Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Zuma in Zugzwang?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #26
    Originally posted by Diable Rouge View Post
    To make an analogy with Ulster, many of the whites in South Africa have been living in the country for centuries, so can be said to be as native at this stage as the various black ethnic groups. I'm fully in favour of land redistribution, but buy-in from all races is essential if the policy is to be an economic and societal success.
    Hmm, not sure if you misunderstood my question or just deflecting with stuff that isn't part of the debate.
    Nobody is talking mass expulsion of South African whites. And what happens to the land once taken is a separate debate in itself.

    So back to the question at hand, "do you believe the land should by taken back with no compensation"

    Comment


      #27
      Yes, they should get the full market value for the land transfer.

      Comment


        #28
        Originally posted by Diable Rouge View Post
        Yes, they should get the full market value for the land transfer.
        Thank you, I appreciate your honesty.
        This ties into the centrist mates thread where I was tempted to post something but resisted.

        Comment


          #29
          And who should compensate these farmers for their land?

          While your contemplating a response a few more questions:

          Do you think that all countries should buy back their land from their ex-colonial masters at market rates before granted Independence
          Should the Palestinians pay market rate to the Israelis to get back the occupied territories
          Should the Jewish people pay market rates to the Swiss Banks to get back the gold taken from them by the Nazis

          Comment


            #30
            Originally posted by Diable Rouge View Post
            To make an analogy with Ulster, many of the whites in South Africa have been living in the country for centuries, so can be said to be as native at this stage as the various black ethnic groups. I'm fully in favour of land redistribution, but buy-in from all races is essential if the policy is to be an economic and societal success.
            Both for and against, huh.

            Comment


              #31
              Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post
              Both for and against, huh.
              Only against those of a certain hue. Anton, I am of an age where Irish people were solid on such matters. In the 80's we supported (morally) Sinn Fienn and you guys supported the ANC and Winnie/Nelson Mandela. Now 20 odd years after the good Friday agreement your brethren are engaging in some White Supremacist talk. Even the likes of Richard Spencer have the backbone to call it as it is.
              kind of validates why Malcolm X hated the Liberals more than the clan and called them Foxes.

              https://youtu.be/8Xm9Wf0Rhbk

              Comment


                #32
                heh, Sinn Fein had the square root of fuck all to do with the Irish anti-apartheid movement, and most of the irish anti apartheid movement would have been viscerally opposed to Sinn Fein at the time.

                white Farmers in South Africa don't have a leg to stand on really. They've had a good run, but that doesn't make the next step any less tricky. Land 'reform' in ireland in the nineteenth century was a lot more straightforward, because it allowed already existing tenant farmers buy out their landlord. And it didn't really fundamentally affect the economic or power structure, or really redistribute wealth. It meant that everyone stayed exactly the same as before, except instead of paying rent, it meant that they paid the Land commission who lent them the money. this was widely popular at the time because there was a lot of really small farmers, who within 30-40 years would all be completely economically unviable.

                From this distance, The ANC looks an awful lot like Irish politics 20-30 years after independence, which is basically what you would expect under the circumstances. Countries on the post colonial path frequently look similar. The thing you have to worry about at this point, is that the govt essentially replaces the old colonial landed gentry, with a new landed gentry composed of senior party members, or local political worthies, which seems to be what they went in for in zimbabwe, and that doesn't seem to have worked out very well at all. That's not an argument against land reform, that's an argument against running your country like Zanu PF.

                The tricky bit about trying to do this sort of thing now, is simply to do with the nature of modern farming, which is large scale and heavily automated. That's great if you want to feed 7 billion people, but it means that there are relatively tiny amounts of people employed in farming. I'm unsure about how many people this would positively benefit even if it was pulled off perfectly. land reform in these contexts is represented as an equality thing, but if you follow the money, it essentially is equality for the upper middle class. On some level I can't help feeling that this has a lot to do with why we are only really getting around to this now. It strikes me a bit like Fianna fail 25 years after independence promising to drain the shannon, bring back the north and revive the Irish language. All great national projects of limited value, that could be held out as utopian things to be done in the future, with no effort made to achieve them. The problem with actually reforming land ownership is that when most people find out that they aren't going to benefit, they get really pissed off.

