[noir]

No, i'm not. I only argue with Black Priviliage to settle wherever they want while denying other the same right.

[Ter]

@Alchemy
You are again making random assumptions.
I didn't even mention colonialism anywhere but you keep going on and on about it.
I get it, you know more about South Africa because you live there, and I respect that.
But do not underestimate the other posters.
I have lived and worked more than six years in Southern Africa including in several Frontline States, and also worked in West Central Africa. I have so far not participated in this debate, I only tried to make it more civil. I have my own vision on colonialism and it would be in general pretty close to yours but for different reasons.
But if that also alienates you, you are on your own, buddy.

[alethea]

And you still haven't given an answer as to why the African natives have an inalienable right to the land they lived on. What makes their land claims just and the claims of others unjust? Until you answer that question, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Numbers. In South Africa the Colonialists were not trying to displace the native population, unlike in the US/Canada/ Australia etc, they were using them as a resource - that is their labour.

After WW2 the effects of colonisation were resoundingly acknowledged. The US in particular decided to help all people trying to get self determination and freedom from their Colonisers and the decision was that Colonising would be no more - it had twice brought the world into war and had also seen the holocaust which was seen as particularly bad as it was a genocide against white people. Clearly the way of colonisation and racism was removing all humanity from the world and forcing the colonisers to fight with each other. Due to this International Law came in making such things against the law. However the US against the advice of the State Department supported Israel's Colonisation of Palestine and that left a weak link in the chain for racism and all it entails to come back in which it seems to be doing now.

South Africa got its Independence during the time when the Western world was moving step by step to a more humanitarian world. Once they have their country back they have the right to choose how to rule it.

After Israel declared Independence the US initially distanced itself from Israel. This changed after the 67 war with the US putting Israel above everything else. Particularly with its response to 9/11 the US has lost it's orientation towards creating a more humanitarian world - in fact it is questionable how much the US believed that apart from at home. However after 9/11 it managed to get Europe on side and bit by bit we have seen a transatlantic racism building - originally towards Arabs fomented by Israel and her supporters but more lately it is spreading also to blacks.

South Africa got its independence during the time the world was moving towards becoming more humanitarian. Indeed Tony Blair suggested that we should look for different qualities in our soldiers as the work they would be doing would be more peace keeping than fighting. The response to 9/11 blew that humanitarian world apart.

The other side of course is neo liberalism and democracy. Arguably very few countries have much in the way of democracy as their governments need to answer and serve Corporate Interests. It is hardly surprising that in this situation we see many countries moving towards fascism which of course feeds Corporate Power.

Back to South Africa - on the advice of Thatcher, Mandela agreed to keep the economic system as it was which has been pretty much the situation in other African States which got their Independence. This meant that they had minimal Independence as without economic power - which still resided with the Whites, democracy is even less possible than in the West.

As an Independent State South Africa has the right to make their own choices if they do so through Parliamentary vote and to take responsibility for the result. This is a right all people have. Whether she change her constitution is still to be seen.

Unfortunately we are now in an age where those who believe in might is right are in the ascendancy. This is a massive danger to the world given that we have the ability to kill ourselves over and over. Selfishness which might is right is will likely destroy our world. This was recognised after WW2 when we had fought two world wars due to this mentality - but unfortunately at the turn of the century all was forgotten in the US. It went off at first talking about it bringing rights and being humanitarian. However this was all seen to be false. People said the US only has rights at home. More recently it is being questioned how safe they are even there.

[Alchemy]

@Alchemy
You are again making random assumptions.
I didn't even mention colonialism anywhere but you keep going on and on about it.
I get it, you know more about South Africa because you live there, and I respect that.
But do not underestimate the other posters.
I have lived and worked more than six years in Southern Africa including in several Frontline States, and also worked in West Central Africa. I have so far not participated in this debate, I only tried to make it more civil. I have my own vision on colonialism and it would be in general pretty close to yours but for different reasons.
But if that also alienates you, you are on your own, buddy.

Show me where i said that you said anything regarding colonialism? Where in my post have I stated anything pertaining to that with you? I'm talking about you conveniently overlooking the racist outbursts and tirades by the people you claim I am classifying as racist for no reason?

