# Why is South Africa melting down? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2018, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548 "2018-08-13T20:55:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/61 "2018-08-16T09:40:31Z")
> [@XT](#): > > There are also some radical Marxist groups that are talking about seizing farms and businesses without compensation. I fail to see how this makes them “radical” Marxists, since this is exactly what Marx said needed to be done. A Marxist who _didn’t_ advocate seizing the means of production would be quite radical indeed. ---
**Author:** ![yendis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ed8c4c/32.png) [@yendis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yendis)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/62 "2018-08-16T10:02:18Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I don’t think people are grokking one thing about the South African situation specifically - the people who had their houses taken from them, or were driven off their farm land? They’re still here right now. This isn’t “your 3 x great grandparent” this is your dad (literally - \*my \*dad is a participant in an active land claim). This is land that was stolen in \*very \*living memory. Exactly. The bulk of this happened in the fifties and sixties. A (white) friend of mine was a child back then an recalls how one day all of coloured friends disappeared. They and their families had been forcibly relocated overnight to the other side of the mountain. He is in his mid sixties now, this happened in living memory. The colonial era stuff is not the issue at the moment, its the land in the cities. Also this is not a new thing. The constitution already allows for land redistribution, the proposed change would remove the requirement for compensation and the use of the willing seller model. So don’t expect any sudden movement on this issue since a constitutional amendment is required. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/63 "2018-08-16T10:25:47Z")
> [@yendis](#): > > Also this is not a new thing. The constitution already allows for land redistribution, the proposed change would remove the requirement for compensation and the use of the willing seller model. So don’t expect any sudden movement on this issue since a constitutional amendment is required. Minor correction: the constitution doesn’t require the willing-seller model. That has been a policy choice of the government. The constitution already allows expropriation with [“just and equitable” compensation](https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights#25) (which is not the same as market value compensation). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/64 "2018-08-16T10:57:04Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > No. What makes the situation simple if dad is still alive is that he commited the theft, hence can be held responsible and compelled to indemnize the victim regardless of what happened since (assuming we ignore statutes of limitation). As soon as he’s dead, there’s nobody left who committed harm and has as a result a clear moral obligation to compensate anybody. You have to twist morality into a pretzel to think holding on to stolen prize land while the ones who had their land stolen are either starving or homeless counts as no longer “committing harm”. There’s a clear moral obligation to return stolen property to the ones stolen from. Failing that, to the heirs of same. Failing that, to the State itself. > [@](#): > > To begin with, while I was talking in general terms, you have chosen a very simple case That’s because the actual cases being discussed _are_ that simple. > [@](#): > > I might have organized my life around the possession of this thing, Yes, there’s a word for people who organize their entire lives around their possession of _knowingly_ stolen goods - it’s “criminal”. > [@](#): > > and taking it back from me might cause me far more damages than those originally incurred by your dad Like fuck, it would. Let me put this bluntly - even if the holders of stolen land _were_ being whipped and beaten on the streets - which they’re not - it in no way even approaches the 50 fucking years worth of damages done to the people the land was taken from. Having to give up your stolen property in no way counts as “harm” to anyone with a funtional moral compass. > [@](#): > > for instance I can have invested all my savings from 30 years of hard work into maintening and improving the house dad stole. Yes, I think you’ll find on reading the whole thread that I already anticipated the absurd “But I polished it!” argument. It doesn’t work with a stolen watch, why should it work with stolen land? > [@](#): > > I might have acquired it from dad not by inheritance, but by a transaction hence not be in a different situation than someone else unrelated who bought it. We call “Receiving of stolen property” a crime, and call the people who do it “fences” whether they buy from their relatives or the man on the street. > [@](#): > > I might question why exactly I’m the only one supporting the consequences because I inherited the thing dad stole while my brothers inherited money instead. You’re the one still holding on to the stolen property. Morally, of course, your brothers should pay, too. > [@](#): > > I might question your right to receive anything (everybody knows that your dad hated your guts, and you’d never have inherited it anyway). If my dad didn’t specify a will, I get his stuff. That’s how inheritance works. “Everybody knows” or not. > [@](#): > > I guess I could come up with a nearly infinite number of issues, and that in real life a nearly infinite number of issues would actually come up. Are they all going to be equally infinitely pathetic arguments? > [@](#): > > (like the inherent unfairness of taking it from whoever randomly happens to possess it at the moment) There’s nothing “random” about knowingly possessing stolen property. > [@](#): > > since being the child of someone who was wronged doesn’t necessarily entitle _you_ to be compensated for _your dad_ loss, especially from _me_ for something _my dad_ did. It’s not about “compensation”, though. It’s about giving back what was stolen. Here’s the thing - you seem to believe the current possessor of a stolen thing has some rights to that thing. That’s just so mind-bogglingly wrong, it’s just not even amusing. Thieves don’t have rights to stolen things. Do you apply this same logic to stolen cars? Money? Nazi gold? The Mona Lisa - if my dad stole it, but I’ve kind of gotten used to having it hanging in my hall, and it would be a bit of bother for me to find a new painting to hang in that spot, and after all, I put this nice new frame on it. I should _totally_ get to keep it, by your lights. Do you realise how absurd that argument would be? > [@](#): > > That’s a big reason why there are statutes of limitation for such things to begin with. After some decades, with all the circumstances of life in between, figuring out a resolution that is fair to everybody involved taking account all the specific circumstances of the case would be an absolute mess. You seem to be under the misapprehension that there’s a “both sides” to be fair to, here. There isn’t - there are thieves, and there are victims. Fuck being fair to thieves. > [@](#): > > In fact, I think that in France there’s a statute of limitations of 30 years even for things that I have personnally stolen from you. Why should South Africans give a shit about what the statute of limitations is for theft in France? And my understanding is that the statute of limitations applies to whether the thief is to be _prosecuted_. I’m not talking about charging the current holders as thieves, or even as fences. Just taking their ill-gotten gains. > [@](#): > > For instance, if the government seized the land, sold it in auctions, and it was later sold again to a different person who is going to be expropriated without compensation, I think there’s a problem. This is only a “problem” if said person was unaware of the entirety of the history of the country he was buying property in. It’s no problem to me that some negative effect would happen to an apartheid profiteer. Not that ignorance is a recourse in this sort of thing, anyway. > [@](#): > > Also, would I be wrong in assuming that even though some of these land grabs are fairly recent, most happened generations ago? No, _most_ of them (the urban ones, that is) happened recently - as in, 50 years ago. You might consider that “generations ago”. My parents and older siblings, who were forcibly moved, do not. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/65 "2018-08-16T11:19:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So are you proposing that nothing should be done about any historical injustices? I’m indeed proposing that (assuming that “historical” means “not recent”). And as weird as it might seem, the main reason is what I already stated : nobody currently alive would have been born if history had been different. There are many other arguments against such reparations : impossibility to determine exactly the consequences they have now, impossibility to figure out who should benefit from them and who should pay for them (does the descendant of 19th century white abolitionists owes something to the son of a white American mother and a Black Kenyan father and why?), impossibility to consistently tell apart injustices that deserve compensation and injustices that don’t, impossibility to find a sensible reason why small scale injustices shoudln’t be repaired when grand scale injustices should, impossibility to determine how far back we’re supposed to go in any objective way, impossibility to apply a consistent principle that wouldn’t result in some situations at least in absurd proposals (like all Americans not of Amerindian descent pack up and leave), … In fact there are generally not even general principles given that would allow to determine what should be repaired and how, presumably mostly because any general principle would, if followed, result in reparations being demanded for causes the person doesn’t approve of and/or in reparations being denied for causes he approves of. But ultimately the main problem is that the very concept of reparations rests on the idea of making wronged people whole, as if the injustice hadn’t taken place. And people who have actually been wronged are long dead. And people currently living, if the injustice hadn’t taken place wouldn’t be better off, they just wouldn’t exist in the first place. They aren’t incurring any loss as a result of these injustices, they’re their products, like the rest of us. In an alternative, better world, without triangular trade, the only Black people in the USA are recent free immigrants, for instance. None of the currently living American Blacks is in a better situation, they have never been born. As offensive as some will find it, they owe their existence to an ancestor being enslaved in Africa, another being raped by a plantation owner, and so on. You can argue that past injustices have consequences on people currently living (for instance, the past existence of slavery has negative cultural and social consequences now), but this is a matter of adressing current problems not of repairing past wrongs which is impossible. On the other hand, there are people who legitimately could ask for reparations because they have been themselves wronged. For instance all American Blacks who lived through the segregation era. It’s impossible to determine who exactly was wronged and how much individually, but there’s no doubt that those people could claim reparations. In fact, I’m very surprised that people insist so much on impossible reparations for slavery but aren’t demanding them for people who have been personnally victimized and are still around. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/66 "2018-08-16T11:25:36Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’m indeed proposing that (assuming that “historical” means “not recent”). And as weird as it might seem, the main reason is what I already stated : nobody currently alive would have been born if history had been different. > There are many other arguments against such reparations : impossibility to determine exactly the consequences they have now, impossibility to figure out who should benefit from them and who should pay for them (does the descendant of 19th century white abolitionists owes something to the son of a white American mother and a > Black Kenyan father and why?), impossibility to consistently tell apart injustices that deserve compensation and injustices that don’t, impossibility to find a sensible reason why small scale injustices shoudln’t be repaired when grand scale injustices should, impossibility to determine how far back we’re supposed to go in any objective way, impossibility to apply a consistent principle that wouldn’t result in some situations at least in absurd proposals (like all Americans not of Amerindian descent pack up and leave), … In fact there are generally not even general principles given that would allow to determine what should be repaired and how, presumably mostly because any general principle would, if followed, result in reparations being demanded for causes the person doesn’t approve of and/or in reparations being denied for causes he approves of. > But ultimately the main problem is that the very concept of reparations rests on the idea of making wronged people whole, as if the injustice hadn’t taken place. And people who have actually been wronged are long dead. And people currently living, if the injustice hadn’t taken place wouldn’t be better off, they just wouldn’t exist in the first place. They aren’t incurring any loss as a result of these injustices, they’re their products, like the rest of us. In an alternative, better world, without triangular trade, the only Black people in the USA are recent free immigrants, for instance. None of the currently living American Blacks is in a better situation, they have never been born. As offensive as some will find it, they owe their existence to an ancestor being enslaved in Africa, another being raped by a plantation owner, and so on. > You can argue that past injustices have consequences on people currently living (for instance, the past existence of slavery has negative cultural and social consequences now), but this is a matter of adressing current problems not of repairing past wrongs which is impossible. On the other hand, there are people who legitimately could ask for reparations because they have been themselves wronged. For instance all American Blacks who lived through the segregation era. It’s impossible to determine who exactly was wronged and how much individually, but there’s no doubt that those people could claim reparations. In fact, I’m very surprised that people insist so much on impossible reparations for slavery but aren’t demanding them for people who have been personnally victimized and are still around. If you weren’t aware that advocates of investigating reparations were interested in reparations for practices like segregation, Jim Crow, redlining, and much more, that harmed living Americans, then you don’t really know anything about reparations. Reparations are for historical injustices that have harmed, and continue to harm, living Americans, in addition to those that harmed dead Americans but with continuing ramifications. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/67 "2018-08-16T11:41:34Z")
Note that the UN says there is [no statute of limitations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#International_crimes) for crimes against humanity. And Apartheid is officially recognized as a such a crime by Article 7 of the Rome Statute and the ICSPCA ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/68 "2018-08-16T12:28:22Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And people currently living, if the injustice hadn’t taken place wouldn’t be better off, they just wouldn’t exist in the first place. They aren’t incurring any loss as a result of these injustices, they’re their products, like the rest of us. In an alternative, better world, without triangular trade, the only Black people in the USA are recent free immigrants, for instance. None of the currently living American Blacks is in a better situation, they have never been born. As offensive as some will find it, they owe their existence to an ancestor being enslaved in Africa, another being raped by a plantation owner, and so on. This isn’t offensive, it’s irrelevant. Black Americans as a group have suffered incredibly due to the ramifications of these past injustices (as well as those individuals who have suffered incredibly due to the injustices they personally experienced). Reparations aren’t just for black people, they’re for America. America has never atoned for the vast material harm it did to millions – vast harm that continues in some form, and even those practices that have ceased have ramifications that continue to do harm. Most Native Americans who live on reservations have very, very little prospect or opportunity for success – that might be able to be corrected with public policy. Why shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility of correcting this, and investigate similar circumstances that harm people today as the result of past injustice? It’s easy for comfortable people to reject this. It’s a lot harder, IMO, to consider the plight of those with very little opportunity due to injustices done to their ancestors, and not even consider trying to fix these circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/69 "2018-08-16T12:42:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > But ultimately the main problem is that the very concept of reparations rests on the idea of making wronged people whole,\*\* as if the injustice hadn’t taken place\*\*. Which definition of [reparations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparation_(legal)) are you basing this idiosyncratic interpretation on, especially the highlighted part? > [@](#): > > And people who have actually been wronged are long dead. Except they’re not… > [@](#): > > As offensive as some will find it, they owe their existence to an ancestor being enslaved in Africa, another being raped by a plantation owner, and so on. You’re right, I, for one, find this an immensely offensive statement. And irrelevant, we have the world we have, this isn’t Star Trek and “what ifs” are meaningless. > [@](#): > > but this is a matter of adressing current problems One of those “current problems” is “people are homeless and destitute while living right next to the land and resources that were taken from them by force” > [@](#): > > not of repairing past wrongs which is impossible. No-one’s said anything about repairing. Redressing, on the other hand, is completely possible. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, there are people who legitimately could ask for reparations because they have been themselves wronged. For instance all American Blacks who lived through the segregation era. It’s impossible to determine who exactly was wronged and how much individually, but there’s no doubt that those people could claim reparations. In fact, I’m very surprised that people insist so much on impossible reparations for slavery but aren’t demanding them for people who have been personnally victimized and are still around. What the ever-living fuck does American reparations have to do with South Africa? ---
**Author:** ![yendis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ed8c4c/32.png) [@yendis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yendis)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/70 "2018-08-16T12:44:20Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > Minor correction: the constitution doesn’t require the willing-seller model. That has been a policy choice of the government. The constitution already allows expropriation with [“just and equitable” compensation](https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights#25) (which is not the same as market value compensation). Thanks for the correction. I usually make a point of looking these things up first but the company internet filter decided I don’t need to know the constitution :D. ::Hangs head in eternal shame:: ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/71 "2018-08-16T12:50:10Z")
> [@yendis](#): > > the company internet filter decided I don’t need to know the constitution :D. That should be unconstitutional. Take it up with the HRC! ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/72 "2018-08-16T16:15:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If you weren’t aware that advocates of investigating reparations were interested in reparations for practices like segregation, Jim Crow, redlining, and much more, that harmed living Americans, then you don’t really know anything about reparations. I don’t claim to have an extensive knowledge of the debates about reparations. What I know about it comes from what I read/watch on the American internet. But I don’t need to know everything about the current state of the debate in the USA to form an opinion about reparations in general. That said, even though reparations for those most recent wrongs might be discussed, those discussion are dwarfed (to say the least) by debates about reparations for slavery, which is nonsentical given all the very valid objections against reparations for “historical injustice”, when it’s pretty difficult to dispute the claim of someone who has been personally wronged. Besides, I’m not even thinking so much about debates and discussions. Rather, given how heated the racial debate is in the USA, why isn’t there more _activism_ about this issue? How comes there isn’t some millions of septuagenarians taking up the streets and suing every single state and city, plus the federal government, about demonstrably true and even officially aknowledged wrongs they have been personally victim of (and it doesn’t matter if the current legal precedents would allow for a redress, which I don’t know, because when the critical mass reach some point, you can’t just put your fingers in your ears and sing “lalala” anymore). That this didn’t happen yet, and isn’t happening now, is utterly puzzling. My best guess, based on other precedents, is that they’ll begin to seriously agitate for it when almost everybody involved will be long dead, at which point the last five supercentenarians who went to a segregated primary school will be finally granted reparations. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/73 "2018-08-16T16:25:57Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I don’t claim to have an extensive knowledge of the debates about reparations. What I know about it comes from what I read/watch on the American internet. But I don’t need to know everything about the current state of the debate in the USA to form an opinion about reparations in general. > > That said, even though reparations for those most recent wrongs might be discussed, those discussion are dwarfed (to say the least) by debates about reparations for slavery, which is nonsentical given all the very valid objections against reparations for “historical injustice”, when it’s pretty difficult to dispute the claim of someone who has been personally wronged. > > Besides, I’m not even thinking so much about debates and discussions. Rather, given how heated the racial debate is in the USA, why isn’t there more _activism_ about this issue? How comes there isn’t some millions of septuagenarians taking up the streets and suing every single state and city, plus the federal government, about demonstrably true and even officially aknowledged wrongs they have been personally victim of (and it doesn’t matter if the current legal precedents would allow for a redress, which I don’t know, because when the critical mass reach some point, you can’t just put your fingers in your ears and sing “lalala” anymore). That this didn’t happen yet, and isn’t happening now, is utterly puzzling. My best guess, based on other precedents, is that they’ll begin to seriously agitate for it when almost everybody involved will be long dead, at which point the last five supercentenarians who went to a segregated primary school will be finally granted reparations. There’s tons of activism on this issue (of racist policies like redlining which harmed living Americans), including proposals by members of Congress (but always ignored by the Republican majority, of course) to investigate. Your response is, unfortunately, a common one on this issue, and IMO it’s a combination of ignorance of the actual facts (like real world reparations discussions, and real world activism) and a desire to make excuses and/or dismiss any possibility of a difficult conversation that might help others, but not one’s self. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/74 "2018-08-16T16:27:54Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Note that the UN says there is [no statute of limitations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#International_crimes) for crimes against humanity. And Apartheid is officially recognized as a such a crime by Article 7 of the Rome Statute and the ICSPCA I don’t know that, but it’s irrelevant. Crimes against humanity are an issue for criminal law, while reparations would be a civil matter or legislative fiat. It would be relevant only if you wanted to punish people who stole the land, not give reparations, and even then, I doubt that the specific action of stealing land would be considered a crime against humanity even if apartheid in general is. Besides, you (generic you) have decided to deal with what would have been the criminal part with your reconciliation commission, which doesn’t strike me as terribly satisfying, but I guess was unavoidable. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/75 "2018-08-16T16:33:02Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Which definition of [reparations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparation_(legal)) are you basing this idiosyncratic interpretation on, especially the highlighted part? The first line of your link pretty much fits : “reparation is replenishment of a previously inflicted loss by the criminal to the victim”. Usually, the goal of reparation is defined as making the victim “whole” again, which means in the same situation (or if it’s not possible, a situation deemed equivalent) she would have been if the crime (or the fault) hadn’t taken place. Not time to answer more at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/76 "2018-08-16T17:43:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I don’t know that, but it’s irrelevant. Crimes against humanity are an issue for criminal law, while reparations would be a civil matter or legislative fiat. _You’re_ the one who keeps bringing up statutes of limitations in the first place. Why bring up this “irrelevant” thing if it doesn’t apply? > [@](#): > > It would be relevant only if you wanted to punish people who stole the land, not give reparations I thought you viewed the mere act of reparations as a punishment on the payers. > [@](#): > > , and even then, I doubt that the specific action of stealing land would be considered a crime against humanity even if apartheid in general is. Doubt all you want. Article II, paragraph d of the ICSPCA states the crime of apartheid shall include: Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups,\*\* the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;\*\* ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/77 "2018-08-16T17:53:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > The first line of your link pretty much fits : “reparation is replenishment of a previously inflicted loss by the criminal to the victim”. I see nothing there about “as if the loss had never taken place” > [@](#): > > Usually, the goal of reparation is defined as making the victim “whole” again So cite a definition that includes that concept. When you do, make sure your’e not confused between “restitution”, which \*does \*often feature “making whole again” in its definition, and “reparations”, which doesn’t seem to. Restitution _can be_ a form or part of reparations, but not a necessary and sufficient part. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/78 "2018-08-16T18:12:47Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That’s because the actual cases being discussed _are_ that simple. Are all the actual cases that current reparations proposals apply to that simple, or are those just the more egregious cases, and the proposals would apply to a much broader category of cases? [Personally, I don’t see why you would need reparations laws to deal with cases where people stole land from other people. I would think ordinary laws would deal with that. Unless the land seizures were legal under then-current SA law, which would indeed require special laws to undo.] ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/79 "2018-08-16T18:25:49Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Are all the actual cases that current reparations proposals apply to that simple, or are those just the more egregious cases, and the proposals would apply to a much broader category of cases? HArd to say what the future might hold. > [@](#): > > Unless the land seizures were legal under then-current SA law They were. They[made laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Areas_Act) just to make it so (that’s just one of many). ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548/80 "2018-08-16T18:51:38Z")
MrDibble, since you’re here: Here in Canada, when discussing Indigenous people’s problems, there’s a factoid that gets tossed around. Example: > [@](#): > > 1940s: Inspired by what it has read about Canada’s Indian Act and its legal classification of “status Indians,” the South African government examines Canada’s Indian reserve system and later models elements of apartheid after the Canadian system. It’s always light on details. I’ve always been a little dubious. Is this a thing known to South Africans? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-south-africa-melting-down/819548.md?page=5)