Trump asks Pompeo to look into South Africa land seizures, farm killings

[TJ in Oregon]

The lack of self awareness is staggering when you hear a take about "Whites are being mistreated in South Africa because their land is being stolen".

Explain.

I can't speak for NeederNodder, but I suspect the argument lies somewhere along the question of how many generations must your family own land that was taken by force before you can truly call it your own. It's not an easy question to answer.

In the case of South Africa, I'd say if the owners are South African citizens who legally own the land according to the government of South Africa, then the government can't in good faith turn around and seize it without compensation. Not that that's necessarily stopped anyone before.

[CookieDamage]

EDIT: White farmers are not being murdered en masse. Nor are they having their land stolen. They are voluntarily giving it away without compensation. It used to be they could sell the land and it would be redistributed to black people to equalize land ownership and economic status. Now, the only thing changed is that white farmers will not be getting paid if they give up their farms voluntarily because the previous system was too slow.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-24/trump-wants-pompeo-to-study-killing-of-farmers/10158114

https://www.axios.com/south-africa-land-seizures-trump-tweet-apartheid-ebfa1292-baed-4877-8600-829a851fc067.html

WHAT?

Do you have trouble reading?

Show me the proof of the bold text.

The articles I included LMAO

I've read through them both twice now, and this is the closest thing I could find:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Show me the exact quote where "They are voluntarily giving it away without compensation."

Correction. It's voluntary but there is compensation.

So apparently, it is you who has trouble reading. LMAO.

If that's your takeaway sure you could have easily connected the dots to see what I meant but you chose ALL CAPS instead

[CookieDamage]

The lack of self awareness is staggering when you hear a take about "Whites are being mistreated in South Africa because their land is being stolen".

Explain.

I can't speak for NeederNodder, but I suspect the argument lies somewhere along the question of how many generations must your family own land that was taken by force before you can truly call it your own. It's not an easy question to answer.

In the case of South Africa, I'd say if the owners are South African citizens who legally own the land according to the government of South Africa, then the government can't in good faith turn around and seize it without compensation. Not that that's necessarily stopped anyone before.

In my honest opinion: The land is just land, and since it serves an agricultural purpose and everybody needs to be fed, it should be owned by the communities.

With that said, there should be serious answers to the Whites' decades long oppression of Black South Africans and they should be required to share some of the land they own. I mean they are a minority but own >70% of the land and refuse to share it?? That's not right. It's not capitalism either since I don't see how the free market is offering up any solutions. And if you're take away is "well the Black SA's are too poor to buy it and the Whites don't want to sell it so haha that's capitalism" then capitalism is disgusting.

The government should be forcing them to share the land with Black Africans so all of them could farm it and divide the crops between them and nobody is forced out. A once colonial minority that either stole the land centuries ago or bought it under apartheid should be obligated to sell off the land or share parts of it.

[Yellowhammer]

The lack of self awareness is staggering when you hear a take about "Whites are being mistreated in South Africa because their land is being stolen".

Explain.

I can't speak for NeederNodder, but I suspect the argument lies somewhere along the question of how many generations must your family own land that was taken by force before you can truly call it your own. It's not an easy question to answer.

In the case of South Africa, I'd say if the owners are South African citizens who legally own the land according to the government of South Africa, then the government can't in good faith turn around and seize it without compensation. Not that that's necessarily stopped anyone before.

In my honest opinion: The land is just land, and since it serves an agricultural purpose and everybody needs to be fed, it should be owned by the communities.

With that said, there should be serious answers to the Whites' decades long oppression of Black South Africans and they should be required to share some of the land they own. I mean they are a minority but own >70% of the land and refuse to share it?? That's not right. It's not capitalism either since I don't see how the free market is offering up any solutions. And if you're take away is "well the Black SA's are too poor to buy it and the Whites don't want to sell it so haha that's capitalism" then capitalism is disgusting.

The government should be forcing them to share the land with Black Africans so all of them could farm it and divide the crops between them and nobody is forced out. A once colonial minority that either stole the land centuries ago or bought it under apartheid should be obligated to sell off the land or share parts of it.

