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.
Seizing land is hardly a "left-wing" mindset, or are we forgetting how many right-wing tyrants have done the same thing over the years? It's stupid either way, yes, but this thread is just a broad attempt to somehow link "seizing land" with "left-wing politics" with "what liberals everywhere support."
Most "liberals" do no support seizing land from people, much less race-based actions like that. And, no, paying your taxes is not the same thing as what's going on here.
So, if this thread is to condemn a stupid decision by South African leadership, than that is true - it is a horrible idea. But if it is to try to imply that "Uh, all liberals support this type of stuff - they hate your freedom!" then that is a gross distortion of the facts. There's also a race-baiting aspect to this thread that is also disappointing.
99% of tyrants are left wing
and liberals do push seizing land.... they try to use legal terms like eminent domain
I was a HS freshman in 1968. Our very first book in English was Cry the Beloved Country, a long-since forgotten tome about apartheid.
It was many years before I understood why we were fed this book over the many classics about adolescence that would have resonated far more clearly with us. SA was a far away country. We had only the most cursory knowledge of world (or any) history. Whatever we learned about SA would be all we had ever known.
In short, we were ideal for propagandizing. Fertile ground ready to seed. We were to become ANC sympathizers and the less we knew, the easier would be the task.
It mostly succeeded. The boycotts were condoned, ANC atrocities and ideology were excused, and apartheid was vanquished. A good thing and they lived happily ever after. Except they didn't.
We were unwarned of the side effects that might follow. And we didn't pay much attention to such mundanities as rape, AIDS, murder and decay. What did they have to do with the ANC? They were growing here, too.
Now, we're approaching the last chapter. One not in the book we read. Another country, its path prepared by Western intellectuals, sliding into the Marxist-Leninist abyss.
As our instructors of 50 years ago had planned.
You don't say what country you are from.
What you have said is familiar. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had the same effect before the Civil War. So much so that Lincoln, when meeting the author for the first time, said, "So you're the little lady who started this war?" - or so the story goes. The power of the pen, I suppose. Only now, it would be the power of The Internet, or maybe Social Media.
I was a HS freshman in 1968. Our very first book in English was Cry the Beloved Country, a long-since forgotten tome about apartheid.
It was many years before I understood why we were fed this book over the many classics about adolescence that would have resonated far more clearly with us. SA was a far away country. We had only the most cursory knowledge of world (or any) history. Whatever we learned about SA would be all we had ever known.
In short, we were ideal for propagandizing. Fertile ground ready to seed. We were to become ANC sympathizers and the less we knew, the easier would be the task.
It mostly succeeded. The boycotts were condoned, ANC atrocities and ideology were excused, and apartheid was vanquished. A good thing and they lived happily ever after. Except they didn't.
We were unwarned of the side effects that might follow. And we didn't pay much attention to such mundanities as rape, AIDS, murder and decay. What did they have to do with the ANC? They were growing here, too.
Now, we're approaching the last chapter. One not in the book we read. Another country, its path prepared by Western intellectuals, sliding into the Marxist-Leninist abyss.
to be fair, the whole south west belonged to Spain as did Mexico ....and to be further fairer before that it belongs to the native Americans like the Cherokee and Comaneci
and before that it was the migration across the bering sea............
No. That's wrong. Having or not having land grabs will not resurrect apartheid. It's gone for good. Unless it gets applied to SA's whites.
I don't want SA to go into the same hole Zimbabwee did. That's the real danger, not apartheid.
But none of this has to do with my earlier post.
What we were taught in freshman English and other subjects was intended to leave us open to Zimbabweefication, Venezuelafication: tearing down something without thinking about what it should be replaced with. Leaving the door open for Marxist regimes.
Learning something does two things. First, something is learned, i.e., whatever has been read or studied. Second, something else is not learned, i.e., what has not been taught because the other thing was.
Specifically, we were not learning liberal ideas (in HS, only the rudiments thereof). We were learning something else. Without the liberal ideas, we were defenseless to criticize or oppose the something else or some of its aspects.
What you have said is familiar. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had the same effect before the Civil War. So much so that Lincoln, when meeting the author for the first time, said, "So you're the little lady who started this war?" - or so the story goes. The power of the pen, I suppose. Only now, it would be the power of The Internet, or maybe Social Media.
Good post!
You too!
Lincoln was a grown man as were most readers of that book. Euclid and The Bible were part of his upbringing. No book was going to catch him unawares or without yardsticks.
Even though us kids had already been in school 8 years, we had no such standards. The Bible was more mythological than authoritative, even in moral teachings. Euclid was the for college kids. Whatever claim to seriousness presented itself first would have free play and Cry... was it, pretty much.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6031
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
No, not a couple generations. The Dutch settled the area beginning 360 years ago. Most of the farmers are Boer and descend from families who have been in the region a dozen or more generations.
The comparison is ridiculous. The Japanese were in Manchuria for just 40 years.
Like I said , how many generations do you draw the line at ?
But based on what I have read , no one had proposed taking farm land from Afrikaners , and fact that land that the ANC has paid for in the past seemed to come exclusively from British South Africans .
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.
