chaos in South Africa (apartments, lease, high crime)

[mrkool]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Well that's the best way I can describe it. It's a Zimbabwe without the media attention. I've always advocated for the right to keep and bear arms, but I hope things never come to what's going on in SA, apartheid was bad but the ANC has ruined that country:

South Africa World Cup 2010... and the shooting's already started | Mail Online

Chaos!? Wow... how could that happen!? Shouldn't everything just be wonderful since they got rid of white rule?
I guess not. Maybe the old system of apartheid and white rule wasn't so bad after all.
Exhibit A ; South Africa
Exhibit B; Zimbabwe

When will some people learn???

[southernnaturelover]

The best thing is for all whites to leave S.Africa and not look back, let the place collapse.

[jungeon]

I agree with southern nature lover, all the colonialist should leave. Normal white people can stay.

@ mr cool, you do realize that when ian smith ran out of office the economy was in shambles. The only trading partner of zimbabwe was usa, and britain and when they decided to declare independence they got sanctioned big time and lost all the favourable deals with britain. When Mugabe took power in the 80s zimbabwe became the bread basket because britan re-opened trade until tony blair decided to abadon his own people in zimbabwe and put sanctions on mugabe for something that was already going on. Whites were being removed from farms since mugabe took power=lancaster agreement= britain paid for whites to leave the farms, until 1997 then Mugabe said if you won't pay for them then why should I and tony blair said F u I am white, you will do what I say or I will santion you black a--, you little black n----er and Muhabe said up urs. That is the history of britain and zim relation.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by jungeon

Also realize Alaska is the biggest state and I didn't look at the stats but my bet is its would be in the top 10-15 in land size if it were a country.

Originally Posted by jungeon

Its not like bRIATINA AND usa DON'T HAVe crime. They have lots of corruption and white collar crime but they get away with it more. Look at madoff.

It's not a big distance to a Vermonter either.

Crime stats for comparison purposes: Murders (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
NationMaster - South African Crime statistics

The idea that blacks were given the land is absurd, you cannot be given something that you already own. What you should say is whites took away the 87% of the land. British white people have a problem where they go around the world stealing. Stealing is a crime. why do you support crimes. This is what I am trying to show you. If a black guy breaks into a rich white guys house who stole his land-HE NEVER GOT A SINGLE DIME for it, he is a theif, but when the british government kicks millions of peoples out their house at gun point, they are----an empire? That makes no sense, your America not russia, one standard for everyone. either stealing is wrong or right it doesn't matter who does it. Where theft occurs we have the right to correct these injustices.

Do you have any verefiable stats on the percentage of land owned by Whites before and after the 1960's through 80's re-settlement programs? That would tell a lot. It is my understanding that before the resettlement program a significant percentage of the Blacks were squatting on the outskirts of the towns and cities. In other words they didn't own the land they were living on previously. However, the stats if any exist would tell the real story.

Well benefits for the whites I don't dispute. I can't imagine how someone who was kidnapped from their home and forced to live in a strange land could be called a beneficiary. Black africans never had access to any of the reources the whites had so it never mattered, they might as well have lived in a different country which they pretty much did.

Lack of anarchy was a major benefit. Food, etc. was available (admittedly not as good as for the Whites but nonetheless available). The AIDS problem did not exist. The crime rate was lower. Some benefits.

Don't you think this goes for the white farmers claiming to be invade. Media looking to hype of some racial rhetoric to get us to read their paper?

There appears to be truth in this story.

I like to tell you about a violent group of extremist called the british empire who went around the world kidnapping people and selling them into strange lands. Shooting people stealing their land, setting up colonoiies and forcing people to live under their rule without no representation heavy taxation and no control over their own affairs. One day a man name george washington and the contiental congress said F-britain they are crazy psychopaths=american revlution. Georgre Washington was not peacful. He killed 1000s of innocent people, tarrng anf feathering anyone who did not support the revolution. It takes a violent extremist to beat another extremist. To you washington is a hero because he is your president but today he would be considered a terrorist, a man with no internationally recognized state fighting violently with guns for independence. I put it to you that the only way to remove british control is by violence. America, jamaica, barbados, bahamas, trinidad, most countries under rule by britain had to use violence or threat of it to become independent nations. As did south africa.

Washington and his army and militiamen targetted other combatants (soldiers), not civilians. A significant difference.

The ANC was no Ghandi but when you start shooting innocent protesters and school schildren you start to lose you ability of restraint and peacefulness. If the government shot your children you would not be like lets go protest peacefully. Many people would be like get me my ak 47.

Of course I would be angry but the proper response isn't targetting random civilians. It is a common law right in countries that adopted English common law (although it is rapidly disappearing along with the rest of the onslaught against the right to keep and bear arms in many such countries)to defend yourself against illegal acts by officers of the state. I.E.: if a police officer is murdering my innocent family I have a right to shoot him in defense. But I don't have a right to target, say, his family, friends, etc., later.

mandela is the most reasonable person you could expect to get out of such a situation. We both know that if either of us was mandela we would have done alot worse to the people who locked us away for 27 years.

Not necessarily. I'm sure better people could have been found. It strikes me that the transition was too rushed when it began to enable reason to dictate matters.

