Boers resettle in Russia as South Africa crumbles

[mindlight]

The new South African regime of Cyril Ramaphosa looks set to repeat the mistakes of Zimbabwes Mugabe and drive his country into the ground. He has basically sanctioned the stealing of land from white farmers who have owned it since 1600 and whose ancestors were the first to cultivate it. In response some 15000 Boers (of 4 million) are interested in moving to Russia where land is plentiful and cheap and the agricultural potential enormous. They apparently feel safer there than in crime ridden South Africa where 74 farmers were murdered in 2016-2017 alone

https://www.rt.com/business/433772-boers-sa-russia-resettlement/

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

The new South African regime of Cyril Ramaphosa looks set to repeat the mistakes of Zimbabwes Mugabe and drive his country into the ground. He has basically sanctioned the stealing of land from white farmers who have owned it since 1600 and whose ancestors were the first to cultivate it. In response some 15000 Boers (of 4 million) are interested in moving to Russia where land is plentiful and cheap and the agricultural potential enormous. They apparently feel safer there than in crime ridden South Africa where 74 farmers were murdered in 2016-2017 alone

https://www.rt.com/business/433772-boers-sa-russia-resettlement/

They took the land from some peoples. Then some peoples took the land from them. This has sound of justice more than sound of stealing.

 

[FireDragon76]

Southern African leaders have a long history of using populist xenophobia as a deflection from failed social policies. Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe come to mind.

 

[Desk trauma]

They took the land from some peoples. Then some peoples took the land from them. This has sound of justice more than sound of stealing.

How? The farmers on the land are not the ones who took it nor even the great grand children of those who did just as those who will reoccupy it are not the ones from who it was taken.

 

[Albion]

They took the land from some peoples. .

No, actually they did not. That is the popular perception because colonialists in most lands generally did take the land from native peoples. But in this case, the Boers were not colonialists and they did not take the land from any native peoples.

 

[All Englands Skies]

They took the land from some peoples. Then some peoples took the land from them. This has sound of justice more than sound of stealing.

So white people can be judged in the collective and held responsible for historic wrongs and punished in the collective and that is justice?

Nelson Mandela when he came to power made it clear South Africa belonged to everybody, black and white and that to "punish" white people for the past was morally wrong.

So the Bosnia war was "justice" then? after all, the Serbians were just "giving back" what had been done to them over and over historically, the Bosniaks had been favoured during the Ottomans, then curried favour under the Austrian regime, then in the Second World War they for the main part supported either the Nazi regime, forming an SS group or siding with the fascist Croatian state which killed thousands of Serbs. (yes some did join the partisans or yugoslav restistance, but most sided with Nazis or crotian fascists)

So Srebrinca was justified by your logic?

I know the answer will be "no", because you're left wing and for the main part lefties are bigger hypocrites than the right, its okay to judge certain groups in the collective they rally against, but morally wrong to do the same to groups they support and protect. I also know these situations will be somehow magically "different", even though, sorry, they're the same, you cant just decide one groups can be blamed as a whole and anything bad done to them is "justice", while at the same time saying another group with history of suprema over others cannot be judged in the collective and is morally wrong.

and don't try and side step my argument by saying I am justifying what happened in Bosnia, I am not, as not every bosniaks person is responsible for wrongs done to serbs historically, just as not every white south African is responsible for the wrongs of apartheid, infact, their is white south africans who were against apartheid and others who were proud to be part of Nelson Mandelas vision for South Africa. But for them to be punished collectivally along with "pro-apartheid" Whites is "justice" to you.

Also there is plenty of black south africans who actually believe that white people belong just as much as blacks and are speaking out against this and are angry that white people are being used as political scapegoats and being used as a bogeyman by some sections of South African politics

 

[Yekcidmij]

How? The farmers on the land are not the ones who took it nor even the great grand children of those who did just as those who will reoccupy it are not the ones from who it was taken.

No, you don't understand....the farmers are clearly 400+ year old.

Some vikings took land from my ancestors some time ago...so I should get some productive land too. Not sure what I would do with it since I can't manage to grow a plant on my porch....but still...

