National Assembly adopts motion on land expropriation without compensation.
S. Africa
Cape Town – The National Assembly on Tuesday set in motion a process to amend the Constitution so as to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation.
The motion, brought by the EFF leader Julius Malema, was adopted with a vote of 241 in support, and 83 against.
The only parties who did not support the motion were the DA, Freedom Front Plus, Cope and the ACDP.
The matter will now be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee which must report back to Parliament by August 30.
READ: The EFF is about to blow up the land debate: why we should be worried
The EFF's motion originally called for the establishment of an ad hoc committee, which had to report back to the National Assembly by the end of May, but the ANC suggested an amendment, which was supported by the EFF.
There will be a public participation process in the Constitutional Review Committee's work.
Opening the debate on his motion, Malema said: "The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice."
He said they did not seek revenge on white people, but a restoration of black people's dignity, which was deeply rooted in the land.
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.
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".
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.
(This post was last modified: 02-27-2018 03:14 PM by miko33.)
(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.
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.
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".
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.
(This post was last modified: 02-27-2018 03:29 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
(02-27-2018 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: South Africa has been a failing state since the end of apartheid.
It may not be PC but it is certainly and unequivocally true.
And it wasn't before that?
...no
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.
(02-27-2018 03:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Miko,
National Assembly adopts motion on land expropriation without compensation.
I didn't miss that point. To put it bluntly, South Africa should have used a combination of 1) Increasing the white population via increased birth rates, 2) Enticed a lot of immigration into South Africa of other peoples (whites, Asians, Arabs, etc) in order to decrease the indigenous black population to less than 50% of the demographic makeup (probably significantly below 50%) and 3) Sustained warfare where the black death rates were sufficiently high to shrink the indigenous population.
This strategy worked for both the U.S. against the native americans and Australia with the aborigines. Because rest assured, if the native american population and the aborigine populations in both the U.S. and Australia were around 80%...we'd be in the exact same boat.
(02-27-2018 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: South Africa has been a failing state since the end of apartheid.
It may not be PC but it is certainly and unequivocally true.
And it wasn't before that?
...no
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.
(02-27-2018 03:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Miko,
National Assembly adopts motion on land expropriation without compensation.
I didn't miss that point. To put it bluntly, South Africa should have used a combination of 1) Increasing the white population via increased birth rates, 2) Enticed a lot of immigration into South Africa of other peoples (whites, Asians, Arabs, etc) in order to decrease the indigenous black population to less than 50% of the demographic makeup (probably significantly below 50%) and 3) Sustained warfare where the black death rates were sufficiently high to shrink the indigenous population.
This strategy worked for both the U.S. against the native americans and Australia with the aborigines. Because rest assured, if the native american population and the aborigine populations in both the U.S. and Australia were around 80%...we'd be in the exact same boat.
That sounds like a good idea but you forget the Blacks aren't going to establish any kind of program that lessens their majority or power. It's like our Demoncraps that want more illegal aliens so they can vote for them into office.
I know it's not PC but can you name me a country in Black Africa that is not a shiate hole with corruption and poverty galore? It's their MO.
(02-27-2018 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: South Africa has been a failing state since the end of apartheid.
It may not be PC but it is certainly and unequivocally true.
And it wasn't before that?
...no
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.
(02-27-2018 03:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Miko,
National Assembly adopts motion on land expropriation without compensation.
I didn't miss that point. To put it bluntly, South Africa should have used a combination of 1) Increasing the white population via increased birth rates, 2) Enticed a lot of immigration into South Africa of other peoples (whites, Asians, Arabs, etc) in order to decrease the indigenous black population to less than 50% of the demographic makeup (probably significantly below 50%) and 3) Sustained warfare where the black death rates were sufficiently high to shrink the indigenous population.
This strategy worked for both the U.S. against the native americans and Australia with the aborigines. Because rest assured, if the native american population and the aborigine populations in both the U.S. and Australia were around 80%...we'd be in the exact same boat.
Your points make sense. There is a lot of logic to that.
(02-27-2018 03:19 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Miko,
National Assembly adopts motion on land expropriation without compensation.
I didn't miss that point. To put it bluntly, South Africa should have used a combination of 1) Increasing the white population via increased birth rates, 2) Enticed a lot of immigration into South Africa of other peoples (whites, Asians, Arabs, etc) in order to decrease the indigenous black population to less than 50% of the demographic makeup (probably significantly below 50%) and 3) Sustained warfare where the black death rates were sufficiently high to shrink the indigenous population.
This strategy worked for both the U.S. against the native americans and Australia with the aborigines. Because rest assured, if the native american population and the aborigine populations in both the U.S. and Australia were around 80%...we'd be in the exact same boat.
That sounds like a good idea but you forget the Blacks aren't going to establish any kind of program that lessens their majority or power. It's like our Demoncraps that want more illegal aliens so they can vote for them into office.
I know it's not PC but can you name me a country in Black Africa that is not a shiate hole with corruption and poverty galore? It's their MO.
ETA (added comments in all caps (I'm not shouting)):
This isn't a modern day prescription but was a course of action that needed to occur when the British took South Africa as their colony IF THE WHITES LIVING IN SOUTH AFRICA WANTED TO KEEP POWER INDEFINITELY. Obviously it's way too late for that because the British were the ones that needed to modify the demographic balance in the early 1900s.
(This post was last modified: 02-27-2018 04:30 PM by miko33.)
(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.
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.
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".
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.
(02-27-2018 03:26 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote: And it wasn't before that?
...no
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.
(This post was last modified: 02-27-2018 04:48 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
(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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
