-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
South Africa black-owned farms 'failing'
- Thread starter Enosh
- Start date
- Status
funkmasterb
Member
harSon said:
Let me put it this way. Would you invest in a company based in Johannesburg, or in one of these farms that's been split up, if your investment period was 15 years. Everything you own mind you - lots of money.
Would you bet everything on a stable and thriving SA?
funkmasterb
Member
numble said:
Would you say you understand it better than someone who has just seen a Jackie Chan movie?
theignoramus said:
There are other ways of reestablishing equality for all rather than taking away the livelihood of some people simply because their skin is the same color of those who enforced apartheid. Why not use social programs aimed at helping and educating the black population? Why not heavier taxation to fund the programs? Why not quotas for hiring on these farms of black workers to teach them how to properly maintain the crops? Certain percentages of crops grown donated to charities or organizations that feed blacks in poverty. Lower taxation rates for black farmers, lower property taxes subsidized by higher property taxes for whites. White farms who are unproductive, over a predetermined time, can then be seized and given to qualified black occupants. It seems to me there are a ton of options rather than seize and redistribute, forcing workers out of their land and job simply because they are white.
Maybe its just my philosophical viewpoint, but I don't believe you end racism and discrimination by engaging in it.
funkmasterb
Member
Money said:
DING DING!
speculawyer said:
What I imagine will happen is that the land will be bought from the destitute farmers and redistributed back to the ones who owned/ran it on the first place (or someone wealthier).
The better solution would have been to inact an Affirmative Action law of some kind that would require white owned farms to hire black farmers or provide training for them....
THEN you take over the farms.
funkmasterb
Member
numble said:
:lol
SlipperySlope
Banned
Shanadeus said:
That's true. Collective farming in the USSR was a disaster. The Soviets turn to collective farms, then millions of people die from starvation.
The same thing is happening in Africa. Zimbabwe is a prime example.
Enosh
Member
I think we are on the same page here but I just wanted to make it clearspeculawyer said:
I made in "I hope you get payed for this" in response to you promoting the film like that, aka that you get payed by the film studio
probably a mix of bothharSon said:
i remember reading about white farmers getting killed in SA and their farms seized just like in zimbabwe, just that it wasn't as widespread as in zimbabwe, iirc mostly it was done through some sort of legal fucking around
the white farmers did mostly hire black workers, quite some were also booted off the land along with the white farmers, so the goverment basicly threw everyone that had half an idea of how to farm off the farms
now it's comming back to bite them in the ass
harSon said:You've basically come up with a more effective discriminative plan
lol I thought of that as I read it, but anytime you want to advance one specific ethnic group, its going to come, at least at a small cost, from other groups. But there's ways to do it, where you don't completely alienate one group. Sure it may be slower to get the results you want, but I think it ends up better for everyone, and less resentment between races.
But wouldn't it be nice to get to a point where people can just be people, and stop making decisions on peoples race? Maybe I live in a dreamworld.
Enosh said:
You realize that the overwhelming majority of farms are still owned by white South Africans right? Before the ANC took power, whites owned 90% and blacks owned 10%. The ANC hoped to make a shift of 30% by 2014 but are behind schedule due to the setbacks seen in the article.
And if you didn't the joke, I was poking fun of a statement that you made on another board
Here in the American midwest, the "little guy" operations are all being squeezed dry and being bought out by the huge mega farmers. Margins on livestock, milk, and crops are just so small that if you've only got a few hundred acres to work with (like the average farmer), you can't profit enough to feed your family and pay the mortgage. You can only make it work if you're taking the WalMart approach to farming, that is if you're selling so much product that it doesn't matter how low the margins are.
My point is that if we broke up all the mega-farms in Iowa and divided them up to smaller operations, most of them would fail too.
My point is that if we broke up all the mega-farms in Iowa and divided them up to smaller operations, most of them would fail too.
SlipperySlope
Banned
Slo said:
So it sounds like you're saying the government just shouldn't get involved. I agree with that stance.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
this is hardly surprising though really.
1. screw over blacks, remove their oppurtunities education and money
2. profit for ages
3. 'guys that was wrong, lets give it all back at once'
4. 'wtf these poor/suddenly rich uneducated people are making mistakes'
^best I can figure. Like a poor guy winning the lottery on a smaller scale. No idea how to manage the resource they have had (rightfully) returned to them.
1. screw over blacks, remove their oppurtunities education and money
2. profit for ages
3. 'guys that was wrong, lets give it all back at once'
4. 'wtf these poor/suddenly rich uneducated people are making mistakes'
^best I can figure. Like a poor guy winning the lottery on a smaller scale. No idea how to manage the resource they have had (rightfully) returned to them.
