1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Can only whites be racists and is Africa no place for whites?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Squonk, Oct 5, 2019.

?

Can only whites be racists and oppressors? Are whites out of place in Africa?

  1. Only white people can be racists and opressors

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Not only white people can be racists and opressors

    26 vote(s)
    74.3%
  3. Africa is no place for whites - they should all leave

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Africa is a place for its inhabitants regardless their skin colour

    27 vote(s)
    77.1%
  5. The structure of land and capital ownership should fit racial, ethnic, religious ratio of populace

    3 vote(s)
    8.6%
  6. The structure of land, capital ownership doesn't have to fit racial, ethnic, religious ratio

    17 vote(s)
    48.6%
  7. No action should be taken regarding the land ownership in South Africa

    5 vote(s)
    14.3%
  8. A non-state organisation should be established for buying land and distributing it among black popul

    3 vote(s)
    8.6%
  9. The state should confiscate the land and distribute it among black people with full compensation

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. The state should cofiscate the land and distribute it among black people with partial compensation

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. The state should confiscate the land and distribute it among black people without compensations

    2 vote(s)
    5.7%
  12. The state should confiscate the land and make its ownership according to racial ratio - full compens

    3 vote(s)
    8.6%
  13. The state should confiscate the land and distribute it according to the racial ratio - partial compe

    1 vote(s)
    2.9%
  14. The state should confiscate the land and distribute it according to the racial ratio - no compensati

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. I like frogs.

    15 vote(s)
    42.9%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,928
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    LOL. Again, your argument is self-incoherent and a rationalization for doing nothing. By this logic taking the land away from white people and giving it to black people is not a punishment either - after all, "not having something someone else has is not getting punished."

    If you're willing to accept white ownership of the land from theft as given then you have no actual argument against black people just taking the land back.

    FWIW I think this argument reflects race-essentialism. If you have an actual argument to make about different methods of rule between the Bantu-speaking iron-age states and the rule of Europeans in southern Africa you can make it (I think there are important differences e.g. the introduction of chattel slavery and racial caste) but claiming it is inherently different because it is from overseas is a bit silly.

    The issue is that Shaka's conquests have very little to do with a political settlement in South Africa. The continuing effects of European conquest and the following centuries of white rule are what need to be addressed. Anyone claiming that Shaka's conquest (let alone the Bantu migrations) should be just as relevant for policymaking is either deeply ignorant or just making excuses for the status quo.
     
    Cloud_Strife, MaryKB and Gorbles like this.
  2. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,819
    Location:
    UK
    Yeah, I'm having trouble phrasing what I want because there's no real discussion to be had, as said discussion is based on power dynamics that people just aren't owning up to existing. It doesn't help that there's (assumedly intentional) conflation between Bantu and the specific states involved. I said assumedly intentional because the people here are very loud about how up they are on history, and the subjects in question.

    I tried to explain exactly what you said - Shaka's territories were completely out of the picture by the time of the Second Boer War and the establishment of modern South Africa. I had to relegate it to a footnote, and it was ignored anyway. So hey! :)
     
    Senethro, MaryKB and Lexicus like this.
  3. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,928
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    It's alright, always happy to help discipline the arguments of people on the right side.
     
  4. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,266
    That's because it's dumb. But it's simple. And if authoritarian Re-Res are useful in any regard, it's in proving that people can flock to belligerent and simple.
     
    bernie14 likes this.
  5. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    11,608
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Hate to break it to you but the world has very different cultural values.

    A
    In some cases yes. Culturally some culture s have a habit of gift giving to the elites.

    When you build a modern state though it's corruption.

    Go to an Islamic country and women's rights, not the best as a general rule. Cultural once again.
     
  6. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    11,608
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Shakas legacy messed up Zimbabwe.

    Matabele were a break away Bantu group.

    In the Rhodesian war the Shona tended to support the whites. Why they were farmers the Bantu were cattle drivers, warriors, slavers.

    Pax Britannica did keep a lid on things and largely wiped out the slave trade.

    Similar thing here happened with the Maori. Down here they were farmers up north warriors. Not every tribe signed the treaty, not every tribe was opposed to the British.

    British rule racism and all was seen as better than being preyed upon by slavers so weak tribes supported them. Casual racism still better than being murdered I suppose.

    Even now amount the Maori some tribes still look down on others for being slave stock or colluding with the British. Or they get called plastic Maori. I don't think I need to explain the phrase Plastic Maori.

    How dare tribes not let other tribes prey on them.

    South Africa apartheid was cancer, more Boer driven than British. The British descendents were were not quite second class citizens more looked down on in some ways.

    Main point is it was never really black or white even in SA. It's good apartheid is gone, but yeah there's a colonial legacy they will have to deal with. It's been one generation since apartheid ended it will take two or three to fix things peacefully.

