Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday February 28 2018, @01:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the Apartheid-2.0 dept.

As reported in news.com.au, South Africa's Parliament have voted to "expropriate" land from white farmers with no compensation.

From TFA:

The motion was brought by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Marxist opposition party the Economic Freedom Fighters, and passed overwhelmingly by 241 votes to 83 against. The only parties who did not support the motion were the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, Cope and the African Christian Democratic Party
...
"The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice," Mr Malema was quoted by News24 as telling parliament. "We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land."
...
Mr Malema has been leading calls for land confiscation, forcing the ANC to follow suit out of fear of losing the support of poorer black voters. In 2016, he told supporters he was "not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now"

This policy has been tried in other African countries before, most recently Zimbabwe, with disastrous results. The farms appropriated usually fail rapidly, leading to food shortages and economic destruction. Will South Africa be able to avoid repeating history, or is it about to slide into 3rd World status?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 28 2018, @01:45PM (64 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @01:45PM (#645113)

    I think that the primary difference between what is happening now and what happened in South Africa in the Boer-British invasions is that the oppressed today have the means and opportunity to leave. All these people are losing is their land based wealth, which was clearly taken from the previous owners in very similar fashion around-about 100 years ago.

    When a street thug snatches a woman's purse, how long does he have to hold it before it becomes his rightful property?

    If squatters set up a tent on your suburban lawn, then started a garden, then built a shanty, then a fine wooden house, maybe it's your fault for not evicting them right away - but if the squatters had guns and your police didn't?

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Troll=1, Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Underrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by isostatic on Wednesday February 28 2018, @01:57PM (18 children)

    by isostatic (365) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @01:57PM (#645120) Journal

    Where exactly to South Africans, who were born in South Africa, go when the country turns against them?

    The correct way to deal with land wealth inequality would be a land value tax, applied equally regardless of the colour of the skin of the owner. A 2% tax on the value of the land the farm occupies, used for social welfare policies, would be a far better solution.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:04PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:04PM (#645167) Journal

      Liberia?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:03PM (#645202)

        Full already. If they are not Muslims, the United Slaves of America may fit them.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:09PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:09PM (#645170)

      I'd guess the British would take anyone back of British descent.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 28 2018, @08:00PM (1 child)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @08:00PM (#645351)

        And the Dutch, too.

        Seems to me, it wasn't too hard for South Africans to move and live abroad even before this whole mess started - I ran into a family from Joberg living in Belgium in 1989.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:01PM (#645395)

          The Dutch will take those back of British descent? I have my doubts about the Afrikaners, since they have split from their ancient Dutch forebears long ago, speaking a descended but different language.

          I suspect they will fight for their survival of their culture, like they did before, no matter what the "international community" thinks.
          In contrast, the soutpiel English have always kept one leg in England in case things got too wild in SA.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:42AM (#645576)

        Technically they do (or did), but the UK make it incredibly hard for such folk. What about the descendants of the 1820 Settlers who were shipped to the Cape as a buffer against the Xhosa? What about all the descendants of all the UK citizens that were told to move to SA after 1902, "for the climate, for your health." Those were lies to "British up" the colony. The UK Foreign Office dictated what was allowed and to be done, they set up the foundations for Apartheid, that was merely continued under the National govt 1948-1993. Note that 1948-1961, SA was still a colony and things COULD have been changed. But no. The UK waited until SA was a Republic before stabbing them in the back. Same as in 1880 and 1898. And Britain did this in other places too - the massive debacle in India with millions starved, killed and a chaotic, rushed handover overseen by an incompetent but well-connected Lord Mountbatten.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IGHByjToO4 [youtube.com] 10 Most Evil Empires
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4jV6heuNac [youtube.com] 10 Shocking facts about British Empire

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:16PM (7 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:16PM (#645173)

      Perhaps that's something they should have considered while building empires atop stolen wealth. A land tax may gradually help with land inequality (or not - if you can't make that land turn a better-than-2% return on value, I'm sure one of your wealthier neighbors can), but it does nothing to deliver popular retribution against the criminals.

      Of course there are probably plenty of middle-class and maybe even lower-class whites that will face backlash as well - even those whose families came some point after the bald-faced theft was over. That's unfortunate, but when there's already injustice everywhere you turn it's hard to muster a lot of resistance to a plan because "a different group of people will face injustice under the new plan".