 

[All Englands Skies]

Southern African leaders have a long history of using populist xenophobia as a deflection from failed social policies. Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe come to mind.

But because the targets are "white" they can be all be blamed and to most "liberals" in the west, that's morally right, as evil white people are just getting what they "deserve"

In reality these "liberals" are justifying ethnic cleansing tactics, simply because the target group is one they feel is morally accountable for historic wrongs in the full collective sense, something which is a big "no-no" to do towards other groups.

 

[Yekcidmij]

They took the land from some peoples.

So who took what from who? I mean, if we're going to figure out who it actually belongs to in this scheme, then we should figure out who originally owned it, who transferred it justly to another party, who would own it had it been justly owned and transferred, who unjustly took the land, who benefited from this injustice, how much the beneficiaries benefited from injustice vs. their own skills and labor, etc..

How does one do this in a way that doesn't just amplify injustice? One injustice on top of another doesn't cancel injustice.

Then some peoples took the land from them. This has sound of justice more than sound of stealing.

How does this policy specifically in SA equal justice?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Southern African leaders have a long history of using populist xenophobia as a deflection from failed social policies. Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe come to mind.

Uganda is kind of closer to the equator than Southern Africa…

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I would just like to point out that at the moment, most of the land being seized illegally is in the Western Cape province, around Stellenbosch and Hermanus. The people doing so, are black South Africans, whose ancestors never even came close to the area. Bantu settlement ended at about the Great Fish river, about 700 km away. The natives in that area, the Khoisan and their Coloured descendants, aren't even being considered for land reform. Why the EFF and ANC is targeting the Western Cape, is because it is ruled by the opposition DA - seen as a 'white party'.
They haven't started legal expropriation yet, as they are waiting on the Constitutional court to rule if it is valid or not.

Anyway, about two fifths of the country had no Bantu historically, yet this is being considered part of the land to be 'returned' to blacks. Other areas like Stellaland and Goshen, and large swathes of Mpumulanga, were bought from native kings. Many areas were settled after the Mfecane, where the rise of Dingiswayo and Shaka caused massive depopulation of central South Africa - the Boers mostly settled land recently emptied of inhabitants by native wars, therefore. It is much more nuanced. Some land, especially after the 1913 Land Act, was certainly taken from black Africans, but very large tracts weren't, and restitution on the grounds of percentages of the population groups, is patently unfair and historically dubious in the extreme, if considered 'restitution'.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Once they get this mess all sorted out, I wonder if they will return all the land that Shaka Zulu took to the rightful people.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

So who took what from who? I mean, if we're going to figure out who it actually belongs to in this scheme, then we should figure out who originally owned it, who transferred it justly to another party, who would own it had it been justly owned and transferred, who unjustly took the land, who benefited from this injustice, how much the beneficiaries benefited from injustice vs. their own skills and labor, etc..

It was taken from someone who lived in the country.

How does one do this in a way that doesn't just amplify injustice? One injustice on top of another doesn't cancel injustice.

How does this policy specifically in SA equal justice?

Now someone who lives in the country will get it.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

No, actually they did not. That is the popular perception because colonialists in most lands generally did take the land from native peoples. But in this case, the Boers were not colonialists and they did not take the land from any native peoples.

You can provide reputable sources to support your idea?

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

The farmers on the land are not the ones who took it nor even the great grand children of those who did

Is there a time limit on such things?

 

[Albion]

Yonny,

Of course. I would suggest starting with the post above from our South African friend, Quid Est Veritas, however, because he gave a lot of specifics you need.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

So white people can be judged in the collective and held responsible for historic wrongs and punished in the collective and that is justice?

There is very much that is owed and that society should do the best to pay the debt that is owed.

 

[Desk trauma]

Is there a time limit on such things?

While I don't have a set time frame I would say that a few centuries is well past any reasonable statue of limitations for undoing such things.

 

[Desk trauma]

There is very much that is owed and that society should do the best to pay the debt that is owed.

Owed to whom?

 

[Desk trauma]

It was taken from someone who lived in the country.


Now someone who lives in the country will get it.

Do the current owners somehow magically not live in South Africa while farming the land there?