South Africa 'draws up a list of almost 200 farms it will seize from white farmers' as ANC head says - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14942827
@fuser @Alchemy
No it was genuine as I am sceptical always of land seizures and this sort of thing in general.

I couldn’t find in any of my reading who specifically they are giving it to and that they have traceable claims. Anyone have a link ?

My point has always been that, unlike the native Americans, the anc took over and inherited the state of South Africa. Therefore there is no group entity to transfer land to. Therefore, any land redistribution must be on an individual basis and both seized and receivers must have specific evidence of claims.

The suspicion would be party loyalists getting the land and party enemies losing it of course.
#14942839
I haven't had a chance to read much of this thread so apologies if this has already been discussed but the quote from the OP makes it sound like farms are being downsized rather than liquidated completely.

OP wrote:'You shouldn't own more than 12,000 hectares of land and therefore if you own more, it should be taken without compensation,' ANC Chairman Gwede Mantashe, who is also the country's mines minister, told News24 in an interview published on Wednesday.

So is this a land reform to break up excessive concentrations of ownership? You can own 12,000 heactares but no more? I'd support a similar policy in the UK but without the racial component. Or we could implement a land-value tax to push people to sell off larger holdings.
#14942841
layman wrote:My point has always been that, unlike the native Americans, the anc took over and inherited the state of South Africa. Therefore there is no group entity to transfer land to. Therefore, any land redistribution must be on an individual basis and both seized and receivers must have specific evidence of claims.

This is false for a number of reasons. While it would be very difficult for native Americans to prove individual land ownership due to the early periods involved, black South Africans were still being stripped of valuable land as of the 60's, late 80's and early nineties and their land claims can be easily verified with previous title deeds and acts and laws of this nature which legalised the theft of their land. If you are interested in understanding this more, read the following link for a few examples.

https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/fo ... -1912-1991
#14943118
Alchemy wrote:This is false for a number of reasons. While it would be very difficult for native Americans to prove individual land ownership due to the early periods involved, black South Africans were still being stripped of valuable land as of the 60's, late 80's and early nineties and their land claims can be easily verified with previous title deeds and acts and laws of this nature which legalised the theft of their land. If you are interested in understanding this more, read the following link for a few examples.

https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/fo ... -1912-1991


Thanks for the links though not sure how this contradicts what I said? I said that in individual cases there needs to be specific evidence and you showed examples of where there is.

Is there not a somewhat separate argument going on about early settlers land claims though? I get that this government action in the op is limited in scale but there is talk of much older ancestoral claims.
#14943123
layman wrote:
Thanks for the links though not sure how this contradicts what I said? I said that in individual cases there needs to be specific evidence and you showed examples of where there is.

Is there not a somewhat separate argument going on about early settlers land claims though? I get that this government action in the op is limited in scale but there is talk of much older ancestoral claims.

No, there isn’t, hence why I said it contradicts what you said. If you look at the examples provided in this thread alone, you will see government has been negotiating with Farmers where valid land claims exist from previous owners which is a dead easy thing to prove as forced evictions were well documented by the apartheid state.

The general land debate in the country talks to government sitting on large swathes of urban land which can be put to better use instead of sitting idle.
#14943137
No, there isn’t


I am sure there are some radical voices calling for it.

Regarding the op and the clarification. If this is the case then My only surprise is that it took this long.

For those opposing it, would you also oppose say a new Venezuelan government handing back siezed property to pre Chavez owners? What about Zimbabwe redistribution of lands handed to cronies ?
#14943165
layman wrote:I am sure there are some radical voices calling for it.

There are radical voices within any country (just look at the US). What matters is what the government says, and the government has categorically not said that it will be expropriating all white owned farms. The OP makes this claim (lie), but cannot substantiate it with proof where the government has actually made this claim 16 pages later. He thinks that drug induced bigoted rants based on propaganda constitutes an actual let alone intellectual debate on the matter.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]