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:08PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:08PM (#645282) Journal

        A land tax may gradually help with land inequality (or not - if you can't make that land turn a better-than-2% return on value, I'm sure one of your wealthier neighbors can)

        OTOH, we could a) put in a fixed deduction so those with low value land don't pay this tax, and b) simply not care about people who can't even pay a small tax on land after said deduction. Get them out and someone more productive in.

        I get that there's all sorts of scams that can be played with property values (such as overvaluing someone's property by an order of magnitude and then selling that property for cents on the dollar to said rich people), but you fix that by having rule of law, not by committing economic suicide just because you have poor people.

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:43PM (1 child)

        by isostatic (365) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:43PM (#645451) Journal

        Why would a wealthier neighbour be able to make it profitable if you can't. If they can use a limited resource better then you the why should you be allowed to abuse your monopoly?

        My understanding of the "theft" was it was decades ago by previous generations. Will the US be returning land to native Americans? What about land confiscated in England by William I for his troops ?

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 01 2018, @03:07PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday March 01 2018, @03:07PM (#645786)

          Same reason it's almost impossible to run a profitable farm in the U.S unless you have at least a few thousand acres and automated machinery: economies of scale.

          Yes it was by previous generations, but current generations are still profiting from the situation, honest reparations were never made voluntarily, and now power is swinging back into the hands of the descendants still suffering the injustice.

          And yes, perhaps we in the U.S., England, and elsewhere really should think about making honest reparations for the past wrongs we still profit from.

      • (Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:05AM (1 child)

        by driverless (4770) on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:05AM (#645559)

        Since you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you can answer this relatively straightforward, real-world scenario (this is simple compared to many others):

        The government wants to confiscate some white farmer's land. Some previous farmer bought it from its Zulu occupants about 150 years ago.

        The Zulus had been on it since Shaka genocided its earlier Ndebele occupants about fifty years earlier.

        The Ndebele were on there after pushing the Khoisan out.

        (There may have been others between the Ndebele and Khoisan, land ownership in SA is almost impossible to unravel).

        All of these groups are heavily armed, and all consider the land theirs.

        Who do you give it to, and how do you prevent them from massacring each other over it?

        Your move.

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:55PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:55PM (#645780)

          I never claimed there were easy answers. But you build an empire upon stolen wealth, especially when those it was stolen from are gaining power, you're gambling on them not being willing or able to take it back, with interest. That land which was hypothetically acquired honestly is almost certainly in a vanishing minority - colonialists weren't big on buying things - you could do that back home. And like I said "the injustice will hit different people" isn't much of dissuasion when the injustice is ongoing.

          As for those who bought it later - they new what they were getting into, if they did their due diligence. If I buy a car from you, and it turns out that you bought it from someone who stole it, I still don't get to keep the car, and almost certainly don't get my money back either. Doesn't matter how many legitimate transactions are in the cabin - the fact remains that it is stolen property.

          And yeah, you can go as far down the rabbit hole as you like - it's all about what was stolen, who was wronged, and if they have enough power to make it "right". And if honest reparations were ever made. I mean, I see a lot of people recommending different, less extreme solutions that could (maybe) be considered reparations - but the bottom line is none of them were offered when power was firmly in the hands of those holding the stolen goods, if it had been, they might not be facing the backlash they are now. Perhaps it should be a lesson to those of us in the U.S. and elsewhere whose nations are built on land "bought" with genocide, while the remnants of the native population mostly live on the harsh edge of poverty.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @01:27PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @01:27PM (#645742)

        The criminals are long dead. This is about punishing the descendants of the criminals. Should land-owning non-native americans have their farms confiscated and given to native americans, because of the injustices perpetrated in the 17th through early 20th centuries?

        Regardless of what's just, though, the results will be disastrous. You can't expect non-farmers to suddenly farm as effectively as professional farmers.

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 01 2018, @03:13PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday March 01 2018, @03:13PM (#645789)

          The descendants are still profiting from their ancestors crimes, so why not? Honest reparations could have been made at any time in the intervening generations, while those profiting from the theft held power. They chose not to, and so left a festering wound in society that has finally come back to bite them.

          And yes, the rest are very good questions. We're all living on stolen land, perhaps we should consider how we could make it right by the descendants it was stolen from, especially when they are still being denied an equal place in society.

    • (Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:13PM (2 children)

      by gawdonblue (412) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:13PM (#645400)

      They'd go where all white South Africans go when they leave: Perth.

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:45PM

        by isostatic (365) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:45PM (#645454) Journal

        Musk went to the states. Shuttleworth went to Isle of Man.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:17AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:17AM (#645569)

        And De Raadt went to Canada.

