'Give blacks their share'

It will never wash - and once they have given 40% ... What happens when that is not enough and you have to give more?

I cannot see one farmer agreeing to this so the state will have to take all their land or nothing.

The state owns vast tracks of land and can start there

Yes the state owns vast tracts of land but most of it is underutilized and needs vast resources to make it profitable.

Much easier taking property that is productive.
Gives the recipient a greater chance of making a success with the right assistance.
 
I agree, give Africans their share.

Reverse the clock to the moment that the Europeans arrived.

Where the African tribes were then, is where the debate can begin.

As time passed, African tribal borders changed a bit, until the way it is now.

African tribal leaders must decide on on the exact lines to be accepted, between them for the final map.

The tribes that were at a historically agreed geographical area, will then as a present population, "theoretically" own and thus share the land of that specific area.

IE: The Khoi had the Western Cape. The Xhosa had the Eastern Cape. The Zulu had Kwa-Zulu Natal.

Each such tribal geographical area, is then "theoretically" divided amongst all of that tribe.

Some areas will, because of the present tribal population, allow each member of the tribe to receive a certain amount of "theoretical" square meters of land, which will be larger for some tribes' members and smaller for others, but totally fair, as per the history of the country.

The land that Europeans or foreigners or Africans not of an SA tribe, own presently, in each tribal area, is then subtracted from the total already owned by the tribe and government.

The rates and taxes from the land owned by Europeans or foreigners or Africans not of an SA tribe, is then separated from the tribal and government lands'.

This rates and taxes amount is then increased by a minimal amount by spreading the percentage amongst the various individual taxes collected, from Europeans or foreigners or Africans not of an SA tribe, to allow the purchase of a maximum of square meters of land, as allowed for each member of the various SA tribes, per the map and the "theoretical" square meters, for all who do NOT yet own any land.

Those who already own land, are merely paid out the market related monetary value of prime, undeveloped farmland, in the tribal area.

The tax starts at a set date, with the numbers reflected by the national census and the individual tribal census, at as soon a date as possible, since the the population keeps growing, thus making any land distribution scheme to every individual SA tribal African impossible otherwise. The reparations for the past, cannot be carried on forever, by paying people to have babies to get land for each. In fact, the land for each is simply less, continuously.

The tax stops, when the various tribal members reflected at the start of the tax, are all paid for their allowed square meters of land.

The exact amount paid by the tax, to the various tribal members, per square meter of land, can now easily be market related, as required by the present owners.

In this way, each African, of South Africa, receives the true value of the land, that is theirs to claim.

Each present owner receives their market value.

Each region and the Europeans or foreigners or Africans not of an SA tribe, that benefit from it, thus pays for the land, that SA Africans cannot afford, but also, a token monetary value to those that already own land.

In this way, SA can allow the entire country to conclude the painful past, centered on the land issue.
 
Yes the state owns vast tracts of land but most of it is underutilized and needs vast resources to make it profitable.

Much easier taking property that is productive.
Gives the recipient a greater chance of making a success with the right assistance.

Yes, just like the success they made of the productive farms in Zim 1.0

The "Land for All" rhetoric is typical of African politics, because the uneducated masses (electorate) are too dumb to realise that it's a hollow promise.

All those Zim's that voted based on the promise of "Land for All" and now begging on the streets in Zim 2.0
 
The blacks forget one thing, wealth cannot be shared, it must be created.
 
I agree, give Africans their share.

Reverse the clock to the moment that the Europeans arrived.

Where the African tribes were then, is where the debate can begin.

As time passed, African tribal borders changed a bit, until the way it is now.

African tribal leaders must decide on on the exact lines to be accepted, between them for the final map.

The tribes that were at a historically agreed geographical area, will then as a present population, "theoretically" own and thus share the land of that specific area.

IE: The Khoi had the Western Cape. The Xhosa had the Eastern Cape. The Zulu had Kwa-Zulu Natal.

Each such tribal geographical area, is then "theoretically" divided amongst all of that tribe.

