Exposing the land grab myth in South Africa

A video by Scott Balson, author of Children of the Mist, a story of the Griqua people of South Africa. He describes the geographic and historical context of why ANC and EFF politicians are lying regarding land expropriation.

Brief history: Dutch settlers arrive at Capetown in 1652. They are met by wandering bands of khoi khoi, San or Bushmen - the only native people from Capetown East to Grahamstown and North to the Orange river. Beyond along the east coast they began to meet groups of survivors pushed South by the invading Zulu who claimed all land starting North of Durban. West beyond the mountains (and *Lesotho; now an independent nation) lay vast lands inhabited by no one.

It wasn't until the Voortrekkers (the Boer settlers) got around modern day Pretoria that other any tribes laid even nominal claim to the land. Even if they didn't control or use the land tribes found it profitable to claim it hoping to get some concession from the Boers). With the notable exception of the Zulu, most land issues were resolved by treaties.

Historical land thefts already have a legal remedy through a program started 25 years ago to address land claims.

* Lesotho is made of the Basotho tribe which became a British protectorate in the 19th century. Note this tribe was never dispossessed of their lands. It lies entirely within the borders of South Africa.

__ ____ ___ _ ______ ______ ______ _______ _____ ______ _____ _____

Exposing the land grab myth in South Africa


I doctored a map of South Africa to show the places he mentions; Capetown (southwest corner) Grahamstown, Orange River, Kwa-Zulu Natal.


My opinion is the SA elites are enriching themselves and they intend to seize lands with great mineral wealth and auction these off to the highest bidders. It's not about getting land for "the people", these leaders could care less. Land is only wealth if you sell it which 90% of all claimants who won their suits for land theft did. Of those who took farms 94% do not farm at all or only enough for their own family. Land will not solve the poverty of South Africa. Only population control and jobs can do that. ANC and EFF are just running with the best scam they can conjure.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I like you asktheanimals,
but I have to disagree with you
regarding this thread.

There are serious problems
and crimes occurring in South
Africa against certain farmers.

I have inquired and verified this
with my South African "friends".
No offence to you.

Flag for drawing attention to this topic,
but I will send the star to Zimbabwe.
Look for it there among'st the rubble
from these kinds of activities and their results.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

I'm aware of the farm murders being particularly brutal and twice as likely to happen as deaths of South African policemen. The video refutes the claims made by the EFF and ANC on historical ownership of South African land by Blacks. What exactly do you disagree with? The land claims are legitimate or the history he tells?

That game reserve farm that has been under threat of seizure also happens to have large coal reserves underground. Who would be interested in those reserves? China. Who also happens to have the most money.

originally posted by: stormcell
That game reserve farm that has been under threat of seizure also happens to have large coal reserves underground. Who would be interested in those reserves? China. Who also happens to have the most money.

That was what made me think they're in it to sell off the mineral rights.
A game farm?
Just going to give that away to some "citizens" to run?
Lol! I don't think so.

I agree with you, that the black elite are stirring up the natives, into land grab hysteria, to only take it for themselves "The Government", to sell it on or for mineral exploration etc etc.

But I do dispute this Rubbish, that there was "No-one" there when the Dutch White Fellas invaded.

This is the same argument the British, Dutch, Spanish etc used when they invaded the Americas and Australia/NZ...

Oh, there was no one there, no houses, no agriculture, no roads, no carriages.....so it must be empty...we will take it thanks.

The issue is....older cultures do not "Own" anything, they do Not own the land, the Land Owns them!!
They are all for the Tribe, and where there ancestors were, and taught them the laws of the past....the laws to live and survive.

Doesn't matter if they are Africans, Australians or American natives.....that is how they live and survive.

They had NO concept whatsoever of ownership in the European sense.

When the Euros boasted that they Bought America from the natives for a few beads and trinkets.....the natives would have had no concept of what the European Strangers, and VISITORS had done....regardless of how many contracts they made.

The Natives Belong to these lands, just because they werent there at the exact time the Dutch landed, doesnt mean they didnt live there.
They followed the seasons for food, they were nomadic, they travelled 100s of miles during the seasons, regardless of that, the Land was still theirs, not some invaders with their own concept of life.

This argument has already been settled in Australia, Millions of square Miles of land has been given back to the traditional owners....and yes they issue mining rights, and get the money.

The problem in South Africa now, is an old one.......Yes many tribes who dont belong there have flooded the country, Africans hate other Africans....I think every white person should leave the place and go home or somewhere where whiteys are more common.
I can see SA developing into a "Haves" Black on "Haves Not" Black internal tribal skirmish.

