South African Farm seizures

kookbreaker said:
Having seen the words of some folks actually in SA, it’s a bit more complex than wringing your hands and crying “but...but...Zimbabwe!!!”

To whit (and I expect I’ll be corrected when our own native SA members come to the thread).

1) A large amount of land is owned by very few, and they have resisted all forms of voluntary land reform
Click to expand...

True that whites as individuals own a disproportionate amount of the land, but around two thirds of the land is owned by corporate entities of one form or another. A large amount of that is owned by the state.

'A third (33%) of the land in South Africa is owned directly by private individuals, while companies, trusts, the state, traditional authorities, churches and community organisations own the rest, the paper said. The latter group was not broken down by race.'

https://businesstech.co.za/news/bus...edistribution-without-compensation-economist/

kookbreaker said:
2) Most of the land they are farming was seized in living memory. This isn’t some ‘our ancient tribal lands’ thing.
Click to expand...

Not really, some goes back a long way, some to around 1913 (The Native Lands Act). Living memory is a bit vague.

kookbreaker said:
3) The land reform is being considered via legislation with probable market value compensation. By comparison Zimbabwe was purely authoritarian cronyism and massively disorganized as well.
Click to expand...

More recently:

'South Africa‘s parliament has passed a motion that could lead to the seizure of land from white farmers without paying them compensation.'

Passed by an overwhelming majority of 241 votes to 83 votes against, the proposal to amend Section 25 of the constitution would allow expropriation of land without any financial recompense. '

We'll see, legislation pending.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...land-seizure-anc-race-relations-a8234461.html

kookbreaker said:
4) All that has happened is some public hearings. There’s a lot more steps that will need to happen before anything even starts. The President has stated that the rgame forms will not happen if they threaten food security or economic stability.
Click to expand...

We'll see.

kookbreaker said:
5) The constant comparisons to Zimbabwe is often just pure well poisoning.
Click to expand...

Not really, the reality is starting to converge. Interesting, quite long article, without getting partisan. Political moves often ignore the economic realities.

In fairness to Zim - 'Zimbabwe, one of the countries that have gone down a similar path, has established a Compensation Committee under its Land Acquisition Act to allow for dispossessed white former commercial farmers to be compensated for land seized 18 years ago.


https://www.businesslive.co.za/rdm/...e-truth-about-land-ownership-in-south-africa/


Unfortunately, about 70% of the land already purchased is lying fallow, due to numerous reasons.

Farming is not quite as simple as planting a few seeds and waiting.

The proposed act will also apply to all property, not just farmland, but residential as well.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But it proved that the darkies can't farm so they don't deserve the land.
Click to expand...

It proved that nicking land and handing it over to cronies and/or people with no commercial farming experience is a recipe for disaster.

Farming is a low margin, high risk business, with very high levels of debt.

If you are going to give someone a farm, either make sure they know what they are doing, or help them.
 
ThatGuy11200 said:
I'm not South African, but I've been interested in this issue for some time, from a population genetics point of view, I suppose you could say. Because, as far as I'm aware, the expropriated land isn't going to the Khoisan inhabitants, whose ancestors the land was mostly taken from originally. Instead, it's being given to the majority Bantu population, who themselves only arrived in the area about 100 years before the Dutch settlers.

Some people may wonder why that matters. Afterall, they're all black, or all African. But these two populations have been genetically distinct for upwards of 100,000 years. To put that in perspective, that's before the ancestors of everyone outside of Africa actually left Africa (not including Neanderthals and Denisovans, of course).
Click to expand...
So about 5% of the posters then?
 
I'm not from SA, but I follow this as well as the sporadic home invasions on white farmers which often involve torture and rape.

In favour of land reform:
Extreme income inequality is one of the most reliable drivers of violent crime and instability. If the class line runs along an ethnic line, you can add racism, ethnic cleansing and sometimes genocide to the mix.

Land reform should involve compensation and education of new farmers.

Against land reform in its current form:
-Farmers grow food. Stop them from doing that, you lose food security. That's a big one.
-States that seize property lose foreign investment.
-Black mobs showing up on farms to drive out white families will reduce SA's tourist industry to the level of Syria.
-Are those farms mortgaged? what happens to the banks that own the mortgages?
-What happens to the pension funds who own the mortgages?
-Seeing the rhetoric of some SA politicians, this is more likely to resemble Stalin's campaign against the Kulaks than an administrative process.

I'm dead against this and I'm disappointed in Western governments not speaking out against a government that calls for the dispossession and murder of an ethnic minority. no matter in what country that happens and who that minority is.

