# South Africa 'sets date for white farmers land grab'



## CrownedEagle (Dec 12, 2018)

White South Africans could be forced to give up their own homes from next year as the nation's government steamrolls through plans for land expropriation over claims 'Africa's original sin' must be reversed.

Land is a huge issue in  where racial inequality remains entrenched more than two decades after the end of apartheid when millions of the black majority were dispossessed of their land by a white minority. 

The National Assembly agreed to the establishment of a committee that will draft an amendment to section 25 of the Constitution – a law which will allow the government to take homes from the people – and refuse to pay them compensation.

As many in the nation see the move as retribution for the 'original sin' when decades ago black people were driven off their land, it is believed white farmers will be driven from their homes immediately.

Governing party The African National Congress (ANC) wants to amend the law so the government can take back land and distribute it.

However, critics say it is likely it will be handed off to their friends rather than dished out to those in need.

Last week the nations politicians fast tracked the set up of a committee which will write the legal change and present it next year. 

The motion was adopted with 183 MPs voting yes, 77 voting no and no abstentions in fiery scenes as South Africans battle over land reform.

In the same week, 's High Court rejected a legal challenge brought by a group representing white farmers against President Cyril Ramaphosa's plans for land expropriation without compensation. 

Currently section 25 of the Constitution 'just and equitable' payment which reflects 'an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected' must be offered for land – but changes would abolish the need to compensate.

Economic Freedom Fighters politician Hlengiwe Mkhaliphi said those arguing against legalising land grabs are 'beneficiaries of racism'.

'*Your time is up, white people,'* She added.

The EFF will later put forward an amendment stating all land in private hands must be appropriated.

article here :


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 12, 2018)

Hlengiwe mkhaliphi sounds like something a cat would accidentally type walking across a keyboard.


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 12, 2018)

reiatsuflow said:


> Hlengiwe mkhaliphi sounds like something a cat would accidentally type walking across a keyboard.



That is racist


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 12, 2018)

CrownedEagle said:


> That is racist



Yeah, but you're better off having no-nothing reiatsuflow on narutoforums being racist at you than a parliament whip like hlengiwe mkhaliphi.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Dec 12, 2018)

Seems like they want to end up like the other failed African states which did similar shit.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 12, 2018)

So either you let about 10% of the population keep over 70% of the land, or you take it back and lease it to them?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 12, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> So either you let about 10% of the population keep over 70% of the land, or you take it back and lease it to them?



That 10% manages to keep the country fed and relatively prosperous, so yeah taking it away and handing it over to incompetent persons never ends well. But hey Zimbabwe needs company.


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 12, 2018)

I mean I don't have a problem with the idea in principal I am sure plenty of Black Africans can run farms just fine but the government is just going to enrich their cronies so...


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 12, 2018)

Skaddix said:


> I mean I don't have a problem with the idea in principal I am sure plenty of Black Africans can run farms just fine but the government is just going to enrich their cronies so...



Yea this is what i fear


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 12, 2018)

Big farms require a lot of experience, its not something you can just walk into and run. I remember reading that they are going to lease the land back to the owners, which avoids the issues a lot of other african nations have had when they did similar shit. Zimbabwe was once one of the most powerful african nations and considered the bread basket of africa, they fucked themselves after enacting similar policies.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 12, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Cute attempt at appealing to emotion.


They are leasing the land back, and they do know how to farm. They were the workers remember.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 12, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> They are leasing the land back, and they do know how to farm. They were the workers remember.



Yes they were workers in Zimbabwe as well. As you know it worked out amazingly, correcting a perceived slight for feelings worked wonders and propelled Zimbabwe to an African superpower.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 12, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Yes they were workers in Zimbabwe as well. As you know it worked out amazingly, correcting a perceived slight for feelings worked wonders and propelled Zimbabwe to an African superpower.


So because one country failed at it they should let the oppressors keep the land right ? Because fuck the locals. Dude just keep quiet


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 12, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> So because one country failed at it they should let the oppressors keep the land right ? Because fuck the locals. Dude just keep quiet



No you.  The "oppressors" own said land now sometimes for several decades. 

Just arbitrarily taking it away is the same thing your whining about. Not only that it will fuck the locals whom whom you pretend to care about even more as food supply decreases and prices rise.

But whatever I will just sit back and watch this glorious SJW shitshow go down in flames.

By the way, you may as well give Canada back to the natives as well since your "oppressing" them and their ancestors worked it once.  That's your logic.


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 12, 2018)

Yeah SJW gets use to much as buzz word it has no relevance in this case lol. 

But again the problem is not with the idea...the execution though will obviously be a shitshow cause the government is hella corrupt.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 13, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> Big farms require a lot of experience, its not something you can just walk into and run. I remember reading that they are going to lease the land back to the owners, which avoids the issues a lot of other african nations have had when they did similar shit. Zimbabwe was once one of the most powerful african nations and considered the bread basket of africa, they fucked themselves after enacting similar policies.



But everyone's aware of zimbabwe. Especially south africa. Even if they don't distribute land among the people and divvy it up among political friends, just by virtue of history they should have an improved plan on what to do to keep themselves from sinking into the zimbabwe morass. Even if they're corrupt, which they probably are - what's their plan? I'm sure they have a plan. Being corrupt doesn't mean being stupid. So what are their options?


----------



## Canute87 (Dec 13, 2018)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> Seems like they want to end up like the other failed African states which did similar shit.



yeah it needs to happen.

And after that.  who ever usually provides aid should just stop.

Africa needs to fix itself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 13, 2018)

Guess the Netherlands and United Kingdom better get ready for refugee flows. 

White South Africans are of 58% Dutch ancestry, 40% British ancestry, and 2% "other" European ancestry.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> No you.  The "oppressors" own said land now sometimes for several decades.
> 
> Just arbitrarily taking it away is the same thing your whining about. Not only that it will fuck the locals whom whom you pretend to care about even more as food supply decreases and prices rise.
> 
> ...


Nothing you said here disprove anything and from  your ignorance and use of whataboutism I see you tapped into the final ounce in of quips in your head.

I understand what you trying to say but you too chicken shit to say it directly. You think that black South Africans  are too dumb to take care of themselves so the white South Africans must do it themselves. Because the government are too corrupt. Take a look around, they surely as hell not better off with them owning the lands and when the government was strictly white well let’s just say it made Jim Crow laws look humane.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Nothing you said here disprove anything and from  your ignorance and use of whataboutism I see you tapped into the final ounce in of quips in your head.
> 
> I understand what you trying to say but you too chicken shit to say it directly. You think that black South Africans  are too dumb to take care of themselves so the white South Africans must do it themselves. Because the government are too corrupt. Take a look around, they surely as hell not better off with them owning the lands and when the government was strictly white well let’s just say it made Jim Crow laws look humane.



It has nothing to do with people being dumb, its about inexperienced people being put into a position they don't have a clue on how to run. These big farms are ran at a min/maxed level and its not something you can just read a guide, it will go to shit very quickly. There are always a lot of management quirks and people are groomed when they are supposed to replace someone.

South Africa seems to want to side skirt the issue by allowing the current owner to lease the land, allow things to run as they currently are and they just pay up more, at least that is my understanding of the situation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Orochibuto (Dec 13, 2018)




----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Nothing you said here disprove anything and from  your ignorance and use of whataboutism I see you tapped into the final ounce in of quips in your head.
> 
> I understand what you trying to say but you too chicken shit to say it directly. You think that black South Africans  are too dumb to take care of themselves so the white South Africans must do it themselves. Because the government are too corrupt. Take a look around, they surely as hell not better off with them owning the lands and when the government was strictly white well let’s just say it made Jim Crow laws look humane.



Just because your a talented cashier doesn't make you capable of managing a store chain.

It's the exact same concept, your just in favor of this as an attempt to stick it to the white man under the guise of "reclaiming what was lost" This will be a spectacular failure and you will only have yourselves to blame for the backlash.


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 13, 2018)

South Africa soon to have the triple threat of no water,  no food and no electricity


----------



## Garcher (Dec 13, 2018)

This will fail for sure


----------



## Pliskin (Dec 13, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Guess the Netherlands and United Kingdom better get ready for refugee flows.
> 
> White South Africans are of 58% Dutch ancestry, 40% British ancestry, and 2% "other" European ancestry.



Brexit means magical anti refugee walls though


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 13, 2018)

As I expressed last time this topic was up, there needs to be some kind of cut-off for how many years/generations you can seek justice, because if you look at world history pretty much all land was stolen from somebody at some point.

If everything was to be returned to its "original" owner (to the extent one can be identified) it would create chaos. For example most of the population of the Americas would have to move to Britain, Portugal, and Spain to make way for the Native Americans.

South Africa was settled by the Dutch in 1654, then passed to the British in 1806, and became independent in 1931. Apartheid was introduced in 1948 and ended in 1994.

So maybe a reasonable cut-off would be that if your land was taken after independence (less than 100 years ago) you're entitled to get it back, wheras if it was before independence then you just have to suck it up because you didn't personally know the ancestor who got robbed, and the current owner didn't personally know the robber they inherited it from.

I think it's wrong to punish someone for a crime commited (in some cases) by their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather 300 years ago.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 13, 2018)

We wuz farmers


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 13, 2018)

@IchLiebe 

No slavery defense in my section plz.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Dec 13, 2018)

People defend the native americans plenty and say we should give them their lands back.
Obviously not accounting for the fact they constantly took land from each other and enslaved as well as massacred other tribes. Does anyone here really think the exact same thing didn't happen in africa when they were selling their own people into servitude to help feed the slave trade?


----------



## Muah (Dec 13, 2018)

this has motivated me to open a school of agriculture for blacks who want ri develop haiti and africa.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 13, 2018)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> People defend the native americans plenty and say we should give them their lands back.
> Obviously not accounting for the fact they constantly took land from each other and enslaved as well as massacred other tribes. Does anyone here really think the exact same thing didn't happen in africa when they were selling their own people into servitude to help feed the slave trade?



I'd say it's part of good taste for a white person to show compassion for the races we've wronged in the past. We shouldn't just go "mine!" like selfish bastards. But at the same time we should try to find an understanding that righting all wrongs is not possible.

We should also consider cases like how the fact that many "stolen" Mesopotamian artifacts are in the British Museum probably saved them from being destroyed by ISIS. Some things might be considered the common heritage of all mankind and should therefore ideally only be entrusted back to the "original" owner on the condition that they can care for the property equally well as the current custodian (e.g. Iraq needs to built a storage facility of equal quality and security to the British Museum). But this logic is of course prone to abuse because developed countries essentially reserve a monopoly to decide when developing countries are sufficiently "civilized" to handle priceless artifacts, and since the judges are biased in favor of stocking their own museums the answer might well be "never".

In this case too, it intuitively makes sense to return land to Africans provided they can cultivate it as well as whites. But it's prone to abuse if you set the criteria for "well" so high that no African can ever meet them.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Dec 13, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> In this case too, it intuitively makes sense to return land to Africans provided they can cultivate it as well as whites. But it's prone to abuse if you set the criteria for "well" so high that no African can ever meet them.


Except that being a farmer and provider may as been the only protection for a white family from society there as a whole.
They are a literal minority in a place that I would describe as the most prone to violence, rape and in need of modern technology for the majority of their land. With things like the AFF around it's easy to see why there would be worry. Anyone that is against the ideals of racial purity should be against this, not for it.

It's not as if a farmer isn't taxed by the governments in question as well as providing for anyone not based on race as it is to make a living. Anyone can eat food. At best if they aren't making the most of their lands I'd argue forceful employment since most of the population is black (this would let them keep the land and train others so they can expand later). If they already are making the best of the lands just expand past them, africa needs more investment in farming not fighting over what is already being worked on. If they go on strike due to overtaxing then it's likely you're overtaxing and no one you replace them with would like it. If you overtax a farmer to the point it isn't sustainable for new advances then you are also hurting everyone. 

I wouldn't want to get into the concept of anyone having a racial burden that is being suggested by anyone here. That's the way of racial purity. The one that nearly exterminated the jews. They certainly had the burden placed on them then even if they had next to nothing to do with it. Overall this is African leaders needing to get their shit together and not knowing how. It has almost has nothing to do with a sense of past ownership.




> And just like in the modern workplace, the report notes that women should be put on an equal footing with men in order to drive agricultural transformation in Africa. Many countries still have laws governing marriage, divorce, and inheritance, which still put a barrier against women land ownership—and hinder them from using their plots as collateral for loans.





> In the face of erratic and unreliable rainfall in large swaths of East and Southern Africa, expanding the acreage of irrigated land is also urgent. Former UN Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General Jacques Diouf once complained to a group of African agriculture ministers that only a portion (around 4%) of sub-Saharan Africa’s arable land is irrigated, compared with 38% in Asia. Although much of Africa has abundant water supplies, he further added, “the region uses less than 3% of its water resources, the lowest percentage of the developing world.” NEPAD researchers have estimated the initial investment of irrigating 20 million more hectares of African farmland at $37 billion, with an additional $31 billion in operating costs through 2015.
> 
> Rebuilding rural supply networks and marketing systems so farmers have the means and incentives to produce more is another major challenge. Government-run agriculture marketing boards used to perform some of these functions, providing stable prices, credit extension services, improved seeds and technology to local farmers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mider T (Dec 13, 2018)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> Except that being a farmer and provider may as been the only protection for a white family from society there as a whole.
> They are a literal minority in a place that I would describe as the most prone to violence, rape and in need of modern technology for the majority of their land. With things like the AFF around it's easy to see why there would be worry. Anyone that is against the ideals of racial purity should be against this, not for it.
> 
> It's not as if a farmer isn't taxed by the governments in question as well as providing for anyone not based on race as it is to make a living. Anyone can eat food. At best if they aren't making the most of their lands I'd argue forceful employment since most of the population is black (this would let them keep the land and train others so they can expand later). If they already are making the best of the lands just expand past them, africa needs more investment in farming not fighting over what is already being worked on. If they go on strike due to overtaxing then it's likely you're overtaxing and no one you replace them with would like it. If you overtax a farmer to the point it isn't sustainable for new advances then you are also hurting everyone.
> ...


Its South Africa not Yemen.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Also if they've cultivated the land and made it prosperous, than they deserve compensation.

And either way, someone who has owned the land for several generations shouldn't be losing it to begin with, especially not without compensation. I legitimately think this is a case for the ICC.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> It has nothing to do with people being dumb, its about inexperienced people being put into a position they don't have a clue on how to run. These big farms are ran at a min/maxed level and its not something you can just read a guide, it will go to shit very quickly. There are always a lot of management quirks and people are groomed when they are supposed to replace someone.
> 
> South Africa seems to want to side skirt the issue by allowing the current owner to lease the land, allow things to run as they currently are and they just pay up more, at least that is my understanding of the situation.



Again, for the last time what do you want them to do? When can the get their land back? It seems this is the go to strategy? If they are leasing the land that makes the inexperienced thing a moot point. Secondly as I mention they are the workers, including the supervisors. so yes they do have the experience. This is your assumption base on Zimbabwe.

Currently run they having a hard time and it’s very clear it’s not getting better because they have no resource. It’s either status quo or you try get back your resource stolen from you.


Also don’t  try strawman with native Americans because Apartheid wasn’t that long ago.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Also if they've cultivated the land and made it prosperous, than they deserve compensation.
> 
> And either way, someone who has owned the land for several generations shouldn't be losing it to begin with, especially not without compensation. I legitimately think this is a case for the ICC.


Compensation for land that benefit slave labor in the 21st century is a kick to the ass. 
get the fuck outta here


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 13, 2018)

^But the anc is probably no more a black african savior than trump is the white working class savior. They're probably riding a wave for political power. I know next to nothing about sa outside of being able to tell the accents apart, but near as I can tell the anc has become just as reactionary as trump of late. A first land leader named mngxitama went on a rant earlier in the month about black africans defending themselves, except he phrased it as 'kill white people', and if 'you kill one of us, we will kill five of you, we will kill their children, we will kill their women, we will kill anything that we find on our way', killmongered out, and the anc condemned his comments, but they waited over a week to take the temperature of the country before commenting. As soon as they realized enough people were angered by the comments, they condemned it. If the mood of the country had shrugged it off, they probably wouldn't have said anything. That's not the behavior of principled people (whether that principle is against white landowners). It's the behavior of politicians doing their thing.

Although I suppose just like trump, it almost doesn't matter if they're not principled about their platforms. They still have to try to make good on the promises made to their base if they want to stay in power. They must know that too.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 13, 2018)

Back then my stance was "this land is already owned and cultivated by current owner for hundreds of years, so it wouldnt be fair if the govt consficate it without any compensation"

Idk how true of 70% land is owned by 10%. I assume 70% farmable land(not 70% total land, because that is absurd number)

If indeed 70% of total land is owned by White. Obviously it is bit excessive. I can get behind to redistribute it. (Tho the white who currently owned it should still get few percentage of the land)

If it is 70% of farmable land i still in conflict.
Is it true the land will be returned to rightful owner. if yes. Then maybe split it to half is my solution. 100m2 of land owned by Jean de Farmer. 50m2 will still be owned by him.
50m2 is divided for kids/grand kids of the original owner.


I know it still not fair. I just dont see other solution that is fair.

Actually there is one. The govt should compensate the current owner. But it also has problem.
What if the owner refuse no matter how much money they are offered.

2. Where thenmoney come from? Tax? Will it be enough? Etc


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Should have stop at not knowing about SA.
Also using Zimbabwe as an example is the same tactic of using Venezuela as an explain when wanting social programs.

When the locals have to fucking .lease land for their own entrepreneur work. You know it’s fuck up.

The key difference between is Sout africa is not even close as being corrupt as Zimbabwe. You guys are just basing that because you are stereotyping it is base on being an African country.

And the land grab isn’t nearly the same


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Back then my stance was "this land is already owned and cultivated by current owner for hundreds of years, so it wouldnt be fair if the govt consficate it without any compensation"
> 
> Idk how true of 70% land is owned by 10%. I assume 70% farmable land(not 70% total land, because that is absurd number)
> 
> ...


Imagine colonizers who perfected racism and segregation, were beaten and then suddenly still own their source of income they have oppressed the locals with? Now imagine these same individuals who made millions from it expect compensation.
I don’t personally care how much money they may have invested into it . When apartheid ended they should have given back significant compensation to those they benefitted from. They haven’t


----------



## wibisana (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Imagine colonizers who perfected racism and segregation, were beaten and then suddenly still own their source of income they have oppressed the locals with? Now imagine these same individuals who made millions from it expect compensation.
> I don’t personally care how much money they may have invested into it . When apartheid ended they should have given back significant compensation to those they benefitted from. They haven’t


CMIIW but i was underimpression that those white guys arent even millionaire.

They just owned some land (that can be  cultivated by small manpower/maybe family run).
I dont think it is fair to take this kinda land without somekind of solution.
What will they eat? Are we suppose to evict them from the country?

But if in reality they all rich guys. With huge land and pay hundreds/thousands of workers to run the farm. I dont have sympathy for them tbh. They made enough money to move on.


Basically i am underimpression the typical white guy in south Africa has "decent" size of land (prolly like Clark Ken human father)


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

wibisana said:


> CMIIW but i was underimpression that those white guys arent even millionaire.
> 
> They just owned some land (that can be  cultivated by small manpower/maybe family run).
> I dont think it is fair to take this kinda land without somekind of solution.
> ...


They aren’t focusing primarily on typical while guy from my understanding. They are mostly going after the bigger land owners.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 13, 2018)

The way @wibisana framed the land grab was interesting because it almost made this sound like breaking up a monopoly.


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

I'm in complete support of land re-distribution towards the individuals who have suffered to apartheid.

Hilarious seeing @Huey Freeman supporting a radical change and not taking a pragmatic approach towards it. Consistency isn't his thing.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> I'm in complete support of land re-distribution towards the individuals who have suffered to apartheid.
> 
> Hilarious seeing @Huey Freeman supporting a radical change and not taking a pragmatic approach towards it. Consistency isn't his thing.


Except I posted an article showing exactly a pragmatic approach they are taking you imbecile.


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Except I posted an article showing exactly a pragmatic approach they are taking you imbecile.



And people have consistently posted articles showing how through reform and redistribution can make "radical changes" on certain policies actually happen.

Yet you turned the other way and claimed any study that contradicted your viewpoint was biased and shouldn't be considered. Amazing how you flipped the switch in this very thread. The fact that you're trying to act as if this isn't irony says a lot about yourself.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> I'm in complete support of land re-distribution towards the individuals who have suffered to apartheid.
> 
> Hilarious seeing @Huey Freeman supporting a radical change and not taking a pragmatic approach towards it. Consistency isn't his thing.



Read and stop being dumb


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Read and stop being dumb



Still trying to dance around your ironic nature here?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> And people have consistently posted articles showing how through reform and redistribution can make "radical changes" on certain policies actually happen.
> 
> Yet you turned the other way and claimed any study that contradicted your viewpoint was biased and shouldn't be considered. Amazing how you flipped the switch in this very thread.


Radical changes is in comparison to Zimbabwe, South Africa and Zimbabwe are nothing alike. That’s not a study by the way that’s an article stating what the government is doing. Like did you even click the article or just dumb ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> Still trying to dance around your ironic nature here?


Are you never not going to be butthurt? You got nothing but personal vendetta like a child


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Radical changes is in comparison to Zimbabwe, South Africa and Zimbabwe are nothing alike. That’s not a study by the way that’s an article stating what the government is doing. Like did you even click the article or just dumb ?



I have never compared the two. You're welcome to look throughout my posting history on this topic and see me claim other wise.

I read through your article.

Why are you dancing around your ironic nature on this topic in comparison towards others?


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Are you never not going to be butthurt? You got nothing but personal vendetta like a child



Says you. This projection.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> Says you. This projection.


No projection I didn’t post a paper, I posted an article stating why it’s not a “kill people for the land” and why they doing it.

This is just you still upset about the last argument we had, and you trying to get back at me. Thus like a child.

Why don’t you go back to discord to bitch about how we too dumb to see the genius that is Flow where no one really cares .


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> I have never compared the two. You're welcome to look throughout my posting history on this topic and see me claim other wise.
> 
> I read through your article.
> 
> Why are you dancing around your ironic nature on this topic in comparison towards others?


I answered you already not my fault you’re too petty to see it


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 13, 2018)

Land reform can be done without changing the constitution


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

MrNighty said:


> Land reform can be done without changing the constitution


Except the white owners are finding loop holes that is purposely undermining the land distribution thus the need for a constitutional amendment.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

> he party initially vowed to transfer 30% of white-owned agricultural land to black farmers by 1999, but has so far only achieved roughly a third of its target.
> 
> “There are still no clear records of who owns land,” says the . But even Agri SA, an industry lobby group “more optimistic than most” about the progress made since apartheid, estimates that 73.3 % of land is owned by whites, who make up just 8.4 % of the population, the newspaper reports.





> The ANC previously supported a land redistribution programme that was based on a willing-seller, willing-buyer policy. Under this model, the government bought white-owned farms for redistribution to the black population at a price determined by the landowner.
> But this policy has allowed property owners to block redistribution efforts as they have the option of refusing to have their property expropriated, constitutional expert Pierre de Vos told the BBC. It also means they can “hold the government to ransom” by demanding that the state pay exorbitant prices,


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Again, for the last time what do you want them to do? When can the get their land back? It seems this is the go to strategy? If they are leasing the land that makes the inexperienced thing a moot point. Secondly as I mention they are the workers, including the supervisors. so yes they do have the experience. This is your assumption base on Zimbabwe.
> 
> Currently run they having a hard time and it’s very clear it’s not getting better because they have no resource. It’s either status quo or you try get back your resource stolen from you.
> 
> ...



I want them to work on a solution that doesn't fuck up their economy and don't cause a famine. Keeping the same workers and supervisors is not the same thing as managing one of these farms. Yes, leasing the land back to the current owners does solve the issue for the most part, which is a good thing. 

South Africa is having a hard time and I don't want them to make it worse for themselves.


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> No projection I didn’t post a paper, I posted an article stating why it’s not a “kill people for the land” and why they doing it.
> 
> This is just you still upset about the last argument we had, and you trying to get back at me. Thus like a child.
> 
> Why don’t you go back to discord to bitch about how we too dumb to see the genius that is Flow where no one really cares .



For the second time, I never made the comparison towards Zimbabwe. Based on your support for land redistribution in South Africa(which I support) to begin with is considered radical. Keep trying to play obtuse here. 

Pointing out a blatant inconsistency with you supporting what many consider radical, and accounting for how the larger populations are treated unfairly through apartheid/land ownership should be called out on with policies you argued against in other threads. Despite evidence from multiple different sources that proved you wrong.



Huey Freeman said:


> I answered you already not my fault you’re too petty to see it



You didn't because you have yet to admit to your hypocrisy here.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> I want them to work on a solution that doesn't fuck up their economy and don't cause a famine. Keeping the same workers and supervisors is not the same thing as managing one of these farms. Yes, leasing the land back to the current owners does solve the issue for the most part, which is a good thing.
> 
> South Africa is having a hard time and I don't want them to make it worse for themselves.


And allow a group who want a wealth gap to continue to have it and blow every effort to do it without a constitutional amendment. 

And again they are not Zimbabwe


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> And allow a group who want a wealth gap to continue to have it and blow every effort to do it without a constitutional amendment.
> 
> And again they are not Zimbabwe



So they should fuck themselves over? No one sane does that. No they are not Zimbabwe because they trying a different solution that should be more effective without gimping them. That doesn't mean we can't look at Zimbabwe on see where it failed when similar policies were enacted.


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Except the white owners are finding loop holes that is purposely undermining the land distribution thus the need for a constitutional amendment.


There are other factors as to why land reform has failed such as new farm owners lacking skills and equipment (Taijutsu)


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> So they should fuck themselves over? No one sane does that. No they are not Zimbabwe because they trying a different solution that should be more effective without gimping them. That doesn't mean we can't look at Zimbabwe on see where it failed when similar policies were enacted.


They were trying to buy back the land properly the land owners were fucking them over. 

They aren’t zimbabwe for the last fucking time. Stop this racist comparison because the two have nothing alike beside being a black nation. South Africa isn’t anything
Close to Mugabe rule. Jesus Christ pick up a geography book man.


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> ^ (use bro) is the lack of sex you are experiencing killing your brain cells? Nothing I posted so radical. They are going through a different means via constitutional amendment which when last I check can be done legally. To get around land owners blocking them from land redistribution.
> 
> And I know all this is about not the article but your vendetta which you just stupidly admit. I wasn’t bouncing around anything I pointed out the obvious. Amazing how you didn’t read the articles (which you lied ) and trying play it off in this response.
> 
> Bounce nigg’a



Ok, I'm starting to believe that you don't see the irony here and you're slow to understand it for whatever reason.

Huey on universal healthcare:

"Radical! Can't be done! Not economically feasible! Hmph! That article has a progressive biased! That one too! That Koch brother funded one as well! You have to understand that just because a large percentage/majority wants something, things take time!"


Huey on land redistribution in South Africa:

"It's actually not radical. It can be done. Here is one link that shows what I'm talking about, and how it's not exactly like Zimbabwe. A large percentage of the population are being screwed by the current state of South Africa. Land re distribution needs to happen, the current system is screwing over the general population."

I have watered this down entirely, so either you're completely lost on this or you just don't want to take the L here (again).


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> Ok, I'm starting to believe that you don't see the irony here and you're slow to understand it for whatever reason.
> 
> Huey on universal healthcare:
> 
> ...


Except I never was against universal health care. I was again flow’s 
“I’ll do it anyway and nobody can stop me” approach.

YOU DONT BELIEVE IN A DEBATE OR COMPROMISE OR BI PARTISAN APPROACH. YOU just want YOUR team to win and YOUR team to do what they want. 
And fuck any criticism or any disagreements. 

Stop derailing this thread


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 13, 2018)

Xiammes said:
			
		

> No they are not Zimbabwe because they trying a different solution that should be more effective without gimping them.





Huey Freeman said:


> They aren’t zimbabwe for the last fucking time.





Calm down dude, I don't think you are even reading my posts.


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Except I never was against universal health care. I was again flow’s
> “I’ll do it anyway and nobody can stop me” approach.
> 
> YOU DONT BELIEVE IN A DEBATE OR COMPROMISE OR BI PARTISAN APPROACH. YOU just want YOUR team to win and YOUR team to do what they want.
> ...



Someone's spazzing out as usual, and even lying to save face. Goes to show you were dancing around the blatant irony.

You flatout denied multiple sources saying it could be implemented, and actually save trillions of dollars and how it was more economically feasible than our current system. Are you going to keep lying?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> Someone's spazzing out as usual, and even lying to save face. Goes to show you were dancing around the blatant irony.
> 
> You flatout denied multiple sources saying it could be implemented, and actually save trillions of dollars and how it was more economically feasible than our current system. Are you going to keep lying?


I denied your sources because it ignored the cons and any negative that may occur thus a bias study. I explained this to you, but because it different opinion you refuse to listen to any reason. This is a common trait you have which is why others share the same opinion as I that debating with you is like debating with a wall. Now stop derailing the thread


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I denied your sources because it ignored the cons and any negative that may occur thus a bias study. I explained this to you, but because it different opinion you refuse to listen to any reason. This is a common trait you have which is why others share the same opinion as I that debating with you is like debating with a wall. Now stop derailing the thread



Again:

_Huey on universal healthcare:

"Radical! Can't be done! Not economically feasible! Hmph! That article has a progressive biased! That one too! That Koch brother funded one as well! You have to understand that just because a large percentage/majority wants something, things take time!"


Huey on land redistribution in South Africa:

"It's actually not radical. It can be done. Here is one link that shows what I'm talking about, and how it's not exactly like Zimbabwe. A large percentage of the population are being screwed by the current state of South Africa. Land re distribution needs to happen, the current system is screwing over the general population."_



You denied the sources out of spite, one of them was a right-wing Koch brothers study which was funded to argue against Universal Healthcare but the results showed the exact opposite.

For someone that pats himself on the back towards his centrist approach, you don't do the same towards a historical blatant disregardment for people in South Africa and how they have been screwed through apartheid. You call for a wide change towards the current system which is implemented because how it had utterly failed generations (and current) people within South Africa. Why are you still trying to dance around this irony? Because you're emotionally tied to some of the arguments that you make, hence blatant inconsistencies.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> Again:
> 
> _Huey on universal healthcare:
> 
> ...



Dude you were the same guy who didn’t understand your own branches of government who had to be schooled by Lord Stark that the President only enforces the law, he can’t put a gun to the house head and force them to do something.

If you are goinng to lie and try imitate me, at least be smart about its I have never used the Koch brothers in any argument ever. I get it this is your matting dance for Normality but how does it feel knowing that no matter how
Much you show you aren’t progressive as you can be, she still told you no on any real life meet up?


----------



## EJ (Dec 13, 2018)

Based upon your emotionally driven response, and bringing up other users to desperately save face, it's clear I've made my point.

It's been fun watching you roll in the mud as usual.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

EJ said:


> Based upon your emotionally driven response, and bringing up other users to desperately save face, it's clear I've made my point.
> 
> It's been fun watching you roll in the mud as usual.


Brings up another argument

“‘My emotional driven respond to save face”



What ever dude, I ain’t no grown ass man worrying about internet points. Always enjoy how petty you become just to prove to the cafe you shit talk so much how smart you think you are. Validation is that what you want?


----------



## Gunners (Dec 13, 2018)

I wish my brothers and sisters in South Africa every bit of success in the years to come.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

After looking it over it’s thst the constitution change is making the government own all land not just white land, and in turn they will lease the land back to the owners.

1) The EFF’s approach to land expropriation without occupation is that all land should be transferred to the ownership and custodianship of the state in a similar way that all mineral and petroleum resources were transferred to the ownership and custodianship of the state through the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) of 2002. The state should, through its legislative capacity transfer all land to the state, which will administer and use land for sustainable-development purposes. This transfer should happen without compensation, and should apply to all South Africans, black and white.

2. Once the state is in control and custodianship of all land, those who are currently using the land or intend using land in the immediate will apply for land-use licences, which should be granted only when there is a purpose for the land being applied for. Those applying for licences will be granted licences for a maximum of 25 years, renewable on the basis that the land is being used as planned. The state should, within this context, hold the right to withdraw the licence and reallocate the land for public purposes.

3. State custodianship of land will mean that those who currently occupy land should apply for licensing to continue using the land and should clearly state in the application what they want to use the land for over a period of time. Under this legislation, no one should be allowed to own land forever, because those who have money can, over time, buy huge plots of land and use them for counter-developmental private purposes, such as using land as game farms. A maximum of 25 years can then be placed on all land leases applied for by private corporations and individuals, with the state retaining the right to expropriate in instances where the land is not used for the purpose applied for.

4. In line with the Freedom Charter and a new vision of agrarian revolution, the state should also provide implements and related extension services to help those who work the land to use it productively. Furthermore, the state’s procurement of food should prioritise small-scale farmers so that small-scale farming becomes a sustainable economic activity for the majority of our people. The state must buy more than 50% of the food for hospitals, prisons and schools from small-scale farmers in order to develop

small-scale agriculture.

5. Food production, packaging, transportation, marketing, advertising, retail, and trade should constitute one of South Africa’s biggest economic sectors. With a growing global population, and the growing capacity of Africans to buy food, South Africa needs to produce agricultural output through provision of subsidies to small-scale farmers, and open packaging and retail opportunities for these farmers.

