Why is South Africa melting down?

[mhendo]

@GreenWyvern

Mr D. is right about living memory, because that’s as far back as it is reasonable to go - when there are still living people who were personally affected by a wrong, and still living people who committed that wrong. Historical wrongs further back than that can’t be righted, but we can still do something about wrongs in the recent past against living people.

This is particularly wrongheaded, for the reasons noted by MrDibble and Banquet Bear: there are written treaties that go back well beyond living memory, but that are well known to historians. And, in the case of the United States (as a nation) and its individual states (like California), there are many examples of treaties that were either signed in bad faith in the first place, often with groups of Indians who did not represent the whole tribe, and there are also treaties that were signed and then, when later priorities changed, were simply ignored. Those, at least, could be used as a model to enact some sort of viable reparations program.

@MrDibble

I wasn’t talking about moral standing. In the specific North American case “Rightful owners” is a bit tricky for much of the territory, given the breakdown European disease wrought before physical Europeans actually rocked up. Which natives get which territory?

I think you dismiss a bit too easily the extent to which historians can (and do) know who was where and when in all of this. While disease killed plenty of Native Americans, it was, in most cases, contemporaneous with the arrival of Europeans, rather than preceding them. There were places where disease had ravaged the local Indian populations before sustained efforts at European settlement (parts of New England, for example), but in much of the continent, Europeans made conscious efforts to push Indians off the land and/or wipe them out. And here in California, that effort was perhaps more pronounced and deliberate and brutal than just about anywhere else in the country. It was, as Ben Madley notes in his outstanding book, little more than genocide, and much of it happened about 150-180 years ago.

@MrDibble

Now, honouring all the actual treaties etc is something I’d get behind all the way. But the South African land claims thing isn’t about some abstract idea of taking back all land from Europeans as a matter of principle. At least not for non-crazy people (here, I’m not calling you crazy). It’s about more specific claims than that, claims that post-date original European settlement. I’m not using “stolen land” as a metaphor for colonialsim.

I’m not using it as a metaphor either, although I understand that it’s not going to happen. And I appreciate that the South African situation is different. I actually wish, in some ways, that the chain of dispossession and injustice were as recent and as easy to track in the US as it is in South Africa, because that might bring some meaningful reparations. I hope South Africa manages to do it.

@Banquet_Bear

…to add nuance here: historical wrongs going further back than that can be righted, especially if bound by treaty. In New Zealand our founding document is the Treaty of Waitangi. At the heart of the treaty is the concept of partnership, autonomy, reciprocity and redress.

I’ve been to New Zealand quite a few times (I was there just a month ago), and my best friend has lived there for over a decade. Things certainly aren’t perfect for the Maori, but I think that New Zealand has dealt with the consequences of its colonial past probably better than most (all?) other nations with similar histories. It’s certainly miles better than Australia, where I grew up.

[MrDibble]

@mhendo

I think you dismiss a bit too easily the extent to which historians can (and do) know who was where and when in all of this.

Down to tracing most current Native Americans to pre-1492 locales? Or finding current NA inheritors for all locales?

While disease killed plenty of Native Americans, it was, in most cases, contemporaneous with the arrival of Europeans, rather than preceding them.

I think you’ll find that’s not the case.

Can I respectfully submit, though, that, while interesting, all this discussion of the morality of returning conquered American land can go into its own thread?

This thread is about South Africa, and the current land situation here, which is not the same thing.

[Banquet_Bear]

@mhendo

I’ve been to New Zealand quite a few times (I was there just a month ago), and my best friend has lived there for over a decade. Things certainly aren’t perfect for the Maori, but I think that New Zealand has dealt with the consequences of its colonial past probably better than most (all?) other nations with similar histories. It’s certainly miles better than Australia, where I grew up.

…yeah bro. You are right, it isn’t perfect. But I count myself lucky to have been born here, proud to be of both Ngāpuhi and Samoan descent, and proud to live in a country that is prepared to commit to working through these issues, no matter how painful it may be.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@mhendo

That’s probably true.

