South Africa on brink of ‘ANARCHY’ as president demands white farmers’ land is SEIZED<<MOD WARNING>>

What WOULD make it a genocidal land grab?

Taking land by force without compensation is an "orderly method?" Surely you can't be serious.

 

And somehow different things will have the same outcome?
Yeah right. lol

 

But, but, but........evil leader.
We must invade.
Isn't that how the story goes?

 

Seriously?

Er, who is taking land by force in SA? Orderly method includes compensation. You know like eminent domain laws in the US.

 

When something is bought, the accepted price is a fair price.

 

This land is all deeded.

 

lol...
How about under apartheid rule the victim was given no choice to accept the price?

doubt

 

most just took the land, exactly like the white settlers did in the great continental expansion of the United States. Natives be damned. Did the native americans get a fair price?

 

First of all who were the natives? The original natives or the band of wanderers who crossed the Bearing Straight and killed them?
Second, did they accept the treaties? If they did then they got a fair price.
Third, most Natives were not interested in land. They were hunter, gatherers. They were concerned with what was on the land.
In addition, the existing natives were much more violent in their actions toward other tribes that what they got from the whites. They acquired the land that they roamed through violence and force.
Lastly, The ones who accepted peace and farmed the land did well. The ones who embraced the ways of the past did not fare well.

 

Source?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid'

From 1960-1983, 3.5 million Non-White South Africans were removed from their homes and forced into segregated neighbourhoods, in one of the largest mass evictions in modern history.[17] Most of these targeted removals were intended to restrict the Black population to ten designated "tribal homelands",

You think them 3.5 million black people got a fair price when they were a victim of the largest mass eviction of modern history, orchestrated by a white supremacist government? lol

 

So the SA president DIDN'T say "without compensation?"

 

Are you just being deliberately obtuse?

 

Oh accept a treaty with a gun to your head and its a fair price? You think the native americans were treated fairly?

Seems because the native americans didn't have the same european notion of land ownership, taking it from them was a relative breeze. Just needed to be prepared to kill and oppress the "savages".

Natives not interested in the land? Are you nuts? they were hunter gatherers. Their territory was their friggin supermarket and you say most didn't care?

Seems you got your version of american history from hollywood.

 

https://www.economist.com/the-econo...30/why-south-africa-is-revisiting-land-reform

 

None of those people were land owners. They were share croppers. Forced off the land because the tribal leaders wanted more control over them. You obviously know little of the facts.

 

News flash, treaties are what end wars. We signed treaties with Japan and Germany after WWII. Beyond that a Socialist like you should be happy with the treaty. It is a perfect example of how Socialism works.

 

Seriously? I must say your "throw as much bullshit up in the air as possible" tactic does speak volumes. Only I don't think its conveying the message you think it does.

 

Says who?

That is not according to my source.

 

Here's something you guys need to understand.

The white population, as a society, collectively, committed a massive injustice in South Africa during the 20th Century.

They dispossessed millions of Native Black people from most of the land of South Africa.

They could not farm, live, even work on most of the land.

They could not vote. They could not run for political office.

This situation has led to a monumental level of socio-economic inequality between blacks and whites in the nation.

Had this not happened, and all peoples of South Africa were treated as equal citizens, with equal opportunity, the inequality in this nation would be much less.

But instead, the small white minority decided to enforce an unjust system of white supremacist racial Apartheid on the nation and its people.

So now, Apartheid has ended, and just as the white populations collectively benefited from this unjust system of Apartheid, the white population as a whole, collectively, must be made to pay a price for the cost of repairing the damage done by Apartheid.

Land confiscations is part of this process.

Should white farmers lose all of their land and be unable to feed their families? No.

Should white farmers be forced to cede some of their land so it can be placed into a national collective of farmland for redistribution? Absolutely!!!!

 

The treaty Germany was made to sign when they lost WWI, was a reason for them to start WWII.
So come again that treaties are what end wars?

 

Wow those mean whites perhaps you should read the "Native Land Act" and learn the truth.
The Natives Land Act of 1913[1] was the first major piece of segregation legislation passed by the Union Parliament. It was replaced in 1991. The act decreed that whites were not allowed to buy land from natives and vice versa. That stopped white farmers from buying more native land. Exceptions had to be approved by the Governor-General. The native areas left initially totaled less than 10% of the entire land mass of the Union, which was later expanded to 13%.[2]

The Act further prohibited the practice of serfdom or sharecropping. It also protected existing agreements or arrangement of land hired or leased by both parties.

This land was in "native reserve" areas, which meant it was under "communal" tenure vested in African chiefs: it could not be bought, sold or used as surety. Outside such areas, perhaps of even greater significance for black farming was that the Act forbade black tenant farming on white-owned land. Since so many black farmers were sharecroppers or labor tenants, that had a devastating effect, but its full implementation was not immediate. The Act strengthened the chiefs, who were part of the state administration, but it forced many blacks into the "white" areas into wage labour.

 

You must have a subscription to The Economist, because that article requires a subscription. So I couldn't read it in its entirety. However, what I did read only supports what I'm saying - that it is WITHOUT COMPENSATION. Are you still under the impression that it is WITH compensation?

 

What about sons who have taken over farms from their fathers? Should they be made to pay for the sins of their fathers?

How exactly are they supposed to be able to feed their families with no compensation?

 

It is still under debate, the vote hasn't been taken yet. And I am aware that there is discussion about no compensation.

Seems you don't mind when trump pulls stupid crap outta his arse in his "art of the deal "negotiations", but when others do it, the friggin sky is falling. Funny how you act like one of those *******s you and your's are always on about when the subject is all about black people getting something back from white people whose position is predicated on generations of exploitation and oppression.