It is their property. No one is obligated to share or give up his or her personal property, nor should they ever be. The blacks to whom the land would be "redistributed" to have absolutely no connection or right to own the land, unless it is voluntarily sold to them by the owner through a mutual, consensual contract. The fact that one's ancestry lies in a particular continent does not grant you any rights to the personal property of someone else simply because their ancestry did not originate within that continent.
You're thinking of people as nothing more than racial blocks, which is unfair. People do not act or exist as monolithic racial blocks in the real world, they act and live as individuals.

Stealing the land out from under the Boer farmers, land that their families have lived on and worked for generations is morally reprehensible. If black landowners were having their land stolen, you would (rightfully) be condemning it. But apparently, stealing land and livelihood from Boers because of their skin color is a good thing.

Stealing a people's homes and casting them off of their cherished land is awful. Stealing from them solely because of their race or ethnicity is even worse. Essentially, your argument boils down to "stealing from the Boers because they are white is not only acceptable, but a necessary good."
You want innocent, hardworking people to be punished for imaginary crimes.

[KingSweden]

The lack of self awareness is staggering when you hear a take about "Whites are being mistreated in South Africa because their land is being stolen".

Explain.

I can't speak for NeederNodder, but I suspect the argument lies somewhere along the question of how many generations must your family own land that was taken by force before you can truly call it your own. It's not an easy question to answer.

In the case of South Africa, I'd say if the owners are South African citizens who legally own the land according to the government of South Africa, then the government can't in good faith turn around and seize it without compensation. Not that that's necessarily stopped anyone before.

In my honest opinion: The land is just land, and since it serves an agricultural purpose and everybody needs to be fed, it should be owned by the communities.

With that said, there should be serious answers to the Whites' decades long oppression of Black South Africans and they should be required to share some of the land they own. I mean they are a minority but own >70% of the land and refuse to share it?? That's not right. It's not capitalism either since I don't see how the free market is offering up any solutions. And if you're take away is "well the Black SA's are too poor to buy it and the Whites don't want to sell it so haha that's capitalism" then capitalism is disgusting.

The government should be forcing them to share the land with Black Africans so all of them could farm it and divide the crops between them and nobody is forced out. A once colonial minority that either stole the land centuries ago or bought it under apartheid should be obligated to sell off the land or share parts of it.

So you’re advocating for Afrikaner landowners to be blanket punished for the sins of apartheid, sins which have (admirably) already been confronted by SA’s truth and reconciliation boards?

[CookieDamage]

The lack of self awareness is staggering when you hear a take about "Whites are being mistreated in South Africa because their land is being stolen".

Explain.

I can't speak for NeederNodder, but I suspect the argument lies somewhere along the question of how many generations must your family own land that was taken by force before you can truly call it your own. It's not an easy question to answer.

In the case of South Africa, I'd say if the owners are South African citizens who legally own the land according to the government of South Africa, then the government can't in good faith turn around and seize it without compensation. Not that that's necessarily stopped anyone before.

In my honest opinion: The land is just land, and since it serves an agricultural purpose and everybody needs to be fed, it should be owned by the communities.

With that said, there should be serious answers to the Whites' decades long oppression of Black South Africans and they should be required to share some of the land they own. I mean they are a minority but own >70% of the land and refuse to share it?? That's not right. It's not capitalism either since I don't see how the free market is offering up any solutions. And if you're take away is "well the Black SA's are too poor to buy it and the Whites don't want to sell it so haha that's capitalism" then capitalism is disgusting.

The government should be forcing them to share the land with Black Africans so all of them could farm it and divide the crops between them and nobody is forced out. A once colonial minority that either stole the land centuries ago or bought it under apartheid should be obligated to sell off the land or share parts of it.

It is their property. No one is obligated to share or give up their personal property, nor should they ever be. The blacks to whom the land would be "redistributed" to have absolutely no connection or right to own the land, no more than I do. The fact that one's ancestry lies in a particular continent does not grant you any rights to the personal property of someone else simply because their ancestry did not originate within that continent.