6. A structured state support and agricultural-protection mechanism should be applied to all food products, including beef and other meats’ production and processing. The same applies to fruit, maize, and other essential food items produced by small-scale farmers. To boost sustainable demand domestically, the South African government should pass legislation that all the food bought by government for hospitals, schools, prisons, and the like should be sourced from small-scale food producers. This in itself will create sustainable economic activity, and inspire many young people to go into food production because there will be income and financial benefits to boost other economic activities out of it. The economy of food production needs well-structured protection mechanisms and subsidies in order to protect jobs and safeguard food security. Most developed and developing nations are doing the same.

7. With a clearly defined and well-structured mechanism, South Africa, which is, oddly, a net importer of food, can realise the development of the food economy in a manner that exceeds Brazil’s. This will add sustainable job creation, not the kind of short-term jobs created through infrastructure development. This will, of course, require land reform to be expedited and water supplies to be guaranteed for the sustainability of the this important sector of the economy.



Oh look at those radical land grabbing changes, everyone knows a dictatorship proposes changes

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 13, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> I'd say it's part of good taste for a white person to show compassion for the races we've wronged in the past. We shouldn't just go "mine!" like selfish bastards. But at the same time we should try to find an understanding that righting all wrongs is not possible.
> 
> We should also consider cases like how the fact that many "stolen" Mesopotamian artifacts are in the British Museum probably saved them from being destroyed by ISIS. Some things might be considered the common heritage of all mankind and should therefore ideally only be entrusted back to the "original" owner on the condition that they can care for the property equally well as the current custodian (e.g. Iraq needs to built a storage facility of equal quality and security to the British Museum). But this logic is of course prone to abuse because developed countries essentially reserve a monopoly to decide when developing countries are sufficiently "civilized" to handle priceless artifacts, and since the judges are biased in favor of stocking their own museums the answer might well be "never".
> 
> In this case too, it intuitively makes sense to return land to Africans provided they can cultivate it as well as whites. But it's prone to abuse if you set the criteria for "well" so high that no African can ever meet them.


So the white man must give up what his peoples earned and defended for... Compassion and charity to all other races.  Which means we propagate all others besides ourselves because of guilt.


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 13, 2018)

You mean what he stole and killed for?


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 13, 2018)

Xiammes said:


> I want them to work on a solution that doesn't fuck up their economy and don't cause a famine. Keeping the same workers and supervisors is not the same thing as managing one of these farms. Yes, leasing the land back to the current owners does solve the issue for the most part, which is a good thing.
> 
> South Africa is having a hard time and I don't want them to make it worse for themselves.


This is an African country that wants to do what its doing... Poverty and famine are guaranteed... Not that I care,  of which I don't. 


@Huey Freeman 

How is it their land?  They don't own it.  Is it inherently theirs,  is that such a privilege of being African in Africa? 

Than couldn't a swede take the home of any colored person in Sweden?  

That would be equivalent no?


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 13, 2018)

How would that be equivalent? The Dutch and English never actually paid for that land whereas any "Colored" Person in Sweden paid for that house or the duly elected government fit the bill. 

Holy False Equivalence Batman.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 13, 2018)

IchLiebe said:


> So the white man must give up what his peoples earned and defended for... Compassion and charity to all other races.  Which means we propagate all others besides ourselves because of guilt.



I think modesty and humility are considered virtues in all cultures. Even if you're not willing to actually give anything material to the downtrodden, at least give them a nod and a kind word.

If you're a white person in a non-white community it's polite to at least feign remorse for colonialism.

Then the other side can in their turn say "it's ok, you weren't there personally and we don't blame you". You should make it a competition of who can be the most humble and understanding towards the other.

Basically the attitude Germans take to WW2 is the attitude all whites should take towards imperialism.

Then ideally colonized countries will take the attitude Israel takes towards Germany.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

IchLiebe said:


> This is an African country that wants to do what its doing... Poverty and famine are guaranteed... Not that I care,  of which I don't.
> 
> 
> @Huey Freeman
> ...


They owned 73.3% of all Land and to make it worst on them they are not trying to invest much back. 

The SA government tried buying it back but they were trying to overcharge them for the land. Now the government is in a predicament where they need to bypass this. 

They weren’t the owners either, they stole the land


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

Skaddix said:


> You mean what he stole and killed for?



Everyone has stolen and killed for land your other races are also guilty of this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Yes they were workers in Zimbabwe as well. As you know it worked out amazingly, correcting a perceived slight for feelings worked wonders and propelled Zimbabwe to an African superpower.


Yeah that big fucking land mass is just all one culture. No difference there. ^ (use bro) is ^ (use bro), am I right?


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 13, 2018)

I mean cause an idea failed once under different circumstances means its doomed to failed so why try it again?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Skaddix said:


> I mean cause an idea failed once under different circumstances means its doomed to failed so why try it again?


Disregarding that Zimbabwe had a dictatorship, and more violent independence.
I mean SA came out of a perfected form of racism and still didn’t just outright took the lands but all of a sudden, they going to be killing for the lands.
I’ve been to SA, it’s one of the more democratic countries within Africa, the government very well concern about backlash.


----------



## Punished Kiba (Dec 13, 2018)

Yet again, something that was obviously happening but the media tried to label claim as conspiracy theories from the right for months.


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 13, 2018)

Its more cause the Right only cares about taking land when its White People get their land taken...don't see you guys complain nearly that much when some corporation wants to build pipelines across Native American land when they don't fucking want it.


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 13, 2018)

It normal for white people to paid for what they did in south africa, even if the mean is too extreme... they can't have 70% of this country when they represent at best 10% of this population, also we cannot forget than most of these land are either stolen or gain by illegal means. Europe and America are ruled by white people, Asia by Asian and extreme orient by arabs but somehow black peoples are threated like trash in their own lands, c'mon. I just wish they find a peaceful way for everybody and the government don't place their own people in the farms for claim all the moneys.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Muah (Dec 13, 2018)

lol at all the butthurt whiteboys who wish famine on africa lmao

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## A Optimistic (Dec 13, 2018)

Hopefully everything works out well for South Africa.


----------



## Voyeur (Dec 13, 2018)

Muah said:


> lol at all the butthurt whiteboys who wish famine on africa lmao



Painting with a broad brush. Oh my.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah that big fucking land mass is just all one culture. No difference there. ^ (use bro) is ^ (use bro), am I right?



If the majority of farm land falls into the hands of people who have no idea how to run it because they have no experience, especially running a large scale farm, then what exactly do you expect will happen ?

No one is saying "omg ^ (use bro) be inferior monkey men who can't farm", the issue is that this very easily can result in what happened in Zimbabwe, even if we ignore the issue of potentially punishing someone's descendant by taking away the property their ancestors got without compensation.

I'm fine with taking away property from the _original _beneficiaries, (however even then if the land was turned more prosperous as a result of their work I would not be opposed to this being considered financially), however if it's say your grandfather's farm and you are the third generation working it, I'd call that an injustice.



Muah said:


> lol at all the butthurt whiteboys who wish famine on africa lmao



Wishing and pointing out a near parallel along the same lines in a neighbouring country are not the same.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> If the majority of farm land falls into the hands of people who have no idea how to run it because they have no experience, especially running a large scale farm, then what exactly do you expect will happen ?
> 
> No one is saying "omg ^ (use bro) be inferior monkey men who can't farm", the issue is that this very easily can result in what happened in Zimbabwe, even if we ignore the issue of potentially punishing someone's descendant by taking away the property their ancestors got without compensation.
> 
> I'm fine with taking away property from the _original _beneficiaries, (however even then if the land was turned more prosperous as a result of their work I would not be opposed to this being considered financially), however if it's say your grandfather's farm and you are the third generation working it, I'd call that an injustice.


Or they could use profit sharing method.


----------



## Muah (Dec 13, 2018)

Voyeur said:


> Painting with a broad brush. Oh my.



no I said look at, as in use your eyes to see the evidence laid right before you.


your white eyes saw.... 

"All white people are butthurt, we deseeve this land, diddn du nuffin, kill whitey dave chappelle skit from 2005"


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Or they could use profit sharing method.



How exactly would that work though ?


----------



## Muah (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> If the majority of farm land falls into the hands of people who have no idea how to run it because they have no experience, especially running a large scale farm, then what exactly do you expect will happen ?
> 
> No one is saying "omg ^ (use bro) be inferior monkey men who can't farm", the issue is that this very easily can result in what happened in Zimbabwe, even if we ignore the issue of potentially punishing someone's descendant by taking away the property their ancestors got without compensation.
> 
> ...



why dont you point out the african billionaires that could litterally by your family and all their houses sell them at  a loss and buy them again at market price a million times given that they live long enough to repeat the arduous process of house purchasing.

Africa is working toward borderless continent, they're kicking out people that are taking advantage of them and as it develops it has over a billion people. The age of smirking at africa soely because it was inhibited by warfare, dirty politics, apartheid and tribalism is over. 

when African americans and haitians fealize the actual carda they're playing with they will quickly turn their shoulders on the 10 trillion debt Usa has to china. if you can survive another 20 or 30 years without dieing in a school shooting or overdosing on heroin you will live to see the end of white america. by then the tides will have been turned.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> If the majority of farm land falls into the hands of people who have no idea how to run it because they have no experience, especially running a large scale farm, then what exactly do you expect will happen ?
> 
> No one is saying "omg ^ (use bro) be inferior monkey men who can't farm", the issue is that this very easily can result in what happened in Zimbabwe, even if we ignore the issue of potentially punishing someone's descendant by taking away the property their ancestors got without compensation.
> 
> ...


I guess reading is hard

Zimbabwe is a dictatorship and they are worst off than the average SA, infact majority flee to SA. Stop being dumb and comparing it to Zimbabwe there isn’t an expert that see this will happen. SA isn’t  so corrupt and is far more democratic. Thus why they are doing this through legislation rather than force which Zimbabwe did. If they wanted to be like Zimbabwe the moment they got their freedom back they would gotten their lands back that same day.

Secondly if you actually read what’s going on, they were buying lands to give back, the white land owners weren’t giving a fair price thus now the government is now suggesting to make all SA land including black own  Government land. And after which they would now have to apply to lease the land thus making them pay for their stolen land rather the other way around.

Stop being stupid and spreading misinformed


----------



## wibisana (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> How exactly would that work though ?


Im saying this under assumption that the land will be given to rightful owner (descendant of the one taken back then) 

Current owner (white) still got a portion of his land (maybe 50% if they are just average Jonathan Ken

Jo Ken will still run the land. But the profit of the land will be divided to all owner.
Jo ken get 50%, other parties (new owners) get 50% of profits.

Profit is the key. So if there are no profit noone get anything. 

I dont think this is feasible tho.because it require trust and honestly from both side.

But it is applicable.
My dad owned small patch of land (heritance from his dad) he didnt bother to cultivate it. Someone cultivate it and a small portion of profit goes to him.


----------



## Saishin (Dec 13, 2018)

White south africans you better pack your stuff SA is going to become a shithole very soon


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I guess reading is hard
> 
> Zimbabwe is a dictatorship and they are worst off than the average SA, infact majority flee to SA. Stop being dumb and comparing it to Zimbabwe there isn’t an expert that see this will happen. SA is so corrupt and is far more democratic. Thus why they are doing this through legislation rather than force which Zimbabwe did. If they wanted to be like Zimbabwe the moment they got their freedom back they would gotten their lands back that same day.
> 
> ...



So instead of excercising eminent domain where justifiable the goverment instead will vote to make all land in the country controlled by the goverment.....and only make people who are white have to pay if they wish to continue using their own farms and methods of making a living ?

The fact a goverment would vote for it doesn't mean the process would be any more right. Dictatorships rubber stamp their decrees all the time, that doesn't mean the decision was right.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> So instead of excercising eminent domain where justifiable the goverment instead will vote to make all land in the country controlled by the goverment.....and only make people who are white have to pay if they wish to continue using their own farms and methods of making a living ?
> 
> The fact a goverment would vote for it doesn't mean the process would be any more right. Dictatorships rubber stamp their decrees all the time, that doesn't mean the decision was right.


Except the concept is simple if all land is government own, those who already paid for their land fairly will get their title. Now the land owners who bought/inherited stolen land will have to lease. That’s the key difference here


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Except the concept is simple if all land is government own, those who already paid for their land fairly will get their title. Now the land owners who bought/inherited stolen land will have to lease. That’s the key difference here



How is the goverment coming in, stealing your inheritance and demanding you pay them for it a good thing again ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> So instead of excercising eminent domain where justifiable the goverment instead will vote to make all land in the country controlled by the goverment.....and only make people who are white have to pay if they wish to continue using their own farms and methods of making a living ?
> 
> The fact a goverment would vote for it doesn't mean the process would be any more right. Dictatorships rubber stamp their decrees all the time, that doesn't mean the decision was right.


also the only reason you comparing two separate countries who couldn’t be more different because they are black govern. You literally have no clue about SA. Their government is very concern about public appeal as oppose to Zimbabwe and doing their best to try do this the right way as possible. 

Your solution is “the darkies should shut up and be happy the white man is feeding them” right ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> How is the goverment coming in, stealing your inheritance and demanding you pay them for it a good thing again ?


Oh you mean like the colonizers coming in killing your people stealing your land, threat you worst than shit and then when you regain your country still own the country that they are massively profiting from. Ah what a fantastic logic you have


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> also the only reason you comparing two separate countries who couldn’t be more different because they are black govern. You literally have no clue about SA. Their government is very concern about public appeal as oppose to Zimbabwe and doing their best to try do this the right way as possible.
> 
> Your solution is “the darkies should shut up and be happy the white man is feeding them” right ?



No, you are projection things onto me and ignoring what I have said just so you can poison the well and not have to answer truthfuly about the morality and legal consistency of these actions.

I've literally refuted what you just accussed of me saying earlier in this thread so perform some due diligence and look it up, then apologise.



Huey Freeman said:


> Oh you mean like the colonizers coming in killing your people stealing your land, threat you worst than shit and then when you regain your country still own the country that they are massively profiting from. Ah what a fantastic logic you have



If you have legally inherited propperty, the goverment doesn't and should not have the right to take it away from you by force without compensation and demanding you pay them for it, because that's literal mob tactics, especially if it's your livelihood.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> No, you are projection things onto me and ignoring what I have said just so you can poison the well and not have to answer truthfuly about the morality and legal consistency of these actions.
> 
> I've literally refuted what you just accussed of me saying earlier in this thread so perform some due diligence and look it up, then apologise.
> 
> ...


No you haven’t

I told you the system currently in place was to compensate them for the land but it must be a fair price. The land owners were playing hardball and the process was getting expensive and being dragged as things got worst for the average Black SA.

This is the fuckingg 3rd time I’m mentioning to you.

They were getting compensation but they wanted to be greedy and now the government is taking action to circumvent that.

No pity from me


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> No you haven’t
> 
> I told you the system currently in place was to compensate them for the land but it must be a fair price. The land owners were playing hardball and the process was getting expensive and being dragged as things got worst for the average Black SA.
> 
> ...



How is giving no compensation instead of compensation evaluated by an impartial authority and implemented alá emiment domain somehow better, or even something you say should be implemented ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> How is giving no compensation instead of compensation evaluated by an impartial authority and implemented alá emiment domain somehow better, or even something you say should be implemented ?



You slow or what? The rules were simple the land evaluated and a fair price is set. The land owners said nop I want a huge profit from it. SA Government said nope not going to happen now less than 10% of country owning over 2/3 of the countries resources and profiting from it without making efforts to compensate back. Well now the Government is saying okay, instead of me paying you for our own fucking lands how about you pay me for the stolen land.

No matter how try to mask your racist issues, it comes to the same thing. The land is stolen land


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> You slow or what? The rules were simple the land evaluated and a fair price is set. The land owners said nop I want s huge profit from it. SA Government said nope not going to happen now less than 10% of country owning over 2/3 of the countries resources and profiting from it without making efforts to compensate back. Well now the Government is saying okay, instead of me paying you for own fucking lands how about you pay me for stolen land.
> 
> No matter how try to mask your racist issues, it comes to the same thing. The land is stolen land



And once more I ask why couldn't they force them to sell the land at the estimated "fair price" exactly ? What is the _justification _to graduate from "sell this property for a fair price" to "we vote we own your land without paying you anything" ?

You keep dodging the question of *why*, if they really wanted to buy the land at a fair price, they could not simply vote to enact _that _as a law instead of taking property away_* without compensation *_?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> And once more I ask why couldn't they force them to sell the land at the estimated "fair price" exactly ? What is the _justification _to graduate from "sell this property for a fair price" to "we vote we own your land without paying you anything" ?
> 
> You keep dodging the question of *why*, if they wanted to buy the land at a fair price, they could not simply vote to enact that as a law instead of taking property away_* without compensation *_?


Because it was in the constitution that’s how they were suppose to do it and the language was vague they are clarifying it. Do your damn research

You keep trying to make it look like SA trying to set up a dictatorship and it’s not lol


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Because it was in the constitution that’s how the were suppose to do it and the language was vague they are clarifying it. Do your damn research



What ?

Your premise is: the goverment really wanted to buy the land fairly and legitimately for a fair price. But because the owners disagreed on the price, they went ahead to change the constitution....to take away the land without paying *anything*.

My question is why, if fair purchase of the land really was the intention all along, they did not enact new legislation and changes to the constitution that would allow them to force the land to be sold for prices independantly evaluated as fair, but instead they changed the constitution to enable them to take the land *without paying*.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> What ?
> 
> Your premise is: the goverment really wanted to buy the land fairly and legitimately for a fair price. But because the owners disagreed on the price, they went ahead to change the constitution....to take away the land without paying *anything*.
> 
> My question is why, if fair purchase of the land really was the intention all along, they did not enact new legislation and changes to the constitution that would allow them to force the land to be sold for prices independantly evaluated as fair, but instead they changed the constitution to enable them to take the land *without paying*.


You do realize this issue isn’t just current right?
They were being blocked by land owners. They didn’t want to sell in the first place. The system was being undermined. They claim their land rights and Government should be on their terms. Sorry bucko that’s not how it works. The government is tell them no, it’s SA land and now you will be properly tax for it.

Compensation for a land that they made millions off of illegal get the fuck outta here


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

CrownedEagle said:


> It normal for white people to paid for what they did in south africa, even if the mean is too extreme... they can't have 70% of this country when they represent at best 10% of this population, also we cannot forget than most of these land are either stolen or gain by illegal means. Europe and America are ruled by white people, Asia by Asian and extreme orient by arabs but somehow black peoples are threated like trash in their own lands, c'mon. I just wish they find a peaceful way for everybody and the government don't place their own people in the farms for claim all the moneys.



Lol what a joke, that's like saying the US police have the right to make blacks pay because they commit most of the crime in the US. 

Your "logic" is broken.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> You do realize this issue isn’t just current right?
> They were being blocked and land owners. They didn’t want to sell in the first place. The system was being undermined. They claim their land rights and Government should be on their terms. Sorry bucko that’s not how it works. The government is tell them no, it’s SA land and now you will be properly tax for it.
> 
> Compensation for a land that they made millions off of illegal get the fuck outta here



So why did the goverment not enact legislation forcing them to sell, rather than legislation forcing them to *give *the propperty away ?

Why if they were being blocked in the sale by the land owners did they not enact laws to remove the blockage to ensure a forced sale under the management of an independant court ?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> So why did the goverment not enact legislation forcing them to sell, rather than legislation forcing them to *give *the propperty away ?
> 
> Why if they were being blocked in the sale by the land owners did they not enact laws to remove the blockage to ensure a forced sale under the management of an independant court ?



Because it sticks it to the white man. There is no other reason.


----------



## Voyeur (Dec 13, 2018)

Muah said:


> no I said look at, as in use your eyes to see the evidence laid right before you.
> 
> 
> *your white eyes* saw....
> ...



Except I'm not even white. Nice projection.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Voyeur said:


> Except I'm not even white. Nice projection.



That evul white colonializm narrative though


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> So why did the goverment not enact legislation forcing them to sell, rather than legislation forcing them to *give *the propperty away ?
> 
> Why if they were being blocked in the sale by the land owners did they not enact laws to remove the blockage to ensure a forced sale under the management of an independant court ?


Because they could argue due to poor wording in  the constitution that it’s legal. They are clarifying the issues regarding to land within the constitution. I posted the 7 point propose amendments. 

You keep trying to say they are forcing this but if this was force it wouldn’t be up to debate it will be done.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Because they could argue due to poor wording in  the constitution that it’s legal. They are clarifying the issues regarding to land within the constitution. I posted the 7 point propose amendments.
> 
> You keep trying to say they are forcing this but if this was force it wouldn’t be up to debate it will be done.



Okay so answer me: will the land owners receive payment for the land which was theirs ?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

Voyeur said:


> Except I'm not even white. Nice projection.



Now you an "Uncle Tom" because you don't hate the white man and don't support this narrative. 

@Huey Freeman this whole issue is being forced, as soon as these laws come into effect the land will be confiscated. Of course you support this. Gotta stick to the evil white oppressors.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Okay so answer me: will the land owners receive payment for the land which was theirs ?


Let’s play this game why should they?

What exactly have the contributed back to SA because of apartheid which ended in the 90s FYI ? And the land was stolen, where was the compensation for the previous owners? 

The government isn’t giving some random Joe the land he has to apply for a lease too. If the land is already occupied the land owner has first dibs.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Let’s play this game why should they?
> 
> What exactly have the contributed back to SA because of apartheid which ended in the 90s FYI ? And the land was stolen, where was the compensation for the previous owners?
> 
> The government isn’t giving some random Joe the land he has to apply for a lease too. If the land is already occupied the land owner has first dibs.



I'm not asking you to play games. I'm asking for you to answer my question: will the former land owners receive payment for the property that used to belong to them and which the goverment intended to buy ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I'm not asking you to play games. I'm asking for you to answer my question: will the former land owners receive payment for the property that used to belong to them and which the goverment intended to buy ?


I answered your question several times now, and you are being dense.

Did the current land owners pay any reparations back to the government and previous land owners for their benefits due to apartheid? 

Answer me that


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

I know why you won’t answer that because it would undermine your little point


----------



## Muah (Dec 13, 2018)

Voyeur said:


> Except I'm not even white. Nice projection.


 I knew you would say that nice deflection but we all have white in our eyes it was more a reference to your mentality.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I answered your question several times now, and you are being dense.
> 
> Did the current land owners pay any reparations back to the government and previous land owners for their benefits due to apartheid?
> 
> Answer me that



I don't know, but that's an entirely different question, more so in the case of people who inherited the land legally. If they were the first generation beneficiary of apartheid I said confiscation is not an issue for me, but if the person personally never did anything wrong, they should not be obliged to pay reparations for acts committed by other people.

Also you didn't answer me. I ask you again to answer me clearly and concisely: will the previous land owners receive money for the land which before this change used to be their property. I am going somewhere with this, so please answer.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I don't know, but that's an entirely different question, more so in the case of people who inherited the land legally. If they were the first generation beneficiary of apartheid I said confiscation is not an issue for me, but if the person personally never did anything wrong, they should not be obliged to pay reparations for acts committed by other people.
> 
> Also you didn't answer me. I ask you again to answer me clearly and concisely: will the previous land owners receive money for the land which before this change used to be their property. I am going somewhere with this, so please answer.



Inheriting something that was obtain illegally doesn’t make it legal, the fuck you’re  smoking. 


You don’t know? So basically what I gather the black former owners should get fuck, but the white owners should be paid for their troubles. 

That’s all I need to confirm from you.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Inheriting something that was obtain illegally doesn’t make it legal, the fuck you’re  smoking.
> 
> 
> You don’t know? So basically what I gather the black former owners should get fuck, but the white owners should be paid for their troubles.
> ...



You keep ignoring the question.

You said the goverment wanted to buy at a fair price.

The goverment right now is even willing to change the consitution.

My question is: WHY NOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO FORCE A SALE RATHER THAN AN UNPAID ACQUISITION

Because it is illogical for the goverment to take the land without paying if it always intended to fairly pay for it, as you claim.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Different age, different values, the right of conquest is no longer valid. Right now the land is rightfully owned by white people. And according to the modern values Nations reportedly embrace, such forced redistribution of land is morally wrong.


Apartheid ended in the 90’s  

Jesus Christ


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Apartheid ended in the 90’s
> 
> Jesus Christ



White folks owned that land long before the 90s. This isn't land that was taken not even 10 years ago.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> White folks owned that land long before the 90s.



His point was that it was owned and acquired during Apartheid btw


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> You keep ignoring the question.
> 
> You said the goverment wanted to buy at a fair price.
> 
> ...


How do you force a sale? They want the land that isn’t being used by the owners so black small farmers and entrepreneurs can use it.

In my previous post I mention the white owners use the land to undermind development.

If you are hogging land then you shouldn’t be compensated.

Go fucking read about the issue  then come back to me and form a proper argument


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Lol what a joke, that's like saying the US police have the right to make blacks pay because they commit most of the crime in the US.
> 
> *Your "logic" *is broken.



I would rather say that your understanding is limited, it the American system that has made that crime among blacks is so high caused by the extreme poverty of these people linked to slavery and segregation on the other hand for Africa South is another case, apartheid is not a history of 1000 years old, it goes back to the time when I was born and i'm still in my twenties, the majority of whites who are today on these lands have taken advantage of this colonial system established by themselves to get rich without any counterpart on the backs of the local people and now they have to pay for what they have done. I prefer that they find a peaceful solution but at worst what will happen to these farmers ? Trump, Putin and the other colonizing nations are already agreed to welcome them with open arms in their countries, is it also valid for Black South Africans ? i already know the answer....


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> His point was that it was owned and acquired during Apartheid btw



Again all lands are aquired during a time of war and oppression. When is Canada returning the lands they stole? 

@CrownedEagle No they do not.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> How do you force a sale? They want the land that isn’t being used by the owners so black small farmers and entrepreneurs can use it.



The same way they can force taking the land without paying anything for it.

By changing the consitution accordingly.

Also have you seriously never heard of emminent domain legislation ? That is literally a universally practised mechanism for goverments around the world to take land away they need at prices they set, and having a court decide whether there is indeed an urgent need for the land to be used for what goverments wants to use it for.

If the land is needed for development, then an argument for forcing it's sale to the goverment under emminent domain can easily be made, thus allowing for a forced sale for a fair price under the administration of an impartial court.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> The same way they can force taking the land without paying anything for it.
> 
> By changing the consitution accordingly.
> 
> Also have you seriously never heard of emminent domain legislation ?



The argument here in case you haven’t figured out is that 73.3% of SA should’t be considered private owned. What kind of government going to be paying 8% it’s population for its own land? You don’t find that a bit stupid ?
You seem to be jumping through hoops to defend colonizers


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> The argument here in case you haven’t figured out is that 73.3% of SA should’t be considered private owned. What kind of government going to be paying 8% it’s population for its own land? You don’t find that a bit stupid ?
> You seem to be jumping through hoops to defend colonizers



The goverment wanted to buy the land, you specifically said so yourself.

By offering to buy it they acknowledged the legal ownership of those who they wanted to buy it from.

Also you yourself said they wanted to buy at a fair price, but now suddenly you claim it would be stupid for them to want to do the thing you yourself said was always their original intention.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> The argument here in case you haven’t figured out is that 73.3% of SA should’t be considered private owned. What kind of government going to be paying 8% it’s population for its own land? You don’t find that a bit stupid ?
> You seem to be jumping through hoops to defend colonizers



And your jumping through hoops to steal land from those who now rightfully own it.

And again when is Canada returning the lands it stole?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Again all lands are aquired during a time of war and oppression. When is Canada returning the lands they stole?
> 
> @CrownedEagle No they do not.



Whataboutism again

Which land was stolen by the native? Canada bought the land and slowly paid for it. I think it’s still being paid  today.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Whataboutism again
> 
> Which land was stolen by the native? Canada bought the land and slowly paid for it. I think it’s still being paid  today.



He means land taken away _*from *_the native americans in Canada.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Whataboutism again
> 
> Which land was stolen by the native? Canada bought the land and slowly paid for it. I think it’s still being paid  today.


No whataboutism, all land is stolen from someone else and inherited "illegally"

At some point there needs to be a cut off point.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> No whataboutism, all land is stolen from someone else and inherited "illegally"
> 
> At some point there needs to be a cut off point.


Yeah but Canada steal land we bought it. 

And sorry that logic is stupid in this day and age. Justifying racism and it’s action in a trivial way. Not only that make it work in their benefit. 

But this a good one, made me laugh at the stupidity one would reach to justify colonialism


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> He means land taken away _*from *_the native americans in Canada.


Yea we bought the land


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 13, 2018)

Here is the thing Native Americans in the USA or CANADA aren't ever get their land back or fair compensation cause unless something changes they are in a Democracy but don't have the votes. Natives in South Africa though they got the votes.

Also I should note while say Slavery ended centuries ago roughly speaking. Apartheid didn't until recently.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Yea we bought the land



Either way

1. You claimed SA wanted to buy the land for a fair price but were thwarted by the land owners wanting more money for it

2. You claimed them needing to pay for the land would be stupid.

Which is true ?

Because you are saying the goverment wanted to buy and then say they'd be stupid if they did.

Are you willing to concede the point that the goverment could have changed the constitution to force the sale rather than to force unpaid land transfer ?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Yeah but Canada steal land we bought it.
> 
> And sorry that logic is stupid in this day and age. Justifying racism and it’s action in a trivial way. Not only that make it work in their benefit.
> 
> But this a good one, made me laugh at the stupidity one would reach to justify colonialism



So your blinded by your hatred of the white man and can't see reason. Got it.

Nothing wrong with colonialism by the way.

@San Juan Wolf he won't because "colonizers" stole it.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> So your blinded by your hatred of the white man and can't see reason. Got it.
> 
> Nothing wrong with colonialism by the way.
> 
> @San Juan Wolf he won't because "colonizers" stole it.


I’m clear as day, I don’t hate  white people. But I can see the stupid in your logic. The land was stolen within this century. You’re trying to compare the 1800s to now. You’re trying to justify enslavement and oppression and reward them for it. 

I can see why other users peg you two as racist because it seem you have an axe to grind against anyone who oppose white supremacy. 

Good day


----------



## A Optimistic (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> By the way when is Canada returning the lands they stole from the natives?




Never.

And I can't think of a single reason why we would ever do something so foolish. It's ours.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 13, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I’m clear as day, I don’t hate  white people. But I can see the stupid in your logic. The land was stolen within this century. You’re trying to compare the 1800s to now. You’re trying to justify enslavement and oppression and reward them for it.
> 
> I can see why other users peg you two as racist because it seem you have an axe to grind against anyone who oppose white supremacy.
> 
> Good day



I'm not opposing people who are against white supremacy. Also are you going to use someone else's posts which I don't even agree with as far as the colonialism part is concerned to not have to answer my questions ?

Because I keep asking for simple answers. Based on the statements you provided.

Also I have noted I am not a racist and the comparisons to Zimbabwe are due to fears of mismanagement rather than some sort of claim of black people's inferiority, like you claimed I believe.


----------



## Roman (Dec 13, 2018)

Someone please explain to me why this is being done? Because to my knowledge, these lands have been managed by people of a certain skin color (read: white) for generations successfully. I personally don't think they should have to pay for the sins of their grandfathers or great grandfathers. Also, I'd like someone to explain how meeting racism with racism is in any way fair? The way I see it, land is being taken from people simply because that land belongs to white families. Isn't that discrimination as well?

NOTE: At no point have I said land taken from natives when South Africa was colonized by the Dutch was not wrong. That isn't the issue here though. The issue is that regardless of how it happened, people have made a living through the centuries in those lands and shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of people who lived and died before they were even born. But hey, maybe I should still expect negs from Normality and by extension EJ for being skeptical of people who don't have any experience owning and managing agricultural lands and wondering if they can do at least as good as people who do.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Voyeur (Dec 13, 2018)

Muah said:


> I knew you would say that nice deflection but we all have white in our eyes it was more a reference to your mentality.



"How dare a minority disagree with me!"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Muah (Dec 13, 2018)

Voyeur said:


> "How dare a minority disagree with me!"


im actually white.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 13, 2018)

Roman said:


> Someone please explain to me why this is being done? Because to my knowledge, these lands have been managed by people of a certain skin color (read: white) for generations successfully. I personally don't think they should have to pay for the sins of their grandfathers or great grandfathers. Also, I'd like someone to explain how meeting racism with racism is in any way fair? The way I see it, land is being taken from people simply because that land belongs to white families. Isn't that discrimination as well?
> 
> NOTE: At no point have I said land taken from natives when South Africa was colonized by the Dutch was not wrong. That isn't the issue here though. The issue is that regardless of how it happened, people have made a living through the centuries in those lands and shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of people who lived and died before they were even born. But hey, maybe I should still expect negs from Normality and by extension EJ for being skeptical of people who don't have any experience owning and managing agricultural lands and wondering if they can do at least as good as people who do.



