Bullshit. The farmers are targeted because they’re the only rural people worth stealing from, that’s the reason. Of course, the reason for that is that the Apartheid system concentrated rural wealth in their hands, but that doesn’t make the attacks on them political in origin at all. Not even Terre’blanche’s murder was political.
Just popping in to point out that Malema looks a lot more capable of influencing goverment policy since his re-election.
It looks like, according to your study, that blacks involved in these murders (the ones working for the whites) suffered, but less.
Just because some black people were the victims does not mean the perpetrators weren’t race-motivated.
Hush now. Impossible. 
How you get “suffered, but less” from “Not that Black workers aren’t killed, robbed or raped, because they are. In greater absolute numbers, if not proportionally (for murder - they’re preferentially raped, it seems)” and the numbers in that cite, I don’t know.
The study makes it clear that robbery is the overwhelming motive, distantly followed by rape.:
Once again - White people are disproportionately the victims of farm attacks because White people are (extremely) disproportionately the owners of farms. They appropriated all the wealth of the land for themselves. That this has placed them disproportionately in harm’s way is a result of that. It’s really that simple.
Gosh, a top strategist and ex-MP for the biggest opposition party has nothing good to say about a member of the party in power? Colour me surprised :rolleyes:
Do you take the Republicans’ views on Obama with the same degree of credulity?
Even in SA, is “race-motivated” always synonymous with “political”?
Under white rule, racism was rife, white people had the best of everything and regarded themselves as superior than other race groups in SA. Yet, the country was a safe and a clean one to live in. The wheel had to turn, and let white people realise that they were not superior anymore. However, handing over SA to the current ruling govt., was a huge mistake. Obviously, the masses voted in favour of the ruling party, expecting freedom and all the perks and promises that govt. had to offer. However, it was proven at the beginning and 18yrs down the line, that the ruling party is not capable of running SA. I believe that the wheel will turn again and just as the white govt. had to let go of SA and now suffer the consequences, the same will happen to the black govt. The current govt. and the masses still prefer to keep one leg in the bush. That is why there are no logical measures in place, to make this country a remarkable one.
Is there equality for zombies yet?
I fear that they are still spurned by wider society.
People think nothing of screaming or even running away from them, and job prospects are bleak.
Please, not “zombies”. “Metabolically challenged”.
There is no “black rule” in South Africa today like there was “white rule” during the Apartheid era. Apartheid South Africa was truly a “whites only” political system with Black South Africans being stripped of even their citizenship; so blacks could not hold office, they could not vote, nor could they move freely within the country. Apartheid South Africa was a tightly controlled police state which woven mass segregation and the denial of basic state services (education, health care, police, public works, etc) into it’s raison d’etre.
The shift that South Africa made was not one to “black rule” but to “majority rule” (with full participation from all sectors of society); IOW it became a modern democratic state. In today’s South Africa whites are merely one of many state recognized ethnic/racial groups in the country, not the sole citizens/benefactors.
You (unwittingly) paint a rosy picture of the past while misrepresenting the present.
Yeah, but a leg in the hand is worth two in the bush.
…for Whites. 'nuff said.
I should probably just ban you for this, but I’ll attribute this to poor word choice rather than prejudice and give you one more chance. I’m giving you a formal warning for this racist comment.
WTF does that mean? Why is any of it racist? I just don’t know. Are these dog whistles or euphemisms?
“One foot in the bush,” i.e. half in the jungle. That didn’t seem very subtly or euphemistic or dog-whistle-ish to me.
He’s probably not coming back anyway.
Well, if they follow the same land reform policies of Mugabe it is not difficult to imagine it getting the same results.
The comments by the radical youth leader Julius Malema are one thing, but I thought Zuma was a bit of a pragmatist.
Oh, THAT bush…
You’re a little late to the thread to be bringing up bullshit that’s already been covered here and elsewhere re: land reform. tldr: SA is different from Zim, even identical policies would have different outcomes, not that the policies are identical.
And why are you phrasing your posting as if you hadn’t already participated in this thread? Hard to keep track of all the Africa threads you need to post in, is it?
[quote=“orcenio, post:390, topic:581248”]
There is no “black rule” in South Africa today. Are you sure!!!
Yes, we’re sure.