Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

South Africa and Liberal Angst?

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

  • South Africa and Liberal Angst?

    Posing this to everyone, but mostly to those liberal loons who constantly cry "racism" here in the United States.

    The South Africa government (note, NOT some splinter group, but the actual GOVERNMENT) has decreed that certain farms, which are owned by WHITE farmers, should be expropriated from them and "redistributed" to black farmers... WITHOUT any payment to the owner.

    This has been in the works for years, but only now is coming to fruition:

    According to Newsweek:
    The South African government has begun the process of seizing land from owners in cases where the negotiation for compensation has stalled. Two game farms in Limpopo province are being targeted after the government offered the owners one-tenth of the asking price.

    The process has moved forward after negotiations with the white owners of the properties stalled, according to South Africa's City Press newspaper. Akkerland Boerdery, the company of property owners Johan Steenkamp and Arnold Cloete, demanded 200 million rand ($13.7 million) for the land, but are being offered just 20 million rand ($1.37 million).

    Earlier this year, Akkerland Boerdery was sent notice that an inspection of the properties would be held in order to audit their value before being handed over to the state.

    Where is your "racist" ire?

    Where is your call for intervention by the rest of the world?

    Where are the media stories documenting this heinous process?

  • #2
    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    Posing this to everyone, but mostly to those liberal loons who constantly cry "racism" here in the United States.

    The South Africa government (note, NOT some splinter group, but the actual GOVERNMENT) has decreed that certain farms, which are owned by WHITE farmers, should be expropriated from them and "redistributed" to black farmers... WITHOUT any payment to the owner.

    This has been in the works for years, but only now is coming to fruition:

    According to Newsweek:



    Where is your "racist" ire?

    Where is your call for intervention by the rest of the world?

    Where are the media stories documenting this heinous process?
    Here's one link from a lefty press source, mentions both SA and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was the first of those two former colonies to racially target white farmers. Link:
    In a statement, AfriForum said it was campaigning against human rights abuses and the "destruction of land ownership" in Zimbabwe.

    German bank group KFW Bank Gruppe, which joined the legal action and is believed to be owed millions of dollars by the Mugabe government, would take most of the money left over after legal fees were paid, Mr Spies added.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34313485

    It's an overseas source, the BBC. More stories on that theme might have to do with those countries being former colonies of the UK. I included the German bank group collecting fees, to illustrate the money grab by all parties concerned (except the farmers who got ripped off in this case). Also, SA is deviating from the independence policy worked out by Mandela, which basically pardoned most parties to the apartheid era conflict. It proved to be the best policy, as SA moved forward more quickly than Zimbabwe, which went down the rabbit hole of vengeance (based on family/friends of Mugabe going after the goods for personal gain). The white farmers, for their part (or their parents, if they inherited the land), were not blameless; colonial rules of land ownership were anything except equitable for native vs. people of European extraction. The NY Times (domestic lefty source) deals with the Zimbabwe syndrome (abuse from both sides, depending on the decade), which compares directly to current race-based policy in SA, here:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/04/w...o-move-on.html Sadly, it wasn't possible for SA to avoid falling behind, like Zimbabwe. It would have worked out, but it seems ambition overrules Mandela's program.

    ?


    • #3
      Mandela's death was unfortunate timing. Not to sound cavalier, but that area would be much better off today had he survived.

      I don't deny Apartheid left some scars that really do need to heal. There were some wrongs perfected on black Africans that should never have happened at all, but since they did, yes, make them right.

      But this is not the way to do it: These largely ignorant "rulers" are simply reversing the racism that got them into this mess in the first place ... and THAT is not a solution. In fact, they are exacerbating the problem.

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
        Mandela's death was unfortunate timing. Not to sound cavalier, but that area would be much better off today had he survived.

        I don't deny Apartheid left some scars that really do need to heal. There were some wrongs perfected on black Africans that should never have happened at all, but since they did, yes, make them right.

        But this is not the way to do it: These largely ignorant "rulers" are simply reversing the racism that got them into this mess in the first place ... and THAT is not a solution. In fact, they are exacerbating the problem.
        -Agreed. Many of those farms are (were) huge, and probably could have been purchased by the state -gradually- in smaller parcels to benefit those SA natives who are most talented as farmers. Perhaps as graduates from agricultural tech or university, and/or recognized by an independent jury (like a contest). Were I one of those white farmers, this solution would be satisfactory (knowing I won't keep the whole thing, but won't lose more than 1/4 for two generations). The other benefit would be real talent moving in as neighbors; the possibilities for greater development would be real. fe, Irrigation projects to bring more land into production, labor (from neighbors' tribe) on profit-sharing agreements to experiment with intensive cultivation such as truck farming, etc. Having that level of skill near my farm raises the probability of my descendants enjoying greater prosperity, the likelihood of social bonds with neighboring farmers growing stronger also likely.

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
          -Agreed. Many of those farms are (were) huge, and probably could have been purchased by the state -gradually- in smaller parcels to benefit those SA natives who are most talented as farmers. Perhaps as graduates from agricultural tech or university, and/or recognized by an independent jury (like a contest). Were I one of those white farmers, this solution would be satisfactory (knowing I won't keep the whole thing, but won't lose more than 1/4 for two generations). The other benefit would be real talent moving in as neighbors; the possibilities for greater development would be real. fe, Irrigation projects to bring more land into production, labor (from neighbors' tribe) on profit-sharing agreements to experiment with intensive cultivation such as truck farming, etc. Having that level of skill near my farm raises the probability of my descendants enjoying greater prosperity, the likelihood of social bonds with neighboring farmers growing stronger also likely.
          See, this would be a sensible solution and, while I do recognize the government DID make offers to the (white) land owners in most cases, they were insultingly low-ball offers and they were for all the property, not just parcels.

          ?


          • #6
            O.K. with me:

            2018-08-23_10-21-00.jpg

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

              See, this would be a sensible solution and, while I do recognize the government DID make offers to the (white) land owners in most cases, they were insultingly low-ball offers and they were for all the property, not just parcels.
              That's the problem. Unfortunately, this doesn't rise to the level of genocide, so the world will quietly watch while farmers have their land stolen outright, under the guise of legitimate gummint action. Come to think of it, the world as often as not sleeps like a baby while genocide happens.

              In a better world, politicians that act for crass political objectives will be in a small minority. The vast majority will look for good, long-term solutions that have been negotiated between involved parties.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                If he also asked for an investigation into the Big Bank Creditors who swooped in an gobbled up settlements that should have gone to white farmers (remember, Zimbabwe started this strategy). Why, then he would have a complete policy. Curiously, presidents have a tendency to use the little guy for positive optics, while the Big Companies tend get a free pass for questionable deeds.

                ?


                • #9
                  The South Africa farm story is total BS. There is no large scale killing of farmers and the South African government isn't currently seizing land from white farmers (and hasn't). http://theconversation.com/south-afr...-of-data-93078
                  https://qz.com/africa/1369992/south-...id-propaganda/
                  https://qz.com/africa/1297437/farm-m...te-afrikaners/

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                    The South Africa farm story is total BS. There is no large scale killing of farmers and the South African government isn't currently seizing land from white farmers (and hasn't). http://theconversation.com/south-afr...-of-data-93078
                    https://qz.com/africa/1369992/south-...id-propaganda/
                    https://qz.com/africa/1297437/farm-m...te-afrikaners/
                    I dont think the Article in the OP says it is large scale. It said govt has begun... which is confirmed by the first linked article you posted:

                    Land reform has been slow, with government reporting that, so far, around 9% of commercial farmland has been transferred through restitution and redistribution...
                    regardless of how widespread it is, expropriation without compensation is not the way to correct that wrong.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      The problem in South Africa is, in a nutshell, that ownership of land doesnt reflect the end of Apartheid. Which means that more than 70 %, in some sources more than 80 % of arable land are in the hands of comparably few (white) farmers and agro-companies. Often (not always) they aquired these lands due to Apartheid policies and expropriation ( black people were "unable" to own any land) and one only needs to visit a crowded township in South Africa whose people are excluded from the wide open spaces by fences to understand some of the countrys coloured majorities frustrations with it.
                      That is obviously not a sustainable situation, little progress has been made since the 90s and all parties in South Africa agree on the need for land reform, though not on the methods. That is why the ANC is currently pushing again for the possibility of land seizures without compensation-- in cases that need to be specified yet. We are talking about a PROPOSAL.
                      Which is populism, just of the african kind. The ANC has loads of scandals that it would like to draw voters attention away from, and it is totally unclear wether the proposal will ever be transformed into politics. For the simple reason that unlike Zimbabwe South Africa has working democratic institutions. And the ANC may keep its base aroused, but still has to win a parliamentary majority for a bulletproof seizure law, which is questionable.
                      Wether South Africa handles the issue wisely or not, time will have to tell.
                      Trumps tweet will be as usual counterproductive however, especially the bullshit part about alleged large scale killings of white farmers.


                      http://time.com/5376453/donald-trump...white-farmers/



                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Voland View Post
                        The problem in South Africa is, in a nutshell, that ownership of land doesnt reflect the end of Apartheid. Which means that more than 70 %, in some sources more than 80 % of arable land are in the hands of comparably few (white) farmers and agro-companies. Often (not always) they aquired these lands due to Apartheid policies and expropriation ( black people were "unable" to own any land) and one only needs to visit a crowded township in South Africa whose people are excluded from the wide open spaces by fences to understand some of the countrys coloured majorities frustrations with it.
                        That is obviously not a sustainable situation, little progress has been made since the 90s and all parties in South Africa agree on the need for land reform, though not on the methods. That is why the ANC is currently pushing again for the possibility of land seizures without compensation-- in cases that need to be specified yet. We are talking about a PROPOSAL.
                        Which is populism, just of the african kind. The ANC has loads of scandals that it would like to draw voters attention away from, and it is totally unclear wether the proposal will ever be transformed into politics. For the simple reason that unlike Zimbabwe South Africa has working democratic institutions. And the ANC may keep its base aroused, but still has to win a parliamentary majority for a bulletproof seizure law, which is questionable.
                        Wether South Africa handles the issue wisely or not, time will have to tell.
                        Trumps tweet will be as usual counterproductive however, especially the bullshit part about alleged large scale killings of white farmers.


                        http://time.com/5376453/donald-trump...white-farmers/


                        Like I said last week,
                        Originally posted by DavidSF
                        ...I don't deny Apartheid left some scars that really do need to heal. There were some wrongs perfected on black Africans that should never have happened at all, but since they did, yes, make them right...
                        Some things SHOULD be made right, expropriation of land is not the way to do it. In fact, this process only encourages and maintains the racism this government claims to want to fight.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                          Like I said last week,


                          Some things SHOULD be made right, expropriation of land is not the way to do it. In fact, this process only encourages and maintains the racism this government claims to want to fight.

                          No, infringing property rights is not the way. For various reasons. Not only would South Africa kneecap its ability to attract international investment ( which would hurt the not-so-well off the most), chaotic expropriation could also endanger food safety/supplies ( Zimbabwe ?). Aside from other issues.
                          Yet there is currently no indication that South Africa is headed that way.
                          On the other hand the country sits on a political and economical timebomb if land ownership stays the way it is. Something MUST happen (precisely to fence in the racists that you are talking about ) and there is not a single party in the country that disagrees in principle.
                          Lectures from abroad, especially from the US and Europe should be avoided, because they will almost certainly be counterproductive (post-colonial hangover and all that). Help in finding intelligent solutions suitable for the countrys needs could be offered though. Wether administrative or scientific/technical) ( like improving cultivation methods/quality of soil).
                          Measures that could be examined would be f.e. granting the governement a purchase option for uncultivated land or examining models that worked in Europe in the past. Such as distributing land among peasants that pay the landlord a lease for a certain amount of time. It should ( and will without doubt) also be examined how land ownership was established in the first place. Such as wether through administrative acts of the Apartheid state that would be considered unlawful today.
                          Yet : South Africa is in spite of its obvious problems a reasonably working democratic state that can claim the respect not to wade into its ongoing domestic policy debates --Trump tweet style.


                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Voland View Post


                            No, infringing property rights is not the way. For various reasons. Not only would South Africa kneecap its ability to attract international investment ( which would hurt the not-so-well off the most), chaotic expropriation could also endanger food safety/supplies ( Zimbabwe ?). Aside from other issues.
                            Yet there is currently no indication that South Africa is headed that way.
                            On the other hand the country sits on a political and economical timebomb if land ownership stays the way it is. Something MUST happen (precisely to fence in the racists that you are talking about ) and there is not a single party in the country that disagrees in principle.
                            Lectures from abroad, especially from the US and Europe should be avoided, because they will almost certainly be counterproductive (post-colonial hangover and all that). Help in finding intelligent solutions suitable for the countrys needs could be offered though. Wether administrative or scientific/technical) ( like improving cultivation methods/quality of soil).
                            Measures that could be examined would be f.e. granting the governement a purchase option for uncultivated land or examining models that worked in Europe in the past. Such as distributing land among peasants that pay the landlord a lease for a certain amount of time. It should ( and will without doubt) also be examined how land ownership was established in the first place. Such as wether through administrative acts of the Apartheid state that would be considered unlawful today.
                            Yet : South Africa is in spite of its obvious problems a reasonably working democratic state that can claim the respect not to wade into its ongoing domestic policy debates --Trump tweet style.

                            these along with those ideas radcenter brought up last week would be well worth investigating.

                            However, I do disagree with your statement, "...there is currently no indication that South Africa is headed that way." Given they have passed that law, now, and even though only 9% of the white owned farms (according to JD's article, above) are impacted at this point, I think there is every indication they are headed that way.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                              these along with those ideas radcenter brought up last week would be well worth investigating.

                              However, I do disagree with your statement, "...there is currently no indication that South Africa is headed that way." Given they have passed that law, now, and even though only 9% of the white owned farms (according to JD's article, above) are impacted at this point, I think there is every indication they are headed that way.
                              It all hinges on the ANC going all-in on what should be recognized as the "Zimbabwe strategy". Assuming there are opponents to that questionable strategy within the ANC, as well as outside the party, there are brakes to slow that process down. It is a safe assumption -IMHO. As Voland notes, SA is more a functioning republic than Zimbabwe; it is a matter of those more clear-headed leaders in SA's congress to frame it in those terms: "This closely resembles the same strategy used in Zimbabwe. How well did these ideas work out with our neighbors?" A speech on that theme should provide some productive (and lively) debate on the problem, while also minimizing accusations that anyone is apologizing for apartheid.

                              All that being said, I don't see any easy-to-find opinions from either the white farmers or farmers from the various SA tribes in this whole debate. -Which leads me to believe that our lefties and righties in the US are giving it the "crass political objectives" treatment. It needed to be stated (thanks to Voland) that this must be worked out by SA, and they should take or leave ideas from outside SA. I just have a hard time believing no one within SA has already proposed an organized solution similar to my or Voland's suggestions (mostly among farmers, black and white). Sadly, I have a very easy time believing politicians both inside and outside SA have been using this issue to make points for their side or against the opposition, while ignoring practical solutions.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X