- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: South Africa seizing land from white people
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:43 am to tigercreole
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:43 am to tigercreole
quote:
You people are hilarious.
Question: How did the whites acquire the land?
Wait until the Chinese start dominating Africa. They'll be begging for white folks to come back and help them.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:55 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Wait until the Chinese start dominating Africa. They'll be begging for white folks to come back and help them.
They might, but the Chinese government has increased investment in SA by a large amount. I think South Africa is only behind Nigeria in terms of Chinese investment. After the ANC declared they wanted to model development after the Chinese model in 2015, the Chinese offered them a $60 billion aid package. Given the level of investment, the Chinese will have a some say in what happens with land expropriation, as this resolution has only passed the lower house, and still has to pass the upper house before section 25 (the portion of the constitution that deals with property rights) can be amended.
This article gives a good view of the situation. LINK
quote:
While there is consensus that the land reform programme is not performing well, the figures it purports to draw from the land audit – 'black people own less than 2% of rural land, and less that 7% of urban land' ('black' refers to African) – are incorrect.
These numbers refer only to registered and titled properties held by individual owners. The audit was unable to assign racial identity to around two thirds of the country's land. This was held by companies and trusts, and a large portion belonged to the state or was 'state trust land'.
Much state land is in fact land in the former homelands, or land acquired for 'beneficiaries', but whose title has not been transferred to them. Current land redistribution policy is to retain state ownership of land and to lease it to tenants. Small wonder that 'black' ownership of land remains modest.
AgriSA's study of the country's farmland suggested a more positive picture. It argued against a focus on hectarage as a measure of success, and suggested agricultural potential as a better one. It found that some 46% of agricultural potential – land with fertile soil and good water sources, for example, mostly in the eastern parts of the country – were in the hands of government and historically disadvantaged individuals.
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 7:56 am
Posted on 3/1/18 at 7:59 am to upgrayedd
Water crisis leads to national fear, which leads to scapegoating the minority (now white people). Scapegoating leads to blatant race based policy discriminating. Then we have removing of the rights of the minority. And finally we’ll have genocide encouraged by the govt
And SJWs will love every minute of it
And SJWs will love every minute of it
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:00 am to j bro12
Go check out all the articles of South Africans migrating to Mississippi to farm the delta. It’s really an interesting topic
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:00 am to crazy4lsu
The Chinese presence will be a version of 18th century colonialism without the local benefits.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:01 am to j bro12
The South Africans have been moving in this direction for years. It was voted on but won’t be ratified until their constitutional committee studies and approves it.
This is the ultimate social justice project.
It dramatically failed in Zimbabwe.
This is the ultimate social justice project.
It dramatically failed in Zimbabwe.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:02 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Water crisis leads to national fear, which leads to scapegoating the minority (now white people). Scapegoating leads to blatant race based policy discriminating. Then we have removing of the rights of the minority. And finally we’ll have genocide encouraged by the govt
And SJWs will love every minute of it
And the irony there is that the minority is probably the only group that can solve the problem
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:16 am to upgrayedd
quote:
And the irony there is that the minority is probably the only group that can solve the problem
The crazy part is that you would be labeled a racist for saying that, but there’s literally no proof that native Africans can set up a relatively non-violent country with functioning clean water and food supply for an extended period of time
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:16 am to upgrayedd
Maybe. The local benefits of colonialism were uneven, often on purpose, with the aim to keep rival populations at each other's throats so as to mitigate blowback against colonial officials. That policy might have been useful in the short-term, but the long term effects of it have outweighed any benefits of the colonial system.
The Chinese are entering into a much different situation, as they are dealing with modern nation-states. Firstly the Chinese are focusing investment on long-term infrastructure projects while avoiding what it terms as neoliberal policies focused on privatization and short-term gain. Given the infrastructure issues in these countries, and the inability of governments there (and even in Western countries) to pay for these projects generally, this is a good way of gaining goodwill in these countries, provided these projects are completed. Secondly, the Chinese are interested in developing their own sphere of influence which can assure them access to raw materials while at the same time provide for access for developing markets, which was the same impetus for colonialism, but without direct interference with social institutions. At this point, they've invested around 4 trillion or so in projects around Africa and Asia, and the bottom floor of that investment is projected to be around 8 trillion. Their entrance into local politics has been minimal, and they tend to want governments to favor stability above all else.
Given the unmitigated disaster that was the Late British and French colonial systems, the effects of which we are seeing today, the Chinese seem hesitant to offer much more than investment opportunities at this point. The Chinese had their own unique colonized experience, and one of the explicit purposes of the CCP during the Mao years was to focus on development so that there would be no possibility of being dominated again. What that means for interactions with the post-colonial world at large remains to be seen.
The Chinese are entering into a much different situation, as they are dealing with modern nation-states. Firstly the Chinese are focusing investment on long-term infrastructure projects while avoiding what it terms as neoliberal policies focused on privatization and short-term gain. Given the infrastructure issues in these countries, and the inability of governments there (and even in Western countries) to pay for these projects generally, this is a good way of gaining goodwill in these countries, provided these projects are completed. Secondly, the Chinese are interested in developing their own sphere of influence which can assure them access to raw materials while at the same time provide for access for developing markets, which was the same impetus for colonialism, but without direct interference with social institutions. At this point, they've invested around 4 trillion or so in projects around Africa and Asia, and the bottom floor of that investment is projected to be around 8 trillion. Their entrance into local politics has been minimal, and they tend to want governments to favor stability above all else.
Given the unmitigated disaster that was the Late British and French colonial systems, the effects of which we are seeing today, the Chinese seem hesitant to offer much more than investment opportunities at this point. The Chinese had their own unique colonized experience, and one of the explicit purposes of the CCP during the Mao years was to focus on development so that there would be no possibility of being dominated again. What that means for interactions with the post-colonial world at large remains to be seen.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:20 am to crazy4lsu
The Chinese are trying to make South Africa and other countries loyal to them by giving them money. It’s a dangerous possibility that a lot of large countries could owe China if a war broke out
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:21 am to j bro12
Bring all the white people to America then bomb the frick out of those dumb fricks.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:23 am to crazy4lsu
Their infrastructure investments are pretty shitty. Like 4 lane highways made out of 1" thick asphalt shitty. These are mafia deals to corrupt leaders.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:26 am to Upperdecker
They are trying to build a sphere of influence, yes, given the lack of investment from the West. The Chinese are well-propositioned in Central Asia with their One Belt One Road initiative. Investment in other countries as a method of currying favor is a thing the US does too.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:30 am to upgrayedd
They might be, but given the recent colonial history is still fresh in the minds of post-colonial subjects, a history which was quite brutal to native populations, they work to improve the Chinese image, as they are neophytes in terms of foreign adventures. The important thing is that they are giving the money and are attempting to carve out their sphere of influence.
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 8:33 am
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:32 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
Has this strategy of forcibly taking people's property as part of a political system ever worked out? I can't think of a single instance where it has.
Manifest Destiny.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:33 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
they are neophytes in terms of foreign adventures
That's why I say they will go through the 18th century colonialism phase and it won't be pretty. They're a pretty brutal group of people.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:35 am to crazy4lsu
Unrelated to my point about china, the land owned by white people in SA has been colonized for ~300 years, right? This is almost equivalent to native Americans forcing out white people in America in the sense that none of the people being forced out were actually colonizers or even close relatives to them?
And is the large Indian population and mixed race population in SA being considered to be white in this case?
And is the large Indian population and mixed race population in SA being considered to be white in this case?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:36 am to upgrayedd
Without direct involvement, it won't look like the British or French versions. When it goes sideways, it will look like the American version, with most of it involving supporting specific groups for specific aims. I'm skeptical we will ever see a system like the British version again.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:37 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Manifest Destiny.
Most of the expansion past the continental US was a complete failure. And the Native Americans’ ownership of Continental US was very different than the way white people own and use land in South Africa. That’s a bad comparison
Posted on 3/1/18 at 9:07 am to Upperdecker
quote:
That’s a bad comparison
No, Manifest Destiny is a good example of a...
quote:
strategy of forcibly taking people's property as part of a political system
...that has worked out.
...so far.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News