Genocide of white farmers in South africa

[Coyote]

o

And the policy is not even racist. The government has nothing to do with these killings. Reconciliation allowed whites to maintain control of almost everything. They are prospering more now than they did during apartheid and things are getting worse for blacks. But that's OK to these losers. So what we have are at a bunch of cry babies because blacks are no longer taking their bullshit and are employing the same tactics against them they used on blacks.

Every action creates a reaction. This fundamental law of nature seems to escapes many whites. For CENTURIES, they have committed f up acts of violence, conquest and bondage that cost millions of lives, loss of resources and wealth and the basic human dignity of others, yet, assume NO RESPONSIBILITY. As a result of those actions, however, nature always forces a consequence in the form of REACTION.....often equal and opposite.

All the problems whites are supposedly having these days....could have been avoided had they simply not done all the f up things they have done to others over past centuries. You really brought it on yourselves. You do things that benefit YOU today, but at the future expense of your descendants. All they had to do would be offer sincere attempts to provide reparations....but no....they want to keep the fruits of their wrongs....while the fruits of their wrongs creates the scurvy in those that they have wronged.

It's sad that anyone gets killed....especially the innocent, but you taught the people to be that way.....by treating them that way.

You cant punish the people of today for the things their ancestors did.

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

I dont believe in punishing children for the sins of their parents. I think that is wrong. That is why we need a truth and reconciliation approach and an equitable land redistribution that includes fair confiscation at least in part.

Their not CHILDREN....they are ADULTS who are descendants and beneficiaries of past wrongs. I don't disagree with you about what the approach should be, however. What is going on now, good or bad, may inspire full reconciliation.

There are no white children in SA?

 

[IM2]

Mugabe's landgrab was rife with corruption. You can not right old wrongs by committing new ones. There has to be a fair and equitable process. Not thuggery and cronyism. He encouraged violence against white landowners allowing gangs to attack them and drive them out.

That isnt right.

Whites cannot now talk about new wrongs without taking responsibility for the wrongs they are responsible for. For example, it might be wrong for you to shoot me, but it was wrong for me to have raped your wife. Seems that whites around here can't understand they created the problem and really have no right to judge what Mugabe decided to do in return. or what backs decide to do in South Africa.

So you’re a fan of the law of the jungle. That figures. Animal.

Was it the law of the jungle when for 100 years whites were murdering, raping, pillaging and terrorize blacks in South Africa? Stupid bitch.

 

[IM2]

n

Mugabe's landgrab was rife with corruption. You can not right old wrongs by committing new ones. There has to be a fsir and eauitable process. Not thuggery and cronyism. He encouraged violence against white landowners allowing gangs to attack them and drive them out.

That isnt right.

Yeah...but you reap what you sow.

No. You learn from it and find a just way to fix it.

No. You remove the criminals from what they stole.

If you are American you are most likely residing on land once claimed by another people. Should it be removed from you because you stole it?

That's a dumb ass question and it's beneath you as a person to be asking it. I am black, that means I was property at the time whites stole this land. Blacks could not own property. On top of that Native Americans signed agreements with the white government. I don't think blacks in South Africa agreed to the laws and policies that constituted apartheid.. So ask that stupid question elsewhere..

 

[IM2]

Mugabe's landgrab was rife with corruption. You can not right old wrongs by committing new ones. There has to be a fair and equitable process. Not thuggery and cronyism. He encouraged violence against white landowners allowing gangs to attack them and drive them out.

That isnt right.

Whites cannot now talk about new wrongs without taking responsibility for the wrongs they are responsible for. For example, it might be wrong for you to shoot me, but it was wrong for me to have raped your wife. Seems that whites around here can't understand they created the problem and really have no right to judge what Mugabe decided to do in return. or what backs decide to do in South Africa.

Whites aren’t a single group. Just blacks aren’t. You are blaming a whole group of people for the actions of some.

Don't try that bullshit with me. I'm blaming those who are responsible. I don't see you talking about he wrongs of whites in Zimbabwe. You don't talk about the sanctions put on Mugabe when he first decided remove the white farmers which helped cripple Zimbabwe either. Who controls the platinum industry there? Whites. How could this be in a nation that is majority black?