Time to get out.

originally posted by: gort51
...
But I do dispute this Rubbish, that there was "No-one" there when the Dutch White Fellas invaded.

This is the same argument the British, Dutch, Spanish etc used when they invaded the Americas and Australia/NZ...

Oh, there was no one there, no houses, no agriculture, no roads, no carriages.....so it must be empty...we will take it thanks.

The issue is....older cultures do not "Own" anything, they do Not own the land, the Land Owns them!!
They are all for the Tribe, and where there ancestors were, and taught them the laws of the past....the laws to live and survive.

Doesn't matter if they are Africans, Australians or American natives.....that is how they live and survive.

They had NO concept whatsoever of ownership in the European sense.

When the Euros boasted that they Bought America from the natives for a few beads and trinkets.....the natives would have had no concept of what the European Strangers, and VISITORS had done....regardless of how many contracts they made.

The Natives Belong to these lands, just because they werent there at the exact time the Dutch landed, doesnt mean they didnt live there.
They followed the seasons for food, they were nomadic, they travelled 100s of miles during the seasons, regardless of that, the Land was still theirs, not some invaders with their own concept of life.

This argument has already been settled in Australia, Millions of square Miles of land has been given back to the traditional owners....and yes they issue mining rights, and get the money.

...

Yes and no. (Did you watch the video?)

Many tribes were nomadic. Many - like the Zulus - were not. It is however a fact that when the Boers (Voortrekkers) arrived in (now) central and Southern South Africa, it was mostly uninhabited because of the Mfecane. The scattered tribes that used to live there fled away from the Zulu massacres to (now) Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho and Zimbabwe leaving vast parts of the country uninhabited.

The issue, as has been rightly pointed out, is quite complex, and people are making the "rules" up to support their own agendas as they go along. If you want to be technical about it, it is impossible to decide who the land actually "belongs to". (We can also argue the philosophical question: "Can land really belong to anyone?". But for this argument we'll stick to the legal right to own land.)

We can start this conversation with going back to the beginning of time.
Considering the discoveries of the fossils in South Africa like the Sterkfontein Caves (Homo heidelbergensis, Paranthropus robustus and Homo erectus), South Africa is often called "the Cradle of Humankind" meaning if you go back far enough in history you'll discover that the entire human race had their origin in South Africa. Does that mean that every single human on the planet has a claim to land in South Africa?

Fast forward a couple of million years. The Western parts of South Africa is, according to archaeological records, only inhabited by the Khoisan. The Khoisan actually being two different tribes: The Khoekhoen (Khoikhoi) and the San. They arrived in South Africa around 150,000 years ago, migrating from central and Eastern Africa due to a so-called MIS 5 Mega-drought.

And so, they migrated back and forth as subsistence hunter-gatherers for thousands of years.

In the meantime, the Bantu migrations started around 1000 BC to AD 500 out of West Africa, i.e. the Congo basin - the regions of now Cameroon and Nigeria. Small pioneering groups had reached modern KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa by AD 300 along the coast, and the modern Limpopo Province (formerly Northern Transvaal) by AD 500. The groups were small and the conditions harsh. During the 11th to the 15th century the main "Bantu hub" was Great Zimbabwe and this settlement showed a pretty advance society with stone buildings and complex housing structures. The Kingdom of Mapungubwe, which was located near the northern border of present-day South Africa, at the confluence of the Limpopo and Shashe rivers adjacent to present-day Zimbabwe and Botswana, was the first indigenous kingdom in southern Africa between AD 900 and 1300 (i.e. outside the borders of modern South Africa). It developed into the largest kingdom in the sub-continent before it was abandoned because of climatic changes in the 14th century. The kingdom controlled trade through the east African ports to Arabia, India and China, and throughout southern Africa, making it wealthy through the exchange of gold and ivory for imports such as Chinese porcelain and Persian glass beads.

By 1488, the Portuguese mariner Bartolomeu Dias explored the coastline of South Africa in an attempt to discover a trade route to the Far East via the southernmost cape of South Africa. He was followed by Vasco da Gama 1497 whom succeeded in reaching India.

The Dutch (VOC) decided to establish a permanent settlement at the Cape as it is perfectly situated to supply ships on the Cape Trade Route. The first Dutch settlers arrived on 6 April 1652 under the command of Jan van Riebeeck.
In 1795 the British seized the Cape colony to prevent it from falling into French hands and took control of it. The Cape was relinquished back to the Dutch in 1803, only to be taken back by the British in 1805 following the Napoleonic Wars. The British started to oppress the Dutch living in the colony and by 1806 many of the Dutch started trekking inland. By 1830 there was a mass exodus out of the Cape inland - known as the Great Trek.