                Comment


                  #33
                  Berbaslug
                  heh, Sinn Fein had the square root of fuck all to do with the Irish anti-apartheid movement, and most of the irish anti apartheid movement would have been viscerally opposed to Sinn Fein at the time.
                  Fair enough, growing up in 80's Britain, all Irish Bellyaching was attributed to Sinn Fein/IRA, an organisation led by the fella whose voice and lips never seemed to move in tandem, like a character in a Kung Fu movie (or a German porno).

                  Actually, the Irish centre in Tottenham is/was on Pretoria Road N17.

                  white Farmers in South Africa don't have a leg to stand on really. They've had a good run
                  And anyone who attempts to argue otherwise is a white supremacist in my book.

                  I broadly agree with the rest of your post, but don't really want to get into it at the moment as it tends to sidetrack the debate and is used as a was to deflect, obsfucate and kick the can down the road.

                  An analogy is my dad stealing your old man's taxi can back in the day and me refusing to return it as:

                  Whether the car should go to you or one of your siblings
                  You may drink drive whilst in control of the vehicle
                  you may speed whilst in control of the vehicle
                  You may not service it regularly like I have e.t.c

                  It's a mindset that only resonates in the head of a bigot in my opinion.....

                  Comment


                    #34
                    nah TG Lets say your old man has nicked my dad's taxi cab back in the day. My post was basically my list of reasons for why I haven't already taken it back, at any point in the 25 years since he died, even though I could have done so at any point. and why taking it back may not be all it was cracked up to be, what with taxi driving not being as big a deal as it was when your dad nicked it all those years ago.

                    But it definitely starts from the premise that it's not your taxi.

                    I played a concert in the tottenham irish centre back in 2000.
                    Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 11-09-2018, 16:57.

                    Comment


                      #35
                      nah TG Lets say your old man has nicked my dad's taxi cab back in the day. My post was basically my list of reasons for why I haven't already taken it back, at any point in the 25 years since he died, even though I could have done so at any point. and why taking it back may not be all it was cracked up to be, what with taxi driving not being as big a deal as it was when your dad nicked it all those years ago.

                      But it definitely starts from the premise that it's not your taxi.
                      Indeed and the final sentence is the important bit and also:

                      what you do with the car is none of my business
                      I should have no say in that matter
                      You should not have to buy it back from me at market rates

                      I played a concert in the tottenham irish centre back in 2000.
                      ]
                      I am sure it was later than that?

                      Comment


                        #36


                        This Malema guy is spitting such real shit on this video, like Malcolm X in his prime and I agree with every single word.
                        If he keeps this up, he'll be dead in the next 18 months (if they cannot discredit him first).
                        I'm a fan.

                        Where is Alt-Rouge?

                        Comment


                          #37
                          Ooooh, someone is going to kill him. He sees things far too clearly, and is far to honest about the likely consequences of his actions.

                          But coming at this from the point of view of someone from the first country to basically do this, and which had those exciting fun times that he's warning about. I would recommend the following. Pay them the market rate, bearing in mind that the market rate is not the price they are willing to sell at (which in the case of a lot of people involved is going to be infinite money) but is set by the framework of south african law, and you can run wild with that. There's no real rush with this, and you aren't going to want to do anything until Trump is out of the white house. The First thing I would do is send in the tax inspectors, then I would impose fairly unpleasant property taxes to start to gently turn up the heat, and gradually get people used to the idea that maybe it is time to think about moving on. Then when people are nice and softened up, offer them what you consider to be the market rate, which is now considerably lower as aside from being an asset, it's also a considerable tax liability. There's also going to be a certain amount of unpleasantness. There's going to have to be a lid kept on that. but enough to push people nearer to accepting your really low offer.

                          But instead of paying up front, you are going to pay them over a long period of time, and I mean long so that after a relatively short period of time inflation will have made it worthless. Then ten years down the line when everything has settled down, cut the payments in half, allow the fuss from that to blow over, and then in twenty years stop paying them at all.

