South Africa: Land Seizure, Plight of the Boers

[Ors Might]

By benefiting from and receiving the spoils what the aforementioned "twats" in the 60s and 1800s and the 1700s and etc did.

Ok, so do Americans getting benefits and the spoils of war off of a destroyed Germany in the 1950's deserve to have there land taken away?

#ReparationsForNazis

[Auze]

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but you can’t exactly choose to be white. Nor can you choose who your family members are. It’s a thing called biology.

She would tell you otherwise:



Joking aside You can choose who you associate with though, which is what matters, especially if you are an adult. That and family is the ones you choose not the ones you are born with necessarily. Biology plays minimal role in such matters. And most importantly in this case the descendant in question chose to inherit the house so to speak and with it the ghosts. Lets give an example:

Say A man known as John owns a farm of about 40 Acres. Said farm and it's ownership were acquired via killing of a man named Gregory 40 years ago whose family have since declared they will one day have vengeance upon him. Now John has a "biological" son named Howard. Howard is now 20 years of age and as a result John desires to retire and give the land to Howard. Now at this point Howard has a choice knowing full well the history of the land in question to either

A accept the land grant from John and thereby accepting all the responsibilities that come with it
or
B Not take the land

Either way he is making a choice and accepting or not responsibility one way or the other. If he chooses to accept the land he either passively or not accepts the fact that Gregory's family can and one day probably will enact their revenge and it will occur onto him since he is holding the land. The land has a blood debt on it and anyone who acquires it other than Gregory's surviving family implicitly accept the fact that said debt might one day be called in whether they like it or not. When it does they have only themselves to blame. Don't take the land or other things with blood on them and this won't be a problem for you. The only way one can rectify the blood debt? Rectify the previous injustice that made said debt and restore what is lost to those who have been lost and their descendants before it's too late. That or you can fight the blood debt as is one's right to do. The power of the whip allows for such things. Justice won't be served sadly in that case but such is such. World isn't a fairy tale.

What should have the farmers done, starve to death and leave their possessions to rot?

[Albrenia]

Not to mention the innumerable other atrocities humanity has done to each other over time. Both recent and ancient.

As I said before, it's an unworkable concept which turns everyone against everyone else in a horrific spiral of violence and revenge.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Ultimately it comes down to whether crimes are heritable. Kazarogkai by his own admission believes in a tribal blood feud morality, so the weaker white tribe will rightfully lose the unfinished blood feud they started.

Unga bunga.

[Kubumba Tribe]

She would tell you otherwise:

Joking aside You can choose who you associate with though, which is what matters, especially if you are an adult. That and family is the ones you choose not the ones you are born with necessarily. Biology plays minimal role in such matters. And most importantly in this case the descendant in question chose to inherit the house so to speak and with it the ghosts. Lets give an example:

Say A man known as John owns a farm of about 40 Acres. Said farm and it's ownership were acquired via killing of a man named Gregory 40 years ago whose family have since declared they will one day have vengeance upon him. Now John has a "biological" son named Howard. Howard is now 20 years of age and as a result John desires to retire and give the land to Howard. Now at this point Howard has a choice knowing full well the history of the land in question to either

A accept the land grant from John and thereby accepting all the responsibilities that come with it
or
B Not take the land

Either way he is making a choice and accepting or not responsibility one way or the other. If he chooses to accept the land he either passively or not accepts the fact that Gregory's family can and one day probably will enact their revenge and it will occur onto him since he is holding the land. The land has a blood debt on it and anyone who acquires it other than Gregory's surviving family implicitly accept the fact that said debt might one day be called in whether they like it or not. When it does they have only themselves to blame. Don't take the land or other things with blood on them and this won't be a problem for you. The only way one can rectify the blood debt? Rectify the previous injustice that made said debt and restore what is lost to those who have been lost and their descendants before it's too late. That or you can fight the blood debt as is one's right to do. The power of the whip allows for such things. Justice won't be served sadly in that case but such is such. World isn't a fairy tale.

Justice isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Yes the father did wrong and should have been punished for it. Yes, the son benefited from it. But you’re missing something vital. That land is just as much the son’s home as it was Howard’s. His claim is just as strong and as valid. Taking it from him by force is just as wrong as what the father did.

