Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am somewhat familiar with Namibia (consulted for Nampower on a Facility there). they are only pretty successful because they promoted a policy of national reconciliation. They even issued an amnesty for those who had fought on either side during the liberation war. They land reform act there does enforce a "willing buyer/WILLING SELLER" philosophy but that may change after seeing SA. If it does Nam will go to hell in a hand basket just like SA.
"Blacks" are the original people. They will always exist on the planet.
ETA
I also find it interesting that you all are zeroing in on me when I simply agreed with another poster. Why are you not attacking the poster who said it? There is nothing new under the sun. History repeats. Land is bequeathed; land is taken away. I believe in God and the concepts in the Bible. You may not. Either way, the white South Africans are being given a chance to peacefully remove themselves from the land. They should take it, is all I'm saying.
The only place in the Bible that justifies taking claimed land is for the Jewish people and Israel. Of course, in the Tanakh / Old Testament the Israelites were permitted to take land from those they conquered. But if you are talking about the whole Bible, including the New Testament, the Jews are to re-take possession of Israel, which they have already done.
Traditional Jewish teachings have held that "Blacks" are not the *original people*, but rather descendants of Ham, whom God condemned to be slaves of Shem and Japheth for making naked their drunk father. It has been thought traditionally that Ham and his descendants were/are a lascivious, disobedient, unruly, lawless bunch.
I'm sure they will..... And SA will end up looking like Burkina Faso.......
*shrug*
C'est la vie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ner
The only place in the Bible that justifies taking claimed land is for the Jewish people and Israel. Of course, in the Tanakh / Old Testament the Israelites were permitted to take land from those they conquered. But if you are talking about the whole Bible, including the New Testament, the Jews are to re-take possession of Israel, which they have already done.
Traditional Jewish teachings have held that "Blacks" are not the *original people*, but rather descendants of Ham, whom God condemned to be slaves of Shem and Japheth for making naked their drunk father. It has been thought traditionally that Ham and his descendants were/are a lascivious, disobedient bunch.
I feel like you're trying to offend me. You can't. I know my history, and I know the truth. The occupants of modern-day Israel don't factor into this equation. The descendants of true Israel will inherit the whole earth. That piece of land in what people call the Middle East is a non-issue.
I feel like you're trying to offend me. You can't. I know my history, and I know the truth. The occupants of modern-day Israel don't factor into this equation. The descendants of true Israel will inherit the whole earth. That piece of land in what people call the Middle East is a non-issue.
I'm glad you are not easily offended. That's a good thing. It seems these days everyone is getting their panties tied up in a knot over the smallest things.
Right, who are the true descendants of Abraham? That is an excellent question. Is it bloodline Jews or the faithful?
I think that question is more appropriate for the religious forum. I don't want to cause the shutdown of this thread. I have a gift for doing that, it seems.
Given that much of the land that is in question was taken though ill gotten means (racism/Apartheid) from peoples/communities who are STILL alive today, I don't have much of a problem with this plan. One of the arguments against reparations for, say, African Americans for slavery is that the victims of slavery are long dead. But that's not the case here. Let's remember: Apartheid ended only in the mid-1990s.
Given that much of the land that is in question was taken though ill gotten means (racism/Apartheid) from peoples/communities who are STILL alive today, I don't have much of a problem with this plan. One of the arguments against reparations for, say, African Americans for slavery is that the victims of slavery are long dead. But that's not the case here.
There are actually a lot of parallels between AAs and the people of SA. I believe we descend from the same people. I know in my own family history, I have not yet stumbled upon any references to Africa, and I honestly don't think I'm going to find it. There are a lot of lies told about America's origins. I believe many black Americans were already on the land and had it taken similar to South Africans. So yeah...the descendants of those people should absolutely be compensated. I, however, won't hold my breath for that. It will literally take an act of God to achieve that in America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is nothing new under the sun. History repeats. Land is bequeathed; land is taken away. I believe in God and the concepts in the Bible. You may not. Either way, the white South Africans are being given a chance to peacefully remove themselves from the land. They should take it, is all I'm saying.
