re: A Turtledove Story of South African History (possible Land Use Solution added on p.4)

Hypotheticals =/= reality baw

MAGA

Turtledove is a horrible writer

quote:

---

Turtledove is a horrible writer

---

I think he is really, really good at envisioning the concepts, outlining the story and creating the various characters. His failing (in my view) is with the characterization once he gets all that done. I get SO tired of similar characters in unrelated books constantly using the same phrases, etcetera.

In other words, he is brilliant with the broad strokes, but lazy on the interpersonal detail.

I also think he is much better with the first few years or decades after the PoD. He gets into trouble when he no longer has access to actual historical figures and data.


EDIT: Since Zapp and Sarge are clearly AH readers, what are your thoughts on the parallels?

quote:

---

quote:

---

how things could go better in the future.

---

They won't. Look at the rest of the continent.

---

But they COULD HAVE.

First, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that I am advocating the following for America or that I think that this system is remotely in accord with true capitalism. I am simply suggesting a system which might work, if we must start with THEIR premise that greater non-White ownership of agricultural land would be a social good for the country.

We need not AGREE with that premise, any more than we must agree that city parks are a social good. But, for purposes of discussion, we must accept that THEY see it that way. What is the best way to achieve that “social good,” without disrupting society to the breaking point ... destroying an economy or starving people.

In 1994, there should have been affirmative goals for non-White land ownership, in discernible stages. For example, perhaps a goal of 15% by 2010 and 25% by 2025. That might have been too high, but let’s use those numbers for purposes of discussion.

Next, we ask how best to get there? “Willing buyer, willing seller” sounds good in a capitalist system, but the resources are probably not there in the South African non-White general populace to make any significant inroads toward the goals on that basis. The government would have to be involved.

How? The pragmatic response is for the government to buy property at market value and to then sell it to the populace either on a subsidized basis, on credit, or some combination thereof.

But who should get the land? Handing it out to cronies is clearly unworkable, as was demonstrated in Rhodesia. I would suggest that the people who actually WORKED that land as employees of the former White owners should get the first opportunity ... because there would be some level of presumption that they have SOME of the requisite skills for farming. As former employees purchase land, new replacement hires would have the chance to start learning about farming.

Second, the government would probably need to help establish some sort of joint stock businesses (call them Equipment Cooperatives) by which multiple small owners could share the cost and use of expensive farm equipment. A guy and an ox is just not workable.

Even with these systems in place, I am skeptical that the goals would be met. As such (and again accepting the premise od “societal good”), one must consider the exercise of eminent domain ... with market value compensation. Yes, forced sale, but at a fair price.

So, whose land would be taken? I would start from the premise that no landowner should be put off his home or be divested of so much land that he will be unable to make a living. As such, it seems that small landowners should be exempt.

For larger landowners, I think you would need to make a determination as to how much land a basic Equipment Cooperative (described above) could farm with one set of equipment appropriate to the dominant crop in the region (e.g. two tractors and associated implements, or one harvester combine, or whatever measure for the appropriate crop). No more than one such tract should be taken from any one landowner until similar tracts had been taken from ALL landowners of similar scope in the same region.

No, it is not OUR system, but it might meet their societal goals without destroying their economy or starving their people.

Your description reads like a bad fanfic.

Is that an actual book?

quote:

---

Is that an actual book?

---

No. Just a tool to make South African history a bit more comprehensible to people who do not know the names, places, dates, .... or really anything.

quote:

---

Not you, the zapp guy.

---

Gotcha. To be honest, I could not make myself finish the first book in that series.

quote:

---

by all rights it shouldn't have been won by US to begin with ... 1/3 the population loyal to GB through the war and moving to Canada after.

---

If I wrote this book, most of those folks would move to the Confederared Southern Colony immediately after the Revolution.

But that issue is not really relevant to the Dixieboers trek and subsequent reintegration.

I'm interested in SA history but that is not readable. Try again.

quote:

---

I see your made up story ends with the whitey getting voted out, seems like being extinguished would be a more significant end point, no?

---

We can certainly explore the period after 1994,if you like.

quote:

---

The new government of the RSA included in its new Constitution a mandate for reform of land ownership, intended to result in greater ownership of land by non-whites. The system implemented to that end provided for reform by transfers from willing buyers to willing sellers, and the system proved inadequate to the task and resulted in no significant increase in land ownership by non-Whites.

Because that system proved ineffective, the government has moved toward uncompensated seizure of private land. It is unclear why the government has not used the pwer of eminent domain to secure land transfers from Whites to non-Whites at market prices.

---

Feel better?

Or we COULD explore the system that I outlined on page 4.