(02-27-2018 05:08 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 04:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:43 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  So, a state that oppresses a majority of its people and forces them into poverty via outright legislation is not a failed state? It's certainly failing most of its populace.

Conflating the two issues doesn't make one of them any less true.

I'm not arguing the morality of the situation, only that it functioned--which is true.

Your feels are irrelevant to the point made.

It functioned if you were white. That was under 20% of the population even at its peak. So your argument rests on the premise that a government systemically repressing (and this point is inarguable) 80+% of its population can be considered functional.

You can try to couch it in whatever insulting language you want, but you're sounding pretty Stormfronty right now.

You should try listening instead of inferring.

That is not my argument or point.

If you think I am sounding "Stormfronty" that's probably because you are an idiot. I think most people on here would buy that.

I know what your point is. I also know its hilariously ironic that you tell others they "miss the forrest [sic] for the trees" when you declare how much more functional SA was under a horrifically criminal system.

Yes, I get that you mean economically. Everybody gets that. But it's not being "PC" to acknowledge that that's BS when a majority ethnic group was forced into shantytowns. That's not functional economics, its thievery and gross human rights violations. You can't separate the two, and while I understand that you aren't explicitly trying to be racist, that doesn't let you off the hook either. Sorry if that hurts your feels.

You know what they say about assumptions?

...case in chief

(02-27-2018 04:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 04:27 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:12 PM)miko33 Wrote:  South Africa is an interesting case. According to this article - white farmers own the majority of the farm land in SA as of late last year.

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/...d-20171028

Quote:- White farmers’ ownership of agricultural ground declined from 85.1% in 1994 (82.5 million hectares) to 73.3% in December 2016, and? altogether 5 million hectares of agricultural ground was bought by black people in this period, as well as 1.7 million hectares for purposes other than agriculture. In the same period, government purchased and redistributed only 2.1 million hectares of agricultural ground.

Blacks make up 80% of the population

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...os/sf.html

Quote:Demographics: black African 80.2%, white 8.4%, colored 8.8%, Indian/Asian 2.5%

note: colored is a term used in South Africa, including on the national census, for persons of mixed race ancestry (2014 est.)

I'm not the type to harp on "White Privilege" because I think it is heavily overused in the U.S. from my perspective as a U.S. citizen. However, I think it's a very appropriate thing to cite for a country where the majority of the people don't access to the "South African Dream".

http://theconversation.com/white-people-...ital-75510

Quote:Persistence of white privilege
Legacies of white privilege still persist. High levels of poverty and rampant unemployment still haunt black communities.

This inequity is also evident in patterns of ownership.

Despite claims to the contrary, a study of black ownership on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange shows clearly that black South Africans remain small time players. According to a recent study, only 23% of the shares traded on the exchange are held – directly and indirectly – by black South Africans.

On top of this, capital, in its varied forms such as the land, property and human capital, remains heavily skewed to white ownership.

The land is particularly important in the South African context as it carries most colonial scars. The country’s colonial and apartheid regime (both white minority) used expropriation to remove people from their land. They then used this stolen land to accumulate capital in the forms of mining and agriculture.

At the time of apartheid in 1994, more than 80% of the land was in the hands of white minority. Data from the Institute of Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies suggest that just under 60,000 white-owned farms accounted for about 70% of the total area of the country in early 1990s. Land reforms programme has been slow. Some suggest that less than 10 % of the total land has been redistributed from white to black ownership since 1994.

Another cornerstone of the colonial as well as apartheid designers was to deny all black people access to economic opportunities as well as to limit their scope in both education and jobs.

These developments have had sequential implications and generational effects. The result is that racial inequalities continue to be reproduced.

There are a great many examples that can be cited to show this. For example, white people continue to be more skilled and attain higher education levels than their black counterparts. They are, therefore, more likely to attain higher positions in the labour market and, on average, earn higher wages.

Black South Africans remain heavily under-represented in the skilled jobs market because they are largely unskilled and hence most affected by the country’s high unemployment.

The colonial and apartheid legacy can also be seen in asset ownership. White people own houses, hotels, resorts, shops, restaurants, savings, cash, foreign assets and other forms of complex financial products. They leverage their ownership and control to extract rents and increase their wealth, while majority of the blacks are still poor.

That misses the forrest for the trees.

What you are seeing is a staunch socialist ideology play out against a racial backdrop.