You want to talk about a fair and equitable process when the situation was not caused by fair and equitable means. That's not fair or equitable to those who have been wronged.

 

[IM2]

LoL, nothing brings out the inner white supremacist like talking about South Africa. Here we have a group of people bitching about "genocide", when the facts show black and white farmers being killed. I mean, it would be funny, if it wasn't so sad to see someone argue with a straight face about a racist policy enacted now, while staying the fuck quiet when apartheid was the law.

'murica

o

And the policy is not even racist. The government has nothing to do with these killings. Reconciliation allowed whites to maintain control of almost everything. They are prospering more now than they did during apartheid and things are getting worse for blacks. But that's OK to these losers. So what we have are at a bunch of cry babies because blacks are no longer taking their bullshit and are employing the same tactics against them they used on blacks.

Every action creates a reaction. This fundamental law of nature seems to escapes many whites. For CENTURIES, they have committed f up acts of violence, conquest and bondage that cost millions of lives, loss of resources and wealth and the basic human dignity of others, yet, assume NO RESPONSIBILITY. As a result of those actions, however, nature always forces a consequence in the form of REACTION.....often equal and opposite.

All the problems whites are supposedly having these days....could have been avoided had they simply not done all the f up things they have done to others over past centuries. You really brought it on yourselves. You do things that benefit YOU today, but at the future expense of your descendants. All they had to do would be offer sincere attempts to provide reparations....but no....they want to keep the fruits of their wrongs....while the fruits of their wrongs creates the scurvy in those that they have wronged.

It's sad that anyone gets killed....especially the innocent, but you taught the people to be that way.....by treating them that way.

You cant punish the people of today for the things their ancestors did.

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

You are still essentially punishing innocent people.

How would you reapportion land in such a way that is fair and just?

Or would that not be a part of the equation?

What about people who did not come to South Africa until after the end of Apartheid? Would they be awarded or demoted on the basis of race alone?

Why is this discussion so one sided on the concerns of whites. The majority of citizens in SA are black,they are the ones suffering the most. Why is it that whites here do not even try considering their suffering?

 

[IM2]

Seems their are quite a number racist exaggerations peddled - no doubt to appeal to the racist voters the ANC needs:

The truth about land and home ownership in South Africa


...
With about 15.6 million households in South Africa at present, and the number of households having grown faster than the population for some time now, it is clear that between 38% and 46% of households live in homes that have been built since 1994.

“With white families only making up 10% of all households, they could not be living in all the new houses built – even if not one of them had their own house in 1994, which was certainly not the case,” explained Schussler.

“Since 1994 the private sector in the bigger municipalities has constructed 1.625 million residential buildings and that alone is more than the estimated total number of white households of 1.62 million.”

Even going as far as to assume no whites had a house in 1994 and no white families rent – actually 180 000 do and some stay with family for free – the number of houses built since 1994 cannot be for whites, said Schussler. He, therefore, challenges allegations that whites own 80% of the land and blacks 20%. Yet, despite the data changing, the slogans do not.

“These statistics also do not include places like Bushbuck Ridge or Thayandou where tens of thousands of new homes have been built by people themselves. It does not include construction at Nkandla or on other rural and tribal land,” said Schussler.

Furthermore, apart from the 4 million so-called RDP houses government has built since 1994, there are many that had been built in places like Diepsloot and Orange Farm without approved building plans they are therefore not counted.....

.....
Schussler admits that whites as a group are very small in the overall population and are still over-represented as owner-occupiers, but they certainly are no longer the majority owners and they do not own 80% of the land.


The truth about land and home ownership in South Africa

Lots more interesting stats in there for anyone who wants a read.

There are numbers peddled by Afrikaners that individuals here use to argue about a non existent genocide.

 

[IM2]

DIRCO: AfriForum must stop sowing panic and fear

Mabaya said there were groups and organisations in South Africa spreading false information and sparking panic, to advance their own political agendas. The International Relations department has asked them to stop.

“We call on organisations such as AfriForum that are spreading incorrect information sowing panic and fear to refrain from doing so. The South African Government has been very clear and transparent on a land reform process and the matter is now before Parliament.

“All stakeholders will be consulted and they are also encouraged to engage with Parliament. There is no reason for any Government anywhere in the world to suspect that any South African is in danger from their own democratically elected Government. That threat simply does not exist.”

