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

[Proud SJW]

In a white car or a black one?

 

[Number37]

Probably a green one.

 

[medusala]

. So if you want to blame the land reforms for the drop in production, you also need to explain the increase.

2017 had very favourable growing conditions and single desk marketing (which will no doubt blow up at some stage). Small holders will never be as efficient. Farming relies heavily on economies of scale.

Just last week we had a discussion about the scourge that is reverse racism.

just after you solved Fermat's last theorem.

 

[smokingjacket]

2017 had very favourable growing conditions and single desk marketing (which will no doubt blow up at some stage). Small holders will never be as efficient. Farming relies heavily on economies of scale.

Tsk tsk, you didn't read the article Meds. It answers why that isn't true. There's a point where labour intensity in agriculture can vastly improve output. This isn't a one off either, production has been on the rise for a long time.

 

[Balls In]

These farmers acquired that land illegally.

No they didn't. They bought it and made it productive.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

No they didn't. They bought it and made it productive.

Unless the payed market price from the Xhosa or Zulu civilisations

Then I stand corrected

 

[medusala]

Tsk tsk, you didn't read the article Meds. It answers why that isn't true. There's a point where labour intensity in agriculture can vastly improve output.

That's BS for the majority of crops and especially those in Zim like Maize, sorghum, soybean etc.

http://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=ZWE

The 2018 cereal production is forecast at just under 2 million tonnes, 24 percent lower on an annual basis, but still above the previous five‑year average. Maize production is expected to decrease by 21 percent in 2018 on a yearly basis, while production of sorghum and millet is foreseen to be around half of the high levels registered in 2017.

 

[medusala]

Unless the payed market price from the Xhosa or Zulu civilisations

From whom was most of the land taken?

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

From whom was most of the land taken?

These were the main two tribes

Now. Back in the day when wrecking yards and crash repairers changed compliance plates on stolen cars and then sold them, the buyer still had to give the car back if found to of unknowingly bought a stolen car

British army gave out Victoria crosses to soldiers who slaughtered the Zulu to get control of that land

Stolen is stolen.

 

[medusala]

These were the main two tribes

Became the two main tribes. There were others there before them. The Brits and Dutch made quite a way across SA before running in to those tribes.

Stolen is stolen.

There was no displacement of peoples during the bantu expansion?

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Became the two main tribes. There were others there before them. The Brits and Dutch made quite a way across SA before running in to those tribes.



There was no displacement of peoples during the bantu expansion?

You should be careful. You're basing your argument on the banthu theory that's primary evidence is linguistic.

Someone might tell you to go back to Europe where these sorts of attitudes and beliefs come from and should stay there.

What white south Africans did for generations was pretty sick. You appear to be justifying that based on a theory

 

[Gough]

It was always pushed by the Boers that South Africa was originally San and the dispossession of the Xhosa and Zulu people by them was no different to what they did to the Bushmen. They also believe god spoke to them in high Dutch and gave them permission for Apartheid so make of their spin on history what you will.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

It was always pushed by the Boers that South Africa was originally San and the dispossession of the Xhosa and Zulu people by them was no different to what they did to the Bushmen. They also believe god spoke to them in high Dutch and gave them permission for Apartheid so make of their spin on history what you will.

And the settlers here were told the indigenous were not human and this land was uninhabited

Reading early settlers letters home, it's easily established that it wasn't true. Reading accounts of escaped convicts who were saved by the indigenous and even the compassion and care and native medicine used to save lives of settlers from the start. Even Burke and wills

They didn't use god for thier lies they used Charles Darwin who was paid to lie about it.

We have one case religon was used as a tool for genocide and another case where it was science

In the sixties it was abundantly clear with the rise of the anc that it was bullshit. From that moment on education changed for the blacks. You know as well as I the housing the education and the slavery. The religious bullshit doesn't explain that. South Africans fought in www 2 against Nazis yet were worse

As you know some judges had sympathy and respect for the ancs plight but the gov kept changing the laws and removing those judges. Farmers kept voting for these politicians

Also those farms generated tax to pay for Robin island. Farmers sons served in the police brutalising the blacks. Served in those prisons Served in the military invading other countries to quell the blacks chasing democracy. The taxes from the farms payed for the guns to do this. Paid farmers sons wages to do this

 

[bfff]

They didn't use god for thier lies they used Charles Darwin who was paid to lie about it.