SA was not war torn at the time of Shaka Zulu, by his time it was prety prosperpor had a huge army and was basically being dominated by him. Realize that he was the first person in the region to actually kill in combat so the war torn parts = where ever he just took over, but there were few starving people under his rule. Well the crime problem is bad, but russia, india and brazil all have equally bad crime problems in their major cities. The only ownership of property that is threatend is that of black land owners who had their land stolen by whites. Yes some black are trying to take by their own land but who can really say they are wrong.

Realize what you describe the Zulu as doing precisely matches what the Whites did years ago in SA: maintain control using military force, become prosperous off the land. The Zulu took power slowly with force.

It cannot be stabilized by just adding more police, the white farmer must go to create stabilization. Once they are gone no one will be trying to take anyones land. It is really they who created this problem of instability. You oppress a people for such a long time its just like a box waiting to explode.

No, you must understand that by doing that you would create the precise opposite of stability: instability. Firstly, forcing the White farmers off is an illegal act under international law, and secondly, that will send a message to corporations to not invest there. You can actually see this in Russia to some degree. Putin went about confiscating property, etc., claiming it was for the benefit of the people. That has kept foreign investment away.

Thats because no black person got land from STEALING it in apartheid under the ruse of government. I told you it was not about race, even though I am saying white people, i mean british and dutch colonialist. If you had a black guy from america go buy the land of all the white farmers it would be he who would be under attack, because they are buying stolen land. Imagine if some guy just stole the deed to your house tomorrow and changed the locks and called the cops, and the cops told you to stay away from your house and then you saw it up for sale. Your ok because you still have a nice job probably, your not going to starve. But if it came down to starving or kicking a guy out your house and maybe being arrested lots of people would say i'm getting my house back especially when your kids have to sleep on the street. The black people who own large tracts of land owned it before apartheid and were able to reclaim it. Also realize that they don't exactly teach you how to sue a guy who stole your land and a lawyer cost money.

But some are stealing it now from lawful owners through force or threats. And no they did not all own it ebfore apartheid. Many Blacks have obviously seen an opportunity to gain wealth by claiming victimhood and using force and terror to take it back. The Whites alive today in SA are not colonists. A colonist is defined as an original settler or founder of a colony. The colonists are all dead.

Well I will believe when I see it, until then I think of anything it is either just hyoed up rhetoric like when Bush says he will ban abortion, or a liberal says he will ban guns or legalize all drugs or news paper trying to get lots of attention.

We shall see.

Who should buy back the land? The black guy who had his land stolen in 1980-60? so now has no source of income. Why should he borrow money from his children to buy back land that was STOLEN from him by a racist british run apartheid government and distributed to white settlers? Its not really mine or your business to tell people how they should run their land in order to pay of the massive debt that you think they should accumulate. Also realize that most white farmers in SA and zimbabwe do not want to sell their land at fairmarket, they want grossly inflated prices, which caused the collapse of the system in zimbabwe. When a guy wants 1 million us dollars for land worth 250k, there is no way you can afford to buy it from him anyways. This maybe why zuma hinted at force retakeovers of the farms, the white farmers are not being reasonable, and really only the africans are giving any ground on the issue. The british and dutch refuse to pay to remove their own settlers, so why should africa. This money means nothing to a country like Britain or Dutch, but is a huge amount to pay for zimbabwe or SA government/people.

Almost every farmer in the world has considerable debt load from their farm. If the land is managed well it will pay for itself and the debt would really be no issue, and going about it this way would build up credit and foreign investors would invest whereas going about it the Mugabe way destroys a country. And it's not as though it's just land that's needed, even if the land were given free to some Black, what then? How will he run an enormous farm with no equipment, seed, etc.?

You can phrase it and play semantics but whether you stole the land yourself or used another entity/person to steal the land for you doesn't change the fact that they are in possesion of stolen property and must return it to the rightful owners.

The current owners did not steal and did not use someone else to steal. Must Poland return most of its land to the Germans evicted from what was actually East Prussia, land owned by Germans for centuries?

Even if it is land stolen from other blacks, in no way does it bring us any closer to justice to say ok , since one black guy stole land from another black guy lets give it to a white guy. sounds like a silly and quite frankly the first racist argument you made.

The point is, since everyone stole it, no one can claim the moral high ground and say they have a superior claim.

No I will ask you to go look up forced resettlements and the ethnic cleansing that occured all over south africa that put 90% of the population from 1960- to 1980 on 10% of the land. Most of those people are still alive today and have a legal claim and rights to those land. Those responsible are still alive, the whites are still living on the land and got it in our life time. You are trying to say this was in 1800s but it wasn't it was going right up until 1994 when mendela was elected. The blacks have greater claim because they are the historical inhabitants of the region. I will point you to international boundary law and how they use archaeologist to determine who owns which parts of a border. Essentially say 2 old countries like Ethiopia and somalia have a border dispute. They go to the un and the un sends archaelogist to determine who this land has belonged to for most of history and awards these places to each nation on that basis. If for example we found that if we dug up kept founding 1000s of artifacts only belong to one group of people, then we would determine it belonged to them historically so it is theres and is recently stolen, Nextly we would find that before 1850 there was very little if any white presence and most of this land would go back to africans. So africans have a historical claim on their side enforceable by international law and whites have a piece of paper from a racist apartheid government that says they own everything. As time goes on it will be hard to imagine anyone would honor such a document.

