“Time For Reconciliation Is Over” – South Africa Votes To Confiscate White-Owned Land

in many countries only farmers can be owners. so is normal.

Racism is ugly in any color, by white or black or yellow. Survival of the people that is the big tribe of which we are all apart of, requires clear thinking not just emotional reaction. Going back over four hundred years it is certain that both noble and dishonorable actions brought us, the big tribe to this moment.
We should therefore proceed by just actions today. Compensation would be logical, an unemotional solution.

Generally speaking – ok, by all means. Regarding SA your comment is not objective.
“Compensation would be logical, an unemotional solution.”
Do you know how many times they have been compencated? It is never enough. The moment they finish their last acquired “redestribution” they turn their eyes to the whites and ask for more. They are not able to create, just consume.

I suppose you don’t hear him b*tching because nobody in Europe is trying to disposes a significant number of Europeans of the farmland they owned for centuries under a pretext that the “other people” are natives – when the fact is that todays “natives” actually murdered the real natives long before first whites ever set foot to the place…

Just wrong, we have always been here, where do you get these strange ideas from, are you from another planet?.

Re. Australia it’s a red herring.

you distracting from the the real point, that it is a lie to say that the RSA’s farmers stole their land from other people.

Again you are incapable of reading what I said, never said that black immigrants to Europe are at the present time claiming the lands of Europeans, but finding right that what they are now doing in the RSA would justify for them to steal the land of farmers in Europe.

Na,just Google..

…..Oh seriously? Which website were you advised to visit?

countrystudies.us/south-africa/3.htm

….Just one site? WELL, in any case I can understand the Blacks resentment against social injustice in South Africa…But at the same time justice applies for all and violence, spoliation against Whites is unacceptable and is high criminality.

I’m Ok with debating history, but don’t try and slip me ideology – that I’m allergic to. Bantus came from the north assimilating pillaging and killing people and settled in NW part that is today Natal. The western most progress was Xhosa settling in East Cape. On the other hand the Dutch settled Table Bay and small area around it, actually preventing early Dutch settler going beyond colony border. Wast areas of today’s SA were wildernesses populated with wild animals only. Dutch did fight the San and Xhosa trying to secure more land in the Cape. In early 1800s when British took over the Cape and Dutch decided to move away from British control Zulus started butchering other people living in W i NW parts of the country killing up to 2 million people in the process. Slaughtering that many people – way more then the Dutch managed to kill fighting San and Xhosa btw – had a side effect of emptying the country. The Boers didn’t trek east because the land was full of hostile blacks itching for a fight – on the contrary, they benefited from Shaka’s rampage. Now in no way an I defending or attacking the concept of 17-19 century colonialism – it’s a historical fact characteristic for the period. Europeans were infinitely more successful in it, but other people too were trying to take over land before and after that era. Zulus were as much an aggressive and expansionist society as the Boers. They fought each other and in free time subdued lesser tribes around them. And now descendants of the Zulu will claim all the land because they have roughly similar shade of skin as the people they killed and enslaved. While the Boer descendants will have to give up because their skin color is too pale? And somehow that’s not racism and new Apartheid this time with black people being top dogs. To be clear this move has nothing to do with getting the land in the hands of the people that owned it 400 years ago for several reasons: those people were killed either by the Dutch or by the Bantus, the survivors have no way of proving they owned the land, majority of black people inhabiting today’s SA aren’t even descended from Zulus or other black natives, but immigrated from other parts of Africa in last 150 years. And last but not least, judging from recent Zimbabwean experience, land will be distributed to the ruling party loyalist that will ruin it in a few years. Crop yield will drop significantly, because most land will end up being unused or used only for subsistence farming and there won’t be enough food to feed 50 million hungry people. And the real problem will be that after getting rid of “white boogie men”, by the time SA runs out of food – ANC will run out their favorite scapegoats…