But, that is from our Western point of view and completely discounts much of the reality on the ground. This is tribal more than racial and the whites are the group from which the resources for this in-fighting can be easily procured.

South Africa is a mess because of the remnants of colonialism stayed behind as opposed to what happened in virtually every other colony given up by the Europeans in the 20th century. That's why we are seeing what we are seeing play out today.

In some ways, yes. But, that's a gross oversimplification when it comes to South Africa.

The specific issue described in the OP wrt to the land grab that the governing party (the blacks) wants to enact - it's a reaction to colonialism that evolved into the British/Dutch citizens governing system that brought apartheid.

Now if you want to talk about the clusterfvck that is going to erupt once the white "boogeyman" is gone - that's a different story IMHO. If Africa was left untouched by Europe and the Arabs - IMHO it would probably be a primitive society built on tribal warfare and genocide. At least that's what Africa appears to be to me - a hopeless continent. Now would a strong civilization have developed within southern part of the continent without influence from the Middle East and later Europe? IDK. People will point to Ethiopia (Cush) and say it did. However, why didn't other groups within the southern portion of the continent consolidate power and build a strong empire to rival the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, etc? Egypt is in northern Africa, so it's not part of the central and southern parts of the continent encompassed by Chad, Zaire, Niger, Ethiopia, South Africa and other countries that I likely missed.

It sounds like the black answer to this problem is kill all the white peoples and take their stuff. The perfect solution to complete anarchy and mass death and starvation for the very people they seek ‘justice’ for. America (mostly white people) will have to support the people affected by this calamity for generations.

Throughout history when one group vanquished another, the victors dictated the conditions of the vanquished....and it was often quite harsh. What is going on in SA has similarities.

The difference is that of all places on earth, Africa today appers to be the most tribal. It seems that that tribalism doesn't work particularly well for a modern society to prosper with the evidence being countries that barely function and too often they can't even feed themselves.

If history is any indicator, it wouldn't surprise me if SA isn't traveling down that path of corrupt, inefficient government along with a shrinking economy. Time will tell.

The English/Dutch and Zulu/Bantu already wiped out most of the original population of South Africa, the Hottentots.

(02-27-2018 09:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  The English/Dutch and Zulu/Bantu already wiped out most of the original population of South Africa, the Hottentots.

Well, it's far from the only instance of one tribe attempting to,exterminate another....

(02-27-2018 09:52 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Throughout history when one group vanquished another, the victors dictated the conditions of the vanquished....and it was often quite harsh. What is going on in SA has similarities.

The difference is that of all places on earth, Africa today appers to be the most tribal. It seems that that tribalism doesn't work particularly well for a modern society to prosper with the evidence being countries that barely function and too often they can't even feed themselves.

If history is any indicator, it wouldn't surprise me if SA isn't traveling down that path of corrupt, inefficient government along with a shrinking economy. Time will tell.

If you look at all of the former colonies of the European colonial empires (Britain in particular), there are only 3 former colonies where the European settlers continued to remain in power after achieving independence or being emancipated. Those countries are the United States, Australia and South Africa. Out of those 3 countries, 2 of them thoroughly subjugated the indigenous population via a combination of warfare, elevated birth rates among the settlers of European decent and mass immigration of people from diverse ethnic backgrounds that are different than that of the indigenous people. It's no surprise that the natives in South Africa - just based on sheer numbers alone - are putting the screws to their former conquerors. I fully get that the native peoples come from different tribes and those tribe affiliations are highly important. But IMHO they are united - for now - against the remnants of the former colonial masters. If the British and the Dutch would have left the country around the time it was granted independence, the inevitable civil wars that will erupt among the natives would have already been over and done with - and if nothing else a group would have established control and perhaps today we would have a different situation.

(02-27-2018 10:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 09:52 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Throughout history when one group vanquished another, the victors dictated the conditions of the vanquished....and it was often quite harsh. What is going on in SA has similarities.

The difference is that of all places on earth, Africa today appers to be the most tribal. It seems that that tribalism doesn't work particularly well for a modern society to prosper with the evidence being countries that barely function and too often they can't even feed themselves.

If history is any indicator, it wouldn't surprise me if SA isn't traveling down that path of corrupt, inefficient government along with a shrinking economy. Time will tell.

