Not_shadowbanned_yet #fundie

Not_shadowbanned_yet #fundie reddit.com

in august they're having a meeting to amend the constitution to take white farmland by force. the way liberals for years have said would never happen. now liberals seem to think this is going to nit destroy the economy and lead to famine and mass violence because reasons. because some black guy in SA wrote an article about how taking the land by force from the productive white minority will be a good thing.

south africa disproves every
notion of blacks being able to maintain a modern industrial society handed to them. let alone build one.

and they're already attacking whites. now they will be able to do it in uniform with official documentation. then, when the nation collapses entirely and my family and friends are all brutally murdered by black mobs, i'll get to read about how it isn't about race and what a great guy mandela was and how this is just as bad as apartheid (my people ever wanting to be kept separate from the black communist hordes that have ruined my country entirely and still want more)

11 comments

old comment by 121

@Kanna and Doubting Thomas
""White farmland"? You don't have to go back very far in history to find that NONE of the land of South Africa was "white". Your ancestors took it by force, and what goes around, comes around."

No, Kanna. Many of the current landowners bought their land through the same legal processes as in any other country. The ones who actually stole the land are all dead. I hope you are not advocating the principles that were used in Zimbabwe by Mugabe. If so, your comment is racist. If I owned land in South Africa, and it was going to be stolen off me by the government because I am white, do you not think I would have a right to stop them?

old comment by Kanna

@121

I think you missed the term "ancestors" in my comment. The current landowners are either descendants of people who took it by force or purchasers of land that was once taken by force. Either way, they are the beneficiaries of an illegal act. Nobody likes having to be the generation that makes some reparation, but sometimes it is necessary in order for society to attempt to swing the pendulum back toward some sort of balance, in order for ALL to live in relative peace.

History is full of such injustices-many-generations-removed. I once worked with an Englishman whose grandfather lived near to an ancient landed estate, complete with castle. One day he met the Duke and asked him where he got it. "I inherited it from my father. He inherited it from his father", etc. He asked how the first Duke got the title and the land and was told "He won it in battle". My friend's grandfather raised his fists and said "I'll fight you for it..."

We would be remiss if we left a mention of the West Bank out of this discussion. Israeli jews ousted Palestinians and seized the property. They CANNOT ever reach a settlement if they can't negotiate, and if you arrogantly think that god gave you that land, no compromises can be reached. That's a recipe for eternal warfare.

old comment by Wandered In

Honestly, South Africa needs land reform.
Ironically, most land reform in SA that's being discussed would be taking land trusts away from Black South Africans, not whites. Because the Apartheid government took vast tracks of land and put them under stewardship by whites, supposedly for the good of the black population but actually to control them. Towards the end of aparthed, rather than letting the new government reapportion that land to the farmers, the white minority government put it in the hands of 'traditional leaders' - many of whom are now precisely as corrupt as any landowning nobility worldwide.

That being said, South African agriculture is profoundly fucked - the descendants of native Africans live as labourers with no recourse to amenities, education, or land ownership, while the descendants of Boer conquerors hold massive landed estates. The native labourers do all the actual farming, because that's how plantation-sized farms work, but the profits and quality of life go to the rich landowners. There are some black landowners now as well, who would also have their lands broken up by comprehensive land reform.

If you can't guess, I think land reform into coops would be a good idea, if handled well. Zimbabwe is a cautionary tale, but the current situation is deeply unequal and built on the historical exploitation of native workers at gunpoint. Hell, none of the current Boer farmers are likely to be young enough that they weren't born under apartheid, so you can't even say there's a generational gap between them and the beneficiaries of that inhumane system.

old comment by Wandered In

To clarify my previous point:
'Traditional leaders' with landholdings tend to lease them out to black farmers, creating a patronage network that delivers political power for them. This has created much of the corruption in the ANC - ex-president Zuma was closely associated with the power networks of landowning traditional leaders.
Thus while these lands are ultimately controlled by traditional leaders, who administer them with extensive cronyism, they are still farmed by smaller groups in a traditional manner. The farmers are more tenant farmers than farm laborers, which is still an exploited position but it allows the continuation of a traditional way of life and the accumulation of some amenities.

Farm laborers on privately owned farms, on the other hand, have almost no bargaining power, possessions, or opportunities. Many of the so-called Farmer Murders in SA are the result of labor disputes gone wrong in isolated places. Land reform to break up huge ranches and/or give reparations to place the descendants of natives in a better situation, viz a viz land ownership, would impact more white than black farm owners, but would also do away with the tensions that cause said labor disputes to escalate so horribly.

Also the idea that land reform would be equivalent to Apartheid is idiotic and could only be suggested by someone who has no understanding of the Apartheid system and its actual effects whatsoever.