Slo said:
Did it say they divided the land into smaller portions, I assumed it was given as it was taken without being re-sized. I only read what was quoted, and didn't go to the link.
Looking over it again thought it seems they are taking the right steps. Instead of worrying about grabbing more land, they are focusing their attention to upping the productivity of the land which already has been given to black farmers.
Wait, what? Did you not see the number of articles written about the DTES over the past few weeks? One of the bus loops I take occasionally from downtown goes right through that area and there were plenty of non-Vancouverites taking in the sights. Hell, I was down there for the Chinese New Year celebrations (Chinatown is extends into the DTES) and you couldn't move for the number of people, tourists or otherwise. A full on campout by the homeless in the DTES just ended on Monday - after the Olympics - when additional housing was found. So don't toss out throwaway lines like that without having an inkling of what it's like here on the ground, man.harSon said:
Schmattakopf
Member
It is so difficult to read about ZA.
.funkmasterb said:
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
catfish said:
I pretty much agree this analysis, but I think if you start generalizing from the basic premises of this post, you will ultimately come to conclusions that are unpalatable to lots of people on GAF.
Basically, you're saying it is unwise to suddenly transfer resources to a population without much human capital (low levels of education, little practical training, little familiarity with values such as thrift and hard work, etc.) because those resources will go to waste. They will be used inefficiently and lower the welfare of the nation as a whole.
Under these assumption, it also makes sense to be skeptical of the effectiveness of redistributive policies, especially lump-sum transfers. Poor people, being less prudent, less educated, and on average, less intelligent, will not choose to invest the transferred money on things that will increase their productivity in the long-run. A poor household will not suddenly start making good parenting and financial decisions (motivating their children to do well in school, saving more, etc.) after receiving a hefty check in the mail; they'll likely buy a flatscreen television in an attempt to emulate richer households. A more dramatic example is a homeless person winning $100,000 from the lottery and spending all of it on booze. So, in other words, lump-sum transfers are not guaranteed solutions to poverty and economic inequality, and they will probably not help economic growth at all. This is especially true if you not only believe that poor people make bad life decisions, but that they are poor to begin with because of bad life decisions. In the end, this is basically a restatement of the old cliché: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
It was a dumb plan and the outcome is not a surprise. The ANC gave the land to political friends and/or black families for popularity sakes. No thought was put into it.
If they wanted to do a plan like this they should have put together a training program and those who passed would get land and those who didn't tough shit.
It would still be a racist program though.
If they wanted to do a plan like this they should have put together a training program and those who passed would get land and those who didn't tough shit.
It would still be a racist program though.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
Ranger X said:This thread wants to tell the truth but no one will.
Or may I ask my wife (wich is african) to tell you the truth and why this is happening?
.
I'm all ears.
I really doubt that the "truth" about Africa's economic problems is somehow readily apparent but that our PCness is hindering us from saying it explicitly.
you're right there quoting me like sharks :lol
Nah, seriously, there's probably a cultural question in there but I don't think we could seriously tackle this story online with all the GAF crowd. And even if my wife would be here as a poster (she's not), people would probably say she's racist or "white-ised" or something along those lines.
In all honestly this topic is interesting but it's too much playing with fire. Will continue to follow the discussions though.
.
Nah, seriously, there's probably a cultural question in there but I don't think we could seriously tackle this story online with all the GAF crowd. And even if my wife would be here as a poster (she's not), people would probably say she's racist or "white-ised" or something along those lines.
In all honestly this topic is interesting but it's too much playing with fire. Will continue to follow the discussions though.
.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
It is really a rough patch.. because there has been so much taken away from the people there and to give it back to them seems right, and there are some people who had nothing to do with it, but still did gain an advantage from being white, getting taken from...
I don't think there an answer to this problem that would make things ok..
I don't think there an answer to this problem that would make things ok..
Desaparecido said:
I honestly don't get this thought process.
The ANC aren't saints by any means but since they took power, South Africa has:
- Seen its unemployment drop from 50% (Most of which were Black South Africans) to 23.5%
- Lowered its dept from 5% of GDP to .05% of GDP
- Has averaged a sustainable 3-5% in growth, annually, since 1994.
- Has increased its exports significantly over the last decade.
- Has worked to minimize government involvement in industry, promoting private sector investment and competition.
- Diversified its economy, only 3-4% of which is dependent on Agriculture, while services accounts for 65%. As opposed to Zimbabwe who's agriculture accounted for more than half of its total GDP.
