South Africa to change constitution to legalize taking away white farmers' land

A colony isn't considered a country, it's considered a possession of the colonial power. These colonies were created in the continent of Africa.

 

And who owned the continent of Africa?

 

Why ask me this?

 

Are you asking with emphasis on the word 'me' or 'this'?

 

Maybe you should take both in consideration?

 

Well, if 'me', because you appear to be supportive of taking away white farmers land.
And if 'this', because such action implies being a white farmer in SA makes such persons guilty of a criminal offense with no legal recourse.
What about white business owners or other white property owners who are not farmers? How should they be dealt with, the same?

 

I gave my arguments. I don't see you reflecting on them.

I don't recall the Jews buying back the things that the nazi's stole from them based on their ethnic background.
In fact, I don't recall anybody ever being demanded to pay for the return of stolen property.

There is an extensive affirmative action program in SA.

 

Your argument implies guilt based on a form of racial profiling. You totally ignore the fact that the origin of ALL modern humans is from Africa, and that skin colour differences occurred through a genetic process. Written history exists only going back 5-6 thousand years, while modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) who first left Africa into Europe were dark skinned and genetic changes of SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 and HERC2/OCA2 were responsible for creating differences in skin, eye, and hair colours thought to have begun around 8000 years ago.
There was no land ownership by hunter gatherers and until modern humans began settling in permanent locations and farming did property become owned. Governments arose as a means of protecting property and resources.

What was taken from the Jews by the Nazi's was returned as a result of the legal system which required documented evidence of previous ownership. Hunter gatherers only used the land which was unoccupied and bountiful and move on, and perhaps later returned to find some other group of hunter gatherers had already consumed what they had hoped to find. First come first serve.

If you can prove you owned something the courts would not require you to pay to reacquire it. I used to hunt deer and squirrels in a forested area, should I have a claim to that land?

 

Semi related, but I just heard Chuck Todd on MTP Daily say that Tucker Carlson was the leader of the white nationalists because Trump referenced a Tucker Carlson story on South Africa nationalizing white farms in a tweet. Not one person at the table thought that was the least bit outrageous.

Our news media has gone crazy.

 

I have been deep sea fishing in the Gulf of Mexico for decades. Now they have erected oil platforms in some of the areas where I fished. Does this mean that I have legal claim to these platforms? After all, wouldn't it be sweet if I could harvest all the results of their work and investment like the South Africans?

 

Gosh, what's wrong with slavery - God/Jesus APPROVES of slavery in the Bible - never says to end it, and he's had 2000 years to do that. So Christians can't morally condemn slavery.....unless they ALSO condemn their invisible wizard who lives up in the sky.

 

Oh people were kicked around by that racist government until 24 years ago.
I have yet to see you take that into account.

White people came in last.

In this case they can only prove they acquired the property thanks to a white supremacist regime.
That's now been labelled as not fair, and is being undone. I'm not seeing a moral problem in this.

 

Will this just, moral act improve life of a single black African? I dare say, not. But it makes them feel better, for sure.

 

Whites came in, brought with them an ingenuity, know how, willingness to work hard. They worked and employed these around them, improving standard of living for everyone. Now, the apartheid’ been done away with, which is about time... excellent! What’s next?

Ah yes... let’s take the evil while men land, and evict the white men out. Let’s join the rest of prosperous, glorious, white-less African banana republics.

Did I get it right?

 

its not "their land" if it was taken from blacks in 1913

 

Will black South Africans be better off if Whites concerns are not addressed?

 

justice delayed is justice denied

 

Justice is in the eye of the beholder. Be it as it may, an injustice now is being carried toward Whites. Which will not bring happiness to blacks. So... who are the winners?

 

since when did you ever care about justice?

 

Until the left can have an honest conversation as to why only whites can build modern, functional, successful, law-abiding societies while arab muslims, hispanics, and blacks cannot - there can't ever be real progress on the subject.

It is in a permanent frozen state of "blame whites" for their success even though it was anglo-american/franco/nordic work ethic and ingenuity that has driven much of mankind's technological and societal progress. The other 3 major population groups, which includes asians/japanese - who have admittedly come a long way since being forced to open their country in the 1850s and are probably the closest to a successful, advanced Western democracy not primarily populated by whites - have pretty much failed in all of their efforts.

Its a big reason I am so adament about not allowing immigration into the West from anywhere but other parts of the West.

 

I know it sucks, but white South Africans need to leave. I have friends from Zimbabwe. A local policeman came to their farm one day and told them in 15 minutes men with guns are coming to rape your children and shoot you all without mercy.

You know, real, actual bloody racism. Raped and shot for your race racism.

Come here to Australia, we love white Safas. They're hard workers. Plenty of farmland here, I'll throw in 5 acres for free.

 

Always have. Your life experience and mine are different, they ought to be; hence our definition of Justice is also different. Who’s to say, your version of Justice is correct and mine is not?

 

No land was taken from the Blacks in the Natives Land Act of 1913. It actually forbid Whites from buying more land from the Blacks. It was supported by the Black Chiefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natives_Land_Act,_1913

 

And how do you feel I should take that into account, by viewing vigilante justice as the proper corrective action?

What you seem to ignore is that whites when returning to South Africa, and Africa in general, were no longer hunter gatherers and began settling and developing areas resulting in the creation of governments, property ownership, and laws which previously did not exist.

As I understand, after the "Natives Land Act of 1913" whites were no longer allowed to buy land from blacks, nor were blacks allowed to buy land from whites. That law having been repealed in 1991 which would now allow white owned land to be bought and sold regardless of race.
Essentially, you are saying that two wrongs produce a moral right?

 

Vigilante? This is done by law. And you again refuse to respond that the white people violently oppressed the black community till 24 years ago, pushing the around. Maybe you at one point watched the movie... District 9. How they laughed at how they mistreated aliens in South Africa. It's a spin of to what they did for real in District 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Six

They still came in last.

Returning property obtained through a violent regime, like the apartheid government, is morally right. And what you essentially are saying is that no wrong may never ever be corrected against the will of the people who profited from the wrong in the past.