First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply South Africa votes to confiscate white-owned land without compensation
runec 
39580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

-OlE- wrote:
Understood, but i don't think we need to engage with the topic on their terms. Ruji may have started the conversation but we are under no obligation to include him (or other "unreasonable" posters for that matter) in the future if we choose not to do so. I don't think the die hards are really who we are talking to here anyways (at least for me) they are always going to be dug into their positions imo. its the audience that is important here, lurkers or people who may not be jumping in but are following along with the conversation, those are the people who can be swayed. And it is important for those peoples sake that we acknowledge that this is flat out racism. Failing to do that will drive reasonable people away (possibly toward more extreme ideologies)
anyways, thats just my perspective


While I understand what you're trying to say I don't think we have much in the way of lurkers or new audiences these days with general having been taken off the main page and downgraded to misc. I'd also be a bit worried about anyhow easily swayed by these dumpster fire threads. This is the sort of topic where you need to be able to ask a couple obvious follow up questions before you render an opinion. But few people are want to do so, For those that do that leaves them in the tiresome position of forever having to do other people's research for them.




NeutralNoob wrote:
So basically any white person, even if they didn’t do anything with apartheid or the slave trade or any other horrible actions have to suffer because they are desendants? How does that make it right? I know what the colonialists did was wrong and the idea of apartheid is something which I will never agree with. However does that make taking away the land of those who did nothing wrong any better than what the colonialists did?


Again, Apartheid is recent history. We're not really talking about "descendants" here. Those who upheld it and those who suffered under it are still very much alive. Which is why it's such a raw topic in South Africa to begin with and why there are those that propose measures like this. Even though they are potentially self-destructive.




Rujikin wrote:
I can't tell if they really don't care or they are just trying to troll a topic I made.


You do that yourself without any input from the rest of us. That's the entire problem and why your threads go the way they do. Professing innocence or confusion over the matter is disingenuous. You know full well what you're doing. We know full well what you're doing. This is the end result. If you cannot figure out how to begin a discussion in good faith that's on you.



228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

runec wrote:


-OlE- wrote:
Understood, but i don't think we need to engage with the topic on their terms. Ruji may have started the conversation but we are under no obligation to include him (or other "unreasonable" posters for that matter) in the future if we choose not to do so. I don't think the die hards are really who we are talking to here anyways (at least for me) they are always going to be dug into their positions imo. its the audience that is important here, lurkers or people who may not be jumping in but are following along with the conversation, those are the people who can be swayed. And it is important for those peoples sake that we acknowledge that this is flat out racism. Failing to do that will drive reasonable people away (possibly toward more extreme ideologies)
anyways, thats just my perspective


While I understand what you're trying to say I don't think we have much in the way of lurkers or new audiences these days with general having been taken off the main page and downgraded to misc. I'd also be a bit worried about anyhow easily swayed by these dumpster fire threads. This is the sort of topic where you need to be able to ask a couple obvious follow up questions before you render an opinion. But few people are want to do so, For those that do that leaves them in the tiresome position of forever having to do other people's research for them.




NeutralNoob wrote:
So basically any white person, even if they didn’t do anything with apartheid or the slave trade or any other horrible actions have to suffer because they are desendants? How does that make it right? I know what the colonialists did was wrong and the idea of apartheid is something which I will never agree with. However does that make taking away the land of those who did nothing wrong any better than what the colonialists did?


Again, Apartheid is recent history. We're not really talking about "descendants" here. Those who upheld it and those who suffered under it are still very much alive. Which is why it's such a raw topic in South Africa to begin with and why there are those that propose measures like this. Even though they are potentially self-destructive.




Rujikin wrote:
I can't tell if they really don't care or they are just trying to troll a topic I made.


You do that yourself without any input from the rest of us. That's the entire problem and why your threads go the way they do. Professing innocence or confusion over the matter is disingenuous. You know full well what you're doing. We know full well what you're doing. This is the end result. If you cannot figure out how to begin a discussion in good faith that's on you.





This is bordering on topic derailment. You sum it best with your first response "Apartheid?" White South Africans are being targeted by the South African government and you want to talk about bloody apartheid. They could be burning White South Africans at the stake and you'd still want to talk about apartheid.

