Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Use common sense. If Africans the world over were naturally violent, white people would have been made extinct a long time ago. They are VASTLY outnumbered the world over. Europeans are the actual minority making war on everyone else. Open your eyes. If Africans taught Europeans to make war, they would have already wiped them off the planet by virtue of being outmanned and outsmarted. Africans civilized Europeans, and Europeans turned around and stabbed them in the back. Quite literally.
Nope the Neolithic revolution spread from the fertile crescent and from that what you refer to as civilization spawned. Most Africans were Johnnie come lately's compared to the fertile crescent/Iran. How do you think agriculture spread to Egypt? Carry on your Afrocentrist views gave me a few chuckles.
I am not an Afrocentrist. It's a fact that the original man was black. Why do you think black skin offers the most protection from the sun - the life source of the planet? That's also how you know certain people don't naturally belong in certain places. This is all elementary stuff if you really sit down and think about it. No science degree required. Just good ol' common sense. I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but you'll get over it.
I am not an Afrocentrist. It's a fact that the original man was black. Why do you think black skin offers the most protection from the sun - the life source of the planet? That's also how you know certain people don't naturally belong in certain places. This is all elementary stuff if you really sit down and think about it. No science degree required. Just good ol' common sense. I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but you'll get over it.
These comments don't correspond to what I responded "African civilized Europeans". We don't actually know how "black" the first man was, his shade hasn't been determined. But for sure he looked significant different than West African and Western Europeans. But for clarification in case you're wondering yep science does indicate we're from the same ancestral tribe.
Your misrepresentation and over simplification of "facts" is laughable. You have swallowed the anti-white propaganda pill completely. I cannot help but wonder at your background but I wont ask you to disclose.
One or two things worth noting for some perspective:
This idea of percentage of land owned by white farmers needs to be understood properly. Most of South Africa is semi-desert and severely water distressed. It takes many, many acres to eek out a modest living in most areas. For example in the Karoo and Northern Cape were something like a third of the white farming land ownership acreage is you could have a 12 000 acre farm sup;porting only like a thousand sheep. 400 acres in lush England could support probably more head than that. So using area alone gives the impression of land wealth that isnt an accurate picture. White Farmers and their ancestors were very good at making bad land productive. Land where none of the so called indigenous tribes even wanted. It makes for good propaganda as we see in your case to claim this amazing wealth amongst a small white minority.
The idea that whites stole a whole country from some poor tribesmen also is nonsense. History (real history) shows whites and blacks arriving in the area known as South Africa today at around the same time. Whites from the West (Cape) via ship and Blacks overland from the East. It was many many decades before the two groups met for the first time as the whites expanded east. There were wars, there were purchases and treaties and there were deals made.
The ancestors of today's Afrikaners were a mixture of Dutch, French, German and other blood that wished to escape British domination and they were the ones who left to explore the interior. They were family groups and rather interested in NOT settling anywhere there were existing people who they might clash with. For the full story research the Great Trek and on why most of the interior was deserted the Mfecane
Later Apartheid emerged as a system of separate development whereby the Afrikaners of the day beleived that the two groups of people would be better off pursuing their own destinies. Whites believed in private ownership of land, blacks had a tribal system whereby the King and his chiefs allocated land to subjects. (Incidentally this system still exists in much of South Africa and the Zulu King threatened war if his lands were to be included in the States current plans to nationalize (expropriate) all land.
So to suggest as you do that whites and farmers deserve violence because they created it is absurd. Whites, especially the Afrikaners only ever wanted a peaceful place to settle. The wars and violence you talk of regarding Inkatha was as a result of Communists aspirations in Southern Africa creating a conflict that lasted decades.
There were atrocities committed at all stages of South Africas history. We voted to end Apartheid, for freedom and Democracy and a peaceful future in 1994. For you to come along now and suggest we deserve to suffer and deserve violence? [mod cut]
Your post sounded reasonable but after reading it,it really is an effort to minimize the effects of a system that benefiting one group more than others for decades.
A brutal system that regulated people as second class citizens soley based on race.
Its not right to force people off their lands without some kind of fair compensation but is not fair for blacks living in poor conditions,, as the majority blacks live in South Afrca
Quote:
In 1959, the government required many black landowners to give up their property and rent homes with white landlords. Over the course of apartheid, non-white families lost their homes and lands.
