NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4273890.stm

More like South AfriKKKa! >_<

Solution: Invade South Africa now.

How did the white people get that land in the first place?

Two wrongs don't make a right. C'mon everybody knows that one.

But three lefts do.

Isn’t my country and it is unlikely to have a big impact on the US. Sorry, more important things to get worked up about.

For the record, I don’t approve of government land redistribution, but, they are a sovereign country, free to fuck up however they want to.

How did the white people get that land in the first place?



the whites over there are desendence from settlers from holland and such.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4273890.stm

More like South AfriKKKa! >_<

Solution: Invade South Africa now.
I'm a Citizen of South Africa by birth. I take extreme offence to that comment. I think Africans have had enough from white imperialists the past four hundred years without you suggested slavery and imperialism is the solution. God forbid the niggers get to vote, eh?

Land in South Africa like land in most country's can be taken from the owner by the government. It was legally taken from people who generatiosn ago took through genocide.

the whites over there are desendence from settlers from holland and such.
I think you forgot the massacare of thousands of i'Zulu and Xhosa...

The government argues that Mr Visser's father bought the land from a black farmer through a forced transaction in 1968.....Since coming to power in 1994, the current government has adopted a "willing buyer, willing seller" approach to land redistribution, paying market prices for land that white owners are prepared to sell, and then distributing it to landless blacks.

He's got it a lot better than the Blacks did under Apartheid. His family likely made hundreds of thousands of dollars of the land, and now he's offered $275,000 for it, all for something that isn't rightly his in the first place.
I say he should take the money and be grateful for the easy time he's had.

But Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka says the pace of reform should be speeded up

Whatever happend to the word 'sped'?

More like South AfriKKKa! >_<

We need to send these guys over there:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/kkk.jpg

I think you forgot the massacare of thousands of i'Zulu and Xhosa...



uhhhh the brits did that helping the commonwelth of south africa...then the boar war happened when the boars(white people of south A)fought for there independence and lost. :( .....wait they are free now.....what a pointless war.

uhhhh the brits did that helping the commonwelth of south africa...then the boar war happened when the boars(white people of south A)fought for there independence and lost. :( .....wait they are free now.....what a pointless war.
Actually the Dutch did that when they orignally "colonised" South Africa. Then much, much later the Dutch fought for their independence form a country they never alligned with. They may have lost the war, but millions of angry Dutch voters realised democracy was on their side.

...the boars(white people of south A)...
oink oink

Actually the Dutch did that when they orignally "colonised" South Africa. Then much, much later the Dutch fought for their independence form a country they never alligned with. They may have lost the war, but millions of angry Dutch voters realised democracy was on their side.



settle and colonised i was useing both words in the same context...sorry.



but dont dutch come from holland.

settle and colonised i was useing both words in the same context...sorry.



but dont dutch come from holland.
That's correct. My point is they massacared the Xhosa and i'Zulu when they arrived.

"There needs to be a bit of oomph. That's why we may need the skills of Zimbabwe to help us," she said.

This can't possible end well.

Yeah, kick out the people who keep the country stable. Then give it to people who have no clue how to farm. Then starve. See other African countries and how successful kicking out the white people was.

Yeah, kick out the people who keep the country stable. Then give it to people who have no clue how to farm. Then starve. See other African countries and how successful kicking out the white people was.
Yes, because the 70% of SouthAfrican blacks who continue to live in country provinces their families have farmed for thousands of years no nothing about agriculture.

Or maybe you mean the millions of coloured who are very well educated.

Or maybe you're just a great, big, racist pile of scat?

Yes, because the 70% of SouthAfrican blacks who continue to live in country provinces their families have farmed for thousands of years no nothing about agriculture.

If they knew so goddamn much about agriculture, their people wouldn't be starving. Which explains the sudden drop in the output of seized farms, hmm?

Or maybe you mean the millions of coloured who are very well educated.

...which I never even talked about in my post...nor debated.

Or maybe you're just a great, big, racist pile of scat?

Or maybe you're just unaware about how successful redistributing land has been for, let's say, Zimbabwe...where the population is facing starvation after removal of white farmers. I can't imagine much success in South Africa, either.

Hit the books, kid. Knowing what you are talking about is a key element in good debate.

You can't steal something from someone who never should have had that something in the first place.