                          And at every stage along the way keep mentioning that you keep getting these amazing offers from china. The EU and the US will allow them to pretty much fuck the farmers anyway they want to, as long as the a) do it gradually and b) are continuously threatening to go along with China. You'd be surprised how far this would get you particularly given that SA is the major provider of a lot of important minerals, and imposing sanctions on SA would simultaneously crash a variety of global commodity markets, and probably start a global recession. Also SA is one of the few countries that the US has a trade surplus with, germany also have a large trade surplus.

                          Your aim here is to get your hands on the land without a) taking over burned out husks b) not falling out with the assorted global superpowers which will lead to the wider economy getting burned to the ground. in 1932 the new Fianna Fail govt carried on collecting the payments, but simply refused to hand the money over to the UK govt. This lead to a six year long economic war that nearly wiped us out, and while no-one starved, a lot of people were ruined, and had accidents carrying shotguns over fences, or got really drunk and accidentally drank weedkiller, or tripped and accidentally caught their heads in a noose that simply happened to be hanging there..... you get the idea. It also considerably shortened a lot of lives, and created enormous misery. Properly enormous misery. But in 1938, the UK essentially settled for a fraction of the sum due, and gave back a number of ports that the UK had held onto, simply because they knew war was coming and they needed access to our food. They were also kind of hoping that Ireland would join the UK in the upcoming war, but while we had heard very bad things indeed about Hitler, and weren't keen on his less than neighbourly attitude to adjacent neutral countries, we also knew the British Govt, considerably better than they knew themselves. So we remained Neutral, exported them a hell of a lot of food, and sent 3% of the population (50,000 people) over every year to work in factories and fight.

                          Most of South Africa's economy and exports has nothing to do with food, and most people don't work in agriculture. The future of South Africa depends on them developing their economy in such a way that agriculture and mining become much smaller shares of the overall economy. So the SA govt won't want to fuck that up unnecessarily. The Land is essentially worthless, if you lose your markets, and at all times, that is the ultimate prize that you are aiming for. Particularly since Farmers are great for saying emotive things about land, but they're really talking about money. Farmers are all about the money. Fianna Fail sold their plans with the sort of rhetoric that would make Black Panther look like brideshead revisited, but at all times it was about money.
                          Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 12-09-2018, 22:47.

                          Comment


                            #38
                            Malema has been around for a long time and is still alive. In 2008 he announced that he'd kill for Zuma and die for Zuma. Then Zuma shafted him, and he founded his own party which got elected to parliament, where he and his populist friends insulted Zuma on a regular basis. He has survived that; he'll be around.

                            Malema frequently talks sense. And more often he spouts forth idiotic polemic. He is the playbook populist, playing working-class while living in a mansion which he cannot possibly have financed himself. The tax authorities are after him; not because politics but because he doesn't declare wherever he gets the money for the mansion, the farm, the cars, the suits, the watches, the gallons of 80-year-old Hennessy etc. He's too powerful to be jailed though, so the taxman is in a bit of a bind.

                            As for land redistribution, making it an all-or-nothing endgame is dangerous stuff. I think the ANC is aware that the process will need to be carefully managed. It's clear that land that can be shown to have been stolen by whites must be returned. But there is also a lot of land that was not occupied, or where claims as to historic possession are not clear. That land cannot be redistributed on historic claims. A case can be made that such land may be subject to an affirmative land distribution policy.

                            There's also the question of urban property that was effectively confiscated under apartheid. Some of these properties are now worth millions, certainly most of those in Cape Town. Those land grabs are in living memory; some of those robbed of their homes are still alive and still fighting for compensation. I have many of them in among my in-laws and my circle of friends.

                            Comment


                              #39
                              Oh glorious. another gobshite who whips up division to mask the fact that he's basically a massive crook. we've got too many of these people at the moment. Be it Trump or Putin, or Erdogan, or orban, or........

                              Comment


                                #40
                                I am liking him more. Berba, I think we need a bit more evidence of him doing a bit more than undeclared earnings before we put him in the Puton, Erdogan category.

                                I am liking Malema even more now as he has ticked an important box for me.

                                Comment


                                  #41
                                  Heh, give him a chance, those people are in charge of their country, and he leads a small faction. So that may be a difference of degree, rather than kind. Will you accept Ian Paisley and martin mcGuinness then? See I just assume that powerful figures in a post-colonial country are making out like bandits, not because they're ignorant africans, but when we did this sort of thing, that's what our powerful people did. I see that vast swathes of Eastern Europe responded to the introduction of freedom and democracy by immediately making the head of military intelligence the richest man in the state, and find myself thinking, why does everyone have to copy us, rather than learn from our horrendous mistakes.