DIRCO: AfriForum must stop sowing panic and fear - SA Breaking News

AfriForum is a group of Afrikaners and the are the main group responsible for the misinformation we read here.

"Are protesters right on South Africa farm murder rate?

According to the best available statistics, farm murders are at their highest level since 2010-11.

South Africa's Police Service says 74 people were murdered on farms between April 2016 and March 2017, up from 58 in the previous year. '

"There were 19,016 murders in South Africa in 2016-17, according to the police.

According to Statistics South Africa's mid-year estimate for 2016, there were 55,908,900 people in South Africa.

That's 34 murders for every 100,000 people.

Are farmers at greater risk than this national average? "

"How many farmers?

The truth is, we don't know. We can't calculate a meaningful murder rate for farmers, because we don't know how many there are.

Do we include all 810,000 people employed in agriculture? That gives a farm murder rate of 9.1 per 100,000 - much lower than the South African average.

Or, do we restrict ourselves to the 32,375 commercial farmers counted in the country's last agricultural census in 2007?

That's what AfriForum, a group that campaigns for the interests of Afrikaners in South Africa, appears to have done.

It has estimated a farm murder rate of 156 per 100,000 that has been widely quoted in recent days."

Reality Check: Are protesters right on South Africa farm murders?

So as we see Afrikaners are distorting numbers.

 

[Linkiloo]

Seems their are quite a number racist exaggerations peddled - no doubt to appeal to the racist voters the ANC needs:

The truth about land and home ownership in South Africa


...
With about 15.6 million households in South Africa at present, and the number of households having grown faster than the population for some time now, it is clear that between 38% and 46% of households live in homes that have been built since 1994.

“With white families only making up 10% of all households, they could not be living in all the new houses built – even if not one of them had their own house in 1994, which was certainly not the case,” explained Schussler.

“Since 1994 the private sector in the bigger municipalities has constructed 1.625 million residential buildings and that alone is more than the estimated total number of white households of 1.62 million.”

Even going as far as to assume no whites had a house in 1994 and no white families rent – actually 180 000 do and some stay with family for free – the number of houses built since 1994 cannot be for whites, said Schussler. He, therefore, challenges allegations that whites own 80% of the land and blacks 20%. Yet, despite the data changing, the slogans do not.

“These statistics also do not include places like Bushbuck Ridge or Thayandou where tens of thousands of new homes have been built by people themselves. It does not include construction at Nkandla or on other rural and tribal land,” said Schussler.

Furthermore, apart from the 4 million so-called RDP houses government has built since 1994, there are many that had been built in places like Diepsloot and Orange Farm without approved building plans they are therefore not counted.....

.....
Schussler admits that whites as a group are very small in the overall population and are still over-represented as owner-occupiers, but they certainly are no longer the majority owners and they do not own 80% of the land.


The truth about land and home ownership in South Africa

Lots more interesting stats in there for anyone who wants a read.

There are numbers peddled by Afrikaners that individuals here use to argue about a non existent genocide.

Spot on. South Africa is a violent country. Most of its victimes, by a vast majority, are blacks.

White cry babies...boo hoo

 

[Coyote]

o

And the policy is not even racist. The government has nothing to do with these killings. Reconciliation allowed whites to maintain control of almost everything. They are prospering more now than they did during apartheid and things are getting worse for blacks. But that's OK to these losers. So what we have are at a bunch of cry babies because blacks are no longer taking their bullshit and are employing the same tactics against them they used on blacks.

Every action creates a reaction. This fundamental law of nature seems to escapes many whites. For CENTURIES, they have committed f up acts of violence, conquest and bondage that cost millions of lives, loss of resources and wealth and the basic human dignity of others, yet, assume NO RESPONSIBILITY. As a result of those actions, however, nature always forces a consequence in the form of REACTION.....often equal and opposite.

All the problems whites are supposedly having these days....could have been avoided had they simply not done all the f up things they have done to others over past centuries. You really brought it on yourselves. You do things that benefit YOU today, but at the future expense of your descendants. All they had to do would be offer sincere attempts to provide reparations....but no....they want to keep the fruits of their wrongs....while the fruits of their wrongs creates the scurvy in those that they have wronged.