    If they chose a different path they have Zimbabwe and a prime example of screwing it up.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019
  7. Hehehe

    Hehehe Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,391
    Location:
    Finland
    South Africa would be Wakanda if it wasn't for those evil white people, so I guess they deserve whatever they get. Besides, the black Bantu South Africans stole the land from the Khoisan fair and square, so obviously it should be returned to the Bantus

    Moderator Action: This kind of comment is unwelcome at CFC. Please do not troll other users. --LM
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2019
  8. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,928
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    It's kind of amazing how many false assertions you managed to pack into one post here bud. Like for one thing Shona is a Bantu language so you just have no idea wtf you are talking about.
     
    MaryKB likes this.
  9. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,428
    Location:
    Estonia
    Statutes of limitations exist for a reason.
     
  10. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,819
    Location:
    UK
    They, uh, don't exist with regards to ownership of land. The closest we have is adverse possession.

    I recommend a brief overview on the relevant laws in South Africa. Nothing refers to a statute of limitations; it's likely something like this would have to be processed by the law.

    However, I'd imagine Lexicus was talking specifically about the arguments in this thread, as all real-world examples would likely involve a legal battle of some kind ;)
     
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,928
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    And what reason is that, and how does it connect to this case? If you believe that we must accept white ownership of the stolen land as a historical fait accompli but cry about injustice when I propose stealing the land back from its white owners, you're just a racist.
     
    Cloud_Strife and MaryKB like this.
  12. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,428
    Location:
    Estonia
    I believe the third reason applies in this case as well. If you believe it would be fair and just to remove whites from South Africa and return the land they stole hundreds of years earlier to the indigenous people, then should the same not apply to the Americas?
     
  13. Oerdin

    Oerdin Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,913
    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    You still haven't answered the basic question of how someone can "take back" land which they never owned at any time in history.

    A bit of history which most westerners do not know:



    The bantu expansion was a genocidal colonization and population replacement carried out again the pigmies and Khousan.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019
    BenitoChavez likes this.
  14. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,928
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Yes

    Ahh, "can't steal from people who have no concept of ownership", ingenious idea
     
    MaryKB likes this.
  15. Oerdin

    Oerdin Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,913
    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    No, my ignorant friend. I am telling you that the bantu expansion had not reached south of the fish river before the Europeans arrived. They literally never owned and were not present in that land before European colonization. Furthermore, the half of South Africa which did have bantu (black) populations the bantu were only present due to colonization and genocide against the actual native hunter gatherers of the region (the khoisan).

    Is that clear enough for you or do you need a picture book to understand the history?
     
  16. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,002
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    How do people fail to understand the idea that if you endorse that land can be taken by conquest, you are asking to be conquered in turn?

    Relatedly if you would reject violence, you must be open to dialogue and fairness with your neighbours. You can't just say "No more conquering. Also we refuse to give any land back because that would be racism against white people. Gotcha! Later suckers"
     
    Cloud_Strife, MaryKB and Lexicus like this.
  17. Hehehe

    Hehehe Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,391
    Location:
    Finland
    If conquest is a legitimate means of obtaining land, then the whites should get to keep theirs. If it's not, then the Bantus have absolutely no claim to it
     
    Oerdin likes this.
  18. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,428
    Location:
    Estonia
    @Lexicus and @Senethro
    So, just to clarify - do you think statutes of limitations should not exist in principle?
    Or do you think one just should not applied in this case?
     
  19. MaryKB

    MaryKB Goddess Queen Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    3,663
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    United States
    Except now there's a new government, so they can just take that land since "might makes right"?

    I really don't get what's so hard to understand about all this?

    - White European empires came and seized land because they thought they were stronger and superior to the natives
    - Descendants of those colonizers still control much of that land
    - Indigenous populations have taken back their governance, and don't feel those colonial descendants should continue profiting from their ancestors' conquests

    I mean, say France conquered England, and a bunch of French nobles took over all the English land. If England later frees itself of French rule, do you feel it's necessary for them to let all those French nobles keep their castles and estates and such?

    And those complaints about Bantu or whatever ... what on earth difference does that make? So what if different native tribes were fighting over that land prior to European conquest ... are you trying to say that makes colonization legitimate or something? Like in my analogy above, who'd care if the new people are Welsh, English, or Scottish compared to who owned those castles before, whoever liberated it has a much better claim than the French, right?

    Even if you agree those colonial empires took that land rightfully, then by your same way of thinking, shouldn't the new government be able to do the same thing? I don't understand how some of you are trying to rationalize how they should have some sort of eternal blessed ownership of that land, to me I feel it smacks very heavily of racism. I'm not surprised by who's defending it, the usual crowd who just doesn't get these sorts of things.
     
  20. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,002
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    I just don't think some specific legal concepts are even useful in this scenario because it wasn't against the law to engage in abhorrent racist practices.
     
    MaryKB likes this.

Share This Page