See my statement earlier about stats on land ownership by Blacks before and after that program.

The Whites were there before 1850, well before 1850.

Yes so lets send the british back to britain and give the land back to africans and start over as civilized people at the table. the british government can pay for their own people f they want, its not africans business because they never invinted them, british and dutch came here as illegal immigrants violating prevailing zulu law at the time. They never asked permission to immigrate here they just showed up and jumped off boats. Would you pay money if an illegal immigrant stole your land? I say today we say enough, the british in africa who did not buy land go away and put an end to the violence. Africans are not native americans, you cannot steal our land and play cowboys and indians with us because we are not indians. Its not the past it is the present in which we can go and see a white man who is living on the land of a black man in SA for free without paying rent.

The Whites there now are as African as any Black. They are not Britons or Dutchmen.

The Zulu were in the process of expanding their empire by forcefully taking land from others, and in the midst of that bumped into White settlers moving northward in present day SA. There was no violation of laws when the Whites moved there.

1. statute of limitations do not apply to crimes, only to civil matters. There is no statute of limitations on theft
2. Adverse possession doesn't apply here because
-in order for an owner to claim adverse possession he could not have known that there was a dispute-your white in south africa and you have black people "invading" your land saying get off of my property then you know there is a dispute and as long as the dispute is ongoing which it clearly is the statute starts over. So if 100 years past and I dispute it every 5 years the statute of limitations is not in effect. Thats how statute of limitations law works. My father has sued people 27 years beyond the statute under this principal and won. This is why Canada had to buy the land from vacant lanholders rather than just fill it with squatters. all the owner has to do is dispute it and so can his kids.
-Most judges will judge each case based on its own merit and ignore that statues law if the case is reasonable
-Adverse possession requires you basically to leave the land never come back, or dispute it by choice then have some long lost cousin come 61 years lateer and say I own it.-Adverse possession has a clause which says it cannot be used unfairly to give land from one person to another. It requires a part of neglectfulness on the owner or unreasonableness. When you cannot go to your own by law under threat of arrest and "Deportation" there is no reasonable way that you could be expected to oppose in the court of law such a claim. When it was illegal for a black man to walk into a white court, there was no way to oppose a claim. So you see adverse possesion doesn't apply here. There was no reasonable way for a black person kicked off their land in 1955 to get it back.
-Adverse possession really requires the owner to act unreasonably. So it is a reverse onus here.
-The main point here is once the land is disputed by the true owner you can no longer claim adverse possesion.

You have it wrong. Statute of limitations applies to criminal matters. There was a big uproar here when pedophiles were going free because of it.

Second: the mere act of occupying a piece of real estate is enough to take it through adverse posession if the owner does not expel or make an effort to expel the trespassers/squatters during the time period the squatters must use the property to take it. If that time period is, say, 7 years, and they successfully occupy that piece of property for 7 years and I make no effort to remove them, it's theirs once they go to court. I can't go even a day afterwards and get it back. Won't happen, it's theirs. There have been cases of squatters taking a piece of land even while the owner occupied other portions of the land because they went unnoticed in that one portion.

Well thats not south african law and it can change. If that was the case there would be more of a valid claim by the black squatters than the white squatters on many of these land. This is not also so cut and dry.

It's not cut and dry at all. Adverse posession can get very complex. There are many Blacks who are squatting in SA right now who could use the laws to take what they squat on if it goes unnoticed by the owners for the time required.

LOL. Internationa aid workers? Do your research man. I have done my research on every single international aid group who has made these claims and all of them have a president who is either a white south african or zimbabwean. No objective views from a real aid organization. Often these aid organizations are really fronts for spy agencies, from the UK and USA and thats why they got banned from zimbabwe. Also as for people who are fleeing, the country naturally they will have an anti mugabe bias, he took their big white man farm so what else are they going to say. If I was white and some mugabe took my farm i'd probably say he was hitler too because thats how i would feel. But its not true objectively. Even if mugabe is corrupt as you claim but provide no evidence for. I always get a kick out of how westerns think they can just assert mugabe is corrupt because he is african and then act shocked when challenged. But if I were to say Bush was corrupt or blair was corrupt you would ask me for strict proof. any how thats a different debate. There are 1 million white people who used to be living in SA abroad who all hate black people, and mugabe and mendela for no other reason than the fact that segregation ended in SA in 1994 whereas it ended in america in the 1960s and 70s. Most white people born before 1960 were probably racist in america as the same goes for SA but in 1994. Imagine if after segregation ended they elected a black president in america, the white people who leave would likely be the ones who are already the most racist.

No, this has been reported widely and the facts may not be denied. For example, the massacre of the Matabele in the 80's. There are many people working through, for example, the UN who have observed this stuff, who are not Westerners at all and not ex-White residents. The land program was even done illegally. Land reform in Zimbabwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A brief summary of the land issues there.

They may have been born here but they don't are not african and are colonizers and need to go back to the colonial motherland. colonizers are no longer welcomed in africa. They don't have as much right to live here, we africans will determine what their rights are. If they want to act civilized and work hard like everyone else they can stay here or come here. If they want to play cowboy and treat us like indians and shoot us and kick us out or own land they can go back to europe. That will not be welcomed here.

You contradict yourself completely. If they are born there, they can't be colonizers, and they are definately Africans by birth. These countries are not colonies anymore either so there is no true "mother country."

Mugabe was voted the 3rd or second greatest african. Mugabe has been to europe already, gone to italy, britain the vatican and has no real interest in going back there. He has also been to china and has little interest in the west the only place silly enough to try and prosecute him for such a silly crime. the reason why omar el bashir who has an international arrest warrant can travel anywhere outside of europe is becasue no one cares about these western european organizations. They are highly bias and offer no fairness. Mugabe is a war criminal but Van Clerk is a hero? Mugabe is satan but ian smith is a humanitarian. George Bush and putin can invade any country but saddam is pure evil. Thats why the west has lost its crediblity. They set a standard yet they turn around and change that standard when it benefits them. Mugabe has no warrants issued against him yet, and no country will ever hand him over anyways except britain and its puppets. Omar bashir travels freely so i don't think mugabe is worried

Voted by who? Many brutal dictators have been popular with their people, but that doesn't change the facts. Mao was quite popular with the Chinese peasants when he gave them all land that had been owned by the wealthy, but he was still a brutal, massmurdering tyrant.

Zimbabwe was a bread basket under Mugabe's rule until 1999 when Britain decide to impose sanctions along with usa to ruin the economy of the country and put millions of people at risk of starving all over politics. If anyone is guilty here it bill clinton and tony blair for playing politics with people's lives. The idea was that if we made zimbabwe weak, mugabe would get overthrown by people angry at the drop in living standard. Britain and usa was zimbabweas only trading partner accounting for 85% of trade at the time. Thats why zimbabwe has an official look east policy for trade as those are the only countries worth trading with in the west. Its hard for any agricultural country to thrive without usa as a partner. I have used a global economic simulator call gps, and you will virtually all the demand for goods come from USA. Unfortunately the santions backfired in USA and especially Britains face. Sanstions made Mugabe stronger because it showed africans in the entire contient and in the east world and southern world that the interest of usa and uk was recolonization. It is clearly true when you look at the policies of the 2 countries and this is why mugabe is the most popular leader in all of africa and was voted the 3rd greatest african.

No the decline began earlier as far as stability went. Such as the early 1990's when there were widespread protests and strikes by everyone from doctors to civil servants to students. Mugabe is, as with most tyrants, most popular with the poorly educated who fall for his lies. The starvation became widespread in the 2000's because of the land program. Land was given to people who know nothing about farming and often don't care. You can't conceal these facts.

No it does not, it lies on the implementers of the sanctions. The goal of the santion is to ruin the economy, stunt exports, and kill jobs and cause a coup d'etat every part worked except the last one.

The sanctions began in 2001, after the collapse began most noticeably in 2000. Mugabe later stopped payments to foreign lenders and this required the IMF by law to stop lending. The hyperinflation is entirely caused by the government printing too much money, and not paying foreign lenders.

Economy of Zimbabwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not saying whites can't live in africa, your welcome anytime, I'm saying those who want to colonize africa must go. Its not about race, its about history and colonization. Those who want to oppress black people in their own country can go back to europe to practice racism, where racism comes from. The more whites try to oppress th emajority is the more they will become vicitims of attacks, the more those few violent groups will be listened to. The more that the white man steals from africans the more some africans will scrath their hands and say maybe those guys going into their own stolen land have a point. I'm saying the whites should go before it gets worse. The status quo is unacceptable and given the cost of buying back the land to landless people its a joke to expect them to buy it back.

Colonialism is over. The Whites there are not colonists.

The one where they had to ask the king to come and live in their land. there was a reason zulu was kicking off many others nations, its because he declard all fo south africa as his possession, no different than how alaska is in america.
Its hard to find a comparison because in america the british bought the land or signed treaties. whereas in africa they just shot people and straight out stole it. No treaties, no contract, came here illegall and no land was ever given to them. When the europeans came to africa there were many wars going on all over. No one would give them an inch of land, it was not like the natives. You had empires that rose up in 50 years and took over land masses the size of the contiental USA and then disappered.

The Zulu were no different than the Whites, claiming land they did not own and holding onto it with force. How can you say the Zulu had a greater claim? They weren't even in all of the area they claimed yet when they bumped into some Boers heading North.

This is a different debate for a different day. You would first actually have to find out which land was actually owned by the kohisan and which was not. As many areas they simply never chose to inhabit because the vegeration never set their needs. Also we do not know how the land was acquired as there were many other nations in the area that seemingly collapse with no explantion-ie great zimbabwe- Anyhow one thing is for certain I don't see how given african land to european colonizers fixes this problem. At least given it back to its right ful owner is a step in the right direction. Also realize that the san people make up a very small percent of the entire population. In fact there are as much san as there are rich white guys who own massive farms. The farms in south africa are not the little nice country farms in montana they a re mor elike the big corporate farms in north carolina. When you look at the farm you would see that there is no way that this was acquired legally. They will say I came from europe with a gun and a hammer and now I own all this hmm, i wonder how you go all that land yet black people are all landless in their own country hmmm.

No, it logically follows from your arguments...

We need to level the playing ffield

If I were to venture a guess as to what will result, the result will be those who are poor now will after "reform" be as poor or poorer. Communism has failed everywhere.

