White South Africans Face Genocide?

[Sparko]

No, but I'd support them if they claimed land back.

so basically a full blown coup? And if people didn't want to give up the land they paid for and lived on for generations and the Indians raped and skinned them alive and murdered their children to "claim their land back?"

I don't feel sorry for the farmers losing farms if they were ill-gained. European settlers murdered more than a hundred thousand indigionous people, enslaved them, subjected them to the Apartheid regime, forced them into poor slums, and left them bereft of wealth that could have been theirs.

It wasn't ill-gained. They bought the land legally. South Africa was changing hands a lot over the last few hundred years. It was a part of Britain's Empire then a republic, etc. The farmers had bought the land and lived on it for generations. The black people living now have no claim on that land, except that they want it and will murder to take it. If you want to get technical, when a land is conquered, the previous owners have no claim. Their government is gone. Just like in the USA. The Indians living today have no claim on the land I own, even if it did belong to some long dead ancestor of theirs. That nation is long gone and I bought my land legally from the legal government of this country. I mean, how far back do you want to go? Over in Europe the lands have changed hands multiple times, from barbarians, to vikings, to romans, to europeans. Who has the legal claim? Can some Italian walk onto your land and claim that since his ancestors were Roman that your land now belongs to him? (or more probably a Viking?)

[Leonhard]

so basically a full blown coup?

No, but you don't seem to be listening any way.

And if people didn't want to give up the land they paid for and lived on for generations and the Indians raped and skinned them alive and murdered their children to "claim their land back?"

One wrong doesn't make a right, wrong. Name me a single war, without war crime? Yet that doesn't mean those wars weren't worth fighting?

It would still be wrong for their territories to be taken by settlers obsessed with "Manifesting Destiny".
It would be good for them to have some of their territory back. This good has been recognised by others, and that's why we have the Indian Reserves, which are still microscopic compared to what they had.
There would also be a wrong, in that some farmers would feel a loss. Though I think that this would still be less than the wrong the indians suffered.
It would be wrong for any indians to murder or pillage.

But, it being wrong for an indian to commit murder, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be right for them to get more of their territory back.

Personally I think the process should have been voluntary, where the Indians were given many reparations for the evils they suffered, made sure that they were brought up to and perhaps even above the average living standard of those who benefited from the taking of their territories.

It wasn't ill-gained. They bought the land legally. South Africa was changing hands a lot over the last few hundred years. It was a part of Britain's Empire then a republic, etc. The farmers had bought the land and lived on it for generations.

I think you might be really saying that the white farmers bought it from other white people who had taken those areas. I don't think that's an adequate defence.

If you want to get technical, when a land is conquered, the previous owners have no claim.

They still have a claim. Its just up to the now sitting power to hand over the power freely. It would be the Christian and noble thing to do, and therefore I doubt it will be done, because we humans are greedy and evil.

I mean, how far back do you want to go?

I consider it a balance of things. You're right that some things fade slowly. But it strikes me as the height of injustice and unfairness for wealthy whites in those countries not to be aware that they have those advantages almost entirely due to evil actions of people in the past, and then work to repair the injustices committed.

Of course things fade over time. But I wouldn't say that's been done yet.

Can some Italian walk onto your land and claim that since his ancestors were Roman that your land now belongs to him?

[Sparko]

Basically, the White people living in South Africa as just as much Citizens of South Africa as the Black people living there. They were there before the current government was in power, just like the other people living there. The new government has no more right to that land than the old government did if you want to go back to "the original people" who were various tribes living there.

[Leonhard]

Basically, the White people living in South Africa as just as much Citizens of South Africa as the Black people living there.

Who benefited massively from injustices visited by the colonisers, and don't show any awareness of that, and aren't willing to make reparation. Claiming "it was someone else's fault".

The new government has no more right to that land

Unless it decides that those people don't have a right to that land. The US government for instance has this power. It can declare a certain area of land for some use, pay off the citizens what it feels that land is worth (or less), and those people can't do anything about it.

All governments ultimately have that kind of power.

[Sparko]

Who benefited massively from injustices visited by the colonisers, and don't show any awareness of that, and aren't willing to make reparation. Claiming "it was someone else's fault".



Unless it decides that those people don't have a right to that land. The US government for instance has this power. It can declare a certain area of land for some use, pay off the citizens what it feels that land is worth (or less), and those people can't do anything about it.

All governments ultimately have that kind of power.

You are right. The new government CAN do that (and IS doing that) - but that doesn't make it right. Nor is it "justice" - and murdering and raping to do it just makes it worse. You seem upset about how the ancestors of these people (and the American Indians) were treated by the Whites. Yet when these blacks are doing the same thing (maybe worse) you call it justice and reparations. I call it evil.

[Leonhard]

You are right. The new government CAN do that (and IS doing that) - but that doesn't make it right. Nor is it "justice"

I think a discussion about that would be very interesting, but I think I'm pulling this discussion a bit much away from the subject matter, and you and others are starting to read what I'm saying as a defence of the murders and rapes. So this will be my last post in this thread.

A discussion about what what sort of crime European colonialism had on Africa is long and deep. There's a lot of a scars in that country from things we - speaking as a European citizen - have done. And we've done little to repair for those crimes, and now we're pretending that there's nothing to repair at all. We get to benefit from the evil, and yet, not pay for any of it... I have a hard time feeling indignant when those people there rise up against that injustice.

But its a long discussion, and I'm not deep enough in the facts. I know enough that I can see situations where I see it as clearly unjust, and where it would be right for the descendants to be given back the land, and that it would be the right things for the farmers to do, but the farmers being proud and greedy wouldn't do that.

I also think you have good points in that those people who have been there for generations in some sense incur a wrong in having their investment in the land taken away from that. And in a consideration of how you'd way the injustices on both sides against each other, I can see arguments on both sides.

These talks of crimes made me think about that. As the deeper issue.

- and murdering and raping to do it just makes it worse.

For the fifth time, and with this I'm leaving, because I don't want to be accused of supporting murders or rape:

I don't condone the raping or murders.

As for how many there are I'm still looking for reliable numbers, but its difficult to find anything reliable. It appears to happening at nothing more than the normal rate down there, and that there's no difference in terms of how many white farmers are killed compared to black farmers. However it might just be due to a lack of information in this case. I can't find anything concrete.

I'll keep an eye out though. Its definitely concerning.