South Africa to amend constitution to allow land expropriation

[Jhhnn]

Because the same thing is happening, are you dense? In Zimbabwe the land that was producing was seized and given to people who had little knowledge on how to properly manage it and thus became unproductive and tanked their economy. The land is being seized in South Africa now and it’s not clear that the people who it’s being given to are experienced and managing vast farmland. According to Vic it’s because their black. To me I worry about lack of experience and knowledge of modern agricultural technology. Hopefully I’m wrong.

So dishonest. If black Zimbabweans didn't know how to run an agribusiness it was because apartheid made it that way. White planters didn't teach the black help any more than they had to in order to maintain control.

I hope S Africa has done better.

 

[realibrad]

So dishonest. If black Zimbabweans didn't know how to run an agribusiness it was because apartheid made it that way. White planters didn't teach the black help any more than they had to in order to maintain control.

I hope S Africa has done better.

How does that change anything? If they were going to take away the land, they should have trained people first. Instead, they took it and gave it to people that did not have the knowledge and made people suffer while they learned. How is that justified when they could have done it better?

 

[Jhhnn]

How does that change anything? If they were going to take away the land, they should have trained people first. Instead, they took it and gave it to people that did not have the knowledge and made people suffer while they learned. How is that justified when they could have done it better?

I never offered any justification. I merely point out the reasons why it was that way. Colonial conquest & then Apartheid were racist at their core. They never wanted the black population to be their equals at all. Huge disparities in education & knowledge access helped keep it that way.

Majority rule in Zimbabwe was not achieved w/o a great deal of bloodshed as the White minority tried to maintain control. That's a different thing than S Africa where the transition has been mostly peaceful.

 

[UglyCasanova]

But Alex Jones' entire business model is knowingly making false personal attacks, like accusing the parents of murdered children of being 'crisis actors,' or falsely accusing small businesses of running child sex trafficking rings, and you defend that endlessly as free speech and worry about him being de-platformed.
But I hurt your precious feelings and all of that unlimited free speech talk goes right out the window, huh? I guess it's different when it happens to you, right?

You’re free to say whatever you want and I’m free to call you out as being a dishonest POS. Cheers

 

[realibrad]

I never offered any justification. I merely point out the reasons why it was that way. Colonial conquest & then Apartheid were racist at their core. They never wanted the black population to be their equals at all. Huge disparities in education & knowledge access helped keep it that way.

Majority rule in Zimbabwe was not achieved w/o a great deal of bloodshed as the White minority tried to maintain control. That's a different thing than S Africa where the transition has been mostly peaceful.

So then, what was dishonest and what did you want to exemplify with what you said?

 

[Jhhnn]

So then, what was dishonest and what did you want to exemplify with what you said?

Your whole representation of the situation is dishonest. "Oh! They weren't ready to run the Farms!"

No shit. The ruling white post colonial minority in Rhodesia made sure it was that way. They made it clear to the black majority that they'd always fight to keep it that way if they could, based on their economic power. Therefore the majority destroyed their economic power as an act of self defense. It was the only way to neutralize that threat.

It's not just about money.

 

[emperus]

I'm sure American KKK / Nazis ask similar questions regarding Americans. It stinks of racism to not adopt all people of a nation. To actually care about the color of their skin.

I'm sure the American KKK / Nazis weren't indigenous Americans. Again, white Europeans came to Africa, colonized it's people and put them under an apartheid system where the majority was governed by the minority and they were discriminated from gaining wealth. Please, explain to me how your point has any relation to this topic?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

who do you think occupied the land before europeans showed up and grabbed it.?

I wonder who occupied North and South America before the Europeans showed up?

As I'm half Cherokee and most of my other ancestors came to dig coal, I figure divide area of the US by remaining numbers of native Americans and I get a half share.

Sweet.

 

[theeedude]

It's a bad idea, but president un-indicted co-conspirator had no problem expropriating other people's land for his own personal interest:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house

Trump turned to a government agency – the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) – to take Coking’s property. CRDA offered her $250,000 for the property – one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.

 

[realibrad]

Your whole representation of the situation is dishonest. "Oh! They weren't ready to run the Farms!"

No shit. The ruling white post colonial minority in Rhodesia made sure it was that way. They made it clear to the black majority that they'd always fight to keep it that way if they could, based on their economic power. Therefore the majority destroyed their economic power as an act of self defense. It was the only way to neutralize that threat.

It's not just about money.

Who is the representation dishonest, and then you explain why the situation is the way it was stated. If you want to point out that it was wrong to subjugate the Blacks in the country, then fine, that is accurate. To say that its dishonest that they were not ready to run the farms seems accurate, as the information and experience was withheld and or kept away from them.

As I said, why did they not get an education from the state on what they would need to do. Preventing a person from learning how to drive, and then giving them the car seems like a perfect analogy here.

So, other than it being racist and wrong in the past, how is the statement that they were not ready to run the farms dishonest? Or, are you saying that the statement does not capture the full situation? I suspect its the 2nd, but, tell me if its either or something else.

 

[Stopsignhank]

Did not read the whole thread, but actually saw this article yesterday. I can't imagine why the black majority of South Africa is upset.

https://www.businessinsider.com/dro...n-the-slums-and-the-affluent-neighborhoods-12

To me it looks like they are damn lucky there has not been an uprising in the entire country.

 

[Jhhnn]

As I said, why did they not get an education from the state on what they would need to do.

Because the white minority was the State & such opportunity was not available. After all the blood that had been shed the majority govt could not allow the white minority to regroup using their economic power as a basis. Farm confiscation was an act of majority self defense in Zimbabwe. It broke the power of the white landowners.

