Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

South Africa: is it starting?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • South Africa: is it starting?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4340396.stm

    South Africa is for the first time forcing a white farmer to sell his land under a redistribution plan.
    The government served an expropriation order on Hannes Visser.

    The move came after failed talks between Mr Visser and the Land Claims Commission, set up to return to black people land they lost under apartheid.

    Mr Visser said he would challenge the decision in court. The government says it wants to hand over about a third of white-owned farm land by 2014.

    But progress has been slow, as the policy until now, has meant that both the seller and buyer have to agree on the terms, the BBC's Peter Biles in Johannesburg says.

    Protracted negotiations

    Mr Visser has the 500-hectare (1,250-acre) cattle and crop farm in Lichtenburg in North West province.


    South Africa's landless have been calling for swifter land reform

    His family bought it in 1968, but a black family has lodged a claim to the property dating back to the 1940s.

    Over the past two-and-a-half years, Mr Visser and the Land Claims Commission have been trying to negotiate, but failed to agree on the value of the property.

    The government had offered to buy the farm for $275,000 but Mr Visser says it is worth almost twice as much.

    Mr Visser now has 21 days to respond to the notice of expropriation.

    In the 11 years since the end of apartheid, less than 4% of farmland has been transferred from white to black ownership, he says.

    Is this the beginning of widespread forced land redistribution?

    Also, if anyone could point me in the direction of a resource regarding both South African military capabilities, and the demographic make up of the SADF (that could be of importance if this is the start of forced land redistribution) I would appreciate it.

  • #2
    Africa just getting it's own back, it's still wrong though.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by platinum786
      Africa just getting it's own back, it's still wrong though.
      So then using that justification we should allow Mexico to retake the Southwest?

      I dont see the logic behind these land seizures. It will just lead to more turmoil and poverty and eventually I see a return to colonial rule .... even the UN has admitted that Africa was "better off" under colonial rule.

      Comment


      • #4
        even the UN has admitted that Africa was "better off" under colonial rule.
        No country was better off under colonial rule. Were blacks better off as slaves?

        What was the result of this 300 years of colonial rule, poverty, unstability for third world & propserity for the europe. The only beneficial party was europe, while the latin america, africa, oceana & asia being losers of this.
        Last edited by indianguy4u; 17 Oct 05,, 11:41.
        Hala Madrid!!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by indianguy4u
          No country was better off under colonial rule. Were blacks better off as slaves?

          What was the result of this 300 years of colonial rule, poverty, unstability for third world & propserity for the europe. The only beneficial party was europe, while the latin america, africa, oceana & asia being losers of this.
          I don't think the situation is as cut and dry as that. Look at things logically. Sub-Saharan Africa was a tribal continent full of tribal societies, at the beginning of the industrial revolution in Europe. Since the Industrial revolution, not one tribal society has made an independent move to industrialization (and the only ones that I can think of that made a forced move were the Mongol peoples who were occupied by Russia). However, Africa has managed to increase it's population dramatically. No industrialization combined with large scale population growth equals poverty and instability. You combine that with tribal allegiances (which do not fit into a nation state) and you get major problems when that overwhelming outside force (which just happens to have built and maintained your homeland's light industry and infrastructure) withdraws. I will agree that China and India did not benefit a great deal from colonialism (the primary benefit they derived was from being integrated into the world trade system), however Africa did... and Latin American countries would not exist if it were not for colonialism (their population being made up largely of transplanted Spaniards... large scale American Indian populations were made unviable because they had no immunity to disease).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ChrisF202
            I dont see the logic behind these land seizures. It will just lead to more turmoil and poverty and eventually I see a return to colonial rule .... even the UN has admitted that Africa was "better off" under colonial rule.
            Nah, direct colonial rule is gone forever. This is the era of economic colonialism, which gets us the same economic benefits as direct colonialism and is far less costly.

            Comment


            • #7
              "I declare the Olympic Games Open!"


              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

              HAKUNA MATATA

              Comment


              • #8
                please please please please please please please read line 2 of what i said "it's still wrong though".

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by indianguy4u
                  No country was better off under colonial rule. Were blacks better off as slaves?