Stealing the land out from under the Boers, land that their families have lived on and worked for generations is morally reprehensible. If black landowners were having their land stolen, you would (rightfully) be condemning it. But apparently, stealing land and livelihood from Boers because of their skin color is a good thing.

Stealing a people's homeland from them and casting them out is unjustifiable. Stealing from them solely because of their race or ethnicity is even worse. Essentially, your argument boils down to "stealing from the Boers because they are white is not only acceptable, but a necessary good."

Yeah, I said they would be obligated to share the land they stole. But you're you so you gotta misquote. Like... you're misquouting a lot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah I wonder who else did that during the colonial period... I wonder who... I think maybe the Boers and British might have done that to Africans... Maybe... Not sure.. though...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, yeah they do. Connections are cultural, historical, and probably can be traced through families that had land stolen from them by these Boers. You definitely don't have a connection to South Africa. I don't. But Black South Africans definitely do. I'm sure you'll have trouble with this concept.

Plus, being legally obligated to share parcels of the land that their ancestors stole is not stealing. They still get to live on the land and farm part of it, you just don't get to hoard it while people starve in your country. There still is a conservative solution where they only have to share 25% of their land or 50% and still keep the majority. South Africa tried conservative solutions already and tried buying off property so the black people who were oppressed didn't have to keep starving and being shut out from 70% of the land that used to be theirs, but I guess #capitalism #MuhProperty is okay with all that.

[CookieDamage]

The lack of self awareness is staggering when you hear a take about "Whites are being mistreated in South Africa because their land is being stolen".

Explain.

I can't speak for NeederNodder, but I suspect the argument lies somewhere along the question of how many generations must your family own land that was taken by force before you can truly call it your own. It's not an easy question to answer.

In the case of South Africa, I'd say if the owners are South African citizens who legally own the land according to the government of South Africa, then the government can't in good faith turn around and seize it without compensation. Not that that's necessarily stopped anyone before.

In my honest opinion: The land is just land, and since it serves an agricultural purpose and everybody needs to be fed, it should be owned by the communities.

With that said, there should be serious answers to the Whites' decades long oppression of Black South Africans and they should be required to share some of the land they own. I mean they are a minority but own >70% of the land and refuse to share it?? That's not right. It's not capitalism either since I don't see how the free market is offering up any solutions. And if you're take away is "well the Black SA's are too poor to buy it and the Whites don't want to sell it so haha that's capitalism" then capitalism is disgusting.

The government should be forcing them to share the land with Black Africans so all of them could farm it and divide the crops between them and nobody is forced out. A once colonial minority that either stole the land centuries ago or bought it under apartheid should be obligated to sell off the land or share parts of it.

So you’re advocating for Afrikaner landowners to be blanket punished for the sins of apartheid, sins which have (admirably) already been confronted by SA’s truth and reconciliation boards?

Y'all really think land sharing, where everyone would benefit and everyone would get an equal share of land and crop output, is some bloodthirsty plot to punish them lmao.  There's massive land inequality that your god capitalism has failed to fix since some of yall are so obsessed with free market solutions to social problems. There should thus be a socialist solution where the whites who own 70% percent of arable land might be compelled to share a bit with black people who maybe like want to eat??? Y'all are struggling with that. It's sad. 8% owning 70% of the land. Yeah that sounds right.

[CookieDamage]

Also if your argument to my points (obligating white landowners to share the 70% of the properties they own, NOT give it up without compensation. Share as in they keep it but also allow others, specifically hungry black south africans, to farm it) is basically "It's their property! Theirs, theirs, theirs, theirs, THEIRS!!!!" I'm gonna assume you're disingenuous and not respond.

[KingSweden]

The lack of self awareness is staggering when you hear a take about "Whites are being mistreated in South Africa because their land is being stolen".

Explain.

I can't speak for NeederNodder, but I suspect the argument lies somewhere along the question of how many generations must your family own land that was taken by force before you can truly call it your own. It's not an easy question to answer.

In the case of South Africa, I'd say if the owners are South African citizens who legally own the land according to the government of South Africa, then the government can't in good faith turn around and seize it without compensation. Not that that's necessarily stopped anyone before.

In my honest opinion: The land is just land, and since it serves an agricultural purpose and everybody needs to be fed, it should be owned by the communities.

With that said, there should be serious answers to the Whites' decades long oppression of Black South Africans and they should be required to share some of the land they own. I mean they are a minority but own >70% of the land and refuse to share it?? That's not right. It's not capitalism either since I don't see how the free market is offering up any solutions. And if you're take away is "well the Black SA's are too poor to buy it and the Whites don't want to sell it so haha that's capitalism" then capitalism is disgusting.

The government should be forcing them to share the land with Black Africans so all of them could farm it and divide the crops between them and nobody is forced out. A once colonial minority that either stole the land centuries ago or bought it under apartheid should be obligated to sell off the land or share parts of it.

So you’re advocating for Afrikaner landowners to be blanket punished for the sins of apartheid, sins which have (admirably) already been confronted by SA’s truth and reconciliation boards?

Y'all really think land sharing, where everyone would benefit and everyone would get an equal share of land and crop output, is some bloodthirsty plot to punish them lmao.  There's massive land inequality that your god capitalism has failed to fix since some of yall are so obsessed with free market solutions to social problems. There should thus be a socialist solution where the whites who own 70% percent of arable land might be compelled to share a bit with black people who maybe like want to eat??? Y'all are struggling with that. It's sad. 8% owning 70% of the land. Yeah that sounds right.

I’m not passing judgment on the policy proposal in SA. I don’t live there, how they choose to manage their agricultural policy is their concern. But your post I replied to seemed to advocate a punitive policy on racial grounds rather than socialistic ones

[Yellowhammer]

Yeah I wonder who else did that during the colonial period... I wonder who... I think maybe the Boers and British might have done that to Africans... Maybe... Not sure.. though...

That is a moot point. Black South Africans are not a monolithic ethnic group that can claim collective ownership to a piece of land, but are a patchwork of many different ethnic groups. "Black South African" is just about as ethnically ambiguous as "American." No one group out of all the ethnic groups that constitute SA has any greater claim to the land than any other. They cannot claim land that neither they nor anyone related to them has ever owned.
You cannot punish people for crimes that, not only they, but their ancestors for many generations back, never committed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, yeah they do. Connections are cultural, historical, and probably can be traced through families that had land stolen from them by these Boers. You definitely don't have a connection to South Africa. I don't. But Black South Africans definitely do. I'm sure you'll have trouble with this concept.

Plus, being legally obligated to share parcels of the land that their ancestors stole is not stealing. They still get to live on the land and farm part of it, you just don't get to hoard it while people starve in your country. There still is a conservative solution where they only have to share 25% of their land or 50% and still keep the majority. South Africa tried conservative solutions already and tried buying off property so the black people who were oppressed didn't have to keep starving and being shut out from 70% of the land that used to be theirs, but I guess #capitalism #MuhProperty is okay with all that.

And the Boers, who have lived in SA since the 1700's, have very long cultural and historical connections to their homeland, South Africa. That doesn't seem to deter you from wanting to punish them for their race and steal their land from them. They are just as indigenous as black South Africans, and should  have equal rights as far as land ownership goes. Their land ownership is entirely legitimate, and you can't delegitimize their ownership because of their race.

Your entire premise does not make sense. You cannot hoard land that you legally and rightfully own, as no one else in the world has a right to that land but you.

Y'all really think land sharing, where everyone would benefit and everyone would get an equal share of land and crop output, is some bloodthirsty plot to punish them lmao.  There's massive land inequality that your god capitalism has failed to fix since some of yall are so obsessed with free market solutions to social problems. There should thus be a socialist solution where the whites who own 70% percent of arable land might be compelled to share a bit with black people who maybe like want to eat??? Y'all are struggling with that. It's sad. 8% owning 70% of the land. Yeah that sounds right.

