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.
When the Whites first arrived in what became Rhodesia in the late 1800s they found that vast tracts of the country were fallow and unplanted because the native Blacks explained to them "that land is too hard to work, we believe it is fertile but it requires too much labor to get it to yield" before going on to basically say "if you want that land, if you will work it, you can have it." So the White settlers acquired the best land in Rhodesia by virtue of the fact that the natives simply had no ability/inclination to try farming it.
When Whites first arrived in the Cape area of what is now known as South Africa, there were no "Blacks" per se. There were some Bushmen and a few Hottentots in the Kalahari region, but there were no Zulu and no Xhosa (two of the main black groups in present-day South Africa) anywhere within hundreds of miles. There were a few Bantu tribals just beginning to inch their way down into what is now Limpopo province. So when the Whites first arrived in the Cape the nearest Africans were hundreds of miles north in the Kalahari.
The Xhosa and Zulu are not native to South Africa, they arrived years after the Whites did, and they spent most of their energy fighting each other or fighting the Whites, they didn't contribute meaningful in building up the infrastructure or society of South Africa.
Even today if you go into KwaZulu Natal you'll often find it is (or at least until recently was) a low intensity insurgency bordering on outright civil war. The Zulu and Xhosa still hate each other and they still frequently fight.
Note, the ANC is not a "black unity we're all brothers and cousins" sort of party. The ANC is a Marxist party that exists for the benefit of the Xhosa. It is rather common for the Zulu to bomb the ANC offices in the province where they dominate things (KwaZulu Natal). Before you ask, yes the Zulu have their own party as well, the Inkatha Freedom Party. The only people in South Africa who are without a viable political party are the Whites.
There's no reason Whites should own a greater percentage of the land or have the best land? How about because they bought and paid for it... How about because they traded for it? How about because in many instances the land was empty when they arrived on it? How about in some instances because the tribals didn't want to work the land and simply gave it away to Whites who were willing and able to work it?
There's a lot of reasons why a few people should/could own all the land, as long as they rightfully acquired it.
It is none of our business what the Africans did or did not do with their land before the Europeans came. Nor is it our business who of them owned which land. I can't tell which stretch of Southern African land belonged to Bantus and which was the realm of nomads and whoever, and it is not our business to decide. It is up to them to settle those issues.
All of your pseudo-reasons to justify the fact that whites in some African countries own much more land than they account for in terms of population percentage are the same ones which have been used by Boer racists for many years. It is also a lie that Boers where there before Bantus, that claim has long been refuted.
The way I see it whites who are in Africa should behave accordingly, i.e. like guests and foreigners, which is exactly what they are perceived as by Africans, no matter how long they stay there. If they were not the blatant racists that most of them are, they would not meet with so much hatred among the Africans. But they continue to look down upon Africans, refuse to mix etc.
Jamaicans are not even rightfully Jamaican. Jamaica was founded as a colony by European settlers after the native Indians were wiped out via disease and warfare. The modern Jamaicans (Blacks living in Jamaica) were brought there as slaves 300-400 years ago.
So, they were not invaders, but they were brought there against their will, which takes all the guilt from them.
It is none of our business what the Africans did or did not do with their land before the Europeans came. Nor is it our business who of them owned which land. I can't tell which stretch of Southern African land belonged to Bantus and which was the realm of nomads and whoever, and it is not our business to decide. It is up to them to settle those issues.
All of your pseudo-reasons to justify the fact that whites in some African countries own much more land than they account for in terms of population percentage are the same ones which have been used by Boer racists for many years. It is also a lie that Boers where there before Bantus, that claim has long been refuted.
The way I see it whites who are in Africa should behave accordingly, i.e. like guests and foreigners, which is exactly what they are perceived as by Africans, no matter how long they stay there. If they were not the blatant racists that most of them are, they would not meet with so much hatred among the Africans. But they continue to look down upon Africans, refuse to mix etc.
You can claim that the Cape was packed with Bantus until you're blue in the face,
As for your remark that the Boers refuse to mix, they're not required to mix their bloodlines and abandon their culture.
If you really are Portuguese, which I seriously doubt, I would wager you're either a marrano, a morisco, or you're a mulatto from the former Portuguese Angola. You're not actually a genuine Portuguese man, let alone one with experiences in Portuguese West Africa.
Nothing will ever change the fact that the Cape was virtually devoid of all human activity (aside from a few Bushmen and Hottentots), when the Boers arrived.
Nothing will ever change the fact that the Blacks in Rhodesia GAVE AWAY the best farmland to the White settlers since they (the Blacks) believed the land was too difficult to work, despite being fertile.
The way I see it Whites rightly own Namibia, South Africa, and Rhodesia, with strong claims existing in regards to Belgian Congo and parts of Angola. Anybody else in those lands should wise up, cut the tribalism crap, and learn from the Europeans how things are done.
Note that in the case of Belgian Congo, in the mid-late 1880s, a Belgian explorer went around most of the entire country, meeting with all the top tribal chieftains. He had a battery in his pocket and he wired it to a buzzer in the palm of his hand. When the tribal chiefs shook hands with them they received a slight shock and they all concluded he was the god of lightning and he would surely strike them down if they didn't appease them. They decided to appease him by signing over their lands to him and Belgium.
Last edited by Cornerguy1; 03-17-2009 at 08:54 PM..
Reason: personal attack removed
So, they were not invaders, but they were brought there against their will, which takes all the guilt from them.
They never left when they had the chance...
So if somebody brings somebody else into your house at gunpoint, you wind up dying, but your grandchildren and cousins are still there, they should lose out so the people brought there at gunpoint can have the house?
So if somebody brings somebody else into your house at gunpoint, you wind up dying, but your grandchildren and cousins are still there, they should lose out so the people brought there at gunpoint can have the house?