                  What was the result of this 300 years of colonial rule, poverty, unstability for third world & propserity for the europe. The only beneficial party was europe, while the latin america, africa, oceana & asia being losers of this.
                  And you'll never get so much as an I'm sorry from them. Colonialism is may be dead, but the attitude that caused it is still very much alive in europe.
                  F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lwarmonger
                    I don't think the situation is as cut and dry as that. Look at things logically. Sub-Saharan Africa was a tribal continent full of tribal societies, at the beginning of the industrial revolution in Europe. Since the Industrial revolution, not one tribal society has made an independent move to industrialization (and the only ones that I can think of that made a forced move were the Mongol peoples who were occupied by Russia). However, Africa has managed to increase it's population dramatically. No industrialization combined with large scale population growth equals poverty and instability. You combine that with tribal allegiances (which do not fit into a nation state) and you get major problems when that overwhelming outside force (which just happens to have built and maintained your homeland's light industry and infrastructure) withdraws. I will agree that China and India did not benefit a great deal from colonialism (the primary benefit they derived was from being integrated into the world trade system), however Africa did... and Latin American countries would not exist if it were not for colonialism (their population being made up largely of transplanted Spaniards... large scale American Indian populations were made unviable because they had no immunity to disease).
                    My friend, I think we are going to be enemies again on this thread.
                    I will have to disagree with you on several grounds,
                    1) Have you ever considered that the africans would have been way better off, if "Good White Christian folks" had never gone there in the first place?
                    2) The african psyche is very different from the rest of the world, maybe the concept of a "nation state" has no place in Africa. After all we can't say what is best for everyone. If the tribal system works for africa, that is what it should be.
                    3) The africans have to deal with their own problems, the days of the white man's burden are gone. I believe that all the UN doles to africa are wrong and should be stopped, they have to be forced to deal with their issues.
                    4) China and India did not benefit in anyway whatsoever from european colonialism, we were already integrated into world trade in several ways. The silk route was a very good example. Did you know that India was probably the only country trading with the the Sumers of mesopotamia in 3000B.C. India and china were the richest nations of the world till the 18th century,we were beggared by europe. Thats the reality.

                    Finally, land distribution is not always a failure, India managed it without destroying the rural structure. I can elaborate if required.
                    "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "

                    "Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

                    Sir Winston Churchill

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Monk
                      My friend, I think we are going to be enemies again on this thread.
                      LOL. Seems, to be quite a habit, doesn't it? :)

                      1) Have you ever considered that the africans would have been way better off, if "Good White Christian folks" had never gone there in the first place?
                      Perhaps, perhaps not. With their population increasing, they really had no way of maintaining their standard of living within the biological limitations that are imposed on a pre-industrial society. The only answer to increased population growth is either industrialization or starvation. Becoming a resource supplier is the stop gap measure that doesn't maintain standard of living, but does stave of starvation (for the most part).

                      2) The african psyche is very different from the rest of the world, maybe the concept of a "nation state" has no place in Africa. After all we can't say what is best for everyone. If the tribal system works for africa, that is what it should be.
                      But does the tribal system work for Africa? It doesn't seem to be.

                      3) The africans have to deal with their own problems, the days of the white man's burden are gone. I believe that all the UN doles to africa are wrong and should be stopped, they have to be forced to deal with their issues.
                      And if 50 million die?

                      4) China and India did not benefit in anyway whatsoever from european colonialism, we were already integrated into world trade in several ways. The silk route was a very good example. Did you know that India was probably the only country trading with the the Sumers of mesopotamia in 3000B.C. India and china were the richest nations of the world till the 18th century,we were beggared by europe. Thats the reality.
                      Where did the political system, infrastructure and education that started those factories that are now transforming India and China come from? Let's face it, British rule in India was absolutely enlightened when compared to that of the Mughals, and paved the way for industrialization. And the Chinese Empire was dying. We forced them into the same competitive world that had caused Europe to industrialize. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that colonialism was intended to benefit India or China. However, up until the colonial powers began making inroads, India and China were not going to change much, because there was no need. Now they couldn't ignore the rest of the world anymore, and were forced to adapt.

                      Finally, land distribution is not always a failure, India managed it without destroying the rural structure. I can elaborate if required.
                      Ok, two points.

                      First of all, I didn't say that forced land distribution in South Africa would fail, the way it has in Zimbabwe. What I am saying, is that the Boers (who stand to lose the most from forced redistribution) have far greater numbers and retain far more power in South Africa than the whites had in Zimbabwe. This means if they decide to fight back, they will create a major impact... staging a coup or civil war is a possibility. I'm not sure just how strong they are in today's South Africa, which is one thing I am trying to learn.

                      Second, forced land distribution where ownership is changed, but the people who are working the land tend to stay the same (basically large estates are broken up and given to the laborers who are already working on them) does tend to work. It is the land distribution that gives land mostly to people who have no idea what to do with it that usually (not always... depending upon the proportion of actual farmers to newcomers) fails.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I do hope it will not go the same way as Zimbabwe.

