South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms in land redistribution program

[sayak83]

Because assigning collective, inherited guilt based on race has always turned out so well in the past...

India did land redistribution about two decades ago between lower and upper castes in many states. Worked well. Economy boomed, the move produced long term social progress and prosperity in those states. The narrative that land redistribution does not work is a narrative created from a colonial culture. It works if done properly, legally and within a democratic and constitutional framework.

The point here is that the original laws through which lands were bought and sold was illegal as at that time a huge fraction of citizens were disenfranchised. So it is just and lawful for the government clear the slate and begin anew.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good. Much needed.

That sounds like a justification for racism.

 

[sayak83]

That sounds like a justification for racism.

No its not.
The World Bank is finding new ways to understand South Africa's issues

Also read my earlier reply.

 

[Estro Felino]

Most Israelis back to Europe? Australia for the Aborigines? New Zealand for the Maoris? And America for the Native Americans? Does Trump go to Germany or Scotland?

How far back should we go before we get the 'rightful' owners of the land?

Was the colonization of Africa legitimate or not?

Spoiler

Africa 1800

Africa 1930

 

[sayak83]

Because assigning collective, inherited guilt based on race has always turned out so well in the past...

Karnataka is India's most prosperous state (Bangalore is in Karnataka). It did a major land reform in 1980. Another phase is beginning now. India gives the state legislature significant autonomous authority on how to proceed on land reforms in accordance with local culture and will of the electorate. Its not perfect of course, but there is no reason to think it as either unjust or economically disastrous. At the end of the day, property rights are not inviolable if the property was procured in the first place within an unjust and exploitative economic structure. Otherwise seizure of Jewish land and property during Nazi Germany would have to be considered lawful too.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act will make 4-5 lakh farm labourers land owners - Times of India

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since Germanic tribes swamped Europe in the dark ages we have to send English back to the Denmark,Netherlands and Germany. Scottish have to go back to Ireland I guess. The Franks have to go back to the forests of Germany as well. I think it's going to be a mess.

Sure would. I'd have to figure out a way to divide myself in three, send one me to Ireland, one to Germany, and one to Scandinavia. And then somehow divide myself yet another time to cover the Cherokee and stay put here. Collectively I'd be a very drunk tree hugging (worshiping if I go back far enough) super hippy. Sounds like some tiresome work.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Karnataka is India's most prosperous state (Bangalore is in Karnataka). It did a major land reform in 1980. Another phase is beginning now. India gives the state legislature significant autonomous authority on how to proceed on land reforms in accordance with local culture and will of the electorate. Its not perfect of course, but there is no reason to think it as either unjust or economically disastrous. At the end of the day, property rights are not inviolable if the property was procured in the first place within an unjust and exploitative economic structure. Otherwise seizure of Jewish land and property during Nazi Germany would have to be considered lawful too.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act will make 4-5 lakh farm labourers land owners - Times of India

I have a suspicion there is more than "white man = bad" going on. I'd have to analyze all the details, but it's probably not too far off if there is such a massive discrepancy and gap between ownership, power, and wealth that who the land is being seized from isn't so much just white people so much as greedy white people who exploiting an entire nation.

 

[Estro Felino]

Irony abounds.

Spoiler

 

[Augustus]

Actually most Israelis did not come from Europe. Israeli Jews - Wikipedia

And about 0% of South African farmers were born in Europe.

Your figure doesn't include the descendent of Jews who moved there at any point over that past 3 centuries which would be the correct comparison to the South African farmers. Given that 100 years ago there were fewer than 75,000 Jews in Palestine 'most' would be a fair estimate.

 

[Augustus]

Was the colonization of Africa legitimate or not?

Spoiler

Africa 1800

Africa 1930

As legitimate as any other conquest by force. If we start 'repatriating' everyone who lives in another part of the world because one of their ancient ancestors was involved in taking it by force then that's going to get a little bit problematic.

I'm sure many black South Africans are only their because one tribe conquered another tribe hundreds of years ago. Should we weed those ones out too? Just DNA test everyone, it's possible these days.

 

[Augustus]

The point here is that the original laws through which lands were bought and sold was illegal as at that time a huge fraction of citizens were disenfranchised. So it is just and lawful for the government clear the slate and begin anew.

The expansions of the Voortrekkers and the British was concurrent with an expansion by the Zulus under Shaka. Someone always gets disenfranchised if you go back far enough.

Karnataka is India's most prosperous state (Bangalore is in Karnataka). It did a major land reform in 1980. Another phase is beginning now. India gives the state legislature significant autonomous authority on how to proceed on land reforms in accordance with local culture and will of the electorate. Its not perfect of course, but there is no reason to think it as either unjust or economically disastrous. At the end of the day, property rights are not inviolable if the property was procured in the first place within an unjust and exploitative economic structure. Otherwise seizure of Jewish land and property during Nazi Germany would have to be considered lawful too.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act will make 4-5 lakh farm labourers land owners - Times of India

This isn't quite the same. They are not proposing giving the land to people who actually work it, but based on historical claims to ownership.

This generally means giving agricultural land to non-farmers which often benefits no one. For example,

"A recent report by the Financial and Fiscal Commission shows that the potential of land reform as a mechanism for agricultural development and job creation has largely gone unrealised.

A survey by the commission in three rural provinces (Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape) found that most land reform farms show little or no agricultural activity. On-farm beneficiaries earn little to no income, and the majority of beneficiaries seek employment on surrounding commercial farms instead of actively farming their own land.