That’s some A-grade bullshit.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

That’s some A-grade bullshit.

Only to those bigoted

You see Darwin was used as legal defense for the claim Terra nullis was real.

The federal supreme Court ruled in 93 that terra was always bullshit.

Scientists acclaimed like Darwin is, does not get things that wrong. There is so much evidence that was available to him about how advanced indigenous civilisation was. He completley ignored it because his work was purely properganda to cover up the genocide.

Don't feel to bad about your cognitive dissonance. It means your just a normal sheep.

 

[medusala]

What white south Africans did for generations was pretty sick. You appear to be justifying that based on a theory

Wow, we have poor man's Pilger on our hands.

 

[bfff]

Only to those bigoted

You see Darwin was used as legal defense for the claim Terra nullis was real.

The federal supreme Court ruled in 93 that terra was always bullshit.

Scientists acclaimed like Darwin is, does not get things that wrong. There is so much evidence that was available to him about how advanced indigenous civilisation was. He completley ignored it because his work was purely properganda to cover up the genocide.

Don't feel to bad about your cognitive dissonance. It means your just a normal sheep.

Saying his work was propaganda or that he was paid to produce certain results is a big leap from misjudgment of indigenous civilisation.

 

[Admiral Byng]

That’s some A-grade bullshit.

Quite.

A form of pre-Enlightenment Calvanism leading to a 'god's chosen people' type mentality was absolutely central to the Afrikaner cultural identity. They didn't given a damn about learning and science. The great treks started in the 1830s after they found the British colonial government far too liberal-minded. Darwin didn't publish till 1859 and it wasn't till the 1860s that his work was widely read and debated in the far flung corners of the world.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Saying his work was propaganda or that he was paid to produce certain results is a big leap from misjudgment of indigenous civilisation.

He misjudged nothing. The British destroyed fish farms. They destroyed villages. They knew about the trading from one side of the country to the other. They knew about the music festivals. They knew about the complex marriage system to avoid inbreeding. They knew about the astronomy. By the time Darwin got here full on war had been raging since 1789. They knew about how effective herbal medicine was. They knew that they would hunt whales with orcas and share the catch and use those whales for various things in including arthritis in elders reaching close to a hundred. Even cooks own notes from pre invasion contradict Darwin's bullshit about terra nullis.

You can find all this out researching official records and letter from early settlers

There was movements in England who knew what was happening here and trying to get big business done under slavery laws.

Banks mining companies arms Companies and merchant companies were making a killing here. Propping up the royal family and the war machine.

Darwin was covering thier arses

The life span of the indigenous was longer than white man's has ever been and ever will be. They were not a dying race and Darwin knew this but that would be used against those profiting from the wars here. They named manly after the strong bodies of the cultures there. Guys who would go hunting in the surf and access to fish. All around the coastal regions of Australia cultures flourished due to the availability of fish wood water and red meat native vegatables and food.

There's a place in Victoria where one civilastion had a mine that produced minerals that made the best killing spears. A killing Spear was a weighted spear used for close quarter hunting and finnishing of the catch. They found these spears all over Australia. Evidence of a trading system These people had a system that worked and worked for tens and tens of thousands of years.

This was an intelligent self sufficient culture that maintained equilibrium with all creatures and all the land. They are the first to build dry stone walls they used these on rivers to trap and breed fish during floods

Darwin had access to all this information. You have to be a
fool to deny what went on once educated on the civilastion here

A paid troll was Darwin. I'm not saying saying everything he came up with other works was bullshit. But he was nothing more than a marketing consultant and a big liar concerning here. His rubbish worse than the most bullshit religious myths

 

[Admiral Byng]

Lol - such a pile of steaming crap it is hard to know where to begin. Maybe a quick list of bullet points:

