Settlement of South Africa

Mar 2012
1,579
Following the breeze
#31
If you want to take over inhabited areas, you need a bit more than the Boer structure. In every colony where this happened the army was involved. So either it was sparsely inhabited (if at all) or de Boers had a top-notch organized army. The real conflicts started when they came into touch with the Zulu and Bantu (who also removed the natives btw).
I would love to see your evidence regarding the Bantu people removing the Khoi from their land, because this is simply not true :notrust: .
 
Mar 2012
1,579
Following the breeze
#32
The actual problem seems to be that ANC is mismanaging the economy for quite some time and are now starting to feel it in the polls. So they are now scapegoating plus stealing votes from Malema. Happens all the time in history (eg the Dixiecrats turning on blacks)
Now this, is actually party correct :) ! It's a very small part of the bigger picture which resulted in the "Land Expropriation" issue. And it also forms part of the reason that I am not a fan of the policy, even though I understand it's necessity.
 

holoow

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
3,666
Vilnius, Lithuania
#33
Ighayere - it was in a clip from some English-speaking news channel. Since I thought it might me a little biased I wanted to ask if it's true or not.

Willempie - it's outright racism of the worst kind alright. I'm afraid it's going to escalate since I doubt all Boer are just gonna sit and take it, they have weapons and a lot of them are former mercenaries and soldiers with experiences in the bush wars and insurgencies. Despite being older they can probably still muster more discipline and cohesion than the current ANC controlled army. To fight back they need to be united though. If they take them out separately they're easy targets as proven by the horrendous plaasmoorde uit in de bos. In a way I hope they can all leave safely somewhere abroad and leave the whole lot to starve. Although the Boer are worth their own money too. I wouldn't want them in my country as those who emigrate stay among themselves and form pretty closed communities. A lot of them don't assimilate well and thus don't fully integrate in the society of the host country but rather complain how it's not the same as back home. They'd be happy only in an ethnostate of their own since they hate being ruled by others and they don't mix (which is not a bad thing imo). I certainly don't want to see them all killed though.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
4,575
Netherlands
#34
My understanding is that the Netherlands annexed a small bit of German land (the country's government had wanted to annex more than that but were unable to get the Allied governments to agree to it) as an attempt at a partial compensation for what had happened in WW2, and then later West Germany had to pay the government of the Netherlands an exorbitant amount of money in order to buy that small bit of land back from the Netherlands.
That is about right. But that didn't really cover personal damages.
But regardless of whether Germany ever paid anything to the Netherlands as an attempt at partial recompense for WW2, I don't see how this argument above about going back to the nth degree is applicable to the situation in South Africa. Apartheid ended only a few decades ago and there are many people alive today that had to grow up as economically and socially restricted peasants in slums. The groups to which they belonged had been corralled into these slums after some of the land their ancestors were living on was taken and sold to European descended buyers.
I think we both agree on the problem at hand. I disagree on the cause (a lot of the slums are descendants of immigrants from the time there was apartheid).
But that is neither here or there. What you have is a situation where you have a small group of Boer farmers, who are doing well in agriculture and own quite a lot of land. On the other hand you have townships where poverty and crime are endemic.
Ideally you would have all the townships working on the farms, but that just doesn't work. If they had need for those people they would have been hired decades ago. Modern agriculture requires few hands. The other economic initiatives also have failed to address the problem. I don't have a magic wand, but I don't see how just kicking people of their land is going to do anything beneficial. It is not just Boers that owned the stuff for centuries. A lot of the farms have been sold relatively recent (in that by no stretch of the imagination they kicked somebody off).
I get the point that you are making here - that if we go back through time to the beginning of human history nearly every group on the planet has been a victim of some wrongdoing or injustice at some point and that most of these groups were never compensated in those cases. And I agree. But in the 20th century there have certainly been cases where governments have attempted to right some past injustices or at least compensate certain groups that were subjected to those injustices.
Difference usually being that that government was the "guilty" part. Otherwise it is just a revenge thing. Or in the case of the SA government, just something for the gravy train. All their previous land projects have ended up being very profitable for certain ANC members and not for the rest. What you now are getting is that the combination of being white and own land is enough to get you kicked of or much worse.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
4,575
Netherlands
#35
Now this, is actually party correct :) ! It's a very small part of the bigger picture which resulted in the "Land Expropriation" issue. And it also forms part of the reason that I am not a fan of the policy, even though I understand it's necessity.
I don't see the necessity. You first need a real plan. Now it is just, kick out the whiteys and everything will be better (or rather we distribute the land to our cronies).
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
4,575
Netherlands
#36
I would love to see your evidence regarding the Bantu people removing the Khoi from their land, because this is simply not true :notrust: .
I didn't say they removed Khoi as I thought they were mainly in the west (though they also suffered from Bantus going south, but no way near as much as from the diseases from the Dutch).
And the likes of Shaka didn't ask for people to make room when they went south.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,513
Benin City, Nigeria
#37
I didn't say they removed Khoi as I thought they were mainly in the west (though they also suffered from Bantus going south, but no way near as much as from the diseases from the Dutch).
And the likes of Shaka didn't ask for people to make room when they went south.
The effect of disease from the Dutch settlement in the region was significant, but there were still multiple conflicts where they suffered as a result of violence carried out by the Dutch settlers (and these conflicts happened well before the Dutch ever fought any Bantu groups, as I mentioned earlier). It wasn't just disease that was the issue.
 