From what I understand it's a few seats over from sa populism, which is the annoying buzzword of the year and apologies to people who actually know what populism thoroughly is and specifically isn't. Otherwise, you have a nation finding its footing, an angry majority, growing frustration with the white landowning minority (I can't tell if this is ground level or governing level or both, but the government is definitely frustrated that they don't have more control over lands) and the ruling parties are all taking a very close look at their lawbooks to see what exactly they are allowed to do and what they might rewrite themselves allowance to do depending on the vagueness of the law. The angry majority plays into the government and the government is keen to have more control over its land, and maybe the narrative about righting colonialism is genuine and maybe it's not.

But there's a new power finding its footing and they're wanting to take up the reigns of sa. Including land.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 13, 2018)

Roman said:


> Someone please explain to me why this is being done? Because to my knowledge, these lands have been managed by people of a certain skin color (read: white) for generations successfully. I personally don't think they should have to pay for the sins of their grandfathers or great grandfathers. Also, I'd like someone to explain how meeting racism with racism is in any way fair? The way I see it, land is being taken from people simply because that land belongs to white families. Isn't that discrimination as well?
> 
> NOTE: At no point have I said land taken from natives when South Africa was colonized by the Dutch was not wrong. That isn't the issue here though. The issue is that regardless of how it happened, people have made a living through the centuries in those lands and shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of people who lived and died before they were even born. But hey, maybe I should still expect negs from Normality and by extension EJ for being skeptical of people who don't have any experience owning and managing agricultural lands and wondering if they can do at least as good as people who do.


So 73.3% total land belonging to 8% the total population acquired via racist colonist is perfectly okay to you?
Hey the 92% of the angry SA who have to fucking apply for land then the government have to try reach out and buy the land from the white families and then get denied sound okay to you?

They haven’t successfully manage shit, they only manage the lands for themselves. The SA Government isn’t even getting their proper due and because small famers and other business are being undermine by these white families control they are also stunning the growth of the economy on a whole. So please tell me how they fuck you would feel if your rent couldn’t be government regulated and if the rich white landlord just suddenly show up and hike your rent ?

Apartheid ended in the 90’s there are people in their late 20’s who use to live through that shit. The white families brought this on themselves and knew sooner or later they would need to give back majority of the land

If this was the US  and Britts had that much control cities would burn.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## wibisana (Dec 13, 2018)

Roman said:


> Someone please explain to me why this is being done? Because to my knowledge, these lands have been managed by people of a certain skin color (read: white) for generations successfully. I personally don't think they should have to pay for the sins of their grandfathers or great grandfathers. Also, I'd like someone to explain how meeting racism with racism is in any way fair? The way I see it, land is being taken from people simply because that land belongs to white families. Isn't that discrimination as well?
> 
> NOTE: At no point have I said land taken from natives when South Africa was colonized by the Dutch was not wrong. That isn't the issue here though. The issue is that regardless of how it happened, people have made a living through the centuries in those lands and shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of people who lived and died before they were even born. But hey, maybe I should still expect negs from Normality and by extension EJ for being skeptical of people who don't have any experience owning and managing agricultural lands and wondering if they can do at least as good as people who do.


Im half agree

It depends of a lot of variable tbh.
Like when the land was taken (300?200?100?50? Yrs ago)
Is the current white farmer rich (can move on if they have to get resetled) etc.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Dec 13, 2018)

these white tears are delicious. 

and lol at mr.shadow at acting like he cares about human rights while caping for an authoritative government that's hellbent on creating 1984 in the flesh. mr.shadow seems to be more concerned with placing China on top than dismantling the global system that allows the few, whether it be country or people, to exploit the many. his virtue signaling is the cherry on top of his shit pie.


----------



## Voyeur (Dec 13, 2018)

Muah said:


> im actually white.


Reread that post again. Context clues son.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

Normality said:


> these white tears are delicious.
> 
> and lol at mr.shadow at acting like he cares about human rights while caping for an authoritative government that's hellbent on creating 1984 in the flesh. mr.shadow seems to be more concerned with placing China on top than dismantling the global system that allows the few, whether it be country or people, to exploit the many. his virtue signaling is the cherry on top of his shit pie.



White tears? It's going to be a majority of black tears when food shortages/price increases due to supply disruption and this will all happen due solely to feelings. 

And everyone here opposing can just point and laugh while going "we told you so".

There is a small chance this may work but odds are South Africa will just become Zimbabwe number 2.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> White tears? It's going to be a majority of black tears when food shortages/price increases due to supply disruption and this will all happen due solely to feelings.
> 
> And everyone here opposing can just point and laugh while going "we told you so".
> 
> There is a small chance this may work but odds are South Africa will just become Zimbabwe number 2.


China's food is 25% lower right now, thanks to Trump


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 13, 2018)

wibisana said:


> China's food is 25% lower right now, thanks to Trump



You sure it's Trump and not simply China refusing to pay proper tariffs?  If they want that food then they had better pay up.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 13, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> You sure it's Trump and not simply China refusing to pay proper tariffs?  If they want that food then they had better pay up.


pretty sure China lower their RMB 
if SA Rand is strong actually they could enjoy way cheaper stuff right now.
but thanks to trump almost every currency is on the slump right now


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 14, 2018)

Roman said:


> *Someone please explain to me why this is being done? *Because to my knowledge, these lands have been managed by people of a certain skin color (read: white) for generations successfully. I personally don't think they should have to pay for the sins of their grandfathers or great grandfathers. Also, I'd like someone to explain how meeting racism with racism is in any way fair? The way I see it, land is being taken from people simply because that land belongs to white families. Isn't that discrimination as well?
> 
> NOTE: At no point have I said land taken from natives when South Africa was colonized by the Dutch was not wrong. That isn't the issue here though. The issue is that regardless of how it happened, people have made a living through the centuries in those lands and shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of people who lived and died before they were even born. But hey, maybe I should still expect negs from Normality and by extension EJ for being skeptical of people who don't have any experience owning and managing agricultural lands and wondering if they can do at least as good as people who do.


The ANC is doing it for votes  for next year's elections


----------



## Atem (Dec 14, 2018)

Though I do actually like oil wrestling so it is a love/hate relationship, and I main Hakan in SF.


----------



## Deleted member 267744 (Dec 14, 2018)

Wait whites were 21% of the African pop pre ww1 how did they drop to 8%.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 14, 2018)

Mig35 said:


> Wait whites were 21% of the African pop pre ww1 how did they drop to 8%.


reproduction
have you ever heard that

*SA *Pop
*1950 *13,683,000
*1955 *15,385,000
*1960 *17,396,000
*1965 *19,814,000
*1970 *22,502,000
*1975 *25,699,000
*1980 *29,077,000
*1985 *32,983,000
*1990 *36,794,000
*1995 *41,402,000
*2000 *44,760,000
*2005 *47,793,000
*2010 *50,133,000
*2015 *54,490,000

so white population was 2,6 ish M back in 1950 ==> 4.3 M in 2015
and Black population was 10 M back in 1950 ==> 50 M in 2015

it is not a drop of population duh.
they just outgrowth-ed


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 14, 2018)

Normality said:


> these white tears are delicious.
> 
> and lol at mr.shadow at acting like he cares about human rights while caping for an authoritative government that's hellbent on creating 1984 in the flesh. mr.shadow seems to be more concerned with placing China on top than dismantling the global system that allows the few, whether it be country or people, to exploit the many. his virtue signaling is the cherry on top of his shit pie.




Cause a consistent application of the rule of law and not punishing people for what someone else did before they were born are both such shitty positions to have.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 14, 2018)

Elric of Melniboné said:


> Keyword being ancestors. They never lived on that land, and their connection to it is as sparse as mine is to Constantinople due my Greek /Roman heritage. I definitely wouldn't go over there, and start pushing those filthy oil wrestling Turkish subhuman trash out of the land of my forefathers.
> 
> Regardless of how much I despise them because it was never my home, I was never raised there, and it is no longer the same place that my ancestors lived in after so many years.
> 
> ...


Aha this is irrelevant
- You never live in Greece
- This is a connection that’s thousands of years old, apartheid started in the 21st century
- SA the locals  and overwhelmingly majority and government don’t even have control over their own country because 8% control it privately. 



But go on you might get gold in the mental gymnastics


----------



## Aphrodite (Dec 14, 2018)

IchLiebe said:


> So the white man must give up what his peoples earned and defended for... Compassion and charity to all other races.  Which means we propagate all others besides ourselves because of guilt.



I can see why you have a red bar.


----------



## Atem (Dec 14, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Aha this is irrelevant



No, it isn't. It is basically the exact same thing.



> - You never live in Greece



My parents, and grandparents did. The latter of which I visited there. Who were forced to become nomadic farmers, and live in the mountains of Arcadia. All because their great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents had to skedaddle.

If Constantinople had not fallen I would probably be living there right now. All of that stolen from me so unjustly.



> - This is a connection that’s thousands of years old, apartheid started in the 21st century



Age does not lessen the severity of a crime. That is like saying because someone committed a murder two-hundred years ago, and was never punished for it that means it is okay. In contrast to someone who committed a murder 70 years ago, and was never punished for it.

Besides that, this goes back a lot farther than the apartheid. South Africa was colonized all the way back in 1820 and 1830. When the british, and boers colonized it. Apartheid only started happening in 1948. A whole century later.



> - SA the locals  and overwhelmingly majority and government don’t even have control over their own country because 8% control it privately.



What does that have to do with pushing white farmers out of their land, and forcing them to relocate with no compensation what to speak of for what they built on that land?



> But go on you might get gold in the mental gymnastics



Not really, this is also like saying it would be okay for Native Americans to push everyone out of North America. Who is not themselves Native American. This is still a problem for Native Americans who live here on reservations but because it happened so long ago it is okay for some reason?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 14, 2018)

Elric of Melniboné said:


> No, it isn't. It is basically the exact same thing.
> 
> *Not really, no matter how much you hold your ears and scream it is *
> 
> ...


Native American weren’t a nation nor had a democracy. They were individual tribes. Nor do they have the voting power to do so currently. Strawman by this situation. However SA is a democratic nation, tried to gain their lands by buying it back. The whites want too much, deny the process, raising rents on them, blocking development of any competition. And you feel sorry for these millionaires ha ha ha

If this was the britts doing this in The US, bet you bias ass would singing a different tune


----------



## EJ (Dec 14, 2018)

It's amazing how the people who have a huge problem with land re distribution complain about the "ethics" behind it but were/are no where to be seen to complain as much on how screwed the general population in South Africa have had it on account of apartheid.

It's only when drastic measures are taken on account of slow "progress" that they have an issue. Screw their sentiment on the matter tbh.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 14, 2018)

EJ said:


> how screwed the general population in South Africa have had it on account of apartheid.



Apartheid wasn't the entire history of South Africa.

Whites have been living there for 350 years, and Apartheid lasted roughly 50 years.

That's precisely why I said that ~100 years is a reasonable cut-off. If you're a black South African and you can present evidence that your family's land was stolen during Apartheid or, more generously, at any point after South Africa became independent from the United Kingdom, then you're entitled to get it back.

But if your only claim is that your_ tribe_ lived in the general area in the 17th century, but you don't know the name of any individual person who was victimized back then, I don't think it's worth driving out the whites who have been there ten generations and are at this point as South African as you are.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 14, 2018)

BTW I want Finland returned to Sweden.

Because Russia_ illegally_ annexed Finland by force in 1809, they didn't have any_ legal_ right to grant them independence in 1917. Russian ownership of Finland should be retroactively declared null and void, and therefore any action taken by Moscow towards Finland also null and void. It rightfully belongs to Sweden.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 14, 2018)

EJ said:


> It's amazing how the people who have a huge problem with land re distribution complain about the "ethics" behind it but were/are no where to be seen to complain as much on how screwed the general population in South Africa have had it on account of apartheid.
> 
> It's only when drastic measures are taken on account of slow "progress" that they have an issue. Screw their sentiment on the matter tbh.



Because two wrongs don't make a right, punishing someone for something their ancestors did is wrong regardless of the circumstances, and complaining about a system that's abolished for a quarter of a century and which no one here has ever defended would be pointless.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Dec 14, 2018)

Mig35 said:


> Wait whites were 21% of the African pop pre ww1 how did they drop to 8%.


There is a bit more too it than most of Africa not knowing what a condom is.
Whites have left africa for various reasons so that effects the drops as well.


----------



## Roman (Dec 14, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Apartheid wasn't the entire history of South Africa.
> 
> Whites have been living there for 350 years, and Apartheid lasted roughly 50 years.
> 
> ...



Pretty much. If we don't consider any cut off for lands taken from natives, all Americans apart from the native American Indians should leave to go back to their countries of origin or at least return land to them, leaving themselves homeless. Therein lies the issue. When modern Americans leave the land they currently live in, they'd have nowhere else to turn to. Even a black guy living in Manchester (New Hampshire) wouldn't have any home or family in Africa. He lived in America for generations. The same is true for white landowners in South Africa. The forceful acquisition of land and apartheid wasn't their fault, but their ancestors. That's why this looks more like the redistribution of land is just racism being met with racism rather than an attempt at fairness.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 14, 2018)

I look at things this way.

They've had enough decades to fix things in a manner that was suitable to them. The decision is now out of their hand... if they get fucked over, they only have their greed to blame.

Notice that people have all the sympathy in the world for people of a certain shade and weight in their pockets. Let it be a black person in the hood and it is "we wuz kings", "dindu nothing" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps".


----------



## Black Superman (Dec 14, 2018)

Actually white farmers farmers can still own land, as long as they can prove the land in their possession was acquired lawfully. This isn't quite the same as what happened in Zimbabwe.

My concern here is this. What kind of retaliation will there be for South Africans going about this measure in a democratic manner? I can potentially see some stumbling blocks going forward from outside the continent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Black Superman (Dec 14, 2018)

I have a question for opposition in this thread. On what grounds are you against this measure exactly? Are you against land acquisition (regardless of who does it on whatever principal)or are you against this particular measure, and please explain why that is. There's no conclusive evidence to suggest that land grabs by themselves are as crippling as some are suggesting. Afterall it's been done before with some productive results.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 14, 2018)

Black Superman said:


> I have a question for opposition in this thread. On what grounds are you against this measure exactly? Are you against land acquisition (regardless of who does it on whatever principal)or are you against this particular measure, and please explain why that is. There's no conclusive evidence to suggest that land grabs by themselves are as crippling as some are suggesting. Afterall it's been done before with some productive results.


They want the government to pay for the lands is what I am gathering


----------



## Roman (Dec 14, 2018)

Black Superman said:


> Are you against land acquisition



How is this _acquisition_ when they're trying to take land away from people without compensation?


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 14, 2018)

Black Superman said:


> I have a question for opposition in this thread. On what grounds are you against this measure exactly? Are you against land acquisition (regardless of who does it on whatever principal)or are you against this particular measure, and please explain why that is. There's no conclusive evidence to suggest that land grabs by themselves are as crippling as some are suggesting. Afterall it's been done before with some productive results.



I'm against people's property being taken from them without compensation, if they themselves have not done anything wrong apart from simply not wanting to sell or not wanting to sell at the price offered by the goverment.



Huey Freeman said:


> They want the government to pay for the lands is what I am gathering



Yes, because the goverment is saying they will confiscate land without compensation.



Gunners said:


> I look at things this way.
> 
> They've had enough decades to fix things in a manner that was suitable to them. The decision is now out of their hand... if they get fucked over, they only have their greed to blame.
> 
> Notice that people have all the sympathy in the world for people of a certain shade and weight in their pockets. Let it be a black person in the hood and it is "we wuz kings", "dindu nothing" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps".



If they get fucked over for something they did not commit, for daring not to sell when the goverment demanded them to.


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 14, 2018)

Black Superman said:


> I have a question for opposition in this thread. On what grounds are you against this measure exactly? Are you against land acquisition (regardless of who does it on whatever principal)or are you against this particular measure, and please explain why that is. There's no conclusive evidence to suggest that land grabs by themselves are as crippling as some are suggesting. After all it's been done before with some productive results.



From what I can tell, its mostly skepticism on how well this is going to be implemented in practice rather than saying that blacks don't deserve more land or that there is no moral case for greater land distribution. The South African government does have a reputation for having a problem with corruption and their last president Jacob Zuma got charged with like around 700 cases of corruption. The concern is that the land will be funneled into corrupt politicians' supporters who don't know how to manage the land and thus lead to productivity collapse. 

Now people like @Huey Freeman are saying that the South African government isn't as corrupt is say Zimbabwe, but corruption isn't a static thing. It can change over time. To give you an idea, the corruption index ranks South Africa now to be 77. Do you know what Venezuela's corruption index was right when Hugo Chavez first came to power in 1999? It was 75. Now Venezuela is ranked 169 and the rampant corruption combined with the forced expropriation of private property lead to the total collapse of the economy. Hopefully it won't be the case for South Africa but we won't know its full effect for years to come. Keep in mind that for a while people were praising Chavez for his actions while the oil prices were high enough to mask the really bad effects on the economy.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 14, 2018)

hcheng02 said:


> From what I can tell, its mostly skepticism on how well this is going to be implemented in practice rather than saying that blacks don't deserve more land or that there is no moral case for greater land distribution. The South African government does have a reputation for having a problem with corruption and their last president Jacob Zuma got charged with like around 700 cases of corruption. The concern is that the land will be funneled into corrupt politicians' supporters who don't know how to manage the land and thus lead to productivity collapse.
> 
> Now people like @Huey Freeman are saying that the South African government isn't as corrupt is say Zimbabwe, but corruption isn't a static thing. It can change over time. To give you an idea, the corruption index ranks South Africa now to be 77. Do you know what Venezuela's corruption index was right when Hugo Chavez first came to power in 1999? It was 75. Now Venezuela is ranked 169 and the rampant corruption combined with the forced expropriation of private property lead to the total collapse of the economy. Hopefully it won't be the case for South Africa but we won't know its full effect for years to come. Keep in mind that for a while people were praising Chavez for his actions while the oil prices were high enough to mask the really bad effects on the economy.


If they were corrupt, they would leave the white people with the land and just oppress their people. It’s far easier for them in the long run to just collect a fee from the 8%. The main reason they are doing this is because 92% who being screwed over are getting frustrated and tired nothing is being done. They don’t want to be voted out


----------



## JJ Baloney (Dec 14, 2018)

Essssh.


----------



## hcheng02 (Dec 14, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> If they were corrupt, they would leave the white people with the land and just oppress their people. It’s far easier for them in the long run to just collect a fee from the 8%. The main reason they are doing this is because 92% who being screwed over are getting frustrated and tired nothing is being done. They don’t want to be voted out



Corruption can take more forms than simply taking rents from whites. I mean Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe was corrupt as hell and he did the opposite of leaving white people with the land and collecting fees from them. He took all the lands by force and then gave it to his supporters. He also used the chaos as a smokescreen to target blacks who opposed him. They can get more money in the short run by simply taking the land and passing it to their followers / business partners / family members / etc. Furthermore, you are discounting the possibility of settling personal grudges against the white oppressors.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 14, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> If they were corrupt, they would leave the white people with the land and just oppress their people. It’s far easier for them in the long run to just collect a fee from the 8%. The main reason they are doing this is because 92% who being screwed over are getting frustrated and tired nothing is being done. They don’t want to be voted out



Wait, your discounting the possibility of the *goverment *being corrupt because they're seizing property without compensation and* making it owned by the goverment*.

....You do realise that if they are corrupt they'll get *a lot more *out of shady land deals by having 73 % of the countries' land to make said shady deals with, rather then if they *didn't *have it ?


----------



## Blacku (Dec 15, 2018)

lmao all these butthurt white folk.

Your unseasoned tears will provide good nourishment for the crops.


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2018)

Lmao that was pretty good


----------



## Voyeur (Dec 15, 2018)

Black Otaku said:


> lmao all these butthurt white folk.
> 
> Your unseasoned tears will provide good nourishment for the crops.


Just like Zimbabwe amirite?


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 15, 2018)

Remember when white people would hold contests on how much land they could grab from the native americans after breaking treaty after treaty with them
Yeah me nither


----------



## wibisana (Dec 15, 2018)

Why every racist person always be like "just like zimbabwe", "black cant farm etc etc" they prolly also think that back dont have capacity to run machinery

Like we all forget where the homo sapien came from. Egypt and Nubia has been farming since tens thousands years ago.

Again here i am not fully side anyone. Because every case (person/land) has to be reviewed one by one.

Im just against racist people


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 15, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Why every racist person always be like "just like zimbabwe", "black cant farm etc etc" they prolly also think that back dont have capacity to run machinery
> 
> Like we all forget where the homo sapien came from. Egypt and Nubia has been farming since tens thousands years ago.
> 
> ...


Because to them all black nations are equal. 
Fuck the intricate details between them. 

What hilarious is them thinking that white farms are strictly manage by them. The families are mostly investors


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Why every racist person always be like "just like zimbabwe", "black cant farm etc etc" they prolly also think that back dont have capacity to run machinery
> 
> Like we all forget where the homo sapien came from. Egypt and Nubia has been farming since tens thousands years ago.
> 
> ...



Lmao. This isn't about blacks being unable to farm in general. This is about land being taken from experienced farmers on account of their skin color and given to people who more often than not will know next to nothing about farming, this because they haven't managed farming lands in a very long time.


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Why every racist person always be like "just like zimbabwe", "black cant farm etc etc" they prolly also think that back dont have capacity to run machinery
> 
> Like we all forget where the homo sapien came from. Egypt and Nubia has been farming since tens thousands years ago.
> 
> ...



A basis of these people want to see the general population fail and suffer. See Chelydra's post.

To not acknowledge this is disengenous. A lot of these people couldn't give two shits about apartheid, corruption, and the large financial/wage gaps in South Africa but only get 'concerned' once something is done to address it.  Again, screw their sentiment.


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

EJ said:


> A basis of these people want to see the general population fail and suffer. See Chelydra's post.
> 
> To not acknowledge this is disengenous. A lot of these people couldn't give two shits about apartheid, corruption, and the large financial/wage gaps in South Africa but only get 'concerned' once something is done to address it.  Again, screw their sentiment.



When that something is racially motivated retribution, ofc it's concerning. Gunners I think even admitted to that like it's a good thing.


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2018)

Roman said:


> When that something is racially motivated retribution, ofc it's concerning.



It's 'concerning' to you when something drastic is done about an ongoing issue that stretches decades. 

Go somewhere lol.


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

EJ said:


> It's 'concerning' to you when something drastic is done about an ongoing issue that stretches decades.
> 
> Go somewhere lol.



What's the issue? That white people inherited land their great great grandfathers acquired violently a hundred years ago or more? Like I said, by that logic, everyone in the US should move back to the place of origin their skin color suggests. That also means _you_ should move back to Africa. You're the one who should go somewhere lol.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2018)

Roman said:


> What's the issue? That white people inherited land their great great grandfathers acquired violently a hundred years ago or more? Like I said, by that logic, everyone in the US should move back to the place of origin their skin color suggests. That also means _you_ should move back to Africa. You're the one who should go somewhere lol.




This is utterly stupid. Your comparisons are stupid.

1. There are Native Americans that have somewhat (SOMEWHAT) been compensated, but still are oppressed not just on an individual case by case basis, but in terms of land reservation. Current Native American population and representation is no where near the same amount of individuals in South Africa who suffered from a historical context, but you can best believe if it did the situation in America would be vastly different.

2. People of African lineage in the Americas largely/mostly had nothing to do with stealing land that didn't belong to them. "B-but that makes my point!" No it doesn't.  Our ancestors suffered one of the most brutal forms of slavery recorded in history. Not only that but from Jim Crow until this day. The descendants mostly don't benefit off a system that exploit from Native American populations in the US.

The fact remains that this land re distribution should have happened a long time ago. The negative effects still exist to this day, where people like yourself remained largely quiet and turned a blind eye towards it. Once something is done, you want to clutch your pearls and cry a bunch of tears.


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2018)

Currebt Native Americsn populations* 

Read my edit, I don't want to argue off of miscommunication on my part.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

EJ said:


> A basis of these people want to see the general population fail and suffer. See Chelydra's post.
> 
> To not acknowledge this is disengenous. A lot of these people couldn't give two shits about apartheid, corruption, and the large financial/wage gaps in South Africa but only get 'concerned' once something is done to address it.  Again, screw their sentiment.



It's no different than telling a child that he will burn his hand if he touches the stove, yet continues to try despite warnings, in the end all that's left is to allow said hand to get burned. It's the same concept only you guys are cheering it on only to get back at the White man. It's racism disguised as a moral issue. But please continue on with your hypocrisy, if a White government were doing this you guys would be screaming bloody murder.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 15, 2018)

I feel these guys are purposely being obtuse and ignoring the fact that South Africans do know how to farm, and that majority of the rich farmers just own it they don’t necessarily are the ones running it


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I feel these guys are purposely being obtuse and ignoring the fact that South Africans do know how to farm, and that majority of the rich farmers just own it they don’t necessarily add the ones running it



I like how you imply the people in Zimbabwe didn't know how to farm.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 15, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> I like how you imply the people in Zimbabwe didn't know how to farm.


I’m sorry I thought this Article was about South Africa and it’s land issue apparently to chelydra it’s about Zimbabwe


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I’m sorry I thought this Article was about South Africa and it’s land issue apparently to chelydra it’s about Zimbabwe



Zimbabwe set the precedent of what happens when you simply redistribute land for racial reasons. It's a shame you can't grasp that.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 15, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Zimbabwe set the precedent of what happens when you simply redistribute land for racial reasons. It's a shame you can't grasp that.


Yeah because we all know both SA and Zimbabwe is the same because both are black nations right? I mean if it fails in one nation better abandon that idea and don’t try improve on it.
That’s not how we gain the majority or technology or modern day democracy at all. No sir re,not at all


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Implying technological and political advances and this issue are similar.

May as well keep trying communism and socialism while we are at it, ignore it's repeated failures and full speed ahead. Kappa


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 15, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Implying technological and political advances and this issue are similar.
> 
> May as well keep trying communism and socialism while we are at it, ignore it's repeated failures and full speed ahead. Kappa


Now that I have shredded your argument you fall about on “but muh communism “

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Now that I have shredded your argument you fall about on “but muh communism “



You haven't shredded anything, all you've been going on about is muh oppression and how it's wrong that 10 percent of the population owns the land, ignoring the fact that this 10 percent of people is the reason the rest of the country is fed and relatively prosperous.

Oh an something about evil colonizers bla bla bla

But hey stick it to the White man and screw the consequences am I right.  Now go on with your emotionally driven racism..


----------



## Voyeur (Dec 15, 2018)

So from what I'm gathering there's pretty much two sides to this:

One side with virtue signaling and group think that says it's okay for the  land grab by the goverment. If you disagree, you're white(either physically or mentally) and racist.

The other side thats arguing the ethics behind the move, providing an example of another African government of doing a similar doing with disastrous results, and whether the land was actually 'stolen'.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 15, 2018)

EJ said:


> A basis of these people want to see the general population fail and suffer. See Chelydra's post.
> 
> To not acknowledge this is disengenous.



I like how I clearly stated that I want the exact opposite and yet you keep claiming that is the only opinion anyone who disagrees with you has.

Lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a group who, as you put it, want to see people "fail and suffer", you are already painting them as basically evil and thus one's whose objections should be dismissed without consideration.

*That*, my friend, is being disengenous.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I like how I clearly stated that I want the exact opposite and yet you keep claiming that is the only opinion anyone who disagrees with you has.
> 
> Lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a population who, as you put it, want to see people "fail and suffer", you are already painting them as basically evil and thus one's whose objections should be dismissed without consideration.
> 
> *That*, my friend, is being disengenous.



Re-read that exact post you quoted a few times while trying to improve your reading comprehension.


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

EJ said:


> This is utterly stupid. Your comparisons are stupid.
> 
> 1. There are Native Americans that have somewhat (SOMEWHAT) been compensated, but still are oppressed not just on an individual case by case basis, but in terms of land reservation. Current Native American population and representation is no where near the same amount of individuals in South Africa who suffered from a historical context, but you can best believe if it did the situation in America would be vastly different.



Simply because the population ratio of native Americans is much smaller compared to black South Africans in their respective countries doesn't make one scenario more acceptable than the other. We're still talking about re-appropriation of land on behalf of native citizens.



EJ said:


> 2. People of African lineage in the Americas largely/mostly had nothing to do with stealing land that didn't belong to them. "B-but that makes my point!" No it doesn't.  Our ancestors suffered one of the most brutal forms of slavery recorded in history. Not only that but from Jim Crow until this day. The descendants mostly don't benefit off a system that exploit from Native American populations in the US.



You're still treading and making a living on land that didn't originally belong to you though. Trying to avoid responsibility to occupation by saying "we were just dragged along because we were black slaves" is the easy way out. If you're going to preach that natives should be "given their land back" then you shouldn't compromise with half-baked excuses why in other similar scenarios, one race gets a free pass on taking responsibility over occupied land. It's quite literally an all-or-nothing deal.

Hypothetically, say the Dutch brought Chinese workers/slaves along with them when they occupied South Africa and now a lot of their (Chinese) descendants own large proportions of land. If this redistribution of land implicated Chinese descendants as well, I'm willing to bet you'd be fine with that too.



EJ said:


> The fact remains that this land re distribution should have happened a long time ago. The negative effects still exist to this day, where people like yourself remained largely quiet and turned a blind eye towards it. Once something is done, you want to clutch your pearls and cry a bunch of tears.



I agree. It should've happened long ago the same way the British left India and Hong Kong. It didn't, and now white citizens have made a life and built their own national identity in South Africa that's entirely separate from The Netherlands. These people inherited land that may or may not have been taken lawfully, by no choice of their own, so I don't see why they should be made responsible for the actions of people generations ago. Hard to believe this, but I agree with Chelydra on this in that if this was a white-run government taking land from black landowners whose ancestors took that land unlawfully, without giving them compensation, you'd be screaming about how this is another example of ricism against blacks.



EJ said:


> Re-read that exact post you quoted a few times while trying to improve your reading comprehension.



Idk man, you should be doing that if anything. Myself, Juan, Chel, we've all made talking points around the concern of this move being based on examples in Venezuela and Zimbabwe were land was taken from descendants of colonists and the economy going to shit thereafter as a direct result. No one here is making light of anyone on account of their skin color except you, Normality, Huey, etc by pretending we're all mad whites are taking an L. All that actually says is you guys are happy whites are being made to pay for something, however unlawfully, while the rest of us have legitimate concerns based on historical evidence.

Yes, land re-distribution should've been done long ago, before the country's economy could mature to the point where forceful alterations to the status quo would have potentially disastrous consequences. Cases like India and Hong Kong are excellent examples of how that works. For SA, it's literally too late based on more similar cases in Zimbabwe.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Roman said:


> Simply because the population ratio of native Americans is much smaller compared to black South Africans in their respective countries doesn't make one scenario more acceptable than the other. We're still talking about re-appropriation of land on behalf of native citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The thread ends here.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

Nah the thread doesn't end there. 


I'm at a point where I can't be bothered to go through any and every post in this thread but there has been a lot of garbage from the likes of @Roman @San Juan Wolf and @Chelydra.

There's a lot of talk on is it right to punish the children of the sinners, can black people farm, I believe that @Roman kid accused me of taking joy in what's happening right now. 

The bottom line is that I simply don't give a shit about your opinions and neither does South Africa. 

But to answer some of your questions. It's not right that a child should suffer for the sins of their parents... the same way it it isn't right that children should suffer because their parents got fucked over. A point many of you seem to forget. 

The people in South Africa had decades to balance the deck in a way that provided equal opportunity to the people in South Africa. Instead of taking steps towards doing the right thing, they continued to enjoy the fruits of their parent's brutality. It is not something that can be allowed to continue and they only have themselves to blame for not acting before it came to this. 

Do I take joy in this? No, I don't. It saddens me that my brothers and sisters have to make the hard choice of slapping people until they realise the value of conscience and goodwilll. They're asking for people to consider whether it is wrong for them to suffer for the sins of their parents, when they're not asking whether it is right for them to profit , at expense of others, because of the wrongs committed by the parents; for that, I can't find a single fuck to give.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> There's a lot of talk on is it right to punish the children of the sinners, can black people farm, I believe that @Roman kid accused me of taking joy in what's happening right now.



Well....yeah



Gunners said:


> I look at things this way.
> 
> *They've had enough decades to fix things in a manner that was suitable to them. The decision is now out of their hand... if they get fucked over, they only have their greed to blame.*
> 
> Notice that people have all the sympathy in the world for people of a certain shade and weight in their pockets. Let it be a black person in the hood and it is "we wuz kings", "dindu nothing" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps".


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Nah the thread doesn't end there.
> 
> 
> I'm at a point where I can't be bothered to go through any and every post in this thread but there has been a lot of garbage from the likes of @Roman @San Juan Wolf and @Chelydra.
> ...





This is the same line of reasoning communists used to kill current landowners that did nothing wrong.
Death to the exploiters and their descendants. 

But hey they wuz farmerz.


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> the same way it it isn't right that children should suffer because their parents got fucked over. A point many of you seem to forget.



No one's forgetting this. We're saying better solutions than meeting racism with racism can be explored.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

Roman said:


> Well....yeah



Interesting. 

If a rapist was sentenced to prison, would you take issue with me saying ''He only has himself to blame for ending up in prison." 

If the son of a drug lord had his family assets taken from him, would you take issue with me saying "He only has himself to blame for ending up homeless." 

What I said isn't something that points towards joy. It's acknowledging that their situation is one of their own making. I may have said things in the past and I would like for you to find that... so that I can reflect on my previous view points .