I'm biased of course because my grandfather belonged to a disproportionally wealthy and successful ethnic minority in 1930's Germany.

As an aside; I'm shocked by the gargantuan money reserves that Apple has amassed. Me and my friends are planning to invade their HQ and torture Tim Cook to death in his office and then burn the place to the ground. Then we will proceed to figure out how to make our own iPads. We're still a bit fuzzy on the last bit of the plan, but I'm sure we'll work it out.
 
Last edited:
Eddie Dane said:
I'm not from SA, but I follow this as well as the sporadic home invasions on white farmers which often involve torture and rape.

In favour of land reform:
Extreme income inequality is one of the most reliable drivers of violent crime and instability. If the class line runs along an ethnic line, you can add racism, ethnic cleansing and sometimes genocide to the mix.

Land reform should involve compensation and education of new farmers.

Against land reform in its current form:
-Farmers grow food. Stop them from doing that, you lose food security. That's a big one.
-States that seize property lose foreign investment.
-Black mobs showing up on farms to drive out white families will reduce SA's tourist industry to the level of Syria.
-Are those farms mortgaged? what happens to the banks that own the mortgages?
-What happens to the pension funds who own the mortgages?
-Seeing the rhetoric of some SA politicians, this is more likely to resemble Stalin's campaign against the Kulaks than an administrative process.

I'm dead against this and I'm disappointed in Western governments not speaking out against a government that calls for the dispossession and murder of an ethnic minority. no matter in what country that happens and who that minority is.

I'm biased of course because my grandfather belonged to a disproportionally wealthy and successful ethnic minority in 1930's Germany.

As an aside; I'm shocked by the gargantuan money reserves that Apple has amassed. Me and my friends are planning to invade their HQ and torture Tim Cook to death in his office and then burn the place to the ground. Then we will proceed to figure out how to make our own iPads. We're still a bit fuzzy on the last bit of the plan, but I'm sure we'll work it out.
Click to expand...
Your "for" point is missing a key argument.....that the land was not legitimately acquired. We can debateif it was or not, but we can do that for any for or against bullet.
 
Another thing: how do you give land to 'the people'?

Who gets to literally own the land? The state? The employees of the farms? Will they take the thing public and give people shares? Or are they really thinking of subdividing a modern farm operation into small plots for subsistence farming?
I'm no agricultural expert, but to my knowledge, that is not the business model used by countries that enjoy food security.
 
fagin said:
Baloney. Most, if not all of it, was bought by the current owners quite legally.

Historically, a different story perhaps.
Click to expand...

As I said, baloney or not, it is still an argument in the for column. Anyone can argue that any bullet in Dane's list is "balony." That isnt grounds to exclude it.

Philosophically,your position is equivalent to saying purchasing stolen property should grant legitimate ownership.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Your "for" point is missing a key argument.....that the land was not legitimately acquired. We can debateif it was or not, but we can do that for any for or against bullet.
Click to expand...

That kind of rolls into my point of extreme wealth differences generating violent and unstable societies. This is mostly about retribution for a perceived injustice.

Uganda didn't get better from kicking out Indian shopkeepers, and SA will not get better from seizing land from Boers. Though they may feel good about for a couple of weeks.
 
Eddie Dane said:
That kind of rolls into my point of extreme wealth differences generating violent and unstable societies. This is mostly about retribution for a perceived injustice.

Uganda didn't get better from kicking out Indian shopkeepers, and SA will not get better from seizing land from Boers. Though they may feel good about for a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Whether something makes the situation better does not seem relevant to me if it was the right thing to do or not.
 
Eddie Dane said:
That kind of rolls into my point of extreme wealth differences generating violent and unstable societies. This is mostly about retribution for a perceived injustice.

Uganda didn't get better from kicking out Indian shopkeepers, and SA will not get better from seizing land from Boers. Though they may feel good about for a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Iran didn't get better from nationalizing oil fields and Guatemala did not trying to give banana plantations to the workers.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Another thing: how do you give land to 'the people'?

Who gets to literally own the land? The state? The employees of the farms? Will they take the thing public and give people shares? Or are they really thinking of subdividing a modern farm operation into small plots for subsistence farming?
I'm no agricultural expert, but to my knowledge, that is not the business model used by countries that enjoy food security.
Click to expand...

Praxagora: I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common; there will no longer be either rich or poor. I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all.
Blepyrus: But who will till the soil?
Praxagora: The slaves
 
The Equity Sharing Scheme that SA wineries used may work well if you can get the farmers to go with it.