It's not that way in S Africa. I hope they find a way to move forward that serves the needs of all of them together.

 

[realibrad]

Because the white minority was the State & such opportunity was not available. After all the blood that had been shed the majority govt could not allow the white minority to regroup using their economic power as a basis. Farm confiscation was an act of majority self defense in Zimbabwe. It broke the power of the white landowners.

It's not that way in S Africa. I hope they find a way to move forward that serves the needs of all of them together.

So your position is that the white controlled state prevented education, but, not taking away their land? Is that right?

 

[KMFJD]

So....will they also be breaking up the zulu tribal lands?

Ah yes, of course not

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...h-african-government-on-land-reform-1.3573073

People allocated tribal land for residential purposes do not receive title deeds or have security of tenure under the current system, which leaves them open to abuse.

Motlanthe referred to village-level chiefs as “tin-pot dictators” when discussing a parliamentary report he helped to produce that recommends the disbandment of the one of the trusts, the Ingonyama Trust, which owns 30 per cent of all land in KwaZulu-Natal.

Administered by the Zulu king, Goodwill Zwelithini, the trust was established just before apartheid ended in 1994 to protect traditional Zulu land and pacify tribal leaders threatening to destabilise the country’s transition to democracy

The land in the Ingonyama Trust has great agricultural potential, especially around Durban

 

[Incorruptible]

This is just wrong, those POS leftist scumbags have no right to take away land from people.

 

[Greenman]

Where is Amused? He's big fan of SA, and I believe he said that this would never happen. I'd like to hear his opinion.

 

[Incorruptible]

Every single one of those leftist scum who supports this should be in jail. This is theft and unacceptable.

 

[Greenman]

Every single one of those leftist scum who supports this should be in jail. This is theft and unacceptable.

I don't see it as all that cut and dried. Blacks in SA have been getting the short end of the stick for a long time. It certainly appears as though they're due a little back pay. I do think the way they're going about is going to be a disaster, but my guess is most just see payback and aren't thinking about what happens a few years down the road.
Time will tell.

 

[theeedude]

Unindicted coconspirator thinks it's our problem, somehow.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 23h23 hours ago
I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.” @TuckerCarlson @FoxNews

 

[Jhhnn]

So....will they also be breaking up the zulu tribal lands?

Ah yes, of course not

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...h-african-government-on-land-reform-1.3573073

People allocated tribal land for residential purposes do not receive title deeds or have security of tenure under the current system, which leaves them open to abuse.

Motlanthe referred to village-level chiefs as “tin-pot dictators” when discussing a parliamentary report he helped to produce that recommends the disbandment of the one of the trusts, the Ingonyama Trust, which owns 30 per cent of all land in KwaZulu-Natal.

Administered by the Zulu king, Goodwill Zwelithini, the trust was established just before apartheid ended in 1994 to protect traditional Zulu land and pacify tribal leaders threatening to destabilise the country’s transition to democracy

The land in the Ingonyama Trust has great agricultural potential, especially around Durban

And so what? Blacks were not dispossessed from that land by white colonialism & apartheid.

 

[Incorruptible]

I don't see it as all that cut and dried. Blacks in SA have been getting the short end of the stick for a long time. It certainly appears as though they're due a little back pay. I do think the way they're going about is going to be a disaster, but my guess is most just see payback and aren't thinking about what happens a few years down the road.
Time will tell.

Cant support stealing like this though.

They did this in Zimbabwe with that moron mugabe and it was a complete disaster, they suffered after the white farmers were kicked out. They would have been better off with the white farmers who know how to farm the land.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unindicted coconspirator thinks it's our problem, somehow.

"The large scale killing of (white) farmers" reference is pure outrage mongering bullshit. It's a blight on our national character that we have a President who would say such a thing.

 

[dawp]

Cant support stealing like this though.

They did this in Zimbabwe with that moron mugabe and it was a complete disaster, they suffered after the white farmers were kicked out. They would have been better off with the white farmers who know how to farm the land.

is it really stealing if they're taking back what was stolen from them in the first place?

 

[KMFJD]

And so what? Blacks were not dispossessed from that land by white colonialism & apartheid.

Well it's an artificial entity created by apartheid and colonialism and is run as a mini fiefdom by the tribal leaders....want a loan for your farm? it's going to be a bit difficult if you don't own the land..it's also mainly located in the richest untapped agricultural area if South Africa.....All i'm saying is if this is really about giving land the poor black farmers than this huge piece of land should also be included and should not have any special protection. I'm for re-allocation of land if it is done correctly and they receive help from the government, none of this is being done correctly though....

 

[glenn1]

Who is the representation dishonest, and then you explain why the situation is the way it was stated. If you want to point out that it was wrong to subjugate the Blacks in the country, then fine, that is accurate. To say that its dishonest that they were not ready to run the farms seems accurate, as the information and experience was withheld and or kept away from them.

As I said, why did they not get an education from the state on what they would need to do. Preventing a person from learning how to drive, and then giving them the car seems like a perfect analogy here.

So, other than it being racist and wrong in the past, how is the statement that they were not ready to run the farms dishonest? Or, are you saying that the statement does not capture the full situation? I suspect its the 2nd, but, tell me if its either or something else.

I don't think you get it. Folks like @Jhhnn don't care if the "oppressed" are made better (or even worse) by actions intended to cut the oppressors down to size, just that they are cut down. If that means the oppressed need to suffer starvation as a price of admission then so be it. It's all about who has what and how to "properly" distribute it, regardless if those on the receiving end can unlock the value of what they're receiving. Or any value at all really, the important thing is that the oppressor cannot be allowed to have it anymore.