You clearly haven't read this thread if you say that I'm underestimating others posts? Many have been outright wrong in their assumptions and claims as to what is taking place here. Some of these guys are fucking clueless as to what the hell is happening in SA, or the constitutional review underway. Read the first page of this thread. Is that your understanding as to what is happening with the land question here as well? Is being wrong, being reclassified as underestimating now? Can I also just make up wrong and sensationalist claims in debates now and pass them off as facts then claim to be right? Please. Either go through the debate to get perspective from the beginning up until this point or stop chiming in with unwarranted claims on my behalf.

[Alchemy]

No, i'm not. I only argue with Black Priviliage to settle wherever they want while denying other the same right.

Oh okay so when you were making derogatory racial stereotypes about primitive blacks, you were just playing then? So you aren't racist? You are just occasionally racist for fun, and this doesn't make you a racist? Fuck. POFO has gone to shit..

[noir]

Not bother by this issue either. You misinterpret lack of sympathy with racism and bigotry. Be aware, as long you associate yourself with the racist jihadi camp, there is no chance you will gain a sympathy. Let's be frank, with the racist path and allies you take there is absolute certainty, you will end up pariah like whie minoiry before. Remember in the beginning of the 20th century, during the British Boer war (1899-1902), there were no other people in the world more cherished and adored than the Afrikans. It took couple decades and they become the most despise and hated. You took for granted the current privileges you enjoym, but it won't last long.

[Alchemy]

Not bother by this issue either. You misinterpret lack of sympathy with racism and bigotry. Be aware, as long you associate yourself with the racist jihadi camp, there is no chance you will gain a sympathy. Let's be frank, with the racist path and allies you take there is absolute certainty, you will end up pariah like whie minoiry before. Remember in the beginning of the 20th century, during the British Boer war (1899-1902), there were no other people in the world more cherished and adored than the Afrikans. It took couple decades and they become the most despise and hated. You took for granted the current privileges you enjoym, but it won't last long.

No, stereotyping peoples capabilities based on Race is stupid and racist dude, you even used a white supremacist site to support your bigoted views. On what planet is Breitbart considered not to be a white supremacist source? Israel always supported the apartheid state so I couldn't care less what you think of my views pertaining to the theft of Palestinian land.

[foxdemon]

Not bother by this issue either. You misinterpret lack of sympathy with racism and bigotry. Be aware, as long you associate yourself with the racist jihadi camp, there is no chance you will gain a sympathy. Let's be frank, with the racist path and allies you take there is absolute certainty, you will end up pariah like whie minoiry before. Remember in the beginning of the 20th century, during the British Boer war (1899-1902), there were no other people in the world more cherished and adored than the Afrikans. It took couple decades and they become the most despise and hated. You took for granted the current privileges you enjoym, but it won't last long.

It is a shame @Alchemy won’t listen. You make a very good point about the fickleness of world opinion.


I can see current policies turning SA into yet another shithole country within 10 years. But in 100 years time, I can see there being very few blacks in East Africa. The way things are going they will be replaced by Chinese settlers.


Now if the blacks had accepted white culture is actually more complex and adopted it to build modern nation states, they might still be around in 100 years.


On the subject of black inferiority, it is important to recognise that social complexity is dependant on population density. Historically Europe and Asia had the higher densities. The ME was once the highest density region and once was the leading center of civilisation. Today the knife and fork culture’s and the chop stick culture’s are most complex and thus dominate.


Sub Saharan Africa has come from a society of lower complexity due to the lower population density until recently. Now the population is exploding but they lack any idea of the socially complex solutions to problems of big populations. They actually needed to keep those European settlers in order to obtain the cultural experience to modernise.


I think they had to do that in the last 50 or 60 years. It is too late now because the next wave of colonialism is upon them. China is urbanising and has become a net food importer. They need East Afria’s land and they have the power to get it.


Pity @Alchemy is so intent on burning bridges. He and his fellows might need some sympathy soon.

[noir]

No, stereotyping peoples capabilities based on Race is stupid and racist dude, you even used a white supremacist site to support your bigoted views. On what planet is Breitbart considered not to be a white supremacist source? Israel always supported the apartheid state so I couldn't care less what you think of my views pertaining to the theft of Palestinian land.