                                  Comment


                                    #42
                                    Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post
                                    I am liking him more. Berba, I think we need a bit more evidence of him doing a bit more than undeclared earnings before we put him in the Puton, Erdogan category.

                                    I am liking Malema even more now as he has ticked an important box for me.

                                    Well, Malema is not in the league of Putin or Erdogan (or Trump), because he has not governed his country. But he is very much a populist, and those are rarely great news. And undeclared earnings is not the problem; corruption is.

                                    By his own assurances, Malema has only ever worked for the people in political office. The salary he has been paid would not finance the mansion he owns, the farm he owns, the cars he drives, the suits he wears (when he is not presently addressing the working classes), the watches he wears etc. He might say appealing things (though I doubt he really means half of the things he says), but a corrupt leader is still a corrupt leader even when he says appealing things.

                                    The very important function Malema and the EFF play is to serve as an outlet for the people's frustrations. That anger is articulated by and channelled through the EFF. That gives the EFF great power, and they employ that power by encouraging destructive protests and land occupation (including land currently occupied by the working class descendants of the original occupants).

                                    Comment


                                      #43
                                      I have a free few minutes so here goes.

                                      Gman

                                      Malema has been around for a long time and is still alive
                                      Yes, but has been off the radar of all but keen waters of the South African politics until fairly recently.
                                      I can assure you he is gaining alot of traction throughout Africa and it's diaspora in Europe and the US especially since his talk about land repatriation have got the WS on code globally as South Africa is still the poster child of a WS society (closely followed by Australia).

                                      Malema frequently talks sense. And more often he spouts forth idiotic polemic
                                      Any examples, I am genuinely interested.

                                      He is the playbook populist, playing working-class while living in a mansion which he cannot possibly have financed himself. The tax authorities are after him; not because politics but because he doesn't declare wherever he gets the money for the mansion, the farm, the cars, the suits, the watches, the gallons of 80-year-old Hennessy etc.
                                      The fact he chooses not to live in penury like a modern day biblical Jesus or Gandhi doesn't invalidate his message.
                                      If it transpired he is in league to sell out South Africans to the Guptas/the West/China once elected would change my perception of him. Plus you should give us black people a bit more credit, we are more capable of separating the message from the man and at worse, his message will inspire someone more worthy to continue the struggle.

                                      As for land redistribution, making it an all-or-nothing endgame is dangerous stuff. I think the ANC is aware that the process will need to be carefully managed. It's clear that land that can be shown to have been stolen by whites must be returned. But there is also a lot of land that was not occupied, or where claims as to historic possession are not clear. That land cannot be redistributed on historic claims. A case can be made that such land may be subject to an affirmative land distribution policy.
                                      Hahaha, I have noticed white people never wish to talk about the morality of Africans taking their land back, they always wish to more the conversation onto what happens to it then in the vain hope that the Africans will start bickering amongst themselves thus pushing the can down the road which is the story of the last 25 years in South Africa. No doubt the dominant society will back various tribes and play them off against each other.
                                      In my opinion, all land purchased by white people pre 1995 was obtained under an illegal system and any ownership claims null and void.

                                      Berba
                                      Heh, give him a chance, those people are in charge of their country, and he leads a small faction.
                                      He is inspiring many globally and on the continent and beyond. Also, he is very clear on telling people not to vote for him if they do not subscribe to his vision and agenda. This isn't standard behaviour for a populist as they tend to say whatever is popular to get elected. What Gman fails to say is that this policy of land appropriation without compensation was an ANC policy to short up their vote. A policy the ANC are now trying to roll back on.



                                      There's also the question of urban property that was effectively confiscated under apartheid. Some of these properties are now worth millions, certainly most of those in Cape Town. Those land grabs are in living memory; some of those robbed of their homes are still alive and still fighting for compensation. I have many of them in among my in-laws and my circle of friends.
                                      Why haven't these been returned?