What’s probably true?

To be honest, I feel basically the same about groups like the Australian Aborigines, the American Indians, and any number of other native peoples. In a truly just world, the local Aboriginal tribes would get Sydney Harbour and its foreshores handed back to them, and the Native American tribes from the Bay Area should have ownership of San Francisco and Silicon Valley. I understand that this isn’t going to happen, but it doesn’t mean that doing it would be wrong.

If someone stole a watch from your father 50 years ago, and then sold it to someone else, who sold it to someone else, who sold it to someone else, who sold it to someone else, who then sold it to me, the watch is still stolen. And it’s still stolen no matter how many hands it passed through, and it’s still stolen even if I bought it in good faith, and had no idea that it was stolen property. Legal statutes of limitations might mean that the theft can no longer be prosecuted, but they in my opinion don’t change the basic principle. I’m not arguing that I should go to prison for buying or possessing it, but once I know it’s stolen, and that you were the rightful heir to your father’s estate, the right thing would be to give the watch (back) to you.

The problem with that type of argument is that virtually every group that you’re proposing to give the land back to would turn out to have conquered the land from an even earlier group. Conquering land was not an invention of evil white people. It was a virtually universal practice.

You’ve got to draw the line somewhere. I would say draw the line where it can be documented that this land was stolen from these individuals, and exclude invading groups conquering the land from previous invading groups who conquered the land from previous invading groups and so on.

[Mosier]

I found a couple of news articles from the past few hours indicating that the SA government has started the process of seizing white-owned land with two particular farms that the owners refused to sell at the price offered by the government (which they argued was only about 10% of the land’s actual value).

It seems like this is an escalation of the previous situation, where the policy was still being debated, and actual seizures of property were just hypothetical.

If these articles are true and are fairly presenting the actual facts of the situation, what’s the deal? Are the owners lying about the value of the land? Who is the government going to give the land to? Can the rightful owners even be identified, and what criteria are used to determine the rightful owners? If they can’t be identified, will there be a lottery where random non-white people are given property seized from whites?

[GreenWyvern]

This seems to be the original article that was picked up and sensationalized by the international press.

On the valuation of the Akkerland property:

• The government is offering R20m.
• An offer of R20m was made earlier by Coal Africa, who want to buy the property for coal mining.
• It was valued at R20.75m by a government-appointed valuation company.

The owners of the property:

• Say that in 2011 an offer of R50m was made… on condition that the property was first developed as an eco-estate, and subdivided into 300 stands.
• They also say that in 2011 a valuation (commissioned by the owners) put the value at R200m.

An attorney for Akkerland “did not want to comment on these apparent inconsistencies”. :rolleyes:

It’s also worth noting that this particular land claim goes back a long way. The Musekwa tribe first lodged a court claim against Akkerland in 1996, and it’s been in dispute ever since.

@Mosier

If these articles are true and are fairly presenting the actual facts of the situation, what’s the deal? Are the owners lying about the value of the land? Who is the government going to give the land to? Can the rightful owners even be identified, and what criteria are used to determine the rightful owners? If they can’t be identified, will there be a lottery where random non-white people are given property seized from whites?

So the answers are: These are overstated ‘scare’ articles. Yes, the owners are lying about the value. The government will give the land to the former owners, the Musekwa tribe, whose land was seized, and who have been taking legal action to get it back since 1996.

[MrDibble]

Just so we’re clear - the government intends to unilaterally take control of the land - and still pay the owners what the land is properly valued at (as in - if the government valued it at R20m, that’s what they’ve been paying taxes on all along - I highly doubt they’ve been paying taxes like it’s a R200m property).

[clairobscur]

[quote=“MrDibble, post:69, topic:819548”]

Except they’re not…

Well, if we’re talking about an issue where people involved are still alive, that’s completely different, and I said so much.

You’re right, I, for one, find this an immensely offensive statement.