It's ANC pro Arab propaganda. In 1961 Israel voted against apartheid at the U.N. Oliver Tambo, the then head of the A.N.C., sent a letter to the president of Israel, Yitzhak Ben Zvi, thanking him for Israel’s actions. A few months prior to his arrest in 1962, Nelson Mandela underwent military training by Mossad operatives in Ethiopia, using the non de plume David Mobsari. Nelson Mandela was in no way a lone participant in this Israeli covert program. Other anti apartheid movements and individuals were involved, including Potelkako Leballo the head of the P.A.C. (Pan Africanist Congress) military wing.

At the time of the Rivonia trial (1963-64) where Nelson Mandela and others were convicted of sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment, Golda Meir, Israel’s foreign minister at the time called for leniency at the trial and the commutation of any death sentence.

The relationship between African nations and Israel came to an abrupt end after the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur war in 1973. This change was a direct result of the Arab threat to impose an oil boycott on all countries that had ties to Israel and severe all aid to those liberation movements that showed support for the Jewish state. In the later 1970s, Israeli altruism was replaced by short-term, self-interested considerations.

More revealing was South Africa’s $2 billion annual oil imports, none of which came from Israel obviously. So called supporters of the liberation struggle, namely Saudi Arabia, supplied $1 billion worth of annual oil imports. Barter deals with Iran and Iraq supplied $1 billion and $750 million annual oil imports respectively.

[Alchemy]

It is a shame @Alchemy won’t listen. You make a very good point about the fickleness of world opinion.


I can see current policies turning SA into yet another shithole country within 10 years. But in 100 years time, I can see there being very few blacks in East Africa. The way things are going they will be replaced by Chinese settlers.


Now if the blacks had accepted white culture is actually more complex and adopted it to build modern nation states, they might still be around in 100 years.


On the subject of black inferiority, it is important to recognise that social complexity is dependant on population density. Historically Europe and Asia had the higher densities. The ME was once the highest density region and once was the leading center of civilisation. Today the knife and fork culture’s and the chop stick culture’s are most complex and thus dominate.


Sub Saharan Africa has come from a society of lower complexity due to the lower population density until recently. Now the population is exploding but they lack any idea of the socially complex solutions to problems of big populations. They actually needed to keep those European settlers in order to obtain the cultural experience to modernise.


I think they had to do that in the last 50 or 60 years. It is too late now because the next wave of colonialism is upon them. China is urbanising and has become a net food importer. They need East Afria’s land and they have the power to get it.


Pity @Alchemy is so intent on burning bridges. He and his fellows might need some sympathy soon.

Need I say more about this latent white supremacist laid post? Yep read it and weep. No one has shown that human variation is great enough to account for differences of IQ, nor has anyone established the veracity of IQ as a legitimate measurement. You are lamenting about problems created by white colonialists, in terms of how they forcibly grouped and relocated people, and destroyed their natural progress with apartheid only ending in the 90's, now its suddenly a problem of the "lower complexities" making according to you and more absurdly, you claim that they should have found solutions to problems 50-60 years ago when whites were still oppressing and governing them through the barrel of a gun. Do you like know that apartheid only ended in 1994?

You white supremacist doomsayers saw South Africa turning into a shithole upon Mandela's release, but it didn't happen. Now here you are, comparing land grabs in Zimbabwe, to returning stolen property back to its owners? Why is the land stolen? Lets take a look why shall we?

[noir]

You white supremacist doomsayers saw South Africa turning into a shithole upon Mandela's release,

Not immediate, but if you don't live under the rock, it's indeed steadily become shithole. Of course Mandela was great man, and this is the misfortune of the white South Africans. They couldn't beat his moral authority, they had to deal with him, but left with his gangsters successors.

[Alchemy]

Not immediate, but if you don't live under the rock, it's indeed steadily become shithole. Of course Mandela was great man, and this is the misfortune of the white South Africans. They couldn't beat his moral authority, they had to deal with him, but left with his gangsters successors.

So how many years do you give SA before it becomes a shithole this time? 5? 10? 20 years?