Last edited:

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,513
Benin City, Nigeria
#38
That is about right. But that didn't really cover personal damages.
I don't think any government can effectively cover personal damages for injustices against a group (if by personal you mean non-material or you mean down to the level of individuals and the specific/unique suffering that each individual faced) so any form of restitution from a government to some group whether foreign or domestic would usually have to be in the form of some kind of payment to some representative organization or government.

I think we both agree on the problem at hand. I disagree on the cause (a lot of the slums are descendants of immigrants from the time there was apartheid).
But that is neither here or there. What you have is a situation where you have a small group of Boer farmers, who are doing well in agriculture and own quite a lot of land. On the other hand you have townships where poverty and crime are endemic.
Ideally you would have all the townships working on the farms, but that just doesn't work. If they had need for those people they would have been hired decades ago. Modern agriculture requires few hands. The other economic initiatives also have failed to address the problem. I don't have a magic wand, but I don't see how just kicking people of their land is going to do anything beneficial. It is not just Boers that owned the stuff for centuries. A lot of the farms have been sold relatively recent (in that by no stretch of the imagination they kicked somebody off).
I could go over what is wrong with all of this, but there may be no real purpose served by doing that. I think you just have some fundamental historical misunderstandings that could really only be changed by reading about South Africa's history in depth. And I say this with no intention of causing offense, but just to explain that my not getting into what's wrong or misleading here is only because at this point it would take too much effort to address all of this in detail.

Your interpretation does make me think that perhaps you are reading some strange interpretations from non-credible sources; although even if you aren't, you should still try to acquire more basic knowledge from the work of historians first before we can really discuss this. I have mentioned in a totally different thread in this forum how, when someone makes a misleading claim, it is the person who knows something is wrong with the statement and who has to counter it that really has to stop what they are doing and do all the heavy lifting to address it. For me it would be that sort of situation, when such a situation could be avoided easily when both sides have more familiarity with the subject.

Difference usually being that that government was the "guilty" part. Otherwise it is just a revenge thing.
I do not see what sense this makes though. The apartheid government (the "guilty party") ended already and was not in some position to make any compensation or right any wrong since they were no longer in power and in any case they had had no real interest in fixing such disparities when they were in power.

So there is no one but the post-apartheid governments that could do anything about problems caused by past land expropriations and restrictions.

Or in the case of the SA government, just something for the gravy train. All their previous land projects have ended up being very profitable for certain ANC members and not for the rest. What you now are getting is that the combination of being white and own land is enough to get you kicked of or much worse.
If anything the policy is partially an attempt to prevent against what you've described becoming a reality by taking control of the situation and doing something less extreme.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
4,575
Netherlands
#39
I don't think any government can effectively cover personal damages for injustices against a group (if by personal you mean non-material or you mean down to the level of individuals and the specific/unique suffering that each individual faced) so any form of restitution from a government to some group whether foreign or domestic would usually have to be in the form of some kind of payment to some representative organization or government.



I could go over what is wrong with all of this, but there may be no real purpose served by doing that. I think you just have some fundamental historical misunderstandings that could really only be changed by reading about South Africa's history in depth. And I say this with no intention of causing offense, but just to explain that my not getting into what's wrong or misleading here is only because at this point it would take too much effort to address all of this in detail.

Your interpretation does make me think that perhaps you are reading some strange interpretations from non-credible sources; although even if you aren't, you should still try to acquire more basic knowledge from the work of historians first before we can really discuss this. I have mentioned in a totally different thread in this forum how, when someone makes a misleading claim, it is the person who knows something is wrong with the statement and who has to counter it that really has to stop what they are doing and do all the heavy lifting to address it. For me it would be that sort of situation, when such a situation could be avoided easily when both sides have more familiarity with the subject.
So didn't the Zulus massacre the other black inhabitants when they went south?
I do not see what sense this makes though. The apartheid government (the "guilty party") ended already and was not in some position to make any compensation or right any wrong since they were no longer in power and in any case they had had no real interest in fixing such disparities when they were in power.