[southernnaturelover]

Originally Posted by jungeon

I agree with southern nature lover, all the colonialist should leave. Normal white people can stay.

Nope, ALL white people should leave and get it over with once and for all .

They should try to emigrate to the US, Canada, Argentina, or Australia,... where their skills will be appreciated. It may be tough for them to move to a new country, but things are just going to keep getting worse for them in S.Africa anyways.

[Allan Trafton]

Originally Posted by southernnaturelover

Nope, ALL white people should leave and get it over with once and for all .

They should try to emigrate to the US, Canada, Argentina, or Australia,... where their skills will be appreciated. It may be tough for them to move to a new country, but things are just going to keep getting worse for them in S.Africa anyways.

I agree. When you have to strap a rifle over your shoulder and have a side arm on your hip when you pull weeds in your garden it is time to leave.
It is crazy for these people(Whites) to stay. I would almost call it selfish. I'm sure they love their country, but you have to know when to let go.

[netwit]

<Yes they did have something. Food and jobs.>

Isn't that rather like saying National Socialism had its good points because they provided employment for a post first World War population devastated by the restrictions placed on them at the end of a lost war, through their construction projects?

I don't have the time to take issue with each point but there's a tendency for humans to rationalize away - to moderate the worst evils humans commit upon each other with the passing of time. That's one of the reasons Jews who have been through the Holocaust tell their stories - so that we will not forget, so that we will not tell ourselves it was not so bad. It's the reason denying the Holocaust is a hate crime in some countries.

Time has a way of smoothing over what happened, until we tell ourselves it wasn't so bad. That sort of modifying of facts is an insult to the men and women, black and white (and yes, there were whites who died at the hands of the white government, fighting for the same cause as black South Africans) who gave their lives to the cause of freedom.

It's like telling a rape victim that she was asking for it.

To say that apartheid had its benefits because blacks were so generously allowed to eat of the crumbs that fell from the table is to make a mockery of your own American beliefs as voiced in that famous quote by General John Stark, "to live free or die: death is not the worst of evils."

There is a difference, as I understand Jungeon's post, between saying that two wrongs make a right, and finding the second wrong an understandable thing given the first wrong.

I myself am a pacifist. I can never, would never, advocate any form of violence. But I understand the anger of black South Africans, without in any way condoning violence.

I would also like to say that in general, this thread has been a pleasure to read even with diametrically opposed positions because of the civility on such a potentially touchy subject without name-calling.

[wanneroo]

One issue that comes up in these type of debates from the left wing is the rationalization and excuses that are made for bad behavior. Regardless of who did what at some point you have to move on. South Africa can either be a cesspool or a vibrant, well developed country. You can't have a great country when old women are being raped all over and people are being murdered in their own homes.

BTW I read several south african papers online several times a week since 2005 or so, therefore this "story" about violence isn't new to me.

Personally I can go back through my family tree and find people that were indentured, persecuted for religious beliefs, tossed out of their homes in civil war, etc. I guess under the thinking of some I should be able to extract revenge. But how and to who? Those bad guys are long dead now.

Life is here and now. Knowing the history of south africa, whites didn't steal anymore land than black tribes did previously. I think they might find working together they might enjoy prosperity together.

Zimbabwe is an example of why violence and thuggery never works. Mugabe and a select few have stolen prosperity from everyone there and now what had potential to be a prosperous country is a dried up barren land.

Sad really. But I think most people would rather rationalize, engage in poor behavior and play the blame game rather than building good lives for themselves. It will probably be me and other taxpayers in prosperous countries that in 20 years will be paying for "aid" for another corrupt wasteland african country.

[jungeon]

arctichomesteader;10341464]

"It's not a big distance to a Vermonter either."
Itys the size of vermont. You would not walk 70 miles, I would not walk 70 miles, its a far distance.

"Crime stats for comparison purposes: Murders (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
NationMaster - South African Crime statistics"
Not worth the paper they are written on, different country's measure different crimes and even the same crimes in different ways. Saudi arabia counts homosexuality as a crime by that standard america is a ceasepool of crime especially san fransico. Even for crimes like murder different countries meausre them differently. Canada does not count its number 1 cuase of criminal homicide as murder/homicides. they onyl count the ones with guns and knives and violent personal ones. Every day in Ontario 100 people are killed by drunk drivers, legally this is murder, it rarely makes the news because it is like a war zone. My uncle is a police officer and he says for every person you see shot in canada there are 100 hit and killed by a drunk driver, only 1 gets counted as homicide. USA measures its homicides differently than Canada, so canadians think that american is a violently country yet they have the same amount of homicides.

"Do you have any verefiable stats on the percentage of land owned by Whites before and after the 1960's through 80's re-settlement programs? That would tell a lot. It is my understanding that before the resettlement program a significant percentage of the Blacks were squatting on the outskirts of the towns and cities. In other words they didn't own the land they were living on previously."