Some areas will, because of the present tribal population, allow each member of the tribe to receive a certain amount of "theoretical" square meters of land, which will be larger for some tribes' members and smaller for others, but totally fair, as per the history of the country.

The land that Europeans or foreigners or Africans not of an SA tribe, own presently, in each tribal area, is then subtracted from the total already owned by the tribe and government.

The rates and taxes from the land owned by Europeans or foreigners or Africans not of an SA tribe, is then separated from the tribal and government lands'.

This rates and taxes amount is then increased by a minimal amount by spreading the percentage amongst the various individual taxes collected, from Europeans or foreigners or Africans not of an SA tribe, to allow the purchase of a maximum of square meters of land, as allowed for each member of the various SA tribes, per the map and the "theoretical" square meters, for all who do NOT yet own any land.

Those who already own land, are merely paid out the market related monetary value of prime, undeveloped farmland, in the tribal area.

The tax starts at a set date, with the numbers reflected by the national census and the individual tribal census, at as soon a date as possible, since the the population keeps growing, thus making any land distribution scheme to every individual SA tribal African impossible otherwise. The reparations for the past, cannot be carried on forever, by paying people to have babies to get land for each. In fact, the land for each is simply less, continuously.

The tax stops, when the various tribal members reflected at the start of the tax, are all paid for their allowed square meters of land.

The exact amount paid by the tax, to the various tribal members, per square meter of land, can now easily be market related, as required by the present owners.

In this way, each African, of South Africa, receives the true value of the land, that is theirs to claim.

Each present owner receives their market value.

Each region and the Europeans or foreigners or Africans not of an SA tribe, that benefit from it, thus pays for the land, that SA Africans cannot afford, but also, a token monetary value to those that already own land.

In this way, SA can allow the entire country to conclude the painful past, centered on the land issue.

Didn't you just describe Grand Apartheid?

Bottom line is land reparation on dubious and tenuous claims will continue until all productive land is gone.

Food riots in the cities will render that land worthless as well.
 
Didn't you just describe Grand Apartheid?

Bottom line is land reparation on dubious and tenuous claims will continue until all productive land is gone.

Food riots in the cities will render that land worthless as well.

No, I described a fair way to give the various SA Africans the present day value of the land they rightfully owned, without stealing it in the way you described above.

Although, as you mention, it's not about fair. It's about conning the nation and increasing the 40%, until there is so little left for the farmer, that when the government finally takes it all, the farmer does not resist.
 
Although, as you mention, it's not about fair. It's about conning the nation and increasing the 40%, until there is so little left for the farmer, that when the government finally takes it all, the farmer does not resist.

"When will they learn that you can't eat money?"

:) I've heard similar criticisms against capitalism. Now watch me be cheesy: #justsayin
 
Give give and give .... Or else we wil take

Lightscribe interesting post had to read it 3 times before I understood what you where saying.

Biekie dom :(
 
Give give and give .... Or else we wil take

Lightscribe interesting post had to read it 3 times before I understood what you where saying.

Biekie dom :(

I could have said just divide SA's total square meters, by the total confirmed SA Africans at present and pay each the market related value, of prime farm land, for their individual share of the total, which is paid through a limited period of taxation, on Europeans or foreigners or Africans not of an SA tribe, that own land in SA.

However, I feel that some tribes, with larger land area and thus less people per square km of their original land, may feel wronged, if they receive a smaller payment, without that consideration.
 
