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

This isn’t going to end well for 99% of South Africans.

 

The problem is that they view it as a problem. The reason they view it as a problem is that they are ethno-nationalists like you apparently are. They don't see white South Africans as South Africans....because they are racist pieces of **** apparently.

Actually refusing to see natural born citizens of a country as natural born citizens of a country due to their race or ethnicity has EVERYTHING to do with ethno-nationalism.

Actually we sound exactly opposite. he'd tell you that white people in South Africa can't be native citizens of South Africa because they are white....just like he'd tell you that black people can't be native citizens of Europe for the same reason. You guys agree on ethno-nationalism, and I firmly disagree with it. You have white people in South Africa that have lived their entire lives as natural born South African citizens, their parents were natural born South African citizens and they spend their entire lives as South African citizens. To me, they are as South African as anyone else, to you and Richard Spencer, they are Europeans, not South Africans.

 

lol - so trhe white guys that perpetuated Apartheid are the inclusive group while the black victims are now the racists. You truly colors is now shown

Never said they werent natural born citizens. Natural born citizen just does not equate to native in my books.

lol - you showed your true colors earlier. No need to try and hide it.
You sound exactly like the racist you try to project on others. Stop being a coward and admit what you are.[/quote][/quote]

 

So in your mind, the fact that they are white means that they are the people who "perpetuated apartheid"? Do you know that for a fact when it comes to all of them? Funny that you say my colors are now showing after you continue to spew Alt right ideology and rhetoric about guilt based on the color of one's skin.....

So then you agree that as natural born citizens they have every bit as much right to their private property as any other natural born South African....or is private property protection only for those who have a certain color of skin?

You seem to be pretty deep into Alt right ethno-nationalist ideology and don't even seem to know it.

 

Ok it was the blacks that perpetuated apartheid - happy?

The question remains if it is their legal property or something acquired illegally, or do you think a thief should be allowed to keep stolen property cos its now 'his private property'?

speak for yourself

 

It's amazing how poorly you follow along in conversation and how confused you seem to get.

Yes, it is their legal property....also, you do know that they aren't essentially taking "stolen" property and giving it back to the "rightful owners", right? I mean, you need to know that to attempt to engage in this conversation. They are merely taking property from people who are white in order to redistribute it to people who are black. They see the country as rightfully being owned by black people and not white people....you know, the exact type of logic behind what Richard Spencer wants to do in order to make the US a white ethostate. Well, politics in South Africa are dominated by black versions of Richard Spencer and you are seemingly on board with it....so you might want to re-think your life.

 

and there is our fundamental disagreement - you dont acquire someone else's land by force and then expect to enjoy the privilege of claiming legality afterwards.

If such is acceptable to you, then you should have no problem with the blacks also taking the land from whites by force and claiming legality afterwards or is it only whites that are allowed to take other people's land by force?

 

Do you know that every one of them acquired the land by force or are they merely guilty due to the color of their skin in your eyes?

Supporting barbaric actions by one group as retaliation for barbaric actions by another group many decades ago will just lead to more suffering and it'll make everyone wrong. Apparently "revenge" is all that matters and you'd gladly have them destroy their country in order to punish a minority group for the sins of their ancestors. I guess that mentality just makes us different kinds of people....but you be you.

 

I have seen no records to the contrary. It is your loss if you have found to have purchased stolen property

Again with the false allegation. My suggestion was that the white sell the lands in the open market. But they cannot hope to keep the land under some delusions of legality the likes of which you are spouting.

If the minority group has benefited, and continue to benefit, from the sins of their ancestors, I have no problems with them being denied said benefits. Should the children of thieves continue to enjoy the largess of their father's ill gotten wealth?

 

Only if the rightful owners attempt to get it back.....you do know that's not what is happening in SA right? Just because people share a similar color of skin does not make them the same. I hate that I have to spell that out to people in 2018 but here you are.

So they can't keep the land due to the color of their skin? Would that mean they'd have to sell the land to a black South African? Also, if you are going to claim that the land isn't theirs, you can't then suggest that they have the right to sell it.

