Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Squonk, Oct 5, 2019.
Ever heard of Norman conquest?
Might makes right is how things will always work out in practice, and this case is no different. I'm not defending colonialism, as it was an injustice. What I am saying is that what the current government is doing is an injustice as well, and that Bantus have no legitimate historical claim to the land.
Their claim is much better than that of the colonizers.
How do you figure those colonizers have such a sacrosanct right to that land?
Did they live and work upon the land during a regime that forbid them from legally owning it? Having the paperwork seems like a nicety in that case.
Well, this is not a criminal proceeding against a defendant so I am at a loss to see how statutes of limitation are really relevant at all, but if we're metaphorically applying the concept to this situation I would say that I am not aware of any country with a statute of limitations on serious crimes such as murder, and I consider white rule in southern Africa to be a serious crime that should not have a statute of limitations.
Ahh, I did misunderstand you, but I don't care about any of this because, once again, my position is that the people currently working the land should own the land. It is mostly Bantu-speaking black people currently working the land, but I have no problem with any white people who are actually working the land owning the land they are working.
You misunderstand - it is irrelevant that it "wasn't against the law". The whole point of statute of limitations is that this is not even considered.
I am asking if we are to return conquered lands then shouldn't the bantu conquests against the pigmies and khoisan also be rolled back? I am sure our black supremacism supporters wouldn't like that idea much though. BTW the same communist group who wants to steal all possessions from all white people including whites who arrived in South Africa only after the end of apartheid also want to steal all the possessions from ethnic Indians, Arabs, Asians, and coloreds in South Africa. Frankly, this is just fascist racial supremacy nonsense and its supporters are truly horrible racists.
Why do the Bantus have a much better claim? Is it because they wiped out the Khoisan? What kind of precedent does that set? As for why I think whites have a better claim to the land, A: they've already been on it for hundreds of years B: driving out the white farmers didn't work that well in Zimbabwe
Did they work upon the land and improve it before the colonial regime?
Why are you lying and saying the Bantu are indigenous when they clearly are not? They attacked, conquered, and colonized the area during their genocide of the true indigenous people. The Khoisan. The same bantu groups also conquered, colonized, and carried out a genocide against the pigmy people's of the Congo basin.
Why? What would the consequences of that be?
Nothing, I'm just curious
The bantu are foreign colonizers! What is your major malfunction which prevents you from understanding this basic fact?
1) Statutes of limitations are not unique to criminal cases, they also exist for civil litigations. And this is essentially a property dispute.
2) Serious offenses like murders don't have them, yes, but since you can't prosecute someone for the murder their grandpa committed, they are inherently part of the system there as well - at least as long as people remain mortal.
When it comes to land claims, there probably should be some kind of statute of limitations. Otherwise, none of us have a right to live anywhere.
Which is equally irrelevant, tbh.
Were they in possession of the land today, the same principle would protect their rights to it.
There is no litigation here.
So, let's say your grandpa stole all my grandpa's money, and as a result you live in a mansion and I live in a cardboard box. To you, you keeping the mansion and me staying in my box is justice?
Please clarify for me. Are you for taking all the land from one conquering group and giving it to another foreign conquering group or not?
Of course, you're neglecting another important legal precedent, since you claim to have a "legal edge" here. Laws are not assumed to be retroactive (except in certain Fascist, Theocratic, and specific examples of Revolutionary cases) unless a clause is put in the law at the time of it's passing. There is no "retroactive" clause in the South African property ownership laws, whether the ones from the Union of South Africa (1910-1948), the Appartheid-era Republic of South Africa (1948-1994), or the modern Republic of South Africa (1994 onward). Thus quoting property ownership laws in South Africa retroactively is not valid by South African property ownership laws. Your viewpoint has no legal standing.
The indigenous population of South Africa, the Khoikhoi, is a tiny minority today and has next to no political power or influence in modern South African Government. They're once vast lands were conquered brutally in a horrible pincer, from two directions, but starting at the around the same time, by the Boers and the Bantu, and then the British sealed the deal. This fact, which has been repeated several times on this thread, has been repeatedly ignored or declared effectively "inconsequential," because several posters just default "indigenous" status to the Bantu, which is disingenuous and SEEMS to be declared because both the Khoikhoi and the Bantu are "Black" and thus might as be considered together versus the "Whites," when things are not remotely that simple in Africa at all.
It was practically like the Wild West at that particular time, when the Boers, British, AND Bantus were performing their bloody, brutal, even genocidal conquests. There was no overarching, enforceable, binding law over all concerned, realistically, in that period.
Separate names with a comma.