Address the land question

[koffiejunkie]

Depending on what you grow, you may have to rest the soil for years at a time.

 

[Bageloo]

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

Fair enough. The alternative is to farm the land together then ? There must be something called AGriBEE or something like that. But I have my reservation about something like that as we all know only those with money can participate . Rather sell it now and get over the process.

// I know a bit about farming as well. I know that you can plant ground crops this year and rest the land the following year by planting something else that doesn't produce it's crops on the ground. This is from agricultural sciece that I did in primary school plus my mom has a farm. Similar rotational principles can be applied to livestock to avoid over-grazing.

 

[McSack]

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

To be honest I spent the 1st 11 years of my life on farms around Ermelo. Granted, this was a long time ago but even then crops were rotated in order to reduce the length of time land needed to be left to lie fallow, or left to rest as you put it.

Now I'm totally against redistribution of commercial farming land, however I do think our land could be way more productive.

 

[Hellbilly Deluxe]

ooooh you mean collective farming ..... that worked out very nicely for the russians , where at the peak of the cold war they were importing most of their grain from geues who .... the united states , simple solution is a capitalist based farming solution large scale single owner

Most maize farmers ( as a example ) will grow maize only , grow one year , maybe 2 and then some rest , you stick to what you know , and livestock is even worse cuase you need even larger fields for them , so when you really look at even when a field does not apear to be in use , there is normaly a reason for it , the margins for profit in farming is not big enough to allow fields to stand for no good reason

but hey thats just what i think

 

[lsuacner]

"One important lesson to draw from Zimbabwe’s experience is that land inequality that is rooted in colonial conquest and violent dispossession does not easily melt away."

Just to throw a bone among the dogs, the white Afrikaners fought and gave their lives, the black people of this country, never fought the war against British imperial rule like the rest of the world did for their independence.

On that merit alone, 80% land ownership is justified, furthermore, black people are happy to rent rather than invest in a house, they prefer short-term rewards like spending the 3/4 they would have had to spend on a home loan payment on other things.

So 80% of the land is owned by white people, so is 80% of RSA and once land grabs ect start to happen, 80% of RSA will fall in to the hands of people without the experience and education to manage those assets. Don't ruin RSA like Zimbabwe.

As someone else said, the concept of land ownership, a legal system and so forth was brought here by whites, when they arrived, it was "free for all". The natives has no clue and the settlers became natives with a clue. The backwards "natives" should go live like they did in 1652 if they really want to undo history and if they really want to make their argument justifiable. Every rational person does believe that these greedy, lazy buggers, only want the land for free.

(to avoid confusion, I'm referring to people who want to be compensated for land they claim they lost to colonial settlers)

(btw I did not read the article, but its about the eventual land grabs in RSA?)

 

[lsuacner]

This is the biggest load of manure i've ever heard. Get some knowledge of "YOUR" country's history. Clearly the Zulu people owned this land.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/places/villages/kwazuluNatal/Stanger/chronology.htm

Qoute:

"WHITE SETTLERS
From 1824, the first European Settlers started arriving in sailing ships from the Cape. They met and obtained land around the Bay from King Shaka, calling their tiny settlement. Port Natal. Later, it was to be re-named, Durban"

rofl. It belongs to Shaka, he is dead without a will. Too bad, now the land belongs to the rightful, current owners.

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.

So who paid for the toilet shared between 2 families? Did those 2 families pay rates, the same price as the family which did pay for their unshared toilet? My grandfather dug a pit in 1960, for a toilet, I wonder why your grandfather did not? hmmm.

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

Land must be allowed to rest, but really I can see why you would be a great farmer, work the land every year and soon you will have nothing.

Also, farmers pass their land down generation after generation, it is very expensive, a loan is taken out and a farmer dies/retires before he actually owns the land. Once you are in it, you can't get out. All these people know how to do is farm, you can not take away their livelihood and expect them to find another job in another field, after being compensated just for the land alone. These farmers should be compensated for the loss of income also.

 

[chiskop]

The backwards "natives" should go live like they did in 1652 if they really want to undo history and if they really want to make their argument justifiable. Every rational person does believe that these greedy, lazy buggers, only want the land for free.

Take that crap some where else.

 

[lsuacner]

Take that crap some where else.

I'm referring to people who want to be compensated for land they claim they lost to colonial settlers.
Land lost in 1950 is not just isolated to black people only, the government did what was best for the country as a whole, my grandfather also lost land, where gold is mined today.

 

[Bageloo]

"One important lesson to draw from Zimbabwe’s experience is that land inequality that is rooted in colonial conquest and violent dispossession does not easily melt away."

Just to throw a bone among the dogs, the white Afrikaners fought and gave their lives, the black people of this country, never fought the war against British imperial rule like the rest of the world did for their independence.

What about the battle of Isandlwana ?

On that merit alone, 80% land ownership is justified, furthermore, black people are happy to rent rather than invest in a house, they prefer short-term rewards like spending the 3/4 they would have had to spend on a home loan payment on other things.

