Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 23, 2019, 04:54:27 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Eli Gorbinsky)
  South Africa's new president wants to redistribute land from white farmers
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: South Africa's new president wants to redistribute land from white farmers  (Read 2611 times)
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,960


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 02, 2018, 06:35:37 pm »

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.

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.
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.

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?
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.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,509
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 02, 2018, 06:48:56 pm »
« Edited: March 02, 2018, 06:52:59 pm by Filuwaúrdjan »

So what about this? (I know it's RT and I hate it.)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
DavidB.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,006
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2018, 07:57:13 pm »
« Edited: March 02, 2018, 08:03:20 pm by DavidB. »

^ 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.

In (...) Belgium, all parties are ethnic parties.
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.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,935
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 03, 2018, 12:37:49 pm »

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.

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.
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.

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?
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.

If they don't support theft of property. They just support a tax on being a certain race. Okay. Much better then.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,960


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2018, 12:54:41 pm »

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.

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.
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.

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?
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.

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.
Logged
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,261
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2018, 12:48:40 am »

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.

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.
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.

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?

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?
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,935
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2018, 01:27:33 am »

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.

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.
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.

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?

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.
Logged
Simfan34
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,702
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2018, 02:27:33 pm »

It's worth keeping in mind that the primary beneficiaries of Apartheid were Afrikaner farmers.
Logged
(CT) The Free North
CTRattlesnake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,302
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2018, 04:43:35 pm »

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

Two wrongs dont make a right.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC