News19 mins ago
Isn't This Racist?
38 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would have thought singling out an ethnic minority and treating them detrimentally is the very definition of racism.
And if taking their property, and therefore their livelihood, isn't bad enough, the fact it might be taken without any compensation is a disgrace
Am I the only one to find the following statement from Ramaphosa chilling? "It has become patently clear that our people want the constitution to be more explicit about expropriation of land without compensation..."
As expropriation is the seizing of land for the public good, I could kind of 'get it' if the farmers weren't producing, but as they no doubt are, and are therefore employing people and contributing to the SA economy, how the hell is this for the public good.
Danny is right that this is a purely political move (but he's wrong that it's not racist).
And if taking their property, and therefore their livelihood, isn't bad enough, the fact it might be taken without any compensation is a disgrace
Am I the only one to find the following statement from Ramaphosa chilling? "It has become patently clear that our people want the constitution to be more explicit about expropriation of land without compensation..."
As expropriation is the seizing of land for the public good, I could kind of 'get it' if the farmers weren't producing, but as they no doubt are, and are therefore employing people and contributing to the SA economy, how the hell is this for the public good.
Danny is right that this is a purely political move (but he's wrong that it's not racist).
cassa - // That seems wrong Andy. They are only taking land from white farmers. Your supposition would hold more weight if there was a relatively even mix of white and black farmers land taken. //
That would depend on their being an relatively even mix of white and black farmers to take land from. The entire point is that white farmers own almost all the farmland, which is why the land is being taken from white farmers, but that is because they own the land, not just simply because they are white.
//In any case what is the betting a fair number of the ousted white farmers will end up dead by mob action? //
That has nothing to do with the OP, that's a potential outcome.
That would depend on their being an relatively even mix of white and black farmers to take land from. The entire point is that white farmers own almost all the farmland, which is why the land is being taken from white farmers, but that is because they own the land, not just simply because they are white.
//In any case what is the betting a fair number of the ousted white farmers will end up dead by mob action? //
That has nothing to do with the OP, that's a potential outcome.
-- answer removed --
There was precious little farming in S Africa or Rhodesia/Zimbabwe before the white farmers arrived. There was of course plenty of fertile land. There will be precious little farming done when the white farmers have been disenfranchised by force. Perhaps they can persuade the millions gaining illegal entry to "white" Europe to stay, or return to do a bit of farming.
