Khoisan demand recognition, land

[TheHiveMind]

NO NO NO NO, That was NOT my point and you've read my entire post out of context. Total misunderstanding.
BTTB made a comment here that the rest [of the san] were probably shot by the white settlers as they became marginalised and stole to survive. I bolded that bit in my post here, which you responded to.
In my post I was pointing out that to them, the san, it wasn't stealing as they had no concept of land or animal ownership, which is why I said "Of course the european or african who did actually 'own' the animal would see it as theft, but it was not intentional theft...". I was talking about the san being shot as theives when they had no concept of 'theft' when it came to animals.

I've no idea where you got the 'I'm looking for a loophole to justify not giving them their land back' because I never said anything like that anywhere. Of course they understand the concept of land ownership in todays day :wtf:

(Although I have to say, your holiday home example is daft, you can't lose what you don't own. To the san, the land was inhabited by many groups of people, by animals and spirits. When they left one part of the land they didn't lock it up and say no trespassers while we're gone. Other groups of san might arrive after them, animals fed off the land and drank the water. Do you think the san chased them away and said, no no, this is my land, you're not allowed to eat my plants and drink my water - they didn't have a concept of owning the land - it belonged to all living creatures)

In summation, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Sherbang]

In summation, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

I've no idea what that means in relation to my post :wtf:

Seriously, is it so hard to understand that when a san hunter shot and killed a boer's cow, he wasn't stealing, he was hunting as he's always done.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Or are you guys just playing at being thick and dimwitted to troll me?

 

[daveza]

The first people to occupy or homestead the land

Just curious - what does 'the land' mean in this context ?

I'm sure there are many acres of SA that has never been trodden on let alone occupied or built on.

Does this mean I could be the first to occupy a piece of land and claim it as my own ?

 

[TheHiveMind]

I've no idea what that means in relation to my post :wtf:

Seriously, is it so hard to understand that when a san hunter shot and killed a boer's cow, he wasn't stealing, he was hunting as he's always done.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Or are you guys just playing at being thick and dimwitted to troll me?

I agree with the san of that time, there is no such thing as ownership if you can't back it up with force. That's a philosophy backed by nature.
Stop speaking of it as if it is ignorance that needs to be excused. That's rationalism. They played the game, they lost.

 

[Sherbang]

I agree with the san of that time, there is no such thing as ownership if you can't back it up with force. That's a philosophy backed by nature.
Stop speaking of it as if it is ignorance that needs to be excused. That's rationalism. They played the game, they lost.

You're not making any sense. Can anyone else decode what thehivemind is actually trying to say?

 

[Lycanthrope]

I'm curious about this ideal so if someone could explain it to me, that would be grand.

The way I see it, ages back land was fought for, died for, traded and colonised. Okay, great.

Now, what people/government/whatever want, is to redistribute land according to the racial make-up of the country. In other words 85% of the country is made up of black people, so black people get 85% of the land and so on.

So then, let's say white/Chinese/whatever folk come in and buy up the land from these new black land owners, these percentages of land ownership now change: 60% of land is owned by black people, 15% by white, 15% by Chinese and 10% other races.

Is this the point in time where, again, government involves itself and tries to have land ownership redistributed according to the racial make-up of the country?

What's wrong with doing this the same way one would in any capitalist-run society where willing buyer; willing seller takes precedence? If someone wants land, work for it and buy it.

How is taking land from one group of people who've had it for generations and handing it over to another, any different to what was done to claim that land in the first place? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Land will never be appropriated based on racial make-up, it's a ridiculous "ideal" to even strive for. Land is owned by who can afford it, not whose grand daddy killed who back in the day and planted a flag.

Far more effort should be placed into education so that poor kids can have a chance to go to varsity, to earn money, take care of their loved ones, buy a home they want, etc. Like, you know, the rest of us. Government should provide homes to those who have none. But taking from one to give to the other? That's not right.

Regarding the Khoisan, they were a nomadic people to begin with, no? Ergo, they had no fixed land that they called their own, they moved around, lived in caves--many of which are now part of nature reserves, botanical gardens, tourist spots, etc.

Personally, I find the land claim and racial land redistribution argument to be ridiculous. Instead of fighting over who owned what bit of dust when, give people the means to reclaim it in trade, fairly and empower people through education and work.

Isn't that the point of a free and liberal society? Or perhaps I'm simply mistaken for assuming that we live in such a society.

 

[Sherbang]

I'm curious about this ideal so if someone could explain it to me, that would be grand.