By your accord shaka zulu was probably an english man from yorkshore, this is a debate going in circles. I told you google, wiki and so on apartheid, Im not prepared to explain an entire political system to you, my internet is down because I am in my basement, but if it comes back up then I'll give specifics. remind me if I miss it though. I also do not believe there are very specific stats as it was only in 1950s that the white in acted apartheid. If I were holding your position I would ask, did these black people just float out of mid air, or at some point where they dispossed of their land. Unless your a moron, which I hope your not, you would understand that all of that land that white farmers now claim to own wwas previously owned by blacks. Whether they were bantu or san is not really, relevent in this discussion, what is relevent is that it was not owned by whites until they came here recently. If the blacks were squatting then what happened to squatters rights??? If the whites had owned as much as you are suggesting then forced relocations would have been unnecessary.


" However, the stats if any exist would tell the real story."
Perhaps, I'm not really sure how it would change much though, the fundamentals here is this.


"Lack of anarchy was a major benefit. Food, etc. was available (admittedly not as good as for the Whites but nonetheless available). The AIDS problem did not exist. The crime rate was lower. Some benefits. "

Anarchy? lack of it, gee I don't know its like a lose lose, do you want to live free or be at risk of having you and your chiildren murdered anytime by the government. AIDS was not that big in 1970 africa did not really explode until 1980-90. which the aprtheid government was in charge and i didn't see ian smith or clerk handing out condoms.
The crime rate was not lower. All of what you said only applies if you were white.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8206855.stm
white police killed so many people they can't even remember. It was not nicer at all in apartheid for the black, brown and yellow people.


"There appears to be truth in this story.


Washington and his army and militiamen targetted other combatants (soldiers), not civilians. A significant difference. "

No he didn't I know your not going to condemn washington, he is a terrorist but he is your terrorist. Its like the english will never condemn elizabeth or edward even though they have more blood on their hands than hitler. Most leaders have done the same, my point is when yuo try and say mendela is a terroirist or was one, if your talking about his wife, yes there is validity to it, but she was no more a terrorist than george washington, or any other leader who liberated their country from british colonial rule. I took history course on the american revolution and they talked about how they tarred feathered and hanged or set alight anyone who opposed the revolution. This is why so many english went to canada/quebec from america aka the loyalist, as their lives were in danger in usa at the time. Do I blame washington, no, because look at what the english did, they would have cut his balls off if they had the chance.


"Of course I would be angry but the proper response isn't targetting random civilians. It is a common law right in countries that adopted English common law (although it is rapidly disappearing along with the rest of the onslaught against the right to keep and bear arms in many such countries)to defend yourself against illegal acts by officers of the state. I.E.: if a police officer is murdering my innocent family I have a right to shoot him in defense."
LOL I wished this was true. Yes mendela blew up civilians and flew plane sinto buildings and chopped off their hands and ate their hearts. No country that has common law HONORS the right to bear arms but I do agree it is unequivocally clear people do have the right courts just don't enforce that part of common law. Not to mention blacks were forbidden from owning weapons in apartheid.

" But I don't have a right to target, say, his family, friends, etc., later. "
Well if the police officer say shot your wife and you ran for your gun but when you came downstairs he ran off with your car. Say 5 years later you see that car in a visit to anchorage but its a young guy driving that car, don't you have the right to take back that car? he never stole the car personally and ownerd it for some time as far as he is concerned, this car is no more yours as it is the guy who owned it before you-assuming you bought it used or something.



"Not necessarily. I'm sure better people could have been found. It strikes me that the transition was too rushed when it began to enable reason to dictate matters. "
No what would have happened is that someone who said lets shoot all the whitey would emerge rather than lets all hold hands and sing cumbaiya.


"Realize what you describe the Zulu as doing precisely matches what the Whites did years ago in SA: maintain control using military force, become prosperous off the land. The Zulu took power slowly with force."
So, zulu are africans, san are africans, its ok to do crimes against your own race. Edward of england did horrible crimes to the scots and irish, but if a black person were to go around and do it, it would be more wrong. The british and dutch are not africans, don't belong here is permanent resident. SA is not usa, its not a country founded by immigrants its an african country and must remian so. They never asked for any of these white immigrantsm, never brought them by force, never wanted them in anyway. They are the vicitims of white illegal aliens.



"No, you must understand that by doing that you would create the precise opposite of stability: instability. Firstly, forcing the White farmers off is an illegal act under international law, and secondly, that will send a message to corporations to not invest there."
We don't care about money more than people. Thats the difference between the white man and other men. Money is number 1 for the white man not any other man. Africans would rather be poor with freedom than poor anr ruled by white british and dutch colonialist who pretend to be africans. people born in switzerland to non ethnic switz people are not swiss citizens, same goes for africa, sure they can vote but they are not ethnic africans and always guest in our countries. International law means nothing, not worth the paper it is written on. International law was written by USA, UK and Russia, all of the laws benefit and protect those countries, who cares what it says. Those are not african laws and have no jurisdiction here.
" You can actually see this in Russia to some degree. Putin went about confiscating property, etc., claiming it was for the benefit of the people. That has kept foreign investment away."
Well they are doing better than lots of "free countires"



But some are stealing it now from lawful owners through force or threats. And no they did not all own it ebfore apartheid. Many Blacks have obviously seen an opportunity to gain wealth by claiming victimhood and using force and terror to take it back. The Whites alive today in SA are not colonists. A colonist is defined as an original settler or founder of a colony. The colonists are all dead.



We shall see.