Natal is situated on the east coast of SA. If I say West and NW(I’m not talking about North West province) what I’m actually talking about is the northern part of the west coast of south africa, which is called the Northern Cape and by west I mean the Western Cape. By the time white settlers arrived,these areas were mostly occupied by the San/khoi. The eastern part of the country EC, KwaZulu Natal were occupied by Bantu tribes mainly the Xhosa’s and the Zulu’s. Your account of history is full of holes. The battle of blood river was fought between Zulu’s and dutch settlers so its so its incorrect to say that dutch settlers avoided the Bantu as if they went around them. I don’t know where you get this number 2million. The Bantu settled in what is now called South Africa over 2000 years ago. The people who were here before the Bantu are the San/khoi. They were wiped out by dutch and/or english settlers. They were not killed off by the Bantu. It occurs to me now after reading your remarks again that you don’t know or understand who the Bantu are. Bantu is a broad term which includes most of the black tribes in sub saharan africa. For example, Xhosa’s are Bantu,Zulu’s are Bantu,Sotho,Tshwana, Tsonga, Shona ,Swati all the tribes living southern africa today are all Bantu. The Bantu people moved from west africa thousands of years, migrating east and south.The black people living in Kenya and Tanzania today speaking Swahili,are Bantu.Thats why all our languages have similarties. Originally we are one people,The Bantu. I’ll say it again,we the Bantu arrived here in what is today called SA over 2000 years ago. The only other people who were around here that time were San/Khoi who are not Bantu. We the Bantu didn’t wipe these people out,that was done by english and dutch settlers. We mostly got along with these people and even intermarried with them. Especially the Xhosa(who are Bantu). Now you want to deny us our heritage and ancestry also by saying we are not descendants of Zulus and Xhosa’s and Sotho’s and the rest of the Bantu tribes who’ve been here for more than 2 millennia? You are trying to whitewash history to cover your sins. Shame,shame..

When the early Portuguese sailors rounded the Cape of Good Hope in the 15th century very few Bantu speakers were found there. The predominant indigenous population around the Cape was made up of Khoisan peoples. Following the establishment of the Dutch Cape Colony, European settlers began arriving in Southern Africa in substantial numbers. Around 1770 Trekboers from the Cape encountered Bantu speakers around the Great Fish River and frictions arose between the two groups. – and late 1700s is the time when Zulus under Shaka started butchering other Bantus virtually emptying the land that was already sparsely populated helping the Boers occupy it.

From the late 18th and early 19th centuries, there were two major areas of frictional contact between the white settlers and the Bantu speakers in Southern Africa. Firstly, as the Boers moved north inland from the Cape they encountered the Xhosa, the Basotho, and the Tswana. Secondly attempts at large coastal settlements were made by the British in Xhosa territory (now the Eastern Cape), and in Zululand (now KwaZulu-Natal).

The San include the indigenous inhabitants of Southern Africa before the southward Bantu migrations from North and East Africa reached the region 700 years ago, which led to the Bantu populations displacing the Khoi and San to become the predominant inhabitants of Southern Africa. – so you predate the Dutch in SA for mere 300 years not a millennia.

Nobody want’s to deny your heritage – kindly cut with the SJW BS – my point is that your heritage includes dispossession and colonization of people that were in SA before you – just like the Boer heritage. I belive Mandela had plenty of reasons why he decided to make a compromise on the land issue – and it wasn’t weakens, because he didn’t compromise on any other major issue. When promoting policy of forceful confiscation of land under the pretext of “returning it to the original owners” the question arises – Where do you draw the line? Will the Bantu return all the land to the original owners the San or will just taking the land from the whites – just because they’re white – will right all historical wrongs?

In the end, it’s very interesting and rather expected, that you didn’t answer to the last part of my comment, about real reasons of this political decision and how thing will develop after…

P.S. I honestly hope we can have a genuine and civil discussion. So pls. cut the “shame” shit – OK?

