SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:19PM (8 children)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 ---