        Those going to Perth will only get a respite for a generation or so, if that. Aside the other problems, Indonesia has been chomping at the bit to annex Australia like it has Papua and the other islands. Extreme overpopulation is increasing their pressure to eventually make their move. ANZUS bailed them out at least once.

        http://australianpolitics.com/1951/09/01/anzus-treaty-text.html [australianpolitics.com]

        However, already China is starting to kick sand in the face of the US.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/world/asia/china-blocks-us-navy-flotillas-visit-to-hong-kong.html [nytimes.com]

        China does not have the same treaties or connections to Australia. If they're closer to Indonesia they just may even encourage it to happen.

    • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday March 01 2018, @12:48AM

      by coolgopher (1157) on Thursday March 01 2018, @12:48AM (#645528)

      Where exactly to South Africans, who were born in South Africa, go when the country turns against them?

      Domus?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:02PM (24 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:02PM (#645122) Journal

    Your scenario essentially describes Israel, except there's the added wrinkle that the Palestinians they settled among had taken the Jewish refugees in when no one else in the world, the US included, would give them sanctuary from the Nazi genocide. Morally the Palestinians are in the right. They were essentially invaded and displaced by people they were trying to help. It's outrageous by any standard of hospitality to return generosity with theft and murder. Practically, though, the Palestinians are no position to evict the Jews from their land. Moreover, even if they were, such as South Africa now is in a position to do it, would it be wise?

    We've seen this sort of thing play out before, and not just in Zimbabwe. We saw it in Mozambique (whose leader actually advised Mugabe strongly not to do what he did). We saw it in Uganda, when it was not the Europeans who were chased out by African nationalists but Indians who constituted the bulk of the skilled entrepreneurs and business community; that country decades later wound up begging those people to come back because Uganda found it didn't have the know-how to advance its situation.

    In other words, it may be morally justified to re-take what was lost, but it may not be wise because of the knock-on effect of chasing away everyone with skills and investments there because it's not worth the risk they could lose it all to government asset seizure.

    Also, if this sort of score settling were to become the global norm, it would unwind a good many currently strong and stable countries from the US to Australia.

    It's a thorny issue that humanity collectively needs to think long and hard about.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by riT-k0MA on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:21PM (1 child)

      by riT-k0MA (88) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:21PM (#645138)

      To make things worse, South Africa's education system's been gutted. This is already showing as a skilled labour shortage and a very high unemployment rate.

      Unfortunately, skilled labour pays taxes, so this (and massive corruption, see Zupta) has caused a budget deficit. The response to the deficit was to increase (and introduce more) taxes. Higher taxes has resulted in a shift past the ideal point of the Laffer Curve, so it's generating less revenue than before the taxes.

      South Africa is slowly heading towards a collapse. All that the new law does is speed up the collapse a little.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:48PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:48PM (#645301)

        To make things worse, South Africa's education system's been gutted. This is already showing as a skilled labour shortage and a very high unemployment rate.

        I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "been gutted". My dad was a part of that education system for several years, and noted the following problems:
        1. Many of the teachers he encountered were incompetent in their subject matter, had no training in education, and failing to carry out the most basic duty of the job, namely showing up to class. Most of the principals he encountered were dedicated professionals trying to make the best of a bad situation.
        2. There was a bit of a scandal a few years ago where textbooks that were supposed to be delivered to rural schools instead got delivered to a river near the depot. The shipping company in question just happened to be owned by somebody with family ties to someone in the education ministry. Who had, in turn, been hired for their family ties to the minister. This kind of corruption is extremely common in the ANC, and one of the reasons their political fortunes have been declining in recent years.

        As for the concerns about South Africa "sliding into 3rd world status", can anybody name a period when South Africa wasn't in Third-world status? Third-world countries have rich people, and frequently have an educated middle class. What makes them 3rd-world countries (or "developing nations", in more modern and somewhat less Eurocentric parlance) isn't that they don't have rich people, but that those wealthier classes are dwarfed by teeming masses of impoverished people who are abused at every turn. In South Africa, that's fairly heavily racialized: Until the end of apartheid, if you were black, you were automatically part of that teeming mass of impoverished people.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Tangaroa on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:50PM (11 children)

      by Tangaroa (682) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:50PM (#645155) Homepage

      I can't believe how utterly wrong your telling of Israeli history is. It's like these "Hitler did nothing wrong" revisionists but worse because it assigns blame to the innocent for what their attackers did to them.

