South Africa seizing white owned farms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peebo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course not, but imagine if the government with seizing property selectively based on race or gender or religion.
 
No, of course not. But to imagine that there won’t be violent responses after generations of brutal oppression would be delusional.
 
I think “brutal oppression” is a bit of an overstatement.
 
Brutal oppression to me conjures up images like the Einstatzgruppen murdering Eastern Europeans on the side of the road to free up the land for Germans, or perhaps SWAPO cutting out the tongue, hands, and feet and burning out the eyes of the local village headman for not providing them food and shelter and women.

Apartheid was unjust, but I wouldn’t call it “brutal oppression”.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
Brutal oppression to me conjures up images like the Einstatzgruppen murdering Eastern Europeans on the side of the road to free up the land for Germans, or perhaps SWAPO cutting out the tongue, hands, and feet and burning out the eyes of the local village headman for not providing them food and shelter and women.

Apartheid was unjust, but I wouldn’t call it “brutal oppression”.
Click to expand...
That’s, well, amazing.

OK, then.
 
How is it amazing. I said Apartheid was unjust and wrong. Just as “Jim Crow” was unjust and wrong. I’m glad it’s gone. South Africans fumbled their perceived race problems badly. But what makes it “brutal” to you? IMO brutal oppression is pretty significant, like liquidating entire villages significant. Forced relocation and forcing people out of the political process is pretty bad but I wouldn’t call it brutal.
 
Yes, this is pretty nasty. It is sad after South Africa was doing so well, moving out of apartheid, all that, Nelson Mandela’s influence held sway. This looks to be a pretty serious turn back to chaos, corruption, political, social, economic instability, etc. South Africa was the star of Africa too, even with all its issues. This is not what they need right now.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I have never deeply researched it. My information about the land acquisition comes chiefly from Alan Paton’s “Cry the Beloved Country”, which I consider not a terrible source. Anyway, it appears the Dutch arrived at about the same time as the Zulu did; perhaps a bit earlier. The area was then very thinly populated. The Dutch and the Zulu fought, then more or less divided up the country between them. The English came in, fought against both and took over the country, largely leaving land ownership in place.

The natives from whom the land was actually “taken” were “bushmen” hunter-gatherers who were pushed off the land by both the Dutch and the Zulu.

Later, more and more and more black tribesmen came into the area; sometimes fighting the Dutch, sometimes the English and sometimes the Zulu. Eventually, other tribes outnumbered the Zulu who were largely pushed into a province called Natal.

But it’s my understanding people can move around within the country. Zulu are not restricted to Natal. There are a couple of “independent homelands” within the country that have long been ruled by tribal rulers.

So, the parties from which the land was “taken” were the Bushmen, of whom few ever existed and of whom even fewer are left. The “original settlers” otherwise are the Boers and the Zulu.
Click to expand...
Worth repeating.

Apartheid was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa from 1948 until the early 1990s. It was designed to stop all inter-marriage and social integration between racial groups and to protect uneducated whites.

Seizure of private property with law will allow South Africa to become another Zimbabwe basket case … the product of envy … unable to even provide any drinking water. [They already are running out of water and cannot figure out how to increase the supply.]

https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa
 
Last edited:
Directly back to the article, I’m not even sure land seizures have even started yet:
South African lawmakers are currently debating expropriation of some 150 farms in the country, including whether a constitutional amendment would be needed to move forward with the plan and what compensation might look like. One opposition party has proposed taking land from white property owners who are not using the land and giving the land to black farmers, but is opposed to compensation.

President Cyril Ramaphosa wrote in the Financial Times today that “this is no land grab; nor is it an assault on the private ownership of property.”

“The proposal on expropriation without compensation is one element of a broader programme of land reform that seeks to ensure that all citizens can have their land rights recognised, whether they live in communal areas, informal settlements or on commercial farms," Ramaphosa wrote. "It includes the release of well-located urban land for low-cost housing so that the poor can own property and live close to economic opportunities.”
Click to expand...
pjmedia.com

State Department After Trump Tweet: South Africa Land Expropriation Isn't Like Zimbabwe

WASHINGTON — The State Department said today that President Trump and Secretary of State Mike
pjmedia.com pjmedia.com

# Don’t expropriate land until Constitution is amended – Julius Malema
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/politics/don’t-expropriate-land-until-constitution-is-amended-–-julius-malema/ar-BBMm0Z6?li=BBqfP3n

I am not pushing one view or another here, I am seeking what the news really is.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
tomarin:
And two wrongs don’t make a right.
Click to expand...
Restitution is not a wrong.
Click to expand...
If the land is being returned to the family that owned it, that might be restitution. If it is being taken by the government, it’s tyranny.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
Forced relocation and forcing people out of the political process is pretty bad but I wouldn’t call it brutal.
Click to expand...
If forced relocation is brutal then the current government is doing the same and therefore brutally oppressing.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Worth repeating.
Click to expand...
Actually the part that is worth repeating is this:
Ridgerunner said:
I have never deeply researched it.
Click to expand...
Some months ago we hadan extended discussion about this version of the history of South Africa.
At the very least, sufficient information was posted to call this slant into doubt.
It is a shame that is it posted again without some deeper research.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top