                        I do hope that is it systematic and fair to all parties involved.


                        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                        HAKUNA MATATA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lwarmonger
                          Perhaps, perhaps not. With their population increasing, they really had no way of maintaining their standard of living within the biological limitations that are imposed on a pre-industrial society. The only answer to increased population growth is either industrialization or starvation. Becoming a resource supplier is the stop gap measure that doesn't maintain standard of living, but does stave of starvation (for the most part).
                          This is the most important issue, the point is "our standard of living". The african standard of living was subsistence which they had successfully practised for thousands of years. They would not have needed the things which we want, and if they did want them the change would have been internally driven and evolutionary as it should have been. Lets face it change should be internally driven always.


                          Originally posted by lwarmonger
                          But does the tribal system work for Africa? It doesn't seem to be.

                          Not, if you break into it and introduce a concept of "nation-state" which has no place in africa.


                          Originally posted by lwarmonger
                          And if 50 million die?

                          Natural selection.


                          Originally posted by lwarmonger
                          Where did the political system, infrastructure and education that started those factories that are now transforming India and China come from?
                          Again, Political system is for the people to devise, can't be imported. I will grant you infrastructure. WRT education, I will give you some hard facts, India was 6% literate at the beginning of the 20th century and 11% literate on August.15,1947. So India educated itself.

                          Originally posted by lwarmonger
                          Let's face it, British rule in India was absolutely enlightened when compared to that of the Mughals, and paved the way for industrialization. And the Chinese Empire was dying. We forced them into the same competitive world that had caused Europe to industrialize.

                          I disagree. All the Mughals were not wrong, between 1555-1658, mughal rule was absolutely magic. The only part of the mughal rule which was bad was 1658-1707. Its a myth that the mughals were poor rulers.
                          India and china were different types of economies we didn't need the type of industrialisation required by Europe at that point. We could very well have been large consumers , the other part of the trade cycle. So Europe destroyed the natural economy of India and china. India and China could also have exported large types of other commodities like Tea, silk, Raw metals etc which were in great demand in Europe. Instead we were exploited ruthlessly. I can explain in greater detail.

                          Originally posted by lwarmonger
                          However, up until the colonial powers began making inroads, India and China were not going to change much, because there was no need. Now they couldn't ignore the rest of the world anymore, and were forced to adapt.

                          China and India did not have to change. We were the world's richest nations. As I have explained above the colonials twisted the reality.


                          Originally posted by lwarmonger
                          Ok, two points.

                          First of all, I didn't say that forced land distribution in South Africa would fail, the way it has in Zimbabwe. What I am saying, is that the Boers (who stand to lose the most from forced redistribution) have far greater numbers and retain far more power in South Africa than the whites had in Zimbabwe. This means if they decide to fight back, they will create a major impact... staging a coup or civil war is a possibility. I'm not sure just how strong they are in today's South Africa, which is one thing I am trying to learn.
                          Second, forced land distribution where ownership is changed, but the people who are working the land tend to stay the same (basically large estates are broken up and given to the laborers who are already working on them) does tend to work. It is the land distribution that gives land mostly to people who have no idea what to do with it that usually (not always... depending upon the proportion of actual farmers to newcomers) fails.

                          It must be done in the correct manner to prevent civil war. If you do it mugabe style, beating white farmers etc, it would be disastrous. But if done in the appropriate manner like say impose specific land ceilings as law, it would lead to correct results. Since the white farmers can then sell at a proper price to the landless and the govt of SA could provide subsidised loans for purchasing the lands to the black farmers. This would also keep the rifraff who don't know anything about farming away from the process.
                          "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "

                          "Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

                          Sir Winston Churchill

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Monk
                            This is the most important issue, the point is "our standard of living". The african standard of living was subsistence which they had successfully practised for thousands of years. They would not have needed the things which we want, and if they did want them the change would have been internally driven and evolutionary as it should have been. Lets face it change should be internally driven always.
                            This assumes that there would be no interaction between Europeans and Africans. Such is simply not the case... even without colonialization you would still have trade. So they would still realize just how advanced these other people are. And then you still have the problem of population growth.

                            Not, if you break into it and introduce a concept of "nation-state" which has no place in africa.
                            One aspect of a tribal system is tribal warfare. Population pressure makes that tribal warfare a lot more vicious than it would be otherwise. Nation states do fight wars, but they tend to be a lot more "controlled" than a tribal system. I will agree that having the two together does not work at all.