Quote:
The South African government is not seizing land of white farmers. Instead, they are negotiating with white farmers to buy back land that had been wrongfully taken from black communities during apartheid.
The government is considering changing the constitution so they can acquire the land without paying the current owners. However, in every exchange made so far, they have paid current owners for their property loss. The government has not taken steps to limit farmers to 25,000 acres.
I hope South Africa takes a step back and studies land reform in Taiwan. It was a huge success. to avoid a repeat of what happened in Zim, SA needs to separate large commercial farming from family farms. And family farms from growing for the family to small scale commercial farming. At same time, they should only redistribute farmers to real farmers, not to the politically connected. Also, redistribution of land with some sense of planning, septic field requirements, water, utilities, etc. would make most sense. Of course, all should be compensated.
Finally, with the commercial farms there is the need for tech transfer. offer above market prices and a 50 year lease with salaries for training. If no volunteers then nationalize but compensate and retain with high wages.
Land reform can be made to work. Snatching it by force and death and then handing it over to some stiff who cannot operate without help and capital from outside would be a disaster.
I hope South Africa takes a step back and studies land reform in Taiwan. It was a huge success. to avoid a repeat of what happened in Zim, SA needs to separate large commercial farming from family farms. And family farms from growing for the family to small scale commercial farming. At same time, they should only redistribute farmers to real farmers, not to the politically connected. Also, redistribution of land with some sense of planning, septic field requirements, water, utilities, etc. would make most sense. Of course, all should be compensated.
Finally, with the commercial farms there is the need for tech transfer. offer above market prices and a 50 year lease with salaries for training. If no volunteers then nationalize but compensate and retain with high wages.
Land reform can be made to work. Snatching it by force and death and then handing it over to some stiff who cannot operate without help and capital from outside would be a disaster.
They won't. Maybe some of the Boer farmers can get to Zambia and save themselves instead of being murdered in SA..... The whole place (SA) will descend into war eventually. Tribalism will lead to more strife....................
They won't. Maybe some of the Boer farmers can get to Zambia and save themselves instead of being murdered in SA..... The whole place (SA) will descend into war eventually. Tribalism will lead to more strife....................
More than 55% of SA live in abject poverty,
Number of people living in poverty in SA by population group
Population group Number % of population group
African/Black 28,267,530 64.2%
Coloured 1,989,304 41.3%
Indian/Asian 79,460 5.9% White 47,494 1% South Africa 30,383,788 55.5%
Less tha 1% of whites are living in poverty in a system they designed that way while brutally enforcing it.Most people living in SA were alive when the system ended so they are directly benefiting.
This premise that whites are not getting compensated is not even accurate as they are.Land is not just taken away.I dont live in South Africa but I have a tenant who is from Nelspruit and of Indian descent,as well as another friend( also of Indian heritage) who actually lives in Johanesburg.
One of my good friends is a white SA whose parents came from London.I was worried about him and contacted him and the others,
Not one of them has said these things are going on like reported in the media
I guess your whole rhetoric can be ripped straight from the NOI-style pseudo-scientific racial hierarchy/history playbook, and not be an Afrocentrist then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
That's also how you know certain people don't naturally belong in certain places.
Did you just co-opt the same logic that racist whites use when they say "Go back to Africa."?
More than 55% of SA live in abject poverty,
Number of people living in poverty in SA by population group
Population group Number % of population group
African/Black 28,267,530 64.2%
Coloured 1,989,304 41.3%
Indian/Asian 79,460 5.9% White 47,494 1% South Africa 30,383,788 55.5%
Less tha 1% of whites are living in poverty in a system they designed that way while brutally enforcing it.Most people living in SA were alive when the system ended so they are directly benefiting.
This premise that whites are not getting compensated is not even accurate as they are.Land is not just taken away.I dont live in South Africa but I have a tenant who is from Nelspruit and of Indian descent,as well as another friend( also of Indian heritage) who actually lives in Johanesburg.
One of my good friends is a white SA whose parents came from London.I was worried about him and contacted him and the others,
Not one of them has said these things are going on like reported in the media
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