      The "Palestinians" did not exist until the 1960s and are a creation of intelligence agencies who wanted a vehicle to damage Israel. They were Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood backed by the CIA who jumped to China and the Soviets because the money was better. John Loftus's "The Secret War Against the Jews" is a good book about this.

      There was essentially no civilization in Palestine (the Jewish homeland) until WWI cleared out the place because bands of raiders would destroy anything outside of the few cities that could defend themselves. This ended when the British Army took over. Read the surveys from the time period.

      The Jews stole nothing. They bought their land from absentee landowners. Everything was done legally.

      There were many Arabs who welcomed the Jews and were willing to live in peace with them, and Haj Amin al-Husseini killed them all. By 1948 the people who had welcomed the Jews were gone and were replaced by a new generation of radicals who believed it was their holy religious duty to exterminate the Jews. The British administrators supported this trend. See "The Rape of Palestine" by William Ziff for how this started.

      The Jews barely survived a second Holocaust shortly after the first one and they are now being damned as invaders and thieves for surviving and daring to continue living on their own land.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:14PM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:14PM (#645172) Journal

        The "Palestinians" did not exist until the 1960s

        I'm not especially sympathetic to the Palestinians, or to the Jews. I suppose that if I just HAD to choose between one or the other, I'm somewhat more likely to choose the Jews. Still - your idea that Palestinians didn't exist is nonsense. Maybe they didn't think of themselves as "Palestinian". Maybe they just thought of themselves as Arabs, and Christians, and Bedouins who were all subject to the Ottoman. Or, whatever. Still, though, there have been people living on that land for more generations that either of us care to count. The land was owned by individuals, families, corporations, municipalities, or whatever, going back into time. All of those people and families were simply booted off of the land they had tilled for countless generations.

        And, no, not everything the Jews have done has been legal, ethical, moral, or right. There isn't enough propaganda in the world to make me buy into that idea.

        Have you ever read ben Gurion's biography? He was one helluva hell raiser, if you didn't already know that.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:32PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:32PM (#645292)

          "I'm somewhat more likely to choose the Jews"

          That is not good enough, goy. You can do better than that. You are now being put on a list and your behavior will be monitored. If you don't revert back to the "I will defend the jews with everything I've got and more" then there will be consequences.

          Dick Goldberg,
          AIPAC

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:06AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @02:06AM (#645561)

            I've got a list you can read - get on your knees, and I'll show it to you.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:57PM (#645466)

          There were people there but most of the Palestinian moved there in the 20th century

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:42PM (1 child)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:42PM (#645189) Homepage
        I have walked in the Israeli bulldozer tracks that stand in the place where there used to be a populated Palestinian village. Neatly hidden behind a dense row of trees now, so you can't see it if you don't know where to find it.

        You, sir, are the holocaust denier in this conversation.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:33PM (#645232)
          GP is getting xer history lessons from a Sheldon Adelson newspaper, it seems. Like a lot of religious Jews these days, xe's just a run-of-the-mill antisemite, who hates the semites living in Palestine, specifically because of their ethnicity, and willing to accept and to repeat any lie or smear, no matter how vile or laughable.
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:33PM (#645233)

        Crawl back into your hole, you filthy jewish rat!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:28PM (#645290)

        "for surviving and daring to continue living on their own land"

        The lies and propaganda is strong in this one. The Israelis never were Jews. They mass-converted to Judaism because their king wanted them to. But according to Judaism, only the original Jews can be Jews; the rest are fakers. Israelis are from Khazaria and will forever remain Khazars.

        on their own land... My God!!!

        Either you are trolling or you're a paid propagandist from the JIDF.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:33PM (#645333)

        The Jews stole nothing.

        Ha, ha, ha, ha! Too funny!

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday February 28 2018, @08:48PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @08:48PM (#645385) Journal

        Israel apologists really should update their talking points and media training. These are stale. I used them to win debates on the "Israel vs. the Palestinians" question decades and decades ago.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 28 2018, @11:21PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @11:21PM (#645483)

        replaced by a new generation of radicals who believed it was their holy religious duty to exterminate the Jews

        Why does that always eventually happen, like everywhere, in every country, in every culture, on every continent, for all of recorded history?

