There is also talk about future genocide of whites.
We sure heard a lot about South Africa back in the 90's when it was so important to politicians and the media, that blacks should run that country since they were the majority, and not whites.
Yes that has been going on for decades. Too bad people can not learn from their history. Soon the Muslims will be taking over property and doing away with people born in USA . As for Africa, That place has been stripped of anything it had. Too bad for the people there - not my problem as I have no relatives there in either group.
I've heard about it. It's all over the news sources I follow.
But if I had to guess why you didn't, I'll say is because the USA "official" media is biased as hell - the amount of world news that don't get properly covered is ridiculously long. Unless it works on their narrative, chances are they won't talk about it.
Ah, the wonders of selective covering, only those news that support a certain agendas but not the ones that serve as counter arguments. What has journalism been reduced to.
I see a good part of Media as a whore serving the public. They say and do what their viewers "pay" them to say.
It's one of the reasons I follow people like Philip DeFranco. He has more journalism-honour in his pinky than some News Outlets have all over their company.
DeFranco does try his best to keep it objective no mater how hard it is, but yes THIS is the core of journalism - objectivity despite personal opinion. Too bad that most mainstream media have become a brainwashing tool for the public rather than a means to relay information.
Thanks for posting. I was not aware of this issue.
Very interesting. What is the statute of limitations on property aquired through war and domination?
Phil, The Dutch settled in S Africa in 1652. The UK annexed it in 1806 as a colony. In 1911 there were 1.2 million South African citizens of European decent living in South Africa. By 1936 that citizenship had risen to over 2 million. There was a lot of legal immigration to South Africa at the time. Most who immigrated to South Africa from Europe were laborers.
Thanks Jim. I searched for but couldn't find a quote that says something like: all land has been aquired unjustly. So that was my train of thought. My question was meant to be more general and not specific to South Africa.
For instance, do displaced Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land in Israel? How about the indigenous peoples of all lands taken during European colonialism?
I suspect the answer is that might makes right.
I don't have the answer on the Palestinians Phil.
When it comes to displacement of people in history, everything was as you said, "Might makes right." Facts about the Europeans taking land from those who rightfully "owned" it, get pretty muddled when you really look at it closely.
Some say it was illegal for the Brits or the French, or the Spanish, etc etc to take away land from the Cheyenne or the Ute's or the Apache. Meanwhile, those tribes, or "Indian Nations", as they called themselves, were often warring with other Indian nations, taking their land, and sometimes wiping out entire tribes. Why is it that this way of life only became wrong, when those who started conquering were white? (I'm not defending what happened. I'm only comparing what one people did with what other people did.) Look at what the Mongolians did in history, and the Romans.
Indians killing Indians is no better our worse than whites killing them. Perhaps it just seems worse to many is that Europeans had so many advantages that it ways never really a "fair fight".
Good points. So way is it wrong now that the ANC is the agressors instead of the Europeans?
South Africa was part of the British Empire until 1961 when they got their independence. Does that change how "citizens" of S Africa should be treated, be they black or white? Are you saying laborers and workers who have been S African citizens for generations should now be killed and everything they own to be confiscated because they happen to be white citizens? There are two miners, both who own a house. Do you advocate that they can take away the house of the one who is white based on his color? Was this "miner" an aggressor? Do you feel that generations of white citizens are not legitimate citizens because of the color of their skin?
WTF are you taking about. Your post is about a constitutional amendment but I don't think it will give anyone the right to kill.
I don't care for the race based approach but I am not a member of the parliament on South Africa so I don't get a vote.
That's it, defend your own, because of the color of their skin, no matter what they do.
Not rules, but rulers. It seems to me the mightiest have always had final say in what is right. I agree that not all war crimes are equal - some are more appalling than others.
I envy your ability to explain things so clearly, and I agree with everything you've said.
I hope you're wrong.
So do I, but it doesn't look good.
Hard to say. Depending on how bad it gets, maybe it will be like West Berlin, or it will just be absorbed.
This isn't even new.
Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe initiated a land redistribution program in 1999-2000.
Thousands of white-owned farms were confiscated by the government, and the farmers were forced out.
Bear in mind that Zimbabwe used to be known as the breadbasket of southern Africa. Zimbabwe's world-class farmers were major food exporters to the rest of the region.
But within a few years of Mugabe's land distribution, food production plummeted.
Without its professional, experienced farmers, the nation went from being an agricultural export powerhouse to having to rely on handouts from the United Nations' World Food Programme.
Hyperinflation and a multi-decade depression followed.
After the total elimination of whites in South Africa, as farmers, workers and leaders, how long will it be before South Africa is asking for food and assistance from the US? Then, who are they going to blame? Sounds kind of like Detroit and some other US cities.
Thanks Jim, I was racking my brains for this story and I remember it exactly as you put it except that I seem to remember that there was a white farmer that was loved for his fair and equal treatment of his workers who was slaughtered in his bed. At the time, nothing was done about it and his land was redistributed to Mugabe's cronies. His wife has taken over his title and the people, of all colors, are incensed over her treatment of them.
Thanks again for your post.
You tell me.
Logan, I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, if a person supports the idea that a majority is entitled to have control of everything based on racial lines, shouldn't that belief hold true for the majority everywhere? If blacks in Africa should be able to do whatever they want to whites because they are the majority, shouldn't that hold true in countries where whites are the majority?
Either we support the belief that men of all colors should be treated equally, as citizens of their countries, and given equal opportunities based on their abilities, or we don't.
Does that mean we shouldn't give aid or assistance to any of those countries? Let them self-determine their fate?
I assumed that.
Ahhhh so I copy a news article that points out facts and now I have a white savior attitude. ROFLMAO. I guess since I don't suck up to blacks, or any other race, you and Vic are offended because your race is entitled to it. No surprise.
