a reply to: Asktheanimals
It's quite painful and frustrating to watch SA parliament. The video, as has been pointed out, is quite mellow compared to many others, but you are
quite right about the tactics. It's impossible to have a proper debate about any matter in parliament. They think it's a joke, meanwhile these matters
change people's lives - usually it end up being for the worse. I have much respect for John Steenhuisen - he has shown time and again that he won't
take their BS and apparently has an endless supply of patience.
originally posted by: SR1TX
Why not just leave South Africa all together.
The audacity of British/English to honestly think they had some right to that country is beyond me.
Go home and get over it. It's not yours and no one cares.
I'm always left speechless by this statement. It's one of those facepalm moments.
Asktheanimals already scratched the surface in response here
- I'll just
add a thought or two (I could actually write pages upon pages in response, but I'll keep it brief)...
You say "the audacity of British/English to honestly think they had some right to that country is beyond me
". The same could be said about
Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Papua New Guinea, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica,
Egypt ,Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Ireland, Israel, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia,
Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nauru, New Zealand, Cook Island, Niue, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Namibia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and
Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda , United Arab Emirates, United States, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Should all colonialists left there by England over the centuries, all return to the tiny island in the North Atlantic?
The same for Dutch, Portuguese, French and Spanish pilgrim and colonial descendants?
Should all white people return to Europe?
Why stop there? Let's send everyone home that was displaced due to the conquerors sent by the The Persian Empire, The Roman Empire, The Caliphate, The
Mongol Empire, The Russian Empire, The Qing dynasty, The Pandyan Empire, The Byzantine Empire... Should I go on?
You ask "Why not leave South Africa"? And go where? Where is "home"? Back to England? No? Further back in history? To Germany? Further back to Norway?
Who decides how far back in history do we go to find each person's rightful "home"? Here's a twist: If you go back far enough you'll find that Homo
Erectus - and even earlier ancestors (Australopithecus africanus) - lived in South Africa. So it can be reasoned that we all came from South Africa if
you go back far enough in history. So, I am home. When are you coming home?
You seem to discard the fact that humans have been a migratory species from a very early time. Wars have been fought over land since the beginning of
time. People have been traveling and settling around the globe since the beginning of time.
Somewhere in my ancestry some Europeans came to South Africa and settled here. If we got our facts straight I'm a 7th generation born African. To put
it in context: The US president is a first generation American on his mother's side, yet he considers himself 100% American. He was born there, i.e.
he is an American - and everyone accepts that.
Why should the rules be any different for me or any other South African (white or black)? We've been here for centuries. We ain't going nowhere
because this is home.
And on that point: "The left" (the black ruling party and the EFF) would like you to believe that white people stole land - or as you put it "it's not
yours". That is simply not accurate...
1. The Khoisan were here first. Black settlers came from Central Africa (or originally North Africa) and arrived in what is now SA, around the same
time as white Europeans. Bantu settlers have no more claim to land than European settlers.
2. Only 30% of the land was usable - around 70% of the land area was not inhabited because of the lack of groundwater. It's only because of the use of
technology (pumps, pipes, etc.) that people could settle on the unoccupied land.
3. During the Mfecane (under the leadership of Mzilikazi) vast areas of land was left empty as black tribes fled from the murderous Zulu ruler. So
when the white Dutch settlers came to these parts in (what is now) central and northern SA, there was no inhabitants. The previous inhabitants only
returned to the land after the settlers took a stand against the Zulu invaders. The Settlers were welcomed by the local tribes because the Settlers
protected them from the Zulus.
4. Some of the land was sold by the tribal kings - such as the Swazi king - for cattle, modern weapons, etc. to the Settlers. It was legal agreements.
If your great-grandfather bought a piece of land from Mr So-and-so 150 years ago, can Mr So-and-so's grand children come back now and say YOU "stole"
Where are YOU going to go when the Native Americans (Indians) tell you, you should "go home" you have no right to be in North America...?
I can assure you that my property IS mine. I signed a contract for it. I pay a hefty percentage of my salary each month so that I can own the deed one
day. I am a South African. THIS is my home. It was my father's home. It was his father's home. It was his father's home...
Who cares? I care. So does the almost 5 million other white South Africans (and 5 million colored South Africans). About 5 million people face the
possibility of being removed from property they own legally and pay for with their sweat and tears. Not to mention the countless people abroad looking
at the situation in SA with the realization that a storm is brewing.
edit on 9/5/2018 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)