Trump: I have asked Secretary of State to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures....

You are right. But there are limits. Stolen property is one thing. So is restitution. Those are directed to the wrongdoer, not simply a category like "landowner".

I think if SA goes through with what some have held out as possible -- murder-- that is wrong. Wholesale confiscation of property doesn't feel right to me despite the atrocities of apartheid.

Maybe I feel that way because I don't know where it ends. I mentioned in an earlier post that humans have been committing injustices throughout history and that land has swapped hands numerous times due to war, invasion, etc.

Texas belonged to Mexico. It also belonged to Spain.

Would any of you be comfortable if someone knocked on your door and said they were taking your property to correct historical injustices?

If you believe it is time limited, great. But what is that limit?

 

And I respect your opinion and the way you post. But, I just can't see a situation where wholesale confiscation or worse threatened murder would ever be the right course or justice.

 

Diversity equals land confiscation, got it.

 

Something happening during your lifetime (young adults in their late 20s witnessed the apartheid) and realizing the disenfranchised group controls a significant majority in a country is a unique situation.

It’s sad what’s happening in the country, I agree. But it’s not going to happen in this country, South Africa was a perfect storm. But I won’t be shocked if the right wing uses this as a scare tactic to rally the derp state.

 

There are zero parallels between S. Africa and some kind of imagined anti-white sentiment in the United States.

I'll ask again why is that a problem?

No, it isn't. The main threat is from people who would abandon our ideals because they are scared of minorities, immigrants, and Muslims.

The key to averting a S. Africa situation in the world is to not have a racist government where the minority exercises racism and oppression as the policy of choice.

 

• Ok. I see that.
• 
  
• 
  

 

If someone kicked your family out of your house and off of your land, how long would you need for you to just forget about it?

The difference in SA versus Texas/Mexico or even Native Americans/USA is that native South Africans are the majority and hold power. When 80% of the people hold 4% of the land because the 4% stole it from them, it's not unreasonable to expect the 80% to seek justice. We can debate what that justice should look like of course but the idea that they should just forget about it is nuts.

 

This whole issue has been misrepresented by neo-nazis and now our racist friends on the right are making an issue of it. SAD!

 

Truthfully, forever. No doubt. And I concede that this issue is way more complicated than (at least for me) can be discussed rationally via short internet posts.

I agree that past injustices should be remedied to the extent possible.

But if I'm also honest, I wouldn't want my kids or grandkids or even great- grandkids subject to confiscation or worse just because of demographic changes in the US. I'm not trying to twist your point, but the fact that a particular race is in majority power doesn't justify using that power against the minorities to cure past injustices. (Yes, I see the irony.) The US is obviously guilty of our own past injustices. Who is in power shouldn't change our view on what is the proper recourse.

I get that the shortness in time may contribute to this situation. But when I said I would resent if forever, I assume my kids might too.

Tough issue for me. Granted. Also recognize that we have more pressing current issues here than a hypothetical future that could be used to instill fear of diversity/immigration. Just saying that if I hate the idea of forced confiscation here to make up for our past, I don't think I should be for it in SA.

Still very uncomfortable if the "solution" is mass confiscation. I would hope there would be a better way.

 

When you say "justice" you really mean "revenge". You are justifying stealing the land of native South African citizens based on the color of their skin because you believe that South Africa ought to be "owned" by citizens with a different color skin. So long as you own up to supporting Alt-Right style policy, I guess you can support this if you like.....but it says a lot of not great things about you.

 

I'm sure the confiscation is just a first step or temporary solution, eventually they'll come up with a final solution to the white people problem in South Africa.

 

Define Native

Rocket River

 

Natural born citizens of the country.

 

1. It is not their land cos they stole it
2. and they are not native to south africa

 

1. In most cases you are talking about something done generations ago and you are looking to punish people that had nothing to do with it based on the color of their skin.

2. Yes, in nearly every case they are.

 

That doesw not change the fact that they stole the land

No they are not, cos they are descendants of colonists/invaders. The same way American Indians (not whites or blacks) are the native Americans, Zulus, Xhosas etc are the native South Africans.

 

If by "they" you mean their ancestors or other people who might look like them, I guess.

I suppose that means you'd be all for it if a native american were to show up to your house and order you to leave because they were re-claiming what was once land that belonged to their ancestors? I'm thinking you'd see that a little bit differently...funny how that works.

Ah, so you are an ethno-nationalist then? It's interesting how many of you guys go full on Alt-Right when South Africa gets brought up.

 

I definitely wont be claiming right of ownership if my ancestors had massacred his to acquire said property just a few decades ago.

It his sheer delusion for the whites in SA to expect they would essentially monopolize the land resources like if it was still apartheid days.

But again, I already posted earlier that it would be better for them to come to a peaceful accord so as not to continue propagating the hate.

That is a real stretch. I simply dont see colonialists (even by definition) as natives of said colony

 

It would be better for them to respect property ownership and continue to build the country into something worthwhile rather than being dead set on destroying the country in order to get "revenge" on those native South African citizens who look different than the majority. If they keep it up, it'll lead to civil war and the destruction of their country. Basically they are letting their racist hate cause them to be the next Zimbabwe

Not at all, you are claiming that natural born citizens of a country aren't native to that land based on the color of their skin. That's exactly the kind of argument Richard Spencer makes. It seems you are an undercover ethno-nationalist.

 

you cannot say they should respect property ownership when said ownership is at the core of the problem. In that case, we can let the blacks too take it the land by force and have the white respect "property ownership" which their ancestors had failed to. A better solution would be for the whites to sell the land in open market.

They are not native based on their ancestry. and has nothing to do with their skin color. Ashanti and Masai are also not natives of SA even though they are not whites. So please stop trying to make it about skin color.

Despite not seeing them as natives, I have not said that the whites in SA have no right to be there and at no point have I claimed superiority of one race over another. You can liken me to anyone that feels American Indians are the natives in America but that has nothing to do with ethno-nationalism.

In fact you and Spencer sound more alike - you think whites in SA are natives of SA while Spencer probably thinks whites in US are the natives of US.

So please dont try to project yourself or others onto me.