Boy boiled to death?



Apartheid?

His Mother raped, and both his Mother and Dad shot and killed?



Apartheid?

Now you would be right to point out that use aren't examples of the government targeting an ethnicity but I'm mostly just posting these to demonstrate common anti white sentiment in South Africa.

What are we here to really talk about? Seizing the land of white farmers. It doesn't matter what ultra super nuanced context of apartheid history you can provide, something horrific is happening right now and you're derailing because you want to be a contrarian to Rujikin.





139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18
Trying to discuss anything like this with white liberals is useless and pointless. They are your enemy more than the blacks in this matter. It comes down to what are white south africans willing to do to protect themselves. The international community will not help them. White liberals in their own country certainly will not help them. Fight back or die Boers.
77 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Why you wanna know?
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

runec wrote:


-OlE- wrote:
Understood, but i don't think we need to engage with the topic on their terms. Ruji may have started the conversation but we are under no obligation to include him (or other "unreasonable" posters for that matter) in the future if we choose not to do so. I don't think the die hards are really who we are talking to here anyways (at least for me) they are always going to be dug into their positions imo. its the audience that is important here, lurkers or people who may not be jumping in but are following along with the conversation, those are the people who can be swayed. And it is important for those peoples sake that we acknowledge that this is flat out racism. Failing to do that will drive reasonable people away (possibly toward more extreme ideologies)
anyways, thats just my perspective


While I understand what you're trying to say I don't think we have much in the way of lurkers or new audiences these days with general having been taken off the main page and downgraded to misc. I'd also be a bit worried about anyhow easily swayed by these dumpster fire threads. This is the sort of topic where you need to be able to ask a couple obvious follow up questions before you render an opinion. But few people are want to do so, For those that do that leaves them in the tiresome position of forever having to do other people's research for them.




NeutralNoob wrote:
So basically any white person, even if they didn’t do anything with apartheid or the slave trade or any other horrible actions have to suffer because they are desendants? How does that make it right? I know what the colonialists did was wrong and the idea of apartheid is something which I will never agree with. However does that make taking away the land of those who did nothing wrong any better than what the colonialists did?


Again, Apartheid is recent history. We're not really talking about "descendants" here. Those who upheld it and those who suffered under it are still very much alive. Which is why it's such a raw topic in South Africa to begin with and why there are those that propose measures like this. Even though they are potentially self-destructive.




Rujikin wrote:
I can't tell if they really don't care or they are just trying to troll a topic I made.


You do that yourself without any input from the rest of us. That's the entire problem and why your threads go the way they do. Professing innocence or confusion over the matter is disingenuous. You know full well what you're doing. We know full well what you're doing. This is the end result. If you cannot figure out how to begin a discussion in good faith that's on you.





Yes, those that upheld should be taken to prison for crimes against humanity. What I’m saying is that those that had nothing to do with it are suffering because of those that upheld apartheid rules and now those who are innocent pay the price. I agree who thought of this up, is destroying South Africa themselves.
9506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18
I’ll take a wild guess this is a more complicated issue than the OP makes it out to be.

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2018-03-10-land-debate-is-clouded-by-misrepresentation-and-lack-of-data/

Yep.
139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 15 days ago

Rujikin wrote:

Yet another country has decided to take away land from people because they are considered white. I remember Zimbabwe doing this and not 3 years later their people were starving and asking the international community for aid for their starving people. All of these people who the government has abandoned and allowed rape gangs to assault are now having their lands stolen from them to redistribute to "their people".


http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/the-time-for-reconciliation-is-over-south-africa-votes-to-confiscate-whiteowned-without-compensation/news-story/a8a81155995b1adc1c399d3576c4c0bc

SOUTH Africa’s parliament has voted in favour of a motion that will begin the process of amending the country’s Constitution to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation.

The motion was brought by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Marxist opposition party the Economic Freedom Fighters, and passed overwhelmingly by 241 votes to 83 against. The only parties who did not support the motion were the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, Cope and the African Christian Democratic Party.