Where land reform farms are in operation, they operate below their full commercial potential and have a strong bias towards subsistence agriculture. Across sampled sites, crop production had decreased by 79% since conversion to land reform.

This dramatic decline has serious implications for employment in the affected areas: land reform farmers no longer cultivate labour-and skills-intensive crops such as vegetables, citrus and tobacco on the land that once sustained these crops. In the three provinces surveyed, job losses averaged 84%, with KwaZulu-Natal suffering a 94% job haemorrhage."

It's also not 'elites' being targeted, but one particular group. When you get a very corrupt government looking to protect its own interests, a scapegoat for why the population is still poor is very convenient. Historically, this doesn't end well for the scapegoat (Ethnic Chinese in places like Indonesia and Vietnam are recent examples).

Land reform is not intrinsically problematic, it depends on how it is carried out. Seizure without compensation for somewhat arbitrary redistribution along racial lines doesn't seem to me to be a particularly ethical or effective way to go about it.

 

[sayak83]

The expansions of the Voortrekkers and the British was concurrent with an expansion by the Zulus under Shaka. Someone always gets disenfranchised if you go back far enough.



This isn't quite the same. They are not proposing giving the land to people who actually work it, but based on historical claims to ownership.

This generally means giving agricultural land to non-farmers which often benefits no one. For example,

"A recent report by the Financial and Fiscal Commission shows that the potential of land reform as a mechanism for agricultural development and job creation has largely gone unrealised.

A survey by the commission in three rural provinces (Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape) found that most land reform farms show little or no agricultural activity. On-farm beneficiaries earn little to no income, and the majority of beneficiaries seek employment on surrounding commercial farms instead of actively farming their own land.

Where land reform farms are in operation, they operate below their full commercial potential and have a strong bias towards subsistence agriculture. Across sampled sites, crop production had decreased by 79% since conversion to land reform.

This dramatic decline has serious implications for employment in the affected areas: land reform farmers no longer cultivate labour-and skills-intensive crops such as vegetables, citrus and tobacco on the land that once sustained these crops. In the three provinces surveyed, job losses averaged 84%, with KwaZulu-Natal suffering a 94% job haemorrhage."

It's also not 'elites' being targeted, but one particular group. When you get a very corrupt government looking to protect its own interests, a scapegoat for why the population is still poor is very convenient. Historically, this doesn't end well for the scapegoat (Ethnic Chinese in places like Indonesia and Vietnam are recent examples).

Land reform is not intrinsically problematic, it depends on how it is carried out. Seizure without compensation for somewhat arbitrary redistribution along racial lines doesn't seem to me to be a particularly ethical or effective way to go about it.

I am not conversant on the nitty gritties of the SA political situation. My only point here was to state that land reform in SA need not be a bad thing if done properly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As legitimate as any other conquest by force. If we start 'repatriating' everyone who lives in another part of the world because one of their ancient ancestors was involved in taking it by force then that's going to get a little bit problematic.

I'm sure many black South Africans are only their because one tribe conquered another tribe hundreds of years ago. Should we weed those ones out too? Just DNA test everyone, it's possible these days.

Even Nozick admits his idea of "just acquisition" (basically what this thread is revolving around with property being justly acquired) becomes problematic and virtually impossible to enforce after a certain point.

 

[Estro Felino]

 

[Shad]

It works if done properly, legally and within a democratic and constitutional framework.

Tyranny of the majority backed by legal oppression.

The point here is that the original laws through which lands were bought and sold was illegal as at that time a huge fraction of citizens were disenfranchised.

It was legal at the time. See how your "but it is legal" works against your view? Making up a law does not make something right.

So it is just and lawful for the government clear the slate and begin anew.

Assertion.

 

[Shad]

I'm sure many black South Africans are only their because one tribe conquered another tribe hundreds of years ago. Should we weed those ones out too? Just DNA test everyone, it's possible these days.

Actually some did come after the fact; the Bantu. Land claims are not nearly so clean as people like to believe. Many have no claim to anything in SA.

 

[sayak83]

Tyranny of the majority backed by legal oppression.



It was legal at the time. See how your "but it is legal" works against your view? Making up a law does not make something right.



Assertion.

Reversing lands appropriated during an oppressive and tyrannical regime is justice, not tyranny.

 

[Shad]

Reversing lands appropriated during an oppressive and tyrannical regime is justice, not tyranny.

Not by the methods being used in SA. It is the same tactics used by the Apartheid of government force, theft of land, impoverishing a section of the population and appeals to emotions. The government isn't offering market value. The government is not providing alternatives which include the market. The same tactics were used in Zimbabwe which failed completely and destroyed the nation. It is a facade of justice to cover for simple revenge and government incompetence.

 

[Skwim]

South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms in land redistribution program

South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms

Your source of this outright lie, the Washington Times, is a conservative rag created by Sun Myung Moon and exists as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Unification Church. Nice choice of reading material, Shaul. What's next, the white supremacist's toilet paper, American Renaissance, or the KKK's Crusader?

.

 

[Shad]

Your source of this outright lie, the Washington Times, is a conservative rag created by Sun Myung Moon and exists as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Unification Church. Nice choice of reading material, Shaul. What's next, the white supremacist's toilet paper, American Renaissance, or the KKK's Crusader?

.

‘It is nothing more than racist theft’
South Africa blasts Trump over tweet it says is racially divisive