I have to agree with Kazarogkai for his example. Gregory's family should retake the land, but by law, not by revenge killing John's son.

[Ors Might]

Justice isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Yes the father did wrong and should have been punished for it. Yes, the son benefited from it. But you’re missing something vital. That land is just as much the son’s home as it was Howard’s. His claim is just as strong and as valid. Taking it from him by force is just as wrong as what the father did.

I have to agree with Kazarogkai for his example. Gregory's family should retake the land, but by law, not by revenge killing John's son.

I’m not sure that I’d agree. It’s a tricky situation but the son has a right to his home. That it used to be someone else’s doesn’t change it. Obviously it’s shit what happened but does that justify depriving someone of the home they grew up in? At what point does something become yours?

[Greed and Death]

I have to agree with Kazarogkai for his example. Gregory's family should retake the land, but by law, not by revenge killing John's son.

I’m not sure that I’d agree. It’s a tricky situation but the son has a right to his home. That it used to be someone else’s doesn’t change it. Obviously it’s shit what happened but does that justify depriving someone of the home they grew up in? At what point does something become yours?

If an individual or group can trace the land theft to when it happened the UK will pay for it.

The problem is most of the land seizures occurred has the result of war or private and legal transactions.

[Krasny-Volny]

So your whole logic on why this is OK is a picture of Sharpeville?

Because white policemen shot some black protestors in 1961, it's OK for white farmers to be turned out of their homes and driven off farms that are vital to the country's agricultural sector?

This is literally the definition of a non sequitur.

I was giving a single example of the shit that they have done in the past to the local natives. To list every single one we would be here all freaking day. I was relating that the crimes, from which they are numerous including but not limited to the stealing of the various lands which they now live upon, of the past will be rectified when the time is due. Aka when the perpetrator has lost the whip(right of might) and the victim has now gained said whip. Said perpetrator shouldn't be surprised if said situation does occur they end up on the receiving end of a good ole flogging. Ultimately they shouldn't complain since they are the ones who started the fire so to speak. What you put out will eventually be bought back unto you eventually. And when I say you I mean the collective whole of the people in question since individuals for all intents and purposes are superfluous and the only thing that exists and matters are varying collectives of sorts. That is karma, a small but significant piece of the eternal law.

So your argument is based on karma rather than reason.

[Arumdaum]

why do you guys care when according to you itll be ok in a few generations anyway

bc the people owning it then wont have much to do w this specific event lmao

[Bakery Hill]

why do you guys care when according to you itll be ok in a few generations anyway

bc the people owning it then wont have much to do w this specific event lmao

might =/= right
might + time = right

[Arumdaum]

I love the implicit assumption that white migrants would inherently be "competent". ;3

I love the explicit putting of racism in people's mouths.

i love that youre more offended by people calling out racism than actual racism

[Arumdaum]

why do you guys care when according to you itll be ok in a few generations anyway

bc the people owning it then wont have much to do w this specific event lmao

might =/= right
might + time = right

i should just steal everyones land and then when my great-grandkids have it itll be ok

or itll be ok when i sell it to someone else and make a profit off of it like im not owning it anymore so???

[Bakery Hill]

might =/= right
might + time = right

i should just steal everyones land and then when my great-grandkids have it itll be ok

or itll be ok when i sell it to someone else and make a profit off of it like im not owning it anymore so???

nah dude that's fine, it's called a sunset clause, bonus points when you do it to foreigners of course

[Taihei Tengoku]

why do you guys care when according to you itll be ok in a few generations anyway

bc the people owning it then wont have much to do w this specific event lmao

Except you have the option of not doing wrong in the present?

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proven correct wrt: languages that lack verb tenses

[Arumdaum]

why do you guys care when according to you itll be ok in a few generations anyway

bc the people owning it then wont have much to do w this specific event lmao

Except you have the option of not doing wrong in the present?

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proven correct wrt: languages that lack verb tenses

lmao are you calling me chinese and saying thats why i posted that

edit: unfortunately i am not but still i can understand much more anime than you ever will lol

[Bakery Hill]

Except you have the option of not doing wrong in the present?