                                      Comment


                                        #44
                                        The fact he chooses not to live in penury like a modern day biblical Jesus or Gandhi doesn't invalidate his message.
                                        If it transpired he is in league to sell out South Africans to the Guptas/the West/China once elected would change my perception of him. Plus you should give us black people a bit more credit, we are more capable of separating the message from the man and at worse, his message will inspire someone more worthy to continue the struggle.


                                        But it should make you profoundly nervous of his motives. There are too many people exactly like this around the world. We have them here in Ireland. And I would start from the assumption that South Africans aren't really very different to the people of Ireland, or the UK, or Hungary or Turkey, or many of the african countries that have this sort of . We could plainly see what Charlie Haughey was, He lived in a Gandon mansion, he had a stud farm of 500 acres of prime building land. He had a yacht, and a fucking island, and at no point was his official household income higher than my two parents combined. Yet he was elected taoiseach (With a minority govt) three times.

                                        Hahaha, I have noticed white people never wish to talk about the morality of Africans taking their land back, they always wish to more the conversation onto what happens to it then in the vain hope that the Africans will start bickering amongst themselves thus pushing the can down the road which is the story of the last 25 years in South Africa. No doubt the dominant society will back various tribes and play them off against each other.
                                        In my opinion, all land purchased by white people pre 1995 was obtained under an illegal system and any ownership claims null and void.


                                        I have no problem with the morality of it. Just don't discount the massive problems involved. We didn't have the discussion before our revolution, and we fought a really horrible civil war that poisoned our politics for 70 years, when it became clear that the net result of our revolution was to essentially just change the flags, and the letterheads on official documents. A lot of people, put a lot on the line, to build a new Ireland, and the New Ireland was exactly the same as before, with the country being primarily run by Large Farmers, for the interest of Large Farmers (Duty free export of live cattle to the UK) and the Catholic Church (which was run by large farmers).

                                        It's not just liberal whites with a post colonial conscience that would urge caution here. I observe that the South African Govt haven't touched this with a 40 ft pole, even though they've had a very long time to do so. If this was easy, or as widely beneficial as they suggested, it would already have happened.

                                        He is inspiring many globally and on the continent and beyond. Also, he is very clear on telling people not to vote for him if they do not subscribe to his vision and agenda. This isn't standard behaviour for a populist as they tend to say whatever is popular to get elected. What Gman fails to say is that this policy of land appropriation without compensation was an ANC policy to short up their vote. A policy the ANC are now trying to roll back on.

                                        Hmm, you have to consider that he may be trying to create a relatively small but coherent party, with the intent of holding the balance of power in a coalition, rather than trying to be prime minister. See populism isn't about achieving things, it's primarily about a small group of people wielding power. Thousands of people had to die, and the peace process had to be choked until Ian Paisley went from fringe lunatic to First minister of Northern Ireland, and he and his family were pulling in over £500k a year in govt salaries. Then he had no problem going everywhere with Martin mcGuinness, and there was no talk of a Protestant Ulster.

                                        The difference between populism and proper politics is an implementable, costed, policy that can take place in the realm of reality. This is really hard when it comes to Land Appropriation. It's easy to talk about land Appropriation in the abstract. It makes people happy, it's the electoral equivalent of Trump saying to his rallies that "I'm going to make you all so rich you wouldn't believe." But ultimately populism is about telling people what they want to hear, regardless of whether or not is is possible, or regardless of whether or not you can deliver it. Irish politicians traffic in little else, and then when in power rowing back on it to the realms of the possible. Look at Italy, where the two sets of populist lunatic cunts in charge have suddenly realized that they can't implement 90% of their policies, because Italy is still bankrupt. All they can really do is turn up the unpleasantness towards migrants, because that's cheap. There's a lot of people who hold out a lot of hope for Jeremy Corbyn for some inexplicable reason. They are going to get a real shock if the time comes. And that disappointment is what people need to worry about, because it's very easy to get a lot of disappointed people let down by populist leftists, to switch to being angry populist rightists. Leftists have to actually deliver, whereas rightists can make people content with racism. (see Italy)

                                        Comment


                                          #45
                                          Berbaslug

                                          "But it should make you profoundly nervous of his motives. There are too many people exactly like this around the world. We have them here in Ireland. And I would start from the assumption that South Africans aren't really very different to the people of Ireland, or the UK, or Hungary or Turkey, or many of the african countries that have this sort of "

                                          Disagree, those countries have been seduced by parties and leaders who appeal to the base human fear of the different and the "others" and have voted for far right "populists" who appeal to the latent racism found within most people of European descent.