More like South AfriKKKa! >_<

Solution: Invade South Africa now.No one bothered invading when it really was like that, so why should they now?

You can't steal something from someone who never should have had that something in the first place.

Actually you can. Anyone who is in possesion of something has better title than someone who is not, unless they are the original owner. So yes, you can steal something that someone else has stolen, and yes it is a crime unless you personally are the original owner - i.e. can assert a better title.

So unless they give it back to the guy who was forced to sell it, yup, it's stealing.

Actually you can. Anyone who is in possesion of something has better title than someone who is not, unless they are the original owner. So yes, you can steal something that someone else has stolen, and yes it is a crime unless you personally are the original owner - i.e. can assert a better title.

So unless they give it back to the guy who was forced to sell it, yup, it's stealing.Seems like a ridiculous law. But is this true in South Africa as well?

Dude, you can't, like, own property, man [flicks hair].

No, really, though, this is what you get (wound-up/upset) for believing in nonsense concepts like, "rights".

Pff, nobody will understand.

This can't possible end well.

Yeah, it's quite ironic. Zimbabwe has basically collapsed. Few can afford oil over there at the moment, and the distribution networks have collapsed.

linky (http://www.fcnp.com/529/peakoil.htm)

Unfortunately, as the article says, a similar fate could well be waiting for the rest of the world...

But three lefts do.

Oh yeah...well...nyah!

Anyway, this is just another example that humans are psychologicaly unable to cooperate with people of other cultures or backgrounds.

Soo, in 10-20 years when South africans are suffering from these policies, would it be uncouth of me to laugh long and hard about it?

Soo, in 10-20 years when South africans are suffering from these policies, would it be uncouth of me to laugh long and hard about it?
No it wouldn't be uncouth. I intend to start laughing today. This is going to turn South Africa into another wasteland that just doesn't need to be that way. How many other African countries could be self-sufficient, but end up despotic and corrupt?

So how much of the farm land is to be left without crops for tribes of the indigenous (spelling?) to use in the traditional nomad way, before the agressive tribes took it from them? Or because they were both black do we ignore this.

Are rich black and Asian farmers being asked to sell land? If not has one set of racist values been replaced by another. where the colour of the skin is more important than the legal history of the land?

Seems like a ridiculous law. But is this true in South Africa as well?

It's a common law jurisdiction I would imagine, so in theory yes. However since the government there is sovereign I suppose it can do whatever it wants.

It shouldn't try and redistribute wholesale though, and it shouldn't do it along racial lines, for the simple reason they have made all the farmland in SA worthless overnight. Who on earth would buy a farm now, knowing it could taken away and given to someone else at the whim of the government.

Soo, in 10-20 years when South africans are suffering from these policies, would it be uncouth of me to laugh long and hard about it?

So long as you don't call others who laugh at the self-inflicted misfortunes of Americans uncouth. Turnabout and all that.

No one bothered invading when it really was like that, so why should they now?

Because apartheid was bad for black people. This is bad for whites, because heaven forbid they be stripped of the land they stole.

If they knew so goddamn much about agriculture, their people wouldn't be starving. Which explains the sudden drop in the output of seized farms, hmm?Prove it. Ps. South Africa and Zimbabwe are diffeerent countries. Think of Mexico and the US if this idea confuses you.


...which I never even talked about in my post...nor debated. No, however you seem think black people cannot run a country.


Or maybe you're just unaware about how successful redistributing land has been for, let's say, Zimbabwe...where the population is facing starvation after removal of white farmers. I can't imagine much success in South Africa, either.This is not a massive land restribution policy. It's a single act of aquistion on just terms, for a fair price. Perhaps you're not aware how successfull this has been in countries such as the United States?

Hit the books, kid. Knowing what you are talking about is a key element in good debate.I hold a BA in Race Relations and am a Qualified JP Magistrate, so bang goes that thought. Do not ever call me kid, son. (I refer to you're immaturity by the son reference, since you donot seem capable of understanding what isn't slapped into your head like the cruel hand of fate)

Honestly speaking, Imperialism could actually be GOOD for Africa.

No offense, but tons of the governments in Africa are TERRIBLE, or almost nonexistant, or have almost no power. Thousands upon thousands are starving, dying, etc.

