South Africa votes to seize land from white farmers without compensation - Polidicks

[quote]]South Africa‘s parliament has passed a motion to seize land from white farmers without paying them compensation. Passed by an overwhelming majority of 241 votes to 83 votes against, the proposal to amend Section 25 of the constitution would allow expropriation of land without any financial recompense. It was put forward by the radical left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, whose leader Julius Malema told the country's parliament: “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.” The ruling African National Congress (ANC) amended but supported the motion. The party has promised reforms to address the racial disparities in land ownership which persist more than two decades after the end of apartheid. South Africa's new president, Cyril Ramaphosa, said he would speed up the transfer of land from white to black owners after his inauguration two weeks ago. But he stressed it must be conducted in a manner which preserved food production and security. Speaking to the National Council of Provinces in televised remarks earlier this week, Mr Ramaphosa said he wants talks on the contentious topic to avoid panic. But he said he aimed to resolve the issue of racial disparities in property ownership "once and for all." "I will shortly initiate a dialogue with key stakeholders," he said, adding: "There is no need for any one of us to panic and start beating war drums. "We are going to address this and make sure that we come up with resolutions that resolve this once and for all. This original sin that was committed when our country was colonised must be resolved in a way that will take South Africa forward." Parliament instructed a committee to review the constitution and report back by 30 August. The ANC’s deputy chief whip, Dorries 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.” The official opposition, the Democratic Alliance party (DA) opposed the motion, arguing changes to Section 25 will undermine property rights and scare off potential investors. The DA’s Thandeka Mbabama told parliament expropriation without compensation was a way to divert attention from the failure by successive ANC-led governments to get to grips with the issue. Critics have compared the move to the disastrous redistribution of land in neighbouring Zimbabwe, which was often accompanied by violence and left farms neglected.[/quote] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/south-africa-white-farms-land-seizure-anc-race-relations-a8234461.html[/url]

Zimbabwe 2: Electric boogaloo

Ohi ohi, what's with antiwhite boner in South Africa later?

[QUOTE=VprVajraRpv;53180714]Ohi ohi, what's with antiwhite boner in South Africa later?[/QUOTE] its not new

I can't see this ending well..

Totally not making a Zimbabwe part 2 I see. For what purpose even doing this?

Considering the shit state that South Africa is in already, this is gonna go swell. Here's hoping for the Boers to unite and begin an armed struggle if anything is attempted.

Whats to stop the white farmers from just salting and destroying the Earth before getting chucked off since they're not getting paid anyway? Why would anyone even invest in a country where your assets can just be seized like some weird communist society?

"Parliament instructed a committee to review the constitution and report back by 30 August." Nice sensationalist title there. How come there is nothing of this to be found in any of the Big SA news outlets?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53180750]Considering the shit state that South Africa is in already, this is gonna go swell. Here's hoping for the Boers to unite and begin an armed struggle if anything is attempted.[/QUOTE] No idea why you'd believe this will make things any better.

[QUOTE=Duskin;53180756]Whats to stop the white farmers from just salting and destroying the Earth before getting chucked off since they're not getting paid anyway? Why would anyone even invest in a country where your assets can just be seized like some weird communist society?[/QUOTE] This is what the DA opposition is criticizing. It's in the article.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53180767]No idea why you'd believe this will make things any better.[/QUOTE] a good old civil war never hurt anyone, jack

The guy who put this forward, Julius Malema, famously said "we are not calling for the slaughter of white people at least for now". That and politicians in South Africa openly sing struggle songs kill the boer, kill the farmer (especially members of the economic freedom fighters party of which Malema is a member). So I don't think boers will have a happy ending or even normal living standards (for everyone else in SA too), as everything just continues to go to shit there. I'm not sure of the farm impact to South African economy currently, but if it's anything like Zimbabwe they should start training to hunt rats and then beg farmers to come back 30 years later.

Burn down the fields and let them keep the remains.

Yet the world will stand by and do nothing because as whites, we are supposed to deserve it.

