SOUTH AFRICA’S WHITE FARMERS COULD LOSE LAND AS PARLIAMENT BACKS CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

[TomSea]

SOUTH AFRICA’S WHITE FARMERS COULD LOSE LAND AS PARLIAMENT BACKS CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
By Cristina Maza On Thursday, November 15, 2018 - 16:44

The constitutional review committee in South Africa’s parliament recommended Thursday that the country’s constitution be amended to allow the state to expropriate land without compensation if it’s in the national interest.

The recommendation was part of an ongoing and contentious debate about how to make land ownership in the country more equitable. Over two decades after South Africa’s apartheid system was ended, land ownership is still concentrated in the hands of white South African farmers, who own around 73 percent of the country’s commercial agricultural land despite making up just nine percent of the population.

Proponents of land reform argue that the state must step in to transfer ownership of some of the land to black farmers. The ruling African National Congress (ANC) released a statement Thursday throwing its weight behind the proposal.

Read more at: https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com%2fsouth-africas-white-farmers-could-lose-land-parliament-backs-constitutional-1218209%3famp%3d1

[Fishrrman]

Was the outcome ever in doubt?

Once the farmers are driven off their land, let South Africans starve, as Zimbabwe before it.
That's just what they deserve.

[sneakypete]

(insert Foghorn Leghorn's voice) What? I am shocked! SHOCKED,AH TELLS YA!

[The_Reader_David]

Generally in any reasonably developed economy ownership of commercial agricultural land is concentrated in the hands of a small group of farmers.  I guess the South Africans have not learned from Zimbabwe, where now that Mugabe is gone, they're trying to find a way of getting more land into the hands of actual farmers (who happen to be white).

[sneakypete]

Generally in any reasonably developed economy ownership of commercial agricultural land is concentrated in the hands of a small group of farmers.  I guess the South Africans have not learned from Zimbabwe, where now that Mugabe is gone, they're trying to find a way of getting more land into the hands of actual farmers (who happen to be white).

@The_Reader_David

ANY white farmer that moves to Africa is either a masocist or has a death wish.

Or both.

Either way their leaving is no lose to the white gene pool.

[dfwgator]

"Land...land....'Land, see Snatch!'"

[berdie]

@The_Reader_David

ANY white farmer that moves to Africa is either a masocist or has a death wish.

Or both.

Either way their leaving is no lose to the white gene pool.

I don't know that white farmers are moving there.  I think they have been there for generations. I'd have a hard time leaving my place...much like these people.

[sneakypete]

I don't know that white farmers are moving there.  I think they have been there for generations. I'd have a hard time leaving my place...much like these people.

@berdie

Most of the white farmers had their farms and bank accounts stolen a long time ago,and the farms turned over to blacks. Mostly those related to the ruling tribe. The immediate result was famine and having to have the UN provide them with food to eat. Since then others have been murdered and lost their farms that way,and some have just abandoned them and left penniless because there were no buyers and their bank accounts had been seized,also.

Insurance companies in Africa are actually selling Rape Insurance to white women,who are buying the policies so they can afford medical treatment in case the blacks that rape them have AIDS. Don't forget,Africa is the place where adult men were raping infants because they thought it was a cure for AIDS.

[Absalom]

And before that land 'became the possession of white farmers'
(aka: Boers), it belonged to whom?  Hint: the Zulu Tribesmen.

[berdie]

@berdie

Most of the white farmers had their farms and bank accounts stolen a long time ago,and the farms turned over to blacks. Mostly those related to the ruling tribe. The immediate result was famine and having to have the UN provide them with food to eat. Since then others have been murdered and lost their farms that way,and some have just abandoned them and left penniless because there were no buyers and their bank accounts had been seized,also.

Insurance companies in Africa are actually selling Rape Insurance to white women,who are buying the policies so they can afford medical treatment in case the blacks that rape them have AIDS. Don't forget,Africa is the place where adult men were raping infants because they thought it was a cure for AIDS.

