Whites fear Mugabe-style evictions as South Africa seizes fi

1948-1994 is not 300 years.

[quote]Whites fear Mugabe-style evictions as South Africa seizes first farm
Wednesday, February 14, 2007, By Basildon Peta

South Africa has seized its first farm - in the clearest indication yet that it is bowing to growing pressure to redistribute land to majority blacks.

Black pressure groups and trade unions have been threatening to begin invading farms unless the government moved quickly to redistribute land.

Among many of South Africa’s 50,000-plus white commercial farmers, this first land expropriation by President Thabo Mbeki’s government echoes Robert Mugabe’s violent land seizures in neighbouring Zimbabwe where at least 4,000 farmers have been evicted from their land, leading to the collapse of that country’s economy.

But among blacks dispossessed of their land in 300 years of apartheid, the move marks the beginning of a new era to correct skewed landownership patterns.

White farmers and white-dominated groups still control 90 per cent of prime farmland while blacks remain crowded in barren communal areas.

South African authorities have hitherto moved cautiously on land reform, fearing that any forced seizures will rattle investors afraid of a repeat of a Zimbabwe style situation.

Yet there is also growing recognition that equity in landownership within a reasonable time is unachievable without resort to some “strong arm” tactics to dispossess landowners who will not easily give up what they have already amassed.

The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights said in a statement yesterday that the first expropriation order of the gigantic 25,200-hectare farm owned by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of South Africa (ELCSA) in South Africa’s Northern Cape Province came into effect on 26 January. The government will take full possession of the farm for resettlement next month. The government has paid £2.1m for the land although the ELCSAhad wanted more than £5m which it says is the true value of the land.

The fact that Mr Mbeki’s government is paying compensation for the land has at least mollified analysts who deem it unfair to compare South Africa’s land reform with Zimbabwe’s. Maans Nel, spokesman of the main opposition Democratic Alliance said his party’s position was that the state should only expropriate as a last resort where negotiations would fail. “There are a lot of other ways to get land… At least four million hectares are coming on the open market every year,” said Mr Nel.

The South Africa government has recently hardened its stance on land reforms, accusing white farmers of frustrating negotiations by demanding high prices.

Land Affairs Minister Lulu Xingwana announced last year that she was setting a six-month deadline for price negotiations with farmers after which any targeted farms would be expropriated. Mrs Xingwana has recently been engaged in harsh verbal exchanges with the white farmers after accusing some of them of sexually abusing farm workers and treating them like slaves. The government’s critics, however, say white recalcitrance is not the only reason for delays in reallocating land. Bureaucratic sluggishness in negotiations is also to blame .

The ELCSA’s farm has been expropriated under a land restitution law that allows blacks evicted from their ancestral lands during apartheid to apply to have their rights restored or to ask for financial compensation.

The church’s land was claimed by 471 local families, among them workers on the farm. But the Transvaal Agricultural Union, which represents most white farmers, is against expropriation. One member questioned the principle that land should be redistributed to blacks saying whites took large areas of unoccupied land when they first arrived at the Cape in 1652 to begin their colonisation.

“There were no dispossessions. Our ancestors found vast areas of unoccupied land and introduced modern agricultural methods. Now we are being asked to give back that land. Why?” he questioned.

Such seemingly racist perspectives are widespread among a clique of hardline Afrikaners who still refuse to accept the reality of being ruled by blacks.
belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ … 268883.ece[/quote]
Nice little pc poke at the end.

I think it is incumbent upon left-wing Americans who support this kind of return to feudalism to lead by example in giving up their own farms, estates and golf courses and returning them to the [insert current PC word for “Red Indian”]s from whom they were stolen at gunpoint by White colonial invaders hundreds of years ago etc etc… (and so on for all eternity)

How hard would it be for a few South African whites to put together an army and carve out their own “homeland” somewhere? (I’d nominate Cape Town, but will understand it they have their hearts set on Orania or Transvaal.)

Year O’ Pig holiday bump

I’m still waiting for the day my wife and I can return to China and reclaim the huuuuge tracks of land her father once owned before he was forced to flee from the communists.

I don’t fear mugabe-style evictions. What i fear are mugatu-style evictions. :astonished:

I just recently saw something on the internet about other folks with this dream in the PRC. If I can find the story link again I’ll send it to you. If I remember correctly it wasn’t all that encouraging though.

[quote=“lurkky”]I don’t fear mugabe-style evictions. What i fear are mugatu-style evictions. :astonished:[/quote]Right. Or Mugatu-style anything, for that matter. Though I do in fact own a piano necktie.

I thought that the blacks only made it south of the fish river AFTER them whities had brought agriculture to Sourt Africa?

Oh well, I guess that SA will end up as Zimbabwe 2 - they will then blame the whites and the colonial powers for their own ineptitude to the end of time - or well after the last smart white person has upped and left for US, UK or Australia.

[quote=“Mr He”]I thought that the blacks only made it south of the fish river AFTER them whities had brought agriculture to Sourt Africa?

.[/quote]

Not sure what you mean since most of South Africa is north of the Fish River, and the Bantu speaking peoples living there had agriculture long before Europeans arrived. The Khoi (Hottentots) living in the Cape were pastoralists.

Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel speculates that the reason the Bantus didn’t push into the Cape and displace the Khoisan, as they had further north, was that their crops were tropical and unsuitable for the temperate climate.

Well, still evictions aren’t the answer.

Its a good reason to start implementing trade restrictions

Did they do that on Zimbabwe?

I think that trade restrictions might be an answer too.

The only issue is tha tthey did not work with Apartheid, so I can’t see that they will actually work this time around.

I’m [i]certain[/i] Beijing, Berlin, Moscow and Paris will agree.

:roflmao:

I would laugh with you Dr. Evil but it really is not funny. haha

Anyway, communism in the minds and worse the hands of certain people… Enforced equality… we have seen it all before. Anyway, I hope that Chavez has good luck with that. Ditto for Evo Morales. What is it with these people? Is it a law that they MUST look like the peasant thugs that they are?

[quote=“fred smith”]I would laugh with you Dr. Evil but it really is not funny. haha

Anyway, communism in the minds and worse the hands of certain people… Enforced equality… we have seen it all before. Anyway, I hope that Chavez has good luck with that. Ditto for Evo Morales. What is it with these people? Is it a law that they MUST look like the peasant thugs that they are?[/quote]

This isn’t communism - this is just an egocentric madman at work. Communism sucks the will to live out of the population but there is plenty of life left in the Zimbabwean people. This disaster is not that old and could be reversed if Congress and the bleeding hearts and artists looked the other way whilst the SAS and CIA went in and rearranged the government. Ahem. Does anybody have any conceivable objection to that? (Apart from the usual suspects as listed by Dr Evil who rely on dictatorship in Africa as a principle of foreign policy. Otherwise we’d have to buy the damn natural resources!!! Shock horror!)