It's sad that anyone gets killed....especially the innocent, but you taught the people to be that way.....by treating them that way.

You cant punish the people of today for the things their ancestors did.

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

You are still essentially punishing innocent people.

How would you reapportion land in such a way that is fair and just?

Or would that not be a part of the equation?

What about people who did not come to South Africa until after the end of Apartheid? Would they be awarded or demoted on the basis of race alone?

Why is this discussion so one sided on the concerns of whites. The majority of citizens in SA are black,they are the ones suffering the most. Why is it that whites here do not even try considering their suffering?

Pointing out the injustices in your position does not mean I don’t consider their suffering. A solution that just shifts the suffering to another group isn’t much of a solution is it?

 

[Coyote]

Mugabe's landgrab was rife with corruption. You can not right old wrongs by committing new ones. There has to be a fair and equitable process. Not thuggery and cronyism. He encouraged violence against white landowners allowing gangs to attack them and drive them out.

That isnt right.

Whites cannot now talk about new wrongs without taking responsibility for the wrongs they are responsible for. For example, it might be wrong for you to shoot me, but it was wrong for me to have raped your wife. Seems that whites around here can't understand they created the problem and really have no right to judge what Mugabe decided to do in return. or what backs decide to do in South Africa.

Whites aren’t a single group. Just blacks aren’t. You are blaming a whole group of people for the actions of some.

Don't try that bullshit with me. I'm blaming those who are responsible. I don't see you talking about he wrongs of whites in Zimbabwe. You don't talk about the sanctions put on Mugabe when he first decided remove the white farmers which helped cripple Zimbabwe either. Who controls the platinum industry there? Whites. How could this be in a nation that is majority black?

You want to talk about a fair and equitable process when the situation was not caused by fair and equitable means. That's not fair or equitable to those who have been wronged.

Yes I DO want to talk about a fair and equitable process because TWO wrongs don’t make a right and collective punishment is never ok.

I don’t deny there is a considerable amount of inequity but Mugabe’s means of addressing it was as bad as the original problem.

Why did it fail? Because the people who got land had no idea how to farm. Who got the land? His cronies and fellow tribesmen and thugs. How did they get it? “Fast track land reform” as opposed to the former process of compensating the farmers. And what did it look like?


Land reform in Zimbabwe - Wikipedia
A few days later, the pro-Mugabe Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association (ZNLWVA) organised several people (including but not limited to war veterans; many of them were their children and grandchildren) to march on white-owned farmlands, initially with drums, song and dance. This movement was officially termed the "Fast-Track Land Reform Program" (FTLRP). The predominantly white farm owners were forced off their lands along with their workers, who were typically of regional descent. This was often done violently and without compensation. In this first wave of farm invasions, a total of 110,000 square kilometres of land had been seized. Several million black farm workers were excluded from the redistribution, leaving them without employment. According to Human Rights Watch, by 2002 the War Veterans Association had "killed white farm owners in the course of occupying commercial farms" on at least seven occasions, in addition to "several tens of [black] farm workers".[31] The first white farmers to die as a direct consequence of the resettlement programme were murdered by Zimbabwean paramilitaries in mid-2000. More commonly, violence was directed against farmworkers, who were often assaulted and killed by the war veterans and their supporters.[32] Violent confrontations between the farmers and the war veterans occurred and resulted in exchanges of gunfire, as well as a state of armed siege on the affected farms.[33]

 

[Coyote]

n

Mugabe's landgrab was rife with corruption. You can not right old wrongs by committing new ones. There has to be a fsir and eauitable process. Not thuggery and cronyism. He encouraged violence against white landowners allowing gangs to attack them and drive them out.

That isnt right.

Yeah...but you reap what you sow.

No. You learn from it and find a just way to fix it.

No. You remove the criminals from what they stole.

If you are American you are most likely residing on land once claimed by another people. Should it be removed from you because you stole it?

That's a dumb ass question and it's beneath you as a person to be asking it. I am black, that means I was property at the time whites stole this land. Blacks could not own property. On top of that Native Americans signed agreements with the white government. I don't think blacks in South Africa agreed to the laws and policies that constituted apartheid.. So ask that stupid question elsewhere..

No it is not a dumb question. It is a perfectly valid one. You can own property now. In addition during the post civil war expansion, blacks could and did own property and before, freed blacks could. And you know as well as I those treaties were worthless and I doubt they “agreed” to a life on reservations either. So answer the question, since we are talking about punishing people for the acts of their ancestors.

 

[ATL]

o

And the policy is not even racist. The government has nothing to do with these killings. Reconciliation allowed whites to maintain control of almost everything. They are prospering more now than they did during apartheid and things are getting worse for blacks. But that's OK to these losers. So what we have are at a bunch of cry babies because blacks are no longer taking their bullshit and are employing the same tactics against them they used on blacks.

Every action creates a reaction. This fundamental law of nature seems to escapes many whites. For CENTURIES, they have committed f up acts of violence, conquest and bondage that cost millions of lives, loss of resources and wealth and the basic human dignity of others, yet, assume NO RESPONSIBILITY. As a result of those actions, however, nature always forces a consequence in the form of REACTION.....often equal and opposite.

All the problems whites are supposedly having these days....could have been avoided had they simply not done all the f up things they have done to others over past centuries. You really brought it on yourselves. You do things that benefit YOU today, but at the future expense of your descendants. All they had to do would be offer sincere attempts to provide reparations....but no....they want to keep the fruits of their wrongs....while the fruits of their wrongs creates the scurvy in those that they have wronged.

It's sad that anyone gets killed....especially the innocent, but you taught the people to be that way.....by treating them that way.

You cant punish the people of today for the things their ancestors did.

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

You are still essentially punishing innocent people.

How would you reapportion land in such a way that is fair and just?

Or would that not be a part of the equation?

What about people who did not come to South Africa until after the end of Apartheid? Would they be awarded or demoted on the basis of race alone?

Why is this discussion so one sided on the concerns of whites. The majority of citizens in SA are black,they are the ones suffering the most. Why is it that whites here do not even try considering their suffering?

It is one sided because it is proof about exactly what the social cons are concerned about. Be it whites in SA, whites in US, it is the same story and script day after day.

They have ignored apartheid for decades because to them it is the way things should be, just like they ignore police brutality towards blacks, where they say, "back the blue" or "all lives matter" when it clearly doesn't. You notice how they back law enforcement when it pertains to blacks, but fell in line behind Cliven Bundy when he and his good ol boys aimed rifles at law enforcement...that says all that needs to be said in regards to social cons.

 

[IM2]

Every action creates a reaction. This fundamental law of nature seems to escapes many whites. For CENTURIES, they have committed f up acts of violence, conquest and bondage that cost millions of lives, loss of resources and wealth and the basic human dignity of others, yet, assume NO RESPONSIBILITY. As a result of those actions, however, nature always forces a consequence in the form of REACTION.....often equal and opposite.

All the problems whites are supposedly having these days....could have been avoided had they simply not done all the f up things they have done to others over past centuries. You really brought it on yourselves. You do things that benefit YOU today, but at the future expense of your descendants. All they had to do would be offer sincere attempts to provide reparations....but no....they want to keep the fruits of their wrongs....while the fruits of their wrongs creates the scurvy in those that they have wronged.

It's sad that anyone gets killed....especially the innocent, but you taught the people to be that way.....by treating them that way.

You cant punish the people of today for the things their ancestors did.

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

You are still essentially punishing innocent people.

How would you reapportion land in such a way that is fair and just?

Or would that not be a part of the equation?

What about people who did not come to South Africa until after the end of Apartheid? Would they be awarded or demoted on the basis of race alone?

Why is this discussion so one sided on the concerns of whites. The majority of citizens in SA are black,they are the ones suffering the most. Why is it that whites here do not even try considering their suffering?

Pointing out the injustices in your position does not mean I don’t consider their suffering. A solution that just shifts the suffering to another group isn’t much of a solution is it?

If whites had got what they did in a just manner, I could agree. But we are taking about crimes here. If my friend steals from you and he gives me your TV, the police can take your TV out of my house and charge me as an accessory whether or not I committed the crime. A crime comes with penalties and that is what why South Africans need to face. Justice comes when a crime is committed and the criminals and accessories get the proper penalty for the crimes they committed.

 

[IM2]

n

Yeah...but you reap what you sow.

No. You learn from it and find a just way to fix it.