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> This is the same line of reasoning communists used to kill current landowners that did nothing wrong.
> Death to the exploiters and their descendants.
> 
> But hey they wuz farmerz.



No one is calling for murder.



Roman said:


> No one's forgetting this. We're saying better solutions than meeting racism with racism can be explored.



The solutions presented aren't racist.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> No one is calling for murder.



The reasoning your using is the same.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> The reasoning your using is the same.


Do people die when land is redistributed?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> If a rapist was sentenced to prison, would you take issue with me saying ''He only has himself to blame for ending up in prison."



No. I'd take issue with you saying his grandson, whose mom was born from that rape, should go to jail for the fact that his grandfather raped someone.



Gunners said:


> If the son of a drug lord had his family assets taken from him, would you take issue with me saying "He only has himself to blame for ending up homeless."



If the son left the drug business and used the capital his father produced to start a legitimate business? Yes, I'd absolutely take issue with your statement.


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> The solutions presented aren't racist.



Forcefully taking land from farm owners without providing compensation just because they're white *totally *isn't racist, guys! I promise!


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Do people die when land is redistributed?



Sometimes. 

Over here "land reform" was mostly code for "genocide the landlords".


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Do people die when land is redistributed?



Stop dodging. You know very well what I said.

@Roman continues to own your logic.



Roman said:


> No. I'd take issue with you saying his grandson, whose mom was born from that rape, should go to jail for the fact that his grandfather raped someone.
> 
> 
> 
> If the son left the drug business and used the capital his father produced to start a legitimate business? Yes, I'd absolutely take issue with your statement.



The above is your reasoning, in case your truly that dense. 

You fully support what Roman has said, jail the grandson of the rapist for rape, and seize an innocent persons assets because their deceased father broke the law.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

Roman said:


> No. I'd take issue with you saying his grandson, whose mom was born from that rape, should go to jail for the fact that his grandfather raped someone.



I would too, which is why no one is saying they should go to prison. They will still have their liberty once all is said and done. 



Roman said:


> If the son left the drug business and used the capital his father produced to start a legitimate business? Yes, I'd absolutely take issue with your statement.


This is where it gets complicated. People aren't running after South Africans who decided to start a legitimate business in let's say Australia. If he decided to run a legitimate business on the coke farm his Grandpa brutalised a family to obtain, how would you feel? 

Do you think he should still run his business when the family removed from the land are suffering?


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Sometimes.
> 
> Over here "land reform" was mostly code for "genocide the landlords".


Sometimes doesn't sound like yes.

I'm sure if the people obey the law and follow their conscience, bloodshed will be avoided.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Your only argument is based off feelings. 

But in your second case yes, he should still be able to run his business, especially if he has been doing so for decades. Tough shit. Feelings don't give you the excuse to ruin someone else's life over something they never did.

I still can't believe you would jail an *innocent child* over the rape his *father/grandfather* did.


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> If he decided to run a legitimate business on the coke farm his Grandpa brutalised a family to obtain, how would you feel?
> 
> Do you think he should still run his business when the family removed from the land are suffering?



If the land isn't being used as a coke farm, I don't see the issue with that specifically. If the family that was kicked out of that land three generations ago are still suffering, I'd have to question what other factors played into their situation to lead them to still being poor/ill/etc three generations on. Because yes, what happened to their grandparents was unfair by any standard, but they survived and could have made a living elsewhere provided their grandparents were completely powerless to take their land back.

There are stories of many refugees from war-torn countries making a living and even finding fortune in other countries. It happens in Italy even today. I'm not at all saying that's the ideal scenario, but I don't blame the grandchildren of the coke farmer who are using what used to be a coke farm to run a legitimate, lawful business for the misfortune of the descendants of the family that was kicked out for the sake of a coke farm.

Your example here comes off as an apples to oranges comparison tbh.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

Roman said:


> If the land isn't being used as a coke farm, I don't see the issue with that specifically. If the family that was kicked out of that land three generations ago are still suffering, I'd have to question what other factors played into their situation to lead them to still being poor/ill/etc three generations on. Because yes, what happened to their grandparents was unfair by any standard, but they survived and could have made a living elsewhere provided their grandparents were completely powerless to take their land back.



What world do you live in? If I stripped you of your wealth, put you in poverty and took steps towards ensuring you were deprived of an education, where do you think you would be on the ladder? What opportunities would you be able to provide for your children?

I'm not annoyed by what's you've said because it has made it clear how disconnected you. I find it reassuring that people like you feel fit to challenge me when you're incapable of understanding the generational impact of oppression.



Roman said:


> There are stories of many refugees from war-torn countries making a living and even finding fortune in other countries. It happens in Italy even today. I'm not at all saying that's the ideal scenario, but I don't blame the grandchildren of the coke farmer who are using what used to be a coke farm to run a legitimate, lawful business for the misfortune of the descendants of the family that was kicked out for the sake of a coke farm.



Yes, people like you like to rely on those 1 in a thousand stories to convince yourself that you are living in a fair society.

You disgust me.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Nah the thread doesn't end there.
> 
> 
> I'm at a point where I can't be bothered to go through any and every post in this thread but there has been a lot of garbage from the likes of @Roman @San Juan Wolf and @Chelydra..



Really, what have I said that is garbage exactly ?



Gunners said:


> There's a lot of talk on is it right to punish the children of the sinners, can black people farm, I believe that @Roman kid accused me of taking joy in what's happening right now.



No you dishonest clown, the point wasn't, as I repeated several times, "dem ^ (use bro) be 2 stüpid to f4rm", it was the fear that, like in Zimbabwe, people who have no idea will be given the land thereby ruining the economy like it happened in Zimbabwe.



Gunners said:


> The bottom line is that I simply don't give a shit about your opinions and neither does South Africa.



If they are doing what I consider infringing on human rights, personal liberties and the rule of law, then them not agreeing with me doesn't make them not wrong. The Reichstag supported the legislation Hitler wanted, that does not mean they were not wrong in passing it.



Gunners said:


> But to answer some of your questions. It's not right that a child should suffer for the sins of their parents... the same way it it isn't right that children should suffer because their parents got fucked over. A point many of you seem to forget.



And yet that is exactly what you are defending.



Gunners said:


> The people in South Africa had decades to balance the deck in a way that provided equal opportunity to the people in South Africa. Instead of taking steps towards doing the right thing, they continued to enjoy the fruits of their parent's brutality. It is not something that can be allowed to continue and they only have themselves to blame for not acting before it came to this.



So now you frame them as being moraly sinners and thus, even when they themselves have done nothing wrong, you will use this to justify taking away their legally inherited property _without compensation_.



Gunners said:


> Do I take joy in this? No, I don't. It saddens me that my brothers and sisters have to make the hard choice of slapping people until they realise the value of conscience and goodwilll.



If you are told to sell and when refusing to do so the goverment votes that now your land is theirs without payment, where is the goodwill from the goverment ? Where is the impartial application of the rule of law consistent with international treaties and with applied without distinctions being made based on race or skin color ?



Gunners said:


> They're asking for people to consider whether it is wrong for them to suffer for the sins of their parents



And it is because punsihing someone for something they did not do is quite literally the most wrong thing you can do.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> What world do you live in? If I stripped you of your wealth, put you in poverty and took steps towards ensuring you were deprived of an education, where do you think you would be on the ladder?
> 
> I'm not annoyed by what's you've said because it has made it clear how disconnected you. I find it reassuring that people like you feel fit to challenge me when you're incapable of understanding the generational impact of oppression.
> 
> ...



You have no place to talk, you want to ruin lives only because your feelings are hurt.  That is all your arguments are.

Even worse is the fact that willfully ignore the prospect of "getting even" will potentially ruin the very lives you claim to care about. People mention Venezuela and Zimbabwe, and you just plug your ears and go "la la la but muh feelings, the oppressorz"

@San Juan Wolf The "garbage" your speaking is you defending innocent farmers from having their property taken from them by force for something they never did, despite the fact they have legally owned the land for decades.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 15, 2018)

EJ said:


> Re-read that exact post you quoted a few times while trying to improve your reading comprehension.



Read what Roman said in response to this but also be aware I have expressed disagreement with other points raised by Chelyndra, yet my opinion is being "tarnished" and thus made to not count by associating it with opinions I not expressed.

How is that for reading comprehension mr. "I can't watch a four minute video so I can pretend what I said was true even when linked to direct proof it isn't". You of all people should not bring up reading comprehension.

And if you try to weasel out of this by pretending you didn't know what I meant when I accidentally wrote "population" instead of "group"


----------



## Roman (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> What world do you live in? If I stripped you of your wealth, put you in poverty and took steps towards ensuring you were deprived of an education, where do you think you would be on the ladder? What opportunities would you be able to provide for your children?



Except we're not talking about ourselves, we're talking about our great great grandparents.

Like I said, apples to oranges.



Gunners said:


> Yes, people like you like to rely on those 1 in a thousand stories to convince yourself that you are living in a fair society.
> 
> You disgust me.



I said right off the bat that it's not ideal. Also, it's not one in a thousand. Italians also fled from poverty to America when it was still very young and many of them made good lives for themselves.

As Chel and Juan said, yours is a very emotional argument which even denies the evidence of countries doing very similar things and ruining themselves as a result. Pretty sure the more disgusting one here is the one that refuses to see the bigger picture and realize the massive risk this means for SA.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Really, what have I said that is garbage exactly ?



It is has been pages, do you really expect me to sift through everything? 



San Juan Wolf said:


> No you dishonest clown, the point wasn't, as I repeated several times, "dem ^ (use bro) be 2 stüpid to f4rm", it was the fear that, like in Zimbabwe, people who have no idea will be given the land thereby ruining the economy like it happened in Zimbabwe.



Right *Insert wink emoji this forum is lacking*. 

Do you expect me to believe you care about the people's ability to farm in South Africa when you barely give a darn about the people in your back yard. It's a problem they might encountered. It is a problem I doubt you give a darn about other than supporting criticism of people taking control of their own fate. 



San Juan Wolf said:


> If they are doing what I consider infringing on human rights, personal liberties and the rule of law, then them not agreeing with me doesn't make them not wrong. The Reichstag supported the legislation Hitler wanted, that does not mean they were not wrong in passing it.


If you gave a fuck about the rule of law, you would pay more consideration to a society where the power was conferred to minority through oppression. 

I mean, don't you think it is a bit convenient to erect oppressive laws, stack the deck in your family's favour, then say "no man should be subjected to arbitrary laws". Jog on with that nonsense son. 



San Juan Wolf said:


> And yet that is exactly what you are defending.


Depends on outlook. 

If my old man oppressed people to give me a life of luxury, I wouldn't think twice about handing it over. To that end, I don't view it as punishment. 

They may have grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle and to to that I say ''Learn to adapt, can't be any harder than pulling yourself up by the bootstraps." 



San Juan Wolf said:


> So now you frame them as being moraly sinners and thus, even when they themselves have done nothing wrong, you will use this to justify taking away their legally inherited property _without compensation_.



I see them as unconscionable. If you see that as sinning, I'm not going to disagree with you . 



San Juan Wolf said:


> If you are told to sell and when refusing to do so the goverment votes that now your land is theirs without payment, where is the goodwill from the goverment ? Where is the impartial application of the rule of law consistent with international treaties and with applied without distinctions being made based on race or skin color ?


The goodwill was putting the offer on the table. The goodwill was the decades they were able to turn a profit after apartheid. Times up. 



San Juan Wolf said:


> And it is because punsihing someone for something they did not do is quite literally the most wrong thing you can do.


I feel as though that is a sentence I didn't write correctly. 

Nah it isn't, you just cut it short 

"They're asking for people to consider whether it is wrong for them to suffer for the sins of their parents, when they're not asking whether it is right for them to profit , at expense of others, because of the wrongs committed by the parents; for that, I can't find a single fuck to give."

If they are okay with the positives, they should be okay with the negatives ck.


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2018)

.



Roman said:


> Simply because the population ratio of native Americans is much smaller compared to black South Africans in their respective countries doesn't make one scenario more acceptable than the other. We're still talking about re-appropriation of land on behalf of native citizens.



Says you. If there is a system that has been put in place that largely devastated a majority of the population for decades on end, and even with it being done a way with it's negative symptoms are still rampant something should be done.

Again, individuals such as yourself are no where to be seen in regards to South Africa's state, yet here you are "concerned" about it's population.




> You're still treading and making a living on land that didn't originally belong to you though. Trying to avoid responsibility to occupation by saying "we were just dragged along because we were black slaves" is the easy way out. If you're going to preach that natives should be "given their land back" then you shouldn't compromise with half-baked excuses why in other similar scenarios, one race gets a free pass on taking responsibility over occupied land. It's quite literally an all-or-nothing deal.



You know , when you make a terrible half-baked comparison you shouldn't double down in it .

Blacks have consistently been at the bottom of the social class since this countries foundation, they aren't living a life of luxury or have a large economic class to flex and screw over the native American population.  That's why your comparison is utter shit.

I would argue that any population that had been displaced within any civilized country through continuous historic  persecutions or descendents are negatively effected by it should be compensated through some means.





> Idk man, you should be doing that if anything. Myself, Juan, Chel, we've all made talking points around the concern of this move being based on examples in Venezuela and Zimbabwe were land was taking from descendants of colonists and the economy going to shit thereafter as a direct result. No one here is making light of anyone on account of their skin color except you, Normality, Huey, etc by pretending we're all mad whites are taking an L. All that actually says is you guys are happy whites are being made to pay for something, however unlawfully, while the rest of us have legitimate concerns based on historical evidence.
> 
> Yes, land re-distribution should've been done long ago, before the country's economy could mature to the point where forceful alterations to the status quo would have potentially disastrous consequences. Cases like India and Hong Kong are excellent examples of how that works. For SA, it's literally too late based on more similar cases in Zimbabwe.




No, miss me with your "idk man." Call out his knee-jerk reaction as it is. People can easily read through sentiment and the "concerns" those like yourself have.

Oh and also:



Chelydra said:


> *
> But whatever I will just sit back and watch this glorious SJW shitshow go down in flames.*



What makes this hilarious is that he scolds others for "not truly caring about South Africans" but wishes utter failure out of spite, regardless of what it means for the population.

People can read throuh others fake concerns. There's a reason why I have made it a habit of calling out individuals suddenly now caring about the state of South Africa as opposed to previously. You can keep speaking up for Chelydrah though.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

EJ said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Concession accepted.


----------



## EJ (Dec 15, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Read what Roman said in response to this but also be aware I have expressed disagreement with other points raised by Chelyndra, yet my opinion is being "tarnished" and thus made to not count by associating it with opinions I not expressed.
> 
> How is that for reading comprehension mr. "I can't watch a four minute video so I can pretend what I said was true even when linked to direct proof it isn't". You of all people should not bring up reading comprehension.
> 
> And if you try to weasel out of this by pretending you didn't know what I meant when I accidentally wrote "population" instead of "group"



You have an annoying habit of sidestepping your blatant mistakes. Accept the fact that you reacted to my post while ignoring key words and carry on.

You can take your bitching elsewhere tbh.


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

Roman said:


> Except we're not talking about ourselves, we're talking about our great great grandparents.
> 
> Like I said, apples to oranges.



Learn to read. You went off on some screed about how they should be able to turn things around. 

I called bullshit on that, which is why I asked you what you what opportunities you would be able to provide your family if you were stripped of everything. 

It isn't apples to oranges. You have a situation where the minority are able to enjoy opportunities the majority can't enjoy because of the brutality committed by their foreparents. You're attempting to tap dance around that. 



Roman said:


> I said right off the bat that it's not ideal. Also, it's not one in a thousand. Italians also fled from poverty to America when it was still very young and many of them made good lives for themselves.
> 
> As Chel and Juan said, yours is a very emotional argument which even denies the evidence of countries doing very similar things and ruining themselves as a result. Pretty sure the more disgusting one here is the one that refuses to see the bigger picture and realize the massive risk this means for SA.



So Italians ran to a new county and favoured disproportionate odds at achieving success, but South Africans at in South Africans should accept the less than ideal state of affairs of them competing at a disadvantage in the place of their foreparents because of the wrongs committed? 

Gotta say, this rhetoric is funny coming in time where people are salty about immigrants mowing lawns.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Learn to read. You went off on some screed about how they should be able to turn things around.
> 
> I called bullshit on that, which is why I asked you what you what opportunities you would be able to provide your family if you were stripped of everything.
> 
> ...



Just because your family has nothing does not mean you are entitled to take from others, for someone goin on about conscience, that is an unconscionable stance to take.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gunners (Dec 15, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Just because your family has nothing does not mean you are entitled to take from others, for someone goin on about conscience, that is an unconscionable stance to take.



In and of itself, yes. 

But when something was taken from a family, they have every right to make a claim for their assets that thieves and their descendants are enjoying.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

Gunners said:


> In and of itself, yes.
> 
> But when something was taken from a family, they have every right to make a claim for their assets that thieves and their descendants are enjoying.



Nope. Especially not after decades.

@mr_shadow So given the logic being used in this thread, when will Sweden reclaim Finland? Also we need to help the Germans reclaim Alsace-Lorraine from the dastardly French oppressors.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 15, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> @mr_shadow So given the logic being used in this thread, when will Sweden reclaim Finland?



When they least expect us.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> When they least expect us.



Tell you what, if you give me a harem of attractive Swedish and Finnish women, then you will have my undying loyalty, I shall the head of the MSS and purge enemies in your name.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 15, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Tell you what, if you give me a harem of attractive Swedish and Finnish women, then you will have my undying loyalty, I shall the head of the MSS and purge enemies in your name.



You certain you can handle more than one Finnish woman?

Like, maybe start with half of one?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 15, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> You certain you can handle more than one Finnish woman?
> 
> Like, maybe start with half of one?



Are they bad? Hmm I need further information.


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 16, 2018)

Gunners said:


> Nah the thread doesn't end there.
> 
> 
> I'm at a point where I can't be bothered to go through any and every post in this thread but there has been a lot of garbage from the likes of @Roman @San Juan Wolf and @Chelydra.
> ...


Post apartheid South Africa government has tried to fix inequality with land reforms,restitution and transformation. The south african government have just done  terrible job at it.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 16, 2018)

But the presumption the government is doing this to return south africa to the working majority is still that, a presumption. You guys know to roll your eyes at the trump administration when it holds up pretexts about fighting for middle america or white working class america. You know to make fun of americans who buy into that narrative because you see the corruption in the administration and you see them taking advantage of these narratives to garner support. In SA you have another corrupt government, but because their narrative now aligns with your ideals and your sense of identity you’re dropping your suspicions and buying all the way into this storybook upending of colonialism. Even though that’s the same trap you’ve seen some middle america/ white working class america fall into under trump. Same trap you’ve probably pointed and laughed at and wondered whyever people could be so gullible.

Not saying that from on high either, because I'm one of those americans who's still curious about the trump administration. Just saying this for awareness' sake. Because it's a lot easier to buy into these narratives when "you" are the hero of them, whether we're talking about middle america or the black majority of SAs.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> You have an annoying habit of sidestepping your blatant mistakes. Accept the fact that you reacted to my post while ignoring key words and carry on.
> 
> You can take your bitching elsewhere tbh.



Show me the "mistakes" I have made and what key words I am ignoring.


----------



## EJ (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> *A basis of these people* want to see the general population fail and suffer. See Chelydra's post.
> 
> To not acknowledge this is disengenous. A lot of these people couldn't give two shits about apartheid, corruption, and the large financial/wage gaps in South Africa but only get 'concerned' once something is done to address it.  Again, screw their sentiment





San Juan Wolf said:


> I like how I clearly stated that I want the exact opposite and yet you keep claiming that is the only opinion anyone who disagrees with you has.
> 
> Lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a group who, as you put it, want to see people "fail and suffer", you are already painting them as basically evil and thus one's whose objections should be dismissed without consideration.
> 
> *That*, my friend, is being disengenous.



Right here. 

I wonder, how did "a basis" turn into "all these people." 

It's almost as if you purposefully disregarded that portion of the post to wag your finger and complain about how apparently "unfair" people are being to your fake "concerns" for South Africans as a whole.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 16, 2018)

Gunners said:


> It is has been pages, do you really expect me to sift through everything?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"taking control of their own fate" can literally mean anything, just because you can describe something with a high and mighty sounding phrase, that doesn't mean the thing becomes automatically moral, just or lawful.

Also you are utterly disingenous, you don't know shit about me, but you are already trying to say my concern is not real concern, even when I provide a reasoning, because apparently you can just look into people's mind over the internet and judge when they are being insincere based on nothing.

Exactly what exact basis do you have for the claim I "barely give a darn about the people in my back yard" ?




Gunners said:


> If you gave a fuck about the rule of law, you would pay more consideration to a society where the power was conferred to minority through oppression.



And how exactly do you know I don't care ? Or is me not agreeing with the South African goverment an automatic sign of me "not caring about South Africa" ? And either way, that still doesn't make punishing people for something they never did and taking property without compensation any more imoral and worthy of being heard and decried as illegal in the International Criminal Court.

Also the people whose property is to be confiscated without compensation are South Africans too, by the way.




Gunners said:


> I mean, don't you think it is a bit convenient to erect oppressive laws, stack the deck in your family's favour, then say "no man should be subjected to arbitrary laws". Jog on with that nonsense son.



Except the people whose property is to be confiscated did not make these laws. They aren't even the same generation and in many cases would have been born long after they were enacted.

Yet you act as if they still carry original sin, as if their very existance makes them guilty.

Also what exactly is the basis for you saying "then say" ? Because these aren't the same people. And you know that.




Gunners said:


> If my old man oppressed people to give me a life of luxury, I wouldn't think twice about handing it over. To that end, I don't view it as punishment.



Personal anecdotes about hypothetical situations that are untestable is not really an argument. If that was your entire family livelihood, and you personaly never did anything wrong, I really don't think you would intentionally give away your entire property for free, becoming basically penniless and having to pay for property you owned.



Gunners said:


> They may have grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle and to to that I say ''Learn to adapt, can't be any harder than pulling yourself up by the bootstraps."



So you are saying people who never did anything wrong or illegal should be made economically destitute by having their livelihoods taken from them without payment by the goverment, because of something someone else did.

You can't honestly claim this is lawful or moral.





Gunners said:


> The goodwill was putting the offer on the table. The goodwill was the decades they were able to turn a profit after apartheid. Times up.



So not accepting an offer from the Goverment means you have lost the right to receive payment for your own property.

That is basically mob rule. As in actual organised crime shakedown levels.




Gunners said:


> I feel as though that is a sentence I didn't write correctly.
> 
> Nah it isn't, you just cut it short



I cut it off because the rest is irrelevant. You should not and cannot be made to suffer for something your ancestors did, full stop, no possible way to justify that, whatsoever, at any point, any time, whenever, wherever.

You being punished for something you did not do is an absolutely abhorrent act of petty vengeance that has nothing to do with justice and should be opposed and thwarted at every possible oportunity, and there are no moral people in the world who can oppose that.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> Right here.
> 
> I wonder, how did "a basis" turn into "all these people."
> 
> It's almost as if you purposefully disregarded that portion of the post to wag your finger and complain about how apparently "unfair" people are being to your fake "concerns" for South Africans as a whole.



So you didn't mean everyone who disagrees with you, including me, was included in your statement ?

Also on what grounds have you come to the conclusion that my concern is fake exactly ?

Also also yes I said unfair and I will maintain that as true to my last dying breath, because it is an uncontestable fact that being punished for something you never did is unquestionably unfair under every possible metric there is or can ever be.


----------



## EJ (Dec 16, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> So you didn't mean everyone who disagrees with you, including me, was included in your statement ?



This is why you really don't deserve to be taken seriously. I stated a basis. How does "a basis" = "all of these people." You took the opportunity to claim that I was generalizing everyone wanting to see South Africa fail. I provided a quote from Chelydrah to prove my point.

Quit side-stepping. Admit that you implying I had generalized everyone on that same level was a desperately dumb thing to do.




> Also on what grounds have you come to the conclusion that my concern is fake exactly ?
> 
> Also also yes I said unfair and I will maintain that as true to my last dying breath, because it is an uncontestable fact that being punished for something you never did is unquestionably unfair under every possible metric there is or can ever be.



This is the problem with individuals such as you and @Roman. When you make a terrible comparison, or clearly hit a brick wall with your reasoning, you double down on a desperate attempt to save-face because you both understand it diminishes a part of your argument.

I believe your concern is fake because like others who are suddenly are concerned about South Africa's state to spam consistent post about it, they would other wise had turned a blind eye towards the corruption, wage gap, and effects apartheid has had in the areas. Your main issue is once drastic measures are taken to correct a wrong, but you're no where to be seen to address the issues that plague South Africa on even a rare basis. 

Expecting honesty out of you on this topic is impossible though, so you'll continue to dance around this by stating "y-you don't know what I'm truly feeling!" Or similar statements to diminish the accusations.


----------



## EJ (Dec 16, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Read what Roman said in response to this but also be aware I have expressed disagreement with other points raised by Chelyndra, yet my opinion is being "tarnished" and thus made to not count by associating it with opinions I not expressed.
> 
> How is that for reading comprehension mr. "I can't watch a four minute video so I can pretend what I said was true even when linked to direct proof it isn't". You of all people should not bring up reading comprehension.
> 
> And if you try to weasel out of this by pretending you didn't know what I meant when I accidentally wrote "population" instead of "group"



Look at this terrible gotcha attempt, while also bitching about previous arguments you got your ass handed to you on. You're a joke.


----------



## Roman (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> This is the problem with individuals such as you and @Roman. When you make a terrible comparison, or clearly hit a brick wall with your reasoning, you double down on a desperate attempt to save-face because you both understand it diminishes a part of your argument.



I'm gonna go ahead and consider this your concession because this is your typical go-to statement whenever you find yourself unable to really counter a particular talking point. If you feel like we're doubling down on an argument, it's only because of your refusal to even consider it a possibility. You're just concerned with sticking it to the status quo out of principle.



EJ said:


> I believe your concern is fake because like others who are suddenly are concerned about South Africa's state to spam consistent post about it, they would other wise had turned a blind eye towards the corruption, wage gap, and effects apartheid has had in the areas.



This is hilarious because the government of SA is corrupt but you conveniently ignore that to paint a picture where only the white landowners are responsible for the corruption. Like @MrPopo pointed out earlier, the biggest reason the ANC is doing this is for the votes. Let's stop pretending black people in SA are completely innocent in the context of these current affairs.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

Roman said:


> I'm gonna go ahead and consider this your concession because this is your typical go-to statement whenever you find yourself unable to really counter a particular talking point. If you feel like we're doubling down on an argument, it's only because of your refusal to even consider it a possibility. You're just concerned with sticking it to the status quo out of principle.
> 
> 
> 
> This is hilarious because the government of SA is corrupt but you conveniently ignore that to paint a picture where only the white landowners are responsible for the corruption. Like @MrPopo pointed out earlier, the biggest reason the ANC is doing this is for the votes. Let's stop pretending black people in SA are completely innocent in the context of these current affairs.



As I said earlier this thread is over, when all the opposing sides can do is level insults or try to persuade via emotional arguments with no basis in fact, you know you've won.


----------



## EJ (Dec 16, 2018)

Roman said:


> I'm gonna go ahead and consider this your concession because this is your typical go-to statement whenever you find yourself unable to really counter a particular talking point. If you feel like we're doubling down on an argument, it's only because of your refusal to even consider it a possibility. You're just concerned with sticking it to the status quo out of principle.



Copying Chelydrah's tactics to claim concession when you see fit doesn't make your arguments stick. Me accounting for your terrible arguments and comparisons and how you doubled down in them was completely relevant to SJW. 

The fact that you tried to compare black people in America, a minority that has been at the bottom of the social class to white people that own 10 % of the land in South Africa was hilarious within itself. When it was brought to your attention how retarded this argument was, you attempted to steamroller ahead with it.





> This is hilarious because the government of SA is corrupt but you conveniently ignore that to paint a picture where only the white landowners are responsible for the corruption. Like @MrPopo pointed out earlier, the biggest reason the ANC is doing this is for the votes. Let's stop pretending black people in SA are completely innocent in the context of these current affairs.



Not once did I state or imply that South Africa's problems are only with the whites. It's hilarious. All this "huh uh! YOU need to work on your reading comprehension!" Yet here you are misinterpreting my argument.

Just like how you tried to argue on behalf of Chelydrah despite how silly you looked considering he looked forward to land redistribution failing despite the negative impacts it could have on the community says a lot about how desperate you are to damage control here. I told you before you should had gone somewhere. Not only are your arguments terrible, but you've aligned yourself around useful idiocy that have made my point clear that a basis of people truly don't give a shit about South Africans.


----------



## Roman (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> Not once did I state or imply that South Africa's problems are only with the whites.



No, but you're conveniently ignoring it as well for the sake of your argument by supporting an act that carries with it significant economic risks, which btw you admit in the very post I'm quoting here.



EJ said:


> Just like how you tried to argue on behalf of Chelydrah despite how silly you looked considering he looked forward to land redistribution failing *despite the negative impacts it could have on the community* says a lot about how desperate you are to damage control here.



Concession accepted.

As for Chel being excited over this prospect, I'll let him answer to that. I agree with him and Juan insofar that this act has about as much to do with regaining land that was lost as being able to read latin has to do with computer programming.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> This is why you really don't deserve to be taken seriously. I stated a basis. How does "a basis" = "all of these people." You took the opportunity to claim that I was generalizing everyone wanting to see South Africa fail. I provided a quote from Chelydrah to prove my point.
> 
> Quit side-stepping. Admit that you implying I had generalized everyone on that same level was a desperately dumb thing to do.



That's why I'm asking for clarification since I didn't get by basis you didn't mean basis of what everyone not agreeing with you said. If I didn't get that, that's fair to point out.



EJ said:


> This is why you really don't deserve to be taken seriously. I stated a basis. How does "a basis" = "all of these people." You took the opportunity to claim that I was generalizing everyone wanting to see South Africa fail. I provided a quote from Chelydrah to prove my point.
> 
> Quit side-stepping. Admit that you implying I had generalized everyone on that same level was a desperately dumb thing to do.
> 
> ...



I don't live in South Africa, so I hear little about it, I did however criticise the EFF and Zuma in the past.

Still doesn't mean that when someone does something demonstrably wrong I somehow have no right to call it wrong because I didn't criticise them when they were wrong before.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

@Roman  In regards to ej whining about me being happy that racially motivated robbery will fail, if you go ahead and do something stupid, with plenty of empirical evidence(Zimbabwe, Venezuela) to show that it's stupid then yes, I feel you do deserve what's coming to you and sometimes it's the only way to teach a lesson.(EJ feels the very same way towards Americans who voted for Trump/Republican)

This whole issue is simply naked racism clothed in a "moral one" which has no merits and appeals only to emotion. However since this racism is directed at White people it's acceptable to EJ and others. This is nothing to them about the actual welfare of SA

If they truly wanted the land "back" that badly then the government would simply pay the farmers what they are asking for, for said land. Instead as you know they are simply going to take it, after manipulating their laws to make it legal to do so.

But we can't expect proper ethical consideration from a government that sent the Police/military in to deal with striking miners, demanding better working conditions. (You know those things called "basic rights")

 For someone calling people out on not being aware of "oppression" EJ is quite silent on this one incident. And conversely expects this very same government to behave fairly with this issue....


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> But we can't expect proper ethical consideration from a government that sent the Police/military in to deal with striking miners, demanding better working conditions. (You know those things called "basic rights")



I remember that one, I think the others don't though : P


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

This is a good thing and frankly should have happened immediately after apartheid finally ended imo.


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

CrownedEagle said:


> It normal for white people to paid for what they did in south africa, even if the mean is too extreme... they can't have 70% of this country when they represent at best 10% of this population, also we cannot forget than most of these land are either stolen or gain by illegal means. Europe and America are ruled by white people, Asia by Asian and extreme orient by arabs but somehow black peoples are threated like trash in their own lands, c'mon. I just wish they find a peaceful way for everybody and the government don't place their own people in the farms for claim all the moneys.



Don't know why people can't understand this.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

The very land your on was stolen from someone else, go give it back to them. Nevertheless this dead horse has been beaten into a mush.


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> This is a good thing and frankly should have happened immediately after apartheid finally ended imo.


That would of caused a civil war


----------



## Roman (Dec 16, 2018)

We'll have to see how things go from here tbh. One would hope this will go over smoothly but it's unlikely that land will be transitioned peacefully when people are literally being made homeless. I don't hope for the economy to go to shit either, but we have recent examples of this exact thing not working out well. Then we'll see who is right. Let me be clear I do hope I was in fact wrong here so if things do go well, I'll gladly take the L.


----------



## Eros (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> Don't know why people can't understand this.


In the whole scheme of things, farming is NOT easy. You can't just plant crops and expect them to grow or raise cows, goats, or sheep and automatically know what you're doing. Also, regardless of circumstances, taking land without some kind of compensation is wrong. It means you're sinking to the same damn level as the people who took the land from your ancestors. I'm against imminent domain on principle (unless it's to protect wildlife or other endangered organisms or endangered indigenous tribes), because that is one aspect of socialism I reject completely. Land ownership is a right of a free society. Taking land is authoritarianism. Ultimately, this is likely to cause yet another war, and no, I do not mean some part of some white genocide conspiracy theory. China and Russia are greedy and opportunistic, and the political instability in South Africa offers a perfect opportunity for arms deals and rebellions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> The very land your on was stolen from someone else, go give it back to them. Nevertheless this dead horse has been beaten into a mush.