The way I see it, ages back land was fought for, died for, traded and colonised. Okay, great.

Now, what people/government/whatever want, is to redistribute land according to the racial make-up of the country. In other words 85% of the country is made up of black people, so black people get 85% of the land and so on.

So then, let's say white/Chinese/whatever folk come in and buy up the land from these new black land owners, these percentages of land ownership now change: 60% of land is owned by black people, 15% by white, 15% by Chinese and 10% other races.

Is this the point in time where, again, government involves itself and tries to have land ownership redistributed according to the racial make-up of the country?

What's wrong with doing this the same way one would in any capitalist-run society where willing buyer; willing seller takes precedence? If someone wants land, work for it and buy it.

How is taking land from one group of people who've had it for generations and handing it over to another, any different to what was done to claim that land in the first place? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Land will never be appropriated based on racial make-up, it's a ridiculous "ideal" to even strive for. Land is owned by who can afford it, not whose grand daddy killed who back in the day and planted a flag.

Far more effort should be placed into education so that poor kids can have a chance to go to varsity, to earn money, take care of their loved ones, buy a home they want, etc. Like, you know, the rest of us. Government should provide homes to those who have none. But taking from one to give to the other? That's not right.

Regarding the Khoisan, they were a nomadic people to begin with, no? Ergo, they had no fixed land that they called their own, they moved around, lived in caves--many of which are now part of nature reserves, botanical gardens, tourist spots, etc.

Personally, I find the land claim and racial land redistribution argument to be ridiculous. Instead of fighting over who owned what bit of dust when, give people the means to reclaim it in trade, fairly and empower people through education and work.

Isn't that the point of a free and liberal society? Or perhaps I'm simply mistaken for assuming that we live in such a society.

I agree with you.

I think the problem is that there are people who have lived on a piece of land for generations but have no land rights, simply because, for the last hundred years they were not allowed to own land. I lived on a farm in the Free State for about 6 years. The farm was owned by a white man who bought it about 40 years previously for a good price, although a price no black man in the area could afford, even if it were legal for them to own land. There was a basotho village on this piece of land made up of about 400 people. They lived there, their parents lived there, there grandparents lived there, etc going back many generations. Some worked for the farm owner, others worked elsewhere, many didn't work at all. Now they were fortunate in that the farm owners, over the years, had allowed the village to continue to live on the land, but they had no rights, no land security whatsoever. Most of the people were illiterate, as rural schooling was almost non-existent, they were uneducated and poor. They lived by subsistence, growing what food they could, living in huts made from mud, dung and thatch.

So my question, I guess, is whether or not they have any land rights, having lived there for so many generations?
The previous farmer there at one point tried to legally give them a portion of the farm - the bit of land on which the village was based, but was unable to since it was not legal for black people to own land. There is no way they can afford to buy the land but surely they should have some land security or entitlement to ownership. If someone else buys the land, they can just be thrown off, despite having lived there for so many generations.

I don't know what the answer is, it's a complex issue with no easy solution, in my opinion.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I agree with you.

I think the problem is that there are people who have lived on a piece of land for generations but have no land rights, simply because, for the last hundred years they were not allowed to own land. I lived on a farm in the Free State for about 6 years. The farm was owned by a white man who bought it about 40 years previously for a good price, although a price no black man in the area could afford, even if it were legal for them to own land. There was a basotho village on this piece of land made up of about 400 people. They lived there, their parents lived there, there grandparents lived there, etc going back many generations. Some worked for the farm owner, others worked elsewhere, many didn't work at all. Now they were fortunate in that the farm owners, over the years, had allowed the village to continue to live on the land, but they had no rights, no land security whatsoever. Most of the people were illiterate, as rural schooling was almost non-existent, they were uneducated and poor. They lived by subsistence, growing what food they could, living in huts made from mud, dung and thatch.

So my question, I guess, is whether or not they have any land rights, having lived there for so many generations?
The previous farmer there at one point tried to legally give them a portion of the farm - the bit of land on which the village was based, but was unable to since it was not legal for black people to own land. There is no way they can afford to buy the land but surely they should have some land security or entitlement to ownership. If someone else buys the land, they can just be thrown off, despite having lived there for so many generations.

I don't know what the answer is, it's a complex issue with no easy solution, in my opinion.

I would say that, morally, they are entitled to that land.

You're right though, it's a complex issue, especially if you think of them as "renting" without payment but with 400-people, that's essentially a landmark or an entity in its own right.