                            Natural selection.
                            Then what purpose does the UN serve, in your mind?

                            Again, Political system is for the people to devise, can't be imported.
                            Disagree. India's political system today is largely (although not entirely) the result of the higher education given to Indians by Britain, in order to maintain their empire. India was not on it's way to democracy by itself.

                            WRT education, I will give you some hard facts, India was 6% literate at the beginning of the 20th century and 11% literate on August.15,1947. So India educated itself.
                            The university educations that England gave a large number of Indians to help administer their empire helped to shape India. Literacy rates are only one part (albiet a significant part) of education.

                            I disagree. All the Mughals were not wrong, between 1555-1658, mughal rule was absolutely magic. The only part of the mughal rule which was bad was 1658-1707. Its a myth that the mughals were poor rulers.
                            The Mughals were a conquering elite of Muslims who ruled over a mass of Hindu peasants. They ruled in a manner that was typical of a conquering elite who had an interest in maintaining the status quo. As time went on, their courts became the scene of splendour and consumption that would have awed even Louis XIV. By contrast, the British sought to develop India in order to make money, and ruled by Utilitarian principles. While this created problems, it was an honest effort to rule effectively, and ultimately did much more for India than Mughal rule did.

                            India and china were different types of economies we didn't need the type of industrialisation required by Europe at that point. We could very well have been large consumers , the other part of the trade cycle.
                            By this time, India and China had reached about the limits of what they could do without industrializing. After this point, the problem was lack of available land. And with cheap British textiles penetrating Indian markets, India was going to have problems either way.

                            So Europe destroyed the natural economy of India and china. India and China could also have exported large types of other commodities like Tea, silk, Raw metals etc which were in great demand in Europe. Instead we were exploited ruthlessly. I can explain in greater detail.
                            I am aware of the less pleasant effects of colonialism. Such brutality and opportunism are hardly unique to Europeans. They simply had better technology and organization than any of their contemporaries.

                            China and India did not have to change. We were the world's richest nations. As I have explained above the colonials twisted the reality.
                            Europeans twisted reality by bettering themselves. Industrialization meant that China and India were not going to be the richest nations any longer. By forcing open Chinese and Indian markets, Europeans were simply forcing those nations to recognize that fact. Things change, and nations that don't wish to acknowledge that change and adapt to it fall behind.

                            It must be done in the correct manner to prevent civil war. If you do it mugabe style, beating white farmers etc, it would be disastrous. But if done in the appropriate manner like say impose specific land ceilings as law, it would lead to correct results. Since the white farmers can then sell at a proper price to the landless and the govt of SA could provide subsidised loans for purchasing the lands to the black farmers. This would also keep the rifraff who don't know anything about farming away from the process.
                            But forced land redistribution is liable to cause problems as I've outlined above.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lwarmonger
                              This assumes that there would be no interaction between Europeans and Africans. Such is simply not the case... even without colonialization you would still have trade. So they would still realize just how advanced these other people are. And then you still have the problem of population growth.
                              Thats exactly the point. The interaction should have been gradual not "forced". It is like bringing a 21st century person into contact with a 31st century person. A recipe for disaster. Colonial fiddling in africa destroyed a gradual evolutionary process.


                              Originally posted by lwarmonger
                              One aspect of a tribal system is tribal warfare. Population pressure makes that tribal warfare a lot more vicious than it would be otherwise. Nation states do fight wars, but they tend to be a lot more "controlled" than a tribal system.
                              Tribal warfare controls the population. Thats how the balance is maintained.



                              Originally posted by lwarmonger
                              Then what purpose does the UN serve, in your mind?
                              Except UNESCO, UNICEF and WHO, the UN should be disbanded. The day USA shoved UN to the side and went to war in Iraq, UN was finished. The recent corruption evidence hasn't helped either. The Kofi Annan-UN sponsored african dole bonanza has to end. The africans have to work it out for themselves. Cancel the entire african debt and give them a clean slate.The IMF can always finance the viable african projects and monitor its performance as they have done in several countries.