If you look at all of the former colonies of the European colonial empires (Britain in particular), there are only 3 former colonies where the European settlers continued to remain in power after achieving independence or being emancipated. Those countries are the United States, Australia and South Africa. Out of those 3 countries, 2 of them thoroughly subjugated the indigenous population via a combination of warfare, elevated birth rates among the settlers of European decent and mass immigration of people from diverse ethnic backgrounds that are different than that of the indigenous people. It's no surprise that the natives in South Africa - just based on sheer numbers alone - are putting the screws to their former conquerors. I fully get that the native peoples come from different tribes and those tribe affiliations are highly important. But IMHO they are united - for now - against the remnants of the former colonial masters. If the British and the Dutch would have left the country around the time it was granted independence, the inevitable civil wars that will erupt among the natives would have already been over and done with - and if nothing else a group would have established control and perhaps today we would have a different situation.

Miko is killing it tonight. But the civil wars would be still be going on.

(02-27-2018 10:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 09:52 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Throughout history when one group vanquished another, the victors dictated the conditions of the vanquished....and it was often quite harsh. What is going on in SA has similarities.

The difference is that of all places on earth, Africa today appers to be the most tribal. It seems that that tribalism doesn't work particularly well for a modern society to prosper with the evidence being countries that barely function and too often they can't even feed themselves.

If history is any indicator, it wouldn't surprise me if SA isn't traveling down that path of corrupt, inefficient government along with a shrinking economy. Time will tell.

If you look at all of the former colonies of the European colonial empires (Britain in particular), there are only 3 former colonies where the European settlers continued to remain in power after achieving independence or being emancipated. Those countries are the United States, Australia and South Africa. Out of those 3 countries, 2 of them thoroughly subjugated the indigenous population via a combination of warfare, elevated birth rates among the settlers of European decent and mass immigration of people from diverse ethnic backgrounds that are different than that of the indigenous people. It's no surprise that the natives in South Africa - just based on sheer numbers alone - are putting the screws to their former conquerors. I fully get that the native peoples come from different tribes and those tribe affiliations are highly important. But IMHO they are united - for now - against the remnants of the former colonial masters. If the British and the Dutch would have left the country around the time it was granted independence, the inevitable civil wars that will erupt among the natives would have already been over and done with - and if nothing else a group would have established control and perhaps today we would have a different situation.

I was just thinking that yeah, they're united against the former oppressors for now, but it won't surprise me that in the not too distant future, they will turn on each other. Then, it will be a matter of which strong man dictator will emerge to pillage the country. Wash, rinse, repeat.

In the end, the average citizen will be no better off, just a different master calling the shots.

I had the chance to go to Zimbabwe in 2007. At one time, Zim was considered the breadbasket of Africa. In 2007, the confiscation of farms from whites was already underway. Large tracts, which were given to political cronies, just sat there instead of crops being grown on them. The economy was in shambles and the people on the verge of starvation. Sad situation and senseless.

(02-27-2018 10:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 09:52 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Throughout history when one group vanquished another, the victors dictated the conditions of the vanquished....and it was often quite harsh. What is going on in SA has similarities.

The difference is that of all places on earth, Africa today appers to be the most tribal. It seems that that tribalism doesn't work particularly well for a modern society to prosper with the evidence being countries that barely function and too often they can't even feed themselves.

If history is any indicator, it wouldn't surprise me if SA isn't traveling down that path of corrupt, inefficient government along with a shrinking economy. Time will tell.

If you look at all of the former colonies of the European colonial empires (Britain in particular), there are only 3 former colonies where the European settlers continued to remain in power after achieving independence or being emancipated. Those countries are the United States, Australia and South Africa. Out of those 3 countries, 2 of them thoroughly subjugated the indigenous population via a combination of warfare, elevated birth rates among the settlers of European decent and mass immigration of people from diverse ethnic backgrounds that are different than that of the indigenous people. It's no surprise that the natives in South Africa - just based on sheer numbers alone - are putting the screws to their former conquerors. I fully get that the native peoples come from different tribes and those tribe affiliations are highly important. But IMHO they are united - for now - against the remnants of the former colonial masters. If the British and the Dutch would have left the country around the time it was granted independence, the inevitable civil wars that will erupt among the natives would have already been over and done with - and if nothing else a group would have established control and perhaps today we would have a different situation.

They aren't united. They are putting the screws to various other native groups.