I'm clueless how that would work but, morally, it's wrong to shove 400-people off of land that has been theirs for generations.

I think in a way, the farmer eventually forfeits that portion of the land after a certain period.

Although, if the land remains private...

No, bugger it all, I have no idea. Not enough facts to work with and not knowledgeable enough to come to a conclusion

Anyone else?

 

[^^vampire^^]

The world belonged to the dinosaurs before we got here. Give the world back to the dinosaurs!

 

[grok]

So this means Mulder was right after all. The Khoisan certainly believes so ..

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ma-warns-Mulder?highlight=zuma+ff+land+reform

 

[WilD_CaT]

NO NO NO NO, That was NOT my point and you've read my entire post out of context. Total misunderstanding.
BTTB made a comment here that the rest [of the san] were probably shot by the white settlers as they became marginalised and stole to survive. I bolded that bit in my post here, which you responded to.
In my post I was pointing out that to them, the san, it wasn't stealing as they had no concept of land or animal ownership, which is why I said "Of course the european or african who did actually 'own' the animal would see it as theft, but it was not intentional theft...". I was talking about the san being shot as theives when they had no concept of 'theft' when it came to animals.

I've no idea where you got the 'I'm looking for a loophole to justify not giving them their land back' because I never said anything like that anywhere. Of course they understand the concept of land ownership in todays day :wtf:

(Although I have to say, your holiday home example is daft, you can't lose what you don't own. To the san, the land was inhabited by many groups of people, by animals and spirits. When they left one part of the land they didn't lock it up and say no trespassers while we're gone. Other groups of san might arrive after them, animals fed off the land and drank the water. Do you think the san chased them away and said, no no, this is my land, you're not allowed to eat my plants and drink my water - they didn't have a concept of owning the land - it belonged to all living creatures)

It doesn't matter whether or not they chased others off, for all you know they knew others lived off the land as well and they allowed it. You are assuming those others as you call them are trespassers (Which actually proves I'm right, otherwise they can't be trespassers).

Look its quite simple, no society can exist peacefully without property rights. The San/Khoi, as a society did exist peacefully, ergo they had some form of property rights.

Ergo, you cannot claim they didn't understand certain property rights and thus they cannot claim compensation.

Besides, even if person A doesn't understand your rules, what matters is who's rules are right. Property Rights are just, thus any infringement is unjust. Simple it doesn't matter what either side does or doesn't understand.

Hell most people today don't understand that taxation is unjust and immoral and can never be defended, yet most people do defend the idea.

I don't care if you think it is necessary and have a different opinion, if using force/coercion to get your way infringes property rights, then that is exactly what taxes are and are thus unjust. I don't really care that others don't understand this or have a different understanding.

A lack of property rights means law of the jungle, group/family structures more akin to animals and primates (Chimps) than humans.

 

[Sherbang]

It doesn't matter whether or not they chased others off, for all you know they knew others lived off the land as well and they allowed it. You are assuming those others as you call them are trespassers (Which actually proves I'm right, otherwise they can't be trespassers).

I used the word trespassers - the san, in those days had no concept of land or animal ownership and would not have understood the concept of trespassing.
This fact has been well documented.

Look its quite simple, no society can exist peacefully without property rights. The San/Khoi, as a society did exist peacefully, ergo they had some form of property rights.

Incorrect. This just shows that you cannot conceive of a society living peacefully without the concept of owning land, not that such a society could not exist. In indicates that you are so entrapped in a modern paradigm that you can't conceive of such a society. Both the San and the Australian aborigines had no concept of personal land or animal ownership.

Ergo, you cannot claim they didn't understand certain property rights and thus they cannot claim compensation.

My posts had nothing to do with whether or not they can claim compensation. Keep up WilD_Cat. You keep putting up this strawman, arguing against something I never said or maintained in any way whatsoever. I was talking about cattle theft when Europeans and Bantu first arrived. I was commenting on the fact that Europeans saw the san as thieves when in fact they were just hunting as they always had. Cows were a new sort of animal and were, admittedly easy to hunt down as they didn't run away, but the concept that they might belong to someone was not one they understood.

Besides, even if person A doesn't understand your rules, what matters is who's rules are right. Property Rights are just, thus any infringement is unjust. Simple it doesn't matter what either side does or doesn't understand.

Clash of cultures and the stronger won.
There is nothing inherently just or right about modern property rights, it's social and culturally defined rules.
Laws are made by man.

 

[WilD_CaT]

I used the word trespassers - the san, in those days had no concept of land or animal ownership and would not have understood the concept of trespassing.
This fact has been well documented.

