According to this guy, whites: http://mikesmithspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.de/2011/06/opening-pandoras-apartheid-box-part-32.html
Liar.
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/05/blog-post_1754.html
Dr. X, sounds reliable…and off course he then goes
Notice his double standards?
Anyone wish to comment?
Who has it now?
Them.
shrug
What are we supposed to debate? How big of a tool this blogger is?
South Africa belongs to whoever happens to be living there now - white, black, yellow, green, purple. Whoever.
Were the Pyramid builders of Egypt “White?”
We know they weren’t sub-Saharan “Black,” i.e., they weren’t Ethiopian, Nigerian, Congolese, Angolan, etc.
But were they really of the same major branch that we call “White” today? I thought they were non-Semitic, non Indo-European, non-Hittite… How are they generally categorized these days?
And…not building permanent structures, etc., is a culturally biased definition of “ownership” of territory. It’s the sort of rule that people who build permanent structures might make up to justify their conquest.
(Also…even when civilizations did have permanent structures – Aztecs and Incas come to mind…they got stomped on and their land was taken from them. So, even if it were the “definition” of ownership, there’s no evidence that anybody respected it!)
I was hoping for a discussion of history. Here is what else he says:
Now we get into controversy.
Racist tripe and rather obvious at that
Just three examples:
Why should we take overt racist nonsense seriously again?
There is no controversy. It’s all made up nonsense by a racist idiot.
I define love as any time I look at you and want to do naughty things.
I am currently looking at you and thinking of doing naughty things.
Ergo, we are in love.
Hey baby, why are you running away?
That’s basically the sort of reasoning in the OP. Everything tracks back to an arbitrary definition of land ownership that he has decided overrides everything else. Minus a god that comes down and declares that land ownership starts with permanent structures, his initial starting point is poop.
For one thing, I know he is wrong about whites taking the land. However, I want to see if he is wrong about his version of history involving that law.
I don’t know specifically about South African settlement, but I think there are some claims here which are pretty nonsensical from a general perspective:
So what? Nomadic peoples have property rights. It is true that legal regimes have been generally slow to recognize the property rights of nomadic people, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And most importantly for this discussion, during the colonial periods, Western governments did start to recognize property rights for nomadic peoples. For example, the US and Britain signed a a treaty in 1794 (The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation) which recognized nomadic rights for cross-border migration between Canada and the US. I could do a whole list of these, and governments could (and still should) do a much better job of portecting nomadic property rights, but the idea that nomads had no property rights under British law is pretty much nonsense.
Now, this is funny. Common law systems have never relied solely of any of these things as the sole means of establishing ownership, because common law systems recognize that ownership can be establish through usage (see, for example, adverse possession). Common law systems do tend to give more weight to things like demarcation, maps and titles, but none of these are necessary to establish ownership and in some cases may be overridden by other ownership claims. This claim shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how property rights are established in common law systems.
Furthermore, in many cases the British incorporated previous property regimes wholesale or partially when they colonized. They had to, because otherwise things would have been thrown into chaos and people would have rebelled. I don’t really know what happened in South Africa, but my guess is that if I went and looked, the British would have given some weight to pre-colonization property claims, either through treaty or legislation.
He also fails to note that De Klerk did this after first having a specific election on whether or not to end Apartheid and most South African Whites voted to get rid of it
OK, I’ll play. let’s deal with the OP’s extract:
Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Black settlement in South Africa predated European by hundreds of years. Blacks had displaced Khoikhoi as far as the Fish river before Europeans first rounded the Cape. Bantus were in the areas currently occupied by the Zulu people as early as 250 BCE.
Again, pure bullshit. South African Blacks were settled agriculturalists not nomadic pastoralists.
All pure bullshit.
It’s true they were a pre-literate society. That doesn’t mean they didn’t have a legal system including land ownership.
Firstly, as noted, Hottentot is just an ethnic slur. Secondly, he mixes up which is which. Thirdly, Khoe-khoen didn’t live in caves, they lived in domed huts, virtually identical to wigwams. Fourthly - when the San did use caves, they didn’t use them just as temporary shelter, they returned to the same caves again and again, seasonally. To the point of building up tens of metres of midden spoil…
Transhumance is “temporary” occupation of a site, but it’s ridiculous to suggest it’s free of any ownership. Go on, move into a Swiss herder’s summer cabin, see how ‘temporary’ he thinks it is.
Dynastic Egyptians weren’t white.
I’m not returning to a racist blog to see what you are referring to. If you have a serious question about the Natives Land Act, put it into your own words and I’ll do my best to answer.
One point about the second extract:
What the blogger omits is that this was truly shitty, barely usable marginal land in Bantustans. It’s disingenuous to just look at land area, especially since pre-act, most Black farmers had been tenants anyway, so wouldn’t be listed as owning the (good) farmland they worked. Afterwards, they needed to get land in the areas restricted to them. So yes, there may have been an increase in outright ownership. Doesn’t mean Jack.
Some were most were not. And one dynasty was sub saharan African in origin.
First I really shouldn’t read shit like this while I’m at work, because now I’m pissed off and distracted.
Second I really really shouldn’t have read the comments on that page because now I want to smash something.
Thirdly for some reason whenever white south africans talk about land claims and land restitution they focus on farmland. They always ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who were forcibly removed from urban areas. We are talking about home owners who had their land confiscated and their houses bulldozed because the area was declared whites only.
For example; there is a large open field near my house that used to contain a couple hundred houses before being flattened in the fifties. That ground has now been sold to a developer and somebody is about to make millions building a new office park. And the people that used to live there? They might get compensation but it will be a token amount at best.
Which native dynasty was White? I am of course discounting foreign invaders like the Hyksos or for that matter the Kushite dynasty (although the latter was culturally way more Egyptian than the former). But more specifically, the pyramid-building dynasties weren’t White. They weren’t Black, either. They were their own thing.
Well, their identity is so wrapped up in it, isn’t it, down to their name for themselves (speaking of the Boere here, not the souties)
Well the Ptolomies obviously. 
Ramses dynasty was probably of foreign origin too, hence the red hair and the hitherto unprecedented revering of Seth. (Ramses I was an official in the Delta before he ascended the throne).
Of course “white” is an unhelpful term (and inaccurate as well as in “black”). I am just going by what phentotype the individual would have been.