Taking land from experienced farmers and doling it out to people who do not know how to farm is a great way to ensure an even smaller food supply.
Your "socialist solution" is called collective farming. It worked very well for the Soviet Union:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union

[Beet]

The lack of self awareness is staggering when you hear a take about "Whites are being mistreated in South Africa because their land is being stolen".

Explain.

I can't speak for NeederNodder, but I suspect the argument lies somewhere along the question of how many generations must your family own land that was taken by force before you can truly call it your own. It's not an easy question to answer.

In the case of South Africa, I'd say if the owners are South African citizens who legally own the land according to the government of South Africa, then the government can't in good faith turn around and seize it without compensation. Not that that's necessarily stopped anyone before.

In my honest opinion: The land is just land, and since it serves an agricultural purpose and everybody needs to be fed, it should be owned by the communities.

With that said, there should be serious answers to the Whites' decades long oppression of Black South Africans and they should be required to share some of the land they own. I mean they are a minority but own >70% of the land and refuse to share it?? That's not right. It's not capitalism either since I don't see how the free market is offering up any solutions. And if you're take away is "well the Black SA's are too poor to buy it and the Whites don't want to sell it so haha that's capitalism" then capitalism is disgusting.

The government should be forcing them to share the land with Black Africans so all of them could farm it and divide the crops between them and nobody is forced out. A once colonial minority that either stole the land centuries ago or bought it under apartheid should be obligated to sell off the land or share parts of it.

Why is this question only coming up now? If this is an injustice, why wasn't it adjudicated in 1994? Should we be giving our land back to Native Americans? Or is our land safe because we've genocided enough of them that it isn't a problem?

[Famous Mortimer]

The lack of self awareness is staggering when you hear a take about "Whites are being mistreated in South Africa because their land is being stolen".

Explain.

I can't speak for NeederNodder, but I suspect the argument lies somewhere along the question of how many generations must your family own land that was taken by force before you can truly call it your own. It's not an easy question to answer.

In the case of South Africa, I'd say if the owners are South African citizens who legally own the land according to the government of South Africa, then the government can't in good faith turn around and seize it without compensation. Not that that's necessarily stopped anyone before.

In my honest opinion: The land is just land, and since it serves an agricultural purpose and everybody needs to be fed, it should be owned by the communities.

With that said, there should be serious answers to the Whites' decades long oppression of Black South Africans and they should be required to share some of the land they own. I mean they are a minority but own >70% of the land and refuse to share it?? That's not right. It's not capitalism either since I don't see how the free market is offering up any solutions. And if you're take away is "well the Black SA's are too poor to buy it and the Whites don't want to sell it so haha that's capitalism" then capitalism is disgusting.

The government should be forcing them to share the land with Black Africans so all of them could farm it and divide the crops between them and nobody is forced out. A once colonial minority that either stole the land centuries ago or bought it under apartheid should be obligated to sell off the land or share parts of it.

Why is this question only coming up now? If this is an injustice, why wasn't it adjudicated in 1994? Should we be giving our land back to Native Americans? Or is our land safe because we've genocided enough of them that it isn't a problem?

Many farms were bought from white people by the government in 1994. Many were eventually sold back to white people because there weren't enough Black people with sufficient interest or knowledge to run them.

[Famous Mortimer]

Also, farms are not on "stolen land". Boers were the first settlers on many of these farms. Black Africans only came to the area AFTER the Boers, so they are even less indigenous. The most indigenous people in the area are the Bushmen but the government isn't proposing to give the farms to Bushmen.

[Dabeav]

"But some of the darkest chapters in the history of my world involved the forced relocation of a small group of people to satisfy the demands of a large one. I'd hoped that we had learned from our mistakes, but it seems some of us haven't."  - Captain Picard

Sad that the leftist media is just blowing this off as fake news with their feelings right now.  If this was the other way around, they and the red-avs would be screaming. I'd like some evidence that these farmers are fine before declaring it fake.

P.S.  It's why I can't support a Trump Wall either.  Some regulations for entry to a country are needed; to avoid overwhelming the system or letting in those that would do you harm, but that is the limit.