I'm perfectly fine with giving America back to the natives. It wouldn't effect me since my people didn't steal it from them in the first place so I wouldn't have to leave.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> I'm perfectly fine with giving America back to the natives. It wouldn't effect me since my people didn't steal it from them in the first place so I wouldn't have to leave.



Figures you would be fine with giving other people's land away.  however it is an irrefutable fact that your people also stole land, either from each other or someone else. All land has been stolen from someone at one point in time. Eventually there comes a time where it is "properly owned" by its new owners and the former owners lose rights to it.

And yes you would have to leave since your still residing on stolen land.

Failed logic on your part.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Roman (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> I'm perfectly fine with giving America back to the natives. It wouldn't effect me since my people didn't steal it from them in the first place so I wouldn't have to leave.



Auto-reply:



Roman said:


> You're still treading and making a living on land that didn't originally belong to you though. Trying to avoid responsibility to occupation by saying "we were just dragged along because we were black slaves" is the easy way out. If you're going to preach that natives should be "given their land back" then you shouldn't compromise with half-baked excuses why in other similar scenarios, one race gets a free pass on taking responsibility over occupied land. It's quite literally an all-or-nothing deal.
> 
> Hypothetically, say the Dutch brought Chinese workers/slaves along with them when they occupied South Africa and now a lot of their (Chinese) descendants own large proportions of land. If this redistribution of land implicated Chinese descendants as well, I'm willing to bet you'd be fine with that too.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

Takano-san said:


> In the whole scheme of things, farming is NOT easy. You can't just plant crops and expect them to grow or raise cows, goats, or sheep and automatically know what you're doing.



If white folks are intelligent enough to grow it and figure it out then the black folks can do the same. 



> Also, regardless of circumstances, taking land without some kind of compensation is wrong. It means you're sinking to the same damn level as the people who took the land from your ancestors.



Not at all. All that is happening is that what has been stolen is being rightfully returned. When you steal something from someone else and pass it to you child. You child does not become entitled to it nor does it belong to them. It is still stolen property. You do not have the right to reap the benefit from something you have stolen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Dec 16, 2018)

Roman said:


> No, but you're conveniently ignoring it as well for the sake of your argument by supporting an act that carries with it significant economic risks, which btw you admit in the very post I'm quoting here.



This desperation. Have you always been this terrible at defending your positioning?

Why do you continuously attempt to steamroll with poorly made comparisons, and terrible arguments even after being called out on them?  Here you are admitting that I haven't made any post stating or even implying all of South Africa's problems are "because of the whites owning a majority of the land" yet you're still trying to push the framework that I'm "conveniently ignoring it." 

No, this thread is about the re distribution of land in South Africa. Accounting from a historical aspect to present in regards to the racial nature is to be expected, you trying to act as though this wouldn't be a large point of discussion is disengenuous when people may focus on that aspect, especially depending upon how the conversation/argument transpires.

Most people who have supported the re distribution haven't made the argument that "everything will be good for South Africans now", they are of the mindset of supporting and wishing for success, so why try to push this framework? Honestly, the more you express your "educated opinion" here you demonstrate how weightless it is.








> Concession accepted.
> 
> As for Chel being excited over this prospect, I'll let him answer to that. I agree with him and Juan insofar that this act has about as much to do with regaining land that was lost as being able to read latin has to do with computer programming.



"Y-you admitted there could be a risk! C-concession accepted!"

Like I stated your desperation in this thread is so apparent in this thread, it's amazing how you have allowed yourself to keep embarrassing yourself on a consistent basis. Maybe it's all the Likes/agrees you have been getting from Chelydrah/SJW to damage control your terrible argument.

But it's rich, the guy who has seemingly backpedaled out of making the ridiculous comparison that blacks in America who have consistently been at the bottom of the social class within America are comparable to whites who own a majority of the land in South Africa, is suddenly  talking about "concession accepted." Or has gone as far as to state that blacks are somehow reaping benefits off the exploitation of current Native American populations in America. 



San Juan Wolf said:


> That's why I'm asking for clarification since I didn't get by basis you didn't mean basis of what everyone not agreeing with you said. If I didn't get that, that's fair to point out.



You're clearly being disengenous. "A basis of these people" is as clear as day, if it didn't apply towards you, you could had carried on without addressing it. Instead, you had a bitchfit over it while misinterpreting the post. 






> I don't live in South Africa, so I hear little about it, I did however criticise the EFF and Zuma in the past.
> 
> Still doesn't mean that when someone does something demonstrably wrong I somehow have no right to call it wrong because I didn't criticise them when they were wrong before.



Not only are you wrong about your arguments against the land redistribution, but you clearly don't give a darn about South Africans as a whole. Your complaints and concerns towards its state are account of recent events, not what has been plaguing it's status for decades on end. Keep sidestepping this blatant fact, as Roman and Chelydrah have though.


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Figures you would be fine with giving other people's land away.  however it is an irrefutable fact that your people also stole land, either from each other or someone else. All land has been stolen from someone at one point in time. Eventually there comes a time where it is "properly owned" by its new owners and the former owners lose rights to it.
> 
> And yes you would have to leave since your still residing on stolen land.
> 
> Failed logic on your part.



My people didn't steal land from the native Americans which is all that matters in my case. So no I would not have to leave. Nice try tho.


----------



## Eros (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> I'm perfectly fine with giving America back to the natives. It wouldn't effect me since my people didn't steal it from them in the first place so I wouldn't have to leave.


Truthfully, the entire state of Oklahoma would be a good start. There are only 5.2 million of them left. The nation would be vastly underpopulated and doomed to failure in a modern world, and let's face it, not even they want to go back completely to the old ways. They like modernity. However, they would also need autonomous access to ports, so they would also need ownership of a city in Texas like Galveston or Corpus Christi.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> My people didn't steal land from the native Americans which is all that matters in my case. So no I would not have to leave. Nice try tho.



I was waiting for this. The current owners of the land in SA didn't steal it either so nice try.

You fail end of discussion.


----------



## Eros (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> If white folks are intelligent enough to grow it and figure it out then the black folks can do the same.


In a world of climate change, GMOs, and such, some of them earning Masters of Agribusiness, or at least some degree in agriculture would be a good idea.


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

Roman said:


> Auto-reply:



I couldn't disagree more. You still ignoring the fact that black folks did not steal from them or kill natives to take ownership of their land like whites did. They were forced here against their will and meant no harm or ill will to natives. The same can't be said for whites. It's a ridiculous comparison.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> I was waiting for this. The current owners of the land in SA didn't steal it either so nice try.
> 
> You fail end of discussion.



Their ancestors did tho genius. Try harder.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> Their ancestors did tho genius. Try harder.



Irrelevant, unless you of course favor punishing children for the sins of their parent.

I win, good day.


----------



## EJ (Dec 16, 2018)

Romans argument was retarded.

Most blacks in America aren't living a life of luxury while exploiting from current Native American populations inherited on the actions of their ancestors or those like them. It was a dumb "gotcha" and the fact he hasn't conceded to it being a terrible comparison says a lot of how badly he doesn't want to concede.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> Romans argument was retarded.
> 
> Most blacks in America aren't living a life of luxury while exploiting from current Native American populations inherited on the actions of their ancestors or those like them. It was a dumb "gotcha" and the fact he hasn't conceded to it being a terrible comparison says a lot of how badly he doesn't want to concede.



There's nothing for @Roman to concede he has won and utterly shredded your retarded arguments. But by all means continue.


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Irrelevant, unless you of course favor punishing children for the sins of their parent.
> 
> I win, good day.



It's relevant towards my original point that this indeed is a good thing. Your the only one who is failing right now.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> It's relevant towards my original point that this indeed is a good thing. Your the only one who is failing right now.



Well everyone is entitled to their delusions, thief.


----------



## EJ (Dec 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> There's nothing for @Roman to concede he has won and utterly shredded your retarded arguments. But by all means continue.




Ok cheerleader. 

You suddenly "caring" about a country operating within legal means is hilarious though Mr. "The United States government needs to start killing/slaughtering all undocumented immigrants."


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> Ok cheerleader.
> 
> You suddenly "caring" about a country operating within legal means is hilarious though Mr. "The United States government needs to start killing/slaughtering all undocumented immigrants."



I accept your concession, you can't refute my arguments so you bring up a completely unrelated topic in a desperate attempt to discredit the points I've and by extension others have made here.

Yes the typical leftist fallback when they have been completely destroyed.

Good day.


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Well everyone is entitled to their delusions, thief.



This coming from one of the most delusional Trump ass kissers on this site, why am I not surprised?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> This coming from one of the most delusional Trump ass kissers on this site, why am I not surprised?



You've directly benefited from the actions of Americans in the past. To bad you can't see that. This makes you a thief, just like the White farmers are thieves in your eyes.

Apply your logic evenly please. This is an all or nothing argument your making after all.


----------



## Alita (Dec 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> You've directly benefited from the actions of Americans in the past. To bad you can't see that. This makes you a thief, just like the White farmers are thieves in your eyes.
> 
> Apply your logic evenly please. This is an all or nothing argument your making after all.



For the last time my people did not kill and steal from the natives to acquire the land. Only whites did that. How dense are you?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> For the last time my people did not kill and steal from the natives to acquire the land. Only whites did that. How dense are you?



For the last time these White farmers also did not steal the land. They are blameless.

For the last time you have benefited from the action of people who have "stolen" land, you cannot get around this. ALL LAND WAS STOLEN AT SOME POINT in time. If your living in America right now your guilty. According to you, not me.

You or your ancestors may not have directly stolen the land but your still occupying it. Therefore according to YOUR LOGIC you must also be punished for it.

To put it in terms you can understand you want to jail the child of a mother because the father of said child was a rapist.

You want to punish innocent people for crimes they never committed, and all for feelings.


----------



## Xebec (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> I'm in complete support of land re-distribution towards the individuals who have suffered to apartheid.
> 
> Hilarious seeing @Huey Freeman supporting a radical change and not taking a pragmatic approach towards it. Consistency isn't his thing.


You also support white genocide and murder, rape and torture of white farmers and their families? Because that is happening every day.



mr_shadow said:


> Basically the attitude Germans take to WW2 is the attitude all whites should take towards imperialism.



And look what that got the Germans, open borders and migrants running rampant.


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 16, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> The very land your on was stolen from someone else, go give it back to them. Nevertheless this dead horse has been beaten into a mush.



You and a lot of other posters seem to be very quick to be touched by the fate of these white farmers (which I can understand because I myself find this situation a little too extreme for them especially if they have no form of compensation) but I don't see any of you being outraged by the fate of Black South Africans who live in poverty caused mainly by apartheid while the small minority continues to have the same privilege as before. 

Edit : Also yes the white farmers who occupy these lands are responsible to a certain extent, when a parent dies and his children accept his legacies, the profits as well as the debts come back to him automatically, this is the same here.


----------



## Jin-E (Dec 16, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> Not at all. All that is happening is that what has been stolen is being rightfully returned. When you steal something from someone else and pass it to you child. You child does not become entitled to it nor does it belong to them. It is still stolen property. You do not have the right to reap the benefit from something you have stolen.



You say "whites". Who or what fall under this vast category in this context? Just the descendants of those 18th-19th century Anglo-Saxon protestants directly involved in the actual theft? What about say, the descendants of Irishmen that arrived in the 1840's? Or the descendants of a Italian immigrant from the 1890's? Or a Scandinavian Immigrant in the 1920's? Or a German Jewish immigrant in the 1930's? You get the picture. Are they as morally culpaple as the first group?

And if yes, then what about African-Americans who are not descendants of slaves but whose ancestors immigrated there out of their own free will?


----------



## Eros (Dec 16, 2018)

CrownedEagle said:


> You and a lot of other posters seem to be very quick to be touched by the fate of these white farmers (which I can understand because I myself find this situation a little too extreme for them especially if they have no form of compensation) but I don't see any of you being outraged by the fate of Black South Africans who live in poverty caused mainly by apartheid while the small minority continues to have the same privilege as before.


It is outrageous. Many live in horrendous living conditions like this: 



How to really solve the problem is through education and technology. Land redistribution will lead to armed resistance, war, and victory for foreign oligarchs. In the end, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will be the real winners here.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2018)

Takano-san said:


> It is outrageous. Many live in horrendous living conditions like this:
> 
> 
> 
> How to really solve the problem is through education and technology. Land redistribution will lead to armed resistance, war, and victory for foreign oligarchs. In the end, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will be the real winners here.


Lol Education and technology, guess which land those schools will be built on? Where are they going to get the resources for jobs?
Stop talking out your ass they aren’t redistributing land. They are taking back the land titles of all land and making them lease it.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 16, 2018)

EJ said:


> You're clearly being disengenous. "A basis of these people" is as clear as day, if it didn't apply towards you, you could had carried on without addressing it. Instead, you had a bitchfit over it while misinterpreting the post.



Or I simply never heard the phrase before and assumed it was meant in the sense of "basis for the other side's argument".

How do you have to even argue when I tell you you were right about something ?







EJ said:


> Not only are you wrong about your arguments against the land redistribution, but you clearly don't give a darn about South Africans as a whole. Your complaints and concerns towards its state are account of recent events, not what has been plaguing it's status for decades on end. Keep sidestepping this blatant fact, as Roman and Chelydrah have though.



How is something you have not demonstrated to be concordant with the available evidence a fact ?

Also how exactly is me having taken an interest in South African politics since at least 2012-2013 in result of the corruption scandals of Jacob Zuma a proof I don't care about South Africans ? I don't have any close individuals living in South Africa, but what I do have is the ability to disagree with actions commited by a Goverment.

I didn't have to first forge a deep emotional bond with the Ugandan nation as a whole to publicly oppose their proposed and later passed anti homosexual legislation. I never had to experience forced lifelong servitude in Eritrea before I publicly proclaimed that their system of forcefully impressing most of their adult male population to serve basically their whole lives in the army, with stories of beatings and death threats if one had the gall to ask his superior for leave of absence to see their family, was and is immoral. I did not need to experience the economic tragedy in Zimbabwe to disagree with the undemocratic and nepotistic acts of Robert Mugabe. I needn't have been a person involved in the Cote D Ivoirian electoral process to voice my disagreement with Laurent Gbagbo's refusal to leave the office of President after being defeated in an election until being ousted by the UN. Nor did I have to experience the utter shittiness of life in Somalia, a country of such failed nature that they elected their President in an airport hangar, for me to openly support the global recognition of the factual independence of Somaliland.

So don't try to paint me as someone who only cares about "dem darkies" when it's "ze white master race" being inconvenienced.

Also please provide me with an explanation about what exactly is wrong about my arguments against land redistribution ?



CrownedEagle said:


> You and a lot of other posters seem to be very quick to be touched by the fate of these white farmers (which I can understand because I myself find this situation a little too extreme for them especially if they have no form of compensation) but I don't see any of you being outraged by the fate of Black South Africans who live in poverty caused mainly by apartheid while the small minority continues to have the same privilege as before.
> 
> Edit : Also yes the white farmers who occupy these lands are responsible to a certain extent, when a parent dies and his children accept his legacies, the profits as well as the debts come back to him automatically, this is the same here.



So you basically ignored the entire conversation where I said "If it's an absolute necessity, then I am for excercising emminent domain in taking as much land as is required" and pretend I don't care about them ?

Also you can't point to a person who may (but probably will not, with almost 99 % certainty) be a beneficiary of a move that is and should still be regarded as immoral, unjust and unconstitutional, regardless of the amendments passed, and say that because the beneficiaries of an illegal or unjust act would benefit from it financially, that it is some kind of justification for the act, or that it should come into consideration when weighing the legality of the act in the first place.

Other people's financial situation should not be made a priority over maintaining rule of law and a just, moral and equal society with the same rules applying for all and the personal ownership of legally confered property remaining a sacrosanct basis for the functioning of said society.

Also the debt analogy here is unfounded, because we are talking about legal continuity. If the Goverment has sanctioned your ownership and inheritance of your posessions and the new Goverments after that continued to recognise this fact, a later Goverment coming in to retroactively de-recognise the continuity of law and legislation is not a thing to support.


----------



## Eros (Dec 16, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Lol Education and technology, guess which land those schools will be built on? Where are they going to get the resources for jobs?
> Stop talking out your ass they aren’t redistributing land. They are taking back the land titles of all land and making them lease it.


I see. So basically, there is no longer a right to private land ownership.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 16, 2018)

I hope the farmers defend their land.


----------



## Eros (Dec 16, 2018)

Rukia said:


> I hope the farmers defend their land.


So, you want there to be yet another civil war in South Africa?


----------



## Rukia (Dec 16, 2018)

Takano-san said:


> So, you want there to be yet another civil war in South Africa?


The farmers wouldn’t be at fault.


----------



## Eros (Dec 16, 2018)

Rukia said:


> The farmers wouldn’t be at fault.


So, millions of black and white people living in Africa die, and you think the farmers would be blameless if they were to fire the first shots? Okay, Jefferson Davis.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 16, 2018)

Takano-san said:


> So, millions of black and white people living in Africa die, and you think the farmers would be blameless if they were to fire the first shots? Okay, Jefferson Davis.


Don’t steal their land and they won’t be forced to defend it.


----------



## Junta1987 (Dec 16, 2018)

Europe should take the whites.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2018)

Takano-san said:


> I see. So basically, there is no longer a right to private land ownership.


> 73.3% of a country = private land this moronic logic top kek


----------



## Rukia (Dec 16, 2018)

It’s the same as prosecuting Nazis for crimes 80 years later.  There needs to be statutes of limitations for everything.  And those limitations need to be reasonable.

If the white owners took the land by force the last couple of years.  Absolutely the government can come in and take it back!


----------



## wibisana (Dec 16, 2018)

i wish my grand pa stole a tank and give it to me before he died.
so when the popo come and try to take the tank i can say. why should i be punished for what my grand pa done?

the tank was given to me fair and square

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 16, 2018)

Rukia said:


> It’s the same as prosecuting Nazis for crimes 80 years later.  There needs to be statutes of limitations for everything.  And those limitations need to be reasonable.
> 
> If the white owners took the land by force the last couple of years.  Absolutely the government can come in and take it back!



Apartheid didn't end 80 years ago. Shit it ended after most of us were born in 1994. So 24 years ago we are about one full generation from it ending. Statue of Limitation my ass.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 16, 2018)

Skaddix said:


> Apartheid didn't end 80 years ago. Shit it ended after most of us were born in 1994. So 24 years ago we are about one full generation from it ending. Statue of Limitation my ass.


I’m not talking about apartheid.  I’m talking about ownership of the land.  How long have the landowners owned the land?  Greater than 50 years?  I’m sorry.  At that point they legitimately own the land.  The government too too long to get their shit together.


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 16, 2018)

Rukia said:


> I’m not talking about apartheid.  I’m talking about ownership of the land.  How long have the landowners owned the land?  Greater than 50 years?  I’m sorry.  At that point they legitimately own the land.  The government too too long to get their shit together.



Nelson Mandela only got in power in 1994 so the Native Black South Africans have only had 24 years to take the land lol.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 16, 2018)

So when is france giving back alsace lorraine?


----------



## Rukia (Dec 16, 2018)

Skaddix said:


> Nelson Mandela only got in power in 1994 so the Native Black South Africans have only had 24 years to take the land lol.


So why wasn’t this decision made in 1994?


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> I couldn't disagree more. You still ignoring the fact that black folks did not steal from them or kill natives to take ownership of their land like whites did. They were forced here against their will and meant no harm or ill will to natives. The same can't be said for whites. It's a ridiculous comparison.



You're still occupying and benefiting from stolen land (if only through your house standing on it), whether you personally stole it or not.

It's analogous to if I steal a stranger's cell phone and sell it to you as a "second-hand phone". You might buy it in good faith. But say the original owner then tracks down the phone and confronts you about it. Do you have a moral duty to return the poor man his stolen property, even though it wasn't you who stole it?


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2018)

Junta1987 said:


> Europe should take the whites.



Confirmed racist, it is.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> You're still occupying and benefiting from stolen land (if only through your house standing on it), whether you personally stole it or not.
> 
> It's analogous to if I steal a stranger's cell phone and sell it to you as a "second-hand phone". You might buy it in good faith. But say the original owner then tracks down the phone and confronts you about it. Do you have a moral duty to return the poor man his stolen property, even though it wasn't you who stole it?


Before I start this is a very piss poor analogy, handling stolen goods is treated in the same manner as stealing. No judge would take pity on you and you’ll face similar sentencing. 

The reason why this doesn’t hold a candle to SA situation because most of these families have direct lineage to people who were oppressing them that benefitted from slavery and still benefiting today.  There was no reparations, no attempt to fix. 

If the logic being use, well it’s was a result of conquest. Then explain to me why can’t the SA conquest their lands back? Oh that’s right it’s only conquest if you’re white, if you’re black it’s stealing


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 17, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Before I start this is a very piss poor analogy, handling stolen goods is treated in the same manner as stealing. No judge would take pity on you and you’ll face similar sentencing.
> 
> The reason why this doesn’t hold a candle to SA situation because most of these families have direct lineage to people who were oppressing them that benefitted from slavery and still benefiting today.  *There was no reparations, no attempt to fix*.
> 
> If the logic being use, well it’s was a result of conquest. Then explain to me why can’t the SA conquest their lands back? Oh *that’s right it’s only conquest if you’re white, if you’re black it’s stealing*


There was an attempt to fix by the south african goverment it is called restitution also the Zulus conquered land in South Africa and still own that land today in the Ingoma trust.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

MrPopo said:


> There was an attempt to fix by the south african goverment it is called restitution also the Zulus conquered land in South Africa and still own that land today in the Ingoma trust.


3 million acres out of 122 million acres don’t make me laugh.

Yeah except the Land Owners, not satisfied that they benefitted from a history of slave labour but wanted to force the government to pay way more than their lands are worth. 

Nice attempt


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 17, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> > 73.3% of a country = private land this moronic logic top kek



If it's legally owned and legally acquired as far as the continuity of law is concerned then that should be irrelevant.


----------



## Junta1987 (Dec 17, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> Confirmed racist, it is.



Those blacks would get all their parts of their country back and we would prevent a potential civil war. So how is this a bad thing?


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 17, 2018)

Justice for the canaanites.
Give them back their land. They are owed Reparations from the egyptians.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> If it's legally owned and legally acquired as far as the continuity of law is concerned then that should be irrelevant.


And they will take back the land titles legally as well


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 17, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> And they will take back the land titles legally as well



If you recognise the ownership of something, can't convince the legally recognised owners to sell it to you for your price and then change the constitution to just make it yours without payment, that's not only bold faced theft but it's also a blatant disregard for the continuity of law.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> If you recognise the ownership of something, can't convince the legally recognised owners to sell it to you for your price and then change the constitution to just make it yours without payment, that's not only bold faced theft but it's also a blatant disregard for the continuity of law.


The law back then was anti-black and pro white. And when last l check descrimintory laws are illegal. Funny you conveniently overlook that fact. 
Secondly in a democracy majority rules, if the majority wants the constitution change and they have votes then it’s a legal democratic process. 
If the 8% wanted a fair result then they shouldn’t took advantage of the SA gov kindness when they approach the table. Another overlook fact by you.

They knew they benefitting from slave labour and their family never face any repercussions for their sins. If the situation was reverse and the 8% was black there wouldn’t be any doubt in my mind, you and the rest of the Klan would be singing & dancing to different beat


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 17, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> The law back then was anti-black and pro white. And when last l check descrimintory laws are illegal. Funny you conveniently overlook that fact.



The point I'm making isn't to substantiate apartheid law, I am pointing out to the legal recognition of the property ownership for these past twenty plus years post apartheid. You can't acknowledge someone as the legal owner for twenty years and then, with the same information as you had before, decide they never were the legitimate owner retroactively.



Huey Freeman said:


> Secondly in a democracy majority rules, if the majority wants the constitution change and they have votes then it’s a legal democratic process.



Whether people at large want something does not mean something is constitutional or moral.



Huey Freeman said:


> If the 8% wanted a fair result then they shouldn’t took advantage of the SA gov kindness when they approach the table. Another overlook fact by you.
> 
> They knew they benefitting from slave labour and their family never face any repercussions for their sins. If the situation was reverse and the 8% was black there wouldn’t be any doubt in my mind, you and the rest of the Klan would be singing & dancing to different beat



I don't consider that if someone rejects your offer to sell then you have the right to make it a law you can just take away their property, even if every single person in the country or the planet were to vote yes, it would still not be legitimate.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> The point I'm making isn't to substantiate apartheid law, I am pointing out to the legal recognition of the property ownership for these past twenty plus years post apartheid. You can't acknowledge someone as the legal owner for twenty years and then, with the same information as you had before, decide they never were the legitimate owner retroactively.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



- they never acknowledge as the legal owner. Attempting to buy doesn’t mean they acknowledge it. That’s them taking a peaceful way

- Funny you speak of morality here. Ignoring that these families entire fortune is built on the lives of the suffering of the SA blacks and their ancestors. And they didn’t have a ounce of pity to try make any amends. GET. THE. FUCK. OUTTA. HERE. With this morality crap.

- I don’t consider coming to another country enslaving the locals taking their lands and then perfected said racism well into 21st century legitimate. But hey when you’re white you can do anything and get away with it because (the past is the past). So when the SA get their lands back. I’ll shall remind you of the past being the past.

You told me not to group you with chel but it’s becoming clear as day, what you’re agenda is


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 17, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> - they never acknowledge as the legal owner. Attempting to buy doesn’t mean they acknowledge it. That’s them taking a peaceful way



Of course it *does*. You can't have a goverment trying to buy something from someone whom they don't accept as the owner to begin with. The very fact of offering the transaction is an* implicit recognition* of legal ownership.



Huey Freeman said:


> - Funny you speak of morality here. Ignoring that these families entire fortune is built on the lives of the suffering of the SA blacks and their ancestors. And they didn’t have a ounce of pity to try make any amends. GET. THE. FUCK. OUTTA. HERE. With this morality crap.



Unless you can prove any of the current land owners have any hand in directly inflicting suffering on specific citizens of SA and this being in direct correlation with their land ownership, then whatever their family did is inconsequential to how they get treated.



Huey Freeman said:


> - I don’t consider coming to another country enslaving the locals taking their lands and then perfected said racism well into 21st century legitimate. But hey when you’re white you can do anything and get away with it because (the past is the past). So when the SA get their lands back. I’ll shall remind you of the past being the past.
> 
> You told me not to group you with chel but it’s becoming clear as day, what you’re agenda is



Did any of the current land owners who would be affected by this unpaind expropriation "enslave the locals", take land from them or "perfected said racism" (which you haven't used before in that sentence btw), because if not then as far as treating them is concerned, *this is entirely irrelevant*.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Of course it *does*. You can't have a goverment trying to buy something from someone whom they don't accept as the owner to begin with. The very fact of offering the transaction is an* implicit recognition* of legal ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


- The wanting to buy back the land is a more peaceful way of taking the land back other than the Zimbabwe way you were clearly comparing them to. the very fact that they are adamant about this for 2 decades means they don’t recognize them as the rightful owner. 

- so your racist ass is suggesting that black must live with their misery because their Ancestors past oppression but the sins of the white family is forgiven because “they didn’t do nuthin” ? Is this the fucking road you want to go down on? I can’t because to describe the stupidity of trying to  victimize the 8%. 

- Did they buy it knowing full well that the farms used slave labour? Did the family who inherited it knew about the oppression? Trust me they do. You can’t be among 8% without knowing the history of the land. Did they think after 94 when their reign ended that they could still keep their racist laws and benefits forever ? No and it finally caught up to them. They were trying to keep status quo for as long as possible but it finally coming to Hault 

Don’t @me anymore cause your race baiting shit isn’t amusing


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Before I start this is a very piss poor analogy, handling stolen goods is treated in the same manner as stealing. No judge would take pity on you and you’ll face similar sentencing.



Hence African-Americans are also culpable in withholding Native American land from its righful owners. Your occupation of the land is preventing the true owner from using it, whether it was you who stole it or not.

The morally right thing to do, if there's no cut-off, is to vacate America and move to Liberia or another African country of your choice. Like how you'd return a stolen phone to its owner. (Might want to do a DNA test to make sure you emigrate to the right country, lest you be accused of stealing land from another tribe)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Roman (Dec 17, 2018)

I truly am amazed at the double standard employed by black people in this thread.

"Hey, we didn't steal this land from Native Americans, so we don't have any obligation to return it to them even though we're still appropriating it."



Inb4 negs from Normality and by extension EJ

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Hozukimaru (Dec 17, 2018)

This doesn't sound like it's going to end well for the people. Better stock up.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 17, 2018)

Roman said:


> I truly am amazed at the double standard employed by black people in this thread.
> 
> "Hey, we didn't steal this land from Native Americans, so we don't have any obligation to return it to them even though we're still appropriating it."
> 
> ...



And probably Island and maybe Amol.

And Tube Knight.


----------



## EJ (Dec 17, 2018)

Roman said:


> I truly am amazed at the double standard employed by black people in this thread.
> 
> "Hey, we didn't steal this land from Native Americans, so we don't have any obligation to return it to them even though we're still appropriating it."
> 
> ...



Bitch some more about your terrible comparison not being taken seriously.


----------



## Roman (Dec 17, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> And probably Island and maybe Amol.
> 
> And Tube Knight.



Nah, it's been mainly Normality and _therefore_ EJ along with Alita. Amol actually doesn't like the game they're playing either.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

Roman said:


> I truly am amazed at the double standard employed by black people in this thread.
> 
> "*Hey, we didn't steal this land from Native Americans*, so we don't have any obligation to return it to them even though we're still appropriating it."
> 
> ...


Except the key difference here, the land is inherited. Now you seeing the argument change to "prove that current land holder oppress black people"

It's clear your agenda isn't land rights but the darkies shouldn't be gaining any independence from the gods that feed them.



mr_shadow said:


> Hence African-Americans are also culpable in withholding Native American land from its righful owners. Your occupation of the land is preventing the true owner from using it, whether it was you who stole it or not.
> 
> The morally right thing to do, if there's no cut-off, is to vacate America and move to Liberia or another African country of your choice. Like how you'd return a stolen phone to its owner. (Might want to do a DNA test to make sure you emigrate to the right country, lest you be accused of stealing land from another tribe)



This whataboutism has been shut down several pages ago, but since its understandable that you have a hard time seeing it.
Native Americans back then weren't a unified government, they were segregated into several tribes constantly at war with one another. They also don't have the voting power and unfortunately the minority on that issue. But most importantly the US had reached out its hand and gave them some protected land rights back and some form of compensation for the past which *SOUTH AFRICANS DIDN'T GET NOW YOU UNDERSTAND?
South Africa became a unified country, gain back their humanity and country, and now have the voting power to shape their own destiny. They won't have a mere 8% hold them hostage from their own resources. The whole reason it's reach this point is because they didn't want to let go of status quo when it was being done on their terms. *


----------



## Skaddix (Dec 17, 2018)

Yes well the difference is most African Americans were forced come here and didn't get a choice. Also you know African Americans are hardly benefiting the most from the land grabs. 

Granted I am part Cherokee so  doesn't apply to me.


----------



## Roman (Dec 17, 2018)

EJ said:


> Bitch some more about your terrible comparison not being taken seriously.



What's terrible is how you're not seeing the bigotry you're spouting. You said something about blacks in America not living in luxury? True or not, that's irrelevant because everyone in America, rich or poor, that's not a native American is occupying land that used to belong to them. Applying your logic from the South African case means everyone that is appropriating American land, and I mean EVERYONE, should leave and return it to them.



Skaddix said:


> Yes well the difference is most African Americans were forced come here and didn't get a choice. Also you know African Americans are hardly benefiting the most from the land grabs.
> 
> Granted I am part Cherokee so  doesn't apply to me.



So let me ask a simple question. If you were forced to come along, which suggests you never wanted to come to begin with, why didn't you leave the moment you gained your freedom from slavery?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Dec 17, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Or I simply never heard the phrase before and assumed it was meant in the sense of "basis for the other side's argument".



Well if Its this, it's ironic you blasting anyone for their reading comprehension.


How is something you have not demonstrated to be concordant with the available evidence a fact ?





> Also please provide me with an explanation about what exactly is wrong about my arguments against land redistribution




"Taking an interest" =/= caring about South Africans. That 15 min Google searching rant was funny thougj.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

Roman said:


> What's terrible is how you're not seeing the bigotry you're spouting. You said something about blacks in America not living in luxury? True or not, that's irrelevant because everyone in America, rich or poor, that's not a native American is occupying land that used to belong to them. Applying your logic from the South African case means everyone that is appropriating American land, and I mean EVERYONE, should leave and return it to them.


Comparing America to South Africa. Okay lets use a proper analogy. If the Brits held 73.3% of the land in America today and the Government don't have much say in how much land taxes you pay or rent? Or if you want to start a business or build a house on prime property you have to wait and hope the owner allows it despite it not being use for decades?

