Address the land question

[McSack]

Thus 80% of the population was confined to 13% of the land while less than 20% owned over 80%
of the land. Black people were prohibited from buying land in areas outside the reserves. This
apportionment of land remained until the end of apartheid in early 1990s and remains virtually
unchanged

Fair enough, but was that 80% of the land transferred to private individuals? How much was held by government, albeit a white oppressive government of the time, and how much is still vested with the current government?

 

[Sneeky]

Not quite sure on the fair enough bit but thx Bageloo, that is very interesting.

Thus 80% of the population was confined to 13% of the land while less than 20% owned over 80% of the land.

re The above. How much land, was 'owned' by non white people in leading up to 1913?

I have issue with the quoted text above which seems to automatically jump from land being reserved for one group, to owned for the next.
This 80%, was this not under state control, not privately owned as such?

Nobody denies the fact that non white citizens were terribly disadvantaged in many ways in those times and that there needs to be a redress of sorts, but the above seems incorrect. Sorry if I am being pedantic about this but it is not right.

 

[Sneeky]

Fair enough, but was that 80% of the land transferred to private individuals? How much was held by government, albeit a white oppressive government of the time, and how much is still vested with the current government?

I wager the guv currently holds the majority chunk of that land, not the whiteys.

 

[McSack]

I wager the guv currently holds the majority chunk of that land, not the whiteys.

If that is the case(most likely) then majority of SA land is "black" owned and land redistribution is not necessary.

This is the problem with quoting out of context figures from historical text. (The 80% which "remains virtually unchanged") I doubt the quoted article takes into account the amount of land which has been bought by black individuals since '94 either.

 

[Sneeky]

If that is the case(most likely) then majority of SA land is "black" owned and land redistribution is not necessary.

This is the problem with quoting out of context figures from historical text. (The 80% which "remains virtually unchanged") I doubt the quoted article takes into account the amount of land which has been bought by black individuals since '94 either.

I don't know, but where there are stats there are agendas. Never one without the other.

 

[icyrus]

An interesting question to ponder: those who claim to own the land, or claim to be the original owners of the land - where did they get the land from in the first place?

 

[Bageloo]

I'm not so sure about this but I think these statistics are a reference to commercial agricultural land. The 30% target is certainly agricultural land.
I don't think the GVT know exactly how much land they own. It is estimated at 19% of the entire surface of the country. My assumption is that such land is already in use by govt and therefore cannot be redistributed i.e national parks, govt buildings, etc.

 

[koffiejunkie]

And what is this suppose to prove or disprove ??

Nothing. I said perspective. But I'll humor you:

Just to add some perspective to this. I used to share a 4 room matchbox with four other people.

That sharing a tiny house with lots of people (who are not family) is fairly common, and not just among black people.

One of my grandfather's chores when was a kid was to take "the bucket" to a nearby landfill every day...

That a fair number of white folk didn't have toilets in their houses, had to share with the neigbours, had to squat outside in the winter to do their business, had to carry their own faeces to the nearest landfill.

 

[Bageloo]

An interesting question to ponder: those who claim to own the land, or claim to be the original owners of the land - where did they get the land from in the first place?

Those that claim to be original land owners do so on the basis of the absence of original owners. I don't know if this makes sense at all. But in essence it says that white people got the land from black people through an assortment of means including conquests, legislation and trickery. This is of course only true for the most recent part of the history of the planet. Before then the land could have belonged to purple people.

 

[Sneeky]

The emphasis being on 'current' agricultural land though I am sure. It wasnt always like that.

This is a sticky issue, and perhaps the government and the stakeholders need to revisit this process. If you consider the slow pace at which farm land has been redistributed to date I would hope that government has realised that it will do more harm than good to the economy.

That said though there needs to be clarity on the process for everyone involved.
Emotions run high on both sides of the fence and rightly so but these numbers create (I believe) a false impression that white people are just sitting on 80% of the land just sommer and doing nothing with it, while the majority are landless and homeless. If this is indeed agricultural land in use then this is contributing massively to our country.

 

[Bageloo]

The emphasis being on 'current' agricultural land though I am sure. It wasnt always like that.

This is a sticky issue, and perhaps the government and the stakeholders need to revisit this process. If you consider the slow pace at which farm land has been redistributed to date I would hope that government has realised that it will do more harm than good to the economy.

That said though there needs to be clarity on the process for everyone involved.
Emotions run high on both sides of the fence and rightly so but these numbers create (I believe) a false impression that white people are just sitting on 80% of the land just sommer and doing nothing with it, while the majority are landless and homeless. If this is indeed agricultural land in use then this is contributing massively to our country.

That's why the gvt had adopted a "willing seller willing buyer" approach because the land is privately owned and is currently in use for the benefit of everybody. The problem with this aproach is that going at the current pace they would only achieve their target in 54 years. Also how many 'willing sellers' are out there ready to part ways with parts of their farms.
In the meantime tensions are rising, farm murders are escalating and dissatisfaction with gvt is also on the rise.

 

[Bageloo]

Nothing. I said perspective. But I'll humor you:



That sharing a tiny house with lots of people (who are not family) is fairly common, and not just among black people.