By the 19th century Eastern South Africa (modern KwaZulu Natal – hundreds of miles from the Dutch colony) was populated by dozens of small black clans, one of which was the Zulu, then a particularly small clan of no local distinction whatsoever. In 1816 Shaka acceded to the Zulu throne. Within a year he had conquered the neighboring clans. In about 1817, Chief Dingiswayo of the Mthethwa group in the south near the Tugela River, entered into an alliance with the Tsongas, who controlled the trade routes to Delagoa Bay (now Maputo) a Portuguese outpost. This alliance encroached on the routes used by the Ndwandwe alliance, who occupied the region in the north, near the Pongola River. Battles between the allied forces of Chief Dingiswayo and of Chief Zwide, and the Ndwandwe probably mark the start of what became the Mfecane.

The next 100 years were basically just one big war. Between tribes, the Boers, the English and everyone in between. Millions of lives were lost. The land was saturated with blood. In the end Britain walked away as the victor by 1909.

Fast forward to Apartheid and the subsequent forced removals.

Now, all of this seems like a lot of boring history – and a bit of an oversimplification - but it brings me back to the point: There are plenty of people claiming land ownership. The truth is there are simply too many parties involved at the same point in time to claim this one or that one is the true owner of the land.

These are however the facts:
1. In terms of "modern humans" the Khoisan were here first. If anyone can claim they own the land, it's the Khoi. Not any of the Black tribes nor any Europeans.

2. South Africa is an arid/semi-arid country. Only 30% of South Africa's land area can be utilised without the use of modern technology such as water pumps. That means that vast parts of the country was uninhabitable, i.e. empty.

3. Because of the Mfecane, large areas of South Africa were uninhabited. In other words, when the Boers arrived in these parts there were no-one to claim that it was theirs or even to fight over it. The Boers didn't chase anyone from these parts - it was empty to begin with.

4. The Boers helped smaller tribes by their victory over the Zulus (Mzilikazi). The tribes that fled South Africa only returned after the Boers' victory over the Zulus.

5. The Boers made legal agreements with tribes to obtain land. For example, between 1846 and 1855 the Boers had an agreement with the Swazi king. The Boers were allowed to live in "buffer zones" in exchange for cattle and for protection against the Zulus (the Boers protected the Swazi kingdom). To claim that "the natives would have had no concept of what the European Strangers had done" is a bit naive and perhaps insulting to their intelligence. The "natives" were not a bunch of naked dudes running around with pointy sticks shouting "booga-booga". They had military strategies, social structures, etc. They might not have had many technological advancements and lived a very primitive life, but that didn't make them complete idiots.

6. Irrespective of historic events - the current owners of land owners in South Africa owns the land legally. They either bought it or inherited it. South Africa has a history, just like any other country. A history of migration, invasion and wars. (Most of) the current generation was born in South Africa and is a 5th+ generation inhabitant of the country... Certainly there is a point when someone is no longer a "migrant" or a "colonist" or a "settler". Imagine the chaos that would ensue if the entire world decided to "correct the wrongs" and try and reset the entire world to a point in time before invasions, migrations and colonialization... Good luck with that.

To make a statement like “I do dispute this Rubbish, that there was "No-one" there when the Dutch White Fellas invaded” is a gross oversimplification of the situation and frankly, not accurate.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.sahistory.org.za...
showme.co.za...
maroelamedia.co.za...

a reply to: Wildmanimal

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with either...?

a reply to: Gemwolf

Thank you for taking the time to flesh out the important details. South Africa's history is bloody complicated and trying to reduce it to a few paragraphs was perhaps a bit overly ambitious and simplistic on my part.

Gemwolf, do you have any opinion on why the ANC and EFF are pursuing this reckless and likely disastrous policy? I can't see them doing this in any meaningful way without destroying much of the economy as well as food security.

a reply to: gort51

Go back home - I hear that a lot. The British settlers in South Africa had a right of return but the Dutch (Boers) had no right of return. That's right, Holland said "no, we're not taking these people back".

South Africa is their home and has been for over 350 years. They transformed much of the land to make it productive in places where even the Bushmen didn't bother to roam simply because it was too inhospitable. They fought 2 wars against the British for independence and suffered as badly as any people ever did for it losing 29,000 women and children to starvation and disease in British concentration camps. 17,000 of those were girls under the age of 16.