I see you using way out analogies that work in your favor , let's use an actual comparison. I guarantee you would fucking sing to the high heavens.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> This whataboutism has been shut down several pages ago, but since its understandable that you have a hard time seeing it.
> Native Americans back then weren't a unified government, they were segregated into several tribes constantly at war with one another. They also don't have the voting power and unfortunately the minority on that issue. But most importantly the US had reached out its hand and gave them some protected land rights back and some form of compensation for the past which *SOUTH AFRICANS DIDN'T GET NOW YOU UNDERSTAND?
> South Africa became a unified country, gain back their humanity and country, and now have the voting power to shape their own destiny. They won't have a mere 8% hold them hostage from their own resources. The whole reason it's reach this point is because they didn't want to let go of status quo when it was being done on their terms. *



I don't think anyone has said that black South Africans don't deserve a better deal. Land ownership should of course ideally be proportional to each race's population share (if we have to invoke race at all).

But I think it can be accomplished in a way that doesn't brand people as criminals based on their skin color.

E.g. if white South Africans are on average richer than black South Africans, then reasonably they pay more tax. Put that extra tax money in a dedicated land-purchase fund, and when it gets big enough use it to buy back the land with money generated by the whites themselves.

The focus should be on "how do we get the blacks more land", not on "how do we get back at the whites".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Roman (Dec 17, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> It's clear your agenda isn't land rights but the darkies shouldn't be gaining any independence from the gods that feed them.



1. Blacks already have independence in SA. FFS, SA's president is black.

2. I don't have a racist agenda like you're implying. That's quite the ad-hominem there. Go ahead and ignore all the times I cited my view on this matter being based in previous instances where this exact thing was done in Zimbabwe and how well that went.

3. Forceful appropriation of land is the sort of thing a dictatorship would do. No matter the context, racial or historical, this should be called out and criticized.



Huey Freeman said:


> Comparing America to South Africa. Okay lets use a proper analogy. If the Brits held 73.3% of the land in America today and the Government don't have much say in how much land taxes you pay or rent? Or if you want to start a business or build a house on prime property you have to wait and hope the owner allows it despite it not being use for decades?
> 
> I see you using way out analogies that work in your favor , let's use an actual comparison. I guarantee you would fucking sing to the high heavens.



You do realize what you're talking about lead to war all across the east coast which lead to the independence of the US, right? I take it you want civil war and the death of many innocents _on both sides_?


----------



## EJ (Dec 17, 2018)

Roman said:


> What's terrible is how you're not seeing the bigotry you're spouting.



Naw, I'm pretty sure what's terribly retarded is you comparing blacks in America who live at the bottom of the social class for hundreds of years and have no political or financial hold over the Native American population to the rich and prosperous whites who own a majority of the land of South Africa on account of a system that historically exploited and oppressed generation after generation.





> You said something about blacks in America not living in luxury? True or not, that's irrelevant because everyone in America, rich or poor, that's not a native American is occupying land that used to belong to them.



"True or not"

Do you need it explained to you that blacks don't live at the top of a social ladder to exploit the Native American population within America?



> Applying your logic from the South African case means everyone that is appropriating American land, and I mean EVERYONE, should leave and return it to them.



This desperate bid to make your terrible comparison stick. 

Since you're going to keep playing stupid, I'll water it down just for you:

1. Blacks in mass historically and currently are not benefiting off a system that exploits from the Native Anerican population.

2. The idea of blacks "living on land therefore are benefiting" is ludricous  because it would be going out of your manner to disregard historical and current persecution and being at the bottom of the social class.

The two are not similar, and the fact that you have doubled down so much into this comparison besides jumping towards another avenue to defend your positioning says a lot.


----------



## EJ (Dec 17, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> The focus should be on "how do we get the blacks more land", not on "how do we get back at the whites".




By redistributing the land off of a wrong that should had been corrected a long time ago. 

Your framing is what makes your argument fall apart. Oh, and doubling down in Romans stupid ass comparison.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> I don't think anyone has said that black South Africans don't deserve a better deal. Land ownership should of course ideally be proportional to each race's population share (if we have to invoke race at all).
> 
> But I think it can be accomplished in a way that doesn't brand people as criminals based on their skin color.
> 
> ...


Jesus, I really hate arguing with individuals who blatantly clueless on the actual topic.
This isn't done on race, the amendment will affect all lands including black own. It's design to prevent someone from controlling land and resources in the same manner as the 8%. Those who currently have paid for the land legally post apartheid will keep their titles, those who can't prove that will have the option now to lease it or buy it (at the government's discretion) legally. It's not a white and black issue. The only people making it such is the Klan members who having an issue with it which comes to no surprise to anyone here you're supporting.

They don't want no fucking extra tax.They want their resources back. They have development need to be had.


----------



## EJ (Dec 17, 2018)

Shadow needs to go somewhere too. He was just gleeful about China's predatory loaning towards different African countries.

He doesn't give a darn about the population either, this is him not wanting to disturb the "natural order" of things more than anything.


----------



## Roman (Dec 17, 2018)

@EJ I'm saying all of what you explained is irrelevant because at the end of the day, while you're not actively oppressing native Americans, *you're still living on land that was stolen from them.* Trying to absolve yourself from responsibility because you were forced to come along as slaves and aren't actively oppressing native Americans is downright moronic when you're still reaping the benefits of *simply living on stolen land.* If you're going to argue blacks in South Africa should unconditionally regain land taken from them hundreds of years ago, apply that logic universally.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

Roman said:


> 1. Blacks already have independence in SA. FFS, SA's president is black.



It's a wrap everyone SA has a black president they don't need anything else 



> 2. I don't have a racist agenda like you're implying. That's quite the ad-hominem there. Go ahead and ignore all the times I cited my view on this matter being based in previous instances where this exact thing was done in Zimbabwe and how well that went.



And each fucking time you quoted Zimbabwe we have explained to you several times the two countries are nothing alike. You are being Obtuse because it doesn't fit your narrative. Only thing both countries have in common is being a Black Nation. SA is not even close to being as corrupt as Zimbabwe and far more democratic. 



> 3. Forceful appropriation of land is the sort of thing a dictatorship would do. No matter the context, racial or historical, this should be called out and criticized.


So does slavery and discrimination especially if you are profiting from it, which these people still are. But you see white rights come first then the black. 




> You do realize what you're talking about lead to war all across the east coast which lead to the independence of the US, right? I take it you want civil war and the death of many innocents _on both sides_?


Deflected from the comparison, good you understand how stupid your narrow minded analogy is now.


----------



## EJ (Dec 17, 2018)

Roman said:


> @EJ I'm saying all of what you explained is irrelevant because at the end of the day, while you're not actively oppressing native Americans, *you're still living on land that was stolen from them.* Trying to absolve yourself from responsibility because you were forced to come along as slaves and aren't actively oppressing native Americans is downright moronic when you're still reaping the benefits of *simply living on stolen land.* If you're going to argue blacks in South Africa should unconditionally regain land taken from them hundreds of years ago, apply that logic universally.



Your whole fucking comparison is irrelevant because of what is composed of whites owning a majority of the land in South Africa. The fact that you're not willing to go further into detail of what it has entailed for generations should sell anyone on the fact that your comparison is flimsy and has no weight.


----------



## Roman (Dec 17, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> It's a wrap everyone SA has a black president they don't need anything else



I'm not getting the clear paradox of stating Blacks aren't independent because they don't own a lot of land, which thus implies that they're in some way indentured to the very small white population, while the government is run by black people.



Huey Freeman said:


> And each fucking time you quoted Zimbabwe we have explained to you several times the two countries are nothing alike.



How are they nothing alike? Juan even pointed out how the Marakana killings is a prime example of how South Africa can turn as brutal as Zimbabwe did. I find it very hard to believe current landowners are willingly and peacefully going to hand over land, especially when we have past examples of South Africa itself proving itself capable of massacring its own people.



Huey Freeman said:


> So does slavery and discrimination especially if you are profiting from it, which these people still are. But you see white rights come first then the black.



That discrimination is present in South Africa is something I don't doubt at all. Forcefully taking land from them is not going to help the situation at all. If anything, it'll make it worse than it already is.



Huey Freeman said:


> Deflected from the comparison, good you understand how stupid your narrow minded analogy is now.



Where's the deflection? Your example is exactly what lead to the US war of independence. You asked me to answer to your comparison. I don't need to do that because history already gives you your answer.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 17, 2018)

Roman said:


> I'm not getting the clear paradox of stating Blacks aren't independent because they don't own a lot of land, which thus implies that they're in some way indentured to the very small white population, while the government is run by black people.


Or you are ignoring the fact that the 73.3%land is own by 8% who are dictating to them? You want to say you don't have an agenda but clearly and purposely excluding details like that. 




> How are they nothing alike? Juan even pointed out how the Marakana killings is a prime example of how South Africa can turn as brutal as Zimbabwe did. I find it very hard to believe current landowners are willingly and peacefully going to hand over land, especially when we have past examples of South Africa itself proving itself capable of massacring its own people.


Not even close to Magabe rule, that's a reach.  If the Land owners result to violence  what you expect will happen? You got to be dense to try think any country will tolerate that.  




> That discrimination is present in South Africa is something I don't doubt at all. Forcefully taking land from them is not going to help the situation at all. If anything, it'll make it worse than it already is.


Except it won't really. The 92% who are the majority is the reason for these measures. They are tired of living horrible at the discretion of the 8%. Since Apartheid ended nothing much changed for either side and that's the  problem 




> Where's the deflection? Your example is exactly what lead to the US war of independence. You asked me to answer to your comparison. I don't need to do that because history already gives you your answer.


Yeah but I wasn't asking for a historical lesson. I ask you would you support the Brit land rights in that case. Stop dodging, you were so adamant in using the Native American examples.


----------



## Black Superman (Dec 17, 2018)

Roman said:


> @EJ I'm saying all of what you explained is irrelevant because at the end of the day, while you're not actively oppressing native Americans, *you're still living on land that was stolen from them.* Trying to absolve yourself from responsibility because you were forced to come along as slaves and aren't actively oppressing native Americans is downright moronic when you're still reaping the benefits of *simply living on stolen land.* If you're going to argue blacks in South Africa should unconditionally regain land taken from them hundreds of years ago, apply that logic universally.


If what you're saying is true, then white folks are really fucked here. Not only would "the past was the past, don't persecute me today bro" not apply here. They'd be held primarily responsible for slavery, genocide, and the rape of the land. They'd have to compensate African Americans and Natives with reparations , they'd also have to give the land back to the natives as the primary population who've benefitted from these injustices. I'm perfectly fine with moving to Ghana as soon as the check clears. Sure, I'm ok with it.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Dec 17, 2018)

Having the sixth highest unemployment rate in the world at 27.5%, it's not hard to see why a government would want to steer the debate away from job creation.


----------



## Alita (Dec 17, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> For the last time these White farmers also did not steal the land. They are blameless.
> 
> For the last time you have benefited from the action of people who have "stolen" land, you cannot get around this. ALL LAND WAS STOLEN AT SOME POINT in time.* If your living in America right now your guilty. According to you, not me.*
> 
> ...



You continue to miss the fucking point and make up shit that I have never claimed. The bolded in particular you pulled directly out of your ass. 

Black people's ancestors that came to America did not steal land from the natives as well as kill and rape them through disease, enslavement, and just outright. That was white people's. There is *no *comparison many of our ancestors did not even willing come here in the first fucking place. Us being here is not a reason in and of itself as to why we should leave when we did nothing wrong to the original inhabitants as a group nor engaged in any wrongdoing to end up here. The same cannot be said for whites. 

And no you are not blameless or innocent if you are reaping the benefit from something that you got through wrongdoing. If someone kills a man for his watch and gives that watch to you after telling you what he did you are not innocent or blameless if you decide to keep the watch anyway you are also in the wrong.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## reiatsuflow (Dec 17, 2018)

wibisana said:


> i wish my grand pa stole a tank and give it to me before he died.
> so when the popo come and try to take the tank i can say. why should i be punished for what my grand pa done?
> 
> the tank was given to me fair and square



What's the difference between conquering lands and stealing lands?

It sounds like I'm making a joke, but think about it for a second. Colonialism wasn't a bunch of graverobbers pulling a fast one on people. It was a more powerful / resourced empire overtaking other countries. American wasn't stolen, it was conquered. We didn't sneak into native americans homes and swipe their property or something and bad form, return what you stole. There is a difference between the two words and I'm wondering what if any impact that difference has to these conversations, because we keep saying 'stealing' like it's a kid thieving some property and then running off before he gets caught.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 17, 2018)

@Alita54



> Us being here is not a reason in and of itself as to why *we should leave when we did nothing wrong to the original inhabitants* as a group nor engaged in any wrongdoing to end up here.



The current owners of the farmers also did nothing wrong but in your eyes they are guilty.

So therefore using your logic you as a person are also guilty because you yourself are both occupying stolen land and benefited from it. So do the moral thing and leave, right now.

Even though you did nothing wrong you are just as guilty as the "criminals". Using @mr_shadow cellphone anology would simply be you being arrested and thrown in jail for shadows crime of stealing said cell phone and selling it to you.

But keep dancing around the issue and pretending you did nothing wrong, according to YOUR logic you are as guilty as the people who came prior to. Nothing excuses you from this as long as you adhere to *your own stance* you are a criminal as long as you continue to live here. Guilt by association and all that, not to mention profiting off said actions.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 17, 2018)

reiatsuflow said:


> What's the difference between conquering lands and stealing lands?
> 
> It sounds like I'm making a joke, but think about it for a second. Colonialism wasn't a bunch of graverobbers pulling a fast one on people. It was a more powerful / resourced empire overtaking other countries. American wasn't stolen, it was conquered. We didn't sneak into native americans homes and swipe their property or something and bad form, return what you stole. There is a difference between the two words and I'm wondering what if any impact that difference has to these conversations, because we keep saying 'stealing' like it's a kid thieving some property and then running off before he gets caught.


CMIIW
But as my understanding the land indeed "stolen"

When appartheid enacted. The black residents (citizen) evicted from their land.

Then the land is given and/or sold to current white owner.


Also i have problem with if this is conquered then make it is ok.

I mean the was is between 2 nation. But the one paying price is common people.

Saying I am ok because the land (which is previouly occupied/habitated ofc) was taken in war is like saying i am agree with Genggis Khan razing and killing entire city because the leader resist/refuse to give up.

The citizen shouldnt have anything to do with it and shouldnt have to pay for nation leader refusal to give up


----------



## Junta1987 (Dec 17, 2018)

EJ said:


> Naw, I'm pretty sure what's terribly retarded is you comparing blacks in America who live at the bottom of the social class for hundreds of years and have no political or financial hold over the Native American population to the rich and prosperous whites who own a majority of the land of South Africa on account of a system that historically exploited and oppressed generation after generation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. some blacks became rich
2. many poor black Americans today still have better-living conditions than many blacks in African countries (like Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria)

So your exception doesn't make sense


----------



## Alita (Dec 17, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> @Alita54
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's like you didn't even read my last fucking response....

And I'm not occupying stolen land because my ancestors did not steal it in the first fucking place.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 17, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> It's like you didn't even read my last fucking response....
> 
> And I'm not occupying stolen land because my ancestors did not steal it in the first fucking place.


Whether you stole anything or not is irrelevant, you deserve to be punished for the actions of others.

That is your argument in a nut shell.

And yes you are occupying stolen land because someone else took it end of discussion. It's like you can't even comprehend the sheer depth and logic of my response.


----------



## Alita (Dec 17, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> W
> 
> Whether you stole anything or not is irrelevant, you deserve to be punished for the actions of others.
> 
> *That is your argument in a nut shell.*



No it is not. Stop making shit up.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 17, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> No it is not. Stop making shit up.



Yes it is, stop deflecting.

Unless of course you now oppose taking the land from these White farmers.


----------



## Alita (Dec 17, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Yes it is, stop deflecting.
> 
> Unless of course you now oppose taking the land from these White farmers.



Your the one who is deflecting by completely making shit up. You have no real argument against me other than just lying about what I have said and using terrible comparisons.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 17, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> Your the one who is deflecting by completely making shit up. You have no real argument against me other than just lying about what I have said and using terrible comparisons.



I'm not the one advocating for racially motivated robbery here.

You are. Full stop, end of discussion. You are in favor of punishing innocent people for actions they did not do, my comparisons are spot on and in accordance with YOUR reasoning. If you think my comparisons are terrible then you need to look at your own reasoning and logic.

Good day.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 18, 2018)

EJ said:


> Well if Its this, it's ironic you blasting anyone for their reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> How is something you have not demonstrated to be concordant with the available evidence a fact ?



I did due to a misunderstanding, but the quote above means that how you shouldn't call something a fact that isn't proven by the evidence.




EJ said:


> "Taking an interest" =/= caring about South Africans. That 15 min Google searching rant was funny thougj.



Google searching rant ?

Oh right you just assumed I didn't know about any of this and looked it up to pretend I cared or was aware of these things already.

Except I wasn't and your just throwing unverifiable accussations against me to try and make what I said less credible. But, again, these are I've commented on in the past, most of them anyway. But you have already decided I'm evil pseudo racist person apparently so you have to find some way to contrive a reason for why everything going against that narrative has to be untrue, even if you have no way of backing it up.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 18, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> No it is not. Stop making shit up.



I mean knowing human history it almost assuredly is, regardless of where you live.

I think the only people on earth not living on land stolen from someone else are the North Sentinelese.


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 18, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I mean knowing human history it almost assuredly is, regardless of where you live.
> 
> I think the only people on earth not living on land stolen from someone else are the North Sentinelese.


How do you know, they didn't steal that land off someone else


----------



## Darkmatter (Dec 18, 2018)

Shit, I missed the shitstorm.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 18, 2018)

Aphrodite said:


> I can see why you have a red bar.


Cause I'm not a mainstream liberal and have opinions some can't fathom as reasonable because of their sjw tendencies?


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 18, 2018)

Darkmatter said:


> Shit, I missed the shitstorm.


It was a good one.


----------



## Darkmatter (Dec 18, 2018)

IchLiebe said:


> It was a good one.



I know. I wanted to hop onto the "WHITE GENOCIDE" live and all, yet I missed such opportunity since I was in Londonistan fighting off those WRECKED non-white FILTH! and restoring the GREAT BRITAIN empire!


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 18, 2018)

Darkmatter said:


> I know. I wanted to hop onto the "WHITE GENOCIDE" live and all, yet I missed such opportunity since I was in Londonistan fighting off those WRECKED non-white FILTH! and restoring the GREAT BRITAIN empire!


I was going to hop in but I didn't really want to take a gasoline bath afterwards. 2

[HASHTAG]#getdemPakis[/HASHTAG]


----------



## CrownedEagle (Dec 18, 2018)

Junta1987 said:


> 1. some blacks became rich
> 2. many poor *black Americans today still have better-living conditions than many blacks in African countries* (like Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria)
> 
> So your exception doesn't make sense



I wonder why and how these africa countries have so shitty living conditions still today


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 18, 2018)

CrownedEagle said:


> I wonder why and how these africa countries have so shitty living conditions still today



Mainly due to the incompetence/corruption of their post independence leaders. 

Eventually you need to stop blaming others for your own failings. Several decades is plenty of time to get your shit together if you truly cared for your country's well being.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 18, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Mainly due to the incompetence/corruption of their post independence leaders.
> 
> Eventually you need to stop blaming others for your own failing. Several decades is plenty of time to get your shit together if you truly cared for your country's well being.


Like equating immigrants to lack of jobs?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 18, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Like equating immigrants to lack of jobs?



Like equating apples to oranges, or coconuts?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 18, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Like equating apples to oranges, or coconuts?


Didn’t mean to call you out in your hypocrisy, no need to get so salty


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 18, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Didn’t mean to call you out in your hypocrisy, no need to get so salty



No hypocrisy at all, those are entirely separate and unrelated issues. 

Also projection much? The only salt I see here is a black man being jealous of the White mans success to the point where he wants to rob and ruin the White man, and his fellow black man, all to get even. 

Nice try at deflection, but you can't beat EJ at that.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 18, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> No hypocrisy at all, those are entirely separate and unrelated issues.
> 
> Nice try at deflection, but you can't beat EJ at that.


You claim black people can’t take charge of their own failings yet I present to you case of one where the whites can’t do the same.


It doesn’t take much to outwit you, chap


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 18, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> You claim black people can’t take charge of their own failings yet I present to you case of one where the whites can’t do the same.
> 
> 
> It doesn’t take much to outwit you, chap



You outwit yourself.  I don't need to do shit. Empirical evidence alone makes my case.

But hey keep comparing completely unrelated things together in a vain attempt to somehow make yourself and your emotionally driven arguments actually look smart instead of racially motivated bigotry.

I accept your concession, it's clear you can bring nothing further to this argument.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 18, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> You outwit yourself.  I don't need to do shit. Empirical evidence alone makes my case.
> 
> But hey keep comparing completely unrelated things together in a vain attempt to somehow make yourself and your emotionally driven arguments actually look smart instead of racially motivated bigotry.
> 
> I accept your concession, it's clear you can bring nothing further to this argument.


This guy talking about Empirical evidence


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 18, 2018)

The international community is always silent in the face of actual genocides. At least it'll be funny see South Africa reduced to zimbabwe-tier in a few years from this though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## wibisana (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Mainly due to the incompetence/corruption of their post independence leaders.
> 
> Eventually you need to stop blaming others for your own failings. Several decades is plenty of time to get your shit together if you truly cared for your country's well being.


Yeah obviously not because brain and manpower drain that sent and sold into US to work at plantation


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Yeah obviously not because brain and manpower drain that sent and sold into US to work at plantation



Again with blaming someone else for your own failings.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 19, 2018)

Mega never fail


Chelydra said:


> Again with blaming someone else for your own failings.


Again let us pretend it dont have any effect


----------



## wibisana (Dec 19, 2018)

Also how shitty border drawn by Colonial empire which led to civil wars (struggle of power between ethnicity)

Just look at ME and say that Kurdistan shouldnt exist


----------



## Deleted member 267744 (Dec 19, 2018)

Fun times ahead all I see is a chances of cheap land prices for us Asian folks no matter which side wins.


----------



## Darkmatter (Dec 19, 2018)

On a serious note, I don't endorse this type of action where confiscation of land is acceptable because it would be disastrous for the agricultural economy (maybe if the newly owned farmers are either knowledgeable to farming or training is provided, then that could mitigate the impact), but I do say this: it is fucking ridiculous for whites being a minority (ranging between 7-8% of the population) and possesses an majority of the farming land thanks to colonialism, especially when the majority of South Africans are in poverty and unemployed.




Instead of taking away the lands, make quotas instead; if the ownership of a land exceeds the legal amount of owned land, then that's when confiscating the portion would be acceptable up to the point where it meets the limit.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Darkmatter said:


> On a serious note, I don't endorse this type of action where confiscation of land is acceptable because it would be disastrous for the agricultural economy (maybe if the newly owned farmers are either knowledgeable to farming or training is provided, then that could mitigate the impact), but I do say this: it is fucking ridiculous for whites being a minority (ranging between 7-8% of the population) and possesses an majority of the farming land thanks to colonialism, especially when the majority of South Africans are in poverty and unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sigh

They aren’t taking lands away

The titles are basically being reset so all land in SA will be Gov land. If you bought the land fair and square after apartheid you’re good. If you haven’t then you will have an option of leasing the land but only the land you need.

Secondly SA have plenty of black farmers who are small time because of land issues and the ones working the white farms are the black SA that including management. Not all the 8% are farmers they are investors. They let other people do the work for them


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Sigh
> 
> They aren’t taking lands away
> 
> The titles are basically being reset so all land in SA will be Gov land.



But if it wasn't before that _is _what is happening.

I'm not not trying to be a dick like you may think I am, I'm pointing out that you're kinda not saying the whole truth.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> But if it wasn't before that _is _what is happening.
> 
> I'm not not trying to be a dick like you may think I am, I'm pointing out that you're kinda not saying the whole truth.


Dude if you can’t see the stupidity in having a country use tax paying money to pay for 73.3% of its own land to further enrich their wealthy I can’t take anything you say seriously. If the US was in the same boat, I guarantee you they would have done the same thing.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Dude if you can’t see the stupidity in having a country use tax paying money to pay for 73.3% of its own land to further enrich their wealthy I can’t take anything you say seriously. If the US was in the same boat, I guarantee you they would have done the same thing.




TLDR: The justification for robbery.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> TLDR: The justification for robbery.


^ Example of Passive aggressive racism


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> ^ Example of Passive aggressive racism



Says the racist.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Dude if you can’t see the stupidity in having a country use tax paying money to pay for 73.3% of its own land to further enrich their wealthy I can’t take anything you say seriously. If the US was in the same boat, I guarantee you they would have done the same thing.



My point which you keep ignoring is that you said



> They aren’t taking lands away



But then you admit that is exactly what they are going to do, but you refuse to acknowledge it as such.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> My point which you keep ignoring is that you said
> 
> 
> 
> But then you admit that is exactly what they are going to do, but you refuse to acknowledge it as such.


Not exactly, the notion your agenda is that it will be by force. It’s not. If they go after the land it will be via court action. Secondly titles to be Government own just means instead of the government paying you tax money for lands they should rightfully controls you now have to pay them for lands you didn’t purchase legally. 

And before you talk dumb shit they did get it legally, no they didn’t. When apartheid ended the government body did as well and many of their laws.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Not exactly, the notion your agenda is that it will be by force. It’s not. If they go after the land it will be via court action. Secondly titles to be Government own just means instead of the government paying you tax money for lands they should rightfully controls you now have to pay them for lands you didn’t purchase legally.



And yet the land taken over with be taken over without compensation, which is almost assuredly against the wishes of the current holders for one.

For another, you said all land would "automatically" revert to the goverment.

Third, how is making you pay for land which was previously yours without your consent not something done by force ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> And yet the land taken over with be taken over without compensation, which is almost assuredly against the wishes of the current holders for one.
> 
> For another, you said all land would "automatically" revert to the goverment.
> 
> Third, how is making you pay for land which was previously yours without your consent not something done by force ?


Against the wishes ha ha ha ha 
Like how black people were forced to work those lands for free against their wishes. Oh no we aren’t talking about that eh.

Man I miss the old school racist, at least they tell you straight up. You guys are too chicken shit


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Against the wishes ha ha ha ha
> Like how black people were forced to work those lands for free against their wishes. Oh no we aren’t talking about that eh.
> 
> Man I miss the old school racist, at least they tell you straight up. You guys are too chicken shit



Further evidence that your arguments have no basis in fact, it's just disguised racism and emotion on your part.

You call people chicken shit yet you won't up and say you hate white people. Yet your roundabout arguments clearly show you want people to suffer based off their skin color.

Your hypocrisy is adorable however.

@mr_shadow may need to nip this trolling and baiting shit in the bud.


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Dude if you can’t see the stupidity in having a country use tax paying money to pay for 73.3% of its own land to further enrich their wealthy I can’t take anything you say seriously. If the US was in the same boat, I guarantee you they would have done the same thing.


South African tax payer money is already wasted ,one such example is the previous president Zuma spent R250 million of tax payer money on his home


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

MrPopo said:


> South African tax payer money is already wasted ,one such example is the previous president Zuma spent R250 million of tax payer money on his home


And why did you think he resign in the first place? I love how you pointing this out without stating the outcome


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Further evidence that your arguments have no basis in fact, it's just disguised racism and emotion on your part.
> 
> You call people chicken shit yet you won't up and say you hate white people. Yet your roundabout arguments clearly show you want people to suffer based off their skin color.
> 
> ...


You calling me racist? Oh Jesus fucking christ, about to catch a heart attack from the laughter at this projection and who is stating it

Bet you think i’m Black as well?  
Oh let us all feel sorry for those poor rich white families in South Africa.

No one will save you from these hands not even the Chinese, and there’s two things you do about it.
1) Nothing
2) and like it

Kick rocks


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Against the wishes ha ha ha ha
> Like how black people were forced to work those lands for free against their wishes. Oh no we aren’t talking about that eh.
> 
> Man I miss the old school racist, at least they tell you straight up. You guys are too chicken shit



Are you calling me a racist ?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

@Huey Freeman   Keep foaming at the mouth bro.

@San Juan Wolf  Yes he is.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

MrPopo said:


> South African tax payer money is already wasted ,one such example is the previous president Zuma spent R250 million of tax payer money on his home



I remember Zanews kept roasting him about it mercilessly


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Keep foaming at the mouth bro.


Concession accepted and when SA start that land distribution I think I’ll buy some beach front property.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Are you calling me a racist ?


I mean all I keep reading the poor white people and how the darkies can’t run themselves without them. 

But nooo


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Concession accepted and when SA start that land distribution I think I’ll buy some beach front property.



Nice try. Have fun in Zimbabwe 2.0 .

By the way I will educate your uneducated ass free of charge, it's the White mans burden after all, 

Beach front property is not used for farming purposes due to the poor soil and the limited amount of plant species that can tolerate the substandard soil conditions.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I mean all I keep reading the poor white people and how the darkies can’t run themselves without them.
> 
> But nooo



I never said that. I keep telling I you never said that.

Yet you keep claiming I did, _dishonestly_.

Unless you mean to say that the statement that there are black people incapable of farming is in and of itself racist and you assert every single black person is capable of farming, which in itself would be stereotype, then you have no grounds to keep saying that's what I said.

Also if someone has their property taken away for something they did not do, especially if it based on race, I will defend them just as much as I would any black person whose property was taken away without compensation. I keept saying that any initial beneficiary of the initial land expropriation I have no problem with having their land confiscated, provided they get a pay out equal to the amount of cultivation and infrastructure they put in that wasn't there before.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Are you calling me a racist ?


Well you are. 

Sorry, were we supposed to pretend we didn’t notice it?


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well you are.
> 
> Sorry, were we supposed to pretend we didn’t notice it?



Except I'm demonstrably not, so seeing that you can't notice a nonexistant thing, then you can't even pretend not to notice.

Because if something doesn't exist you can't pretend not to notice it by default.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well you are.
> 
> Sorry, were we supposed to pretend we didn’t notice it?



You heard it here first, opposing racially motivated robbery makes you a racist.

@Roman @Voyeur your racist.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Nice try. Have fun in Zimbabwe 2.0 .
> 
> By the way I will educate your uneducated ass free of charge, it's the White mans burden after all,
> 
> Beach front property is not used for farming purposes due to the poor soil and the limited amount of plant species that can tolerate the substandard soil conditions.


Simply google search shows me they also own beach front property. But what do I know took my non white brain all it’s power to type that up in the search bar


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Simply google search shows me they also own beach front property. But what do I know took my non white brain all it’s power to type that up in the search bar



The likely truth. The first time in this thread that you have spoken such.


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> You heard it here first, opposing racially motivated robbery makes you a racist.
> 
> @Roman @Voyeur your racist.



:spookyoni

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> And why did you think he resign in the first place? I love how you pointing this out without stating the outcome


I mentioned it as it is an well known example of tax payer money being wasted. Zuma did resign due to the public being fed up with him however Zuma's cronies are still in goverment.

A more recent example of South Africans tax payer being wasted would be the VBS bank scandal ().


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

MrPopo said:


> I mentioned it as it is an well known example of tax payer money being wasted. Zuma did resign due to the public being fed up with him however Zuma's cronies are still in goverment.
> 
> A more recent example of South Africans tax payer being wasted would be the VBS bank scandal ().



Corruption doesn't exist in South Africa, the robbery will go fine.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

MrPopo said:


> I mentioned it as it is an well known example of tax payer money being wasted. Zuma did resign due to the public being fed up with him however Zuma's cronies are still in goverment.
> 
> A more recent example of South Africans tax payer being wasted would be the VBS bank scandal ().


And the public want the lands back which is why they reform is being push. Contrary to popular belief but they are tired of living like shit at the benefit of the 8%


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> You heard it here first, opposing racially motivated robbery makes you a racist.
> 
> @Roman @Voyeur your racist.


Being a demonstrated racist makes you a racist. It’s no secret why the same core group of you like and rep this sort of stuff, post articles with racist dog whistles as topics, and seemingly have a problem with anyone non white that has nothing to do with the color of their skin.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> And the public want the lands back which is why they reform is being push. Contrary to popular belief but they are tired of living like shit at the benefit of the 8%



Good, find a process that determines what land is necessary, pass it through eminent domain and pay an honest compensation according to an estimate from an independant professional at the behest of an impartial.

You honestly can't tell me demanding this is racist.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Being a demonstrated racist makes you a racist. It’s no secret why the same core group of you like and rep this sort of stuff, post articles with racist dog whistles as topics, and seemingly have a problem with anyone non white that has nothing to do with the color of their skin.



Says the person straight up supporting racially motivated robbery.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Being a demonstrated racist makes you a racist. It’s no secret why the same core group of you like and rep this sort of stuff, post articles with racist dog whistles as topics, and seemingly have a problem with anyone non white that has nothing to do with the color of their skin.



So then I'm in the clear because I am demonstrably not a demonstrated racist. I am in fact the champion of anti racism in this topic.

I demand equal treatment of people under the law regardless of skin colour, and demand that people do not get punished for things they did not commit. Therefore unless you can point to any specific examples of me saying anything derogatory about any races, then you have the obligation to recognise your error, redact it and formally apologise.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> So then I'm in the clear because I am demonstrably not a demonstrated racist. I am in fact the champion of anti racism in this topic.
> 
> I demand equal treatment of people under the law regardless of skin colour, and demand that people do not get punished for things they did not commit. Therefore unless you can point to any specific examples of me saying anything derogatory about any races, then you have the obligation to recognise your error, redact it and formally apologise.