• Darwin published his Origin of Species in late 1859.
• The worst excesses of colonial settlement in Australia happened around 1800-1850s era. Before the gold rush. (Except in northern QLD and WA)
• Colonial settlement in Australia was largely not orderly and regulated by the Colonial authorities. It was driven by individuals or small groups acting on their own initiative.
• These people were called squatters. The term meaning someone who occupies land without permission.
• People turned to squatting because about the only way to make money in the colony was by grazing sheep for wool. That was before the gold rush transformed the economy.
• Squatters were motivated simply by money.
• Grazing sheep means finding good pasture. So they went out and found lands for grazing their sheep, displacing the native population as they went, and sometimes getting into violent skirmishes, which sometimes escalated into revenge killings and massacres.
• The mainstream idea before Darwin was that the European races were somehow intrinsically superior to all other races,i.e. something genetic, rather than being a cultural or technological innovtion. Darwin did not invent this idea.
• Mainstream religions bought into the idea too, to the extent that they saw themselves as chosen by God to rule the world. Only a few radical non-conformists saw blacks as people of equal status.
• Darwin himself hated the ideal of racial superiority. What his theory proposed was the opposite to the mainstream thought at the time in that all humans are derived from common ancestors, and not some separate development ordained by God.
• Social Darwinism (as it later became called) was an academic and intellectual movement developed long after the worst excesses of colonialism were over as a way of back-dated justification for the class of people who now found themselves the beneficiaries of it.

That is just for starters.

 

[its free real estate]

You obviously didn't read the article because the author directly addresses the Zimbabwe example, pointing out that despite its perjorative use as a scare campaign about land reform, most people aren't aware that Zimbawean food production is now higher than it was prior to the land reform. So if you want to blame the land reforms for the drop in production, you also need to explain the increase.

https://theconversation.com/land-re...s-for-economic-recovery-under-mnangagwa-88205

Zimbabwe produced more maize in 2017 than was ever grown by white farmers, who have repeatedly been praised for making the country into the bread basket of Africa. Maize production in 2017 was 2.2m tonnes, the highest in two decades.​

Sounds like a disaster. Twenty years of below trend production, in spite of worldwide productivity improvements in agriculture. Can you imagine how bad things would be if Australia's agricultural output was below 1998 levels? That's nearing towards a Malthusian catastrophe.

 

[smokingjacket]

https://theconversation.com/land-re...s-for-economic-recovery-under-mnangagwa-88205

Zimbabwe produced more maize in 2017 than was ever grown by white farmers, who have repeatedly been praised for making the country into the bread basket of Africa. Maize production in 2017 was 2.2m tonnes, the highest in two decades.​

Sounds like a disaster. Twenty years of below trend production, in spite of worldwide productivity improvements in agriculture. Can you imagine how bad things would be if Australia's agricultural output was below 1998 levels? That's nearing towards a Malthusian catastrophe.

Australian wheat production in 1998 and 2018 are nearly identical and the growing season was considered very good year in the primary wheat districts of WA.

If you look at the data, the overall increases in wheat grown were between 1960 and 1998 but from then its a raffle if there has even been a positive regression when you include the drought years.

 

[its free real estate]

A

Australian wheat production in 1998 and 2018 are nearly identical and the growing season was considered very good year in the primary wheat districts of WA.

If you look at the data, the overall increases in wheat grown were between 1960 and 1998 but from then its a raffle if there has even been a positive regression when you include the drought years.

Australian agricultural production in total has gone up. Cherry picking maize from Zimbabwe and wheat from Australia is a weird totalitarian state production quota argument.

Pig iron production was higher than ever in Maoist China!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

its free real estate can we have an honest discussion about whether this situation is likely to recur in South Africa? It might not be same same?

 

[Proud SJW]

It was always pushed by the Boers that South Africa was originally San and the dispossession of the Xhosa and Zulu people by them was no different to what they did to the Bushmen. They also believe god spoke to them in high Dutch and gave them permission for Apartheid so make of their spin on history what you will.

Your position is that any argument regarding the displacement of existing ethnic groups during the Bantu expansion is just Boer spin?