It could be beneficial to both parties, if American annexed portions of Africa.

Prove it. Ps. South Africa and Zimbabwe are diffeerent countries. Think of Mexico and the US if this idea confuses you.


I submit to you, from the article...

But Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka says the pace of reform should be speeded up - as in neighbouring Zimbabwe, where most white-owned land has been seized by the state.

"There needs to be a bit of oomph. That's why we may need the skills of Zimbabwe to help us," she said.

He clearly shows an admiration for the policies of Zimbabwe. Dangerous stuff.

No, however you seem think black people cannot run a country.

I could care less who runs a country. When the leaders openly endorse policy that will result in the death of millions of its citizens, if history proves correctly, those people are probably not qualified. If I truly disliked black people, I would probably not even care about the famine many African nations are letting themselves be placed into.

This is not a massive land restribution policy. It's a single act of aquistion on just terms, for a fair price. Perhaps you're not aware how successfull this has been in countries such as the United States?

See above quote. The guy isn't going to play nice for long. And never in the history of the United States was there a policy for massive redistribution of farmland to inexperienced farmers.

I hold a BA in Race Relations and am a Qualified JP Magistrate, so bang goes that thought.

I don't doubt your intelligence, and really didn't mean it to be a big put down, but you seem to downplay the tragedy that has been the policy of white removal, such as in Zimbabwe. Sure, it seems dandy and nice in spite of all the bad things that happened during colonialism, but kicking out the individuals who feed your people and fuel the economy will prove to be a death sentence for millions.

The UN estimates that 6 million people in Zimbabwe alone are facing famine in the coming years. A good portion of that can be attributed to Zimbabwean policy. I don't want that to be adopted in South Africa, many nations rely on South Africa for THEIR food.

Mass Redistribution of Land...hmm...*cough*communism*cough*

Never in the history of history, has Mass Redistrubution of Land been good.

Mass Redistribution of Land...hmm...*cough*communism*cough*
I'd rather call it a move towards more equality. Communism would entail taking their land by force (without compensation) and then shooting them.
This is the same as people being asked to sell their houses to make room for a highway.
How, I ask you, can there be any sort of racially neutral society if a minority of white farmers own the majority of the profit-producing assets in the country?

Never in the history of history, has Mass Redistrubution of Land been good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution
If you don't do it this way, eventually people will take their share by themselves...

Sins of the Father, eh?

EDIT: w00t, 2,000th post! It's about damn time!

I submit to you, from the article...
He clearly shows an admiration for the policies of Zimbabwe. Dangerous stuff. I counter with Mbeki's, Nelson Mandela's and Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu's policy of "healing South Africa, through mutual co-operation"

I could care less who runs a country. When the leaders openly endorse policy that will result in the death of millions of its citizens, if history proves correctly, those people are probably not qualified. If I truly disliked black people, I would probably not even care about the famine many African nations are letting themselves be placed into.
Black people in ZA are proportionately better off then black people in areas of America.


See above quote. The guy isn't going to play nice for long. And never in the history of the United States was there a policy for massive redistribution of farmland to inexperienced farmers.The policy of the government of South Africa is not to simply abandon land to blacks. It is infact rather the same policy currently used in the US of handing over land to experienced farmers only, where there is a vested state interest tod o so.

I don't doubt your intelligence, and really didn't mean it to be a big put down, but you seem to downplay the tragedy that has been the policy of white removal, such as in Zimbabwe.I don't deny that white's living on stolen land have it tough in a country where the majority of voters are black who are angry at hundreds of years of oppression. But they are a minority group and as such are getting the short end of the stick. If they don't like it, pull a MLK.

Sure, it seems dandy and nice in spite of all the bad things that happened during colonialism, but kicking out the individuals who feed your people and fuel the economy will prove to be a death sentence for millions.White farmers DO NOT feed ZA (South Africa), black farmers do. Again, you are confusing the to countries.

The UN estimates that 6 million people in Zimbabwe alone are facing famine in the coming years. A good portion of that can be attributed to Zimbabwean policy. I don't want that to be adopted in South Africa, many nations rely on South Africa for THEIR food.Really? Famine in Africa? How unsual... Seriously though, yes Zimbabwe needs to seriously contemplate reforms to their land redistribution program. Such as better education on agricultural methods for the new land owners.