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proven correct wrt: languages that lack verb tenses

lmao are you calling me chinese and saying thats why i posted that

edit: unfortunately i am not but still i can understand much more anime than you ever will lol

oh shit shots fired

[Bakery Hill]

Really the ideal situation is the breaking up of the grand estates, those held by whites, blacks or the state, and their parceling out to people who are willing to farm and are capable of farming, be they black, white, indian, colored or whatever. The identity politics and cronyist angle is worrying.

[Arumdaum]

lmao are you calling me chinese and saying thats why i posted that

edit: unfortunately i am not but still i can understand much more anime than you ever will lol

oh shit shots fired

バーンバーン

[Arumdaum]

Really the ideal situation is the breaking up of the grand estates, those held by whites, blacks or the state, and their parceling out to people who are willing to farm and are capable of farming, be they black, white, indian, colored or whatever. The identity politics and cronyist angle is worrying.

Immediately after Sankara took office he suppressed most of the powers held by tribal chiefs in Burkina Faso. These feudal landlords were stripped of their rights to tribute payments and forced labour as well as having their land distributed amongst the peasantry.[17] This served the dual purpose of creating a higher standard of living for the average Burkinabé as well as creating an optimal situation to induce Burkina Faso into food self-sufficiency.[18]

Within four years Burkina Faso reached food sufficiency due in large part to feudal land redistribution and series of irrigation and fertilization programs instituted by the government. During this time production of cotton and wheat increased dramatically. While the average wheat production for the Sahel region was 1,700 kilograms per hectare (1,500 lb/acre) in 1986, Burkina Faso was producing 3,900 kilograms per hectare (3,500 lb/acre) of wheat the same year.[18] This success meant Sankara had not only shifted his country into food self-sufficiency but had in turn created a food surplus.[5] Sankara also emphasized the production of cotton and the need to transform the cotton produced in Burkina Faso into clothing for the people.[19]

lets follow the example of comrade sankara

[Bakery Hill]

Really the ideal situation is the breaking up of the grand estates, those held by whites, blacks or the state, and their parceling out to people who are willing to farm and are capable of farming, be they black, white, indian, colored or whatever. The identity politics and cronyist angle is worrying.

Immediately after Sankara took office he suppressed most of the powers held by tribal chiefs in Burkina Faso. These feudal landlords were stripped of their rights to tribute payments and forced labour as well as having their land distributed amongst the peasantry.[17] This served the dual purpose of creating a higher standard of living for the average Burkinabé as well as creating an optimal situation to induce Burkina Faso into food self-sufficiency.[18]

Within four years Burkina Faso reached food sufficiency due in large part to feudal land redistribution and series of irrigation and fertilization programs instituted by the government. During this time production of cotton and wheat increased dramatically. While the average wheat production for the Sahel region was 1,700 kilograms per hectare (1,500 lb/acre) in 1986, Burkina Faso was producing 3,900 kilograms per hectare (3,500 lb/acre) of wheat the same year.[18] This success meant Sankara had not only shifted his country into food self-sufficiency but had in turn created a food surplus.[5] Sankara also emphasized the production of cotton and the need to transform the cotton produced in Burkina Faso into clothing for the people.[19]

lets follow the example of comrade sankara

Exactly, good land reform is more than possible, though difficult.

[Greed and Death]

Really the ideal situation is the breaking up of the grand estates, those held by whites, blacks or the state, and their parceling out to people who are willing to farm and are capable of farming, be they black, white, indian, colored or whatever. The identity politics and cronyist angle is worrying.

