Whites fear land grab as black heirs win claim to family farm

Times Online ^ | September 28, 2005 | Jonathan Clayton in Johannesburg

[kublia khan]

The Indians that I know and I am a part of one (Unlike Ward Churchhill I can prove it) are about as prepared to take back over what the White man took from us as the blacks were to take back over at the end of aparthied. The story of the statistics show that blacks as a whole are worse off now than they were before Mandela carried the day. Per capita income, trade deficits, genocides, tribal segragations and mass relocations were virtually unheard of before the end of aparthied now they are common to many if not all African nations.

[kublia khan]

sorry for the X2, I'd like to blame my 'puter but it would be a lie

[lonestar]

dogs chasing cars

[cyborg]

1939 isn't the 1800s. How old are you? If you're older, be thankful you weren't a black South African living on property that was later stolen by someone else. This 'blacks were better off with apartheid' stuff is nonsense. I guess it really pains freepers too much to get that forcing people off their property to give to someone else is wrong. Yet, when it's done here by our own government it's a great and awful crime and some are even ready to take up arms.

[kublia khan]

The situation we find ourselves dealing with today is the one that juxtaposes apartheid with post apartheid and in that realm statistically Blacks are worse off post apartheid.

[winodog]

Why isnt it the same thing and why are you suprised?

[winodog]

Opps. Should have said not suprised.

[cyborg]

If you can't understand why it was wrong for the apartheid gov ernment to shove people off their land then I'm not going to bother to explain. Perhaps you should read more about the lives of people affected by the laws that they passed instead of considering that it was just blacks in straw huts. It wasn't. I'm not surprised at the response because I know that some freepers already have a mindset about this and haven't thought about the people. Of course, it's never occured to you that this could have been YOU but for the grace of God.

[cyborg]

Okay nevermind. You and khan can talk amongst yourselves how apartheid is better for black people. Bye.

[cyborg]

you get the point...it's my day off from work and I'm finding time to relax. Yes there are people out there who work and aren't on welfare.

[TheForceOfOne]

Hello cyborg :)

I don't know to much about this issue but I was wondering how apartheid would would be classified. It isn't communism, socialism, or even capitalism, is it?

[cyborg]

I actually don't know. Some think it was capitalism but I don't, at least not like America.

[Petronski]

Why isnt it the same thing...

We have in SA the case of individuals laying claim to specific parcels of land. That is entirely different from Indian nations laying a general claim to the right to roam about and play in, say, Kansas (a colossal waste of land, btw).

[TheForceOfOne]

Maybe it was nothing more than a police state distributing socialism by race?

I'm reading about it at http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html

[cyborg]

Thank you. It wasn't only about black people either. It was about moving indians, coloureds and whites off property they owned, esp. how it created areas like the Bo Kaap,etc.

[cyborg]

I would say more police state than anything else, esp. in the cities and suburbs as opposed to way out in the bush. Gun grabbing and dictating people's choices of mate,etc. that's not capitalist to me.

[finnigan2]

"I would bail now if I were them. Can they get US visas? We need some good hardworking farmers."

- White South African professionals (doctors, engineers, teachers,etc.) have been quietly bailing out of that country for over the past decade and emigrating in number to places like Australia, the U.S. and Canada. The country's mining giant, De Boers, has been investing heavily in diamond finds in Canada and Australia which I interpret as a hedge bet against losing everything in a South African land grab.
Once the South African government destroys the white farmer in that country then Zimbabwe conditions will begin to take place.
I think this process of expropriation/intimidation will escalate once Mandela dies. Like black leaders in other African countries, the politicians under Mandela are looking to take over the country's wealth for themselves, their relatives and "tribes". Black politicians in Africa are, by and large, economic illiterates who have no idea how to operate a 21st. century technology based economy and once they get rid of those who do, chaos will soon follow.

[winodog]

Thank you for answering the question as to what the difference is. I am not positive but what I have read much of the land was purchased and much of it was unused and barren untill it was irrigated and dams were built, roads built, electricity brought it, ect, ect.

I am sure there are some people who may have had land stripped from them but I do not believe that was all that common. Therefore if one is to believe that this land should be taken from the people who have worked it and made it profitable for the last 100 to 200 years then they should support return of native american land.

[Petronski]

I don't think we disagree on much of this. But if a black farmer had a going concern (finite patch of land that was his and that he farmed as best he could) taken from him, it should be returned.

If it is more like Kansas (or Israel for that matter), which lay unused until worked by settlers who made it what it is, then I wouldn't support a claim.