        I used to work with a Samoan guy and there's a lot of them in the Army and even as a joke nobody hates Samoans. Ditto the Swedish guy and the Korean. Well, the Japanese weren't so nice to the Koreans, and during the Rodney King riots in downtown LA the blacks didn't like the Koreans, but I'm talking like worldwide everywhere for all time. Most of the world for most of world history only hates the Koreans when they microwave lunches made entirely of fish sauce or WTF that chemical weapon was that he was eating. People in the USA hated the Irish for like two weeks last century until they realized how fun St Paddys day is and now about half the white people claim to be Irish just as an excuse to drink green beer, oh and the English have always hated the Irish, but generally speaking world wide over all time, nobody much cares about Irish or Koreans or Samoans. But the Jews, only the Jews, everyone for all of time eventually ends up hating the Jews. Whats up with that? Isn't that interesting to think about?

        I like the idea of the Jews having an ethnostate; obviously they can't live with any other group in the history of humanity, so a state of their own far away from everyone else seems very wise indeed. Whites should have an ethnostate, too. And a big beautiful wall, just like Israel has. You might be surprised how many alt right people are pro-Israel.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:58PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:58PM (#645163)

      > if this sort of score settling were to become the global norm...

      Of course, for this sort of score-settling to even be able to happen, you have to have a major concentration of political power in the hands of the people the country was stolen from. I don't see the Native Americans or Australian Aborigines acquiring that kind of power any time soon. Perhaps, if they unified with other oppressed minorities in the US it might happen, whites are slowly sinking out of the majority. But that would be a far murkier moral position in terms of any particular popular action you could take.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by inertnet on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:27PM (3 children)

      by inertnet (4071) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:27PM (#645181) Journal

      Your scenario essentially describes Israel

      Actually it's more like how the conquest of America happened. Where would over 90% of current Americans move to if they had to give up the USA to the descendants of the original inhabitants?

      Personally I believe this retaking of land is a criminal approach, because nobody alive today can be held responsible for what happened centuries ago. I'm sure that probably all of my ancestors have been chased away from their land, or even taken land away from others at some point in history, but I'm not interested in pursuing anybody alive today about it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:35PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:35PM (#645296)

        Palestinians, Egyptians, etc?

        Because based on your statement above, since the land was illegally obtained within the past generation or two, it should be returned to its rightful and recent landowners.

        If you do not agree with the aforementioned statement, then the black south africans are within their rights to take the land from white south africans with or without compensation, because might makes right, and they have the moral high ground as a result of their ancestry.

        I hope this helps clarify the dilemma with both sides of this debate.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:21PM (1 child)

          by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:21PM (#645323) Journal

          But who did the black south africans take that land from? Cave men? Pygmies?

          Probably took it from primates: monkeys, chimps, et. Lions tigers and bears, oh my.

          They should take the land from the whites, then give it all back to the animals.

          God created the land. The animals have to give it back to him.

          It's giving ALLLLLL the way down.

          Now, nobody owns it. So, what do you do?
          What. do. you. do?

          Was it six givings or only five?

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 01 2018, @03:12AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Thursday March 01 2018, @03:12AM (#645587) Homepage

            Actually, most of what is now South Africa was uninhabited when the Boers arrived. And they saved the San from being exterminated by other Africans.

            --
            And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by snmygos on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:20PM (1 child)

      by snmygos (6274) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:20PM (#645224)

      "In other words, it may be morally justified to re-take what was lost"

      Maybe the USA should be re-take by amerindians And Southe America to Incas?

      • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:27PM

        by inertnet (4071) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:27PM (#645289) Journal

        "So you're saying..."
        "No, that's not what I said."

        I mentioned that I'm not in favor of such strategies and in fact consider it as criminal activity.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:40PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:40PM (#645239)

      I don't think you can even claim it morally justified, at best a murky gray one it's the children of the children of those who did something wrong.
      Similarly as the statute of limitations exists for many crimes, and similarly as how "an eye for an eye" is not a strategy for long-term peace and prosperity.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @08:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @08:01PM (#645352)

        "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:21PM

      by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:21PM (#645322)

      But...think of the poor landlords.

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:19PM (8 children)

    by lentilla (1770) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:19PM (#645135)

    When a street thug snatches a woman's purse, how long does he have to hold it before it becomes his rightful property?

    I would contend that the purse is never his and violence is an acceptable response against him for the entirety of his lifetime. What happens next (ethically speaking) is less clear cut. Let us assume that the thug uses the purse and; by sweat of his brow; increases its value, and that value is passed along to his children. I would say that his children now "own" that wealth (and yes, including the purse itself).