It was amended but supported by the ruling African National Congress and new president Cyril Ramaphosa, who made land expropriation a key pillar of his policy platform after taking over from ousted PM Jacob Zuma earlier this month.

“The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice,” Mr Malema was quoted by News24 as telling parliament. “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”

According to Bloomberg, a 2017 government audit found white people owned 72 per cent of farmland in South Africa.

ANC deputy chief whip Dorries Eunice Dlakude said the party “recognises that the current policy instruments, including the willing-buyer willing-seller policy and other provisions of Section 25 of the Constitution may be hindering effective land reform”.

ANC rural affairs minister Gugile Nkwinti added, “The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation. There is no doubt about it, land shall be expropriated without compensation.”

Thandeka Mbabama from the Democatic Alliance party, which opposed the motion, said there was a need to right the wrongs of the past but expropriation “cannot be part of the solution”. “By arguing for expropriation without compensation, the ANC has been gifted the perfect scapegoat to explain away its own failure,” she said in a statement.

“Making this argument lets the ANC off the hook on the real impediments — corruption, bad policy and chronic underfunding. Expropriation without compensation would severely undermine the national economy, only hurting poor black people even further.”

Pieter Groenewald, leader of the Freedom Front Plus party representing the white Afrikaner minority, asked what would happen to the land once it was expropriated. “If you continue on this course, I can assure you there is going to be unforeseen consequences that is not in the interest of South Africa,” he said.

Cope leader Mosiuoa Lekota said there was a “danger that those who think equality in our lifetime equates that we must dominate whites”, News24 reported.

Mr Malema has been leading calls for land confiscation, forcing the ANC to follow suit out of fear of losing the support of poorer black voters. In 2016, he told supporters he was “not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6_fj3qf44

Civil rights groups have accused the EFF and ANC of inciting an ongoing spate of attacks on white farmers characterised by extreme brutality, rape and torture — last year, more than 70 people were killed in more than 340 such attacks.

Ernst Roets, deputy chief executive of civil rights group Afriforum, said the parliamentary motion was a violation of the 1994 agreement in which the ANC promised minority interests would be protected post-apartheid.

“This motion is based on a distorted image of the past,” Mr Roets said in a statement. “The term ‘expropriation without compensation’ is a form of semantic fraud. It is nothing more than racist theft.”

He earlier hit out at “simply deceitful” claims that “white people who own land necessarily obtained it by means of oppression, violence or forced removals”.

“The EFF’s view on redistribution is merely a racist process to chase white people off their land and establish it within the state,” he said. “This is not only deceiving, but also a duplication of the economic policies that the world’s worst economies put in place.”

Afriforum said it would take its fight to the United Nations if necessary. The matter has been referred to the parliament’s Constitutional Review Committee, which must report back by August 30.

Earlier this month, Louis Meintjes, president of the farmers’ group the Transvaal Agricultural Union, warned the country risked going down the same route as Zimbabwe, which plunged into famine after a government-sanctioned purge of white farmers in the 2000s.

“Where in the world has expropriation without compensation coupled to the waste of agricultural land, resulted in foreign confidence, economic growth and increased food production?” Mr Meintjes said.

“If Mr Ramaphosa is set on creating an untenable situation, he should actively create circumstances which will promote famine. His promise to expropriate land without compensation, sows the seed for revolution. Expropriation without compensation is theft”.



While all of this is happening leftist propaganda agencies are trying to distract with this nonsense:



The beginnings of a Genocide is happening in South Africa and no one seems to care. Mass violations of an entire race's rights are happening and the response is "its the white supremacists and the far right". When you take these peoples farms away without fair compensation they are left with NOTHING, you might as well just put them into a camp and give them each stars while your at it.

Oh and you think I am exaggerating: “not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6_fj3qf44

They don't even bother hiding it because the left has their heads so deep in the sand they could shout it and the only response would be crickets. This is to South Africa's own citizens.

