(Tucker) Carlson slams South Africa's defense of land reform: 'Pure propaganda'

[MOD3]

Topics merged.

[Absalom]

Colonialism really doesn't apply here until you get to the English in the 19th century was my main point.

What tribes were denied land rights 400 - 500 years ago?

--------------------------
Apologies for the tardy response> tomorrow.

[cato potatoe]

Trump might not get all the facts straight, but I'm glad he's looking into this situation, and I would hope he offers refugee relief.

There will be a government-sanctioned white genocide at some point within the next few decades.  We already see the early stages carried out on farms, where law enforcement turns a blind eye to murders and torture.  Somebody will need to offer refugee status to a large number of people, but I don't think it will be the United States.  We were instrumental in bringing this situation about.  I regret missing the opportunity to visit South Africa when I had a chance ... as I understand, the natural beauty is remarkable.

[Smokin Joe]

The so-called "war on whites" is (at least for now) pretty much an intellectual struggle in most countries of The West.

Unfortunately in South Africa, it is as real as real can be.

Shades of Rhodesia, and headed the same way. Pack what can be carried, ship what they can, torch the farm and leave.

[goatprairie]

Shades of Rhodesia, and headed the same way. Pack what can be carried, ship what they can, torch the farm and leave.

Now is the time for all so-called lovers of humanity at the UN to finally do something positive. It's obvious that in SA the whites and blacks can't live together.
They can carve out a territory for the whites in SA.  Give them land with one of the bigger, already developed cities and evacuate all the blacks.
But I'm not holding my breath waiting for the stooges at the UN to do something like this. The same people demanding a two state solution for the Jews and Arabs in the middle east will probably oppose any division of land in SA.

[skeeter]

Now is the time for all so-called lovers of humanity at the UN to finally do something positive. It's obvious that in SA the whites and blacks can't live together.
They can carve out a territory for the whites in SA.  Give them land with one of the bigger, already developed cities and evacuate all the blacks.
But I'm not holding my breath waiting for the stooges at the UN to do something like this. The same people demanding a two state solution for the Jews and Arabs in the middle east will probably oppose any division of land in SA.

Thats basically what Apartheid was - a two state solution.

[Wingnut]

Thats basically what Apartheid was - a two state solution.

But it would be different this time because whitey won't be in charge.

[dfwgator]

Thats basically what Apartheid was - a two state solution.

Where Apartheid broke down was that the White South Africans used blacks to do the jobs that Afrikaners wouldn't do.  So that kind of blew up the notion of separation.

[skeeter]

Where Apartheid broke down was that the White South Africans used blacks to do the jobs that Afrikaners wouldn't do.  So that kind of blew up the notion of separation.

Recalling the words of George Santayana.

[Absalom]

Colonialism really doesn't apply here until you get to the English in the 19th century was my main point.

What tribes were denied land rights 400 - 500 years ago?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanguine,
Hardly want to write endlessly on this, yet I should have been
more comprehensive in my re-tort. Consider a moment:
The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, promoted by the Vatican, brought
closure to the 30 Years War, bringing an end to Europe's relentless
warfare since the High Middle Ages, for an extended period of time.
An underpinning of the Treaty was the Principle of Sovereign Right,
whereby the lawful citizens of a nation/state, having clearly defined
borders, had the right to establish and regulate their internal affairs
thru their chosen representatives; be they Kings or Commoners,
w/o foreign interference.
Additionally the Treaty alluded to Rights involving lawful citizens and
their property, addressed much later in the Declaration of the Rights
of Man.
The effect and force of the Treaty bound the European signatories yet
they did not apply its principles beyond their continent.
As a consequence, the First Explorers, be they Spanish, Portuguese,
Dutch and all the rest, did not recognize Sovereign Right within their
conquered lands and peoples, be they Aztec, Inca, Indian, Bantu, Zulu;
among dozens. And that is the very issue at play in South Africa.
The Blacks, likely present there since creation, want back what was
theirs by birthright and tradition; supported by Sovereign Right.

[Sanguine]

---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanguine,
Hardly want to write endlessly on this, yet I should have been
more comprehensive in my re-tort. Consider a moment:
The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, promoted by the Vatican, brought
closure to the 30 Years War, bringing an end to Europe's relentless
warfare since the High Middle Ages, for an extended period of time.
An underpinning of the Treaty was the Principle of Sovereign Right,
whereby the lawful citizens of a nation/state, having clearly defined
borders, had the right to establish and regulate their internal affairs
thru their chosen representatives; be they Kings or Commoners,
w/o foreign interference.
Additionally the Treaty alluded to Rights involving lawful citizens and
their property, addressed much later in the Declaration of the Rights
of Man.
The effect and force of the Treaty bound the European signatories yet
they did not apply its principles beyond their continent.
As a consequence, the First Explorers, be they Spanish, Portuguese,
Dutch and all the rest, did not recognize Sovereign Right within their
conquered lands and peoples, be they Aztec, Inca, Indian, Bantu, Zulu;
among dozens. And that is the very issue at play in South Africa.
The Blacks, likely present there since creation, want back what was
theirs by birthright and tradition; supported by Sovereign Right.

Absalom, thank you for your thoughtful response.  However, the point I was making is that SA is and has been different from most of the world with regard to colonialism, and that term doesn't really even apply there until the English during the Napoleonic wars.  The Boers did not "colonialize" and/or drive indigenous peoples off of their land.

The history of apartheid as practiced in SA was quite different than many of the racially driven types of strife worldwide.  SA was an anomaly.  (Not so much now)

[Absalom]

Absalom, thank you for your thoughtful response.  However, the point I was making is that SA is and has been different from most of the world with regard to colonialism, and that term doesn't really even apply there until the English during the Napoleonic wars.  The Boers did not "colonialize" and/or drive indigenous peoples off of their land.

The history of apartheid as practiced in SA was quite different than many of the racially driven types of strife worldwide.  SA was an anomaly.  (Not so much now)

-----------------------------------------
Fair assessment.
Stay well !