Immediately after Sankara took office he suppressed most of the powers held by tribal chiefs in Burkina Faso. These feudal landlords were stripped of their rights to tribute payments and forced labour as well as having their land distributed amongst the peasantry.[17] This served the dual purpose of creating a higher standard of living for the average Burkinabé as well as creating an optimal situation to induce Burkina Faso into food self-sufficiency.[18]

Within four years Burkina Faso reached food sufficiency due in large part to feudal land redistribution and series of irrigation and fertilization programs instituted by the government. During this time production of cotton and wheat increased dramatically. While the average wheat production for the Sahel region was 1,700 kilograms per hectare (1,500 lb/acre) in 1986, Burkina Faso was producing 3,900 kilograms per hectare (3,500 lb/acre) of wheat the same year.[18] This success meant Sankara had not only shifted his country into food self-sufficiency but had in turn created a food surplus.[5] Sankara also emphasized the production of cotton and the need to transform the cotton produced in Burkina Faso into clothing for the people.[19]

lets follow the example of comrade sankara

I do not think anyone who wears a wool beret in the middle of Africa should be followed. Seriously retains heat on your head and provides almost no shade.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Except you have the option of not doing wrong in the present?

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proven correct wrt: languages that lack verb tenses

lmao are you calling me chinese and saying thats why i posted that

edit: unfortunately i am not but still i can understand much more anime than you ever will lol

I watch raws and only raws.

lets follow the example of comrade sankara

I do not think anyone who wears a wool beret in the middle of Africa should be followed. Seriously retains heat on your head and provides almost no shade.

Yield figures from the wikipedia extract are sourced from this totally correct and scholarly source with absolutely nothing suspicious regarding its empirical integrity

[Kazarogkai]

So let me ask you this, the slaveowners in Kongo who sold slaves to European traders, should their descendants be killed?

?

An eye for eye an eye and a tooth for a tooth require, in order for it to be just, that the punishment equal the crime. Enslaving someone is under that strict interpretation not technically the equivalent of killing someone if one wishes to be quite honest about it. So the question should be in the case of the slave drivers who sold slaves to the Europeans should they themselves be enslaved, or given an equivalent punishment, for engaging in slave driving of others and whether their descendants deserve the same. In the case of the later, the literal perpetrator, yes but in the case of their descendant it depends. Has said descendant benefited from the previous injustice in any significant way? If yes then they deserve the same punishment as their forefather if not then no then probably not.

Of course this all assuming the victim and/or the family of said victim has acquired the whip and is in the position to enforce said justice. If they are then it is just for them to do as such, if not then sadly no. Such is reality. Justice is in the world we live in technically only the domain of those who have the whip and can enforce it themselves or at the very least get someone who does have said whip to enforce it for them. Such is the eternal law.

Is it odd that I find myself enjoying the current conversation? I have had the ability to have a good rational debate with another in a very long time. I'm... kinda isolated. I don't talk to a lot of people at all.

[Ultramarr]

Well yeah but then what pretense would they have for stealing land?

Technically, it was the Europeans who stole African land. But I get what you're saying.

The Europeans didn't necessarily steal a lot of the land. Parts of South Africa were uninhabited until the Europeans farmed it and in that part of Africa they didn't have farming and the Europeans made the farms. The Boers also had their land and treaties that were drawn out while African tribes had other land. All this became a problem when they both became a part of the British empire then got independence as one country not separate countries like they used to be

[Ultramarr]

So if the white South Africans managed to seize power after an attempted genocide, and fully exterminate their black counterparts, that would be okay to you?

Unlikely for such a thing to occur but if it did then the law of whip and karma in general dictate that yes they may. Not nice but such is such.One should not commit genocide against another and expect it not to occur to you once the other has the power to commit it. Though mind you to those who think I call for genocide, I don't. I only call that with the power that they have acquired the previous victim very much has the right if they so desire to rectify the transgressions of the past to bring balance back to the way of things so to speak. In this case the main injustice committed was the stealing of land and with them their resources as such they have every right to use the proverbial whip so to speak to flog the previous perpetrator and with that gain back what was stolen and thereby bring about a restorative result.

So what did the farmers do to them to deserve this?

Specifically them not the twats in the 60's.

By benefiting from and receiving the spoils what the aforementioned "twats" in the 60s and 1800s and the 1700s and etc did. Don't throw down with the gang and not expect to get what they own. When you inherit say a house, you inherit the ghosts that come with it. Aka stop associating with shitty people and this won't happen to you, whether it be your family or not is no excuse.

Well your obviously a hateful anti white leftist or black supremacist but by your logic most bantu blacks in south Africa and aren't native either and killed the native black tribes so they better suffer too