    The reason I advocate such is that; without such pragmatism; just about everybody on the planet needs to return what they hold to someone else with a better claim. US citizens need to return the US to Native Americans, Australia to the Aborigines, Britain to; well; pretty much everybody else going back to prehistory.

    "Ownership" itself is somewhat of a complex issue. To the extent that anybody can "own" something, if you are using it and you haven't yourself taken it away from somebody else - it's pretty much yours. If your father took it from somebody else and they haven't been able to extract vengeance in his lifetime... well, that's just the way life is. If you then take something from someone by force - solely because his father took it from your father - then you are no better than the original transgressor. Worse still, "taking the land back" by force simply propagates the strife into the next generation.

    In the case of South Africa specifically, enlightened thinking says Blacks and Whites are equal - an hundred years ago that wasn't the case. Thus South African Blacks in the twenty-first century well know that taking stuff from Whites is wrong.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:55PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:55PM (#645159)

      Let us assume that the thug uses the purse and; by sweat of his brow; increases its value, and that value is passed along to his children. I would say that his children now "own" that wealth (and yes, including the purse itself).

      And, that's a reasonable response, and couples well with the Israel-Palestine observation above that it would not be politically mature or wise for South Africa to forcefully evict these descendants of the white squatters. Though, let's be a little balanced in the presentation: the white South Africans increased the value of their land (including gold and diamond mines) by the sweat of the natives brows as much or more than their own.

      And, that's what any radical political proposal is not: balanced. Hopefully they come to a balanced solution that doesn't involve bloodshed. Though, if I were white and resident in South Africa 10 years ago, I would have been liquidating and relocating long before this - the writing wasn't just on the wall, it's pretty much inevitable that things are going to get worse for whites in South Africa - so why wouldn't you pull up stakes and find a life somewhere you're not surrounded and outnumbered by people who hate you, with good reasons?

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:02PM (6 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:02PM (#645166)

      enlightened thinking says Blacks and Whites are equal - an hundred years ago that wasn't the case. Thus South African Blacks in the twenty-first century well know that taking stuff from Whites is wrong.

      Very true, but even in the U.S. we're still making race and gender based reparations for the "white male oppression" of the masses. Federal tax structures translate to corporate policies that mean, in a practical sense at my work, we cannot hire a white male unless we also hire a female or person of color at the same time. That's not "enlightened thinking" that's straight up race based discrimination aimed at making reparations today for things that were supposed to have stopped between 50 and 150 years ago.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:12PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:12PM (#645316)

        using the term "person of color" is racist propaganda designed to align all non "whites" as one group against whites. Even mexicans against many "white" americans even though that is basically the same racial mixture with the mexican just having a higher percentage of native(or previous invaders? history is full of lies...) blood. both are still Caucasoid and Mongoloid mixture. white people who use the term should be beaten.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:24PM (4 children)

          by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:24PM (#645327) Journal

          When i was a kid there was a crayon for the colour white.

          so a person of colour INCLUDES whites!

          Or is Crayola wrong?

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:07PM (3 children)

            by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:07PM (#645398) Journal

            Is white a color or the absence of color. I guess it depends on whether you are using color as in paint or color as in light. Cape Town is almost out of water and now likely to experience severe food shortages as well. As a citizen of the US with a large Amerind background I can sympathize with both side but looking back and dwelling on what was done to distant ancestors in not a way 'forward' for any race, or demographic. The world despite 'rose colored' glasses has never existed in a state of peace unless you buy into the garden Eden idea in the Bible, and even that was ruined by people when there were only two supposedly.

            --
            For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday February 28 2018, @11:45PM (2 children)

              by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @11:45PM (#645497) Journal

              Just thinking: look into space. You see a lot of black, bits of white.

              Is it black because of the lack of colour?

              This would make white people "people of colour" and black people not.

              --
              --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
              • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Thursday March 01 2018, @06:03AM (1 child)

                by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Thursday March 01 2018, @06:03AM (#645629) Journal

                Additive color(light) would make that true. Subtractive color (pigment)is just the opposite. So yes white people are people of color and black people the lack of color, unless you are luminous that is. I say that because my GF is watching and for my health she is always radiant and luminous.

                http://learn.leighcotnoir.com/artspeak/elements-color/primary-colors/ [leighcotnoir.com]

                Note : Ever since I was a young boy I wish I could see into the non visible spectrum, at least to humans and see what bees see (ultraviolet) and below into the infrared spectrum. See the world as it really is...