I expected so, but it’s absolutely true that we are the product of history. I don’t really see how my statement can be factually contradicted (without assuming some religious claims, like everybody was destined to live anyway, and if history had been different we would still have been born). Pretty much nothing that happened before our conception can have harmed us.

And irrelevant, we have the world we have, this isn’t Star Trek and “what ifs” are meaningless.
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”

Once again, if we’re talking about people currently living who have been victimized, I’ve no issue with that.

No-one’s said anything about repairing. Redressing, on the other hand, is completely possible.What the ever-living fuck does American reparations have to do with South Africa?

I’ve been talking a lot about reparations in general, not specifically about South Africa.

I noticed that in a later post, you dispute my vocabulary use. In fact “réparations” is used in French for both meaning, so I used “reparations” in English too for both.

[senoy]

@MrDibble

Just so we’re clear - the government intends to unilaterally take control of the land - and still pay the owners what the land is properly valued at (as in - if the government valued it at R20m, that’s what they’ve been paying taxes on all along - I highly doubt they’ve been paying taxes like it’s a R200m property).

What I have learned though is that property is freaking cheap in South Africa. Akkerland is about 8000 acres along a river valley. 20 million rand is about 1.4 million USD. That’s 170 bucks an acre with at least 2 3-bedroom houses on it. I need to move to South Africa. I do have a question though, Akkerland is a hunting preserve, so it’s basically 8000 acres of wildlife preserve. Are they planning on relocating the animals or just displacing them? What are they actually turning the land into. Just goat pasture? You can map the place and it’s pretty arid (Look up Mudimeli, SA. The Akkerland property is just east of town. You can tell where it starts because it’s greener where the goats aren’t grazing.) I can’t imagine it being good for crops and I don’t see any other crop farms in the area, so it has to just be grazing land. I guess it’s none of my business since I’m not South African, but it seems a shame to turn wildlife habitat into goat farms.

[clairobscur]

@MrDibble

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”.

Stolen when? By whom? Yes, I believe it makes a difference. Once again, for your moral principle to apply, you need a super simple situation (the current owner knew it was stolen and he got it “for free” for instance by inheritance, mainly) . As soon as you aren’t dealing anymore with the original perpetrator, you’re going to run into situations where taking away the property from the person currently holding it is going to be unjust, and just swap one victim for another.

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 the heirs? For how many generations? As I mentioned previously what if the people the land was stolen from had moved into the area a couple centuries ago? In this case, obviously, they’re the heirs of thieves, and according to this principle, they shouldn’t get anything. They’re just heirs of thieves complaining about the newest batch of heirs of thieves. Pretty much everybody owning land anywhere inherited land ultimately from thieves.

To give a practical example, the farmland that my grand mother should have inherited from her mother was diverted by her father’s second wife for her children in the 1900s. My grandmother was clearly victim of an injustice and my greatuncles benefited from it. If I can prove it (which might be possible), should my second cousin, who currently owns this land, be obligated to give it back to me (from a moral point of view, of course)?

That’s because the actual cases being discussed are that simple.
Yes, there’s a word for people who organize their entire lives around their possession of knowingly stolen goods - it’s “criminal”.

Well, again, if they’re that simple, I’ve no objection with the land being taken back and/or money being paid. But are they, really?

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.

Except that there’s no reason to punish people, even with a very gentle slap on the wrist, for wrongs they aren’t responsible for. You don’t inherit your forefathers guilt. So, to justify it, you’d need to demonstrate their personal guilt.

Having to give up your stolen property in no way counts as “harm” to anyone with a funtional moral compass.

It definitely would count as harm to anyone with a functional moral compass in some situations. And the longer away you are from the “original sin”, the more likely such situations are to occur. The only person we can know for sure isn’t victimized by taking back the property is the person who stole it.

I will respond to the rest later.

[MrDibble]

@clairobscur

I expected so, but it’s absolutely true that we are the product of history. I don’t really see how my statement can be factually contradicted

Something can be factually true and still offensive as fuck.