[Pants-of-dog]

No it doesn't, did you even read the papers? This is just something you made up in your mind to justify an unsubstantiated position and falsify the conclusions of people that are likely more credentialed than you.

It was not in the text you quoted.

This is why I ignore you, you do this while never bringing evidence or sources of your own. Your debating style is equivalent to someone who argues that God is in between the gaps, meaning you contribute nothing substantial but doubt those who do because you feel something is wrong. At least those people point out actual gaps I suppose,

This is not an argument. Ignored.

but these papers do not focus solely on GDP and you've yet to prove indigenous people live in a separate economy and this is a zero-sum game. In fact, all evidence I've provided suggests otherwise and higher baseline living standard correlating to years as a European colony, degree of settlement, and so on. Your Nike example is poor because wage-labor is more profitable than being a third world peasant, that's why people do it in the first place.

If you wish to present evidence that the Khoikhoi and San people benefited economically from having their land taken from them, be my guest.

You're a poor debate partner who doesn't seem to actually know anything about what you're engaging with or at least have an arsenal of resources and people who do which you can cite, you just feel the need to inject yourself into any conversation that puts a left wing narrative in a poor factual light and counterbalance it. But you do this, as mentioned, without adding to the conversation.

I've been on this forum for many years and I hardly ever see you make long posts with citations. The contrast between you and someone like Rei, who was similarly of unpopular opinions, is to your own peril as a poster. Until you correct for this I'm not wasting my time on you. Go read things, cite them, and contribute. I did that and it actually led me to realize leftism can be pretty empirically unsubstantiated.

This is you talking about me, and not an argument. While I am awesome, so it makes sense you want to talk about me, this is all irrelevant.

You need to resort to arguments referencing slavery because that's the only way you can relate a zero-sum game. You are either really dishonest or really stupid.

Do not bother me unless you read the papers, I guarantee if you actually did you would have criticisms much longer than a line or two. I will be waiting for something thought out and with citations, I expect equivalent investment in any of our debates. I won't tolerate this tier of argument

Not only dd I not mention slavery, but none of this is an argument either.

which an econ undergrad would tear up

So you think that if a factory owner oppresses his workers and makes a record profit, then the employees are also benefiting from the situation?

Great analysis there!

[Deutschmania]

They literally enjoyed something like 200,000 years of European free existence. What was stopping them from mining gold, diamonds, ivory, and farming?

If it weren't for the monopoly possessed by the De Beers cartel , diamonds would not be all that valuable .

Seriously , I was able to purchase Bristol diamond geodes at $ 1.00 a piece , at this one gift shop .

[Pants-of-dog]

I disagree. I think the inroduction of electricity, indoor plumbing, and modern medicine to Africa was enormously beneficial to the Africans.

Considering the fact that most blacks in south Africa did not have access to electricity until after the end of Apartheid and that access to electricity has skyrocketed since the fall of Apartheid, it seems odd to thank the people who were depriving blacks of electricity for providing it.

http://energy-access.gnesd.org/cases/22 ... ramme.html

I am willing to bet that access to clean water and medicine follow the same patterns. Once you factor in the impact of industrial pollution, the impacts on health from contaminated water and lack of access to medical care are probably worse than before colonialism.

What makes these title valid? Again, you have presented no argument as to why the natives have an inalienable right to the land they live on.

Their own laws make it valid. Just as Europeans decide for themselves that they have sovereignty.

You are deflecting. Just because there were famines in other places doesn't mean that there were no famines. Famine is a principle reason why life in pre-colonial Africa sucked.

The evidence about pre-colonialAfrica is scant, but what little there is suggests that modern Africa is less equipped to deal with famine than it was was then.

Droughts and epidemics are recurrent phenomena in the history of Sudanic Africa. Only in the aftermath of the famines of 1973–74 and 1984–85 in the Sahel zone did historians begin to question their easy classification as ‘natural disasters’ and to look more closely at the interplay of climatic and societal stress factors in the causation process. Research into the history of disasters in pre-colonial Sudanic Africa has to face the problem of a distinctive lack of available source material. This article will address the problems surrounding the identification of droughts and epidemics, before getting to the question of how they turned into disasters, mostly in the form of famines. It argues that before the colonial period the regional food systems seem to have been better adapted to deal with climatic stress than with the specific forms of violence that were an intrinsic part of the fabric of Sudanic Africa since the political reorganisation of the sixteenth century. Thus, both vulnerability and resilience, but also the ways to explain disasters have to be understood in the context of the political, economic and social history of these African societies.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 0701000208

Maybe not. But European medicine is far more effective.

Is it? You guys were drinking gin and tonics to combat malaria while spreading smallpox at an amazing rate. So much somat it was probly the most effective weapon Europeans had against indigenous people.

Citation needed.

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.o ... 417-en.pdf

[Deutschmania]

On the original topic itself , I can justify this policy from the third position of a non-racist revolutionary National Socialism . From the standpoint of the principle of "blood and soil" , the indigenous African population has all the more right to possess the land which they work . All Afrikaaners who are not content with this arrangement should either be granted their own ethno-state , in compensation , as the Freedom Front Plus actually calls for , or they should take advantage of the right of return , and emigrate to the Netherlands , from whence they originally came. This would be similar to the idea of making the Black Belt of the American South into an autonomous region , in place of the promised 40 acres and a mule . I feel therefore that all such National Socialists , who are not racially biased , should in all fairness support the Pan-African Congress , and Economic Freedom Fighters , in respects to the concept of African socialism , similarly to how we advocate Prussian socialism for the German people. So I for one see no contradiction between being a self respecting white man , and supporting the liberation of South Africa from the remnants of colonialism , and recognizing the right to self determination of the Black African population upon their own natural homeland . I will celebrate this development with a song of rejoicing .

[noir]

non-racist revolutionary National Socialism

So the Anti British ("anti imperialists") Nazis, called themselves "non racists"? The "non racists" Nazis were stirring troubles against the Western powers (mainly British and Americans) but they had no problem to suppress Slavs and others in their own empire.

[JohnRawls]

You have not shown that colonialism was a benefit to the colonised. Please provide evidence that the Khoi and San benefited from having their land taken from them. Thank you.

If your argument is that they benefited because SA made money, then you are confusing the profits made by the colonisers with the supposed benefits given to the colonised. This would be like arguing that capitalism is good for a sweatshop worker because Nike made record profits.

Also, you should ask the dead colonisers in Haiti about their voluntary decolonization. Lol at history fail. Perhaps you are thinking about situations like Canada where Canada became independent from the UK without war. This is because the colonial wealth extraction system was not an issue. The people who were making money off the colonialism did so regarldess of which cournry was doing the colonising.



You seem to be making two arguments here:

1. That countries that had to deal with more colonialism are doing better economically, and

2. That the colonising countries are not wealthy now.

I have already addressed the first one, but again, you are confusing the wealth of the colonisers who live in that country with the wealth of the colonised. This is incorrect and assumes that a Khoisan person living in the streets is somehow benefiting from the vineyards owned by a white landowner. Guess what? The working class is not the same as the landowner class.

There are also other issues like the fact that Haiti has been saddled with a huge debt ever since they killed their colonial oppressors. This debt has been growing since then because of interest and other financial measures imposed upon them by international capitalism. Those countries that continued to be oppressed by colonialism did not have to deal with these punitive financial measures and therefore have stronger economies. But again, these economies benefit the developed west and their local puppets, not the actual people.

As for your second argument, yes, the money changed hands and is nomlonger in Portugal’s possession and is now in European banks. This is how Amsterdam made so much money offf colonialism without colonising anyone. It does not disporve Alchemy’s claim. It just shows that capitalism also has an impoverishing effect within Europe as well as through colonialism.



All of these claims ar true and you have been unable to show they are incorrect.



Your scholarly economic research completely ignores the wealth of indigenous communities and focuses solely on GDP, which measures the wealth extracted from the country, not the wealth of the indigenous communities.

It would be like arguing that since the slave trade made so much money, enslaved blacks benefited from the money that was made.



Jingoism using long words is still jingoism and can be ignored. If I want to experience jingoism, I will watch the Wolf Warrior movies.

—————————



This is not about white and black, but about returning land to the original owners before Apartheid.

Land restitution is one of the key issues since South Africa achieved democracy in 1994 and as such an overview of what has been achieved since the promulgation of the Restitution of Land Right Act 22 is significant.