I don't doubt anything you say...but are you talking about Zimbabwe?

[Dexter]

I don't know that white farmers are moving there.  I think they have been there for generations. I'd have a hard time leaving my place...much like these people.

How did it come to be that white people own a bunch of land in Africa? It might all be connected somehow. 

[sneakypete]

And before that land 'became the possession of white farmers'
(aka: Boers), it belonged to whom?  Hint: the Zulu Tribesmen.

@Absalom

No,it didn't belong to anyone. There were a few pygmies running around in small bands,but they were "roamers" and had no real settlements. It was the Afrikaners that brought the Zulu's in to work.

If you want to read some truly interesting novels about the origins of civilization in South Africa,read the novels of Wilbur Smith,starting with "When the Lion Feeds". He is in his 90's now,and his family was one of the first families to move there from England. It is historic fiction based on real people and real events. Some are composite characters,and some were real people. One of the most interesting series on any subject that I have ever read.

[sneakypete]

I don't doubt anything you say...but are you talking about Zimbabwe?

@berdie

Yes,and no. I am generalizing about Africa in general,and the truth is one African nation of today has pretty much the same recent history as any other African nation of today. Tribal warfare followed by white occupation and civilizing,followed by communist and racist uprisings against the whites,followed by what would be car war crimes if the guilty parties were several shades paler.

BTW,when desperate for work and money once I almost agreed to take a job as a cattle guard on a ranch in Zimbabwe. This was around 1975 or so. Right after that offer was made I got a good paying job at a machine shop,so I didn't go.

[sneakypete]

How did it come to be that white people own a bunch of land in Africa? It might all be connected somehow. 

@Dexter

In some (most?) cases,like in South Africa,they just moved in and occupied empty land. Once they got the farms,mines,and cities going,the Africans moved in for the work.

[SZonian]

How did it come to be that white people own a bunch of land in Africa? It might all be connected somehow. 

Much like CA and the desert SW USA, the whites in Africa turned land that was desolate into prime, arid food producing land.  Dumbass...the "resident" Africans of the time were mostly nomadic hunter-gatherers.  They didn't give one simple shit back then about whites growing crops.

[Absalom]

@Absalom

No,it didn't belong to anyone. There were a few pygmies running around in small bands,but they were "roamers" and had no real settlements. It was the Afrikaners that brought the Zulu's in to work.

If you want to read some truly interesting novels about the origins of civilization in South Africa,read the novels of Wilbur Smith,starting with "When the Lion Feeds". He is in his 90's now,and his family was one of the first families to move there from England. It is historic fiction based on real people and real events. Some are composite characters,and some were real people. One of the most interesting series on any subject that I have ever read.

-----------------------
Sneaky, as you must be aware, novels at best, are merely
present impressions of the past and certainly, hardly history.
The Zulu are Bantu, the largest ethnic grouping in Natal.
The lands the Boers took control over were communal, having
been occupied by the Zulu Nation for more than 500 years.
The notion that these lands didn't belong to anyone prior to
the Boers is absolutely preposterous.

[sneakypete]

-----------------------
Sneaky, as you must be aware, novels at best, are merely
present impressions of the past and certainly, hardly history.
The Zulu are Bantu, the largest ethnic grouping in Natal.
The lands the Boers took control over were communal, having
been occupied by the Zulu Nation for more than 500 years.
The notion that these lands didn't belong to anyone prior to
the Boers is absolutely preposterous.

@Absalom

I guess you are going to claim that Jews own the planet because Adam and Eve were the first (supposedly) humans and were Jewish?

One thing that has been proven over and over since the dawn of time is that no one owns a damn thing they can't defend.  Wandering through a vast area on an occasional hunting trip doesn't mean you own a land. Occupying,improving,and defending a land is what implies ownership.

Vacant land with no one around to claim or defend ownership is not owned by anyone.