So there is no one but the post-apartheid governments that could do anything about problems caused by past land expropriations and restrictions.

If anything the policy is partially an attempt to prevent against what you've described becoming a reality by taking control of the situation and doing something less extreme.
Yeah the government that is supposed to protect people, kicks them off their belongings in order to protect them. Sounds very much like our government before the Nazis invaded. Only they had the stomach to stand or their citizens.
 
Mar 2012
1,579
Following the breeze
#40
I don't see the necessity...
To understand the necessity of this, you must have an understand of the South African political landscape as well as South African history. I will do my best to explain, in short, what you need to take into account;

Here is a small piece of history - During the Apartheid era in South Africa, the then government of the country passed several laws, such as the Native Land Act, to not only forcibly remove none white South Africans, and more specifically black South Africans, from their lands, but also to limit the amount of land which could be owned by black South Africans. This land was then "redistributed" to the "white" population of the country.

To give you an idea of how server these laws were, the "black" population of the country was left with only 8% of the arable land within South Africa. The rest went to the "white" population. This is despite the fact that the "black" population, accounts for the vast majority of the countries population.

The Natives Land Act (No. 27 of 1913) was passed to allocate only about 7% of arable land to Africans and leave the more fertile land for whites. This law incorporated territorial segregation into legislation for the first time since Union in 1910.

Source: https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/native-land-act-passed
Source : https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/forced-removals-south-africa
Source : https://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/natives-land-act-1913
Then came the honeymoon period of South African history, after the 1994 election. During this period provisions were made in the constitution of South Africa to address the many inequalities which were the result of the Apartheid system, including the distribution of land ownership.

After Nelson Mandla's Presidency, came Thabo Mbeki. During this period, South Africa went through the largest economic growth period in the countries history. Then he was unceremoniously pushed out of office for being too honest for his own good and too good at his job. He was then replaced by Jacob Zuma.

This man turned out to be the single biggest disaster for the South African economy and political situation. He brought with him an enormous amount of corruption and the process of lad distribution came to a stand still. Things got worse when he hired a UK based consultancy firm named Bell Pottinger, and tasked them with creating social unrest and divisions within the countries populous in order for him to continue looting the state while the people continue to argue against each other.

Speaking after Lord Peter Hain had asked if the British government had any contracts with Bell Pottinger, British High Commissioner Nigel Casey said: "I want to put it on record that at no stage was Her Majesty's government in any way involved in their work in South Africa."
Source : https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/so...inger-damaged-uks-reputation-in-south-africa/
Bell Pottinger, brilliantly determined that the best way to divide the South African populous was to stir up racial tensions by using unresolved issues from the Apartheid era. One of these issues was the land distribution matter;

UK PR giant Bell Pottinger sacks partner and apologises for South African campaign accused of fuelling racism
Source : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ology-uk-pr-giant-sacks-partner-a7828221.html
The chaos created by Bell Pottinger gave rise to a new radical political party called the EFF which proposed some very very radical solutions to addressing the unresolved issues created by the Apartheid system. One of these solutions was the concept of "The Expropriation of Land without compensation". This concept became very popular amongst the "black" population of the country who had felt sidelined by the system and had lost hope in the government due to wide spread corruption.

As a result, the EFF won 7% of the national votes in their first elections making them the 3rd largest political party in the country.

Finally, after multiple attempts by opposition parties and other citizen NGO groups, Jacob Zuma was removed from office earlier this year(2018) and in his place came Cyril Ramaphosa.

The absolute disaster created by Jacob Zuma and his administration means that Cyril Ramaphosa has a mountain to clime to get South Africa back on the correct course.

Now, to explain the necessity of this "Land Expropriation without compensation bill" - The EFF has leveraged the land reform issue very successful to gain a large amount of support and power, but they proposing that it is done in a radical manner which would prove to be devastating for the countries economy. Unfortunately the cat is now out of the bag, so Cyril Ramaphosa is being extremely smart by taking the initiative and proposing the bill should be passed, but the difference is that he is suggesting that it be implemented by taking into account all sides of the story and follow a rule of law. He is also suggesting that it should be implemented in such a way that in will not affect the countries economy.
Keep in mind, that if he does not do this, than the EFF will continue to leverage this issue to gain more support and should they actually gain enough power. They will enforce this in the worst possible way.

...You first need a real plan. Now it is just, kick out the whiteys and everything will be better (or rather we distribute the land to our cronies).
No that is not the case. As explained, Cyril Ramaphosa actually has a very good plan and system in mind of how this process should be done. See the video bellow: