So Shaka traded the land with the settlers all above board, later Dingaan didnt dig this to much.
He was a thief and a murderer and the cause of the Anglo Boer war for attacking white farmers and stealing their cattle?
And he was a tax dodger!
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: If you were buying a TV today, which brand would you choose?
Address the land question
- Thread starter Sneeky
- Start date
So Shaka traded the land with the settlers all above board, later Dingaan didnt dig this to much.
He was a thief and a murderer and the cause of the Anglo Boer war for attacking white farmers and stealing their cattle?
And he was a tax dodger!
No it's not off topic. I was refuting the insuation that whites introduced the "concept" of land ownership to the blacks. Point proven.
Well I also think that ownership has been with us all since the beginning of agriculture, though the fine detail behind it is different from country to country and from white tribe to black tribe.
But I also think that people who put in claims, should be investigated to the fullest extend, only wanting a piece of land, so you can have a free place to stay without paying a dime is not ownership at all no matter from what perspective you are looking at. And unfortunately too many of the redistributed lands have fallen into nothing, with the "owners" moving to the city to look for work.
If you feel you have claim to land, then you better do something with it, else go work like the rest of us bums
In this instance, it would seem so!
later Dingaan didnt dig this to much.
He was a thief and a murderer and the cause of the Anglo Boer war for attacking white farmers and stealing their cattle?
And he was a tax dodger!
Offtopic!
SlinkyMike
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 10,402
- Reaction score
- 5,731
Dumbasses - all you are doing is regurgitating media hype.
Say this ten times aloud whilst looking in the mirror: 'Journalistst need to sell papers and newscasters need people to tune in, they will do and say anything to achieve this.'
Got that? Right, now moving along...
We can indeed learn something from Zim - its pointless giving land to people based on a perceived inequality when said people do not have the ability/education to use said land for the greater good of the population.
The root of the disaster in Zim is that valuable farmed land was forcefully taken from (white) people who were able to use the land to create produce thus feeding people and keeping the economy afloat and given to (black) people who were unable to sustain this process.
To make decicisons that affect millions of people based on emotive drivers is a huge and very stupid mistake.
No amount of racial equality is going to put food into the mouths of the starving.
In point of fact: it is a human tragedy and not a human rights victory when an entire country has to pay in suffering for the political ideals of a handful of power hungry schmucks.
EDIT: ...what Bwana said
Say this ten times aloud whilst looking in the mirror: 'Journalistst need to sell papers and newscasters need people to tune in, they will do and say anything to achieve this.'
Got that? Right, now moving along...
We can indeed learn something from Zim - its pointless giving land to people based on a perceived inequality when said people do not have the ability/education to use said land for the greater good of the population.
The root of the disaster in Zim is that valuable farmed land was forcefully taken from (white) people who were able to use the land to create produce thus feeding people and keeping the economy afloat and given to (black) people who were unable to sustain this process.
To make decicisons that affect millions of people based on emotive drivers is a huge and very stupid mistake.
No amount of racial equality is going to put food into the mouths of the starving.
In point of fact: it is a human tragedy and not a human rights victory when an entire country has to pay in suffering for the political ideals of a handful of power hungry schmucks.
EDIT: ...what Bwana said
Last edited:
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
"Forcibly removed" and "obtained" are certainly not the same thing. If the Zulus traded land with the white folk, then black people have no right to this land anymore, regardless of who lived there first.
How far back into history do you want to go to detirmine to who the ground belongs too? 50 years with land reforms, 150 years with land taken by war, 200 years land taken by trade, 300 years land shifting between zulu and xhoza, 500 years land taken from the bushman, and maybe a few more incidents further back....
The 50 years I can live with as it surely was an unfair distribution of land, I also would like to get our farm land back that was re-alocated as homeland area, as it was in our famely since 1870-1950 when it was disowned.
The 50 years I can live with as it surely was an unfair distribution of land, I also would like to get our farm land back that was re-alocated as homeland area, as it was in our famely since 1870-1950 when it was disowned.
Again, in "That" particular instance, it seems a lawful exchange took place between Shaka and the settlers. We all know however that this is but one chapter in a history book written by the (White) settlers themselves which did not by any means translate to the rest of the country (If that is indeed what happened), where many native inhabitants were forcibly removed from land they rightfully owned.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Jozi, I just used Bageloo and your nitpicking to demonstrate something. My point is that the governments continuous claims (most to justify land redistribution and changing place/street names) that every square inch of land in S.A. belonged to black people first are just that: claims.
Also, the whole thing about farm land - no matter what the percentage is, that percentage are in the hands of a very very small group of very very specialised people. Giving it "back" will still leave it in the hands of a very very small group of people, and will do *nothing* for most people in this country, especially if the new owners end up moving to the cities to look for work anyway.
Land redistribution, no matter how noble the idea, is damaging economically. South Africa is already importing produce that we used to export.
Also, the whole thing about farm land - no matter what the percentage is, that percentage are in the hands of a very very small group of very very specialised people. Giving it "back" will still leave it in the hands of a very very small group of people, and will do *nothing* for most people in this country, especially if the new owners end up moving to the cities to look for work anyway.
Land redistribution, no matter how noble the idea, is damaging economically. South Africa is already importing produce that we used to export.
Skeptik
Banned
Wait just a minute. I'm not sure we have the figures correct. I don't think you are talking about land surface here. It's a silly comparison for a start, since most of this country is semi-desert/mountain.
Besides, a lot of farms are very big - they have to be to be viable.
Let's also deconstruct your argument about white people making up about 20% of population and owning 80% of land.
