South Africa's Parliament Votes to Confiscate White-Owned Land

[Hawk Dork]

This is the consequence of creating an unfair society no one wins in the end

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You can't beat these Marxist cabals.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I have a better idea, if you are going to have a discussion about crime in South Africa how about you discuss all the crime in South Africa..howboutdat?

To be fair, the thread topic is specifically about the land grab from (predominantly) white farmers. And whether it is reasonable to do so to correct historical "injustice". The rest of crime in south africa (yes, really bad, frequent, and black people often victims) aren't really part of the thread.

 

[Crankyhawk]

They're also common to all humans. I suppose that means we should help nobody.



Related to the Rohingya? Does that mean the torture and murder that the Rohingya conducted against the military and police as well? Because that happened.

Anyway Dutton was probably busy taking in an Australian record 19 thousand refugees through the UNHCR each year. They don't have to be Rohingya in order to count as worthy refugees.



South African. White. Farmers. That's 3, and the white part is due to the situation with white farmers being stripped of their land without compensation. Dutton is commenting only on white farmers because all of this is only happening to white farmers.

One of the issues with the Rohingya was that the military response appears disproportionate and not particularly attempting to punish the terrorists instead condemning the entire Rohingya people. It's a bit like if Australians were to wage a campaign of exclusion on all Msulims after a few muslim terrorists were to attack our police/ government.

And as a country I expect that we would only help if there is something in it for us. Cost benefit and all that.

 

[TimmeT]

I don't have hurt feelings, I am just pointing out that you & the rest of the vile racists are twisting stats in order to have whinge about white farmers having a tough time. Boo hoo. They aren't special & aren't being attacked any more than every other South African.

You're the last person who should cry about twisting facts and/or information in regards to race. After all, you are the one who told us that everyone booing Adam Goodes did so because they were racist and had no proof to support those claims.

 

[JoondalupJ]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...n/news-story/a8a81155995b1adc1c399d3576c4c0bc



We've seen this happen in recent history - in Zimbabwe, which quickly became an economic basket-case as the land-owning knowledge quickly evaporated and crop yields diminished sharply.

I'd suggest the chances of the same thing playing out in SA are high, especially considering many white SA farmers are leaving the land as it remains one of the deadliest occupations in the world.

Another example of ideology trumping reality.

If South Africa go ahead and create this , they will lose out terribly. We al;ready have South Africans leaving that country since the latest governments the ANC begun by Nelson Mandela have fallen down in capability and decency and corruption appears rife.
The degree of farmer murders we can only guess at how many , but one thing is for sure if its one farmer or four hundred, its no good at all.
This will turn out like Zimbabwe , first off a few , then some violence then the mob mentality, where anyone goes on a bash and kill and steal rampage. It gets out of hand, then you see the filth like Magabe, sit back making excuses while all the time ringing his hands in glee over the "pay back" Cecil Rhodes may have owed a bit back I guess but the locals weren't too keen on the Ndebele ( matabele) people of Mzilikazi. The Mashona people I think are locals , I think lots of them wanted to kill or kick out every body.
So you can see the tribal hatreds even amongst groups that are different in South Africa, those invaders of that area that became Rhodesia were from the Zulu people , I can see this getting really crappy, the latest who was kicked out of the leadership was crooked, whats his next in line like, supporting the backbone of how the nation survives, it'll start small and SA will condemn Australia , for making comments , but watch it get really bad.
So for me , I think we should be bringing SA farmers here. They have something to offer, but if I mention that they are white, then whose the racist?The SA white farmers have been about for a few centuries in that place too.

 

[JoondalupJ]

To be fair, the thread topic is specifically about the land grab from (predominantly) white farmers. And whether it is reasonable to do so to correct historical "injustice". The rest of crime in south africa (yes, really bad, frequent, and black people often victims) aren't really part of the thread.