Below is an extract from the website with the URL: countrystudies.us/south-africa/
Their source is the ‘The U.S. Library of Congress’. This will be my last comment on this topic. I suggest that anyone who wants the historical facts without “ideology” go and check out this site,they have everything there,the whole history of SA. I’ve just copied and pasted one of the sections. This way we don’t have to debate about recorded historical facts.
The Arrival of Bantu-Speaking Africans
South Africa Table of Contents
Bantu-speaking Africans, whose descendants make up the overwhelming majority of the present-day inhabitants of South Africa, had moved south of the Limpopo River by about 1,500 years ago. Farmers who combined knowledge of cattle-keeping and slash-and-burn (swidden) cultivation with expertise in metal-working, the Bantu speakers came from West Central Africa north of the Congo River near present-day Cameroon. Historians and archaeologists now argue that this movement took place not in any single great migration but rather in a slow southward shift of people throughout sub-Saharan Africa that resulted from the gradual drying up of the Sahara beginning about 8,000 years ago. The southward movement involved not the conquering hordes previously imagined but rather a moving frontier of farmers seeking new fields and pastures who interacted with pastoralists and hunter-gatherers, sometimes trading, sometimes incorporating people in client relationships, sometimes fighting for access to the same crucial resources. The farmers settled throughout southern Africa east of the 400-millimeter rainfall line and as far as the southwestern limits of cropping along the Great Kei River.

The Bantu-speaking farmers chose to minimize risks rather than to maximize production in their use of the environment. They kept large herds of cattle and invested these animals with great material and symbolic value. Cattle provided a means to acquire and to display considerable wealth, and they were used for significant social and political transactions, such as bridewealth compensation (lobola ) and tribute demands. Cattle were also valued for their milk and for their hides, but they were seldom killed for their meat except on ceremonial occasions. Hunting of game continued to provide a major source of protein, while additional supplies came from domesticated goats and sheep. Bantu speakers also cultivated a range of indigenous crops, including millet, sorghum, beans, and melons along with other grains and vegetables. Those close to the sea collected shellfish and fished. By utilizing such a great range of food sources, the farmers spread their risks in a difficult ecological system constantly subject to drought, disease, and crop failure.

Still, the accumulation of large herds and the cultivation of extensive fields produced greater concentrations of population and considerably more stratification among Bantu speakers than among their San and Khoikhoi neighbors. Archaeologists have found evidence of settlements established more than 1,400 years ago comprising several thousand people each. Toutswe, in eastern Botswana, consisted of a series of communities built on large flat-topped hills with fields cultivated below and cattle pastured locally. The residents smelted iron and engaged in extensive trade with people as far east as the Indian Ocean. Similar large communities emerged at least 1,000 years ago just south of the Limpopo River where Bambandyanalo and then Mapungubwe arose as significant early states (both situated at the intersection of the present-day borders of Botswana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa). Cultivating extensive fields and holding large numbers of cattle, the residents of these states also produced finely worked gold and copper ornaments, hunted for ivory, and engaged in extensive long-distance trade. They were generally presided over by chiefs who held considerable–although never total–power; elders always had to be consulted about major decisions. Compared with the smaller-scale communities of San and Khoikhoi, the Bantu-speaking societies were marked by greater degrees of stratification: of old over young, men over women, rich over poor, and chiefs over commoners.

There were, however, significant differences between the settlement patterns and the degree of political centralization established by Bantu speakers who settled inland and by those who lived closer to the coast. The inland Bantu speakers, termed Sotho-Tswana on the basis of their dialects, concentrated in greater numbers around water sources and trading towns. By the late sixteenth century, a series of powerful hereditary chiefs ruled over the society known as the Rolong, whose capital was Taung. The capital and several other towns, centers of cultivation and livestock raising as well as major trading communities, had populations of 15,000 to 20,000. By contrast, the Bantu-speakers termed Nguni, who settled on the coastal plains between the Highveld (see Glossary) and the Indian Ocean, lived in much smaller communities and had less hierarchical political structures. Moving their cattle often in search of fresh pastureland, they lived in small communities scattered across the countryside. In many cases, a community identified itself on the basis of descent from some ancestral founder, as did the Zulu and the Xhosa. Such communities could sometimes grow to a few thousand people, as did the Xhosa, the Mpondo, the Mthethwa, and others, but they were usually far smaller.

