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

[MaryKB]

The Bantu are indigenous to Africa, the European colonizers are not.

 

[Yeekim]

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?

That is the idea of a statute of limitations, yes. Which, I believe, exists in some capacity in every contemporary legal system and dates back to Classical Athens at the very least.
I'm not saying the result is just - merely that after some arbitrary amount of time, justice can no longer be achieved by taking away my mansion - rather, it would bring new injustice. Again, this is not my opinion, it is a widely recognized legal principle.
In fact, I admit I find it difficult to believe you actually would find it good and just to expel all non-native American population from the Americas, as you said above (provided I understood you correctly?).

 

[Farm Boy]

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

Once a people actually gets into governing its born and adopted citizenry, rather than pillaging people, just saying "no more conquering" is the only way conquering stops for a while. But one also needs to stop pillaging, or what was the point in stopping conquering? Everyone talks a big righteous game, but that does eventually mean the game has to change or everyone becomes General Sherman's later career. Lots of ways to replicate the outcome of that. Doesn't always need to be as flashy as the cavalry. Could just be day to day law enforcement. Probably more often the latter, really.

 

[red_elk]

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.

From what I read they are much less applied in Common law (Anglo-American legal system), comparing to Civil law (EU, Former USSR and South America).
Murders do have them (at least in some countries like Russia it's only 10-15 years, probably in Estonia too).
Exceptions are crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, terrorism, etc.

 

[Patine]

The Bantu are indigenous to Africa, the European colonizers are not.

The Bantus are not indigenous to SOUTH Africa. Like Russians are not indigenous to England, despite both being Europeans, or Bangladeshis are not indigenous to Japan, despite both being Asians, or Maya are not indigenous to Canada, despite it being in North America, etc. This is a very important thing - and far more important in Africa than you seem to give credit for. Pan-Africanism is a tenuous, seasonal, regional, and relatively recent phenomenon. Black Africans do not have the socio-political unity or solidarity of African Americans or Anglo-Caribbeans - not by far.

 

[Lexicus]

That is the idea of a statute of limitations, yes. Which, I believe, exists in some capacity in every contemporary legal system and dates back to Classical Athens at the very least.
I'm not saying the result is just - merely that after some arbitrary amount of time, justice can no longer be achieved by taking away my mansion - rather, it would bring new injustice. Again, this is not my opinion, it is a widely recognized legal principle.
In fact, I admit I find it difficult to believe you actually would find it good and just to expel all non-native American population from the Americas, as you said above (provided I understood you correctly?).

This is now the fourth or fifth time I'm saying that I believe in South Africa the people currently working the land should own the land, without regard to race.

I don't care to apply legalistic principles to this question because as I keep repeating it is not a litigation - I completely disagree that it is "essentially a property dispute". It is a political issue with a political solution.

 

[Gorbles]

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.

I'm claiming no such thing. You're making a pattern out of these digs, though.

I simply shared some additional reading considering someone else invoked a legal prerogative.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Bantu are indigenous to Africa, the European colonizers are not.

I don't think that's a very powerful argument. "Africa" is a geographic expression, it doesn't imply an historical association with any particular point on the continent. Tunisians are also African; do they have any particular claim to land in South Africa? What distinguishes white South Africans is not that they are white, it's that their privileged position is bound up in a history of usurpation, exploitation and oppression.

Consider, also, that South Africa has a small but significant Asian population. Any discussion that attempts to align historical rights to the country with racial identity is going to have to account for them.

 

[Yeekim]

This is now the fourth or fifth time I'm saying that I believe in South Africa the people currently working the land should own the land, without regard to race.

I don't care to apply legalistic principles to this question because as I keep repeating it is not a litigation - I completely disagree that it is "essentially a property dispute". It is a political issue with a political solution.