Last edited:
You know what I applaud the South African government. Wanna know why? Well let me tell you...
1. Unlike other African countries they have managed to avoid getting rid of all the white people in one go.
2. They have prevented a civil war amongst white people and black people breaking out
3. They have avoided a civil war breaking out amongst themselves.
4. They have managed to seize control of a lot of productive land and have made the country import more than it is exproting.
5. They have given us some entertainment whilst on the road. "Find the patch of road and win a prize"
6. They have single handedly managed to degrade the education to such a point that only a miniscule amount of matriculants can get through their first semester on university.
7. Our government officials have found a way to earn money and be pampered to the highest degree without even lifting a finger.
8. We have a president that has been accused of numerous crimes that he is "trying" to fight apparently
9. And we have the ULTIMATE comedian in the world.... Julius Malema
I can carry on mentioning the achievements of South Africa but hey I'm sure you guys get the drift:p
 
Nobel prizes for
peace (the prevention of civil war), literature (Juliassss Malema as comedian), economics (the perfection of the gravy-train), Physics (the patches of tarmac on SA roads are truely microscopic) and medicine (the cure for HIV/AIDS "sic" is by showering after sex and by eating the African sweet potato and lemons)​
are to be awarded to Suf Africa quite soon.
 
Ok fair enough give them their 40% but what then ? , do you really think 40% devided between 40million blacks and 60% devided between 6million whites is a fair deal?, Only thing thats going to achieve is to get them off our backs for a short while, whilst they fight and murder each other over who gets what and where but when the dust settles and they open their eyes they going to notice how nice and lush our 60% is while their 40% is arid and dying so well be back to square one.
 
I'm all for giving Them their share. But only if they can farm and produce.

Who cares who plants,farms, milks.. feed the nation. As long as they are being fed. If you ask people if they would like buy local products at reasonable prices everyone would say yes. If you ask them If they rather pay twice that price but at least its not farmed by whiteys you would have them tell you rather let the whiteys farm.

Politicians should fut off and stop using farms as a political pawn to fuel racial tension.
 
I'm all for giving Them their share. But only if they can farm and produce.

Who cares who plants,farms, milks.. feed the nation. As long as they are being fed. If you ask people if they would like buy local products at reasonable prices everyone would say yes. If you ask them If they rather pay twice that price but at least its not farmed by whiteys you would have them tell you rather let the whiteys farm.

Politicians should fut off and stop using farms as a political pawn to fuel racial tension.

This can't be true.

As people in Africa have shown before they would rather starve to death than let white people farm.
 
The OP said 40% of land. That's 40% of everything or 100% of farmland. Which one is it?
 
Having lived in several African countries (south of the Sahara) since 1961 — starting with the Congo, later Zaire, and then DRC again — it has been a painful experience. The countries with a colonial history were unprepared for the task of 'independence'. These countries had to learn the hard way but finally things are changing.

However, South Africa remains a different cup of tea. For hundreds of years the majority of the South Africa's population was down-trodden and generation after generation was made to have a low self-esteem through the psychological act of racism. The majority was denied of getting their fair share of land.

Money is not everything in life and the blacks in many African countries are economically poorer than the blacks in South Africa but still they are better off. They have not for generations been made to believe they are second to the white man when it comes to IQ.

Some time back it was suggested that white South Africans should apologize to black South Africans. That came to nothing. In that context giving 40 percent of the land back to the black South African population is a much better handshake from the whites. And even so the whites still remain with a better deal.

In 1945 in Europe most of the people behind the iron curtain lost all their properties as part of the history. In such context losing only 40 percent is an evolution of fairness. The greed of the white Rhodesians resulted in losing everything. The winner took it all (though wasted it, but that's another issue). The history of Europe is full of the same.

Considering the winner could take it all, 40 percent is a very civilized figure, a small donation in the name of justice.

Suggestions as made by Agriculture Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson that farmers should transfer up to 40 percent of their farm value to black shareholders.
http://business.iafrica.com/opinion/2415820.htm


This suggestion is not practical.:wtf:

Would an economically famine struck country really considered a winner?

These "greedy" Rhodesians are still highly skilled and able to farm anywhere else in the world. I doubt they're starving and desolate.

"Winner" is a very subjective term.
 
Would an economically famine struck country really considered a winner?

These "greedy" Rhodesians are still highly skilled and able to farm anywhere else in the world. I doubt they're starving and desolate.

"Winner" is a very subjective term.

Correct, and in South Africa we did not have a winner we had a negotiated settlement which protected property rights. If the blacks wanted 40% they should have negotiated that at CODESA.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X