                --
                For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
                • (Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Thursday March 01 2018, @01:28PM

                  by Gaaark (41) on Thursday March 01 2018, @01:28PM (#645743) Journal

                  Fortune cookie says:
                  Women are ALWAYS radiant and luminous....in bed.
                  :)

                  --
                  --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DrkShadow on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:24PM (1 child)

    by DrkShadow (1404) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:24PM (#645178)

    When a street thug snatches a woman's purse, how long does he have to hold it before it becomes his rightful property

    Say a year? Or even 3 months.. if a woman walks up to someone and starts hitting them and walks off with something the thug was obviously carrying when the thug arrived at the location, it would seem the woman ought to be charged with a crime. She couldn't recover the property when it was stolen? That's unfortunate, but our system doesn't work on "an eye for an eye" sort of thing.

    Suppose someone sets up a tent, squats on your land, as you said. By law, if they do that for seven years and keep the land up, they own that land. https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/Prosecutors-Squatters-tried-to-homestead-5867943.php [seattlepi.com]

    If the original owners are dead, and the current owners weren't alive when this crime was commit, to whom are they returning this property and how are the original criminals punished?

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 28 2018, @08:05PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @08:05PM (#645357)

      By law, if they do that for seven years and keep the land up, they own that land.

      This would include paying the taxes, when noone else was paying the taxes - that's a law designed to simplify title searches by establishing "quiet title" after a period of 7 years of normal looking ownership.

      I'm presuming that if the squatters were also attempting to pay your taxes, you'd make a fuss to ensure everyone knew you hadn't handed over title to them.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:35PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:35PM (#645186) Journal

    When a street thug snatches a woman's purse, how long does he have to hold it before it becomes his rightful property?

    Depends on how long the statute of limitations is for that crime. It's not 100 years and you certainly would not be punishing the thieves responsible.

    If squatters set up a tent on your suburban lawn, then started a garden, then built a shanty, then a fine wooden house, maybe it's your fault for not evicting them right away - but if the squatters had guns and your police didn't?

    Well, they'll eventually make it legal just by de facto occupation over long periods of time.

    All these people are losing is their land based wealth, which was clearly taken from the previous owners in very similar fashion around-about 100 years ago.

    Except when it's not. Where was the trial to determine that such theft happened and punishment meted to the appropriate parties? This is just a typical, racism-based theft. You can't feed a society when it devolves into thieves stealing from each other.

    When you abandon rule of law, due process, property rights, etc, your society will be on a down spiral. This needs to be stopped or South Africa will become another Zimbabwe with the obvious outcome. And once again, we see Marxists/Communists being nasty bastards, stooping to acts of evil worse than the excesses of Capitalism that they supposedly oppose.

    The obvious rebuttal to all of this is simply that the South African government could have just taxed land (with some basic exemption, if they were worried that they've be excessively taxing poor land owners). Then it wouldn't matter who took from who. Large land owners, no matter how the property was acquired, would be transferring more of that wealth to the rest of society. There are fairer, more legal ways to do this. But the crooks and vicious Marxists aren't interested in long term solutions that would work better.

  • (Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:52PM

    by Taibhsear (1464) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:52PM (#645196)

    If squatters set up a tent on your suburban lawn, then started a garden, then built a shanty, then a fine wooden house, maybe it's your fault for not evicting them right away

    That's actually a legal way to usurp someone's property in the US. It's called "adverse possession."
    http://www.beliveaulaw.net/2011/04/someone-else-might-own-your-land-if-they-use-it-long-enough/ [beliveaulaw.net]

  • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:54PM

    by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:54PM (#645250) Journal

    My only comment here is that I am unsure if it is fair to use

    If squatters set up a tent on your suburban lawn, then started a garden, then built a shanty, then a fine wooden house, maybe it's your fault for not evicting them right away - but if the squatters had guns and your police didn't?

    This wasn't a situation where there was already a civilization with roads, buildings, lawns, etc. Were the locations of the colonies actually being used? From what I have read the situation is closer to the settlers in the US encroaching in land being used by the Natives or ranchers than it is to the Spanish in South America or what has happened in Israel. I am not saying it is not wrong, but is wrong in different ways.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by lgw on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:22PM (1 child)

    by lgw (2836) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:22PM (#645325)

    All these people are losing is their land based wealth, which was clearly taken from the previous owners in very similar fashion around-about 100 years ago.

