South African President Jacob Zuma bravely calls for confiscation of white land

[Enros]

South African President Jacob Zuma has called for land confiscation from white Afrikaners without compensation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-compensation/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-taken.html

This seems like a great idea to me. I hope it is implemented. Here in Ireland we confiscated most British owned land, initially with compensation but that was reneged on. This was a great move and returned the land unjustly stolen by British invaders to the Irish. Ireland is not the only country to have done so. Almost every small European country occupied by foreign invaders, from Estonia to Romania, has used uncompensated land redistribution to reclaim their stolen land.

So I have a question for people who oppose Jacob Zuma on this: why is it acceptable for European countries like Ireland, Estonia and Romania, to confiscate the land of foreign invaders, but wrong for African countries to do so?

[Heathen Hammer]

It is time for White Afrikaners to organize and claim a state of their own. Also if sentiment in OP isn't a textbook example of racism, I don't know what else is.

[Enros]

It is time for White Afrikaners to organize and claim a state of their own. Also if sentiment in OP isn't a textbook example of racism, I don't know what else is.

Was it racism when the Irish Land Commission confiscated the land of British colonists?

[Heathen Hammer]

Was it racism when the Irish Land Commission confiscated the land of British colonists?

It was discrimination based on ethnicity, yes.

[Enros]

It was discrimination based on ethnicity, yes.

It was discrimination based on ethnicity when the British confiscated the land of Irish people and gave it to British people, destroying 25% of Ireland's population in the process. It was splendid equality when we took it back. The same principle applies in South Africa.

[Heathen Hammer]

It was discrimination based on ethnicity when the British confiscated the land of Irish people and gave it to British people, destroying 25% of Ireland's population in the process. It was splendid equality when we took it back. The same principle applies in South Africa.

Holding people responsible for something that happened centuries ago because of their ethnic or racial background is pretty much as racist as it gets. By that logic Italy can have North Africa back, as Greece can have Western Turkey, as Eastern goes to Armenia.

[Enros]

Holding people responsible for something that happened centuries ago because of their ethnic or racial background is pretty much as racist as it gets. By that logic Italy can have North Africa back, as Greece can have Western Turkey, as Eastern goes to Armenia.

Firstly none of this occurred centuries ago. The Irish famine occured decades before our independence. Apartheid ended 26 years ago.

Secondly it's not about punishment but restitution. If you rob someone's car, die and leave it to your child in your will, the child doesn't get to keep it. It's not punishment to take the car from the child and give it to the rightful owner.

If British invaders steal Irish land or Afrikaner invaders steal black South African land, it's not punishment to later take the land from their descendants and give it to the people they stole from. That's restitution.

[Harith]

If British invaders steal Irish land or Afrikaner invaders steal black South African land, it's not punishment to later take the land from their descendants and give it to the people they stole from. That's restitution.

Right. While I most certainly agree that the vicious colonial past must be rectified, confiscation of land is not the way to go about it, nor are reparations. Zuma is a corrupt, surprise surprise, and incompetent leader who's looking for a scapegoat and a way to boost his popularity. All authoritarians/ dictators tend to go for these dumb solutions.

A better solution would be taxation and subsidy, where Black farmers are subsidized through tax breaks and White farmers are taxed. Also, land leases to Blacks should be subsidized as well to slowly encourage an equilibrium back in the market.

[sleepyx732]

Now somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I hear when the Dutch first got there weren't a great deal of people for hundreds of miles, and that the territory wasn't built up at all. Also that a lot of the blacks there now are descendants of slaves who were brought there. So I'm curious how we've come to conclusion that this is them 'taking back their land'. And what of people who are of Zulu descent? These people actually invaded you know. What of their land?

We've tried this little stunt before in Zimbabwe, and look how that turned out. It didn't work then, and it's not gonna work now.

[Roma_Victrix]

This thread embodies pretty much a huge reason why TWC is dying and in decline, throughout it's various forums. Who in their right mind would take this site seriously after reading this OP?

[Nikitn]

If SAF actually implements this state racism, I guess it'll only be a matter of years before it goes down the crapper like Zimbabwe.

Enros, the differentiating factor here is that the white farmers are pretty much the only ones who know how to grow the land. This is a very bad idea which will hurt everyone in SAF from firstly destroying its main industry, agriculture, and secondly setting a damning precedent. In fact, it'll be worse for the blacks than the white, because the blacks are stuck there while the whites are typically wealthy enough to move.

[Mithradates]

Now somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I hear when the Dutch first got there weren't a great deal of people for hundreds of miles, and that the territory wasn't built up at all. Also that a lot of the blacks there now are descendants of slaves who were brought there. So I'm curious how we've come to conclusion that this is them 'taking back their land'. And what of people who are of Zulu descent? These people actually invaded you know. What of their land?

We've tried this little stunt before in Zimbabwe, and look how that turned out. It didn't work then, and it's not gonna work now.

This.
The whole idea is stupid and would just harm the country without any real benefits.

[Abdülmecid I]

Meanwhile, the plantations Ireland ended in the 17th century, while the Irish famine is a completely irrelevant story, so I don't think that there's any acceptable excuse not to consider blaming innocents for what their forefathers committed as directly copied from Mein Kampf. Not that Ireland's agricultural economy was completely controlled by Protestants, as implied in the opening post.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Apology for Nazi practices only manages to intensify the ongoing social tensions or even create new ones out of the thin air, without improving the situation of th less fortunate members of the society, while it also reveals the nazification of a hopefully small portion of the modern left, which forms its ideology by rejecting the original, socialist interpretations and by replacing them with notions of dividing communities along largely imaginary religious and ethnic lines, notions traditionally endorsed by the far-right.