[QUOTE=VprVajraRpv;53180714]Ohi ohi, what's with antiwhite boner in South Africa later?[/QUOTE] i mean the apartheid wasn't that long ago

[QUOTE=orcywoo6;53180999]Yet the world will stand by and do nothing because as whites, we are supposed to deserve it.[/QUOTE] i'm sure that white guilt is at the forefront of Donald Trump's and Theresa May's minds when they decide against intervention

[QUOTE=orcywoo6;53180999]Yet the world will stand by and do nothing because as whites, we are supposed to deserve it.[/QUOTE] Move into and colonize a foreign land, ban the natives from owning land and buy it all up, then cry foul when apartheid is thrown out and people are questioning why the 8% of South African who are white own 72% of individually owned farmland. Surely you see the issue here?

[QUOTE=Ericson666;53181073]Move into and colonize a foreign land, ban the natives from owning land and buy it all up, then cry foul when apartheid is thrown out and people are questioning why the 8% of South African who are white own 72% of individually owned farmland. Surely you see the issue here?[/QUOTE] Ok but don't steal land from people who didn't do anything because of their skin color. That's incredibly hypocritical and doesn't do anything for anybody.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53181079]Ok but don't steal land from people who didn't do anything because of their skin color. That's incredibly hypocritical and doesn't do anything for anybody.[/QUOTE] So the people who had their land stolen from them in the first place should just shrug their shoulders and say "well I guess they got us, no going back now!" and submit to life in poverty because now that white people amassed all the land, they're suddenly very interested in protecting the right to property? I don't know what the correct solution is here, but the fact that there was such a systemic approach to stripping the native African population of their land as recently as a few decades ago warrants reparations, and the government shrugging their shoulders and saying it's too late to do anything isn't justice at all

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53181079]Ok but don't steal land from people who didn't do anything because of their skin color. That's incredibly hypocritical and doesn't do anything for anybody.[/QUOTE] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Zimbabwe_GDP_per_cap_2015.png/1200px-Zimbabwe_GDP_per_cap_2015.png[/t] Nothing can go wrong!

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53181110]ah yes reparations take from those not responsible as payback to those long dead/gone[/QUOTE] Considering they still directly benefitted and continue to benefit from the land that was taken and then passed down to them, yes. Edit: The Native's Land Act that stripped most black people of their right to own property was enacted in 1913, slightly more than a hundred years ago, and was repealed in 1991 with the end of apartheid. "Long dead/gone" does not apply here.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;53181118]Considering they still directly benefitted and continue to benefit from the land that was taken and then passed down to them, yes. Edit: The Native's Land Act that stripped most black people of their right to own property was enacted in 1913, slightly more than a hundred years ago, and was repealed in 1991 with the end of apartheid. "Long dead/gone" does not apply here.[/QUOTE] literally how the fuck not? how many of the people who were in the government and/or able to vote back in 1913 are still alive today? in addition, if everyone followed this kind of braindead simpleton logic, the Germans would all be second-class citizens in their own country due to WW2 alone because reparations are [I]such a wonderful idea[/I] has history not shown that this kind of approach does not work?

According to Reuters, the only other Polidicks-compliant source I can find for this story, it's not just white-owned land being talked about[QUOTE] David Masondo, a member of the ANC’s Economic Transformation Committee, said the aim of the resolution was not to target “all land that is productively utilised ... but use it or lose it, even if you are black.” “It includes vacant land, unused land, and land used for speculative purposes,” he told a breakfast seminar with reporters. The ANC has been fleshing out the resolution, using its majority in South Africa’s parliament to back a motion last week seeking to change the constitution to allow land expropriation without compensation. It then instructed a committee to review the constitution and report back to it by Aug. 30. Masondo also said the ANC was mulling reforms that would provide title deeds for the estimated 17 million people who reside in the former “homelands”, to which most black South Africans were confined under apartheid. “We are thinking about title deeds for these rural areas,” Masondo said in response to a question. Speaking to Reuters afterwards, he said the ANC as a party would be discussing this issue in workshops. “It would be empowering for rural people,” he said. Land use in these poor, rural areas remains communal and controlled by traditional leaders, who are likely to resist such changes. They also comprise a key ANC political base that was cultivated by former president Jacob Zuma, a traditional Zulu. [/QUOTE] [url]https://www.reuters.com/article/safrica-land/unused-land-is-main-target-of-south-africas-expropriation-plan-anc-official-idUSL5N1QO1SV[/url] It's not much better and the objective is still blatantly set along racial lines but it doesn't seem to be exclusively white farmers.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;53181118]Considering they still directly benefitted and continue to benefit from the land that was taken and then passed down to them, yes. Edit: The Native's Land Act that stripped most black people of their right to own property was enacted in 1913, slightly more than a hundred years ago, and was repealed in 1991 with the end of apartheid. "Long dead/gone" does not apply here.[/QUOTE] What happens when you push white people into poverty now and take their means of survival away based on the color of their skin, since they would get no compensation for the land being taken 'back' and you seem to be okay with this idea. I don't think anyone here is saying nothing should be done to correct past wrongs but you seem to think I'm this is the best way to do it and I'm curious about why because it's pretty clearly a knee-jerk action that doesn't take anything into account other than going after people based on skin color