The legal basis for land restitution is provided by the 1993 Interim Constitution, section 25(7) of the 1996 Constitution and the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The South African Constitution of 1993/1996 gave people and communities who had been dispossessed of land after 19 June 1913 as a result of racially discriminatory laws or practices the right to restitution of that property or to fair compensation. The Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 was promulgated in 1994 in terms of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 for that purpose. The Act also established a Commission on Restitution of Land Rights in 1995 under a Chief Land Claims Commissioner and seven Regional Land Claims Commissioners representing the nine provinces with the mandate to assist claimants in submitting their land claim, receive and acknowledge all claims lodged and advise claimants on the progress of their land claim.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/lan ... frica-1994

The only reason that race is an issue is because the original land theft was done along racial lines.



Yes, it is the right thing to do. It should stop when the original owners are no longer around. Please note that land can be owend by communities and communities can last for a very long time. With this logic, the US and Cana da should also be returning land to those indigenous communities that are still around and have continued to agitate for a return of their land since it was originally stolen.



Perhaps, but feelings are irrelevant.



Justice, sovereignty, equality, and an end to the legacy of colonialism.



Returning stolen goods to their rightful owner is consistent with the goals described in the answer to question four, and is humane even though the current land owners (who are about to lose their stolen land) may not agree.

——————————



Africans did do all of these things, except mine ivory.

Many African communities did not do these things because they did not need to. Why would a herder need diamonds?

——————————



Do you believe that the whites are the rightful owners of the land? Why?

I understand that Pants, but I not only have issues with how it is being done(Main problem) but also Why(What purpose does it serve?)

There are several issues here:

1) I do acknowledge the land distribution is unequal. I do acknowledge that it happened due to colonialism. I do not however aknowledge that children/descendants of colonialists must answer for the crimes of their grandparents and parents. At the least not to the same degree as the grandparents. In a sense this is something akin to Statute of Limitations.

2) All of the economic and equality reform must reach 1 specific goal: Economic growth and development. Basically prosperity. This particular reform does not provide that. We have seen in the past how taking land from landowners destroys agriculture. (Not just white but ANY landowners affects agriculture)

3) The process itself is aimed as punitive action. You will not have good incluse society if you punish one side without talking to it. This will anger a lot of the white population, heck probably 95%.

4) There is no dialogue, it is a dictate of 1 side because they are in the position of power. As you said, what are you going to do about it? Well, they will leave the country or not invest in the country. Both societal and economic effects are bad.

5) Potential for genocide. I do not mean this in the same way as the holocaust. But there are different kinds of genocide: Cultural, Democide, Utilitarian genocide, Land genocide etc. At some point, if things get really bad, it might turn in to 1 of the mentioned categories. Do you really want this to happen?

6) Alternatives are slower but produce much better result. Take your time, modernise your economy and things will even out eventually. Yes it will take 20-30 years more but that is a much better solution for the whole society both of black and white people of SA.

[alethea]

They seem to be rethinking things and are now talking about only taking unused land. - use it or lose it. I don't agree that because their ancestors stole something it is wrong to take it back from their great grandchildren. They are still benefiting from a theft which is still depriving the people they stole it from. However in the scheme of things people need to look at the world and at the consequences of their actions which is what they appear to be doing now.

https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-a ... tion-plan/

[JohnRawls]

They seem to be rethinking things and are now talking about only taking unused land. - use it or lose it. I don't agree that because their ancestors stole something it is wrong to take it back from their great grandchildren. They are still benefiting from a theft which is still depriving the people they stole it from. However in the scheme of things people need to look at the world and at the consequences of their actions which is what they appear to be doing now.

https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-a ... tion-plan/

How is the "unused" land defined? Does it count the land that can't be farmed because of the current water issues in SA? Does it count the land that was farmed several seasons ago but now the land is resting? What exactly does "unused" mean in this case?

There are many loopholes behind that word. So depending on the definition, the land that can be taken will either be useless (Because it is not used for a reason) or simply stolen because the landowner could not use it this season for 1 reason or the other.

Also, how is it being distributed when taken? Or planned to be distributed? (To Whom?)