Potent message and warning my friend but if you expect an out pouring of thumbs up you should temper your expectation. You should expect no progressive or civil discourse with a subject like this. You will need a stiff upper lip sir but God bless you.
-OlE- 
1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Nebraska
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

runec wrote:


While I understand what you're trying to say I don't think we have much in the way of lurkers or new audiences these days with general having been taken off the main page and downgraded to misc. I'd also be a bit worried about anyhow easily swayed by these dumpster fire threads. This is the sort of topic where you need to be able to ask a couple obvious follow up questions before you render an opinion. But few people are want to do so, For those that do that leaves them in the tiresome position of forever having to do other people's research for them.



Right, i was speaking more in terms of a broader societal context, not just the conversation transpiring on this particular message board. I am under no illusions of the societal impact some weebs arguing on the internet about politics have my point is that if we are going to talk about a subject, then it is worth doing so in the right way (which of course is my way IMO ) when we as liberals won't call out this kind of shitty behavior simply because black people are doing it, it further legitimizes and emboldens the far right. see! they hate white people! white genocide! ect ect. Obviously there is some context to this situation, and it is understandable why black south africans might hold a grudge, but just because it is understandable doesn't make their actions right. That's all i am saying.
runec 
39580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

Cathugud wrote:
This is bordering on topic derailment. You sum it best with your first response "Apartheid?" White South Africans are being targeted by the South African government and you want to talk about bloody apartheid. They could be burning White South Africans at the stake and you'd still want to talk about apartheid.


It was asked what the missing context to the story was and that context is Apartheid. Apartheid is the reason that race relations in South African are so troubled and are the reason some politicians are trying to push this "solution". If you want to play appeal to tragedy there are plenty of articles about what Apartheid entailed. The stories you linked, while tragic, don't change the background of this problem and only serve to try and prop up self righteous posturing with shock value.

Also, seeing as I acknowledged this course of action is self destructive and wrong, your argument has no basis to begin with.




NeutralNoob wrote:
Yes, those that upheld should be taken to prison for crimes against humanity. What I’m saying is that those that had nothing to do with it are suffering because of those that upheld apartheid rules and now those who are innocent pay the price. I agree who thought of this up, is destroying South Africa themselves.


It's a situation with no good solutions. Apartheid only ended in 1994 and is thus still a fresh wound in the history of South Africa. Even though there is now a younger generation who did not take part in upholding Apartheid they still benefit from the crimes of Apartheid. In this case the dominant land ownership. Which only exists because they quite literally rounded up millions of non-whites and trucked them out of town en mass. Including those that originally owned farms.

That doesn't mean seizing the land back is right, but it does mean that you can't argue the lingering anger and resentment aren't rooted in understandable reasons. And also why in order to understand this situation you need to understand that the history behind it instead of just screaming "ermigard white genocide". Which only serves to oversimplify and further inflame the situation.




-OlE- wrote:
Right, i was speaking more in terms of a broader societal context, not just the conversation transpiring on this particular message board. I am under no illusions of the societal impact some weebs arguing on the internet about politics have my point is that if we are going to talk about a subject, then it is worth doing so in the right way (which of course is my way IMO ) when we as liberals won't call out this kind of shitty behavior simply because black people are doing it, it further legitimizes and emboldens the far right. see! they hate white people! white genocide! ect ect. Obviously there is some context to this situation, and it is understandable why black south africans might hold a grudge, but just because it is understandable doesn't make their actions right. That's all i am saying.


In the broader societal context I completely agree and behave as such in forums where actual discussion takes place. This place, however, is largely a dumpster fire and Ruji is one of the primary arsonists. We're only at this point with him because reasoned discussion has long since failed. He is not here to discuss anything. He is here to piss people off for his own self gratification. By his own admission no less.









270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / US
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

uncletim wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:

Oh boy, yet another Ruji thread. Who's up for finding the critical missing context this time?


You mean other then the fact the white stole the land in the first place?


So by that logic then, whites would be justified if they confiscated lands owned by non-whites in Europe?
22903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

Powder710 wrote:


uncletim wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:

Oh boy, yet another Ruji thread. Who's up for finding the critical missing context this time?


You mean other then the fact the white stole the land in the first place?


So by that logic then, whites would be justified if they confiscated lands owned by non-whites in Europe?


and those lands were forcibly taken at gun point and then said make believe people were treated as second class people in there own land to included being enslaved.