What was done is that the wineries were incorporated and the farm workers were allowed to buy into the company while still working the vineyards and drawing a salary. Effectively nobody ‘owns’ the land except the corporation and its shareholders.

From what I have read it seems to have worked pretty well. Not perfect, of course, but much better than land hoarding.
 
BobTheCoward said:
As I said, baloney or not, it is still an argument in the for column. Anyone can argue that any bullet in Dane's list is "balony." That isnt grounds to exclude it.

Philosophically,your position is equivalent to saying purchasing stolen property should grant legitimate ownership.
Click to expand...

Already a degree removed, because previous "owners" "stole" that land too.
 
Checkmite said:
I'd bet he's got a better sense of it than you profess. Especially the part about how history is what used to be, but isn't anymore. Like the name "Rhodesia", which today belongs to nothing.
Click to expand...
It will always be Zaire I don't care what some map says.
 
Last week I wandered into the alt-right of Youtube, and in turn a crazy white girl named Lauren Southern. I can't help but wonder if her documentary Farmlands is responsible for this brouhaha.

It's kind of neat how white nationalists want all people to have their own ethnostates -- except in South Africa. Funny, that.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Rhodesia used to be the breadbasket of Africa. Now there is no commercial farming there and the white farmers have had their farms given to the black people, and to Mugabe and his cronies. The black people are anti-white and Britishers and Americans are ill-informed about it, with no practical knowledge of the situation there thanks to extreme liberal journalists. There is a bit of background in this newspaper article:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5534449/South-Africas-white-farmers-likely-killed-police.html
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about, extreme liberal journalism? BBC World Service covered the taking of white farms extensively, and not to Uncle Bob's benefit. Local journalists didn't because Zimbabwe is a police state and any day you aren't necklaced is a good day.

It's not Rhodesia, it's Zimbabwe. The White government sought the judgment of war and were found inferior to their opponent. The victor has every right to change the name used by the vanquished. Dems is da breaks.
 
pharphis said:
um excuse me but lauren southern is a man, he had his gender changed
Click to expand...

Isn't that the kind of thing people like Southern are apt to use to cast aspersions?

Not to mention, it's a bit of a trans-phobic thing to say.

Dear Lauren and her sidekick tried to put on a show [?] in NZ a couple of weeks back, but nobody would rent them a space.

She has been particularly vocal on the subject of Saffer farmers, though. Tell a lie often enough and it'll come true?

Also, if we need Saffers in the thread, TofuFighter should be here - very thoughtful bloke and right in the middle of all this.
 
Cain said:
Last week I wandered into the alt-right of Youtube, and in turn a crazy white girl named Lauren Southern. I can't help but wonder if her documentary Farmlands is responsible for this brouhaha.

It's kind of neat how white nationalists want all people to have their own ethnostates -- except in South Africa. Funny, that.
Click to expand...

I really hope that we can divorce what's happening on the ground from the independent content creators who report on it.

I'm sure there are some vile black-nationalist racists who have reported on police brutality against African Americans. I'm sure some Zionist vlogger has reported on attacks on Jews in Paris.
 
Craig4 said:
What the hell are you talking about, extreme liberal journalism? BBC World Service covered the taking of white farms extensively, and not to Uncle Bob's benefit. Local journalists didn't because Zimbabwe is a police state and any day you aren't necklaced is a good day.

...snip....
Click to expand...

And the BBC was banned from Zimbabwe for many years. Which is strange if it was helping to support Mugabe.
 
The Atheist said:
Isn't that the kind of thing people like Southern are apt to use to cast aspersions? Not to mention, it's a bit of a trans-phobic thing to say.

Dear Lauren and her sidekick tried to put on a show [?] in NZ a couple of weeks back, but nobody would rent them a space.

She has been particularly vocal on the subject of Saffer farmers, though. Tell a lie often enough and it'll come true?

Also, if we need Saffers in the thread, TofuFighter should be here - very thoughtful bloke and right in the middle of all this.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I'm just aware that she had her gender legally changed in my country, Canada

edit: Also, on her documentary which I have not seen (I think my GF did, though)...
Did she lie or mislead in it? Wouldn't surprise me but I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with your earlier comment.
 
Last edited:
Eddie Dane said:
I'm not from SA, but I follow this as well as the sporadic home invasions on white farmers which often involve torture and rape.
Click to expand...

How exactly is "home invasions on white farmers" any different from those on black farmers or black/coloured South Africans in general?

From everything I've read crime is very common in South Africa and if anything black/colored people are probably at greater risk since they are poorer and lack the money to afford private security measures which rich (often white) South Africans can.
 
