New South African president wants to seize land from white farmers without compensation

Africa c. 1920

 

they got a bunch of folks to take off their shirts and pants and put on tribal clothes

 

Where would they have gotten shirts and pants, and how would they pay for them?

You are really ignorant about African history.

Hint: Wakanda is a comic book.

 

Ironic!

I googled Africa 1920's images.

I found this photo that was taken in the 1920's and is about constructing railways in Africa.



Since everyone in the photo is wearing shirts and pants (besides the women in dresses) and it is obvious that most of them are black it would appear that working on railway construction paid well enough to buy shirts and pants.

Looks like you owe Ronstar an apology.

 

For what? Are the people in my photograph paid by Western imperialists?

Here's another:

 

Since all these fallacies were hashed out in a prior thread it is easy enough to come up with the facts.

For starters the South African Constitution, praised by one of our own SCOTUS justices, protects property from confiscation without compensation. In order to make this happen the Constitution will need to be Amended and that requires a 2/3rds majority in the South African Parliament which the ANC government does not have. The South African Courts will uphold the Constitution and stymie any attempt to confiscate land without an Amendment.

Sorry to bust that bubble but those are just the FACTS!

That is factually WRONG! There is evidence of IRON AGE workings in South Africa dating back about a 1,000 years.

https://showme.co.za/facts-about-south-africa/history-of-south-africa/the-history-of-south-africa/

Cyril Ramaphosa is a more qualified candidate than your beloved BLOTUS.

http://www.africansuccess.org/visuFiche.php?id=237&lang=en

Now having read at least the quotes provided above are you still so sure about your allegations?

South African blacks were actually Iron Age farmers living in tribal communities and counted cattle as being their wealth and currency.

They were similar to our own American Indians in that they waged wars against the white invaders who were stealing their lands. It was a matter of superior firepower that prevailed against warriors armed when metal spears.

The apartheid era was a massive stain on the history of whites and it was the statesmanship of Mandela and Bishop Tutu who managed to avoid a bloody civil war and achieve one of the finest Constitutions of it's kind in the world.

That Constitution protects the property owned by ALL South Africans.

Your thread is based upon a fallacy because very few of my fellow Americans have taken the time and trouble to do their homework.

And I discovered some things that are worth noting. Apparently South Africa is the "S" in the Brazil, Russia, India, China BRICS coalition. South Africa is one of two African nations that could prosper from the demographic aging in America and Europe. If that is to occur a successful and sophisticated business leader like Ramaphosa is the person to make it happen.

Since this thread has become just another for white supremacist racists to spread their bile and disinformation about blacks I thought it best that I did something to set the record straight with the FACTS.

 

Apparently there are Zulus who still put on that traditional dress and perform traditional dances for the benefit of foreign tourists and make a good living at it.

 

It is what Africa was like before the White man taught them civilization: grass huts and spears.

Which is the point being discussed.

 

I wonder how many whites would remain in South Africa if America opened its doors to them?

 

Why are you ignoring all of the facts that I provided?

 

As I understand it the Zulu were nomads who arrived in Southern africa about the same time as the Boers

 

That is incorrect. Ancient artifacts date back over 2 million years in South Africa. The Khoisan people were there for the past 2000 years. From that period onwards various different tribes moved into different parts of the country. The Zulus were tribal cattle farmers, not nomads.

 

There are different tribes of black people in africa who were in competition with each other

Blacks were pushing other blacks around long before whites got there

 

What bearing does that have on the current South African Constitution protecting the property rights of everyone?

 

You didn't provide any facts to challenge the assertion that Africans lived in grass huts and carried spears.

 

meanwhile Europeans were committing genocide.

so who was REALLY uncivilized?

 

The liberal arguement for confiscating white land is that it really belongs t the Bantu and that is not true

 

As do every other people in the world.

You just overlook the genocidal tendencies of Blacks towards Whites because, well, I don't know why.

 

Civilization is not defined by living quarters and weapons.

 

Too bad you cannot substantiate that bogus alt right allegation.

 

What is it defined by?

One suggestion is:

Primary characteristics

1. Urban settlements
2. Full-time specialists not involved in agricultural activities
3. Concentration of surplus production
4. Class structure
5. State-level organization (government)

Secondary characteristics

6. Monumental public building
7. Extensive trading networks
8. Standardized monumental artwork
9. Writing
10. Development of exact sciences

None of which were present among the Zulus or really elsewhere in Black Africa.

 

I live in america, I expect to have nothing to say about the doings of the South African govt, pretty much like we have nothing to say about the doings of ours.

 

Would that everyone else had had the same attitude about apartheid.

 

Those things do not define all civilizations.

First off spears/lances were still used by the British Army during the Crimean War in the 1850's. The living quarters of rural whites in Europe, who were not landed gentry, was not significantly different to that of the Zulus.

Furthermore the largest contiguous civilized empire in the entire written history of the world was achieved by nomads who had a sophisticated network of communications and travel and yet they lived in huts made out of animal hides. It was a meritocracy where women could own property too.

 

So, you support the confiscation of property, purely on a racial basis? Isn't that the worst kind of RACISM...?

In the face of these unambiguous, unvarnished threats to confiscate the property of South African people, just because they are White, do you imagine that dictators like Ramaphosa would hesitate to "modify" their Constitution by decree, proclamation, or any other method they find convenient? They've made their intentions perfectly clear, Te.... One good thing about the worst kind of tyrants like Ramaphosa, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and a half-dozen others is that they 'telegraph their punches'. If South African Whites know what's good for them they'll get out of there now before they're dragged out and "necklaced" by gangs of marauding Black thugs, encouraged by their Black 'Führer'....

There is no information at the link you provided about "IRON AGE workings in South Africa"... (?) Nevertheless, by about a thousand years ago, smelting techniques from those cultures far to the north, which did actually have a Bronze Age, could have made their way south. But, to be abundantly fair, let's just concede the point that there is "evidence" that some Iron Age smelting abilities existed among Black tribes -- which otherwise still lived in all other respects as the had for many millennia, with endless inter-tribal warfare, Black-on-Black slavery, 'slash-and-burn' agriculture, etc. To even make a feeble attempt to compare anything that South African Black 'civilization' accomplished compared with either European, Indian, or Arab cultures is laughable! Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age .