    Al land, every bit of it in the whole world, was taken by violence from previous owners at some point in history. That cannot be a perpetual excuse to take it back by violence, unless you wish unending violence. Maybe that's mankind's lot, but could we at least not embrace it?

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 01 2018, @12:56AM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 01 2018, @12:56AM (#645533)

      It's pretty easy when you're on top of the hill to declare a Bush style "New World Order" this is how things are and we're going to all be peaceful about it going forward.

      When you're on the bottom of the pile and the jerk on top declares "game over, now we all stay put" where's your incentive to play along?

      South Africa was basically a case of over-reaching - while the whites in America managed to thoroughly grind the indigenous into the dust (European diseases certainly helped the cause, especially in Central America) the white presence in South Africa was much less well supported from the mother countries, and they didn't manage to solidify a sustainable position. So, here's the backlash. Is it overblown? From the white perspective, certainly it is. If the whites want to stay there, they have to be prepared to make much larger gestures of reparations than what is happening in other countries around the world where the oppressed are essentially still oppressed by force. Reparations are part of the "hearts and minds" battle, getting people to get along peacefully in the future - the tension in SA is so high that I don't think they're quite ready for such measures. At least they're leaving the option open for the land holders to leave with their lives, and maybe even their possessions that aren't tied to the land.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:27PM (#645407)
    I take it you're in complete support of DACA, yes?
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:59PM (2 children)

    by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:59PM (#645467)

    how long does he have to hold it before it becomes his rightful property?

    Good question:

    • Should we give all US land back to Native Americans who had it stolen 400 years ago?
    • Should we get rid of anyone in South America of Spanish or Portuguese descent?
    • Should we give back any British property owned by Saxon descendants to Norman descendants?
    • Should we only give back South African land to descendants of the original Khoikhoi and San peoples, who were displaced by the Bantu approx 500AD? Or to the Xhosa and Zulu, who were the main inhabitants when the Dutch arrived? (As I understand it, the vast majority of South Africa's black population is _not_ from either of these tribes, but arrived in SA after the Dutch)
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 01 2018, @01:14AM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday March 01 2018, @01:14AM (#645545)

      Should we give all US land back to Native Americans who had it stolen 400 years ago?

      If Native Americans had effective military and political control of the country, yes - I think that would be a very good idea.

      Should we get rid of anyone in South America of Spanish or Portuguese descent?

      If a majority of the population in those countries harbors hostilities toward them because of their ancestors actions and their continued position of privilege due to that, and said majority feels that they want a rebalancing of the situation, then, yes - I think we should listen to the majority's proposals.

      Should we give back any British property owned by Saxon descendants to Norman descendants?

      If you can find descendants who know their Saxon from their Norman ancestry and feel sufficiently slighted by the crimes of the past that they want to make an issue of it... not likely to happen, but you might find some basis for change in the current situation in Ireland.

      Should we only give back South African land to descendants of the original Khoikhoi and San peoples, who were displaced by the Bantu approx 500AD?

      Show me the coherent cultural KhoiKhoi and San political-social power in the world today, and how it is clearly distinguishable from the Bantu today. Now, find me people who care enough about how the past has shaped the present that they feel they want to reshape their lives today.

      Or to the Xhosa and Zulu, who were the main inhabitants when the Dutch arrived? (As I understand it, the vast majority of South Africa's black population is _not_ from either of these tribes, but arrived in SA after the Dutch)

      As the majority of African Americans also arrived in the U.S. after the revolution, but are still receiving limited reparations today.

      Hypothetically: If Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos head down to Belize to party with John McAfee and decide to buy the place and turn it into an owners and wage-slaves economy where the "four families" own everything and everyone else works at whatever job for nothing other than day-wages that barely cover room and board - most people currently resident in Belize would probably choose to leave, and get replaced by whoever thought that day-wages was a better deal than wherever they were coming from. Let that situation run for 100 years and the "four families" have gone fuzzy into a minority ruling class of a few percent of the population that goes soft and loses political and military control of the the wage slaves. Oh, and world opinion has been against the place for the last 40 years too. Should the ruling class continue to own everything of value? If they could control the situation for themselves, that's one thing, but they didn't - so then we get to watch the revolution play out.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 01 2018, @04:26AM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday March 01 2018, @04:26AM (#645603) Journal

      Should we give all US land back to Native Americans who had it stolen 400 years ago?

      If we were talking about 400 year old history you might have a point. Apartheid is 40 year old history. Bit of a difference...