South Africa In First Land Grab

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 2-14-2007 | Christopher Munnion

[decal]

And so it starts....look for South Africa to be an economic basketcase by 2020.

[P-40]

If, after a long legal process, the current owners refuse to sell, they are forced to do so.

Sounds like some parts of America...

[AnAmericanMother]

You know, they're standing there with the Awful Warning of Zimbabwe right in front of their noses . . .

. . . none are so blind, etc. etc.

[sheik yerbouty]

Mandela's Paradise..

[GovernmentShrinker]

Brilliant! They looked at Zimbabwe, saw how well this plan worked out there, and now want to emulate it!

It's a scary thought, but the concept of a white minority ruling the black majority with an iron hand is looking better and better the longer the black majority is in control. At least 10% of the population was living well, and that's certainly a whole lot better than Zimbabwe can claim these days. Going from 90% of the people being miserable to 100% isn't progress, no matter what the racial breakdown. I guess it fits with the basic ideology of socialism, though, that poverty and misery are not a problem as long as EVERYBODY is poor and miserable.

[GovernmentShrinker]

If, after a long legal process, the current owners refuse to sell, they are forced to do so.

Sounds like some parts of America...

While I share your sentiments about eminent domain abuse in the US, it's hardly comparable to what's going on in Zimbabwe and now South Africa. In the US, these seizures are done only when they can reasonably be expected to result in substantial economic output from the property in question. Sure, the legitimate owners may get financially (and personally) screwed, but the policy is hardly going to result in national economic ruin, no matter how many times it's done. National spiritual ruin, yes, but not economic ruin.

[Sherman Logan]

Some portion of the land controlled by whites in these countries was in realistic terms acquired by means of what we would normally call theft.

[Sherman Logan]

it fits with the basic ideology of socialism, though, that poverty and misery are not a problem as long as EVERYBODY is poor and miserable.

That's the theory, all right. The reality is that those in control of the government always do quite well, while everybody else sinks into misery.

[AnAmericanMother]

Guess what -- ALL property was originally acquired by theft, just depends on how far back you go.

Are you in favor of returning Alabama to the Cherokees?

[AnAmericanMother]

I have friends who fled Rhodesia a long time ago, and the figure was a good deal better than 10%. You have to figure in all the employees of the 10% of the population who owned a substantial portion of the land, plus the suppliers of machinery, stock, etc., plus those who sold necessities and luxuries to the employees of the farms, plus those who took advantage of the economic and social stability to start their own small businesses . . .

. . . the guarantee of private property rights has a ripple effect. The owners of the large commercial farms are obviously at the top of the heap, but the surrounding smallholders and all the workers who get steady jobs from the prosperity have to be taken into account as well. Envy of the rich results in nothing but misery (and transfer of the wealth directly into the pockets of the demagogues, who ship it out to Switzerland where it has a ripple effect for Swiss bankers instead of farmworkers' families.)

[Mr. Jeeves]

Going from 90% of the people being miserable to 100% isn't progress, no matter what the racial breakdown.

Well, it will never be more than 99% because the 1% of top level bureaucrat-bandits in any socialist state always live extraordinarily well.

[Cicero]

Some portion of the land controlled by whites in these countries was in realistic terms acquired by means of what we would normally call theft.

Actually, the history of South Africa is that the Zulus came down from further north, after having been displaced by other tribes, at about the same time that the Dutch settlers arrived from the sea. I believe the Xhosa also came from outside the area. The original inhabitants were bushmen, and I believe habitation was sparse. So it was not colonized in the same way as most other countries in South Africa.

I don't know how much it matters.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I was thinking of South Africa. IIRC the white population is about 10% (not sure about that though).

[padre35]

I do notice that the "garb land" crowd is complaining about the pace of the theft, so soon enough even the reasonable provisions will be jettisoned and the outright theft will begin.

It may be better to take the offer and leave the country before the outright theft happens.

[DB]

It won't take that long.

[decal]

I'm ever the optimist.

[DB]

And the tribes migrated there because there was work and a better standard of living. That is where the Dutch went seriously wrong. By letting them come to work but not giving them full citizenship rights they created an impossible situation. What Europe is doing with Muslims now. And what we're doing to a lessor degree with Mexico.

[Mr J]

I think we've seen this sequence of events before.

Accelerated expropriation of farmland->Food shortages->Famine->Blame Whitey->Economic Collapse->US Taxpayer Provides Aid->Money Used to Buy Weapons->Civil War->Blame Whitey->Annual Coup D'etat for the forseeable future->Stil Blaming Whitey->etc etc

[AGreatPer]

South Africa is a mess ever since apartheid was gone.

If your white, don't even think of going to Jo-Berg at night.