That a fair number of white folk didn't have toilets in their houses, had to share with the neigbours, had to squat outside in the winter to do their business, had to carry their own faeces to the nearest landfill.

Ok I'm truely humoured. BTW, when was your grand-dad a kid? I'm sure that wasn't in the 60's when townships were built.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Bageloo, like I said in my initial post - perspective. YOU are trying to turn it into proof of something I didn't say or allude to.

 

[Skeptik]

Also how many 'willing sellers' are out there ready to part ways with parts of their farms....
In the meantime tensions are rising, farm murders are escalating and dissatisfaction with gvt is also on the rise.

As far as I know, the government are dragging their feet on land claims in the knowledge that they can now resort to land grabs.

Also, so what if "disatisfaction" is on the rise. Does that provide an excuse for instant 'unlawful' action.

There are a hellava lot of people disatisfied with TELKOM. Does the government feel obliged to step in immediately there?? No, of course not!

So lets not go looking for excuses.

 

[Slooth]

That's why the gvt had adopted a "willing seller willing buyer" approach because the land is privately owned and is currently in use for the benefit of everybody. The problem with this aproach is that going at the current pace they would only achieve their target in 54 years. Also how many 'willing sellers' are out there ready to part ways with parts of their farms.
In the meantime tensions are rising, farm murders are escalating and dissatisfaction with gvt is also on the rise.

In your opinion what would be the best diplomatic avenue to explore in this regard?

 

[Bageloo]

In your opinion what would be the best diplomatic avenue to explore in this regard?

Govt should set the benchmark price together with the farmers. Then they can identify land and buy at that price instead of the willing seller aproach. They need to hurry up this process and get over and done with it.

This is probably a simple solution to implement but the problem with it is that the recipients of the land will have to be properly prep'ed up in terms of land utilisation otherwise the whole exercise would prove to be a waste of money and land.

 

[McSack]

@Bageloo

What you’re suggesting appears pretty similar to the enforced removal of people based on race in the middle to end of last century we’re all supposed to be so ashamed of. Take away the willing seller approach and we’re no better off than in the good ol' days prior to ‘94

I know a 5th generation farmer in the eastern Freestate. His Great, Great, Great…etc Grandfather bought the land from Moshesh way back when. His two daughters are involved in running the farm as a tourist and hunting destination. You think if his farm was “identified” he’d be keen to be shipped out at “benchmark” compensation?

Also are we talking about a national benchmark here? Provincial/ regional. A morgan in the karoo sells for way less than a morgan in the winelands of the cape

Who decides which land should be “identified”? Who decides on the recipients?
I can just see a few government officials along with friends and family pulling into Kanonkop Estate, while less deserving claimants are shipped off to the outskirts of Katu in the Northern Cape

Are the “forceably removed” farmers going to be expected to prep the new owners? The government certainly isn’t going to

 

[Bageloo]

@Bageloo

What you’re suggesting appears pretty similar to the enforced removal of people based on race in the middle to end of last century we’re all supposed to be so ashamed of. Take away the willing seller approach and we’re no better off than in the good ol' days prior to ‘94

I know a 5th generation farmer in the eastern Freestate. His Great, Great, Great…etc Grandfather bought the land from Moshesh way back when. His two daughters are involved in running the farm as a tourist and hunting destination. You think if his farm was “identified” he’d be keen to be shipped out at “benchmark” compensation?

Also are we talking about a national benchmark here? Provincial/ regional. A morgan in the karoo sells for way less than a morgan in the winelands of the cape

Who decides which land should be “identified”? Who decides on the recipients?
I can just see a few government officials along with friends and family pulling into Kanonkop Estate, while less deserving claimants are shipped off to the outskirts of Katu in the Northern Cape

Are the “forceably removed” farmers going to be expected to prep the new owners? The government certainly isn’t going to

I never implied forceful removals. I'm talking about hactares of commercial agricultural land that can be sliced and sold to govt. Sure, the farmer ends up with less land but is not exactly removed from his home. Besides, he gets paid for the slice he sold.

The need for land in a particular area will help identify people who own land in abundance which is not fully utilised. We must look at intensive farming methods. Sometimes when driving in the Freestate you can see large tracts of land that is neither cultivated nor grazed. The owner of such land can benefit more by selling off such pieces of land

The benchmark should of course be agreed to with the farmers and could cater for regional differences.

 

[McSack]

The need for land in a particular area will help identify people who own land in abundance which is not fully utilised. We must look at intensive farming methods. Sometimes when driving in the Freestate you can see large tracts of land that is neither cultivated nor grazed. The owner of such land can benefit more by selling off such pieces of land

.

Now there I agree with you 100%

 

[Hellbilly Deluxe]

I was gonna stay out of this , but does bageloo or McSack have Any farming experience ? Land has to lie after some intensive farming , even with fertilizers , if you dont when you look again you have a barren field and my mom works on a farm so i do know a thing or two about this .

The simple truth is large farming is the only solution , since the days or romans , look at zimbabwe with all the small plots , it does not work , and one setback and they all back in the city and the farm stands