place?

"Land belongs to no one but the person living there." - again there were other ppl living there back when they colonized and that premise wasnt respected, why should they respect that now?

GOOD FOR S.A... I wish more colonies would do that

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

[Linkedblade]

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.

Depends on how it is stored. If it's an account with his name or in cash in a box that belongs to him it can be seized. If it's in your name only, it belongs to you, regardless of how it was gained.

That's how the Rothschild's made a fuck load of cash. By intercepting government communications to sell off their warbonds before the Napoleonic wars ended. Technically illegal, but they got to keep it.

- - - Updated - - -

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....

"land owners shouldnt lose land without fair compensation" - tell me again which compensation the european man gave back when they stole in the first place?

"Land belongs to no one but the person living there." - again there were other ppl living there back when they colonized and that premise wasnt respected, why should they respect that now?

GOOD FOR S.A... I wish more colonies would do that

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

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

[Theodarzna]

"land owners shouldnt lose land without fair compensation" - tell me again which compensation the european man gave back when they stole in the first place?

Hard to compensate the natives when the Zulu' Bantu speakers slaughtered and marginalized them. If anyone owes the natives anything it might be the Bantu speakers.

[cubby]

I'd say you are for it selectively and when it suites you politically, but will cast it aside when it doesn't. On its face it seems the only distinction for you is if it is politically conveniant since the logic of South Africa, given the facts on the ground, applies in nearly all countries and that logic can apply to whole continents. Time differences don't particularly matter in this discussion because any distinction of time is going to be purely arbitrary. Is it events from the last century? last two centuries? Whose horrific atrocity and marginalization counts will ultimately come down to an arbitrary demarcation of time. I charge this demarcation is ultimately going to be politically self serving to whomever is making that demarcation.

And I could make the counter argument that it seems time doesn't mean anything to you whereas in the world time means almost everything. 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. Whereas with American and Britain, time makes it almost impossible to return goods to those who were wronged because too many "uninvolved" generations have come through and affected literally every conceivable calculation in returning goods from the ancestors of the wronger-doers to the those ancestors of the wronged.

You make a poor criticism of politics driving the reason, where in fact it's logic and practicality that drive the process of modern reparations. Your statement of "time differences don't particularly matter" just demonstrates the lack of thought you've put into this issue. You cry political racism whereas it's really political expediency driven by practicality.

If you think my criticism of your position is wrong, please explain how we return lands that were stolen from American black families in the 1700's to those people's ancestors today.

[Theodarzna]

And I could make the counter argument that it seems time doesn't mean anything to you whereas in the world time means almost everything. 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. Whereas with American and Britain, time makes it almost impossible to return goods to those who were wronged because too many "uninvolved" generations have come through and affected literally every conceivable calculation in returning goods from the ancestors of the wronger-doers to the those ancestors of the wronged.

You make a poor criticism of politics driving the reason, where in fact it's logic and practicality that drive the process of modern reparations. Your statement of "time differences don't particularly matter" just demonstrates the lack of thought you've put into this issue. You cry political racism whereas it's really political expediency driven by practicality.

If you think my criticism of your position is wrong, please explain how we return lands that were stolen from black families in the 1700's to those people's ancestors today.

How is a time demarcation anything other than an arbitrary distinction. Akin to say "generations", like is someone born in 1985 really similar to someone born in 1995? Is a baby born in 1939 going to have similar experiences to one born in 1945? You can point to people who were wronged by perhaps a policy, but in terms of Boers owning land, they've held lands, sometimes significant land for centuries. Also, you'd have to cite specific people asking for specific plots of land. Which would be hard to do as the Bantu speakers and the Khosians did not have the same legalistic concept of Land and property ownership in Bantu speaking legal customs. So under whose concept of law are we applying this.

The politics driving it is absolute, you don't like the ethnicity whose stuff will be confiscated, you find the confiscation politically amicable, and will make such cases for it. Ignoring that that specific logic applies to the extreme to the United States were we have explicit treaties and can actually show which patches of land were taken. So for you it can't be about being able to show specific plots of land and when they were taken, it is purely an arbitrary demarcation of time.

Ofcourse the theft from Native Americans is one you directly benefit from, and thus are willing to forgive.

[Torched]

So they haven't learned anything from Zimbabwe, SA is gonna turn into a shithole in a short time, if that happens don't send them any relief aid, let them learn from this huge mistake.

[telygroar]

South Africa is reappropriating land stolen during apartheid. Everything else BPS says in this video is shit he made up, as usual.

This. It did not happens thousand years ago, some people who were stolen are still alive.
But I agree, except some clear cases where it was know theft, it should be compensated.

[cubby]

How is a time demarcation anything other than an arbitrary distinction. Akin to say "generations", like is someone born in 1985 really similar to someone born in 1995? Is a baby born in 1939 going to have similar experiences to one born in 1945? You can point to people who were wronged by perhaps a policy, but in terms of Boers owning land, they've held lands, sometimes significant land for centuries. Also, you'd have to cite specific people asking for specific plots of land. Which would be hard to do as the Bantu speakers and the Khosians did not have the same legalistic concept of Land and property ownership in Bantu speaking legal customs. So under whose concept of law are we applying this.

Again, you're ignoring time as a factor. You give examples that have nothing to do with the three examples the OP used. 40 years ago or even 80 years ago can deal with real people who are still alive and who were wronged. People from 400 years ago or 800 years cannot. That is my point.

The rest of what you're arguing is policy details that I will not even begin to address. Unless you can come to terms with the fact that addressing reparations from the previous generation is significantly different that reparations for people 10 generations ago, we have nothing to discuss, as you're attempting to frame the debate in an unrealistic light.

The politics driving it is absolute, you don't like the ethnicity whose stuff will be confiscated, you find the confiscation politically amicable, and will make such cases for it.

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.

Ignoring that that specific logic applies to the extreme to the United States were we have explicit treaties and can actually show which patches of land were taken. So for you it can't be about being able to show specific plots of land and when they were taken, it is purely an arbitrary demarcation of time.

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.

Ofcourse the theft from Native Americans is one you directly benefit from, and thus are willing to forgive.

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.

[Kreo]

Let me see, EU benefited greatly from the slave trade, raping and pillaging Maya, Inca and other indigenous South America population, Africa, India etc.
If you fine taking land from "oppressors" would you be fine with giving shit back to their original owners? Or until it does not directly involve you in any way, you fine with land and farms grab by the government with race context?

I'll be laughing my ass off when those SA people take white people land, fuck it up like they did in other countries and then move to EU, deflowering your behind. Hopefully you see then racist is a racist with any skin, not just white.

[cubby]

This. It did not happens thousand years ago, some people who were stolen are still alive.
But I agree, except some clear cases where it was know theft, it should be compensated.

Precisely. We can't go back 300 years and try and make reparations (Native issues in 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.

[arandomuser]

(meanwhile the op supports the US using eminent domain to seize thousands of miles to build a border wall that will keep out 5% of immigrants)

only we can use eminent domain for racist purposes!

[Samuraijake]

They also haven't apologized for anime yet.

we havent thanked them yet.