                              Originally posted by lwarmonger
                              Disagree. India's political system today is largely (although not entirely) the result of the higher education given to Indians by Britain, in order to maintain their empire. India was not on it's way to democracy by itself.
                              The university educations that England gave a large number of Indians to help administer their empire helped to shape India. Literacy rates are only one part (albiet a significant part) of education.
                              I am going to address this very clearly for you. My family was a part of this "educated elite" all along. So I am at an advantage on the issue I am going to discuss.
                              1)Democracy is not a must in the same form as western democracies. Any system which has proper representation of the people will do, even oligarchic systems (council of ministers) will work. The evolution has to be natural, it shouldn't be imported or imposed. India would have evolved its own system.
                              2) This so called educated elite were 39mill people against the mass of a 311mill uneducated rural Indians with massive poverty. They were clueless.
                              3) Socialism came naturally to the educated elite as it seems is the case as always with the priveleged. This pushed India into 40yrs of socialism and disaster.
                              4) Literacy rate among the masses is a must with a capital M.
                              5) India wasn't a tribal society brought into a modern world like africa if thats what you have imagined. We were way ahead of the rest of the World in everything whether it was mathematics, Science, Astronomy or economics. So if we had never been visited by the europeans the only impact would have been that we would have been a non-English speaking society. Everywhere else the west learned from us and not the other way around.
                              I don't imagine the situation to have been any different for China.


                              Originally posted by lwarmonger
                              The Mughals were a conquering elite of Muslims who ruled over a mass of Hindu peasants. They ruled in a manner that was typical of a conquering elite who had an interest in maintaining the status quo. As time went on, their courts became the scene of splendour and consumption that would have awed even Louis XIV.
                              The mughals did a lot more for Indian society but that discussion is beyond the scope of this thread we will do it elsewhere.


                              Originally posted by lwarmonger
                              By contrast, the British sought to develop India in order to make money, and ruled by Utilitarian principles. While this created problems, it was an honest effort to rule effectively, and ultimately did much more for India than Mughal rule did.
                              By this time, India and China had reached about the limits of what they could do without industrializing. After this point, the problem was lack of available land. And with cheap British textiles penetrating Indian markets, India was going to have problems either way.Europeans twisted reality by bettering themselves. Industrialization meant that China and India were not going to be the richest nations any longer. By forcing open Chinese and Indian markets, Europeans were simply forcing those nations to recognize that fact. Things change, and nations that don't wish to acknowledge that change and adapt to it fall behind.
                              LOL. How can you develop a society which is already developed? Wearing different clothes or not speaking English doesn't make you a barbarian. We were different and to us the English were barbaric in several ways. Britain sought to exploit India not unlike any other colonial in any other part of the world.
                              I think I am also going to have to give you a run down on 18th and 19th century Economics,
                              The trade balance in the 18th and 19th century was massively skewed in favour of India and china vis-a-vis Britain, So this is how the British dealt with the "problem",
                              1) WRT China, chinese silks,vases,Indigos etc were the storm of Europe, Britain was running out of gold to pay them. Therefore they introduced opium into the chinese market and they got the chinese exports, the gold and were able to keep the chinese in a permanent purple haze. The chinese were trapped by opium and britain extorted them like any lay drug dealer does.
                              2) WRT India, the strategy was simple, they imposed taxes on Indian textile imports into britain and using the British India system taxed the weavers in India. There are also historical references that the British cut off the thumbs of the weavers (Considering the colonials of that time, I wouldn't put it past them). This was how British textiles were made "cheaper", it had nothing to do with the Industrial revolution. The Indian weaver was producing still cheaper.
                              3) The british also had access to Indian raw metals, cotton, coal etc to feed their Industrial boom for which India got paid "nothing".
                              This was pure and simple exploitation when they realised they couldn't win a fair fight. So your understanding that somehow India and China were saved from doom by the colonials is as warped as it gets. We would have continud to get richer since in every way we had trade surplus with Europe.
                              So we where ahead of the game and would have stayed that way if not for colonialism. It wasn't we who had to catch up but they. This is how history was twisted to meet the principle of "White man's Burden".
                              I don't have any spite or hate for the British. My nation was divided they took advantage like any good conqueror should. But to think they bequeathed some sort of leagcy to India and China is pure distortion of reality. The only thing the British gave us was a legal system, on which Modern India's fantastic judicial system is based and the Infrastructure. We had everything else or would have made it.



                              Originally posted by lwarmonger
                              But forced land redistribution is liable to cause problems as I've outlined above.
                              Whenever the control of the powerful is broken over something the term used is "forced" and this cry is heard because the voice of the privileged can be heard. If the land distribution is done in the manner I suggested, It can be done justly and equitably. Which was the error of Mugabe. His method only made his thugs wealthy not the real needy and it was done unjustly by using physical force against the White farmers.
                              Last edited by Monk; 28 Oct 05,, 15:35.
                              "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "

                              "Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

                              Sir Winston Churchill

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X