- Does it make a difference which colour owns the land? We are all Africans (right?). Some would even argue that the farmers are mixed blood anyway.
- The current farmers are experts at farming, that is not in dispute.
- Since farms are quite large by economic necessity, it is quite plausible that they are big, which explains why a few people own large tracts of land. (I hope you aren't proposing some sort of subsistence arrangement??)
- I would also like some land, but I cannot use my colour as an excuse to claim it.
- Black people in the past were never that keen on farming. They raised a few cattle and didn't settle in one place as a rule. One cannot blame land-owners for a communities habits or culture. They are sorry they didn't take up the opportunity, but it's too late.
Just because some oke and his cattle passed a big tree once a year on his way West for 300Km to the grazing pasteur doesn't give him and his ancestors any rights to the city that formed there, does it.
Black people have been proved to come from the North (circa Tanzania). They were known as the Bantu. This is fairly recent history so it is fair to regard them as settlers, just like the white people from Europe.
How do you think the townships were formed in the first place?? These people migrated from rural areas like the Eastern Cape and just squatted. Most did not own anything of note in the cities. Cape Town is a good example of this. It was a long established colony before any Xhosa or Zulu set foot there. Latecomers lost out on the best land deals.
Land that was owned by these people was taken, by an unfair law - yes, but they receieved compensation for it. That is quickly forgotten. They also were allocated land elsewhere. Also forgotten now.
So let's get things into perspective.
You make a valid point, and i agree with you. However, this doesn't discount the facts that took place in history that some of these properties were owned by communities that were forcibly removed (By white criminals) WITH NO COMPENSATION AT ALL , and placed were they could best serve the master in the city without being too close in case they start thinking they're equal to the master and the madam.
No it doesn't, as long as nobody's human rights were violated in order for your business to thrive.
When it suits you!
All of them???
[*]The current farmers are experts at farming, that is not in dispute.
If it's justifiable, then ffs do it. Better now that in 10 years time when the real owners of the land get fed up.(Excuse the pun)
Who is?
Where do you get that from?
You mean land grabbers?
It's never too late china. Did anyone say Zim?
Your level of logic astounds me sometimes.
Are you kidding me???
Err...They were black during a white supremist era of South africa, that in itself inherently meant that they were not allowed to own any land.
They did?
I would call you dumb, but that would be an insult to all the dumb people out there. Phew!!!!
Approximately 3.5 million people were forcibly removed from rural and urban areas between 1960 and 1980. Black people owned about 2/3 of the land in Sophiatown at the time of removals. All that land was stolen.
All those people got nothing more than just shelter in the form of a 4 roomed township house. No land was allocated to any of them as compensation for the land they owned. Black people could not own land at that time.
A township house is not the same as land as the tiny houses fit the stands exactly. Many of those families had to share the matchbox house with one common bathroom. I know this because I grew up in a shared matchbox.
In 1994, 80% of the land was in the hands of whites, mostly farmers. Gvt has redistributed 4% of that land so far and they are way behind the target of 30% by 2014. My observation is that this issue isn't high enough on the GVT's agenda and as a result we will soon have a Zimbabwe situation.
On the contrary, when it suits government.
Bageloo, help me out with this 80% figure, what exactly does that represent?
It is my understanding that the state is the single biggest landowner, is this incorrect and/or is this taken into consideration with this 80%.
Skeptik
Banned
Jozi101 let me introduce you to Debating101. Insulting your 'opponent' is an instant disqualification.
Your replies show you haven't done any research. Yes, people were compensated. One only has to read the local (Cape) papers to read about a family that was removed from Constantia to the Cape flats. They reluctantly admit they received money and a house, but now have finally been able to get their land 'back'.
There were also white people living in mixed areas that were also removed.
I think you are confusing different eras in history.
There was a time when land was taken.
There was another when land was not available to all.
(We need to separate the two.)
Re. My logic: You don't seem to say what you find illogical about what I said. Unless you do, you haven't argued at all. I think it's pefectly logical.
Your replies show you haven't done any research. Yes, people were compensated. One only has to read the local (Cape) papers to read about a family that was removed from Constantia to the Cape flats. They reluctantly admit they received money and a house, but now have finally been able to get their land 'back'.
There were also white people living in mixed areas that were also removed.
I think you are confusing different eras in history.
There was a time when land was taken.
There was another when land was not available to all.
(We need to separate the two.)
Re. My logic: You don't seem to say what you find illogical about what I said. Unless you do, you haven't argued at all. I think it's pefectly logical.
Skeptik
Banned
You've just argued against jozi101 who disputes the fact that compensation was provided. A 4 roomed property sounds like quite a large settlement for those times. As you readily admit, the family did not own the property in Sophiatown in the first place, so how could it have been stolen. Not to lessen the impact about the horrors of forced removal of course - just to state a fact.
Since we are now in the 21st century, it's easy to forget how people lived in those days. Mud huts were common family houses for many of these people. Sharing 4 to a small room was also common. We shouldn't directly compare living conditions with the present day. In fact, many white families also didn't have toilets inside the houses - even in the UK this was so.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Just to add some perspective to this. I used to share a 4 room matchbox with four other people.
One of my grandfather's chores when was a kid was to take "the bucket" to a nearby landfill every day...
White people had sold most of the property in Sophiatown to black people. Either way they had their homes there and had established communities.
Not true. I am talking about 1960 here when most houses in the cities had toilets. Only in the townships could a toilet be shared by 2 families.
I take it you've never seen a four-roomed house.
Also here is an extract from the UND online libriry article that should hopefully paint a clearer picture with regards to the 80%, 13% figures and the history behind the whole thing.
Last edited:
And what is this suppose to prove or disprove ??