We have another winner in this thread. I agree with you 100%


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Also bear in mind I've disagreed with Chelydra in this topic and in others, so you can't say I'm racist because someone who said something I didn't say or agree with agrees with me on something else.

No offense Chelydra, just saying there are things I didn't agree with you on, and trying to pre-empt Knight going "but this guy agrees with you and he says X and I say that's racist which MAKES YOU RACIST (DUN DUN DUUUN)!!!"


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Also bear in mind I've disagreed with Chelydra in this topic and in others, so you can't say I'm racist because someone who said something I didn't say or agree with agrees with me on something else.
> 
> No offense Chelydra, just saying there are things I didn't agree with you on, and trying to pre-empt Knight going "but this guy agrees with you and he says X and I say that's racist which MAKES YOU RACIST (DUN DUN DUUUN)!!!"



None taken, it's well known I have more hardline views.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Being a demonstrated racist makes you a racist. It’s no secret why the same core group of you like and rep this sort of stuff, post articles with racist dog whistles as topics, and seemingly have a problem with anyone non white that has nothing to do with the color of their skin.


Dude stop oppressing these poor folks, us minorities have it too good I swear


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

I also am laughing how Chel and Juan are willing to talk down to us but when you point out their discrimination via simple observation they are posting like crazy to try backtrack .


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I also am laughing how Chel and Juan are willing to talk down to us but when you point out their discrimination via simple observation they are posting like crazy to try backtrack .



Whatever helps you think you actually have anything to stand on, or even won. You and your ilk have been smacked down.

There is no such discrimination on our part, unless of course you count opposing racially motivated robbery as "discrimination".


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Whatever helps you think you actually have anything to stand on, or even won. You and your ilk have been smacked down
> 
> There is no such discrimination on our part, unless of course you count opposing racially motivated robbery as "discrimination".


“You and your ilk”
“There’s is no such discrimination “


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> And the public want the lands back which is why they reform is being push.* Contrary to popular belief but they are tired of living like shit at the benefit of the 8%*


Yes the public will most likely will go ahead with EWC after next years election. On Another note where do you get this from, South Africa has been a democratic country for over 20 years with the ANC having a large majority in parliament.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

MrPopo said:


> Yes the public will most likely will go ahead with EWC after next years election. On Another note where do you get this from, South Africa has been a democratic country for over 20 years with the ANC having a large majority in parliament.


I’ve posted my sources on page 2-5


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I also am laughing how Chel and Juan are willing to talk down to us but when you point out their discrimination via simple observation they are posting like crazy to try backtrack .



How am I talking down to you ?

Also you haven't "pointed out my discrimination" because I've never discriminated against anyone. You assert I'm racist, despite me repeatedly stating I demand people receive equal treatmenr regardless of skin colour and to not be punished for things they didn't do.

How is that me discriminating against anyone ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> How am I talking down to you ?
> 
> Also you haven't "pointed out my discrimination" because I've never discriminated against anyone. You assert I'm racist, despite me repeatedly stating I demand people receive equal treatmenr regardless of skin colour and to not be punished for things they didn't do.
> 
> How is that me discriminating against anyone ?


You are being peg racist because your argument is only for the 8% and anytime someone mentions the 92% you ignore or just disregard it.
When ever I flip a question or example of yours, it’s dodge.

And the entire argument of  yours is how corrupt the SA gov, the people will starve without the 8% feeding them and somehow they are identical to Zimbabwe.

Now when I am pointing this out, it’s oh no i am not for race but equal treatment my ass.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> You are being peg racist because your argument is only for the 8% and anytime someone mentions the 92% you ignore or just disregard it.
> When ever I flip a question or example of yours, it’s dodge.
> 
> And the entire argument of  yours is how corrupt the SA gov, the people will starve without the 8% feeding them and somehow they are identical to Zimbabwe.
> ...



That's not a legitimate argument. Your using numbers to simply justify robbery. If that "92%" wants the land the government can properly compensate that 8% for it. Or they can pay for it themselves, they no right to take it.

People may as well rob rich people because they have all the wealth.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> That's not a legitimate argument. Your using numbers to simply justify robbery.
> 
> People may as well rob rich people because they have all the wealth.


I mean they robbed the SA of their humanity and freedom for almost 2 centuries but I guess somehow the 8% are the innocent ones here

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I mean they robbed the SA of their humanity and freedom for almost 2 centuries but I guess somehow the 8% are the innocent ones here



Yes they are Accept it and move on.

 Might as well restart executing Germans for the actions of their not so distant ancestors.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Yes they. Accept it and move on.


The guy who claims he loves black people ladies and gentlemen.

Too easy


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> The guy who claims he loves black people ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> Too easy



Let's jail the grandchild of someone whose grandpa was a rapist everyone.

Too easy.

In a moral society, in case you forgot, you don't punish innocent people for the actions of others.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Let's jail the grandchild of someone whose grandpa was a rapist everyone.


Well you seem fine when it was  the children and grandchildren of slaves.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Well you seem fine when it was  the children and grandchildren of slaves.



[Citation needed]

Which by the way are thieves for occupying "stolen land" according to YOUR logic. And must be punished.


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> how corrupt the SA gov



Because it's not?



Huey Freeman said:


> the people will starve without the 8% feeding them



Because taking land without compensation and handing it to the government worked so well for all the other countries that implemented this. Your argument is that the South African government will effectively and efficiently own and manage the land, taking it away from lawful owners btw but we'll ignore that for the sake of argument.

I would like to point out what you're suggesting will happen is strikingly similar to the collectivization of agricultural land in the Soviet Union, particularly immediately following the October Revolution and during Stalin's USSR. In addition to that, early Soviet agriculture was considered one of the weakest industries of the USSR. The forced collectivization of land and class wars were a huge detriment to food production which lead to famine in the early 30's.

Here we have empirical evidence that forced collectivization doesn't work. You may argue that the scale of land redistribution in the USSR was far greater than what would happen in South Africa, but the scenarios are in principle basically identical in that the government wants to forcibly take land from the upper classes and redistribute them "equally and fairly."

Knowing how the USSR operated particularly under Stalin as well as knowing how corrupt the South African government is, where does your confidence that South Africa will do better than not only Zimbabwe but Soviet Russia as well?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

I'd also like to add that the collectivization of agricultural land in the USSR implicated those who already worked on the farmlands, again very similar to what South Africa says it intends to do. Despite the fact that land and food production was managed by the farmers themselves, the results were still very poor. Again, I wonder where the confidence that the farmhands who would manage the lands following the redistribution efforts in South Africa comes from in the face of actual empirical evidence of a very similar if not identical case proving quite unsuccessful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> You are being peg racist because your argument is only for the 8% and anytime someone mentions the 92% you ignore or just disregard it.
> When ever I flip a question or example of yours, it’s dodge.
> 
> And the entire argument of  yours is how corrupt the SA gov, the people will starve without the 8% feeding them and somehow they are identical to Zimbabwe.
> ...



My arugment is for the 100 %.

And what have I dodged exactly ? Also I'm saying I don't trust_ the goverment_ not to give this land to their cronies, how is that racist ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> My arugment is for the 100 %.
> 
> And what have I dodged exactly ? Also I'm saying I don't trust_ the goverment_ not to give this land to their cronies, how is that racist ?


Your argument is for the 8% because you have only argued for the benefit of them. You haven’t answer my questions on what they have given back? And you seem perfectly fine with the status quo.


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

I want to clarify for the last time my argument as well as Chel's and Juan's doesn't come from some insidious agenda to make sure black people remain subjugated to the whims of a white minority. It comes from knowledge that other countries attempted this exact type of redistribution for any given reason and it simply hasn't worked, leading to crises and famines, all assuming South Africa is honest in its attempts to redistribute land as the USSR was (more or less and for the sake of argument). Add class war to the mix and you have the perfect recipe for disaster. This has nothing to do with race.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Your argument is for the 8% because you have only argued for the benefit of them. You haven’t answer my questions on what *they have given back? *And you seem perfectly fine with the status quo.



Yes because this 8% is about to be robbed of what they now rightfully own, they are *not* the ones who are guilty of the crimes committed by their ancestors.

And again as you keep conveniently forgetting this 8% keeps said country fed and relatively prosperous.

Disrupting the status quo in the name of feelings is stupidity, as has been repeatedly shown, furthermore if the government *truly* cared about the ethics of this situation, they would pay what is being asked for this land, something *your against*.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Roman said:


> I want to clarify for the last time my argument as well as Chel's and Juan's doesn't come from some insidious agenda to make sure black people remain subjugated to the whims of a white minority. It comes from knowledge that other countries attempted this exact type of redistribution for any given reason and it simply hasn't worked, leading to crises and famines, all assuming South Africa is honest in its attempts to redistribute land as the USSR was (more or less and for the sake of argument). Add class war to the mix and you have the perfect recipe for disaster. This has nothing to do with race.


Sigh one last time for you  cause you can’t seem to understand basic English.

What you doing here and generalizing black nations is becoming racist. Because as i keep fucking pointing out the variables and situations isn’t exactly the same. The fact You have to trivialize the comparison means you have no substance in it. But I can use several examples how colonialism and having small minority rule over your resource and wealth does equal damage but you don’t want to hear it because those benevolent land owners.


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> What you doing here and generalizing black nations is becoming racist.



I brought up the USSR precisely because it was a predominantly if not exclusively a white nation to prove a point that this has nothing to do with race and the fact that they did pretty much exactly what South Africa wants to do and proved unsuccessful, and you still say my argument is racially motivated? 

Interesting how you conveniently ignored my posts on that matter btw.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Yes because this 8% is about to be robbed of what they now rightfully own, they are *not* the ones who are guilty of the crimes committed by their ancestors.
> 
> And again as you keep conveniently forgetting this 8% keeps said country fed and relatively *prosperous*.


Lmao this guy


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Lmao this guy


Lmao this guy.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Roman said:


> I brought up the USSR precisely because it was a predominantly if not exclusively a white nation to prove a point that this has nothing to do with race and the fact that they did pretty much exactly what South Africa wants to do and proved unsuccessful, and you still say my argument is racially motivated?


Yeah but you backed up Chel and Juan who was using Zimbabwe as an example thus meaning you agreed with them. 

Nice try tho


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Yeah but you backed up Chel and Juan who was using Zimbabwe as an example thus meaning you agreed with them.
> 
> Nice try tho



So you're unable to properly address the points I made and just rely on attacking my persona by associating me with other people you hold disagreements with. Who's the one making generalizations here?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Yeah but you backed up Chel and Juan who was using Zimbabwe as an example thus meaning you agreed with them.
> 
> Nice try tho



Someone who agrees with some of my arguments *doesn't invalidate their own separate argument*.

Keep trying, I like watching you flail and fail.

Furthermore just because they agree with *one* part of my argument *doesn't* mean they agree with everything else I believe in.

But go ahead keep doing the same thing you accuse others of doing and painting everyone with the same brush.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Lmao this guy.


Black Panther was like a horror movie to you guys eh?   @San Juan Wolf @Roman


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Black Panther was like a horror movie to you guys eh?   @San Juan Wolf @Roman



Amazing argument for the racially motivated robbery going on in South Africa.

The wakandans are assholes by the way, they live in absolute luxury yet are content to allow their neighbors to live in abject poverty.  Talk about that 1% owning all the wealth eh?


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Black Panther was like a horror movie to you guys eh?   @San Juan Wolf @Roman



Lmao I liked that movie

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Roman said:


> So you're unable to properly address the points I made and just rely on attacking my persona by associating me with other people you hold disagreements with. Who's the one making generalizations here?


I’ve argument this over and over with you and the rest. You keep making me repeat myself. You guys have no interest in hearing the other side. And use comparison that don’t even apply and funny enough can also be used against your arguments. At this point it’s rather Better I just ignore your stupidity and pity you


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Seriously @Huey Freeman do you even realize how stupid you sound right now?

"Your argument is invalid to me because it backs up the arguments of other people I disagree with. I don't care what facts and empirical evidence you present to me, your argument is aligned with the enemy tribe so you're also part of the enemy tribe."

I thought progressivism was about anti-tribalism, so wtf is going on?



Huey Freeman said:


> I’ve argument this over and over with you and the rest. You keep making me repeat myself. *You guys have no interest in hearing the other side.* And use comparison that don’t even apply and funny enough can also be used against your arguments. At this point it’s rather Better I just ignore your stupidity and pity you



Pot calling the kettle bl.....blue. Yeah, blue.


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Rather than ignoring my stupidity, how about explaining why my example of agricultural collectivization in the USSR is not in any way similar to what South Africa says it wants to do? @Huey Freeman


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Roman said:


> Rather than ignoring my stupidity, how about explaining why my example of agricultural collectivization in the USSR is not in any way similar to what South Africa says it wants to do? @Huey Freeman


Look nimrod you first came in here using Zimbabwe like the rest. So I shut that down and now your back using the USSR. You structure the argument like the burden of proof is on me to disprove your claims, a tactic typically use on those with no substance.  Not only do you think less of SA blacks who by the way are more than capable of use the land to provide for themselves. But you also don’t even fucking bother to do properly research the matter at hand. I had to correct you several times. 

Secondly I keep hearing oh these poor rich white farmers shouldn’t suffer for their ancestors. Oh but the black descendants of the slaves and oppress should jus tighten their belts and pull themselves up from the boot straps because what is done can’t be undone?  

Then you want to claim you’re not racist get the fuck out of here.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Kill all the Germans everyone, they are ALL guilty for the crimes of their fathers.  Let's rejoice and continue the nuclear purification of Japan, they are STILL GUILTY for their crimes committed in WWII.

@Huey Freeman  logic everyone.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Your argument is for the 8% because you have only argued for the benefit of them. You haven’t answer my questions on what they have given back? And you seem perfectly fine with the status quo.



I'm for everyone being treated the same.

I'm saying if they need the land so bad, take it over via eminent domain and pay a fair price estimated by an independant professional under the administration of an impartial court.

How is demanding fair compensation and impartial court oversight racist exactly ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Kills all the Germans everyone, they are ALL guilty for the crimes of their fathers.


Only person talking about violence here is you, they just going to take their land legally.

Poetic justice really


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Only person talking about violence here is you, they just going to take their land legally.
> 
> Poetic justice really



Your the one saying people are guilty for crimes they never committed.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Black Panther was like a horror movie to you guys eh?   @San Juan Wolf @Roman



Again with you assming I'm racist...because I demand that those who have not done anything get treated just the same as everyone else who did not do anything illegal regardless of race.

Where is this imaginary racism you speak of ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Your the one saying people are guilty for crimes they never committed.


So let me get this straight your answer to everything is violence? Telling really, although not shocking


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I'm for everyone being treated the same.


Sure you are...without any regard for the past or realities of the situation


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> So let me get this straight your answer to everything is violence? Telling really, although not shocking



I'm just using your logic, and arguments, that people are guilty for the crimes of their ancestors, and applying it to other situations. Don't like it? Change your stance then.

And your answer to this issue is revenge/thievery. Not at all shocking.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sure you are...without any regard for the past or realities of the situation



The past in this instance is irrelevant, if they want that land then they can pay the asking price, full stop, end of discussion.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Again with you assming I'm racist...because I demand that those who have not done anything get treated just the same as everyone else who did not do anything illegal regardless of race.
> 
> Where is this imaginary racism you speak of ?


They still are benefitting from said atrocious acts in the present that’s the point I made you purposely ignored. While the black people have to suffer for their ancestors oppression. This is why this point you and Roman or Chel trying to make is laughed at and mock because it’s not only absurd but brain dead stupid. 

Your entire behavior is racist. You overlook any problack or specific Black SA point and counter with a pro white one.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> I'm just using your logic, and arguments, that people are guilty for the crimes of their ancestors, and applying it to other situations. Don't like it? Change your stance then.
> 
> And your answer to this issue is *revenge*/thievery. Not at all shocking.



Dude finally admits he just doesn’t like the fact that it’s the darkies getting one up after  apartheid. 

Thanks that’s all I needed.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> They still are benefitting from said atrocious acts in the present that’s the point I made you purposely ignored. While the black people have to suffer for their ancestors oppression. This is why this point you and Roman or Chel trying to make is laughed at and mock because it’s not only absurd but brain dead stupid.
> 
> Your entire behavior is racist. You overlook any problack or specific Black SA point and counter with a pro white one.



You are also benefiting from the actions of others. Your typing from a computer or phone = your directly benefiting from slave labor, as a result a Chinese person has the right to beat your ass for such damages.

Your living on stolen land, bought from someone who stole it from its previous occupants. Your guilty and must be deported post haste.


Huey Freeman said:


> Dude finally admits he just doesn’t like the fact that it’s the darkies getting one up after  apartheid.
> 
> Thanks that’s all I needed.



If we are going to play this game, a black man is cheering on thievery. All I needed. 

But hey stick it to the White man and enjoy Venezuela and Zimbabwe 2.0


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> You are also benefiting from the actions of others. Your typing from a computer or phone = your directly benefiting from slave labor, as a result a Chinese person has the right to beat your ass for such damages.
> 
> Your living on stolen land, bought from someone who stole it from its previous occupants. Your guilty and must be deported post haste.


-How am I benefiting from slave labour? Do I own Dell?  

-The land I am living (since I am station abroad) was never stolen. 

And both can be trace back to the people like the 8% people as the source.

So nice try but you gotta insert 25c to play again
5

4

3


2

1


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Look nimrod you first came in here using Zimbabwe like the rest. So I shut that down and now your back using the USSR.



You never shut anything down because you've never managed to show how South Africa has shown to have more promise to handle the situation any better than how Zimbabwe dealt with it, even scoffing at our arguments that South Africa is corrupt as if it's either not true to begin with or just irrelevant (because that seems more convenient to you).

I came up with the example of the USSR because of your refusal to admit there is any similarity and inability to effectively prove that they're not similar. The USSR example is also very relevant because even compared to Zimbabwe and Venezuela, it did honestly attempt collectivization and still didn't work. All you've been able to do to counter that argument is throw ad-hominems my way. Wow, what a great debater you are.



Huey Freeman said:


> You structure the argument like the burden of proof is on me to disprove your claims, a tactic typically use on those with no substance.  Not only do you think less of SA blacks who by the way are more than capable of use the land to provide for themselves. But you also don’t even fucking bother to do properly research the matter at hand. I had to correct you several times



If the burden of proof is on me, then I've already satisfied that burden. I made the claim:

Agricultural Collectivization in the USSR is very similar to what South Africa wants to do.

And I provided evidence to that claim to explain why they are similar:

The USSR forcibly took land from its previous owners and redistributed them to the farmers who worked on those lands as equally as it could, which is exactly what South Africa wants to do by taking land away from its current owners and redistribute them in a way it deems more appropriate.

Now it's your responsibility to counter my argument because I've made my case. That's how debates work.



Huey Freeman said:


> Secondly I keep hearing oh these poor rich white farmers shouldn’t suffer for their ancestors. Oh but the black descendants of the slaves and oppress should jus tighten their belts and pull themselves up from the boot straps because what is done can’t be undone?



No one said what's been done can't be undone. Everyone who criticized South Africa's intent here said there are better and more peaceful ways to settle this. @Darkmatter actually provided a really good solution as a matter of fact, so maybe have a look at his latest post here. What we've been arguing is that what the govt wants to do is racially motivated because the ANC wants to win more votes in the coming elections next year, pretending this is moral owing to the suffering their ancestors suffered at the hands of the white farmowners' ancestors.

Hell, I even agreed with EJ that land redistribution should've been done a long time ago. Unfortunately the damage has been done and more diplomatic solutions need to be explored as the situation is no longer a case of colonists actively suppressing natives through force or an organized system of oppression. Yes, Apartheid is still very recent and fresh in people's memories, but just owning land isn't by itself oppression. If it is an issue that's contributing to high rates of unemployment, which it is, then that demands reformation, but certainly not at the expense of certain individuals.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> -How am I benefiting from slave labour? Do I own Dell?
> 
> -The land I am living (since I am station abroad) was never stolen.
> 
> ...



So you have nothing.(as usual) Concession accepted.


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Honestly, if the only thing you can do to counter me is call me a racist or a neoliberal coward, then you're admitting your loss.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Roman said:


> You never shut anything down because you've never managed to show how South Africa has shown to have more promise to handle the situation any better than how Zimbabwe dealt with it, even scoffing at our arguments that South Africa is corrupt as if it's either not true to begin with or just irrelevant (because that seems more convenient to you).
> 
> I came up with the example of the USSR because of your refusal to admit there is any similarity and inability to effectively prove that they're not similar. The USSR example is also very relevant because even compared to Zimbabwe and Venezuela, it did honestly attempt collectivization and still didn't work. All you've been able to do to counter that argument is throw ad-hominems my way. Wow, what a great debater you are.
> 
> ...



- they aren’t redistributing lands. It will all be lease by need basis thus farm owners will still have their farms just leasing something they never truly paid for.  Which means the lands they are hogging and not using will be  available to anyone who may apply for the lease. 

Just like that I shut this shit down and prove it’s nothing like USSR. 


Next


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Roman said:


> Honestly, if the only thing you can do to counter me is call me a racist or a neoliberal coward, then you're admitting your loss.



Agreed this thread ended along time ago.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Roman said:


> Honestly, if the only thing you can do to counter me is call me a racist or a neoliberal coward, then you're admitting your loss.


-gets mad I call him a racist for racist behavior 

- calls me a neoliberal when I am one the centrist on this board.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> -gets mad I call him a racist for racist behavior
> 
> - calls me a neoliberal when I am one the centrist on this board.



Again says the actual racist here.

You haven't refuted any of his points.

Your also not a centrist, your actually a leftist.

Either way it's clear your unable to contribute anything other than racial hatred I think this exchange has run its course, enjoy the loss.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Again says the actual racist here.
> 
> You haven't refuted any of his points.
> 
> Your also not a centrist, your actually a leftist.


everything Chel calls someone else a racist, you just gotta laugh at the delusion

There’s a reason San Juan is trying not to be associated to you.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> everything Chel calls someone else a racist, you just gotta laugh at the delusion



See below.



> Again says the actual racist here.
> 
> You haven't refuted any of his points.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Again says the actual racist here.
> 
> You haven't refuted any of his points.
> 
> ...



That self validation tho. Poor child. I feel for you


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> - calls me a neoliberal when I am one the centrist on this board.



K, your reading comprehension is definitely very lacking if you think I was calling you a neoliberal. Ok.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Roman said:


> K, your reading comprehension is definitely very lacking if you think I was calling you a neoliberal. Ok.


Why would I call you a neoliberal, you guys are the one brining up “muh communism “ and political affiliations out of desperation. Me calling you a racist is based on observation on how you refuse to acknowledge anything proSA or black in generally and agreeing with Chel racist beliefs. 

Good to know that you backed down from the rest of points I made tho.

I’ll see your race baiting ass in the next article talking about race.


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Why would I call you a neoliberal



You specifically didn't, but the one who did knows I'm talking about them.



Huey Freeman said:


> you guys are the one brining up “muh communism “ and political affiliations out of desperation.



You are aware that all three of us, me, Chel and Juan have disagreed with each other on a lot of issues, yet you're the one bringing up political affiliations and automatically associating all three of us as belonging to the same party, and refuse to properly address any of our arguments purely by virtue of that perceived association.



Huey Freeman said:


> Me calling you a racist is based on observation on how you refuse to acknowledge anything proSA or black in generally and agreeing with Chel racist beliefs



Point out one instance where I've agreed with Chel's racist beliefs. In fact, point out one instance where I argued that blacks can't manage farmlands as well as whites can _because_ they're black. I'll wait.



Huey Freeman said:


> Good to know that you backed down from the rest of points I made tho.



I didn't back down. The fact that you thought I was calling you a neoliberal was enough for me to consider the rest of that post invalid.



Huey Freeman said:


> I’ll see your race baiting ass in the next article talking about race.



Lol good luck with that, because I've never race-baited even once in all my history on NF. You really should know me better than that by now. But hey, seeing how you, EJ, and some others in this thread who've known me for quite a long time here on NF have done an about-face on me and acted like I've always been associated with Chel, Juan, maybe even IWD and Fake Chie based on your responses to me despite the fact they should know my views are mostly left-leaning, I have to really wonder who are the people here who put too much stock on affiliations.


----------



## Roman (Dec 19, 2018)

And for the record, you, Normality and by extension EJ, and most others who support South Africa's actions in this thread are the only ones who ever made this about race, and decided perhaps independently or not, that anyone who disagrees is by default racist.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

I'm genuinely curious as to what racist arguments I've made in this thread or in general.

If it's my hardline stance on illegal immigration, that's ironically not racist since its more than one ethnicity that partakes in it, of course it's entirely unrelated to this thread.

However people seem to always turn it into a race issue, because in their minds only Latinos violate the border? They also ignore the fact that I like immigrants who follow the proper laws to get here.... Bonus points to the immigrants who do their very best to assimilate as well.

My pro America and western stances? Not racist either, that is more ideology, of which I know is hard for some people to grasp but ideology/cultures are not equal there are some which are empirically better, despite their serious issues. That is a discussion however for another time and place.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Roman said:


> If the land isn't being used as a coke farm, I don't see the issue with that specifically. If the family that was kicked out of that land three generations ago are still suffering, I'd have to question what other factors played into their situation to lead them to still being poor/ill/etc three generations on. Because yes, what happened to their grandparents was unfair by any standard, but they survived and could have made a living elsewhere provided their grandparents were completely powerless to take their land back.
> 
> .


Passive aggressive way of saying tough luck darkies ...but It isn’t a racist way of thinking in any way...but but you must compensate the 8%.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Passive aggressive way of saying tough luck darkies ...but I don’t a racist way of thinking any way...but but you must compensate the 8%.




A crude summary but it's correct, those 8 percent who have done nothing wrong, deserve proper compensation for their property.

And yes ..it is not a racist viewpoint.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> I'm genuinely curious as to what racist arguments I've made in this thread or in general.
> 
> If it's my hardline stance on illegal immigration, that's ironically not racist since its more than one ethnicity that partakes in it, of course it's entirely unrelated to this thread.
> 
> ...


You literally told me “let my as a white man educate you for free” as a retort assuming I’m Black is what makes this back tracking so glorious.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> You literally told me “let my as a white man educate you for free” as a retort assuming I’m Black is what makes this back tracking so glorious.



Yes I did because you yourself keep behaving like a raving racist.(punish whitey for the actions of their ancestors, rawr!) 

It was an insult to your failure to actually produce a proper argument, and instead only offer emotion and justification for punishing innocents for crimes they never committed. Not to mention robbing them of their property.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> A crude summary but it's correct, those 8 percent who have done nothing wrong, deserve proper compensation for their property.
> 
> And yes ..it is not a racist viewpoint.


seeing how slow you are I’ll point out the point of that post.

He had no issue when it was black people lands being taken away without compensation and unable to get it back because they can go do something else. 

Now when it’s a white person it’s theft and must be compensated. 

That’s a racist way of thinking. 

This is why me and the rest of poster are trying to tell you.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> seeing how slow you are I’ll point out the point of that post.
> 
> He had no issue when it was black people lands being taken away without compensation and unable to get it back because they can go do something else.
> 
> ...



Those lands are now legally owned by someone else why can't you see that? Eventually there must be a cutoff date. As others have stated this should have been done as soob as possible, but they waited. And now the damage is done.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Yes I did because you yourself keep behaving like a raving racist.(punish whitey for the actions of their ancestors, rawr!) It was an insult to your failure to actually produce a proper argument, and instead only offer emotion and justification for punishing innocents for crimes they never committed.


I never did say anything about punish whitey I refer to them as the 8% as the powerful minority. I only used white as a adjective when describe acts by apartheid and slavery that they benefitting from. I even clarified and stated that all lands including the black own will be taken back.

You are the one driving the race issue and projecting it.  It’s like you get a hard on by the fact you can call black people racist.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> I never did say anything about punish whitey I refer to them as the 8% as the powerful minority. I only used white as a adjective when describe acts by apartheid and slavery that they benefitting from. I even clarified and stated that all lands including the black own will be taken back.
> 
> You are the one driving the race issue and projecting it.  It’s like you get a hard on by the fact you can call black people racist.



Because you blatantly are.  and back pedaling won't save you, there are numerous quoted posts of you supporting this racially motivated robbery.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Because you blatantly are.  and back pedaling won't save you, there are numerous quoted posts of you supporting this racially motivated robbery.



According to you who thinks the white man are naturally smarter than a black man? Okay then. 

You’re hopeless is all can say for you.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sure you are...without any regard for the past or realities of the situation



Do you expect me to be pro punishing people who personally did nothing wrong ?


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> They still are benefitting from said atrocious acts in the present that’s the point I made you purposely ignored. While the black people have to suffer for their ancestors oppression. This is why this point you and Roman or Chel trying to make is laughed at and mock because it’s not only absurd but brain dead stupid.
> 
> Your entire behavior is racist. You overlook any problack or specific Black SA point and counter with a pro white one.



If they didn't do anything illegal, it's not legal to punish them for it.

And how am I being racist if I say that if the land is needed, have an impartial court oversee it's appropriation via emminent domain and have an independant examination determine a fair reward to be paid in compensation ? To mandate the sale which you yourself said the Goverment wanted to do initially anyway ?

Explain to me how the above process is racist ?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> According to you who thinks the white man are naturally smarter than a black man? Okay then.
> 
> You’re hopeless is all can say for you.



It's a shame tone/sarcasm/insults cannot be conveyed over the internet. I will however respond to your shitposting with further shitposting. Hence the insult I leveled directly at you, and no one else, which you are twisting to make it seem like that was directed at all black people.

But you've shown that any sort of integrity cannot be expected of you.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Dec 19, 2018)

To sum up this thread.

Comparing other countries against SA is racist.
Saying anything against this stupid policy is racist.

Only Huey is the divine beacon of equality in this world.
How dare you try to debate against him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 19, 2018)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> To sum up this thread.
> 
> Comparing other countries against SA is racist.
> Saying anything against this stupid policy is racist.
> ...


Basically this post is read like this

“ I have nothing of value to add but how dare this Huey guy challenge the asinine examples presented in this thread!”

Ah you ever notice always the same characters come out the wood work whenever the darkies try to elevate themselves and they be first to hit you with that “ you’re racist because you don’t support the white man” retort when you question their stupid logic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alita (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> I'm not the one advocating for racially motivated robbery here.
> 
> You are. Full stop, end of discussion. You are in favor of punishing innocent people for actions they did not do, my comparisons are spot on and in accordance with YOUR reasoning. If you think my comparisons are terrible then you need to look at your own reasoning and logic.
> 
> Good day.



You can't rob something from someone that doesn't belong to them in the first place. Sorry bro.

Or you just don't understand my argument and have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

Alita54 said:


> You can't rob something from someone that doesn't belong to them in the first place. Sorry bro.
> 
> Or you just don't understand my argument and have no idea what you are talking about.



Your pretty dense aren't you?


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Dec 20, 2018)

Hate to break it to anyone, but having melanin doesn't mean you came from africa.
The white people in Africa probably have more african DNA than you if they hooked up with a single african once.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> Hate to break it to anyone, but having melanin doesn't mean you came from africa.
> The white people in Africa probably have more african DNA than you if they hooked up with a single african once.


So you saying the white south Africans are more African than the Black Africans?


----------



## Alita (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Your pretty dense aren't you?



Look who's talking .


----------



## Roman (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> - they aren’t redistributing lands. It will all be lease by need basis thus farm owners will still have their farms just leasing something they never truly paid for. Which means the lands they are hogging and not using will be available to anyone who may apply for the lease.
> 
> Just like that I shut this shit down and prove it’s nothing like USSR.
> 
> ...



Missed this post last night so I'm going to address this.



You make it sound like the white landowners will be able to buy back their land and the purpose of these seizures without compensation is only so that the land can go to whoever can purchase it. Ignoring the corruption aspect, this doesn't make sense already because Ramaphosa went on record saying he wants to "correct the original sin of the violent dispossession of our people’s land and its wealth." That absolutely sounds he wants to take lands from white landowners and letting them buy it back is counterintuitive in that aspect. When you think about it, who would have the money to buy the land back besides the government itself and its previous owners? Also:



> The ANC previously supported a land redistribution programme that was based on a willing-seller, willing-buyer policy. Under this model, the government bought white-owned farms for redistribution to the *black population* at a price determined by the landowner.



Tell me how this isn't redistribution again? Like I said, what the USSR did isn't exactly what SA wants to do, but it's nearly identical insofar that the state will redistribute land (regardless of how) in what it deems a fair way, and I brought it up because the consequences were far from ideal.

Nevermind that land seizures historically never took place orderly and peacefully.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> So you saying the white south Africans are more African than the Black Africans?


The ones in the US and Europe as a majority, I'd say it's likely.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Dec 20, 2018)

Quick question, if we all come from Africa why can't we all own it together?


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 20, 2018)

This is probably relevant.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Yes they are Accept it and move on.
> 
> Might as well restart executing Germans for the actions of their not so distant ancestors.


If your parent kill my parent justice is punising your parent and stop there

If your parent steal my parent land. Justice is return the land stolen.

Why you keep saying the descendant of stealer has more right to the land than the descendant of the victims? I dont get it.

