Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Whites fear land grab as black heirs win claim to family farm
Times Online ^ | September 28, 2005 | Jonathan Clayton in Johannesburg

Posted on 09/27/2005 6:06:53 PM PDT by Flavius

WHITE South African farmers are watching with mounting unease as the Government finalises plans to take over a white-owned farm and hand the land to descendants of its original black owners.

The seizure, which follows the failure of talks lasting more than two years between the authorities and an Afrikaner family, will signal the end of the willing seller/willing buyer policy. Other white farmers fear that it could mark the start of a far more aggressive land redistribution programme.

Land ownership is a sensitive issue in a country that has been spared the violent seizures without compensation of neighbouring Zimbabwe, where more than 4,000 white-owned farms have been taken over since 2000. The Government has faced growing criticism of foot-dragging over the politically explosive issues and recently changed the law to allow expropriation to take place without court approval. Most of South Africa ’s 40 million people live in rural areas, and they are overwhelmingly black and poor.

Eleven years after the end of apartheid, the Government has transferred slightly more than 3 per cent of agricultural land previously reserved for whites to black owners. Another 27 per cent must follow to meet the official target of 30 per cent black ownership by 2014.

Thoko Didiza, the Land Affairs Minister, said at the weekend that she would submit plans to the Cabinet next month to make the pace of land reform ten times faster.

She said: “The quicker we deal with this land issue, the better for all of us. It creates an uncertainty, not just for South Africans, but for others who want to develop partnerships with us and who keep asking when this will end.” She added that the target was not negotiable and that “policy, not the deadline, will have to change”.

The compulsory purchase of Leeuwsprit Farm in Lichtenburg, about 160 miles west of Johannesburg, which reignited the debate, was approved by Blessing Mphela, the North West Land Claims Com- missioner. He said that it was the last option after negotiations with Frans Visser, 82, and his son, Hannes, 47, had failed.

The Government had offered 1.75 million rands (£154,000) but the Visser family was holding out for R3 million for two adjacent farms totalling 500 hectares (1,235 acres).

The Vissers, who bought the land from other Afrikaner farmers in 1968, maintain that they should also be compen- sated for improvements that they have made. They argue that the Government is offering them only the value of the land rather than the value of the entire venture.

The family has pledged to fight the order. Lizanne Burger, 51, Mr Visser’s daughter, said: “We have yet to receive the papers, but we have been told they are on the way.” Her brother, Hannes, said that he would appeal against the order and fight it in the courts. He said: “I do not recognise the claim and cannot be forced to sell at the Government’s price.” He added that he had invested R3.4 million in the cattle and sheep farm as recently as 1994-98, for which he should also be compensated.

Thousands of black families were forcibly removed from their land during white minority rule. Some sold under pressure, but title deeds show voluntary sales. Others were forced out of areas that were suddenly designated for whites only.

Mr Visser’s black neighbours successfully argued before the Land Commission that the land on which Leeuwsprit Farm is located had been taken from them against their will in 1939.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: africa; african; africans; afrikaner; boers; reparations; southafrica; theft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: Petronski

I certainly agree.


41 posted on 09/28/2005 7:47:44 AM PDT by winodog (We need to pull the fedgov.con's feeding tube)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
Excellent observation.

It seems to me that the world was all in a tither years ago about White South Africa.

Communists and liberals everywhere couldn't wait to see that country returned to black leadership.

It is a shame but it looks as though South Africa in a few years will return to it's aboriginal ways.

Along with Zimbabwe to be a drain on the world and to regain third world status.

One need only to look at these African countries to see what the future holds for America if the likes of Jessie Jackson, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, NAACP and Congressional Black Congress prevail in their give away views.
42 posted on 09/28/2005 8:00:41 AM PDT by OKIEDOC (There's nothing like hearing someone say thank you for your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OKIEDOC
" It is a shame but it looks as though South Africa in a few years will return to it's aboriginal ways."

- I once spent a few weeks at the World Health Organization HQ and had a long conversation there with an official with extensive experience in Africa. He said that we Westerners don't understand the native viewpoint when it came to political corruption and cronyism. In their minds, their first loyalty is to their family, then the tribe and finally (if at all) to their country. A native African would never dream of holding an open competition for a key government post if he had a nephew or uncle who was out of work - regardless of their lack of education, experience or qualifications.
Furthermore, once you get beyond the welfare of citizens outside their particular tribe, they could care less. This helps to explain the lack of concern on the part of even a Western educated native like Kofi Annan to the massacre in Rawanda. He didn't lift a finger to help, even when he became aware of what was going on there. You can take a native out of the tribe, but you can't take the tribe out of the native.
43 posted on 09/28/2005 9:15:22 AM PDT by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
Good point.

