South African Land Grab just started

Status
Not open for further replies.

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
I have never uttered those words on here ever, nor got involved in the commentary of who's rights there were to lands in Gaza and the Middle East. I may have interjected when one side or the other painted one only one side the saint that committed abhorrent actions, but that is as far as it went to my recollection.

Again, do not shift this on me personally, I am on the topic who who has the rights to SA farmlands, and no, "color of skin" does not grant rights because the name has Africa in it. Africa is a continent, SA is a country within that continent, no different than Mexico touching the United States in North America.
No no no my dear fellow, I distinctly remember you taking the Israeli side.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
19,825
14,807
685
No no no my dear fellow, I distinctly remember you taking the Israeli side.
Ok, find the fucking thread and tag me in it and I will do the searching of my comments for you.

All your are doing now, is trying to pin something on me, with "your memory" but no posts as proof. Instead of answering my original question, you are now shifting the narrative when the argument starts to crumble.
 

Whataburger

Milk Connoisseur
Feb 2, 2018
3,524
2,021
395
Um Mexico owned most of US before the Mexican-American war that is what I meant. I know it is in spanish. Mexico lost half of the land it "owned" then. I think.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,351
1,040
540
Yeah I agree with you there.


If we can't call our own problems at home genocide how dare we do the same for SA?
Way to further derail off the topic. It's almost as if you're framing murder racially when the vast majority of the murder rate has to do with their differing SES levels, not race. See: hate crime statistics. We were talking about genocide right? Christ.
 
Last edited:

Whataburger

Milk Connoisseur
Feb 2, 2018
3,524
2,021
395
Oh Luigi...

Way to further detail off the topic. It's almost as if you're framing murder racially when that vast majority of that murder rate has to do with their differing SES levels. Christ.
I was agreeing with you though but SES dropping lol ok
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,351
1,040
540
Oh Luigi...


I was agreeing with you though but SES dropping lol ok
You weren't agreeing because I wasn't talking about US interracial murder rates when I referenced Chicago. Why would you bring that up? I was taking about the murder rate in an American city being 5x as high as a supposed country-wide genocide.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
19,825
14,807
685
Um Mexico owned most of US before the Mexican-American war that is what I meant. I know it is in spanish. Mexico lost half of the land it "owned" then. I think.
The land they took from the First Nation's people is what I am talking about, lol. So that is where we constantly come full circle. Mexico can't lay claim to the notion of "the land was stolen" (or in this case, lost in war) when not too long before that their whole governancce was that of the very same European colonization.
 

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
Ok, find the fucking thread and tag me in it and I will do the searching of my comments for you.

All your are doing now, is trying to pin something on me, with "your memory" but no posts as proof. Instead of answering my original question, you are now shifting the narrative when the argument starts to crumble.
I put my hands up, I did a little search and you're right, you took a more neutral stand. So I apologise for mis-characterising you like that bud.

I hope you're taking a more neutral stance here too?

Just for full clarity, I think this will cause problems in the agriculture industry in South Africa.

But, also remember that "all major political parties in South Africa agree on the need for extensive land reform in the country, where 72% of agricultural land is in the hands of white farmers, according to the Land Audit Report, despite white people making up 8% of the population."

Those statistics don't look very good do they? Imagine if in the UK, Pakistanis owned 75% of the land? Surely you would be asking for land reforms there no? Even if it was all gained legally.

But I do think there should be compensation given to the white farmers, they shouldn't have to pay for other peoples sins.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
19,825
14,807
685
I put my hands up, I did a little search and you're right, you took a more neutral stand. So I apologise for mis-characterising you like that bud.

I hope you're taking a more neutral stance here too?

Just for full clarity, I think this will cause problems in the agriculture industry in South Africa.

But, also remember that "all major political parties in South Africa agree on the need for extensive land reform in the country, where 72% of agricultural land is in the hands of white farmers, according to the Land Audit Report, despite white people making up 8% of the population."

Those statistics don't look very good do they? Imagine if in the UK, Pakistanis owned 75% of the land? Surely you would be asking for land reforms there no? Even if it was all gained legally.

But I do think there should be compensation given to the white farmers, they shouldn't have to pay for other peoples sins.
I am definitely taking a more neutral stance here too when it comes to rights, which is why I am asking the questions as to "who's rights are those lands" since neither party is aboriginal to them.

How it goes about however (through seizure and/or violence), is where it gets sticky, not unlike Israel/Palestine. But even with those statistics, it is breaking down based on race, and that is disigenuous. Same could be said for any western nation where whites own the most farms and businesses. Should there be seizures due to the perceived inequality of racial statistics?

The motives and reasoning is where the argument falls apart since neither party is native, and no, the color of one's skin does not grant native status cause the country happens to touch others on the continent. That within itself is a racist stance to have, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,351
1,040
540
I am definitely taking a more neutral stance here too when it comes to rights, which is why I am asking the questions as to "who's rights are those lands" since neither party is aboriginal to them.

How it goes about however (through seizure and/or violence), is where it gets sticky, not unlike Israel/Palestine. But even with those statistics, it is breaking down based on race, and that is disigenuous. Same could be said for any western nation where whites own the most farms and businesses. Should there be seizures due to the perceived inequality of racial statistics?

The motives and reasoning is where the argument falls apart since neither party is native, and no, the color of one's skin does not grant native status cause the country happens to touch others on the continent. That within itself is a racist stance to have, IMO.
It breaks down along race due to apartheid, which banned blacks from land ownership in "white" areas (aka most areas) for half a century leading into the 1990s. The solution needs to account for race in a significant way.
 
Last edited:

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
I am definitely taking a more neutral stance here too when it comes to rights, which is why I am asking the questions as to "who's rights are those lands" since neither party is aboriginal to them.

How it goes about however (through seizure and/or violence), is where it gets sticky, not unlike Israel/Palestine. But even with those statistics, it is breaking down based on race, and that is disigenuous. Same could be said for any western nation where whites own the most farms and businesses. Should there be seizures due to the perceived inequality of racial statistics?

The motives and reasoning is where the argument falls apart since neither party is native, and no, the color of one's skin does not grant native status cause the country happens to touch others on the continent. That within itself is a racist stance to have, IMO.
I'm in two minds about this.

Firstly - Taking land without any compensation is criminal. There are still families, children, innocent people who will be harmed by this policy. This is not the right way to go forward and does tremendous damage to the character and soul of the South Africa.

And the violence against farmers seems, logically atleast, to be directly related to anti-white hatred/bigotry, but I couldn't find any figures or sources to back that up. The one source I did find, such as AgriSA, portray that there is less violence now, so I take that with a touch of salt. I think I would wait till some neutral international organisations release their reports. But for now, it definitely is not looking good.

Secondly - I can see why there is a need for massive land reform in the country. When 72% of the land is owned by 8% of the population, that is something that needs addressing.

What do you mean by "percieved inequality"? Are the "72% of the land owned by 8% of the population" wrong? To be fair, I found the source in a Guardian article, didn't really look at the source myself too deeply. Guardian normally has a good track record on this sort of stuff. We can't really compare Europe to South Africa, come on, you know that's not the same comparison.

But cards fully on the table, I have only recently started reading about the topic and still have alot more to learn about it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.