Especially when phrased as someone “owing” their very existence to rape and slavery. They don’t owe jack-shit.

I’ve been talking a lot about reparations in general, not specifically about South Africa.

Yes, I noticed, that’s why I said it was irrelevant to this thread.

I noticed that in a later post, you dispute my vocabulary use. In fact “réparations” is used in French for both meaning, so I used “reparations” in English too for both.

Well, now you know better, yes?

@senoy

Akkerland is a hunting preserve

No, it’s a game farm, not quite the same thing. They’ll probably harvest the current herd if they can’t sell them to other farms…

What are they actually turning the land into.

Luxury housing, apparently, if you believe their lawyers.

Or a coal mine, that’s also on the cards.

[MrDibble]

@clairobscur

Stolen when? By whom?

By the government, in living memory.

Yes, I believe it makes a difference. Once again, for your moral principle to apply, you need a super simple situation (the current owner knew it was stolen and he got it “for free” for instance by inheritance, mainly) . As soon as you aren’t dealing anymore with the original perpetrator, you’re going to run into situations where taking away the property from the person currently holding it is going to be unjust, and just swap one victim for another.

Buying property you know to be stolen is not morally any different than inheriting it.

To the heirs? For how many generations?

Up until they point they can reasonably claim not to have known they are living on stolen property, however long that takes…

As I mentioned previously what if the people the land was stolen from had moved into the area a couple centuries ago?

If the legitimate owners are still right there & want their land back? Damn straight they should get it back.

To give a practical example, the farmland that my grand mother should have inherited from her mother was diverted by her father’s second wife for her children in the 1900s. My grandmother was clearly victim of an injustice and my greatuncles benefited from it. If I can prove it (which might be possible), should my second cousin, who currently owns this land, be obligated to give it back to me (from a moral point of view, of course)?

If the “diversion” was illegal, then hell yes. From a moral point of view. If it was just family squabbles about who should have inherited, not so much.

Well, again, if they’re that simple, I’ve no objection with the land being taken back and/or money being paid. But are they, really?

Yes.

Except that there’s no reason to punish people

Legally reclaiming stolen land is not punishing anyone.

In fact, from a moral standpoint, you’re doing them a great moral service, by stopping them from continuing to do an ongoing bad thing. They should be grateful for relieving them of the burden of all that bad karma.

So, to justify it, you’d need to demonstrate their personal guilt.

You mean, the continuing to knowingly use stolen property? Apartheid profiteering? Propping up a corrupt racist system? That guilt?

It definitely would count as harm to anyone with a functional moral compass in some situations.

I love how you have all the empathy for the property-hoarding children of thieves, and I have yet to see much empathy for the children of the stolen-from…

And the longer away you are from the “original sin”, the more likely such situations are to occur.

You realise this particular “original sin” was not a one-time event, and only stopped in 1991, right? So unless current land owners are under 27, they aren’t even one step away from that crime.

I will respond to the rest later.

If it’s not going to be specifically about South Africa, don’t bother.

[puddleglum]

If the land was stolen by the government then the government should pay back the original owners and leave the current owners alone. The government was the one who wronged the original owners so it is the entity that needs to make amends.

[MrDibble]

Not the same government anymore. And the continued occupation by the current owners is complicit in the original crime.

[GreenWyvern]

@puddleglum

If the land was stolen by the government then the government should pay back the original owners and leave the current owners alone. The government was the one who wronged the original owners so it is the entity that needs to make amends.

Not at all. It is accepted that the apartheid government was not a legitimate government, and had no right to make the laws and take the actions it did. You can’t equate the apartheid government with the present government as though they are the same entity with the same legitimacy. The people who were dispossessed of the land had no representation or rights under that government.

Secondly, what the previous owners or their close relatives want is the LAND, not the money. That’s what matters to them, and justice requires that it be restored to them. It’s not like it’s some random piece of land, it’s their tribal land where they lived for many generations.