It seems to me that some of that argument can be expended on the disaster in New Orleans.

You hear a lot of leaders constantly screaming about racism and spewing anti-white rhetoric all across the biased MSM.

You can probably name many of these race baiting con artists such as Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel, Calypso Louie Farahkan, John Conyers and others with out much thought.

I would however have problems naming many of the wealthy blacks who are truly trying to help the poorest of their race.

I know there are some but they just do not get the notoriety as the radical Democrat extremists.

Why? Because they usually are conservative in nature or belong to the hated Republican party.

It's all about victimization and entitlement to spreading the wealth.
44 posted on 09/28/2005 12:33:55 PM PDT by OKIEDOC (There's nothing like hearing someone say thank you for your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
Other white farmers fear that it could mark the start of a far more aggressive land redistribution programme.

Ya think?

45 posted on 09/28/2005 12:35:27 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
A native African would never dream of holding an open competition for a key government post if he had a nephew or uncle who was out of work - regardless of their lack of education, experience or qualifications.

Sounds a lot like Louisiana.

46 posted on 09/28/2005 12:37:28 PM PDT by dfwgator (Flower Mound, TX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
I'd agree if the land were currently held by people who had taken it, but I thought they bought it.

It would be like a Nanticoke or Powhatan Indian surfacing to claim land my ancestors bought from both the Nanticoke and the Powhatan (same land, two different claimants--which meant I found a lot of arrowheads as a kid).

47 posted on 09/28/2005 12:51:04 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne; cyborg

i've heard it called "ethno-fascism" because it had the appearance of free-market capitalism on the ground level, but most corportations were controlled by the government and the government's resposibilities to the people were determined by people's official racial and ethnic classifications.


48 posted on 09/30/2005 1:15:08 PM PDT by zimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne

I agree


49 posted on 09/30/2005 1:18:43 PM PDT by zimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

I hear ya,cyborg.I can't believe how so many people on this board criticize-and often rightfully so-the abuses going on currently in Zimbabwe and SA under black rule but then completely destroy their argument by waxing nostalgically about Apartheid or the old Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia.
To me it would be the same as a Cuban condemning the tyranny of Castro's dictatorship but then blowing their logic by wanting to bring back a scoundrel and theif like Bautista!


50 posted on 09/30/2005 1:25:07 PM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 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.

  I'm actually glad to see some one post this. If the land was stoled originally, then it seems they should have a claim of action. And they certainly were not better off under an apartheid government.

  That said, there are 2 very important issues that appear to be lacking here. First, what is the standard of proof that the land was originally stolen? You would have to show, first, that it was legitimitely owned, and secondly, that the transfer was involuntary. The article glosses over those points - for all I know, they were properly shown - but I somehow doubt it. If anyone knows more, I'd be interested in hearing it.

  The second point, though, is one that we're seeing increasingly in this country too, a lack or disregard for any statute of limitations. At some point, we should take ownership as a given, and void old claims, simply to keep basic order. We see this a lot in any dealings in antiquities (witness the current brouhaha about the Getty Museum, or the American Indian claims in upstate New York.) Is 60-70 years long enough? It's even more complex, of course, as the previous owners would have been prohibited from advancing a claim under the old South African government.

  Suffice to say, not a simple situation. From the (admittedly) little I know of the situation, I'm inclined to think the current South African government is wrong in this situation, for the reasons given earlier. Any other links, though?

Drew Garrett

51 posted on 09/30/2005 1:25:12 PM PDT by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: agarrett

The Oneida claims in the Syracuse area are different than the case in SA and most other cases in America because it's not a civil case or criminal case, but rather an international case rooted in the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua.


52 posted on 09/30/2005 11:00:20 PM PDT by zimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: agarrett

also, interesting post.


53 posted on 09/30/2005 11:02:50 PM PDT by zimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610

welcome abord riverman. you're with a unbelieveable small group in the debates over apartheid.


54 posted on 09/30/2005 11:07:39 PM PDT by zimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

The land will be returned but the end will probably be the same as it has been in other areas. Sad, they just don't seem to realize they are destroying themselves.


55 posted on 09/30/2005 11:13:06 PM PDT by Dustbunny (America is to great for small dreams --- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tangerine Time Machine

My guess is that alot of SA "white" capital is flowing out of the country as we speak. Everyone can guess the timeline here...by 2015...this will be in full swing and most of the SA agriculture will be subdivided amongst the locals. The downward trend of the economy there will start around the same timeperiod. And by 2020....alot of folks will be asking why the economy has suffered so much, with no answer from the leadership of the country. Most whites will have left by 2020. It will be a very different place...with civil war very likely.


56 posted on 09/30/2005 11:16:45 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson