Talk Elections

http://www.businessinsider.com/south-africa-cyril-ramaphosa-wants-to-confiscate-white-farmers-land-2018-2?IR=T (http://www.businessinsider.com/south-africa-cyril-ramaphosa-wants-to-confiscate-white-farmers-land-2018-2?IR=T)

Robert Mugabe 2.0 here we go!

Since it is likely there will be a mass emigration of white South Africans (largely Afrikaners), where does everyone think they will seek refuge?  South America?

Meanwhile the great heroes of the DA have done such a bang-up job of running Western Cape that Cape Town is about to run out of water.


Cyril Ramaphosa is many, many things. That is one thing he is absolutely not.

They've been leaving for years...

Our government should offer them Dutch citizenship and welcome them home before it's too late. The more, the merrier.

That would be a fun political what if. How would 100k Afrikaner refugees vote in the Netherlands?

SGP and PVV.

That is ridiculous.

The people owning the land now have nothing to do with the people a couple hundred years ago.

You could talk about a small historical solidarity tax of some sort, but not simply confiscating their land. This will only lead to mass emigration and to a worse agricultural situation.

I'm sure a lot of them would, but it's not like all of DA's white vote is hardcore Calvinists and white nationalists. I don't really see them having a lot of lefties, but VVD/D66 could do ok with them, no?

Not sure about D66, but CDA and VVD could also do well with Afrikaners, sure. Who really knows, though.

Who cares if the economy goes to sh**t when devil whitey is gone?

Come on people, if we have learnt one thing about South Africa in recent months, it is that it is a functioning democracy with strong institutions and the rule of law. That is why Zuma isn't president any more for a start. I am tempted to call this horse dung because of what we know about Ramaphosa and because of what the non-insane SA press has been reporting about his arrival in power.

SA isn't Zim and isn't going to become Zim, end of story (and land distribution is an issue, like it or not, because of how grotesquely unequal the country is, especially given the failure of "willing buyer, willing seller")

It is really hard to predict how Afrikaners would vote in the Netherlands, as the reasons they vote DA are just simply not replicable in Holland. There are plenty of otherwise liberal, progressive Saffers who vote DA and who happily have a viewpoint on their home country that seems completely at odds with the way they view just about every other issue (and SA is still intensely racist, like, spend a week there and you will hear racism that would be completely out of order in Europe).

And calling them Dutch probably wouldn't go down well anyway...

Plenty of South Africans in the UK are British citizens and can vote, but I have no idea how they do (take a guess based on Putney and Wimbledon?), and they tend to be more urban and liberal than the Afrikaners anyway

Yes. He is, I think it's fair to say, not exactly (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/ramaphosa-cabinet-reshuffle-sees-investor-favorites-return-to-run-south-africa-economy.html) on the radical wing of the ANC. This BBC profile (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20767093) of him isn't bad.


The ANC also has a long history of talking a good game over the land issue and then, curiously, doing very little about it. Zuma was particularly notable in this respect.

Ramaphosa is pretty exposed due the role he played in the Marikana killings so I would not be surprised if he's somewhat serious about this - he needs a way to appeal to restive youth in the townships and to guard against the EFF.

Anyways, the idea that this is "racist" is pretty inane - due to the way it's framed, it sounds that way and that's intentional but, in practice, land reform is a very typical proposal in extremely unequal societies where agrarian life still matters and evidence shows that it tends to be a productive proposal that raises yields, at least insofar as tenancy matters.

Confiscating land and breaking up farms that practice industrial agriculture and that are capital-intensive is very stupid, of course, and I have no faith in the ANC - of course, I have no faith in the DA either, which is a joke. That said, any reasonable party on the left would attempt to do sweeping land reform in South Africa.

In rhetorical terms, the ANC wants to "kill the boer, kill the farmer". In practice, the ANC is filled with corrupt Afrikaners from the National Party and is on friendly terms with powerful Afrikaners. Ignoramuses notice the rhetoric and clutch their pearls - people who know about South Africa knows that the rhetoric is an intentional strategy to remind Black South Africans "who really stands for them" and the struggles against Apartheid, which is all the ANC has to offer at this point.

The idea that South Africa is reverse racist or is a terrible place to be white is so inane that it's a gutbuster. The fear of Blacks ruling over the whites is so intense that I see that Europeans and Americans fall victim to strange Stormfront-esque characterizations of South Africa that have no basis in reality. Yes, South Africa is dysfunctional and a dumpster fire but it's ultimately a stable country and the ANC is more akin to the PRI or the INC than any of the comparisons that are usually made.

And is therefore significantly more likely in practice support gunning down striking platinum miners (to pick an entirely hypothetical example) than that, yes.


The sad part is that this is a much better deal than what the DA has on offer: i.e. water shortages in major metropolitan areas.

Saakasjvili, 100k Afrikaners, a few million Dutch American calvinists after the crazy lefties take over in the US. Now I finally know the meaning of kansenparels. So beautiful :'(. Open borders please!

This, I mean, I've ranted about this before, but the DA has some quite spectacularly unpleasant people and it makes a lot of sense that your average black South African has absolutely no inclination to vote for them

Unfortunately, the American (and world) media has ignored the violence and discrimination against whites in South Africa in favor of a BS narrative about "a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world" and making Mandela into a saint, even as the very president who ended apartheid recently admitted that he was duped and the ANC never intended to protect minority rights. As a result of this and the "you can't be racist against whites" mentality, the US and Europe have found white South Africans to be just about the only group unable to qualify for refugee status.

They're a highly economically productive people. If the US offered to take them in (or perhaps Australia, Argentina, Canada, or even Russia), it would help us and South Africa would be devastated. Unfortunately, I doubt we will, at least not until land confiscation turns into open war. Either way, South Africa is going down the road to Zimbabwe and even the black population will be worse off for it. Perhaps Trump will surprise me and take action or at least call attention to the issue (which is mainly talked about outside of SA by the alt right, for obvious reasons).

White farmers in South Africa are murdered at such a high rate that it is the most dangerous profession in the world. They're more likely to be killed than police officers in South Africa are. They're murdered at a rate far higher than is seen for the general population even in Honduras, Venezuela, and other countries that lead the world in violence. Unlike most murders in almost every country, the victims rarely ever know their killers. Additionally, these killings are characterized by extreme brutality including, but not limited to rape (often in front of family members forced to watch), genital mutilation, being hacked into dozens of pieces, being burned alive, babies drowned in boiling water, boiling water poured on people's faces and down their throats, etc. The level of cruelty match ISIS.

The police do nothing to protect them and the government actively opposes attempts to create militias for self defense. The Constitutional Court has ruled that the "shoot the Boer" song is "an incitement to genocide" and yet it is still sung routinely by ANC leaders. While it's true the ANC is mostly posturing and unlikely to seize all the land, the reason why they need to push this rhetoric is twofold. Reason one is that a large portion of their party is demanding it, especially younger supporters. Reason two is the Economic Freedom Fighters party, headed by former ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, openly seek to emulate the tactics of Robert Mugabe and have made confiscating white owned property their top campaign promise. Here are some of their slogans:
()
()
Yet, even as this rhetoric is increasingly mainstream and black on white violent crime rates are astronomical (and defined by a level of planning and brutality far beyond robberies gone wrong), and even as Black Economic Empowerment and affirmative action block qualified whites from jobs, forcing tens of thousands into squatter camps, we're told that the extremists are whites who don't want their grandchildren to be a reviled minority in a third world country.

One last thing. It's not reverse racist. It's just racist.

The number of farmers murdered each year is a politicized statistic - racists would like you to believe that anyone murdered on a farm is a white farm-owner. In practice, the compiled statistics show that x people were murdered on farms, including small non-commercial farms. The murder rate, thus, is totally blown out of proportion because racists, who have agendas, want you to believe that it makes sense to assume that anyone murdered on a farm is a farmer, which is absurd considering that a person on a farm in a given moment is likely to be a Black farmhand. We have no idea what the landowner murder rate is - we'll never know because statistics are not compiled on this.

The "shoot the farmer" rhetoric is, just that, rhetoric. I'm sure that the EFF, which is basically national Bolshevism for Black South Africans, actually believes in it but they're a marginal party. The ANC uses it to remind Black South Africans about the struggle against Apartheid, which is a an obvious electoral tactic in a country where the opposition is littered with race-baiting and incompetent politicians who are decidedly unappealing.

For the record, white people live in communities shown below:
()

()

()

This is where Black South Africans tend to live:
()

()

It has been 25 years since the end of Apartheid and white South Africans continue to prosper, while prospects for Black South Africans, though markedly improved, remain pretty grim. The ANC has been in control of South Africa for 25 years. I don't see a "War on Whites" here, sorry.

Thank you.

<3 <3 <3 <3

"Economic" Freedom Fighters. "Economic" anxiety.

Now tell me with a straight face, Republicans, what "tax cuts" really mean.

To be fair, the Boers committed some pretty terrible crimes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljTROelBiA8) after 1994.

So what about this (https://www.rt.com/business/420021-africa-white-owned-land/)? (I know it's RT and I hate it.)


Parliament has literally voted to implement racist policies against white people.

No they haven't! Everyone knows you can't be racist against white people! ^/s

Anyways, these 2 videos probably describe what will happen if they actually go for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOjvJAfIMSI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeGAUVlIesc

And I say this as someone who isn't exactly 100% against land expropiation. But it should follow some rules:

1) The land expropiated should be either
-Not in use (ie just left there)
-Going to be used for some public works project (say, building a railroad)

2) It should always include some sort of compensation.

3) It must not be done in an arbitrary manner. Especially not done on a racist basis.

I mean, comparing it to our "land reform" back in the 30s, even the Spanish Republic didn't dare to expropiate without compensation except to those who supported the 1932 coup.

On a sidenote, how is South Africa's land distribution? Is it concentrated on a small amount of landowners?

It seems that the "traditional leaders" are freaked out by some of the land reform bills: the ANC seem to be musing about abolishing the various trusts held by the likes of King Goodwill Zwelithini.

Why wouldn't the ANC's justification for taking property from whites also not be valid in the United States? Why would non-whites in the United States not do something similar if they were an absolute majority of the electorate?

Because the culture, politics, and history of the U.S. are vastly different than SA. Plus, we don't have "ethnic" parties here.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasnt Mandela pushed to do the same thing but he refused because he viewed it as too devise for the new nation?

Its also worth noting that Zimbabwe's new leadership has made at least rhetorical attempts at bringing back and restoring some land to white farmers there. Perhaps in 20-30 years if SA goes through with this, they'll be doing the same?

Plus, "non-white" isn't a monolithic group.

Anyway, Mandela would be rolling over in his grave.

The US doesn't have ethnic parties? Wow, how are you even able to use a computer?

I mean, we do, but they are so tiny they have no influence. And no, don't try to argue that the Dems are an "ethnic" party.

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are de facto ethnic parties. What justification do you have for declaring that position unbroachable? Other than the fact that it makes you uncomfortable?

Democrats win 40% of whites, far too much to be a de facto ethnic party. Or anything resembling one, actually.

I mean, this is getting pretty far off topic but there is a risk of American politics fracturing along ethnic lines to be sure. I warned about this back in 2016. That's why I think we should raise up White Democrats and non-white (especially African American) Republicans.

Whites didn't really trend R in 2016 though. The Republican rise with non college-educated whites (61% to 67%) was largely negated by the loss of college-educated whites (56% to 49%).

reparations would be a good thing tbh

I spent some time as a teenager on Auckland's North Shore, which is a major hub for White South Africans. They have a certain reputation over here, and certainly I've never had a positive interaction with any of the generation that emigrated in the early 90s.

In terms of their politics, they have a tendency to struggle to understand the very different racial politics of NZ, and to obviously be very socially conservative. As such, they are natural National voters but they also form a core demographic for the various Christian parties which pop up from time to time, particularly the Conservative Party in the 2014 election.

Current ACT (i.e. right-libertarian) party leader David Seymour gave the land reform issue some prominence in NZ today by refusing to congratulate our Winter Olympic medalists while the evil blacks are turning SA into another Zim etc. etc. etc.

I thought in some states whites voted 90%+ republican and blacks 90%+ democrat?

I think that does qualify as "ethnic" parties at least at the state level.

Alabama 2012
White : 84-15 Romney
Black: 95-4 Obama
Missisippi
White 89-10 Romney
Black 96-4 Obama

(couldn't find numbers for Alabama or Mississippi in 2016)

Racial polarization is terrible in the Deep South. But let's not forget that there are a lot of states where whites are less than 55% R. And I just don't see what kind of coalition could unite deeply religious whites, populist whites, generic conservative whites and urban moderate/liberal whites unless there literally is a race war.

I think Mississippi is closest, in the upper 80s GOP for whites and in the 90s for blacks. However, it's common for blacks to vote 90% Democratic in nearly every part of the country. The thing is, that doesn't make it an ethnic party. Not every single black is Democratic and not every white is Republican, even in the deepest parts of the south. And while at a national level the Republican Party is mostly white, it's still not a "white" party, of course – there are plenty of loyal black, Asian, and Latino Republicans, still much less than the number of minority Democrats, but still.

Stupid, meaningless rhetoric.

But yeah, I'm in favor of reparations for barbaric, violent colonialism and decades of apartheid brutality (which seems to continue in SA today, albeit de facto). Not sure why anyone other than pearl-clutching racists would disagree. ???

One obvious objection is that unlike the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries, most people aren't farmers. Reparations may and often do go to already-rich people.

fwiw I think the experience of BEE shows the limitations of broad, racially based Affimative Action in alleviating historic injustices - nowadays all the advatanges are hoovered up the black middle-class and ANC cronies over the genuinely impoverished. OF course, BEE represnted the right-wing alternative to the ANC's initial leftism.

Malema is already starting his next racist campaign: this time against South Africa's Asian minority.

()


Exactly, it's not like the poor blacks living in urban Johannesburg are suddenly going to decide to move to the countryside en masse and become small farmers. If South Africa wants to become a modern developed society then its future is not in farming.

so in this thread I learn that

1. Whites are all persecuted about to get murdered by uncivilized blacks

2. Whites are all rich urbanites but they have farms where they oppress black people

somehow I don't think either of these are quite right.

There are about 4.5m white South Africans. The number of "white farmers" is probably (no accurate statistics remember) in the tens of thousands, but they own 70% of land - including the most productive land as black landowners tend to be concentrated in the former homelands, which were located where they were because, well, they weren't so attractive.

You are the one who said the United States was different than South Africa because South Africa had ethnic parties and the United States doesn't. Now you are saying in order to be an ethnic party, every single member of your party has to be from the same ethnic group. Well, by that standard, South Africa doesn't have ethnic parties either. There's a token number of whites who vote ANC and a token number of Blacks who vote DA. So back to my original question, why wouldn't minorities in the United States vote themselves white people's property?

Only a bear majority of black South Africans live in urban areas, probably over 40% are rural, often either farm workers or subsistence farmers in the former homelands. So land distribution is an issue for a lot of people, especially seeing as conditions in the country side are a major driver of immigration to the cities and have contributed to some of the issues contemporary urban South Africa is facing (not just the Cape Town water crisis, but also the proliferation of shack settlement which, needless to say, both ANC and the DA municipal governments have a terrible record on).

No, an "ethnic" party is a party that specifically advocates mainly for people of one ethnic group. In Bosnia and Belgium, all parties are ethnic parties. The Mississippi GOP doesn't exclusively or mainly advocate for whites and the Mississippi Dem party doesn't exclusively or mainly advocate for blacks. Examples of actual ethnic parties are the Bloc Quebecois, the La Raza party from the 1970s, the Black Panther Party, and every party in Belgium and Bosnia.

And to answer your question, even most reparationists don't support forcefully taking property, second, most minorities (and whites) are decent enough that they don't support forcefully taking property.

The key word is 'allow' - whether anything will actually come of this isn't certain and if anything does it may not have been intended. Because of his business interests and... erm.. actions... Ramaphosa is vulnerable to attacks from a radical direction in a way that Zuma (for instance) wasn't - his cabinet has already been criticised by elements on the ANC Left and its youth wing for being too conservative and too business friendly etc - and he seems to have calculated that backing an EFF motion on the land issue is a way of negating the threat they pose to the ANC in its strongholds. If the issue gains serious momentum then he will have miscalculated (the very last thing he wants is to spook investors, to cause capital flight etc), but we shall see.

Basically politics in South Africa is extremely ugly and entirely racialised, but given its history that has to be seen as inevitable. The political settlement reached in the 90s is best seen as an attempt to regulate that and has done a decent job of keeping the peace so far. The problem is that as it has been rather less effective at spreading the benefits of economic growth to the townships, which over the long run risks weakening the stability of that settlement - Malema is a more marginal figure than usually presented in the foreign media, but that doesn't mean that he (and more importantly what he represents) is not seen as a threat.

^ Solid point. My concern for the Afrikaner community is real, but it's probably not as if the ANC have suddenly gone nuts and/or as if the end is nigh. Given Ramaphosa's unfortunate past in mining I suppose he had to do something to fend off the threat on/to the ANC's left. Still worrisome and wrong that this type of racist policy was adopted -- for the ANC's party-political purposes no less. I know it's how politics works, but it's really damn cynical. The situation is slowly getting worse and I do think the Netherlands should start preparing itself for an influx of Afrikaners somewhere in the future.

Even most hardcore flamingants wouldn't say they are ethnically different from the Walloons, I think. But even if a small number of them might do so, this is the wrong term to use.

If they don't support theft of property. They just support a tax on being a certain race. Okay. Much better then.

Again, no evidence for that and I believe that would be unconstitutional.

Nqaba Bhanga, Mmusi Maimane, Herman Mashaba, Dan Plato, Sharna Fernandez, and Lindiwe Mazibuko would be surprised to hear that they are all white. Or does half a dozen of the most prominent DA members not suffice?

The Famous Mortimer Derangement Syndrome (FMDS) is strong with this one.

It's worth keeping in mind that the primary beneficiaries of Apartheid were Afrikaner farmers.

Two wrongs dont make a right.

It hasn't gone well:

The South African government has been buying farmland for black farmers. It’s not gone well (https://theconversation.com/the-south-african-government-has-been-buying-farmland-for-black-farmers-its-not-gone-well-197201)

South Africa’s government has been buying land and leasing it to black farmers. Why it’s gone wrong and how to fix it (https://theconversation.com/south-africas-government-has-been-buying-land-and-leasing-it-to-black-farmers-why-its-gone-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it-211938)