I didn't imply anything. Why is it that anytime someone presents something factual, that doesn't fit your agenda, it's "them" instead of you?
I copied the facts and presented them. You don't like the facts so you pull out your race card and accused me of having a "white savior" attitude.
Your race card doesn't work with me. It's expired and people are tired of it. You have no credibility.
Comparison to Detroit is accurate. Ever been to Detroit or the inner city? How many whites do you find?
Hate to disappoint you but South Africa was once known as the breadbasket of Africa. They started taking farms away from whites in 1990 under the previous regime. Now they are asking the UN for food.
I can tell you this, when the Red Cross comes asking me for donations to help starving South Africans, I won't give them a cent.
Neither will I, and I will write congress telling them I don't want a penny of my taxes going to them either.
Did armed citizens apply there?
Because I don't hear any news about foreign countries as they're not as important as my own? (comment was said sarcastically in a tongue-in-cheek manner)
Plus we got too much news in the US that doesn't get coverage, to start worrying about what isn't getting coverage elsewhere? Heck I still don't even know if Canada has politics or just Mr. Attractive Canadian beauty pageant winner running around and waving his hand claiming that he is the political leaders.
PS: I don't mean to offend anyone, especially not Canadians but my point is that the US really doesn't seem to get any non-US news reported... heck with the exception of weather, crimes and sometimes sports all the news for the last decade has to to only focus on the elite US political leaders only, which is crazy.
Considering the US gave almost 600 million to South Africa in Aid last year, somebody must care.
Why can't those people get along?
People will never get along Lorraine as long as somebody thinks they can take, what someone else already has.
too much brexit
For 1, we have. We have been hearing about it for months.
2, it was a vote on a motion to open a discussion, not really the same as a vote to allow land confiscation.
3, the idea is to undue a law that took land from the locals and gave it to Europeans in 1913.
4, of the many murders of farmers in the last few years, 61% have been white. 78% of farmers are white. Hardly genocide.
It is a troubling development but the biased reporting around the situation only inflames, it does not help cooler heads prevail.
White farmers in South Africa will have their property seized under a new law backed by Julius Malema, the revolutionary socialist leader of the country's opposition party who once chillingly declared he was "not calling for the slaughter of white people — at least for now."
On Tuesday, the National Assembly of South Africa voted 241-83 in favor amending the Constitution to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation. (That's not a vote to open a discussion Vic)
Sounds like you don't see this as a problem Vic. That' not surprising. Then again, you were probably also against the "minority" having any control in S Africa when they were in power. Funny how hypocrisy works.
Actually it is not a vote to change the constitution, it is a vote so that parliament can instructed a committee to review the constitution and report back by 30 August.
And I do have a big problem with it. But you're fear mongering, and your biased reporting source only fuel hatred. Your contention that this isn't being covered by the media is wrong. And the real irony is you want the people who stole land from the original owners to be justly compensated but probably don't support compensation for the native Americans whose land was stolen by European settlers or compensation for the descendants of slaves whose lives were stolen.
They story and results of the vote are all over the internet with numerous countries commenting on it. Anyone can google it and see the truth Vic.
Just what part of, "On Tuesday, the National Assembly of South Africa voted 241-83 in favor amending the Constitution to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation", are you unable to comprehend?
It's interesting that you claim to have known about this coming for a long time but never commented on it. If it had been whites doing something against blacks, you would have been outraged and calling for revolution and US intervention.
Don't second guess my intentions.
I can read clearly. The constitution was not changed by this vote. Just like in America it is a long process and this vote only authorized the process to begin.
I don't need to second guess your intentions Vic. Either a person condemns this kind of behavior or they defend it and make excuses. You defend it and make excuses. Kind of like those who supported Hitler and those who condemned him.
61 and 78% ain't good enough to be genocide?
At that point, the whites will be fleeing for their lives until no whites remain. Whats the difference between "stay and die" or "leave or die?"
The question is WHY? Racism alone seems like too petty for something on this scale.
If you want what someone else has today whats the easiest way to get it? Racism. No different than what the Zazi's did to the Jews in Germany. They blamed them for their situation, confiscated their property and then killed them off if they didn't flee in time.
It's a murder rate that is 40% lower than the comparable rate for black farmers. So no.
When 71% of a population is white and only 61% of the murders victims are white, no, that is not genocide.
But still the majority, we can debate on semantics all day, regardless this doesn't make it any less important, hatred on whites in south Africa is no secret.
No secret. Just like hatred of blacks was no secret 30 years ago in Africa and today in America.
Are you trying to hint in some way that this is retaliation and the mistreatment of blacks in the past makes this one tolerable? Do two wrongs make one right? Do the sins of our ancestors condemn us to punishment?
Nope. Only that the land in question was taken without compensation. Whether it should be returned without compensation is a matter for the people of South Africa to decide.
Ok but historically what land was taken peacefully and by everyones agreement? No border of no country in today's existence is excluded from a bloody past. It all once started with someone with a bigger army crushing the weaker ones and taking their land.
The difference is that nowadays people are supposed to be democratic and cool so no one tries to take another ones territory (mostly)
Which might explain why the ANC didn't just send in their troops to take the land and is instead using the legislative process.
I wouldn't call it a legislative process very much. We are talking about killings after all.
This post is about a vote in the South African parliament.
The violence is another matter and needs to stop.
So, am I to take that you're on the side that wants to confiscate land from people who haven't done anything bad?
LOL.. Notice he wants to use the legislative purpose when the vote in Parliament was to take away peoples land they have had in their families for generations, without compensation, and give it to blacks.
Nope. You can take it that I am on the side of people who want to use the legislative process to address local concerns.