The current owners are getting a good deal. They get a fair market price for the land - which IS being paid for by the current government - and they can go and buy land elsewhere. This is more than fair, and certainly nobody can claim they are being treated unjustly. The current owners must have known the issues with the land when they acquired it.

[UltraVires]

@iiandyiiii

In this parallel instance, a lawsuit would not have been possible.

Then it wasn’t really “stealing” at the time then? We only consider it stealing because of our modern sensibilities, which is absolutely fine, but I’m not sure that it is good enough to divest someone of his home because his great grandfather did something legal and moral at the time, but considered immoral now.

[iiandyiiii]

@UltraVires

Then it wasn’t really “stealing” at the time then? We only consider it stealing because of our modern sensibilities, which is absolutely fine, but I’m not sure that it is good enough to divest someone of his home because his great grandfather did something legal and moral at the time, but considered immoral now.

So even if the victim is still alive, they should get nothing?

[UltraVires]

@mhendo

That’s probably true. But the issue here is also a matter of principle. I recognize that, in your hypothetical scenario, the children of the original owners are not likely to get the stolen house back. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t.

To be honest, I feel basically the same about groups like the Australian Aborigines, the American Indians, and any number of other native peoples. In a truly just world, the local Aboriginal tribes would get Sydney Harbour and its foreshores handed back to them, and the Native American tribes from the Bay Area should have ownership of San Francisco and Silicon Valley. I understand that this isn’t going to happen, but it doesn’t mean that doing it would be wrong.

If someone stole a watch from your father 50 years ago, and then sold it to someone else, who sold it to someone else, who sold it to someone else, who sold it to someone else, who then sold it to me, the watch is still stolen. And it’s still stolen no matter how many hands it passed through, and it’s still stolen even if I bought it in good faith, and had no idea that it was stolen property. Legal statutes of limitations might mean that the theft can no longer be prosecuted, but they in my opinion don’t change the basic principle. I’m not arguing that I should go to prison for buying or possessing it, but once I know it’s stolen, and that you were the rightful heir to your father’s estate, the right thing would be to give the watch (back) to you.
I’ve agreed with most of your arguments in this thread, but you sort of lose me here. If the principle is right—and I believe that it is—then it should be the same no matter how long ago the dispossession took place.

I understand that issues of principle and issues of practicality work differently. I take your point that the pragmatic issues related to time and political power mean that redress is much more likely in South Africa, but it doesn’t mean that the claims of other groups are invalid. The fact that Native Americans don’t have the power to reclaim their land doesn’t mean that they lack moral standing.

I both agree and disagree. The prior poster is attempting to place some reasonable limits on the reparations argument lest we track property rights back to the Garden of Eden and then decide the morally correct way to distribute it down through the ages.

But you are also correct in that there is no principle in using “living memory” limitations or pointing to “specific property” that was taken. If I can point out that the Europeans took over the whole of North America, why do I need to show that they took over the land my house sits upon?

If my grandfather had his property stolen, which he would have left to me, why should I be out in the cold because he died in 1998 when some other guy whose grandfather is still alive gets his property and subsequently his inheritance?

However, your theory has some unintended consequences. You believe that in an ideal world, we should give back San Francisco to the Native Americans. Fine. Can I say that the Normans should give England back to the Anglo-Saxons? I cannot because those groups intermarried and today they are one race/group. Can conquests only be effective if I take land, but also destroy the racial identity of the indigenous people? That is better?

[UltraVires]

@iiandyiiii

So even if the victim is still alive, they should get nothing?

Perhaps a stipend from the government, but not from the innocent parties.

[CarnalK]

@UltraVires

Then it wasn’t really “stealing” at the time then? We only consider it stealing because of our modern sensibilities, which is absolutely fine, but I’m not sure that it is good enough to divest someone of his home because his great grandfather did something legal and moral at the time, but considered immoral now.

Modern sensibilities? Like way back in the 70s, 80s and 90s Apartheid enforced “white only” neighborhoods was considered totally cool?