Arcade22 said:
How exactly is "home invasions on white farmers" any different from those on black farmers or black/coloured South Africans in general?

From everything I've read crime is very common in South Africa and if anything black/colored people are probably at greater risk since they are poorer and lack the money to afford private security measures which rich (often white) South Africans can.
Click to expand...
Home detention.
Ask Oscar Pistorius how that plays out.
Americans understand of course, maybe New Zealand has much to learn despite Atheist with head in sand.
 
fagin said:
Er no it isn't. Go back and read your own OP.

But just in case you struggle with that, it's about the government confiscating property without compensation.
Click to expand...
How is that not about home security?
 
Arcade22 said:
How exactly is "home invasions on white farmers" any different from those on black farmers or black/coloured South Africans in general?

From everything I've read crime is very common in South Africa and if anything black/colored people are probably at greater risk since they are poorer and lack the money to afford private security measures which rich (often white) South Africans can.
Click to expand...


Crime in South Africa seems horrific to me. I’ve seen a video from this week where three black boys were set alight with gasoline by a mob. Violence and sadism is common.

In my opinion the difference is that the attacks on white farmers are instigated by politicians, and may also be organised and supported government actors. There is security camera footage of attackers using mobile military phone signal jamming equipment.

There is video of the actual head of state singing ‘kill the Boer’.
There is a significant political party using borderline genocidal rhetoric. This is happening while the government is designing laws to take the land without compensation.

Jacob Zuma sings ‘kill the Boer’:
https://youtu.be/Cb3MLHblnbQ





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Just to be clear, they have voted to take the land without compensation?

Will they compensate for the equipment and infrastructure on the land?

Because that can make up 75-90% of a farm's total value.

Are they going to take the land, and let the farmers take all of their equipment?

Take the land only, and actually only get 10-25% of the value of the farm?

Will they pay the farmer to stay on for his/her knowledge of the land and how to grow crops? Will they lease the farmer's infrastructure and equipment?

Otherwise, are they going to take the whole operation? divide it among the locals, and drive the country back to subsistence farming, a la Zimbabwe?
 
Eddie Dane said:
Another thing: how do you give land to 'the people'?

Who gets to literally own the land? The state? The employees of the farms? Will they take the thing public and give people shares? Or are they really thinking of subdividing a modern farm operation into small plots for subsistence farming?
I'm no agricultural expert, but to my knowledge, that is not the business model used by countries that enjoy food security.
Click to expand...

I suspect, if this happens, the state will end up running the farms. After all,that worked so great when Uncle Joe did it in Russia...
 
Eddie Dane said:
Crime in South Africa seems horrific to me. I’ve seen a video from this week where three black boys were set alight with gasoline by a mob. Violence and sadism is common.

In my opinion the difference is that the attacks on white farmers are instigated by politicians, and may also be organised and supported government actors. There is security camera footage of attackers using mobile military phone signal jamming equipment.

There is video of the actual head of state singing ‘kill the Boer’.
There is a significant political party using borderline genocidal rhetoric. This is happening while the government is designing laws to take the land without compensation.

Jacob Zuma sings ‘kill the Boer’:
https://youtu.be/Cb3MLHblnbQ





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And Nelson Mandela turns over in his grave.
 
kookbreaker said:
The Equity Sharing Scheme that SA wineries used may work well if you can get the farmers to go with it.

What was done is that the wineries were incorporated and the farm workers were allowed to buy into the company while still working the vineyards and drawing a salary. Effectively nobody ‘owns’ the land except the corporation and its shareholders.

From what I have read it seems to have worked pretty well. Not perfect, of course, but much better than land hoarding.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a fair and reasonable solution for everybody.
But it does not sound like what the government is proposing.
 
I don't believe the ANC has plans to oust white farmers en masse. Look at the markets. Not too worried really.
I think this is more of a political tactic to prevent the populist Malema of the EFF from gaining power and bringing on a bloody revolution with the tactics of a communist dictator. I don't know if he would really do it but the people love his ideas. Going against it may be suicide for ANC in the next election.

Juju Malema explains his plans in an interview yesterday (plan includes war, sanctions, poverty and jewish-trained snipers!). He did have a point about blacks selling their title deed back to the whites. That happened before.

 
Diablo said:
You could keep state ownership of the land so all the people would benefit.
Click to expand...

That's what the EFF wants. The ANC are doing this to try and get EFF voters to vote for them but also don't want their backers to lose their land.

Cain said:
It's kind of neat how white nationalists want all people to have their own ethnostates -- except in South Africa. Funny, that.
Click to expand...

They tried that during Apartheid, turns out the rest of the world didn't like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom