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. abradley

    abradley Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,156
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Thailand
    Zimbabwe was once the 'African Bread Basket', now it's a basket case.

    Why?

    "Global
    How To Kill A Country
    Turning a breadbasket into a basket case in ten easy steps—the Robert Mugabe way

    Samantha Power December 2003 Issue

    {Snip}

    Pat Ashton, a stocky, white-haired fifty-five-year-old farmer, stops in at least twice a month. Ashton grew up in Cheshire, England, and moved to Rhodesia in 1971. Trusting Mugabe's moderate rhetoric, he made a down payment on a farm the year after independence. It took him two decades to pay back his loans, but in 2001 he finally did so. The Ashton farm grew mangoes, tobacco, maize, and flat peas, grossing about $800,000 annually. His workers didn't earn enough to buy their own land ("I probably could have done more to make them self-sufficient," he admits), but he did build them a village of some ninety houses, a social hall, a football field, and a medical clinic. Ashton reinvested virtually all of his surplus in the farm.

    In July of 2001 about fifty people who lived in the nearby town arrived on his land. Most were miners, and they were led by three officials from the Mugabe government. The group began surveying Ashton's property and marking out plots for homes. The next six months were a constant battle. The settlers returned and erected makeshift thatch huts in the middle of Ashton's maize and tobacco fields. They dug up his maize crops, beat up his farm workers, and removed and bent his irrigation pipes. Still Ashton hung on, living in his farmhouse and planting and harvesting what he could. In January of 2002 four trucks arrived, containing youth militia and men claiming they were veterans of the liberation war collecting their reward for service. This time the invaders attacked Ashton, with steel rods and an ax, cutting him in the forearm and badly damaging his pickup truck as he tried to escape. They held two of his sons hostage for a day, threatening to execute them and making them chant songs in praise of the ruling party. As the invaders carted away all the Ashton family's transportable belongings—from crockery to toilet seats—the police watched with amusement and then decided to join in.

    Ashton is more sympathetic than many other farmers, but the story of his eviction is fairly typical. In 2000, about 4,000 large-scale commercial farmers owned some 70 percent of Zimbabwe's arable land. Nearly two thirds of these farmers had bought their farms after independence, and thus held titles issued not by Ian Smith or the British colonial regime but by the Mugabe government. Mugabe had long pledged land reform as a way of redistributing farmland to black peasants and dismantling what many saw as the country's "mini-Rhodesias." But he had delayed action for two decades, generally taking farms only on a "willing seller, willing buyer" basis.
    {Snip}
    Initially, the farmers held their ground, but it became clear after several white farmers were murdered that they were too few and Mugabe's regime was too determined. Of the 4,000 large-scale commercial farmers in business three years ago, all but 500 have been forced off their land. Most Zimbabweans (including white farmers) say that land reform was both necessary and inevitable. The tragedy of Mugabe's approach is that it has harmed those whom a well-ordered, selective redistribution program could and should have helped. Generally the farms have not been given to black farm managers or farm workers. Indeed, because of their association with the opposition, more than a million farm workers and their dependents have been displaced, and they are now at grave risk of starvation. In fact, the beneficiaries of the land seizures are, with few exceptions, ruling-party officials and friends of the President's. Although Mugabe's people seem to view the possession of farms as a sign of status (the Minister of Home Affairs has five; the Minister of Information has three; Mugabe's wife, Grace, and scores of influential party members and their relatives have two each), these elites don't have the experience, the equipment, or, apparently, the desire to run them. About 130,000 formerly landless peasants helped the ruling elites to take over the farms, but now that the dirty work is done, many of them are themselves being expelled.
    (Continued)"
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/12/how-to-kill-a-country/302845/

    You may think this was written by a extreme conservative, but no, it's written by Obama's choice as UN ambassador.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

    Recently I read about South Africa, the same is happening there.
     
    Squonk likes this.
  2. MaryKB

    MaryKB Goddess Queen Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    3,663
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    United States
    I still feel it's inappropriate to argue against an idea unless you've got a better one to present ... otherwise you're really just advocating to do nothing and maintain the status quo.

    It's like when Jon Snow told Sam "You're right, it's a terrible plan. What's your plan?" and Sam had nothing, so he kept quiet and let Jon go on his way.
     
  3. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,742
    And Russians donating land to their many conquered minority ethnicities in their "not-so-autonomous" republics and okrugs?
     
  4. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,742
    The OP addressed two points. 1.)Whether only Whites could be racists, and 2.)What should be done about South Africa, specifically. I have mostly only addressed point 1.) I specifically avoided speaking on point 2.) because I had no constructive idea that I thought was viable or workable to contribute, so silence on that point seemed more prudent - until you specifically asked my point on OP point 2.)
     
  5. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    13,298
    Russians too, if anyone of them proposes redistribution of property and also reads this thread.
     
  6. Oerdin

    Oerdin Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,912
    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    You are ignoring the fact that Bantu speaking blacks are not native to that region, didn’t exist south of the fish river, and that the real natives were stone age hunter gatherers called the Khoisan. So Bantu speaking blacks didn’t historically exist in half of South Africa before European arrival and the half they did exist in was the result of a genocidal expansion against the real natives.

    How can we “return” land which Bantu speaking blacks have never historically owned? And what little they did occupy was stolen any way during colonization and genocide against the original Khoisan owners.
     
    caketastydelish likes this.
  7. abradley

    abradley Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,156
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Thailand
    Is that the answer?
    Or are the Lumbees the example of the for the future.
     
  8. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,924
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Wealth tax that funds social spending exclusively.
     
    Hygro and AmazonQueen like this.
  9. MaryKB

    MaryKB Goddess Queen Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    3,663
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    United States
    Yes, I was thinking very specific and exorbitant taxes could work, and may encourage those land owners to sell and try something else.
     
  10. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,924
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    They'd need to hit a balance of putting capital to work for all South Africans while also making sure that capital doesn't start to depress in value.

    South Africa's inequality took generations to build, so it should be expected that it will take generations to equalize.
     
    Hygro likes this.
  11. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,742
    The problem I see here is, who would manage the slush fund from this taxation to make sure it enriched all South Africans. See, both the ANC, and the National Party of the Apartheid days, both a big problem in common - large sections of both parties and civil service under them were rampant with corruption, nepotism, and self-serving malfeasance. Who could be trusted to monitor this vast exchange of wealth, and who would vet them?
     
  12. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,924
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Those are separate issues entirely, and ones that already plague South Africa today anyway.
     
  13. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,742
    They would still have to be addressed for your solution to realistically have a chance of working as intended.
     
  14. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    20,671
    It isn't like 'the West' didn't know full well what Mugabe was like from the Gukurahundi in the 80s.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi
    My copy of Martin Meredith's The Fate of Africa doesn't note any Western response to the Gukurahundi, neither does the wiki page nor a quick google. Further, the Zimbabwean economy was already falling apart by the mid to late 90s, as exemplified by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimba...n_War_Veterans_Association]War Veteran Crisis and highly expensive intervention in the Second Congo War. There was also a massive expansion in government spending in terms of education and health, both as part of a general reform and modernization movement and to deal with the AIDS crisis which was pummeling southern Africa. Zimbabwe's increased military spending was one of many reasons the World Bank and IMF began cutting Zimbabwe off from aid programs. All of which occurred before the 'Fast Track Land Reform' and the much publicized paramilitary violence against white landowners began. The Zimbabwean economy was already falling apart and the political establishment was facing a mass vigilante action by the War Veterans Association who began violently seizing farmland in reaction to both the slow speed of land reform and the blatant corruption engaged in by Mugabe in who ended up getting what land emerged from the 'land reform' itself.
    In other words, the Zimbabwean economy did not fall apart because they were mean to whitey.
     
    Arwon likes this.
  15. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    Why the obsession with whiteness? The state of affairs is bad whoever does it.

    Do you have a point?
     
    Oerdin likes this.
  16. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,742
    I was answering the OP question, "can only Whites be racists." There is no "obsession" there. There is merely case-and-point statements to present my answer. I don't know where you see an obsession - except for the likelihood of the very common - but highly flawed - rhetorical tactic of inserting such as a baseless attack and to push your own point on false ammunistion.
     
  17. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,000
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    Huh, I thought you were quoting and replying to me directly.

    Well anyway, now that white people have been sufficiently defended, do you have any opinions on the 10% owning 80%? You didn't actually say that it was necessarily bad, only that there are numerous examples in human history.
     
  18. Squonk

    Squonk Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,502
    Location:
    Poland
    The problem is that you do not treat them as people in this post. You treat them as one mass, undifferentiatied in behaviour, origin, status, or even time, basing on their skin colour. And that, in my opinion, racist:

    You say "whites take", "whites dominate" etc. You don't say "some whites take farms", just "whites". Of course, it's a natural simplification, but one can put it in a context.

    You use present only, which denies the factor of time.

    You brand all non-whites as natives (which is not true for Bantu, as was mentioned), and all whites as non-natives. How many centuries have to pass for some ethnic group to become native? Are Spaniards native to Pamplona, if there are some Basques around? Are Turks native to Ankara and Istanbul? There are blacks there who are not descendants of the natives, there are whites who are not descendants of the iinvaders etc.

    You say natives take control, which omits the important factor of that the whites agreed to this change, and they wouldn't if it ment they were supposed to go completely. Also, not all land was inhabited, thus not all land was stolen. You say about it not being racist, because they were invaders. Well no, the invaders are not the same people you are dealing with today. They only are descendants of them, and sometimes not even that - they only have the same skin colour. But you lump them together as one, some whites 400-100 years ago and some whites today. Also, the "whining" and "it's not like" bit indicate a hostile attitude towards those people. Well, everyone would "whine" if someone was taking his legal property because his ancestor, or somoeone who sold the land from someone who sold the land to his father did gain this land in an immoral way.

    Also, I would like to point to that land was always stolen as a part of conquest. This was a "normal" thing in the horrible ages and we've made a great step forward. But you are taking modern legal measures, apply them to the deeds centuries ago, and want to create legal consequences for today. While the past deeds were outrageous crimes, it was what was being done back then. Not just there. It's impossible to rectify thousands of years of human history, or even centuries, in the way you envisage it. Au contraire, attempts to do so will unevitably lead to more strife, and more harm.

    Some of these people are not descendants of the people who have taken the land from someone. And not all black people are descendants of people who were taken land from. Also, not all white people supported apartheid etc. White skin is not a good indicator of who was doing what and of whose ancestors were doing what.

    We profit from the crimes of our ancestors all the time. To completely stop that, you'd have to take all the children and raise them completely separately from their parents, in a commune. Because parents either have money, property or education or social status that was undoubtly influenced by the crimes of our ancestors, and I don't think there's anyone who hasn't got a criminal among his ancestors. Of course, sometimes most or all of the property comes from crimes, sometimes the link is small.

    As I mentioned, if it's possible to prove that some specific land belonged to some specific men, and was taken from him against the law at this time - yes, I believe it should be returned to him or his descendants, with some compensation if the current owner is descendent of a person who took it illegally, and with surely full if he or his ancestors acquired it legally. It's much more complicated to rectify faults that were not done to specific people, can not be well assessed, and weren't illegal at this time, even if they were atrocities or vicious crimes. Something can be done then but it's much more tricky subject.

    You've mentioned law. Well, it's about that. It was all, for a long time, legal. You'd have to change the law to change that. But these people grew up in a legal ownership of something, or, worse, acquired something legally.
    For centuries, conquest was seen as a legitimate form of acquiring territory, more or less. From today's enlightened perspective, it's of course theft or robbery. But well, we can not rectify it now. We can just try to make sure it doesn't repeat. And rectify what was against the laws from the time they were introduced.
     
  19. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,742
    As I have said, other than a Khmer Rouge seizure and arbitrary redistribution of all land, there is no easy or obvious solution that is enforceable to guaranteed to have any justice or equity to it and have old hatreds - by the Afrikaaners and other Whites, as well as the Bantu ethnicities, and the remaining Khoikhoi - bleeding in and tainting the affair, and the endemic corruption causing massive problems as well. A real flawed point of view in socio-political "problem solving" today is the flawed and fallacious notion that poignant and major socio-political issues can realistically be dealt with in-and-of themselves, in a void. This is utter foolishness. The major issues of each nation - and the issues of nations in their interaction with other nations, and with international organizations, NGO's, and religions, rebel and terrorist groups, and mega-corporations that span borders all weave into a huge, tangled web that ties so much together intricately that the "issue in a void" viewpoint becomes utterly ludicrous when thought about rationally. At the very least, the issues connected at the hip and closest related to the issue in question, and the deep-seated national problem (and, indeed, at least by restrospection, a sober and clear view of the history leading up to it) need to be addressed as well, or any proposed solution is doomed to fail, and quite possibly make things worse.
     
  20. Valka D'Ur

    Valka D'Ur Hosting Iron Pen in A&E Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    24,289
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
    I guess you're going to have to be shocked and disappointed in me, too, because I agree with Patine. :huh:

    Yes, it's possible for non-whites to be racist toward whites. There are numerous examples of this in Canada, but apparently we're not allowed to feel annoyed about it because it's "racist" to resent being called a "colonizer" and "racist" to call out some people on their hypocrisy over some instances of "cultural appropriation" (one of my comments on this point was recently pinked on CBC.ca, as even their unaccountable moderators can't handle it).

    As for South America and Patine not having a viable solution... please. It's not a sin to point out that there are problems with a specific proposed solution to a problem, yet not be able to state another proposal for a solution. Some problems are so complicated that it's hard to know where to even start, and admitting that doesn't mean saying one is in favor of doing nothing.

    No, it's arguing that whatever that particular idea is, it won't work. If everyone who didn't have a better idea to propose at the time was compelled to shut up about the issue from the get-go, the world would be a much quieter place and people wouldn't have the chance to ask why the person thought the idea wouldn't work, and go on to say, "But what if we did this instead of that; maybe it would work then."

    Vilifying Patine for his views expressed here makes as much sense as being disappointed in me for saying, "the answer to solving the issue of animal cruelty in factory farming isn't in forcing everyone to be vegan (a "solution" stated loudly by many militant vegans), but I'm not sure just what a workable solution could be" and saying, "If you're against an idea but don't know how to solve it, you should shut up".

    It's not an attitude that is conducive to fostering the back-and-forth exchange of ideas that could actually lead to an answer. Or to put it in Star Trek terms, if your preferences were how engine room discussions went on Star Trek: The Next Generation, the series would have been over before the end of "Encounter at Farpoint" because Q would have destroyed everyone for lack of Picard allowing anyone else to express an opinion.

    You just restated his point.
     

Share This Page