Oh, and as for the actual matter under discussion - it’s not a move I favour, but it’s perfectly understandable populist politics, and is also the end result of White farmers overwhelmingly rejecting the willing seller model.
What is the willing seller model?
More fully, it’s the “willing seller, willing buyer” approach. The opposite of “eminent domain” land transfer, basically.
Does not being willing to sell constitute rejecting a willing seller approach? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by saying they rejected the willing seller approach?
Context is a factor. There are hundreds of situations where a group of people are facing oppression. But if the only situations a person views as a problem or thinks are worth discussing are the ones where the victims are white then there’s a racial pattern to their posts, even if the issues they raise are true.
How many black South Africans are facing having their land confiscated?
Without compensation? The same as whites i.e. zero.
It’s a parliamentary motion that was adopted earlier this week. That’s it.
Not a constitutional amendment.
Not a statute.
Not even a single fucking regulation.
You said this several times since I first posted. You do realise that I am South African right? It’s right there in my location field. I’m no expert on the subject, and I’m trying not to sound arrogant,* but as a duly admitted attorney, notary and conveyancer I’m probably the closest thing to an expert in this thread.
*Yeah, I probably failed at that.
OK, I don’t pay enough attention to to a posters’s history. The only thing that really matters to me is, “is it true”?
No, that’s what I mean. More specifically, rejected selling their land to blacks.
How many blacks own land in the first place? 73% of agricultural land in SA is white-owned, and that includes nearly all the best land. Whites are 8% of the population overall.
Thanks, I did not know that, and now I do.
Are there property taxes, or other taxes, on these farm properties?
Have the farmers in possession been paying those all along?
Or is this more of an adverse possession type of thing on the farmers part?
FYI, I only see Members’ locations.
Me too – all I see for WQ is “Guest” and the join date.
Now I’m genuinely confused. You said
So, now you are…”consisting of or relating to blood” and “bloodthirsty”? Is this a subtle way to inform readers that you’ve succombed to vampirism?
Perhaps he is suffering from anterograde amnesia? It would explain a great number of things.
The overall impact isn’t just on the land owners whose property is confiscated and ‘redistributed’, but on the impact of the agricultural economy of South Africa, particularly given the paucity of arable land and difficulties with gerting sufficient water for irrigation requiring careful and experienced managment or resources. The comparison has been made repeatedly to the experience of land expropriation in Zimbabwe under the Mugabe regime, which is at least credible comparison that demonstrates what can go dramatically wrong with this kind of scheme, and which was a disaster that nation as a whole. Again, the o.p. has chosen to frame it in the very specific context of how it would impact a segment that is less than 10% of the population and in a way that implies persecution and danger (“I hope the white South Africans have exit routes,”) and has followed up his statement with mangled language, tortured analogies, and the patronizing claim that he actually praises black people frequently so he cannot be a racist.
Stranger
You have some broken links, Stranger.
Well, just look upthread for examples that the o.p. has not only framed the discussion in a prejudiced and disingenuous fashion but also hasn’t really made much sense in defending whatever position it is he is trying to take.
Stranger
It’s pretty clear he misused the word. Now why he won’t just own up to it, who the hell knows. I’m not sure what word he was thinking of, but I’m guessing something that means “realistic.” “Bloodthirsty” makes absolutely no sense in that context, and it’s an archaic usage at that.. I’ve never heard it mean anything other than “optimistic” in the manner it was used.
Rates (taxes based on the value of the immovable property payable to the local authority) are imposed on owners of all immovable properties whether residential, commercial, agricultural or government.
No figures, but I would imagine a majority have been doing so.
In terms of SA law relating to adverse possession or acquisitive prescription, under which a person can gain the right to a piece of land if the person has been occupying the land continuously, openly and without interruption as owner for a period of 30 years.
If this is what you are referring to, then no. The overwhelming majority of white farmers are commercial farmers who are the holders of a registered title deed.
Yeah, I momentarily forgot it depends on what skin you’re using. Sorry iiandyiii.