[QUOTE=NotMeh;53181139]literally how the fuck not? how many of the people who were in the government and/or able to vote back in 1913 are still alive today? in addition, if everyone followed this kind of braindead simpleton logic, the Germans would all be second-class citizens in their own country due to WW2 alone because reparations are [I]such a wonderful idea[/I] has history not shown that this kind of approach does not work?[/QUOTE] The World War reparations are not really comparable and apartheid ended in 1991. Ericson ALSO said [quote][B]I don't know what the correct solution is here[/B], but the fact that there was such a systemic approach to stripping the native African population of their land as recently as a few decades ago warrants reparations[/quote] Do you have a good idea or is the situation just fine as it is? I don't think Ericson was saying what you think he said.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;53181096]So the people who had their land stolen from them in the first place should just shrug their shoulders and say "well I guess they got us, no going back now!" and submit to life in poverty because now that white people amassed all the land, they're suddenly very interested in protecting the right to property? I don't know what the correct solution is here, but the fact that there was such a systemic approach to stripping the native African population of their land as recently as a few decades ago warrants reparations, and the government shrugging their shoulders and saying it's too late to do anything isn't justice at all[/QUOTE] Hey man, lets drop some big fat nukes on those filthy Germans next week as payback for WW2.

[QUOTE=NotMeh;53181139]literally how the fuck not? how many of the people who were in the government and/or able to vote back in 1913 are still alive today? in addition, if everyone followed this kind of braindead simpleton logic, the Germans would all be second-class citizens in their own country due to WW2 alone because reparations are [I]such a wonderful idea[/I] has history not shown that this kind of approach does not work?[/QUOTE] Germany didn't keep any of the land or assets it siezed outside of it's borders after WWI or WWII, while, again, the 8% of the population representing whites in South Africa own 72% of the land as a direct result of racist property laws that were in effect as recently as 30 years ago. Germany has literally nothing to do with this beyond the very concept of reparations because while they were forced to actually give what they took back, the descendants of the people who benefitted from these laws are still benefitting to date. A land market that 80% of the population was completely blocked out of for 100 years is a completely unfair standard to continue with, and reforms of some sort are necessary to even the playing field. Again, I'm not saying to march in with rifles and kick everyone out, but some form of reform beyond the world collectively shrugging its shoulders and saying "well too late to do anything now" is necessary. At the very least, you have to recognize that the current state of land ownership systematically disadvantages black people and supports white people who gained the land.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;53181118]Considering they still directly benefitted and continue to benefit from the land that was taken and then passed down to them, yes. Edit: The Native's Land Act that stripped most black people of their right to own property was enacted in 1913, slightly more than a hundred years ago, and was repealed in 1991 with the end of apartheid. "Long dead/gone" does not apply here.[/QUOTE] Yeah dude what? These people aren't the ones that made the call. They didn't tick some box up in purgatory before being born, like, yeah I want to be born in South Africa so I can exploit black people. It's no more right to take their land than it was for their ancestors to take that land from the natives of the period. Recent African history is a big pile of wrongdoings and reprisals and these days native Africans are as much responsible for the current mess as the white descendants of European settlers. Africa is going to continue being a fucking mess until someone somewhere realizes revenge isn't the way to run a country.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53181168]are you really being smug about innocent people suffering because of shit they have nothing to do with[/QUOTE] I'm not being smug, engage my points Reminder that Apartheid ended 37 years ago, not 300