No. You remove the criminals from what they stole.

If you are American you are most likely residing on land once claimed by another people. Should it be removed from you because you stole it?

That's a dumb ass question and it's beneath you as a person to be asking it. I am black, that means I was property at the time whites stole this land. Blacks could not own property. On top of that Native Americans signed agreements with the white government. I don't think blacks in South Africa agreed to the laws and policies that constituted apartheid.. So ask that stupid question elsewhere..

No it is not a dumb question. It is a perfectly valid one. You can own property now. In addition during the post civil war expansion, blacks could and did own property and before, freed blacks could. And you know as well as I those treaties were worthless and I doubt they “agreed” to a life on reservations either. So answer the question, since we are talking about punishing people for the acts of their ancestors.

Native Americans owned black slaves. So yes, your question is invalid.

Black Slaves, Red Masters Part 1



Black Slaves, Red Masters Part 2



Black Slaves, Red Masters Part 3



As for South Africa it is not a discussion about punishment of their ancestors. Your argument in this regard is one sided anyway. We must still suffer because of what those ancestors did, but I guess that's not considered punishment.

 

[Coyote]

Every action creates a reaction. This fundamental law of nature seems to escapes many whites. For CENTURIES, they have committed f up acts of violence, conquest and bondage that cost millions of lives, loss of resources and wealth and the basic human dignity of others, yet, assume NO RESPONSIBILITY. As a result of those actions, however, nature always forces a consequence in the form of REACTION.....often equal and opposite.

All the problems whites are supposedly having these days....could have been avoided had they simply not done all the f up things they have done to others over past centuries. You really brought it on yourselves. You do things that benefit YOU today, but at the future expense of your descendants. All they had to do would be offer sincere attempts to provide reparations....but no....they want to keep the fruits of their wrongs....while the fruits of their wrongs creates the scurvy in those that they have wronged.

It's sad that anyone gets killed....especially the innocent, but you taught the people to be that way.....by treating them that way.

You cant punish the people of today for the things their ancestors did.

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

You are still essentially punishing innocent people.

How would you reapportion land in such a way that is fair and just?

Or would that not be a part of the equation?

What about people who did not come to South Africa until after the end of Apartheid? Would they be awarded or demoted on the basis of race alone?

Why is this discussion so one sided on the concerns of whites. The majority of citizens in SA are black,they are the ones suffering the most. Why is it that whites here do not even try considering their suffering?

It is one sided because it is proof about exactly what the social cons are concerned about. Be it whites in SA, whites in US, it is the same story and script day after day.

They have ignored apartheid for decades because to them it is the way things should be, just like they ignore police brutality towards blacks, where they say, "back the blue" or "all lives matter" when it clearly doesn't. You notice how they back law enforcement when it pertains to blacks, but fell in line behind Cliven Bundy when he and his good ol boys aimed rifles at law enforcement...that says all that needs to be said in regards to social cons.

Who is this "they" ?

 

[Coyote]

n

No. You learn from it and find a just way to fix it.

No. You remove the criminals from what they stole.

If you are American you are most likely residing on land once claimed by another people. Should it be removed from you because you stole it?

That's a dumb ass question and it's beneath you as a person to be asking it. I am black, that means I was property at the time whites stole this land. Blacks could not own property. On top of that Native Americans signed agreements with the white government. I don't think blacks in South Africa agreed to the laws and policies that constituted apartheid.. So ask that stupid question elsewhere..

No it is not a dumb question. It is a perfectly valid one. You can own property now. In addition during the post civil war expansion, blacks could and did own property and before, freed blacks could. And you know as well as I those treaties were worthless and I doubt they “agreed” to a life on reservations either. So answer the question, since we are talking about punishing people for the acts of their ancestors.

Native Americans owned black slaves. So yes, your question is invalid.

Black Slaves, Red Masters Part 1



Black Slaves, Red Masters Part 2



Black Slaves, Red Masters Part 3



As for South Africa it is not a discussion about punishment of their ancestors. Your argument in this regard is one sided anyway. We must still suffer because of what those ancestors did, but I guess that's not considered punishment.

And blacks also owned slaves and participated in the enslavement of their fellow Africans so what is your point other than to dodge the question?

 

[Coyote]

You cant punish the people of today for the things their ancestors did.