- Increased its involvement in the rest of the continent, basically becoming the backbone for much of it.
- Become one of 7 countries in the world to allow same sex marriage.
That's not to say everything has been a success. Recent energy issues, less than ideal results in education (and those who do succeed are lost to other countries), an inability to control violence levels and its failures in tending to the AIDS crisis for example. But that doesn't change the fact that South Africa has made several strides in the past 15 years, people seem to forget that its only been 15 years since the oppressive Apartheid regime was in control. Change doesn't happen over night.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_South_African#Current_trends
Its absolutely atrocious and the government has given its silent support.
Oh and Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, thats why organizations like Amnesty wouldnt adopt him as a "prisoner of conscience". Killing innocent people is never justified, no matter what the cause is!!!
Ranger X said:
You don't have to worry about expressing your opinion, you may be labeled for it, but as long as you come off sincere and not trollish I think posters will treat you with respect despite strong disagreement with you. Alot of my opinions go against a leftist GAF, but overall I think they will hear you out.
Some of what I see going on there seems more like revenge than equality. I would like to hear your (and your wifes) opinion on the matter.
I am Jack's total lack of suprpise.
A similar thing was done in my country by a socialist, dictatorial military government in the 70s. Rich "white" land-owners were stripped/robbed of their lands by the state and they were given to the poor, indigenous farmers, who had no fucking clue how to manage them. Lands went to shit.
A similar thing was done in my country by a socialist, dictatorial military government in the 70s. Rich "white" land-owners were stripped/robbed of their lands by the state and they were given to the poor, indigenous farmers, who had no fucking clue how to manage them. Lands went to shit.
Kaeru said:
From wikipedia:
In 1961, Mandela became leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated Spear of the Nation, and also abbreviated MK), which he co-founded.[32] He coordinated sabotage campaigns against military and government targets, making plans for a possible guerrilla war if the sabotage failed to end apartheid.[33] Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad and arranged for paramilitary training of the group.[33]
Fellow ANC member Wolfie Kadesh explains the bombing campaign led by Mandela: "When we knew that we [sic] going to start on 16 December 1961, to blast the symbolic places of apartheid, like pass offices, native magistrates courts, and things like that ... post offices and ... the government offices. But we were to do it in such a way that nobody would be hurt, nobody would get killed."[34] Mandela said of Wolfie: "His knowledge of warfare and his first hand battle experience were extremely helpful to me."[10]
Mandela described the move to armed struggle as a last resort; years of increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had not and could not achieve any progress.[10][35]
Later, mostly in the 1980s, MK waged a guerrilla war against the apartheid regime in which many civilians became casualties.[33] Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, sharply criticising those in his own party who attempted to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[36]
Up until July 2008, Mandela and ANC party members were barred from entering the United States except the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan without a special waiver from the US Secretary of State, because of their South African apartheid regime era designation as terrorists.[37][38]
As you can see, it's more complicated than just calling him a 'terrorist'.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
Blackace said:
You seem to have misinterpreted my post entirely! I was annoyed at Ranger X's claim that "This thread wants to tell the truth but no one will." We're not overly focused on being politically correct. The only reason we're not coming up with any definitive answers as to why Africa is recently going through so many economic problems is because the truth is not readily obvious--not to me, not to anyone.
I don't think "culture" or "colonialism" are complete answers, though. You guys have to realize Africa was not always the poorest region of the world, not even 50 years ago.
Quoting from this article:
This fact also totally destroys the claim that Africa is poor because Africans are somehow inherently less productive.
Furthermore, it is experiencing a lot of economic growth of late (in the past, it even endured periods of negative growth):
More here: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/03/african-poverty-is-falling.html
The important question, then, is why did Africa lag behind for some decades when Asia and other parts of the Third World were busy growing dramatically?
Partial answers:
-Anti-market, authoritarian governments
-Widespread corruption
-Tropical climate, disease
-Low foreign investment
Ranger X said:
.
WTF does this mean? :lol
Goya said:
Africa's economy is doing much better than expected over the last two decades, as a result of 1) the post-Cold War spread of capitalism beginning in the 1990s, 2) globalization finally beginning to reach Sub-Saharan Africa in the 2000s, and 3) the Chinese government investing heavily to secure rights to various natural resources over the last few years.
harSon said:
Yes SA:s murder rate is off the charts..somewhere between 25 000-30 000 murders every year.
Actually I just read up on the genocide of white farmers, its worse than what I posted before
Infants? 87 years old? Im shocked!!
Whites are a minority in SA and should be protected.
- Status