Almost every small European country occupied by foreign invaders, from Estonia to Romania, has used uncompensated land redistribution to reclaim their stolen land.

You should actually read your linked articles, because they're not even remotely related to what Zuma proposed. Basic knowledge of history would be sufficient to confirm it, as Estonia was occupied by Imperial Russia, not Germany, while Romania (or better Wallachia and Moldavia) had always been a collection o semi-autonomous principalities, freely allowed to administer their internal affairs. What happened there is actually defined as land redistribution, as feudalism is gradually abolished and large estates, belonging to the local nobility (Romanian in Romania and mostly German, generally descended from the Teutonic Knights in Estonia), are divided among small peasants. It wouldn't be such a major issue, if that was what the South-African president suggested, regardess of the aristocrat's skin complexion, especially if his measures were accompanied by an initiative of at least preserving the current infrastructure and of sending agronomists to teach the farmers about the most appropriate cultivating techniques. Instead, he opted for racist populism, in a desperate effort to undermine the power of the radical wing of his party and grab the votes of hundreds of thousands of poor South-Africans, reversing his party's trend of losing, due to corruption scandals, by attacking a social group, which never supported him.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Because this worked so well in Zimbabwe didn't it. Can't wait for the South african Rand to have an inflation rate of 79 billion percent.

[Big War Bird]

The whites were there first, who is going to stand up for the indigenous whites of SA?

[hellheaven1987]

Zuma just tries to throw a smoke screen for his own corruption charge.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

South African President Jacob Zuma has called for land confiscation from white Afrikaners without compensation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-compensation/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-taken.html

This seems like a great idea to me. I hope it is implemented. Here in Ireland we confiscated most British owned land, initially with compensation but that was reneged on. This was a great move and returned the land unjustly stolen by British invaders to the Irish. Ireland is not the only country to have done so. Almost every small European country occupied by foreign invaders, from Estonia to Romania, has used uncompensated land redistribution to reclaim their stolen land.

So I have a question for people who oppose Jacob Zuma on this: why is it acceptable for European countries like Ireland, Estonia and Romania, to confiscate the land of foreign invaders, but wrong for African countries to do so?

Was it wrong for Germany in the 1930s to confiscate Jewish owned businesses and Jewish owned land or did you consider it a brave thing?


The land in South Africa was not stolen because large portions of what is now South Africa were completely uninhabited when the Dutch arrived in the early-mid 1600s. The area around where they founded Cape Town was uninhabited.

[StarDreamer]

So did I get the gist of tjis thread correctly. Racist policies are now a great and brave thing to do if the victims are white?

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

I agree, but we must start from the beginings of recorded history. In Europe we must confiscate all the land owned by Indo-European peoples as well as Hungarians because upon their arrival they lacked the common courtesy to ask the natives: "How much for the land, my kind Sir?" This, naturally, applies to all other continents.

In Turkey for instance, we should confiscate all the land owned by Turks in western Anatolia and give it to the Greeks. Then, we should confiscate all the land owned by Greeks in western Anatolia and give it to the Phrygians, again we should confiscate all the land owned by Phrygians in western Anatolia and give it to the Luwians, and lastly we should confiscate all the land owned by Luwians in western Anatolia and give it to the pre-Indo-Europeans.

I know these peoples are extinct, but there are plenty of those who aren't, and thus we can punish them for the crimes of their four-times-great-grandfathers even if they bought the land during the times of oppression instead of actually stealing them.

[Roma_Victrix]

Was it wrong for Germany in the 1930s to confiscate Jewish owned businesses and Jewish owned land or did you consider it a brave thing?

The land in South Africa was not stolen because large portions of what is now South Africa were completely uninhabited when the Dutch arrived in the early-mid 1600s. The area around where they founded Cape Town was uninhabited.

Seems fairly obvious to me. I think it's fair that for a generation the native blacks of South Africa should be given some sort of tax cut incentive or government grants to start their own farms, but to snatch it away from certain people because of their skin color (i.e. white) is not only unjust and a human rights violation, it is also stupidly counterproductive and damaging for the economy. You'll have economic ruin and a famine like you saw in Zimbabwe, with refugees trying desperately to escape, both black and white.

I agree, but we must start from the beginings of recorded history. In Europe we must confiscate all the land owned by Indo-European peoples as well as Hungarians because upon their arrival they lacked the common courtesy to ask the natives: "How much for the land, my kind Sir?" This, naturally, applies to all other continents.

In Turkey for instance, we should confiscate all the land owned by Turks in western Anatolia and give it to the Greeks. Then, we should confiscate all the land owned by Greeks in western Anatolia and give it to the Phrygians, again we should confiscate all the land owned by Phrygians in western Anatolia and give it to the Luwians, and lastly we should confiscate all the land owned by Luwians in western Anatolia and give it to the pre-Indo-Europeans.

I know these peoples are extinct, but there are plenty of those who aren't, and thus we can punish them for the crimes of their four-times-great-grandfathers even if they bought the land during the times of oppression instead of actually stealing them.

Just to be safe, we should give all of our farmland to the skeletal remains of Homo Erectus, since they were here first! And since Homo Erectus' bodily remains are kept in museums and universities around the world, the museums and universities should control all the farmland as legal stewards and placeholders for their extinct species! See? I'm smart.