[Dexter]

@Absalom

I guess you are going to claim that Jews own the planet because Adam and Eve were the first (supposedly) humans and were Jewish?

One thing that has been proven over and over since the dawn of time is that no one owns a damn thing they can't defend.  Wandering through a vast area on an occasional hunting trip doesn't mean you own a land. Occupying,improving,and defending a land is what implies ownership.

Vacant land with no one around to claim or defend ownership is not owned by anyone.

Can you at least see why black Africans might take issue with white people owning all of the land in South Africa? I'm not saying they're right to forcefully take it back.

[sneakypete]

Can you at least see why black Africans might take issue with white people owning all of the land in South Africa?

@Dexter

Yes. They are greedy,evil,ignorant shitheads that are being manipulated by their educated leadership to be cannon fodder to make the leadership rich and powerful.
 

[Absalom]

@Absalom

I guess you are going to claim that Jews own the planet because Adam and Eve were the first (supposedly) humans and were Jewish?

One thing that has been proven over and over since the dawn of time is that no one owns a damn thing they can't defend.  Wandering through a vast area on an occasional hunting trip doesn't mean you own a land. Occupying,improving,and defending a land is what implies ownership.

Vacant land with no one around to claim or defend ownership is not owned by anyone.

----------------------------------
Sneaky, respectfully; you're too smart for such absurd nonsense.
* The cultures/societies of the Fertile Crescent, Akkadians, Babylonians,
Sumerians; among dozens, preceded the Jews by multiple centuries.
* The Bible is emphatically not a legal document.
* Ownership at its core is the right to possess; one of whose
primary supports has always been presence, or in slang,
the guy who was there first versus the guy who was there last.
The principle of Sovereign Right, addressed this matter around
1650 defining the right of the people in place to determine who
can come into that place.
At its core, this is the issue at play between migrants and the
bona fide citizens of the USA.

[mirraflake]

I read a few months back the white farmers in SA are hiring hardcore Seal/Spetnatz operators to protect them vow they will not be run off like Zimbabawe.

We'll see. 

There was also talk of Russia hiring and moving these farmers to help turn Russia into a exporting agriculture economy.

[sneakypete]

----------------------------------

@Absalom

* The cultures/societies of the Fertile Crescent, Akkadians, Babylonians,
Sumerians; among dozens, preceded the Jews by multiple centuries.
* The Bible is emphatically not a legal document.

That depends on who you talk to. I tend to mostly agree with you,but will only add those were just the first "NATION people" that we know about. No doubt there were small tribes all over the place that had developed cultures.

* Ownership at its core is the right to possess; one of whose
primary supports has always been presence, or in slang,
the guy who was there first versus the guy who was there last.
The principle of Sovereign Right, addressed this matter around
1650 defining the right of the people in place to determine who
can come into that place.

Ever explain that to a zoning official? State Highway Dept?

You and I will keep our land for precisely as long as we retain the strength and ability to keep it,and not one minute longer. The individual ownership of private property is a relatively new concept,and I am not certain it was EVER an accepted concept in Tribal Africa. Other than for the Royal Families,that is.

[Absalom]

That depends on who you talk to. I tend to mostly agree with you,but will only add those were just the first "NATION people" that we know about. No doubt there were small tribes all over the place that had developed cultures.

Ever explain that to a zoning official? State Highway Dept?

You and I will keep our land for precisely as long as we retain the strength and ability to keep it,and not one minute longer. The individual ownership of private property is a relatively new concept,and I am not certain it was EVER an accepted concept in Tribal Africa. Other than for the Royal Families,that is.

----------------------------
Fair enough and well articulated.

[Smokin Joe]

----------------------------
Fair enough and well articulated.

Yep. Not an alien concept here, either (adverse possession, AKA: squatters' rights)

[sneakypete]

----------------------------
Fair enough and well articulated.

@Absalom

Thanks.