Almost every farmer in the world has considerable debt load from their farm. If the land is managed well it will pay for itself and the debt would really be no issue, and going about it this way would build up credit and foreign investors would invest whereas going about it the Mugabe way destroys a country. And it's not as though it's just land that's needed, even if the land were given free to some Black, what then? How will he run an enormous farm with no equipment, seed, etc.?




The current owners did not steal and did not use someone else to steal. Must Poland return most of its land to the Germans evicted from what was actually East Prussia, land owned by Germans for centuries?




The point is, since everyone stole it, no one can claim the moral high ground and say they have a superior claim.





"See my statement earlier about stats on land ownership by Blacks before and after that program.

The Whites were there before 1850, well before 1850."
Not on large scale only by the 20th century did they become numerous and they are only 10% of the population




"The Whites there now are as African as any Black. They are not Britons or Dutchmen. "
LOL keep dreaming. they are white dutch and british. No african person accepts them as african. If they were african no one would even care about them no news coverage and you would not be defending them. So they are still europeans colonialist. They may have been born on this land but they will never be African not even in 1000 years from now. They don't speak african languages they are not brown skinned they do not even originate from africa they are white european foriegners living as guest and may soon be unwelcomed if they don't get in their place.

"The Zulu were in the process of expanding their empire by forcefully taking land from others, and in the midst of that bumped into White settlers moving northward in present day SA. There was no violation of laws when the Whites moved there."
Yes the zulu proclaimed the entire region, the whites thought they could jsu roll in and set up fences as coloinialst do, but they violated the law, they committed a crime and mugabe has made them pay. Zuma will make them pay, he tried to negotiate with them but they are clearly unreasonable. they want millions for land worth only a fraction of it.

"You have it wrong. Statute of limitations applies to criminal matters. There was a big uproar here when pedophiles were going free because of it."
Maybe in america not in africa. If you murder someone or steal you cannot just wait 5 years and then get freedom. we are debating stolen land. For minor crimes the statute can be waved, but grand theft is not one of them.

"Second: the mere act of occupying a piece of real estate is enough to take it through adverse posession if the owner does not expel or make an effort to expel the trespassers/squatters during the time period the squatters must use the property to take it. If that time period is, say, 7 years, and they successfully occupy that piece of property for 7 years and I make no effort to remove them, it's theirs once they go to court."
You don't successfuly have to expel them in 7 years you just have to oppose them being their within that 7 year time period. Also it does not apply if you do not know that squatters are there. I will refer you to the prince edward island case in canada where vacant landlords owned the entire province and because they did not oppose squatters because they were not in the country thus had no reasonable obligation to know they were there, squatters could not take legal control of the land.

" I can't go even a day afterwards and get it back. Won't happen, it's theirs. There have been cases of squatters taking a piece of land even while the owner occupied other portions of the land because they went unnoticed in that one portion."
Thats alaskan law, i know nothing about your laws, it is compltelly foriegn to africa and irrelevent in this debate.


"It's not cut and dry at all. Adverse posession can get very complex. There are many Blacks who are squatting in SA right now who could use the laws to take what they squat on if it goes unnoticed by the owners for the time required."
Partially true, but a squatter can't take land if the land owner does not know it is being taken here in africa.



"No, this has been reported widely and the facts may not be denied. For example, the massacre of the Matabele in the 80's. There are many people working through, for example, the UN who have observed this stuff, who are not Westerners at all and not ex-White residents."
I have yet to meet such a person even though I have been to zimbabwe, what I heard from zimbabweans in Sa when I was there was that Yes Mugabe did do this to the Matabele, but the Matabele were armed by angry white former land owners and ian smiths old collegaues to over throw mugabe and take back the country. Even britain and usa supported these acts by mugabe as necessary. It was an armed revolt essentially. If a bunch of 60,000 mexicans took up guns and said were are going to kill obama and take over america, what do you think would happen to them?

" The land program was even done illegally. Land reform in Zimbabwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
It was legal because Mugabe did it and in english common law countries the leader is always right. show me a president who has been prosecuted for any crime, the closest was nixon who stepped down and was pardonned. Cheney lied about a war and he is immune from prosecution. You cannot say Mugabe did this or that illegal was his country the whites should have left in the first place.

"A brief summary of the land issues there."
I know the lamnd issue and it is written from the perspective of british colonialist and british tabloid news papers, you as a republican should not believe anythin g it says. Its the same news papers who call americans dumb for voting for bush and hate america.

"You contradict yourself completely. If they are born there, they can't be colonizers, and they are definately Africans by birth."
Bornm in africa yes, africans no. You are not african so you do not understand african culture and societal rules. Maybe thats how the rules are in america. NO white man can EVER be AFRICAN from an African perspective. They can have citizenship, they can be good people but they can never be AFRICAN, NEVER. When a white person tries to impose his will on africans, he is trying to play cowboy and indians with us, he is trying to recolonize us, we don't have any of it, you play indians and guns in india or america. Even if they are a re 3rd generation or 5th generation which is generally the oldest group of whites in africa, they are not considered africans by africans. When they try to take the large farms that they never paid to live on to an black african they are playing colonizer.
" These countries are not colonies anymore either so there is no true "mother country." "
well africa is not their homecountry they do not originate from zimbabwe or sa or they would not be white. They are not colonies officially but britain and the usa are trying to recolonize the world if you have not noticed. Maybe up in alaska you don't hear much world views, so this all new to you so I will be patient with you. When Bush stole the election did you see all of africa telling USA shame on you? When America was practicing segregation and anti-homosexuality, did you see africa say shame on you america, in general africans do not judge the usa, but the same cannot be said for the usa. Usa and Britain and a few other western countries think they have the right to bully the world into agreeing with them. They think we should be their colonies and agree with everything they say. Anyone who judges america is anti-american yet its ok for americans to judge all the other countries. when americans and britons judge africans they have as much crediblity as hugo chavez or kim jong ill judging america. when usa and uk tell africans do this or sanctions, that is colonization. colonization is about trying to control the affairs of another country anmd thats the goal of uk, and to a lesser extent usa in southern africa.