An excellent video detailing the colonization of South Africa and the wars fought over it.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

You did a fine job. I know your knowledge on South Africa is quite respectable for someone that isn't even South African. You'd need to write an entire encyclopedia if you tried to capture the entire complexity...

Gemwolf, do you have any opinion on why the ANC and EFF are pursuing this reckless and likely disastrous policy? I can't see them doing this in any meaningful way without destroying much of the economy as well as food security.

The question on everyone's lips. The answer evades us all. You won't even get a straight answer from President Ramaphosa - and he has been asked to clarify on several occasions.

...President Cyril Ramaphosa says land expropriation without compensation will have a positive effect on South Africa’s economy. He says this despite people saying otherwise. “This [land redistribution] we should do through using a number of mechanisms. One of those is to expropriate without compensation to unlock the wealth of this land, which has been held in few hands from the days of colonialism. That alone should be able to add an injection to the growth of our country", Ramaphosa added....
Source

He doesn't say, how or way. Apparently it's just going to happen because he believes it...

My personal guess? From the ANC's perspective: The 2019 election is coming at a speed. And they've lost a lot of voters because their supporters are finally - after 20 years - realizing that the empty promises are just that. Empty. Voters are realizing that they are not better off (and in many cases worse off) under ANC rule. So, the ANC is desperately making new promises. Free land for black people. It will also be easier to keep these promises if they can legally simply take someone's land and give it to someone else. They don't care about the long term effect. As long as they stay in power now. (And looking at the fact that South Africa's long-term credit rating is already BB+ aka "Junk Status" we realize that they don't really care about the bigger picture. The tax payer will take care of everything.) As we know, the house of cards will eventually come down and then we'll have just another Ethiopia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Uganda - you know the list.
Even though they are walking down the exact same path as so many other countries, they believe that "this time will be different"... Even though historically there has not been one success story of a country that followed this path. Not one.

From the EFF's perspective: They don't have any actual political or economical policies. All they have is racism, hate, violence and destruction. Their voter base has no interest in democracy, fairness, peace, moral values, etc. Their followers are apparently fine with communist principles, obviously unaware what it really entails. No, they are simply using the issue of land to gain voters - like the ANC - and to use it as an excuse for attacks on white people. The are simply put - racist extremists and have never been shy about it. They also don't care about the long term effects or the bigger picture. According to them, they don't need the West (or as they call it "White Monopoly Capital") to be a successful country.

Logic simply has no place in the debate on land expropriation. It makes no sense to anyone (except the ANC and EFF). You can see how this will end. I can see how this will end. For some reason, they only see "paradise" on the horizon. Even if the facts shows otherwise:

...comprehensive opinion polls commissioned by the IRR from 2015 to 2017 have repeatedly shown that the great majority of black South Africans have little interest in land reform.

In the IRR's 2016 field survey, for instance, only 1% of black respondents (down from 2% the previous year) said that 'more land reform' was the 'best way to improve lives'. By contrast, 73% of black people saw 'more jobs and better education' as the 'best way' for them to get ahead.

In similar vein, in the IRR's 2017 field survey, only 1% of black respondents identified 'speeding up land reform' as a top priority for the government.

Even among people who were dispossessed of land under apartheid laws – and were most likely to have a strong wish to see their land restored to them – there has been little interest in land as opposed to cash compensation...
Source

I've said it several times before, and I will say it again: Land expropriation without compensation is not about land. It's about something else. There will be an "aha" moment. It may be too late then.

a reply to: gort51

I think every white person should leave the place and go home or somewhere where whiteys are more common.

And should we apply that practice to black immigrants who have made their home in lands where 'whiteys are more common'?

originally posted by: gort51
I agree with you, that the black elite are stirring up the natives, into land grab hysteria, to only take it for themselves "The Government", to sell it on or for mineral exploration etc etc.

But I do dispute this Rubbish, that there was "No-one" there when the Dutch White Fellas invaded.

This is the same argument the British, Dutch, Spanish etc used when they invaded the Americas and Australia/NZ...

Oh, there was no one there, no houses, no agriculture, no roads, no carriages.....so it must be empty...we will take it thanks.

The issue is....older cultures do not "Own" anything, they do Not own the land, the Land Owns them!!
They are all for the Tribe, and where there ancestors were, and taught them the laws of the past....the laws to live and survive.

Doesn't matter if they are Africans, Australians or American natives.....that is how they live and survive.

They had NO concept whatsoever of ownership in the European sense.