For the record i dont fully agree with all this (according to my understanding of Huey explanation)
I can get behind return the land to descendant of previous owner (the one got evicted and the land given to the white)


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 20, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Why you keep saying the descendant of stealer has more right to the land than the descendant of the victims? I dont get it.


Because you have to forcefully remove the descendants children through no fault of their own, two wrongs don't make a right wibisana.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 20, 2018)

Revan Reborn said:


> Because you have to forcefully remove the descendants children through no fault of their own, two wrongs don't make a right wibisana.


Yes if the current owner didnt have anywhere to go, i suggested in earlier pages that the land should be divided accordingly. Because in the end *ultimately the land was originally owned by the natives*. *So they have more right to the land*. It is just fair to do so. With exception like I said (if the current owner is just average guy)

Also for the record in few months ago thread i say. That taking land from current owner and give it to random black people is not justice. I still think that way. And based on Huey explanation. SA is trying this same thing. This is my main reason why I am divided in here.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Look nimrod you first came in here using Zimbabwe like the rest. So I shut that down



How ? Being skeptical of potential cronyism isn't something you can debunk by saying "it's a different country therefore it won't happen" ?

Human beings are just as corruptile in South Africa as literally everywhere else and we are talking about a huge amount of land to get corrupted by.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> everything Chel calls someone else a racist, you just gotta laugh at the delusion
> 
> There’s a reason San Juan is trying not to be associated to you.



And yet you keep doing it 

Also I'm a centrist in case you don't believe, every test I've ever taken had me almost exactly in the middle.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Yes if the current owner didnt have anywhere to go, i suggested in earlier pages that the land should be divided accordingly. Because in the end *ultimately the land was originally owned by the natives*. *So they have more right to the land*. It is just fair to do so. With exception like I said (if the current owner is just average guy)
> 
> Also for the record in few months ago thread i say. That taking land from current owner and give it to random black people is not justice. I still think that way. And based on Huey explanation. SA is trying this same thing. This is my main reason why I am divided in here.



All land was originally owned by some group that no longer has control of it, so that's not exactly a sound policy in the extreme.

And no Huey I'm not saying whites have the land by right of conquest or whatever, I was pointing out that basically everything was stolen from someone else once upon a time.

I keep saying, any original beneficiaries I am in support of having land taken from them, but if it's multiple generations later that's not really fair.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 20, 2018)

wibisana said:


> If your parent kill my parent justice is punising your parent and stop there
> 
> If your parent steal my parent land. Justice is return the land stolen.
> 
> ...



My argument, and I think Chel's, is mainly for a cutoff date, not entirely against redistribution.

Should people who were robbed during Apartheid get their property back? Absolutely, because they're in some cases still alive.

Should people who were robbed during the British colonial era get their property back? Maybe. For example if you have enough evidence from public records to show that a specific white family stole from a specific black family.

Should people who were robbed during the Dutch colonial era 300 years ago get their property back. I think not, because it's so long ago that nobody alive today has met either the robber or the victim, and might not even know their names of either the robber or the victim or exactly what piece of land was stolen from whom. You just know that all land owned by "white people" as a collective was at some point stolen from "black people" as a collective, so a claim would amount to any black person being able to claim the land of any white person based only on their skin colors. We think that's racist.

And even disregarding that, eternal grievances even within races would lead to ridiculous results if pursued. E.g. Sweden conquered Scania from Denmark around the same time the Dutch were moving into South Africa. If the Danes were to pursue "justice" we'd have to cede both our third-largest county and third-largest city to them, which would reduce the population (and likely GDP) of Sweden by 10%.

That's a lot to ask.


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 20, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Yes if the current owner didnt have anywhere to go, i suggested in earlier pages that the land should be divided accordingly. Because in the end *ultimately the land was originally owned by the natives*. *So they have more right to the land*. It is just fair to do so. With exception like I said (if the current owner is just average guy)
> 
> Also for the record in few months ago thread i say. That taking land from current owner and give it to random black people is not justice. I still think that way. And based on Huey explanation. SA is trying this same thing. This is my main reason why I am divided in here.



I get your logic and In a perfect world that would work, however that idea is not viable in this day and age. Too many damn variables to take into account, the risk of trying pull such a thing is insane.

Wrong, they do not as the descendants never lived or owned that land, your just suggesting to do what the colonists/etc did generations ago. This is not good, that is morally wrong. As you are persecuting a certain group of people on certain characteristic or circumstances that are no fault of their own. *They cannot be held responsible for the actions of their past ancestors. *It's repugnant to even suggest so.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 20, 2018)

To continue my phone analogy:

I did actually lose my phone in a Beijing bar the other week. I think probably one of the other customers took it. Probably a Chinese customer (since they're the majority).

Wouldn't it be ridiculous if in this situation I held the Chinese Nation collectively responsible for the theft and demanded that any random Chinese I meet in the street hand me over their phone for free, as compensation for my loss?


----------



## wibisana (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I keep saying, any original beneficiaries I am in support of having land taken from them, but if it's multiple generations later that's not really fair





mr_shadow said:


> My argument, and I think Chel's, is mainly for a cutoff date, not entirely against redistribution.
> 
> Should people who were robbed during Apartheid get their property back? Absolutely, because they're in some cases still alive.
> 
> ...





Revan Reborn said:


> I get your logic and In a perfect world that would work, however that idea is not viable in this day and age. Too many damn variables to take into account, the risk of trying pull such a thing is insane.
> 
> Wrong, they do not as the descendants never lived or owned that land, your just suggesting to do what the colonists/etc did generations ago. This is not good, that is morally wrong. As you are persecuting a certain group of people on certain characteristic or circumstances that are no fault of their own. *They cannot be held responsible for the actions of their past ancestors. *It's repugnant to even suggest so.



Sorry i wrote only one reply to these answer

Yes I specificly said if the land will be given to descendant of the one have it (100-200-500-1000) yrs ago and there is solid proof to back it up i have no problem saying they have more right to the land than current owner.

What i dont get is. Why returning the land, weapon, art, tank that your great great great great x33  grand father stole is a "punishment"

Returning what is stolen is not punishment. Punishment is paying more than the one got stolen (fine, jailtime etc)


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Sorry i wrote only one reply to these answer
> 
> Yes I specificly said if the land will be given to descendant of the one have it (100-200-500-1000) yrs ago and there is solid proof to back it up i have no problem saying they have more right to the land than current owner.
> 
> ...



It is thereby you are ruining the livelihood of a person who did nothing wrong who until then was regarded as having acquired the property legally.


----------



## Magic (Dec 20, 2018)

ITT: Get triggered


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 20, 2018)

@EJ

I still have 2,688,793 rep. 

With your rep power of 9446 you need to neg me another 285 times to put me in the red. Good luck.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 20, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> @EJ
> 
> I still have 2,688,793 rep.
> 
> With your rep power of 9446 you need to neg me another 285 times to put me in the red. Good luck.


Weird flexing


----------



## wibisana (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> It is thereby you are ruining the livelihood of a person who did nothing wrong who until then was regarded as having acquired the property legally.


But the fact there are generations who lost their rightful property. Are we going to ignore that?


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 20, 2018)

Roman said:


> So you're unable to properly address the points I made and just rely on attacking my persona by associating me with other people you hold disagreements with. Who's the one making generalizations here?


Racist confirmed.... You need a confederate avatar?


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 20, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> My argument, and I think Chel's, is mainly for a cutoff date, not entirely against redistribution.
> 
> Should people who were robbed during Apartheid get their property back? Absolutely, because they're in some cases still alive.
> 
> ...


1913 and after is the cut off date that the South African goverment used for land resititution.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 20, 2018)

wibisana said:


> But the fact there are generations who lost their rightful property. Are we going to ignore that?


Because they couldn't defend it. 

Like Crimea,  Ukraine can't protect it and Russia has claimed and conquered it,  its Russian now. 

South Africa is one of the most European  influenced nations in south Africa and the most prosperous.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

wibisana said:


> But the fact there are generations who lost their rightful property. Are we going to ignore that?



No but at a certain point someone is just not guilty of simply owning land their ancestors left them.


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 20, 2018)

wibisana said:


> What i dont get is. Why returning the land, weapon, art, tank that your great great great great x33 grand father stole is a "punishment"
> 
> Returning what is stolen is not punishment. Punishment is paying more than the one got stolen (fine, jailtime etc)


It is indeed Punishment, as the innocent(don't you dare try to collectively Blame them for the mistakes of their ancestors)are forced out of their homes, which they grew up in. Their livelihood ruined, This is a form of Pain wibisana, a extremely cruel punishment to speak.

I do understand your view of the persons ancestor that was forcefully removed from their land, that is a bad thing. But just like you cannot attribute, the mistakes people made in the past. You cannot use their ancestors owning the land before, to justify removing the present ones, as they are not their ancestors. I know it's shit, but there simply is no moral justification to remove the current occupants. All of this being under the impression, the land wasn't theirs in the first place.


----------



## wibisana (Dec 20, 2018)

Revan Reborn said:


> It is indeed Punishment, as the innocent(don't you dare try to collectively Blame them for the mistakes of their ancestors)are forced out of their homes, which they grew up in. Their livelihood ruined, This is a form of Pain wibisana, a extremely cruel punishment to speak.
> 
> I do understand your view of the persons ancestor that was forcefully removed from their land, that is a bad thing. But just like you cannot attribute, the mistakes people made in the past. You cannot use their ancestors owning the land before, to justify removing the present ones, as they are not their ancestors. I know it's shit, but there simply is no moral justification to remove the current occupants. All of this being under the impression, the land wasn't theirs in the first place.


Idk. Imo land and other stuff still should belong to original owner (if it was taken unjustly) despite how long it has been passed. And inherited for generations.

So. I still think the one have more rights should get the land.

(Tho yes as i said earlier today that in somecases both parties should share the land if possible)
If I have to choose. And asuming i believe both have equal right to the land (which for the record I am not)

I still prefer to give the land to the poor one.
Imo helping the poor to get fed is more important than keeping the rich, stay rich. (Again this is not my argument. It is just *if i think *that both side have equal claim, which i dont)


I mean in the end your argument was. They have right on the land because they are not the one who took it (but the ancestor)  and my argument yes. I agree. And i agree not to punish them. But taking land that shouldnt belong to them (becaue it was unjustly taken) is not punishment. It just giving to the rightful owner.

Maybe it was my education..maybe when i was a kid, as muslim they taught me like this. Because I literally cant understand why the current owner have more right to the land.

Yes ofc i dont have to mention that I dont fully support of this policy. But at basic level, I am on original owner's side should get the land argument.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Basically this post is read like this
> 
> “ I have nothing of value to add but how dare this Huey guy challenge the asinine examples presented in this thread!”
> 
> Ah you ever notice always the same characters come out the wood work whenever the darkies try to elevate themselves and they be first to hit you with that “ you’re racist because you don’t support the white man” retort when you question their stupid logic.



Thanks, for proving me right.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> Thanks, for proving me right.


Ironically you also prove me right as there’s nothing of value to be added here


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

triggered guys in this thread 

- land was conquered colonized fairly it belongs to them

Also triggered guys

- You guys can’t conquer and take back the lands, we didn’t do nuthing.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> triggered guys in this thread
> 
> *- land was conquered colonized fairly it belongs to them*
> 
> ...



Are you implying_ I _said that ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Are you implying_ I _said that ?


It’s chel’s argument which you have continuously backed and agreed with throughout the thread unless you are that stupid to like, agree and winner his posts blindly


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Are you implying_ I _said that ?



He is implying we all said that.
We're some sorta racist hive mind to him.

Just shows how shitty his argument is, by forcing his words on us.
In fact most posts mentioning race come from or are a direct reaction to his statements.

Hell, take a look at this gem:


Huey Freeman said:


> Man I miss the old school racist, at least they tell you straight up. You guys are too chicken shi



He pretty much admits how the racist accusations are him wisely reading through the lines.
You can't sneak anything by him and his self-righteousness.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> It’s chel’s argument which you have continuously backed and agreed with throughout the thread unless you are that stupid to like, agree and winner his posts blindly



So if I can prove to you with posts in this same thread I have in fact said the opposite, and if I prove it to your satisfaction, are you willing to admit as a matter of public record that you were wrong and I have in fact not said that ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> He is implying we all said that.
> We're some sorta racist hive mind to him.
> 
> Just shows how shitty his argument is, by forcing his words on us.
> ...



I can’t possible acuse you of that because you added nothing to this thread. And I figure you’re here for attention because your whole argument since entering the thread, “ Huey hurt my feelings”

So you can remove the we from that

The fact that you are this triggered is hilarious tho


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> So if I can prove to you with posts in this same thread I have in fact said the opposite, and if I prove it to your satisfaction, are you willing to admit as a matter of public record that you were wrong and I have in fact not said that ?


You agreed with him and his sentiment because he was against me I figured. Thus I can easilly equate his beliefs to yours. So I don’t need to apologize. 
Maybe if you spent more time telling him shut the fuck up ,as he has a history in the cafe with race baiting, and stop circle jerking in hopes of mob rule to win an argument you would have been taken seriously


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> You agreed with him and his sentiment because he was against me I figured. Thus I can easilly equate his beliefs to yours. So I don’t need to apologize.



Wait what. You are literally saying you can equate his beliefs to mine because I agreed with him on one thing, even if I can show you, demonstrably, that I did not say the thing you accuse me of saying via "equating" my beliefs ?

No, you can't "easily equate" his beliefs to mine if you don't know what my beliefs are, and you sure as shit can't *randomly infer *them from the opinions of *other people*.

So yes, you should apologise because you just admitted you were assuming what my beliefs were *without knowing anything about them *based on the beliefs *of other people*.

Also here is the proof of me not having said the thing you claim I said






Huey Freeman said:


> Maybe if you spent more time telling him shut the fuck up ,as he has a history in the cafe with race baiting, and stop circle jerking in hopes of mob rule to win an argument you would have been taken seriously



So by that you mean I can't agree with someone you disagree with on any point, and I have to actively harass them to stop posting before you will actually read MY OWN POSTS and respond to beliefs I STATED in THEM as opposed to extrapolating my beliefs from Chelydra's posts ? Even when I openly voiced disagreement with him ?

You can't possibly be serious.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> Wait what. You are literally saying you can equate his beliefs to mine because I agreed with him on one thing, even if I can show you, demonstrably, that I did not say the thing you accuse me of saying via "equating" my beliefs ?
> 
> No, you can't "easily equate" his beliefs to mine if you don't know what my beliefs are, and you sure as shit can't *randomly infer *them from the opinions of *other people*.
> 
> ...


Dude you have been circle jerking each other post for quite a while. You can show me one thing but I can also go back and look see  likes to some of his most ridiculous sentiments on this topic.

That’s the problem when you operate on mob mentality.

No I won’t apologize becuase no one forced you to jump on that bandwagon but yourself.

Also

“And no Huey I'm not saying whites have the land by right of conquest or whatever, I was pointing out that basically everything was stolen from someone else once upon a time.

I keep saying, any original beneficiaries I am in support of having land taken from them, but if it's multiple generations later that's not really fair.”

Doesn’t disprove anything.

This is you giving an excuse and a pass to the land owners. You may lack reading comprehension but not all of us.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Dude you have been circle jerking each other post for quite a while. You can show me one thing but I can also go back and look see  likes to some of his most ridiculous sentiments on this topic.



It doesn't matter what he said because I DIDN'T SAY IT. Just because I agree with him on something doesn't mean I agree with him on everything.



Huey Freeman said:


> That’s the problem when you operate on mob mentality.



You are literally lumping me in with Chelydra and saying I must believe everything he does because I agreed with him on ONE POINT. Your the one trying to force mob mentality into it.



Huey Freeman said:


> No I won’t apologize becuase no one forced you to jump on that bandwagon but yourself..



I want you to apologise for stating I said words to the effect of " land was conquered colonized fairly it belongs to them", which I didn't and in fact I just proved to you with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that I said the exact opposite. You are spreading slander and I wish to redact your disproven, potentially slanderous claim.



Huey Freeman said:


> “And no Huey I'm not saying whites have the land by right of conquest or whatever, I was pointing out that basically everything was stolen from someone else once upon a time.
> 
> I keep saying, any original beneficiaries I am in support of having land taken from them, but if it's multiple generations later that's not really fair.”
> 
> Doesn’t disprove anything..



IT. LITERALLY.SAYS.



> I'm not saying whites have the land by right of conquest



Which is the exact opposite of the belief which you INFERED APRIORI OF NOTHING I must believe. It is LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE.



Huey Freeman said:


> This is you giving an excuse and a pass to the land owners. You may lack reading comprehension but not all of us.



No you liar, you disingeuous liar. You have not even read the post you are quoting.

Because if you did you would find out it says

I DON'T BELIEVE IN RIGHT OF CONQUEST FOR THE WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS

and

ANY ORIGINAL RECIPIENTS OF CONFISCATED LAND ARE FAIR GAME FOR RECONFISCATION

How is this me giving a pass if BOTH POINTS directly target the land owners I'm supposed to be supporting here ? Both sentences actively weaken their legal position and in fact permit the actual thieves to have their ill gotten gains taken back.

How are you this much of a liar ? How can you be so dishonest ?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> It doesn't matter what he said because I DIDN'T SAY IT. Just because I agree with him on something doesn't mean I agree with him on everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And no Huey I'm not saying whites have the land by right of conquest or whatever, I was pointing out that basically everything was stolen from someone else once upon a time.

*The first sentence is undermined by the second sentence. You claim Whites don’t have land rights by conquest but then generalize and say “every land is stolen anyway” thus telling me that it shouldn’t be a big deal *

I keep saying, any original beneficiaries I am in support of having land taken from them, but if it's multiple generations later that's not really fair.
*Then you double down on this, saying that even if the lands were stolen and if it’s multiple generations later it should be okay. And you see no foul in it. Thus you are agreeing with results from colonialism. 
*
And thus you aren’t getting any apology from me and you can cry your heart out. Just be grateful I don’t want your 15x24 apartment .
*
*


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> And no Huey I'm not saying whites have the land by right of conquest or whatever, I was pointing out that basically everything was stolen from someone else once upon a time.
> 
> The first sentence is undermined by the second sentence. You claim Whites don’t have land rights by conquest but then generalize and say “every land is stolen anyway” thus telling me that it shouldn’t be a big deal



I was responding to Wibisana's post arguing that this mentality when taken into it's extreme is untennable, but I said it does not apply to this issue. I specifically included that line to you to make it certain you wouldn't be able to accuse me of using as a defence in this instance, because I AM NOT USING IT AS A DEFENSE IN THIS INSTANCE.

And also if I then say the people who originally stole the land should have it confiscated, how exactly am I saying it's not a big deal ? I am literally recognising the issue by saying those originally guilty if still alive whenever applicable could have their lands confiscated.

If I said it wasn't a big deal, I* wouldn't be saying they should get their lands confiscated*, would I ?





Huey Freeman said:


> "I keep saying, any original beneficiaries I am in support of having land taken from them, but if it's multiple generations later that's not really fair."
> 
> 
> Then you double down on this, saying that even if the lands were stolen and if it’s multiple generations later it should be okay. And you see no foul in it. Thus you are agreeing with results from colonialism.



No, you lemming. I didn't say it's fair, but I keep saying the opposite is also unfair. I'm saying two wrongs don't make a right and I offered my solution to this issue in line with what you yourself said was the previous Goverments' position and yet I am afirming colonialism.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I was responding to Wibisana's post arguing that this mentality when taken into it's extreme is untennable, but I said it does not apply to this issue. I specifically included that line to you to make it certain you wouldn't be able to accuse me of using as a defence in this instance, because I AM NOT USING IT AS A DEFENSE IN THIS INSTANCE.
> 
> And also if I then say the people who originally stole the land should have it confiscated, how exactly am I saying it's not a big deal ? I am literally recognising the issue by saying those originally guilty if still alive whenever applicable could have their lands confiscated.
> 
> ...


-Nothing in that post you pointed me to said anything about confiscation. Stop adding things to your argument which is clearly not there.
-the very fact you had to explain that everything is stolen, which I believe is the asinine Native American land that black people are using example Chel’s And yourself been using. That doesn’t help your case. Don’t back peddle that’s why you purposely cherry pick this post.

- Except you’re making an excuse, this a change in a structure of the land the country not just for the white land owners. And you have been told multiple times that this came about because of the 8% greed, stubbornness and need to have the same power. 
You don’t want any drastic or sever punishment whatsoever to fall on them. This is not two wrongs because taking away the land isn’t remotely close to the wrong they are doing and their ancestors did to the people of SA. You are white knighting


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> -Nothing in that post you pointed me to said anything about confiscation. Stop adding things to your argument which is clearly not there.




So I never said this then



> I keep saying, any original beneficiaries* I am in support of having land taken from them*,







> confiscate verb [ T ]
> uk /ˈkɒn.fɪ.skeɪt/ us /ˈkɑːn.fə.skeɪt/
> 
> to take a possession away from someone when you have the right to do so,



You are a liar.



> -the very fact you had to explain that everything is stolen, which I believe is the asinine Native American land that black people are using example Chel’s And yourself been using. That doesn’t help your case. Don’t back peddle that’s why you purposely cherry pick this post.



No, I repeated the true statement that every piece of land was once stolen from someone else, but again you fail to read where I said it doesn't apply here, especially since the next sentence talks about land in South Africa being taken away from those who originally stole it.

You are a liar.




> You don’t want any drastic or sever punishment whatsoever to fall on them. This is not two wrongs because taking away the land isn’t remotely close to the wrong they are doing and their ancestors did to the people of SA. You are white knighting



I don't want people to be punished for something they did not do. I keep telling you this.

White people losing their home of several generations somehow is just as much of an in injustice as doing that to black people. Because they are people and one is not more special than the other.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> So I never said this then
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Alright then I am liar, I will dig through your post history in this thread and point out to you hypocrisy don’t go edit anything


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Alright then I am liar, I will dig through your post history in this thread and point out to you hypocrisy don’t go edit anything



Go digging, I stand by my posts.

Also I love how I just proved you in fact stated a falsehood about the posts you were quoting, and you felt the need to go and say you are gonna try and dig up dirt to try and do a character assassination on me in this thread.

That's not how someone should act when they had proven to them that the source they themselves quoted said something completely different.

So just *try *and talk to me about _reading comprehension_ next time


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> If the majority of farm land falls into the hands of people who have no idea how to run it because they have no experience, especially running a large scale farm, then what exactly do you expect will happen ?
> 
> No one is saying "omg ^ (use bro) be inferior monkey men who can't farm", the issue is that this very easily can result in what happened in Zimbabwe, even if we ignore the issue of potentially punishing someone's descendant by taking away the property their ancestors got without compensation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I don't know, but that's an entirely different question, more so in the case of people who inherited the land legally. If they were the first generation beneficiary of apartheid I said confiscation is not an issue for me, but if the person personally never did anything wrong, they should not be obliged to pay reparations for acts committed by other people.
> 
> *Inheritance of land via colonialism which would be illegal now is legal to Juan it seem. If you’re second generation. You get to keep it and wash your hands cleans there in black and white *
> 
> ...


Oh look not a liar


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

You messed up your quotes.

And the first part is once again a reminder of what happened when similar measures were enacted by the goverment of Zimbabwe, fearing cronyism and corruption due to the sheer amount of land at stake.

And yes I am against taking land back from people who did not steal it without compensation.

Also I never said all the managers are white, I said "IF" the land is given to political allies, friends and relatives rather than to people who can manage it (that includes black people as well before you try and spring any more gotchas), then there may be a food shortage like in Zimbabwe.

And unless you can demonstrate this isn't possible in South Africa, it's a valid concern.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Oh look not a liar



You have quoted a position I've mentioned many times, that someone who didn't directly do anything wrong should not get punished without compensation.

You haven't disproven my assertions of you being a liar because that has no bearing on either of the two points where I accused you of lying. Your just repeating what I said in posts you've responded since.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> You messed up your quotes.
> 
> And the first part is once again a reminder of what happened when similar measures were enacted by the goverment of Zimbabwe, fearing cronyism and corruption due to the sheer amount of land at stake.
> 
> ...


you just chastised me for generalization which I just prove you guilty of and it’s worst because you did that under the assumption that all blacks in SA owe their land prosperity to whites. 

Common sense would tell you no way 8% could manage 73.3% and majority of farm lands on their own. They couldn’t even do it during apartheid.

Yeah except their family did steal it and they are benefitting from it. I know you have a hard time understanding the concept but you could give a rat ass about generations of poor blacks suffering due to colonialism, but more so about the son who inherited a once slave farm.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> You have quoted a position I've mentioned many times, that someone who didn't directly do anything wrong should not get punished without compensation.
> 
> You haven't disproven my assertions of you being a liar because that has no bearing on either of the two points where I accused you of lying. Your just repeating what I said in posts you've responded since.


Except you didn’t mention that tiny detail. You made it seem you up for taking away of land to those who are guilty of it but reality you only want those who would be dead anyway land taken alway. The son of a once slave plantation is innocent to you. Regardless if he is still making millions off the same land.

So I’m not a liar. You don’t want land taken way. You want them to pay these rich families.

And I quoted 2 post and anyone notice not one of them accounted for the other side? It’s all about 8% with Juan


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

mr_shadow said:


> My argument, and I think Chel's, is mainly for a cutoff date, not entirely against redistribution.
> 
> Should people who were robbed during Apartheid get their property back? Absolutely, because they're in some cases still alive.
> 
> ...



We have a winner.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> you just chastised me for generalization which I just prove you guilty of and it’s worst because you did that under the assumption that all blacks in SA owe their land prosperity to whites.
> 
> Common sense would tell you no way 8% could manage 73.3% and majority of farm lands on their own. They couldn’t even do it during apartheid.
> 
> Yeah except their family did steal it and they are benefitting from it. I know you have a hard time understanding the concept but you could give a rat ass about generations of poor blacks suffering due to colonialism, but more so about the son who inherited a once slave farm.



I never said they can't feed themselves, I am stating that if this much land is held by white land owners then taking it away and giving it to the wrong people due to political allignment rather than ability _can _result in a food shortage.



Huey Freeman said:


> *Except you didn’t mention that tiny detail. *You made it seem you up for taking away of land to those who are guilty of it but reality you only want those who would be dead anyway land taken alway. The son of a once slave plantation is innocent to you. Regardless if he is still making millions off the same land.
> 
> So I’m not a liar. You don’t want land taken way. You want them to pay these rich families.
> 
> And I quoted 2 post and anyone notice not one of them accounted for the other side? It’s all about 8% with Juan



I never omitted that, it's a detail I keep posting all the time.

And you are, because you said I said that the whites get to keep it due to right of conquest, ignoring how those who benefited from this initially are to blame in my opinion, and even those of their descendants whose land is vital for the national economy have to agree with a forced sale under impartial management via a court.

Which is also something I said many times over.

Clearly if I prioritised the 8 % so much I wouldn't agree that whenever necessary, emminent domain should be excercised by the Goverment.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

San Juan Wolf said:


> I never said they can't feed themselves, I am stating that if this much land is held by white land owners then taking it away and giving it to the wrong people due to political allignment rather than ability _can _result in a food shortage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You comprehension is dog shit, you said inherited land is fair game. Which is line with conquest land is a okay because it’s a long time ago.

Secondly stop fucking lying and being a hypocrite you weasel. SA economic problems is because of the land and wealth gap cause by the 8% stop pulling shit out your ass. The lack of jobs and housing. Jesus fucking Christ do I need to put you on ignore to not read this stupid agenda of yours? I be you’re going to blame the government right cause the 8% is blameless 

But but “I ain’t racist I love the blacks”


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> It’s chel’s argument which you have continuously backed and agreed with throughout the thread unless you are that stupid to like, agree and winner his posts blindly



Well sorry I'm right in this instance. 

Take your L and move on.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Well sorry I'm right in this instance.
> 
> Take your L and move on.



That feel when Chel  is l trying to clinch his first W in cafe since ever.

Sorry dude you started at the bottom and still there.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> That feel when Chel  is l trying to clinch his first W in cafe since ever.
> 
> Sorry dude you started at the bottom and still there.



Your failure to refute anything I and many others have stated shows otherwise.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Your failure to refute anything I and many others have stated shows otherwise.



That’s cute, whose your drug dealer


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> That’s cute, whose your drug dealer



You.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> You.


You’re Too broke tho due dem illegals you be shouting about


----------



## MrPopo (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> You comprehension is dog shit, you said inherited land is fair game. Which is line with conquest land is a okay because it’s a long time ago.
> 
> Secondly stop fucking lying and being a hypocrite you weasel.* SA economic problems is because of the land and wealth gap cause by the 8% stop pulling shit out your ass. *The lack of jobs and housing*.* Jesus fucking Christ do I need to put you on ignore to not read this stupid agenda of yours? I be you’re going to blame the government right cause the 8% is blameless
> 
> But but “I ain’t racist I love the blacks”


South Africa's current economic problems is because of state capture.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

MrPopo said:


> South Africa's current economic problems is because of state capture.


What did I tell you. So I guess they were better off in apartheid ?


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 20, 2018)

wibisana said:


> Idk. Imo land and other stuff still should belong to original owner (if it was taken unjustly) despite how long it has been passed. And inherited for generations.
> 
> So. I still think the one have more rights should get the land.
> 
> ...



But that's the thing, they never owned the land, their ancestors did, they are not their ancestors.
No they shouldn't as they never lived on the land, their ancestors did, you have such a tribalist mindset.

Land to the poor one, so the other one can be put in a worse situation?(easily worse than the poor one) This ain't fair, your not thinking this in depth enough.

This is the problem, within capitalistic societies we need people to be able to thrive, get rich. So they can supply enough food to feed, yes the poor. you want a complete overhaul of how the system currently works, which has never been successfully done.(unless you want everyone to be poor)

*They are not the rightful owner, their ancestors were, they are not their ancestor, stop using tribalist ideology to claim so.*


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Revan Reborn said:


> But that's the thing, they never owned the land, their ancestors did, they are not their ancestors.
> No they shouldn't as they never lived on the land, their ancestors did, you have such a tribalist mindset.
> 
> Land to the poor one, so the other one can be put in a worse situation?(easily worse than the poor one) This ain't fair, your not thinking this in depth enough.
> ...



Rich feed the poor


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

It's not exactly poor people/governments funding social welfare programs now is it?


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Rich feed the poor


What do you think everyone food company does.....
anyway, you are looking at it from a different context lol.

Supply and demand. Basic economics.


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> It's not exactly poor people/governments funding social welfare programs now is it?


Paid by the rich might I add.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

Revan Reborn said:


> Paid by the rich might I add.



No wai, all lies.

Kappa


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Revan Reborn said:


> Paid by the rich might I add.


Ah yes we know the rich fund 100% of the wellfare. _Yup yup dem darkies should be grateful the powerful white man is looking out for them. _


----------



## Revan Reborn (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Ah yes we know the rich fund 100% of the wellfare. _Yup yup dem darkies should be grateful the powerful white man is looking out for them._


Nice addition of Identitarian ideology into your statement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Ah yes we know the rich fund 100% of the wellfare. _Yup yup dem darkies should be grateful the powerful white man is looking out for them. _




Since *YOU'RE* the one saying it, it must be true.

You heard it here first, Huey Freeman said blacks should be grateful to the white man.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Revan Reborn said:


> Nice addition of Identitarian ideology into your statement.


No that’s satire, nice way of trying to spin a race driven comment of yours tho.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> No that’s satire, nice way of trying to spin a race driven comment of yours tho.



Nope, unless you admit all your previous posts in this thread are satirical in nature as well.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> Nope, unless you admit all your previous posts in this thread are satirical in nature as well.


The italics is a give away. But it understandable you missed it


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> The italics is a give away. But it understandable you missed it



You can't backtrack now, your racist, against whites and blacks.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


> You can't backtrack now, your racist, against whites and blacks.


Cool story, no one will believe you


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 20, 2018)

Huey Freeman said:


> Cool story, no one will believe you


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 20, 2018)

Chelydra said:


>


:letgo


----------



## wibisana (Dec 20, 2018)

Revan Reborn said:


> But that's the thing, they never owned the land, their ancestors did, they are not their ancestors.
> No they shouldn't as they never lived on the land, their ancestors did, you have such a tribalist mindset.
> 
> Land to the poor one, so the other one can be put in a worse situation?(easily worse than the poor one) This ain't fair, your not thinking this in depth enough.
> ...


Here is the thing i was taught

A lead to B lead to C lead to D

A = black/natives got evicted and the land were given to someone else (wrong)

B = land passed on to other generation (in your oppinion it is legitimise the land)

C = land cultivated and  provide prosperity (yes I agree this is good thing)

D = if land will be retaken. Current owner will lose its living (your argument this is punishment and wrong, I will explain my stance)


So in my culture/education. What the most important thing in here is fixing the root. Which is A. The B,C,D is irrelevant.

It just like doing prayer in Islam. If you miss or do wrong in 1st step you have to do it over or fix the 1st step.


Also why you keep saying i use tribalism ideology. I dont care if they are white or black. My argument is based on who has more right?

The one ancestor who got evicted or the one inherited unjustly taken land.

If you reverse the race i will still support the one their great grand pa that got evicted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 20, 2018)

Since we're now in the 30th page and mostly repeating the same arguments over and over, I think it's maybe time for this thread to take a break. We can revisit this topic if and when the policy actually starts being implemented.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