Again. Not relevant.

You clearly believe in property rights. Thus you need to apply those rules. It doesn't matter what they believed in.

Second point. They clearly did understand some system of property rights, because their language had words for certain concepts. So whether or not their system acknowledged the idea of trespassing is not relevant, they might not have a word or understanding of trespasser. So? I'm not arguing they had a European system of property rights in place, they had a different one.

But again, did the exist peacefully. Yes. Thus, they had some system of rights.

What you are doing is saying they didn't have a European system. Correct. Not relevant to the debate.

 

[WilD_CaT]

There is nothing inherently just or right about modern property rights, it's social and culturally defined rules.
Laws are made by man.

Really, so 2 people at once can use the exact same object at the exact same time completely defying physical laws of the universe?

And you don't own your body (It's a completely made up concept), so in other words, you are not arguing with me? (You cannot argue you have been debating me unless you can prove you own your body...paradoxical isn't it. To make your argument I have to be right)

 

[Sherbang]

Really, so 2 people at once can use the exact same object at the exact same time completely defying physical laws of the universe?

And you don't own your body (It's a completely made up concept), so in other words, you are not arguing with me? (You cannot argue you have been debating me unless you can prove you own your body...paradoxical isn't it. To make your argument I have to be right)

I was talking specifically about ownership of land and animals as I made perfectly clear in every post.
I was not talking about ownership of 'objects' or my own body.

Ownership is a legally defined concept not a natural law, it has to do with what legally belongs to somebody. Something that is owned can be bought or sold thus transferring ownership. So no, you are not only wrong but also disingenuous and obtuse.

 

[Sherbang]

Again. Not relevant.

You clearly believe in property rights. Thus you need to apply those rules. It doesn't matter what they believed in.

Second point. They clearly did understand some system of property rights, because their language had words for certain concepts. So whether or not their system acknowledged the idea of trespassing is not relevant, they might not have a word or understanding of trespasser. So? I'm not arguing they had a European system of property rights in place, they had a different one.

But again, did the exist peacefully. Yes. Thus, they had some system of rights.

What you are doing is saying they didn't have a European system. Correct. Not relevant to the debate.

Their property rights didn't extend to land and animals.

 

[mine_dump]

mulder is trying to divide and conquer to advance his own racist agenda, black south africans all have khoi and san blood, especially the xhosa, but even the venda are khoisan to some extent, so the strategy of pitting black against black so that he ultimately wins will not succeed this time, and khoisan people are black people, they are africans in the sense that a xhosa is an african, the ridiculous notion that somehow khoisan are not black and african is ridiculous, so by his own argument this land still belong to the majority whatever you choose to call them, be it khoi, bantu, etc, but it does not belong to mulder and his ilk

So this means Mulder was right after all. The Khoisan certainly believes so ..

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ma-warns-Mulder?highlight=zuma+ff+land+reform

 

[DigitalSoldier]

Do you know how many white people ,including Mulder perhaps,
have some khoisan DNA.

What racist agenda does Mulder have ? Do you have ANY evidence at all that he is a racist except that he is white, Afrikaans and standing up for the rights of others ?

If that makes him a racist well Nelson Mandela is the most famous racist in the world.

Mind you your post is very racist. But don't worry your probably black so you will deny that its possible to be racist

mulder is trying to divide and conquer to advance his own racist agenda, black south africans all have khoi and san blood, especially the xhosa, but even the venda are khoisan to some extent, so the strategy of pitting black against black so that he ultimately wins will not succeed this time, and khoisan people are black people, they are africans in the sense that a xhosa is an african, the ridiculous notion that somehow khoisan are not black and african is ridiculous, so by his own argument this land still belong to the majority whatever you choose to call them, be it khoi, bantu, etc, but it does not belong to mulder and his ilk

Are you really this daft ?

 

[WilD_CaT]

Their property rights didn't extend to land and animals.

Facepalm.

It doesn't matter. We are not judging them according to their understanding of property rights, we are judging them according to our understanding, and accordingly, they own their animals/land and not the europeans.

Why is that so hard to cummincate...

 

[Sherbang]

Facepalm.

It doesn't matter. We are not judging them according to their understanding of property rights, we are judging them according to our understanding, and accordingly, they own their animals/land and not the europeans.

Why is that so hard to cummincate...

I give up. I actually don't even know what you're talking about.
I'm not judging anyone, just made a small off-topic observation which you seem to have
totally misinterpreted and misunderstood.