If you don't want to treat it as a property dispute (which is a reasonable stance), then by all means treat it as a political issue.
Ignoring established legal principles while making policy is rarely a good idea though.
In any case, we would need to ask whether confiscating property of a minority and subsequently expelling them is good policy.
I would hope the answer is rather obvious.
If we were discussing whether glaring social inequalities in South Africa (or anywhere, really) should be addressed by (inter alia) instituting strongly progressive property taxes and using the proceeds to build a robust welfare state, you certainly would not see me arguing against it...

 

[bernie14]

"How can you seriously claim that the descendants of those who commited the murder/robbery have nothing to do with it?"
People are responsible for their actions. Not for the actions of someone else - even if they benefited from them.
Also, one more time
1) Not all whites participated in stealing the land
2) Not all blacks were the victims of it
3) Not all land was stolen
Once again, if it can be proven that this and this land was taken by this and this person, from this and this person, and the descendants of the first one still hold the land, while the descendants of the second one are still alive, I am, with some doubts, but in favour of returning this land to the descendants of the original owner, with proper recompensation to the current owners. What I am against is a general law that doesn't distinguish between different circumstances and lumps people into just two groups: blacks and whites. Because it's a racist approach.



Still his answer is fitting in my case too.



You are, once again, ludicrous. You have said that whites do not have right to an inch of land in South Africa. A clear and racist generalistation As I've proven, you wanted to distribute the land among blacks only, even though you are aware not all workers are blacks. And then you try to deny that, and pretend a victim, saying you are falsely accused of being obsessed with rase or whatever.

Moreover, you accused me of telling "centuries" while it was something much more recent. As I've proven, the British rule in much of South Africa is over 2 centuries long, and the white (Dutch) rule over parts of South Africa is even longer, over 3,5 centuries. Clearly, 2-3,5 centuries is "centuries". So your accusation that I am saying something incorrect was false.

What's more, you accuse me of making generalisations. It's hard to get more silly than that. It's you who uses "white" and "black" dichotomy, and unites whites from 3,5 centuries ago, from 1 century ago and the ones living there today into one group. Me, I am differentiating between whites living in colonial times, whites living today, but descendants of the colonialists, among which you should also differentiate between those who took uninhabited land and the ones who took the land from the natives; also, whites whose acestors or themselves came there after the land-grab occured. And among blacks, I differentiate between descendants of the victims of the land-grab (by the white and by the Bantu), the descendants of the ones who weren't victims nor authors of the landgrab, and the descendants of the ones who participated in the Bantu landgrab of the original population...

Tell me: if I differentiate people into a number of groups, and you operate in 2 uniform blocks, regardless of situation, origin, time, who's doing the incorrect generalisations?

When did I defend European imperialism, my love? Could you prove such a serious claim? Because, as for now, it's just a silly, desperate slur.

Also, if I am providing you with a detailed, long answer that took me several hours to write, and you just dismiss my answer without actually replying to it - who doesn't want to discuss here?

And I'm not surprised that you don't, because it'd be very hard to prove that 2-3,5 is singular, that 2 is more than, say, 8+, And that's what you are doing.
Meaning, that up to 3,5 centuries is not "centuries", that with giving 8+ different cases I am generalising while you divide people in 2 blocks etc.
Please, give some serious answer, adressing the precise points I've made.

Don't fret squonk. Look at the votes. Even on CFCOT, most people are reasonable.

Stop your tears from falling
The trail they leave is very clear for all To see at night
All to see at night

 

[Zardnaar]

This is now the fourth or fifth time I'm saying that I believe in South Africa the people currently working the land should own the land, without regard to race.

I don't care to apply legalistic principles to this question because as I keep repeating it is not a litigation - I completely disagree that it is "essentially a property dispute". It is a political issue with a political solution.

That's moronic. It's like saying a paid farm worker in say NZ owns the farm.

Respect for property rights is a big thing in developed countries. It's why places like London are well off and why England rode to power.

Basically other Europeans invested in the UK, countries like Russia didn't do so well as people didn't invest there.

Running farms these days require a lot of capital. No one sane is going to invest in Zimbabwe.

The solution short term is dump things like apartheid. Then you're going to have to figure out how to transfer wealth and opportunities back to whoever was persecuted.
Sure you can seize the land but yeah well Zimbabwe. Makes everyone worse off.

Domestically though since the government's basically corrupt and better at transfering wealth to Swiss bank accounts than their own people they can beat the populist drum about land seizures.

If the land is seized it's not going back to who needs it it's going to be doled out to supporters of the ruling party. Economy goes downhill and guess who suffers the most then?

 

[Gorbles]

Respect for property rights is a big thing in developed countries. It's why places like London are well off and why England rode to power.

Ah yes, that respect for property rights that built the British Empire on the backs of . . .

* checks notes *

Shooting anyone who held land we fancied. Right. That respect.

 

[Zardnaar]

And the Dutch got to the cape several hundred years before the Bantu.

I suppose you could split South Africa based on who got what 1st.

The doublethink and hypocrisy required is quite funny lol. Imperialism and murder is ok if non whites do it.

Wonder if we need to look at Rwanda. It's ok for the majority to use machetes on the minorities. There's some very big logic gaps here.

I think Patine and myself have read a few more books, we're both opposed to political violence and genocide regardless of who does it. Most of the time it just makes things worse.

 

[red_elk]

Respect for property rights is a big thing in developed countries. It's why places like London are well off and why England rode to power.

It rode to power because it was more successful in applying organized violence and robbing its colonies, comparing to other empires.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ah yes, that respect for property rights that built the British Empire on the backs of . . .

* checks notes *

Shooting anyone who held land we fancied. Right. That respect.

Read some books about how the empire grew and was funded.

I posted a list of least corrupt countries earlier. It's dominated by Scandinavian and ex British colonies.

It's also fairly pointless to project modern values back into the past.

Obviously a lot of countries have a post colonial legacy to deal with. In most cases populations are to mixed so looking at things from 150 years or 200 years ago.

Wonder if Gorbles, Lexicus, MaryKB etc would be willing to share what country they live in and what their parents did when they were children.

Are they willing to self deport themselves back to Europe. Alot of Eastern European nation's need immigrants.

 

[Zardnaar]

It rode to power because it was more successful in applying organized violence and robbing its colonies, comparing to other empires.

Not really violence was often the exception rather than the rule.

Why did a population of around 5 million 1700 take over the world.

Why didn't your country with more natural resources and population go forth to conquer the world.

Russia used it's armies to expand down the Volga then east to the Pacific.

How did the British do it?

 

[Oerdin]

The Bantu are indigenous to Africa, the European colonizers are not.

There you have it, folks. Foreign invaders committing genocide and conquering foreign lands is A.O.K. with MaryKB as long as it is black people committing genocide against other minority groups.

Where us silly moralists believed their previous line of argumentation that they only objected to invasion, conquest, and genocide. The reality is racists like her are fine with all that as long as it was not done by white people. I am equally sure stealing all the property of other nonwhite minorities in South Africa, for which there are many, will also some how be justified in her racist mind.

 

[Patine]

Ah yes, that respect for property rights that built the British Empire on the backs of . . .

* checks notes *

Shooting anyone who held land we fancied. Right. That respect.

Yes, and the Chinese Empire. And the Japanese Empire. And the Mughal Empire. And the Medieval Caliphates. And the Ottoman Empire. And the Phoenician Thalossocratic Empire. And the Malian Empire. And the Ethiopian Empire. And the Aztec Empire. And the Inca Empire. They all rose to greatness in their days with firmly-established property laws and on the backs of many conquered peoples each. So, again, how is this a purely WHITE crime and issue?

 

[red_elk]

Russia used it's armies to expand down the Volga then east to the Pacific.

How did the British do it?

By respecting the property rights, I guess

 

[Oerdin]

That is true far more than red elk even realizes.