This is the problems you run into when you try to justify ethno-nationalist policies.

More likely than not, you are currently benefiting from the sins of your ancestors, does that mean you should lose your property assuming you own any?

Again, I can tell you really hate the white South Africans, and I have to wonder why that is. When combined with your support for ethno-nationalist policy.....well it doesn't say a lot of good things about you.

 

so the government should not recover stolen property once the rightful owner is not available?

What about sell in open market equates to selling to only blacks? they could sell to Indians or asians for all i care
It is a proposal to try and peacefully resolve the issue, after all, if they are no longer in possession of it, they cant be targeted for it

such policies exists only in your mind and you simply use it as an excuse for your white leaning racist ideology

you have no idea who I or my ancestors are so stop spilling BS

Still projecting your racist mentality on others.

If I really hated them as much as you claim, wouldnt I then hope they hold on to the lands till the government takes it by force, so that they can lose the land and possibly lose their lives along the way?

You are the racist guy who feels those who have benefited from the crimes of racism have the legal right and should continue to enjoy the fruits of it simply cos they are white

 

Generally speaking, the government does not go after ancestors for the crimes committed in the past. That's what you are proposing....and the only reason for it is some twisted sense of "revenge"

Ah, so the important part is that the people who own it not have a certain color of skin. Gotcha.

You are actively describing and defending ethno-nationalist policy, I mean change the races being talked about and what you are describing is identical to Richard Spencer's ideology. Again, if that's who you are, that's fine....but it's pretty pathetic.

I really don't need to know in order to make that claim, those are the odds. On top of that, you getting upset about it kind of shows that I was right.

No, just explaining yours.

That's nearly everyone in America....are you planning on giving up your home in order to be consistent with what you are claiming to be what you support?

Also, I really have to laugh at how moronic you sound sitting here spouting off with ethno-nationalist ideology while calling ME racist for not going along with it. That **** is absolutely hilarious, you just can't help yourself I guess so keep dragging those knuckles killer.

 

It really is sad that so many have fallen for the 'White Genocide in SA' talking point that racists have been using for about a decade or so now and that this talking point is so full of just outright blatant lies that we have our president repeating and major cable news channels.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...tweets-incorrect-south-african-land-seizures/

I mean, so you can probably understand why then some people think that land is owed to them. The government literally took it from them and now it is trying to give it back. That land was given up in a lifetime, people are literally filing claims that it was their land before it was taken from them due to apartheid.

So, the government has been trying to fix this issue as in, focusing on land that has been taken DURING apartheid. Yes, it targets whites because Whites were the benefactors of apartheid...but it's more about giving back land that was taken from people during apartheid. If your land wasn't acquired by kicking someone else off, then it's still your land.

Think about it this way. If your father profited from being a drug lord you don't get to benefit off of that. You don't get to benefit off of drug money, the government seizes all that, they don't go "Ah well, your innocent so you get to keep it all."

By the way, land redistribution was agreed upon with the Apartheid government...soo...blame them?

You should also, as a bonus, check the current president of SA stance on the whole thing. Hint. It's not "Kill Whitey and kick them out!"

Just here to restate the facts. It seems between racists like Lauren Southern and other white nationalists that a lot of people (Including @Bobbythegreat here) are confused about what's going on there. Seems to happen if you don't counter check your news.

I think upon learning the facts people should probably change their positions and perhaps take a more nuanced position for a rather complex political situation.

 

You call it revenge, I call it justice. Revenge would be a genocide of the whites in SA similar to the kinds of killing carried out by the same whites in the past

But no need to keep reiterating and projecting your racist idealogy that makes you think the whites in SA should hold on to their ill gotten lands.

As fate would have it, those whites will likely have to give up those stolen lands sooner rather than later, and nothing you or your dotard can do about it

 

Probably the best post I've read here. It cleared up some of my own misconceptions. Thanks for posting this.

 

Meh..... the South African government is trying to amend their constitution so that they can force white farmers off their land without compensation. That is a fact..... as it is, the government is trying to force them to sell the land for 10% of it's actual value. That part isn't really debatable. It is clear what the South African government is attempting to do.

We can debate from a moral stand point what is the proper remedy, but the facts shouldn't be in dispute.

Much of the land owned by the land owners is owned by whites (72%-84%) and whites only make up 10% of the population. Thus there is a disproportionate amount of land ownership by the former ruling elites. Most of the land being pursued is being pursued by people that are the children and grand children of the people that lost the land.

As it currently stands, South Africa is a hell hole for a variety of reasons, which I have discussed before. Simply stated, you cannot strip a country of it's culture, education, property rights and leadership and then one day just hand the country back to the native people and expect everything to go well.

At this point, almost all of the money and investment that flowed into South Africa has stopped. When the white ruling class largely left, it sucked wealth out of the country and also scared away investors because you have political instability, a lack of educated workers and too much uncertainty. Investors are not going to be clamoring to invest in that sort of environment. Further, you have a lot of corruption in the South African business and political structure with almost no over sight.

Amending the Constitution to allow the government to have the power to strip land ownership rights is not in the best interest of most South Africans because all it does is hinder further outside investment, which is what South Africa needs more than anything at this point. Further, most of the land that has been bought by the SA government and returned to the black majority, is sitting not utilized because the black farmers either do not know how to properly work the fields or do not have the money to make the land yields high enough. As a result there is a food shortage which is mostly impacting the poor.

Also, the SA constitution ALREADY has procedures in place to acquire land from the wealthy white land owners. They have been doing it for years. The issue is how much to pay. The SA government doesn't want to pay anywhere close to the value of the land.

I know that there is an election that is coming up, and the SA government is facing pressure to do something, but this proposed amendment will do more harm that good. The government needs to address their economic issues, get rid of the rampant corruption in their government and pursue stability to increase outside investment.

 

Well, according to what I've read, it only applies to claims made against people that acquired land through apartheid. It's not a general "If you are white your land is taken from you." Law. People file claims that the land being owned was taken from them and that there is a procedure against it. The claim process is so messy though that it takes so long and the government wants to speed it up...so it is a fact that the government is considering to amend their constitution to that they can take land away, but the land in question is still land taken during apartheid, I think that's important to point out. It's also not even clear if such a thing will pass but the narrative of whites having their properties taken from them because of their race solely seems to be false. The land was bought back from them (at a low cost? This seems to be under debate...) because a claim was made against them that it wasn't even initially their land in the first place.

While it is likely true that this is hurting South Africa in the now, I think sometimes countries have to do things that hurt themselves. You gotta pull out the infected tooth as it were before the infection spreads to more vital parts. I think a good historical example of this is our own Civil War and this apartheid thing is an infected tooth that looms over the country (rightfully so, it happened in our lifetimes) that has to be shooed away.

South Africa is going to hurt for some time, I think that would be true regardless of the land reform. I think the Land reform is the least violent of all future outcomes actually. Because the farm owner can take the money given and move out of the country now that they own nothing to keep them remaining there. There was never going to be a good outcome with as you say, 10% of the population (being white) owning over 70% of the land. That is a violent revolution waiting to happen where the people start to decide to actually forcefully take the land back so I'm actually fearful of what happens if the status quo continues.

 

http://theglitteringeye.com/the-key-to-development/

excerpt:

"Every country, repeat every country that has developed successfully has done so by moving relatively unproductive labor resources from agriculture to manufacturing and other more productive employment of labor without losing agricultural production. I’m more skeptical of South Africa’s seizing land from white farmers than Mr. Smith is. I think that strategy is more likely to be used as a way of cultivating political support through giving land to the ruling party’s allies than it is to promote development. I’m also more skeptical of the legal and moral underpinnings of it. I don’t think the Bantu-speaking black South Africans have any greater moral claim on the land than those of European descent do. Yes, whites are a minority in South Africa. Yes, the white minority abused the black majority during Apartheid.

"But the ancestors of the Bantu-speaking people of South Africa began their trek from West Africa in the 13th century, arriving in what is now South Africa around 1600, just about the time that the ancestors of the Boers began their trek north from the Cape."​

more at the link