When the Euros boasted that they Bought America from the natives for a few beads and trinkets.....the natives would have had no concept of what the European Strangers, and VISITORS had done....regardless of how many contracts they made.

The Natives Belong to these lands, just because they werent there at the exact time the Dutch landed, doesnt mean they didnt live there.
They followed the seasons for food, they were nomadic, they travelled 100s of miles during the seasons, regardless of that, the Land was still theirs, not some invaders with their own concept of life.

This argument has already been settled in Australia, Millions of square Miles of land has been given back to the traditional owners....and yes they issue mining rights, and get the money.

The problem in South Africa now, is an old one.......Yes many tribes who dont belong there have flooded the country, Africans hate other Africans....I think every white person should leave the place and go home or somewhere where whiteys are more common.
I can see SA developing into a "Haves" Black on "Haves Not" Black internal tribal skirmish.

Time to get out.

Thank you for reminding me to look at the bigger picture here, and that the issue of land ownership was not shared by all cultures. I would give you a thousand stars for this post if I could.

The fact still remains that the issue isn't as black and white as the Europeans stealing the land generations ago. The other question is, should we all be asked to make monetary compensation for the sins and shortcomings of our ancestors? That seems outrageous to me. Shouldn't the Bantu and Zulus pay for their aggressive conquests of land from the more peaceful Khois?

The question is, are we going to outgrow the concept of an "ethno-state", where your ancestry determines your citizen status, and nationality is determined at birth by your tribe?

The modern concept of a state involves membership in the society regardless of your immigrant or ethnic status. But racist and racialist groups reject that definition of the nation-state. They want to change the rules.

The bedrock of non-marxist society is the inviolability of private property. If that concept is up for grabs, you basically have no rights. Anytime a dissident gets out of line, the government ( the "Leviathan") seizes the person's property, as a way of punishing them for exercising their civil rights. Property and the ability to leave an inheritance are the twin rewards for participating in society and economy. if they are in doubt, then there is no reward for working hard. And the economy is simply the sum-total of the peoples' work.

The more irrational and arbitrary the redistribution of land, the less dynamic the SA economy will become.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Great OP!

I havent taken the time to research the situation or historical background because I have lost interest. The real truth of the matter will be obscured by the PC, anti-white MSM. The racist black Africans will screw the whites out of their property, if not their lives, all the while racist leftst elites in the US will whine on about how the racist white South Africans are only getting what they deserve. So at the end of the day, knowing the ultimate outcome, I pretty much lost interest. This goes the same way as Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

a reply to: tovenar

The modern concept of a state involves membership in the society regardless of your immigrant or ethnic status. But racist and racialist groups reject that definition of the nation-state. They want to change the rules.

They dont just want to change the rules, they ARE changing the rules through promotion of Identity Politics. Interesting Opinion piece in the NYT this weekend in which the author noted that the new Democrat Socialist candidates like Ocasio dont speak in terms of "Nation State", National agenda, they speak in terms of the parochial interests of her district and her tribal identification, i.e., Hispanic.

Ethnic identification for the State in Africa is as natural to Africans as the Hutu genocide of the Tutsi. It is simply what they do. And as far as they are concerned, whites have no place in Africa. The Boer need awaken to this reality or suffer the consequences.

Interesting trivia: During the 2nd Anglo-Boer war there was a battle called Spion Kop where 3 major historical figures appeared as young men: Gandhi - with the British medical corps, Louis Botha - first Prime Minister of South Africa and Winston Churchill - a young officer in the British army. A few stray bullets there may have changed the course of history forever.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

What I find disturbing is some of the politicians and media people around the world making excuses for this.

Here is an opinion piece from thehill today.

thehill.com...

Notice how this piece just ignores the factor that race is part of the rational for taking this land.

Notice how he thinks its ok because compensation for the land is being offered (ignoring its only 15% of the value)

Notice how he claims white farmers arent being murdered by saying this year the numbers are low (ignoring because the amount of white farmers has dramaticlly decreased due to violence and other issues)

And worst of all, he describe Malemo and the EFF as merely a challenge to the ANC from the left that seeks to go further, but doesnt mention Malemo specifically saying they wont committ genocide against whites... yet, and that they will have to be killed to stop them from taking the land away from whites.

Now I think there is a reasonable argument to be had that the US government shouldnt get involved.

However, to outright make excuses for punishing groups based on their race is outrageous, and shows the true intentions behind these peoples facade.

There should never be any excuse whatsoever to defend a state punishing people based on their race.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

I agree mate, I have a friend from Durban who is unable to go any where near his family farm because he is white.