Historical justice has no place in an area where invasion and slaughter and take over by tribes from all over has been going on for centuries and centuries and who originally owns what is a big question. That is a fact.
If you look at what could happen , you will see that murder and mayhem will eventuate if it is not nipped in the bud by the ANC, it'll flow as it always does from the farms to the cities, South Africans flee here now.And have for years, no apartheid probably was too harsh, but mixing things that don't mix can be as bad, If the blacks of SA wanted to be fair and run a good country , they should be protecting every farmer black or white!
But some of the blacks will be as biased against whites as ever just like the whites were to them.
So the change to openness and freedom and equality, has or looks like it has , or will come to nothing.
Just another messed up African nation full of hatred supersticion and a local civil war of sorts.

Wonder if the current government wants to step in or not, or even know where they are heading?

 

[Number37]

You're the last person who should cry about twisting facts and/or information in regards to race. After all, you are the one who told us that everyone booing Adam Goodes did so because they were racist and had no proof to support those claims.

I have given plenty of reasons for my opinion, you just don't like my opinion so cry about it in every other thread.
Boo hoo Tiny, boo hoo.

 

[Number37]

To be fair, the thread topic is specifically about the land grab from (predominantly) white farmers. And whether it is reasonable to do so to correct historical "injustice". The rest of crime in south africa (yes, really bad, frequent, and black people often victims) aren't really part of the thread.

It was the usual band of RWNJ that brought the crime against white farmers into the thread, not me.
I was merely pointing out the stupidity, hypocrisy and racism of their arguments.

In relation to the land grab...as I have said a few times already, the actual policy isn't as straight forward as the media & RWNJ make it out. Has any white farmer been stripped of their land without compensation?
The actual issue of land redistribution is a lot more complex than the media reporting.

During the 60's and 70's large parts of Cape Town were sub-divided.
Lots of non-whites owned residential blocks of land in suburbs like Claremont.
When segregation began to be enforced in suburbs like Claremont, where parts were declared 'whites only' , non-white landowners were stopped from building on their land. Many refused to sell their land to whites for well below market value. Blocks of land adjacent to white owned blocks of land were annexed by the whites when non-whites refused to sell their land.
The non-whites had no redress in the courts so the govt set up a compensation scheme. This compensation scheme and the annexing of land, effectively stealing without compensation, is the subject of current legal proceedings.

 

[Crankyhawk]

It was the usual band of RWNJ that brought the crime against white farmers into the thread, not me.
I was merely pointing out the stupidity, hypocrisy and racism of their arguments.

In relation to the land grab...as I have said a few times already, the actual policy isn't as straight forward as the media & RWNJ make it out. Has any white farmer been stripped of their land without compensation?
The actual issue of land redistribution is a lot more complex than the media reporting.

During the 60's and 70's large parts of Cape Town were sub-divided.
Lots of non-whites owned residential blocks of land in suburbs like Claremont.
When segregation began to be enforced in suburbs like Claremont, where parts were declared 'whites only' , non-white landowners were stopped from building on their land. Many refused to sell their land to whites for well below market value. Blocks of land adjacent to white owned blocks of land were annexed by the whites when non-whites refused to sell their land.
The non-whites had no redress in the courts so the govt set up a compensation scheme. This compensation scheme and the annexing of land, effectively stealing without compensation, is the subject of current legal proceedings.

Is the purpose of the government getting the land back to distribute back to these particular non whites/ descendants of to give the land back to though? And what happens if there are no surviving descendants?

 

[Xsess]

would you be OK with those who were found to actively support and enforce apartheid to have those Visa's rejected?

What about those SA wrong-thinkers who actively fought to remove apartheid at the time, but regret that now their families have been bashed and murdered, kids raped and their farms forcibly removed? How do you intend exposing the deepest darkest recess's of their minds?

 

[Gough]

What about those SA wrong-thinkers who actively fought to remove apartheid at the time, but regret that now their families have been bashed and murdered, kids raped and their farms forcibly removed? How do you intend exposing the deepest darkest recess's of their minds?