                                          Malema is the complete opposite in this respect, he is a pan Africanist and rails against petty tribalism and symbols of colonialism and encourages Africans to not respect European-Imposed national boundaries rather than the small-minded isolationism that is sweeping across Europe and North America (see the brexit movement throughout Europe and Anti-NAFTA in the US). This makes him an immensely dangerous man.
                                          See this speech:

                                          I have no problem with the morality of it.
                                          Much Kudos to you as you are the only white person I know who expresses this sentiment.

                                          As for what happens to the land, thats minor (as long as we do not allow the colonisers to stick their oar in)

                                          Hmm, you have to consider that he may be trying to create a relatively small but coherent party,
                                          His personal endgame isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things, his populism is waking people up and if it leads to a wave of Malema of various levels of morality, then i'ts a good thing.

                                          The difference between populism and proper politics is an implementable, costed, policy that can take place in the realm of reality
                                          Costed, there is no compensation so there is no cost?
                                          Did you listen to the first speech i linked to in it's entirety? He makes some very good points regarding what shouldn't happen to the land so as to avoid what happened to the Russian utilities after the fall of the Soviet Union.

                                          Comment


                                            #46
                                            In my opinion, all land purchased by white people pre 1995 was obtained under an illegal system and any ownership claims null and void.
                                            All the land? But not all the land was stolen, unless you subscribe to some sort notion of racial birthright to land, which would put you in a league with some pretty nasty people. That's why it is absolutely moral to return land that was stolen by the colonialists, but not land to which there are no historic claims.

                                            The situation is complicated in the Western and parts of the Northern Cape, where the indigeneous dispossessed people were not Nguni-speakers bit Khoi-San. Now, that group has almost completely disappeared by genocidal activity and by miscegenation (that awful word). Whereas Nguni-speaking are homogenous and therefore have valid representatives, as well as a collective memory of land ownership, the descendants of the Khoi-San have no such political pull. Nor did they have landownership as we know it, as they were not invariably bound to one place. Their descendants are mixed-raced people classified under apartheid as Coloureds. While there is a Khoi-consciousness movement, the majority want reparation for land-theft in urban areas under apartheid.

                                            You ask why that hasn't happened? Because the ANC doesn't give a fuck about Coloureds, and the DA gives a fuck only about the property developers and is continuing the ethnic cleansing by the economic weapon of gentrification. Meanwhile, the EFF is encouraging land occupation by their constituents in townships were the whites dumped the Coloureds in their ethnic cleansing campaigns.

                                            Comment


                                              #47
                                              "All the land? But not all the land was stolen, unless you subscribe to some sort notion of racial birthright to land, which would put you in a league with some pretty nasty people. That's why it is absolutely moral to return land that was stolen by the colonialists, but not land to which there are no historic claims."

                                              Yes all land belongs to the indigenous populations as any obtained by Europeans was obtained during a period of colonial occupation. Do you think the land bought by German settlers during WWII in the Sudetenland was legally obtained, ditto occupied territories purchased by Israeli settlers post 1968.

                                              The situation is complicated in the Western and parts of the Northern Cape,
                                              Not complicated at all. The land should be confiscated and leased out by the government and the money raised to address the inequality in education, healthcare and housing specifically for the black population of South Africa disenfranchised during the colonialist and apartheid years. All the other tribalist stuff does not interest me.

                                              You ask why that hasn't happened? Because the ANC doesn't give a fuck about Coloureds
                                              Lets be honest Gman, a large number of coloured brought this upon themselves by playing the house Negro during the Apartheid years.