By 1600 all of what is now South Africa had been settled: by Khoisan peoples in the west and the southwest, by Sotho-Tswana in the Highveld, and by Nguni along the coastal plains. Portuguese travelers and sailors shipwrecked along the coast in the seventeenth century reported seeing great concentrations of people living in apparent prosperity.

Google
Custom Search
Source: U.S. Library of Congress

According to Wikipedia there are 56 million people in South Africa. The black African population is 76.4% . In terms of real numbers that is 42.78 million black people. Wikipedia doesn’t specify if this number includes black people from the rest of Africa, but it does say there could be as much as 5 million African migrants including 3 million Zimbabweans( it says the numbers are not confirmed). But lets assume That this number of 42.78 million includes African migrants. If we subtract that 5 mill from 42.78 mill we are left with 37.78 million black SA citizens. Multiply that number by 39%(unemployment rate among black people) and you get 14.73 million unemployed black south africans. The entire white population of South Africa is 9.1% which is about 5.1 million white people. The number of black people unemployed is almost 3 times the entire white population in the country,and that excludes African migrants!!
To say that they are less educated is totally incorrect. Zimbabwes education system is rated far higher than South Africa’s. I’ve just read an article published in the Mail and Guardian Jan 2012. Their pupils score higher in Maths and Literacy than ours do. Apparently this is true for most African countries compared to us :-(
In my personal experience,when I was young,going out to eat with my parents at the local mall,the waiters and waitresses were mostly South African black citizens.Today the majority of them are African black migrants mostly from Zimbabwe.( Lower wages) The other African migrants whom I’ve met either have good paying middle income jobs or are self employed. They come here and start their own businesses whether that is being hawkers or proper registered companies( plumbing,electricians or general handymen) and they hire their own countrymen( we can actually learn something here).This is my personal experience. I don’t know what point you were making but these are facts.

It never crossed your mind that your government allowed those immigrants to take over the jobs. You will never acknowledge that South Africans are to greedy to work for the wages that some will gladly take. They would rather live on social grants, stealing from the whites or spending life in prison where food is provided. You also miss the point about employment: most whites are self employed. The rest of the nation relies on state jobs,social help or participate in the sharing of the first round of redestribution. South Africans believe that the whites owe them and must provide for them. South Africans have turned into arrogant parasits demanding from the whites. No one owes you anything. If you are so good then stand up for yourself and do something on your own. You can not. It is proven.

EVERYTHING YOU’VE JUST SAID IS NONSENSE.But for arguments sake, everything you’ve just said could just as well be applied to the UK and the indigenous population( English ,Scott’s,Irish,Welsh etc..) Didn’t they not so long ago vote to get out of the EU because of an influx of migrants and complaints that they were lowering wages and standards of living because they were willing work for less? Ever heard of Brexit? Is it because they are also useless and lazy and can’t do anything on their own? No because those racial stereotypes can only apply to Africans right..? I hope you can appreciate the irony in this, since it was the English who colonized South Africa.
Anyway like I said,everything you just said is nonsense. The situation in SA is complicated,its not “black and white”,no pun intended. For us to really understand the situation and for you to know what my actual positions are,we would have to go back about 28 years to the time when negotiations took place about ending Apartheid. What was discussed? What was the actual agreement?( between black and white). Who were the parties negotiating and how or has that deal been implemented as agreed?This comment box is not the right space to get into it.

“Nonsence ” is such a strong argument! Ha ha ha. Irrelevan comparison with UK. Answer my questions. Or, … on second thought, please, do not bother.

we are left with 37.78 million black SA citizens. Multiply that number
by 39%(unemployment rate among black people) and you get 14.73 million
unemployed black south africans.

wrong.

you should use the population 18-60 years old

It’s beside the point. The point is,even using the population 18-60,black unemlpoyment is in the millions. If you take the population 18-60 of white people with an unemployment rate of 8.3%, you don’t even reach 100k (8.3% of the entire white population of 5.1M is just over 420k). The numbers are quite telling..

btw., i agree with your both comments

Hehehe.. You’re right.. lol..!