But there really aren't any significant native groups left in South Africa. Only invaders that came at different times. The Zulu invaded in the east a few hundred years before the Dutch invaded in the west before the British who invaded both and brought in the Indians.

(02-27-2018 03:12 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm not the type to harp on "White Privilege" because I think it is heavily overused in the U.S. from my perspective as a U.S. citizen. However, I think it's a very appropriate thing to cite for a country where the majority of the people don't access to the "South African Dream".

What happened in Zimbabwe when they decided to "fix" this problem. We fall back to this... Do you punish the people of today for the sins of their fathers?

You could, if justice was really your aim, find a measured approach to begin to land African American farmers but the rhetoric here is much like you saw up north a bit and it will end the same.

With famine and hyperinflation that could have been avoided.

[quote='miko33' pid='15113815' dateline='1519766872']
South Africa is a mess because of the remnants of colonialism stayed behind as opposed to what happened in virtually every other colony given up by the Europeans in the 20th century.[quote]

So the rest of Africa is what then? awesome, a beacon to the world... The *WHOLE* continent is a mess and adopting racial marxism is only going to make it worse.

I'm sorry south African stopped "being a colony" in 1910, it was not "given up" by Europeans. It was it's own state, one that was deeply racist.

Then in the 80's/90's they gave that up... They *COULD* have spent the next 50 years gradually encouraging the market to even things out, but instead they will use the iron glove of the state and people will starve because of it.

(02-27-2018 10:15 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 10:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 09:52 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Throughout history when one group vanquished another, the victors dictated the conditions of the vanquished....and it was often quite harsh. What is going on in SA has similarities.

The difference is that of all places on earth, Africa today appers to be the most tribal. It seems that that tribalism doesn't work particularly well for a modern society to prosper with the evidence being countries that barely function and too often they can't even feed themselves.

If history is any indicator, it wouldn't surprise me if SA isn't traveling down that path of corrupt, inefficient government along with a shrinking economy. Time will tell.

If you look at all of the former colonies of the European colonial empires (Britain in particular), there are only 3 former colonies where the European settlers continued to remain in power after achieving independence or being emancipated. Those countries are the United States, Australia and South Africa. Out of those 3 countries, 2 of them thoroughly subjugated the indigenous population via a combination of warfare, elevated birth rates among the settlers of European decent and mass immigration of people from diverse ethnic backgrounds that are different than that of the indigenous people. It's no surprise that the natives in South Africa - just based on sheer numbers alone - are putting the screws to their former conquerors. I fully get that the native peoples come from different tribes and those tribe affiliations are highly important. But IMHO they are united - for now - against the remnants of the former colonial masters. If the British and the Dutch would have left the country around the time it was granted independence, the inevitable civil wars that will erupt among the natives would have already been over and done with - and if nothing else a group would have established control and perhaps today we would have a different situation.

I was just thinking that yeah, they're united against the former oppressors for now, but it won't surprise me that in the not too distant future, they will turn on each other. Then, it will be a matter of which strong man dictator will emerge to pillage the country. Wash, rinse, repeat.

In the end, the average citizen will be no better off, just a different master calling the shots.

Absolutely. No chance for anything else.

Julius Sello Malema‏Verified account
@Julius_S_Malema
Follow Follow @Julius_S_Malema
More
Do u still send a Jewish kid with ADD to a Concentration Camp?

(02-27-2018 10:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 10:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 09:52 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Throughout history when one group vanquished another, the victors dictated the conditions of the vanquished....and it was often quite harsh. What is going on in SA has similarities.

The difference is that of all places on earth, Africa today appers to be the most tribal. It seems that that tribalism doesn't work particularly well for a modern society to prosper with the evidence being countries that barely function and too often they can't even feed themselves.

If history is any indicator, it wouldn't surprise me if SA isn't traveling down that path of corrupt, inefficient government along with a shrinking economy. Time will tell.

If you look at all of the former colonies of the European colonial empires (Britain in particular), there are only 3 former colonies where the European settlers continued to remain in power after achieving independence or being emancipated. Those countries are the United States, Australia and South Africa. Out of those 3 countries, 2 of them thoroughly subjugated the indigenous population via a combination of warfare, elevated birth rates among the settlers of European decent and mass immigration of people from diverse ethnic backgrounds that are different than that of the indigenous people. It's no surprise that the natives in South Africa - just based on sheer numbers alone - are putting the screws to their former conquerors. I fully get that the native peoples come from different tribes and those tribe affiliations are highly important. But IMHO they are united - for now - against the remnants of the former colonial masters. If the British and the Dutch would have left the country around the time it was granted independence, the inevitable civil wars that will erupt among the natives would have already been over and done with - and if nothing else a group would have established control and perhaps today we would have a different situation.