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

You are still essentially punishing innocent people.

How would you reapportion land in such a way that is fair and just?

Or would that not be a part of the equation?

What about people who did not come to South Africa until after the end of Apartheid? Would they be awarded or demoted on the basis of race alone?

Why is this discussion so one sided on the concerns of whites. The majority of citizens in SA are black,they are the ones suffering the most. Why is it that whites here do not even try considering their suffering?

Pointing out the injustices in your position does not mean I don’t consider their suffering. A solution that just shifts the suffering to another group isn’t much of a solution is it?

If whites had got what they did in a just manner, I could agree. But we are taking about crimes here. If my friend steals from you and he gives me your TV, the police can take your TV out of my house and charge me as an accessory whether or not I committed the crime. A crime comes with penalties and that is what why South Africans need to face. Justice comes when a crime is committed and the criminals and accessories get the proper penalty for the crimes they committed.

What would you consider a just solution?

 

[irosie91]

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

You are still essentially punishing innocent people.

How would you reapportion land in such a way that is fair and just?

Or would that not be a part of the equation?

What about people who did not come to South Africa until after the end of Apartheid? Would they be awarded or demoted on the basis of race alone?

Why is this discussion so one sided on the concerns of whites. The majority of citizens in SA are black,they are the ones suffering the most. Why is it that whites here do not even try considering their suffering?

Pointing out the injustices in your position does not mean I don’t consider their suffering. A solution that just shifts the suffering to another group isn’t much of a solution is it?

If whites had got what they did in a just manner, I could agree. But we are taking about crimes here. If my friend steals from you and he gives me your TV, the police can take your TV out of my house and charge me as an accessory whether or not I committed the crime. A crime comes with penalties and that is what why South Africans need to face. Justice comes when a crime is committed and the criminals and accessories get the proper penalty for the crimes they committed.

What would you consider a just solution?

MASS universal earth suicide-------koolaide for ALL

 

[ATL]

You cant punish the people of today for the things their ancestors did.

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

You are still essentially punishing innocent people.

How would you reapportion land in such a way that is fair and just?

Or would that not be a part of the equation?

What about people who did not come to South Africa until after the end of Apartheid? Would they be awarded or demoted on the basis of race alone?

Why is this discussion so one sided on the concerns of whites. The majority of citizens in SA are black,they are the ones suffering the most. Why is it that whites here do not even try considering their suffering?

It is one sided because it is proof about exactly what the social cons are concerned about. Be it whites in SA, whites in US, it is the same story and script day after day.

They have ignored apartheid for decades because to them it is the way things should be, just like they ignore police brutality towards blacks, where they say, "back the blue" or "all lives matter" when it clearly doesn't. You notice how they back law enforcement when it pertains to blacks, but fell in line behind Cliven Bundy when he and his good ol boys aimed rifles at law enforcement...that says all that needs to be said in regards to social cons.

Who is this "they" ?

I highlighted the "they" I was referring to. Didn't read what I wrote?

 

[Coyote]

Well...the descendants are being punished, todamday, for the things done by white ancestors. Wealth is transferred generational....and thus so is the wrongs. The benefits of past wrongs are accrued to present whites. The determent of past wrongs are accrued to current blacks.

You cannot act as if the benefit and cost of past wrongs cease to exist in the present.

You are still essentially punishing innocent people.

How would you reapportion land in such a way that is fair and just?

Or would that not be a part of the equation?

What about people who did not come to South Africa until after the end of Apartheid? Would they be awarded or demoted on the basis of race alone?

Why is this discussion so one sided on the concerns of whites. The majority of citizens in SA are black,they are the ones suffering the most. Why is it that whites here do not even try considering their suffering?

Pointing out the injustices in your position does not mean I don’t consider their suffering. A solution that just shifts the suffering to another group isn’t much of a solution is it?

If whites had got what they did in a just manner, I could agree. But we are taking about crimes here. If my friend steals from you and he gives me your TV, the police can take your TV out of my house and charge me as an accessory whether or not I committed the crime. A crime comes with penalties and that is what why South Africans need to face. Justice comes when a crime is committed and the criminals and accessories get the proper penalty for the crimes they committed.

What would you consider a just solution?

What would be a fair solution to the issue of land in SA?