Are you black by any chance? If so, please speak for yourself. I know many black people that own the properties they live in. Hell, I know too many that own properties they don't live in. I'm one of those.

So 80% of the land is owned by white people, so is 80% of RSA and once land grabs ect start to happen, 80% of RSA will fall in to the hands of people without the experience and education to manage those assets. Don't ruin RSA like Zimbabwe.

...and everyone has been saying that...perhaps you did not notice.

As someone else said, the concept of land ownership, a legal system and so forth was brought here by whites, when they arrived, it was "free for all". The natives has no clue and the settlers became natives with a clue. The backwards "natives" should go live like they did in 1652 if they really want to undo history and if they really want to make their argument justifiable. Every rational person does believe that these greedy, lazy buggers, only want the land for free.

(to avoid confusion, I'm referring to people who want to be compensated for land they claim they lost to colonial settlers)

Who ever told you it was 'free for all' lied to you my boy. Africans used a system of communal ownership of land. What this means is that the community that stayed in the land owned the land collectively, but each clan had their own piece where they erected their kraals. A stranger would not just come in settle unauthorised. That's why whites had to use violent methods and trickery to get the land. I doubt that anyone wants the land for free. The article is about gvt's slow pace of land redistribution but then you did not read it, so 'kuyafana nje'

(btw I did not read the article, but its about the eventual land grabs in RSA?)

I thought as much. Do us a favour and read the article before making uninformed commnents.

 

[lsuacner]

What about the battle of Isandlwana ?

oh wow one battle, call it a war and make a bigger deal about it, it will still not be the war of independence of South-Africa.

Who ever told you it was 'free for all' lied to you my boy. Africans used a system of communal ownership of land. What this means is that the community that stayed in the land owned the land collectively, but each clan had their own piece where they erected their kraals. A stranger would not just come in settle unauthorised. That's why whites had to use violent methods and trickery to get the land.

So the vast expanses of land, not owned by the native population at that time, was not free for all? The land which was taken by violent methods and trickery, was part of life before RSA has a proper legal system which was enforced. I'm sure black people fought over land also, the person who won the battle, won the land. As far as trickery goes, rofl, if people want to sell their land for something worth nothing to whites, but worth something to black people, why not? An industrious black man could have traded his "loss" to another black man for land/whatever.

Do these land-grabbers even realise how long ago 400 years is?! As I said before, if they want to live in the past, live like their ancestors did 400 years ago, then they might have a leg to stand upon.

As a side note, my family had a castle in Germany, taken by force, a few hundred years ago, the details are lost but shouldn't I have a right to that land? The law should not be applied retrospectively, it gets ugly.

 

[Bageloo]

oh wow one battle, call it a war and make a bigger deal about it, it will still not be the war of independence of South-Africa.



So the vast expanses of land, not owned by the native population at that time, was not free for all? The land which was taken by violent methods and trickery, was part of life before RSA has a proper legal system which was enforced. I'm sure black people fought over land also, the person who won the battle, won the land. As far as trickery goes, rofl, if people want to sell their land for something worth nothing to whites, but worth something to black people, why not? An industrious black man could have traded his "loss" to another black man for land/whatever.

Do these land-grabbers even realise how long ago 400 years is?! As I said before, if they want to live in the past, live like their ancestors did 400 years ago, then they might have a leg to stand upon.

As a side note, my family had a castle in Germany, taken by force, a few hundred years ago, the details are lost but shouldn't I have a right to that land? The law should not be applied retrospectively, it gets ugly.

Why do you keep on talking about land grabbers? There aren't any yet but there might be in the future if the problem is not attended to.
What's this got to do with your family in Germany? If they had land taken from them then they should claim it back if they can.
If black people wanted to reverse history they would have kicked out white people back to Europe but we both know that is neither feasible nor necessary. We have come too far to allow such backward thoughts to prevail. Fact is we are going forward as a country but the land issue is a thorn in our side that we cannot wish away.

 

[McSack]

What about the battle of Isandlwana ?

Who ever told you it was 'free for all' lied to you my boy. Africans used a system of communal ownership of land. What this means is that the community that stayed in the land owned the land collectively, but each clan had their own piece where they erected their kraals. A stranger would not just come in settle unauthorised.

Unless of course he was stronger and from a different [-]tribe[/-] culture. That's exactly how the Zulu's landed up controlling what is now KZN and the Xhosa the Eastern Cape, and the Basotho confined to what is essentially Lesotho and the eastern free state

That's why whites had to use violent methods and trickery to get the land.

If you want to look at things that way, I guess it was no different to what had been going on in the land for the previous 200 years or so.
Currently we have a very similar situation(except in reverse) happening throughout Africa, however in my opinion the whites who are now being dispossessed are too PC to stand up for themselves. At least in the good old 1800's the Zulu and Xhosa never considered feeling guilty about the land they had taken from the previous occupants and went to war to protect the land they had won and felt belonged to them.