Armed South Africans seize six farms

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Armed South Africans seize six farms


www.africasia.com

Six farms have been seized by an armed group of South African land reform beneficiaries who say the scheme has been mismanaged, the firm running the properties said Wednesday.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.businessday.co.za
www.mg.co.za
www.thezimbabwetimes.com




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Much of Zimbabwe's crisis has been blamed on the ill-advised land invasions from the so-called war veterans.
The latest land-invasion is in South Africa, involving a group of people invading land that already belongs to the community!
With Zuma poised to be the next President of South Africa in the next month or two, the future looks very bleak for South Africa.
Once again, New Zealand and Australia are being eyed out as potential new homes by South Africans who until recently were hopeful that Zuma would be convicted and not be allowed to become Africa's next Mugabe.

www.africasia.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
We should be careful not to compare this with Zimbabwe as this event was NOT "typical land reformation".

The farms were already "reformed". During the government "land reform programme" farms are "bought" from white farmers and the land is given to "previously disadvantaged" people (i.e. black people).

In other words this event is nothing like Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe "angry black mobs" invaded farms that was under white ownership, because the land "reformation" process was taking too long for their taste. These South African farms were "invaded", because they were being mismanaged by the black owner.

If it was a white-owned farm that was invaded, we could compare it to Zimbabwe, but it’s not.

As much as I dislike Zuma, people don’t give him enough credit. Yes, he may be a lowlife scumbag, BUT he’s intelligent when it comes to working with people…


At the onset of democracy in 1994, 87 percent of agricultural land in South Africa was owned by whites, who make up less than 10 percent of the population.

A report last year warned that at least 50 percent of land reform projects had been abject failures, with beneficiaries worse off after land reform due to a lack of post-settlement support from government.


The curious thing is why Makhombo got 6 farms? Why wasn't the land divided amongst 6+ potential landowners?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 


With all respect Gemwolf, is there such a thing as a typical land invasion? What these events show is that the land was invaded by a group who are shareholders of these farms (the farms are owned by the community and not any one person). What they could not understand is why they are not receiving immediate sums of money. They have failed to note that it takes any business a number of years to show any kind of profit.
The mentality is thus "destroy" or steal.

Zuma may surprise us all and prove that he is a capable, thoughtful, honest and courageous leader. Do I think any of those words describe him? No.
Is there any doubt that he is able to deal with people? No, he is a master at crowd manipulation and saying the rights words to the right people depending on what they want to hear. So is Mugabe. But I honestly think Mugabe is a highly intelligent man. I have my doubts about Zuma.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaalphanovember
 


I agree with you 100%. No doubt that it's a land invasion by definition. All I'm saying is that the "typical white South African" may mistakenly translate this to "white farm invasions" or more specifically a black against white event, when it is not.

It is however another good example of why government land reformation (i.e. giving away good farm land to any person willing to receive) is a bad idea. However, it’s no surprise that this will have no influence in the land reform programme.

As for Zuma - again I want to highlight my dislike for him - if we compare him to Mugabe: His strategy is completely different. Mugabe made it very clear that white folks are in no way or form welcome in Zimbabwe. Zuma on the other hand acknowledges the role white people play in South Africa, and even go as far as to invite those that have "fled" because of political reasons back to the country. Maybe he's just playing the political game. Get the "whites" to like him for their votes? Perhaps his true colours will only come out when he's president? As much as I dislike him, I'm not scared off him. There are far darker forces at play, but luckily their power isn't a matter of concern. Yet.





new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join