They aren't united. They are putting the screws to various other native groups.

But there really aren't any significant native groups left in South Africa. Only invaders that came at different times. The Zulu invaded in the east a few hundred years before the Dutch invaded in the west before the British who invaded both and brought in the Indians.

That may be true where the "true natives" have been absorbed into a mixed pot of other tribes. However, the demographics of the country are 80% African peoples. That 80% today own what - 30% of the assets in SA today? That's the problem. The Zulu were invaders before the Europeans came on the scene. Unlike the Europeans, the Zulu weren't there to build a colonial empire but were there to utilize the land as it it was their own land.

IMHO, a very good analogy to consider is to look at the Medieval ere of European history. The Europeans were much more fragmented regarding ethnic affiliations - very similar to the tribes of Africa. They routinely fought among themselves to varying levels to push this border out or to try to stop this border from being pushed in. But those diverse peoples native to Europe would unite at various points in time to fight outsiders. Aside from the crusades, there was no united Europe. But there were pockets of Europeans that united to push outsiders out of what would be considered traditional European land - like the peoples on the Iberian peninsula united to push the Moors out and back to northern Africa. Also various groups in Eastern Europe would unite to fight against the Ottoman Empire.

I couldn't tell you if SA would have been majorly different today if the oppressors were the Zulu instead of the British. But we do know that the motivation of the Zulu was different than the British. The British didn't really need SA as a colony; however, it sure as heck was nice to have as part of their portfolio of properties in order to make some people very rich in Britain. The Zulu - OTOH - wanted to take actual possession of the land in order to live on that land. Sure, there were some whites who relocated to SA to live there; however, it was with the motivation to become the patrician class among a sea of plebeians who were thought of as being more like slaves and outcasts than simply as commoners.

JMHO on the matter.

(02-27-2018 11:40 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:12 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm not the type to harp on "White Privilege" because I think it is heavily overused in the U.S. from my perspective as a U.S. citizen. However, I think it's a very appropriate thing to cite for a country where the majority of the people don't access to the "South African Dream".

What happened in Zimbabwe when they decided to "fix" this problem. We fall back to this... Do you punish the people of today for the sins of their fathers?

You could, if justice was really your aim, find a measured approach to begin to land African American farmers but the rhetoric here is much like you saw up north a bit and it will end the same.

With famine and hyperinflation that could have been avoided.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The blacks want their continent back. They don't want the vestiges of colonialism to integrate into their society and create new nations. They want "their land" back and that's all they care about. It will end up being Pyrrhic victories that will later turn into misery. You're not stopping that freight train short of sending a new "colonial subjugation force".

(02-28-2018 12:12 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:40 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:12 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm not the type to harp on "White Privilege" because I think it is heavily overused in the U.S. from my perspective as a U.S. citizen. However, I think it's a very appropriate thing to cite for a country where the majority of the people don't access to the "South African Dream".

What happened in Zimbabwe when they decided to "fix" this problem. We fall back to this... Do you punish the people of today for the sins of their fathers?

You could, if justice was really your aim, find a measured approach to begin to land African American farmers but the rhetoric here is much like you saw up north a bit and it will end the same.

With famine and hyperinflation that could have been avoided.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The blacks want their continent back. They don't want the vestiges of colonialism to integrate into their society and create new nations. They want "their land" back and that's all they care about. It will end up being Pyrrhic victories that will later turn into misery. You're not stopping that freight train short of sending a new "colonial subjugation force".

Some, not all.

[quote='Bull_Is_Back' pid='15114988' dateline='1519793043']
[quote='miko33' pid='15113815' dateline='1519766872']
South Africa is a mess because of the remnants of colonialism stayed behind as opposed to what happened in virtually every other colony given up by the Europeans in the 20th century.[quote]

So the rest of Africa is what then? awesome, a beacon to the world... The *WHOLE* continent is a mess and adopting racial marxism is only going to make it worse.

I'm sorry south African stopped "being a colony" in 1910, it was not "given up" by Europeans. It was it's own state, one that was deeply racist.

Then in the 80's/90's they gave that up... They *COULD* have spent the next 50 years gradually encouraging the market to even things out, but instead they will use the iron glove of the state and people will starve because of it.
[/quote]

Sure, it was it's own state. And what did the Brits/Dutch turned South Africans do to strengthen their country? I mentioned twice already in this thread what the people in power in SA failed to do to keep their power - or more positively stated to build a real nation where all citizens were treated as stake holders in the country as opposed to a master/slave dynamic. Those in power chose the latter - and their descendants are going to pay the price. Sorry, but sucks to be them. NFW do I want to see any U.S. troops going there to keep the peace because some people over 100 years ago wanted to create a little paradise for themselves that was HIGHLY exclusive. Fvck that.

(02-27-2018 03:12 PM)miko33 Wrote:  South Africa is an interesting case. According to this article - white farmers own the majority of the farm land in SA as of late last year.

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/...d-20171028

Quote:- White farmers’ ownership of agricultural ground declined from 85.1% in 1994 (82.5 million hectares) to 73.3% in December 2016, and? altogether 5 million hectares of agricultural ground was bought by black people in this period, as well as 1.7 million hectares for purposes other than agriculture. In the same period, government purchased and redistributed only 2.1 million hectares of agricultural ground.

Blacks make up 80% of the population

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...os/sf.html

Quote:Demographics: black African 80.2%, white 8.4%, colored 8.8%, Indian/Asian 2.5%

note: colored is a term used in South Africa, including on the national census, for persons of mixed race ancestry (2014 est.)

I'm not the type to harp on "White Privilege" because I think it is heavily overused in the U.S. from my perspective as a U.S. citizen. However, I think it's a very appropriate thing to cite for a country where the majority of the people don't access to the "South African Dream".

http://theconversation.com/white-people-...ital-75510

Quote:Persistence of white privilege
Legacies of white privilege still persist. High levels of poverty and rampant unemployment still haunt black communities.

This inequity is also evident in patterns of ownership.

Despite claims to the contrary, a study of black ownership on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange shows clearly that black South Africans remain small time players. According to a recent study, only 23% of the shares traded on the exchange are held – directly and indirectly – by black South Africans.

On top of this, capital, in its varied forms such as the land, property and human capital, remains heavily skewed to white ownership.

The land is particularly important in the South African context as it carries most colonial scars. The country’s colonial and apartheid regime (both white minority) used expropriation to remove people from their land. They then used this stolen land to accumulate capital in the forms of mining and agriculture.

At the time of apartheid in 1994, more than 80% of the land was in the hands of white minority. Data from the Institute of Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies suggest that just under 60,000 white-owned farms accounted for about 70% of the total area of the country in early 1990s. Land reforms programme has been slow. Some suggest that less than 10 % of the total land has been redistributed from white to black ownership since 1994.

Another cornerstone of the colonial as well as apartheid designers was to deny all black people access to economic opportunities as well as to limit their scope in both education and jobs.

These developments have had sequential implications and generational effects. The result is that racial inequalities continue to be reproduced.

There are a great many examples that can be cited to show this. For example, white people continue to be more skilled and attain higher education levels than their black counterparts. They are, therefore, more likely to attain higher positions in the labour market and, on average, earn higher wages.

Black South Africans remain heavily under-represented in the skilled jobs market because they are largely unskilled and hence most affected by the country’s high unemployment.

The colonial and apartheid legacy can also be seen in asset ownership. White people own houses, hotels, resorts, shops, restaurants, savings, cash, foreign assets and other forms of complex financial products. They leverage their ownership and control to extract rents and increase their wealth, while majority of the blacks are still poor.

Lots of legacies....but iI find it fascinating that we choose to look at it through then lens of racism. In the US, 40% of all wealth is held by 1% of the US population. Even more insteresting---90% of the wealth in the US is owned by the top 20% of the population. How about that? The percentages are about the same as the S African land/stock ownership--and I suspect that the top 20% in the US is largely white--just as it is in S Africa.

That said--who cares? Does it really matter? Basically, the top 20% has the 90% of the wealth in both the US and S Africa. If you are in the bottom 80% (you know---where most of the population is), it doesn't matter if the top 20% is white or black. The problem is the disappearing middle class. The white/black/brown/etc battle almost seems like a side show to keep the masses distracted from the real problem.