The Afrikaans farming community was not exactly a hotbed of anti Apartheid activism.

 

[Number37]

Is the purpose of the government getting the land back to distribute back to these particular non whites/ descendants of to give the land back to though? And what happens if there are no surviving descendants?

That particular issue is not about getting the land back, I referenced it to help make the point that the issue of land redistribution is complicated.

 

[Xsess]

That particular issue is not about getting the land back, I referenced it to help make the point that the issue of land redistribution is complicated.

Indeed it is complicated. How does the ending of apartheid ushering in a new era of racism against white people fit the narrative?

 

[JoondalupJ]

The Afrikaans farming community was not exactly a hotbed of anti Apartheid activism.

That is or should not be an issue, you never walk forward if you keep walking backwards. Most people know the Afrikaans were inclined to act above and better than the tribal [people, doing it back makes no sense. Get hold od a book called Millennium, it is a very hard thing to read, , but it is a hugely researched book about the history of empires and other things in the last 1000 years, well you would be amazed at the empires' of black chieftains and kings from the north to the middle to the south before any white explorers ever began exploring , and before any white people who went exploring ever saw anything of these empires, but archeologists and stories from those things a few centuries ago are showing that who ever owned that land in the African continent , it was disputed between tribes and different military powers and different beliefs , big long term societies , I never knew a thing about that, and this book I made half way , I may try to finish it but it gets so into detail, this bloke must have researched it most of his life.
But it seems to me that the Afrikaans claims over 3 or 4 hundred years is just one ownership claim, in the hundreds, from peoples all over that continent, black or Brown, then white, even the whites fought over it amongst themselves. That SA nation should be governed well for all, but can you see it ever happening, There are no such things as legitimate claims to ownership or origin in that place , the mix of changes all over that continent for a thousand years, crikey any body could claim land was their origin.
But their origins are simply unknown really.
And I 'd guess that four hundred years of occupying anywhere, makes every claim legitimate , and NOT legitimate.
I see no rights of so called originals having ownership , because of the changes.
The Native Americans, now that's something else, and the Noongar and Koori people they have a claim to legitimate ownership here.
Book Millennium,chapter The black Empires, page 175, book by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto. Bloody hard reading. I had no idea about this stuff.
But to me it shows that everybody owned Africa. Arabs ,Africans , Mediterraneans, even some northern Europeans and the "bloody" English! Crikey our first people owned it once!
This is a long way around the fact that the farmers have a right to their land right now 2018, but watch it turn to s**t. In fact the EARTH actually owns us!

 

[Number37]

Indeed it is complicated. How does the ending of apartheid ushering in a new era of racism against white people fit the narrative?

How does the era of racism by whites being replaced by the era of racism against whites fit the narrative?

Who's genius idea was it to oppress the majority of the South African population in the first place? Pretty sure it was the whites who came up with that brilliant idea.
Is it now someone else's fault that trying to unravel that s**t show is creating massive problems?

 

[Admiral Byng]

That is or should not be an issue, you never walk forward if you keep walking backwards. Most people know the Afrikaans were inclined to act above and better than the tribal [people, doing it back makes no sense. Get hold od a book called Millennium, it is a very hard thing to read, , but it is a hugely researched book about the history of empires and other things in the last 1000 years, well you would be amazed at the empires' of black chieftains and kings from the north to the middle to the south before any white explorers ever began exploring , and before any white people who went exploring ever saw anything of these empires, but archeologists and stories from those things a few centuries ago are showing that who ever owned that land in the African continent , it was disputed between tribes and different military powers and different beliefs , big long term societies , I never knew a thing about that, and this book I made half way , I may try to finish it but it gets so into detail, this bloke must have researched it most of his life.
But it seems to me that the Afrikaans claims over 3 or 4 hundred years is just one ownership claim, in the hundreds, from peoples all over that continent, black or Brown, then white, even the whites fought over it amongst themselves. That SA nation should be governed well for all, but can you see it ever happening, There are no such things as legitimate claims to ownership or origin in that place , the mix of changes all over that continent for a thousand years, crikey any body could claim land was their origin.
But their origins are simply unknown really.
And I 'd guess that four hundred years of occupying anywhere, makes every claim legitimate , and NOT legitimate.
I see no rights of so called originals having ownership , because of the changes.
The Native Americans, now that's something else, and the Noongar and Koori people they have a claim to legitimate ownership here.
Book Millennium,chapter The black Empires, page 175, book by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto. Bloody hard reading. I had no idea about this stuff.
But to me it shows that everybody owned Africa. Arabs ,Africans , Mediterraneans, even some northern Europeans and the "bloody" English! Crikey our first people owned it once!
This is a long way around the fact that the farmers have a right to their land right now 2018, but watch it turn to s**t. In fact the EARTH actually owns us!