"Voted by who? Many brutal dictators have been popular with their people, but that doesn't change the facts."
They had a vote in all of africa for most popular leaders it was
-Nkurma
-Mendela
-Mugabe and so on
" Mao was quite popular with the Chinese peasants when he gave them all land that had been owned by the wealthy, but he was still a brutal, massmurdering tyrant."
Mugabe is nothing like Mao,, bush and blair have killed more people in iraq and afghanistan than Mugabe has in all of his office tenure.
worst leaders
-mao
-evil 5 leaders of britain
-stalin
-winston churchill
-hitler
and so on.
there are more english mass murderes than any place in africa, even the worse african dictator never killed a fraction of people killed by the evil 5 dynasty of england who wiped out entire contients of australia, americas.



"No the decline began earlier as far as stability went. Such as the early 1990's when there were widespread protests and strikes by everyone from doctors to civil servants to students. Mugabe is, as with most tyrants, most popular with the poorly educated who fall for his lies. The starvation became widespread in the 2000's because of the land program."
So redistrubting land was not the problem with Mugabe you admit.

" Land was given to people who know nothing about farming and often don't care. You can't conceal these facts."
Ok if thats the case why not teach them about farming rather than say put a white man everywhere.



"The sanctions began in 2001, after the collapse began most noticeably in 2000. "
So the sanctions added fuel to the fire and made a bad situation worse, not a smart move by the clonialist in britain and usa.

"Mugabe later stopped payments to foreign lenders and this required the IMF by law to stop lending. The hyperinflation is entirely caused by the government printing too much money, and not paying foreign lenders."

Hyperinflation came because everyone wants more money or they strike, people got their wish and are paying the consequence. My question to you is if the economy went down before the land redistrubtuion then how is it mugabe's fault, he never did anything and the economy was already falling. The only answer seems to be that it was a normal downturn in the economy made worst by santions. If you can't pay your own people why pay forign lenders? You would not pay the heating bill and let your kids starve to death.

"Economy of Zimbabwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Colonialism is over. The Whites there are not colonists. "
No colonialism is still alive, you have a very narrow definition of the term, you have not been colonized, i come from a country of people who were, I know when I see colonialism, I have first hand experience, you do not. When one country tries to bully other under threat of force, trying to set their domestic and international policies that is colonialism. The whites there are not all colonialist just the ones who are trying to act like one, living on land they do not own legally or that their ancestors stole and gace to them. Thats what a colonialist does.


"The Zulu were no different than the Whites, claiming land they did not own and holding onto it with force. How can you say the Zulu had a greater claim?"
Zulu are african black men, the whites are not africans do not originate from here, its the same question you keep asking me, they are not africans at all. They have no business controlling all the land. How owuld you feel if black people controlled 95% of resources in europe and all the white people were poor and starving and had nothing. and the black people only got the resources by killing, robbing raping, murdering and doing other gross and violent acts anywhere from 30 to 150 years ago. How would you feel if your father was taken from his land and forced to live on a reserve in wyoming with worthless land?

" They weren't even in all of the area they claimed yet when they bumped into some Boers heading North. "
They were in them, they practice group ownership of land, so you might not see anyoen but tha doesn't make it their land. Its like me going to a big farm and saying well i don't see anyone so I own it now.



"No, it logically follows from your arguments...




If I were to venture a guess as to what will result, the result will be those who are poor now will after "reform" be as poor or poorer. Communism has failed everywhere.[/quote]"
Its not about communism its about fairness. Wy should people who inhabitanted a land from 1600- to 100,000 years be homeless in their own country for no fault of their own. They are not americans, they have no other country to go to. Look at where south africa is on the map, if you are poor and black you cannot go to any western nation, and no african nation in the region is much better. The whites chose to come here from europe, they can still go back with relative ease, there is a small south african community near my parents city in canada and I can say that i went to school with a few. It was no problem for them to immigrate if they were white, but meeting a black south african is nearly unheard of.

[jungeon]

Originally Posted by southernnaturelover

Nope, ALL white people should leave and get it over with once and for all .

They should try to emigrate to the US, Canada, Argentina, or Australia,... where their skills will be appreciated. It may be tough for them to move to a new country, but things are just going to keep getting worse for them in S.Africa anyways.

Well I'm not racist, I don't want all white people to leave but I won't cry if they do. Its not about being anti white, its about opposing colonialist and colonialism. If they want to move so be it I wouldn't stop them. I can terll you most won't immigrate as no one in Sa can maintin that lifestyle by going to usa or canada, maybe argentna and its no more stable.