Then yes they would have that right. But that has not happen has it?

199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
108 / O
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

Powder710 wrote:


uncletim wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:

Oh boy, yet another Ruji thread. Who's up for finding the critical missing context this time?


You mean other then the fact the white stole the land in the first place?


So by that logic then, whites would be justified if they confiscated lands owned by non-whites in Europe?


The difference in the situation your proposing is the highlighted word.

And as to the topic at hand, its a ruji thread so there is bound to be context missing.

The cycle of Ruji seems to be

1) Post a thread without all the info or context present under a outlandish title

2) Wait for his cheerleaders to show up or people who aren't that aware of his posting history

3) People who are aware of his history post missing context and call out Ruji

4) Ruji plays a victim for people who are unaware

5) Ruji disappears and sporadically comes back to stir shit
mxdan 
11849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

zefur wrote:

The difference in the situation your proposing is the highlighted word.

And as to the topic at hand, its a ruji thread so there is bound to be context missing.

The cycle of Ruji seems to be

1) Post a thread without all the info or context present under a outlandish title

2) Wait for his cheerleaders to show up or people who aren't that aware of his posting history

3) People who are aware of his history post missing context and call out Ruji

4) Ruji plays a victim for people who are unaware

5) Ruji disappears and sporadically comes back to stir shit


Basically yes. He's like an annoying telemarketer for his cause that won't take your phone number off of his company list.
270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / US
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

uncletim wrote:

and those lands were forcibly taken at gun point and then said make believe people were treated as second class people in there own land to included being enslaved.

Then yes they would have that right. But that has not happen has it?



Not with this current situation no, but that doesn't mean "white lands" have never been forcibly taken, and aren't still under non-white control. This, and you do actually have people who've fled parts of some western nations because their hometowns became too unsafe for them to inhabit. That, and if you wish to put it in those terms, you're simply stating that whites in South Africa are more immoral for taking lands by force, because they were more effective at said action. That would be like saying "this rapist is more moral than that rapist because he got caught by the police."

You, also have to consider the fact that you're punishing people by taking lands that most of them either bought, or received from their ancestors. You're not talking about anyone who actually committed those crimes you're alleging. Now, if you wish to go down that road, then let's just look at that area before whites entered. Chances are whatever people the whites took that land from, was given to them by ancestors who, also took that land by force from some other people. That's just commonplace in tribal societies.

Now then. On the slavery issue.
You're more, or less stating that the whites are evil in that area because they have relatives who owned slaves in the past. Well according to modern stats, someone of African decent in that area is actually much more likely to have had ties with a slave owner, and even a current slave owner, as blacks in that region still routinely practice slavery.

This of course is, also ignoring the fact that the lands aren't being seized, and given to prior owners. It's just Africans in general, even if their ancestors never set foot in the south African region.

Modern slave citation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/18/map-the-worlds-36-million-slaves/?utm_term=.c6e6df0e2441

White on Black slavery ended (source for date)
http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/slavery-abolished-cape

Citation showing migration from other African regions.
https://africacheck.org/factsheets/geography-migration/

270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / US
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18
@zefur
@mxdan
I'm not that familiar with the on goings in the forums here, but it seems pretty hypocritical for you two to be saying that "he's missing some context", and then the only rebuttal of his post was a statement without any context beyond "whites stole the land." Clearly there was a lot of missing context there, if I was able to elaborate on that line as much as I did in my response.
mxdan 
11849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

Powder710 wrote:

@zefur
@mxdan
I'm not that familiar with the on goings in the forums here, but it seems pretty hypocritical for you two to be saying that "he's missing some context", and then the only rebuttal of his post was a statement without any context beyond "whites stole the land." Clearly there was a lot of missing context there, if I was able to elaborate on that line as much as I did in my response.


It's not hypocritical at all actually. If it were hypocritical we would be submitting responses in which we pick pieces out of his statements and use them to exemplify his entire point.

To that point though every single person who isn't a Trump supporter has been engaging Ruji's points for years and rarely does he bring about points that aren't riddled with fallacy and propaganda. I suggest you do a search if you can of his post history here to see that point. It's pretty cut and dry.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.