                                              Comment


                                                #48
                                                The last statement is historically absurd. Coloureds were in the forefront of the struggle; the UDF was founded in Cape Town a coloured area. Resistance to apartheid in Cape Town was strong exactly because the majority -- even those who did not want to allign themselves to the Charterist movement -- were not fooled by the regime's attempts to co-opt them. Of course, that does not mean that many Coloureds were (and are) not also racists. But the question for the ANC is how they lost so many Coloureds who were active in the UDF, and who voted the ANC into power in provincial and regional elections in the 1990s and early 2000s. The "house negro" theory, apart from being historical inaccurate and pretty offensive, is a very poor excuse for the ANC's failure to provide a home for that constituency -- as it once did.

                                                Yes all land belongs to the indigenous populations as any obtained by Europeans was obtained during a period of colonial occupation. Do you think the land bought by German settlers during WWII in the Sudetenland was legally obtained, ditto occupied territories purchased by Israeli settlers post 1968.
                                                But that land was occupied by people who had lived there (though your Sudetenland example is not the one you were looking for). Great parts of the interior of South Africa were unoccupied. If your argument is that African land can belong only to Africans, without qualification, then you are also conceding that British land can belong only to indigenous British, European land only to indigenous Europeans etc. Which is absurd. There are enough legitimate claims to pursue without dubious Africa-for-Africans claims.

                                                All the other tribalist stuff does not interest me.
                                                If you argument is purely race-based, then fair enough. But if it is based on identifying land-claims based on heritage, then the question of the Western Cape and parts of the Northern Cape cannot be reduced to "tribalist stuff". It's much more complex than that. As is the whole question of land. Anyone who has pat answers to it is a fraud.

                                                The land should be confiscated and leased out by the government and the money raised to address the inequality in education, healthcare and housing specifically for the black population of South Africa disenfranchised during the colonialist and apartheid years.
                                                That is a position I'd back. I'm not sure it's realisable, but I'd back it.

                                                Comment


                                                  #49
                                                  Gman
                                                  The last statement is historically absurd............................Of course, that does not mean that many Coloureds were (and are) not also racists.
                                                  I have met a lot of light-skinned black South Africans who get offended when you refer to them as Black.
                                                  25 years after the end of Apartheid, the divide and conquer tricks still apply.

                                                  the ANC's failure to provide a home for that constituency
                                                  I think the black people still living in townships in 2010 when I visited SA also have legitimate gripes against the ANC.

                                                  Great parts of the interior of South Africa were unoccupied
                                                  According to whom, are you sure the inhabitants were not murdered and historical documents changed to say it was inhabited? Europeans have form for that.
                                                  Also maybe the African tribes ran away when they saw white people coming as they got wind of what happened to the tribe down the road. Nobody wants to be stuck in a township or put on a one-way boat ride to The Caribbean/Madagascar or Mauritius.

                                                  If your argument is that African land can belong only to Africans, without qualification
                                                  I never said that, and i invite you to prove otherwise.

                                                  then you are also conceding that British land can belong only to indigenous British, European land only to indigenous Europeans
                                                  A very poor effort at deflection Gman, as you are well aware, the circumstances around me obtaining land in the UK and a white South African obtaining land during the colonial and Apartheid era are not compatible. You are not stupid nor are you an Idiot so I can only conclude you are being disingenuous which is worse in my book.

                                                  If you argument is purely race-based, then fair enough. But if it is based on identifying land-claims based on heritage, then the question of the Western Cape and parts of the Northern Cape cannot be reduced to "tribalist stuff"
                                                  More deflections that a Frank Lampard 30 yarder. I made my point clear about what should happen to the land and it shouldn't be a matter for rival tribes to battle over. That's the outcome the WS would like to see.

                                                  That is a position I'd back. I'm not sure it's realisable, but I'd back it.
                                                  Ok, let's put a stop to this bloviating and tap dancing, two questions, should the government repatriate the land without compensation and if no, who should compensate the land owners?

                                                  Comment


                                                    #50
                                                    I think you'll need to understand South African history and culture a bit better before jumping in two-footed like Delle Alli on coke. To base a whole set of arguments on the founndations of "I've met a few people who..." and "oh, but maybe something I imagine might have happened happened" is not going to cut it.

                                                    I'm not sure how it is disingenuous to read your statement "Yes all land belongs to the indigenous populations" as a claim that "all land belongs to the indigenous populations". The problem is not that I'm deflecting but that the trajectory of your argument went off-target like a Stevie G, attempt at a glory goal.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X