I don't know if there were still native Americans on those islands when the slaves were free. You said they were eradicated by decease and warfare brought about by Europeans...
Apart from that, if they got along with the natives, why should they not have stayed there, if they are not too much of a burden? I don't think the natives, if there were any left, hated the blacks as they were not the ones who killed them.
Likewise I am not even against whites living in Africa, as long as they recognize whose land it really is, speak local languages, mix with locals in every way, enjoy no privileges whatsoever, etc.
Jamaicans are not even rightfully Jamaican. Jamaica was founded as a colony by European settlers after the native Indians were wiped out via disease and warfare. The modern Jamaicans (Blacks living in Jamaica) were brought there as slaves 300-400 years ago.
So Jamaicans born and raised in JA are not rightfully citizens of their own country, even if they are the decendants of the slaves that were brought over 300-400 years ago?
Yet, according to your earlier posts, Whites who migrated to Africa and worked the land are entitled to own it? There is nothing wrong with European decendants being citizens of African countries and owning land, but why the double standard?
Did (black) Jamaicans not work the land too???
I don't know if there were still native Americans on those islands when the slaves were free. You said they were eradicated by decease and warfare brought about by Europeans...
There are usually a few holdouts scattered across any nation even after it has been taken over.
You can still find a few White people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India, despite the fact that the great White empires in that region were destroyed between at least 3,000 years ago.
So Jamaicans born and raised in JA are not rightfully citizens of their own country, even if they are the decendants of the slaves that were brought over 300-400 years ago?
Yet, according to your earlier posts, Whites who migrated to Africa and worked the land are entitled to own it? There is nothing wrong with European decendants being citizens of African countries and owning land, but why the double standard?
Did (black) Jamaicans not work the land too???
The rightful Jamaicans are basically all dead, they have been for about 200-300 years, aside from perhaps a few hundred tribal hangers-on in rural areas. Even that may be dubious/uncertain. It's most likely that there are no native Jamaicans left at all.
Everybody else in Jamaica is, to some extent, a settler of one sort or another.
Most places you find Whites in Africa were devoid of human activity when the Whites arrived. If I were to happen upon an abandoned farm that had clearly not been used for decades, I would be within my rights to take it and begin using it, thus gaining ownership of it. We're not talking about somebody going on vacation for a week and their house being taken, we're talking about decades of absence, or in the case of parts of southern Africa, no human presence to begin with.
There were no Africans around the Cape area, there were virtually none in parts of Rhodesia, there were virtually none in parts of western Namibia. Most of the Bushmen and Hottentots were in the Kalahari. Most of the Bantus were in what are today the nations of Mozambique, Swaziland, and Botswana.
South Africa is a Western country founded by a Western people who built it through their own efforts and structured the society along Western lines.
You can claim that the Cape was packed with Bantus until you're blue in the face,
As for your remark that the Boers refuse to mix, they're not required to mix their bloodlines and abandon their culture.
If you really are Portuguese, which I seriously doubt, I would wager you're either a marrano, a morisco, or you're a mulatto from the former Portuguese Angola. You're not actually a genuine Portuguese man, let alone one with experiences in Portuguese West Africa.
Nothing will ever change the fact that the Cape was virtually devoid of all human activity (aside from a few Bushmen and Hottentots), when the Boers arrived.
Nothing will ever change the fact that the Blacks in Rhodesia GAVE AWAY the best farmland to the White settlers since they (the Blacks) believed the land was too difficult to work, despite being fertile.
The way I see it Whites rightly own Namibia, South Africa, and Rhodesia, with strong claims existing in regards to Belgian Congo and parts of Angola. Anybody else in those lands should wise up, cut the tribalism crap, and learn from the Europeans how things are done.
Note that in the case of Belgian Congo, in the mid-late 1880s, a Belgian explorer went around most of the entire country, meeting with all the top tribal chieftains. He had a battery in his pocket and he wired it to a buzzer in the palm of his hand. When the tribal chiefs shook hands with them they received a slight shock and they all concluded he was the god of lightning and he would surely strike them down if they didn't appease them. They decided to appease him by signing over their lands to him and Belgium.
I did not say it was packed with Bantus, but there were some there, yes, whether you like it or not. Apart from that, it does not matter anyway, if it was not the Bantus' land, it was the Bushmen's. It is Africa, even if the land was empty, it does not mean outsiders can go there and take it. Would Europe or Russia accept Africans taking land in empty areas of Spain or Siberia?
Well, the way I see it Africans should throw the racist white pack out of their continent asap. Let's see who is willing to take that breathing ****.
So, it was outright fraud in the case of the Congo. Thus in hindsight all land possessions should be taken from whites there.
I never said I was Portuguese, show me where I wrote that I was, please. If you can't show me, your entire remarks about me only show how superficial you are.
Last edited by Cornerguy1; 03-17-2009 at 08:55 PM..
I did not say it was packed with Bantus, but there were some there, yes, whether you like it or not. Apart from that, it does not matter anyway, if it was not the Bantus' land, it was the Bushmen's. It is Africa, even if the land was empty, it does not mean outsiders can go there and take it. Would Europe or Russia accept Africans taking land in empty areas of Spain or Siberia?
Well, the way I see it Africans should throw the racist white pack out of their continent asap. Let's see who is willing to take that breathing ****.
So, it was outright fraud in the case of the Congo. Thus in hindsight all land possessions should be taken from whites there.
I never said I was Portuguese, show me where I wrote that I was, please. If you can't show me, your entire remarks about me only show how superficial you are.
You said you are a White man who is in Portugal, it is only natural to assume you meant you are Portuguese...
Also, as for all the Whites being thrown out of Africa... All I can say is this...
Will the last White man who leaves Africa please remember to turn off the lights and shut off the water.
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.
