OK, but what’s being discussed in this thread is proposals that are on the table right now, and my question was about those proposals.
This is probably a lot more complex than the way I’m treating it, but my first inclination would be to declare those laws retroactively invalid and then let the chips fall where they may, under existing laws.
did you mean “straits”?
Not this one. And I’m dubious too, since the bantustans werebased on earlier reservesthat predate apartheid itself. I doubt they needed any further inspiration.
Most of the cases currently under legal review are that simple, AFAIK - there was land, it was taken, the people it was taken from are mostly still around and making claims. There’s some chatter about older historical claims, but few of those actually make it to the legal system.
They were just repealed. Of course, they were repealed by the same folks who put them in place, so obviously more could be done.
Why yes, I did in fact mean straits, not straights. This has been pointed out already but good catch and quite relevant. I’ll take it up with my spell checker in future…
Most sane people would recognize that dispossessing a person of a stolen object causes much less harm than evicting a family from their home. Also, most sane people would recognize that evicting a family from their home for a crime they did not actually commit is unjust.
I demand that the Turks give me control of Anatolia, because as a descendent of King Priam, I deserve to have my ancestral land returned to me. There is no statute of limitations, and fuck being fair to thieves. Right?
Thanks. That was exactly what I was thinking. Canada did some shitty things to the native population but I never saw how it was supposed to be so innovative that other countries needed to study and copy it.
And that is the first wiki article I’ve seen that has a “political ironies” section. Wtf, lol?
If your bike is stolen and someone buys it at a pawn shop, it would be unjust for the police to return it to you?
I already answered this question. It’s right there in the quote. Please actually read my post next time.
On second thought, I think I will explain things, since apparently this is too hard for some people:
MrDibble’s position is that a home is equivalent to any other piece of stolen property. That is to say, a person’s home is equivalent to a stolen painting, or a TV, or whatever. CarnalK echoes this with the bike analogy. These ideas are profoundly incorrect. If I am stealing someone’s art, or bike, or whatever, it is quite easy to resolve by returning the stolen property to its owner.
Evicting someone from their home is a very different story. And MrDibble’s violently unsympathetic logic is fatally flawed, principally because a home is NOT equivalent to an object. There are significant economic, social, moral, and psychological components to a “home” that make it much more difficult to resolve.
Imagine I have lived in a certain home all my life. My family grew up here, my children grew up here, my job is here, and a large chunk of my money is tied up in the investments associated with that property. Then someone comes along and says my ancestor committed a crime, and I am an accomplice to that crime, and that i have no rights to my land, my home, or anything I have invested in it. My family is evicted for a crime someone else committed, and I lose most of my money. How do you think most people would respond to that?
MrDibble’s position is “fuck you.” The evictee should never have been there to begin with, so they don’t deserve any sympathy. But do you actually think the evictee will agree with that?
If so, you obviously have never interacted with another human being. The descendants who received their property (with improvements) are no doubt happy with this development. The evictee has lost everything for a crime they did not commit. They probably do not see much justice in that at all, and they are likely to be rather upset.
So, “fuck them,” right? Who cares about justice for “thieves?”
Here is the big problem: The evictee doesn’t just cease to exist. They are now a big ball of hate and resentment, with a family who needs food and shelter. Two wrongs did not make a right. Historically, this has not been a healthy situation. The history books are replete with people who have turned to banditry, violence, piracy, and/or terrorism because they were dispossessed of what they thought was “theirs.” If you don’t show some measure of compassion and sympathy for these people, you are setting the stage for retribution, cyclical revenge killings, and lifelong feuds. I’ve spent a LOT of time in places where this sort of thing has happened and it does NOT end well.
MrDibble’s dehumanizing anger feels good, and it is even understandable. But there are second and third order consequences. Saying “fuck them” and disregarding the rights and property of a people you blame for your misfortune is a quick way to start a civil war.
So here’s my point: Even if you are right, you still have to find a way to co-exist with these people. Resolving ownership of the land does not actually help the situation if you do it in a way that creates new enemies. This attitude of “fuck their rights” feels cathartic but it is counterproductive in the long run. Your dehumanizing attitude is only helping to fuel a new cycle of hate and resentment.
…one would think that if you understood this position you would understand exactly the position held by indigenous people all around the world.
But apparently not.
You know what else can quickly lead to civil war?
Promising people land reform for two generations without delivering! You don’t get land reform with everybody being happy in the end, unfortunately. Makes it challenging for anyone in an elected position.
But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.
There’s another aspect to this whole question of land reform, restitution, etc. which is of vital importance, which has been central to the whole question in South Africa since 1994, and which hasn’t even been mentioned yet. It also relates back to the OP’s question.
The moment you start confiscating and redistributing property - no matter how morally justified that may be - you undermine property rights, and therefore the willingness of the international business community to invest in South Africa. Immediately the general perception becomes, "The radical Marxists are in charge! Property rights are not secure! There is no rule of law! The country is melting down! It’s going the same way as Zimbabwe! You can’t invest there because the government may confiscate your investment!’
Right or wrong, that perception can be devastating to the economy. The business community holds back from investment to wait and see whether the country is melting down, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The economy tanks, and that’s bad for everybody in South Africa… especially for the poor and underprivileged.
On the other hand, a rising tide raises all ships. If the economy is good, it makes it easier to help the underprivileged, to reduce unemployment, improve education and health care, improve infrastructure and housing, and probably help people a lot more than simply redistributing property in a devastated economy would do.
That’s been the way the SA Government has thought since Nelson Mandela’s time. Not undermining business confidence has been the primary consideration.
However, there’s another side to this. Many people say that’s all very well, but this has been going on for decades now. Isn’t it time to do something about the moral and justice side? How long are economic arguments, made by the wealthy and the beneficiaries of apartheid, going to predominate? Does this mean that nothing is ever going to be done to right wrongs, because there will always be an argument about undermining confidence?
It’s a complex question and there’s no easy solution. Political pressure for land reform is steadily rising. With Cyril Ramaphosa as president - an intelligent and capable man, with strong ties to big business - any land reform will probably be cautious, regardless of rhetoric, though he is now in a position where he has to do something.
A good article on the question.
The crime of possession of stolen property and continued profiteering from a crime against humanity?
:rolleyes:
I think it’s likely that the connection is that both were British colonies under colonial administration at the start of the 20th C.
Which is why there are specialized courts in SA for just this situation. Gosh, it’s almost like we’re we’ve been doing this for years in a ordered manner…
Oh, I think the difference here is who, exactly, I’m sympathetic with - you know, the people who *actually *were evicted from their *legitimate *homes, not the apartheid profiteers.
Why, I would think they’d approach their government, attempt to get reparations, maybe in extreme cases take back what was stolen…:dubious:
They don’t have to agree. They have to comply with the law.
“But I polished it! Waaah!”
But they did continually commit the crime of holding on to stolen property.
You keep saying this like it matters.
No mention of these fee-fees when it comes to the original victims, though…
Yep.
And we should care because…?
You’re trying to raise the threat of armed retaliation, aren’t you? On reading ahead, I see that’s exactly what you’re trying to do.
Suffice to say, these are not the 80s and the spectre of an armed White uprising is completely laughable, and has been since the last time someone was dumb enough to try. Seeing a carload of armed Right Wing terrorists summarily executed by one black cop on TV tends to disabuse an entire nation of the notion of White superiority on that front.
You are *drastically *uneducated about South Africa if you think land reparations are going to lead to any White people going homeless or hungry.
Taking back stolen property is not a wrong, so that’s OK then.
IME, White South Africans tend to react by emigrating to Australia and whining from there.
We showed compassion and sympathy. It was called the TRC, and many murderers got away with murder because of it. And we let that happen, because it was for the good of the country.
And part of the reason we let it happen that way was that there was an understanding things would change. And most White people were totally on board with that. Even the people who agreed to sell their land as part of this process.
Then it looked like they could make more bank by holding out. At which point, fuck them.
And no empty threat of armed insurrection is going to make that change.Argumentum ad baculum is a lovely fallacy, though, isn’t it?
Care to be less cryptic?
I’m not dehumanizing anyone. Thievery is all too human.
And you can stop the tone policing, too. That’s only going to end up in the Pit.
We should be afraid of a civil war that will end in 5 minutes because…?
I don’t think you understand who the Whites are who would be dispossessed by reparations. They are not, in the main, hardy salt-of-the-earth Boers capable of living in the bus and sniping at the English. That’s history. Those people sent their kids to Uni to be engineers and lawyers and programmers. They are unarmed urbanites living in condos, and corporate farmers more used to boardroom chairs than tractor seats. They aren’t starting a civil war over shit.
Especially when* they know* they’re in the wrong. And outnumbered and outgunned by several orders of magnitude.
Yeah, no, appeal to the stick is still not working for me. Maybe try a different tack?
South Africa Melting?
<looks out my window>
.
Nope, seems quite solid to me.
So you’re in favor of not removing squatters even if the home they’ve squatted into is the one other people lived in?
The difference between the situation in ZA and coming back from vacation to find your locks changed and a bunch of people you don’t know living in your house is that in ZA and until not so long ago, if the people who changed the locks were white and you were not, the police would be on their side.
This is, in fact, a fundamental principle of European property law that the nations of the Americas and Oceania are based upon. It’s the justification for colonialization and colonization. It’s made the world what it is today.
It is not a principle of Spanish property law. “I set up shop in a space which as far as I could tell wasn’t occupied and improved it”, yes. In an occupied space, no. And the justification for Spanish colonization was “my guns are boomier than your spears”, or if you want to look at the excuse, “my religion is saviourer than yours”.
I dare you to go squat on a farmer’s fallow field, anywhere in current Europe, America or Oceania , do a little digging and hoeing, maybe build a shack, and claim you now own it because you improved it…
Just remember, it’s the country,everybody and their mums are packing.
The only “fundamental principle” of property law that colonialism was based on was “People who aren’t us aren’t really people, and our rules don’t apply to our dealings with them”
Yeah, we noticed.
Wait, did you think we’d be grateful for how you’ve fucked up everything?