All rather irrelevant. The apartheid era only lasted from 1948 to 1994. less than 50 years. But in that time enormous damage was done to the interests of non-whites. Even now nearly a generation after apartheid was abolished the social and economic dichotomy still persists. It is a perfectly understandable* response that the government wants to start winding things back a little faster than just letting things drift along naturally. What matters is the post WW2 history, what happened the 1000 years preceding that is of no real relevance.

*even though it is likely to just turn the farming economy to s**t and benefit nobody

 

[Xsess]

All rather irrelevant. The apartheid era only lasted from 1948 to 1994. less than 50 years. But in that time enormous damage was done to the interests of non-whites. Even now nearly a generation after apartheid was abolished the social and economic dichotomy still persists. It is a perfectly understandable* response that the government wants to start winding things back a little faster than just letting things drift along naturally.

You have come closer than anyone to outright endorsing the racist South African government policy. Nice going. The simple counter to the racist-white-people-deserve this-because-of-their-historic-mistreatment-of-blacks argument, is the simple unavoidable fact that on balance black people have higher standards of living in SA and before that Zimbabwe than anywhere else in Africa. Zimbabwe's reversal of fortunes underlines this simple truism. But carry on... white people bad etc

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You have come closer than anyone to outright endorsing the racist South African government policy. Nice going. The simple counter to the racist-white-people-deserve this-because-of-their-historic-mistreatment-of-blacks argument, is the simple unavoidable fact that on balance black people have higher standards of living in SA and before that Zimbabwe than anywhere else in Africa. Zimbabwe's reversal of fortunes underlines this simple truism. But carry on... white people bad etc

You can’t seem to distinguish between criticism of the apartheid system and the defensive ‘you think whites are bad’ accusation.

 

[Todman]

The fact of the matter is that even after 25 years of ANC rule the lives of the ordinary black South African have barely improved. The ANC under Zuma was terribly corrupt.

 

[Number37]

The fact of the matter is that even after 25 years of ANC rule the lives of the ordinary black South African have barely improved. The ANC under Zuma was terribly corrupt.

At least they can now vote out the people making their lives miserable. All they could do before was bend over and take it.

 

[Mofra]

At least they can now vote out the people making their lives miserable. All they could do before was bend over and take it.

In theory yes - sadly in reality SA is a virtual one-party state given the power the ANC hold on politics at all levels.

There is talk of a split in the ANC along the three party lines which would be an interesting development and would in the longer run offer real electoral choice.

 

[Number37]

In theory yes - sadly in reality SA is a virtual one-party state given the power the ANC hold on politics at all levels.

There is talk of a split in the ANC along the three party lines which would be an interesting development and would in the longer run offer real electoral choice.

It is all part of the evolution of South Africa as a nation. To expect that the transition from before to now would be smooth and take 5 minutes is wishful thinking.

The fracturing of the ANC could be a good thing (Lord Acton's quote: Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely), but it could also result in even more chaos.

 

[Proud SJW]

So now you're in support of racists?

 

[Number37]

So now you're campaigning against racists?