"Do you think it's appropriate to take away the land of a white person just because they are white and give it to someone else just because they are black?"
No - but all white farmers should at least give up part of their land - especially the land not under active food production - or select black co-owners (that's what I opted for).
"Do you have any detailed stats or sources of how many people where given land or got it cheaply versus how many paid market value for their land?"
Competition was removed - in fact it was neatly done. If you have a pool of say 1 million people competing (singly or in groups) to purchase land - then the law of supply and demand kicks in and determines the price, but if say only 50 000 people are able to purchase the land (by law) - the law of supply and demand also plays a role. In 1980 you could buy 20 hectares of land in Rustenburg for about a 100K. In 2000 that same piece of land cost 2.5 million. That is a huge jump for exactly the same piece land. That's WAY above inflation.
"It ignores than some people paid for their farms and land fairly, some of it was given by tribes and some was stolen, every situation needs to be dealt with individually such as has been done in the past but are you advocating that all white own land should be in the hands of black people, even land that was not previously settled?"
My family way back used to own Rysmierbult. The guy who owned it at the time, a guy named Rosslee, sold it for a pair of Vellies. Rysmierbult was one of the richest diamond deposits in South Africa. I think a lot of the land that was "fairly" sold by black people or tribes happened due to the same causes - a lack of education or even any idea of what it's worth. You know, in the same way that vast portions of the South American continent was "fairly" traded for shiny baubles. I don't know if you think such things are fair trade.
I know I speak in broad strokes - but it is hard to nuance in a setting like this. It's hard to convey intention and attitude.
If there was a broad-based across-the-board by land owners to include black farmers in co-ownership or give up some of their land (it has happened, but is insignificant) - then I would not say a word. For example - close to me there is a guy who owns a lot of land. Not doing much of anything on it. Then one day, I drive by and I see him and his wife standing in the veld, hugging each other and crying. Soon thereafter I heard that the part (not all) of the land he was doing nothing on was given to a black farmer under a land claim. Should I feel sorry for that guy? Because now, when I drive by there, the land is fully cultivated under Naartjie and Orange trees. I don't know whether he (the original owner) "fairly" obtained that land or not. It was probably inherited - so no financial skin off his back? Hurt pride, perhaps, but at least it's not just hoarding land going on there anymore. And I like naartjies.
What I am saying is that we have to economically empower everyone in this country, for our own sake. I don't agree that land should just be taken and given - the recipient must prove their ability to use it properly. That is why I am right now working with government and an NGO to transform my land into a training farm - the idea is to get government to fund training for matriculants who want to farm. And then give them land to go do it on, close to their communities. Can you see any real problem with that?
