Zimbabwe Coup
21 Nov 2017, 3:30 pm
TUAndrew wrote:
That depends on how you define "stolen". Did the average Zimbabwean have a direct claim to the land? And even if they did have a legitimate claim, the race-based attitude after Zimbabwean independence just created another apartheid.
White farmer's ownership of land (whether Kenya, South Africa or Zimbabwe) was originally ratified under a colonial administration which (for obvious reasons) was correctly ousted in each of the above examples as an occupying colonial force. Technically in legal terms an occupying colonial entity (i.e. the UK) was not democratically recognized by the traditional land owners so Mugabe or other leaders in South Africa or Kenya are technically entitled to kick white farmers off their land.
African leaders have infact been rather generous (particularly Mandela) in letting white colonial settlers keep their land. However it's only a matter of time as local Africans are already wondering why they live in third world conditions while their white neighbors remain quite wealthy. Whether rightly or wrongly land appropriation is going to be a feature of the African landscape long after Zuma and Mugabe are gone.
21 Nov 2017, 4:12 pm
cyberdad wrote:
TUAndrew wrote:
That depends on how you define "stolen". Did the average Zimbabwean have a direct claim to the land? And even if they did have a legitimate claim, the race-based attitude after Zimbabwean independence just created another apartheid.
White farmer's ownership of land (whether Kenya, South Africa or Zimbabwe) was originally ratified under a colonial administration which (for obvious reasons) was correctly ousted in each of the above examples as an occupying colonial force. Technically in legal terms an occupying colonial entity (i.e. the UK) was not democratically recognized by the traditional land owners so Mugabe or other leaders in South Africa or Kenya are technically entitled to kick white farmers off their land.
African leaders have infact been rather generous (particularly Mandela) in letting white colonial settlers keep their land. However it's only a matter of time as local Africans are already wondering why they live in third world conditions while their white neighbors remain quite wealthy. Whether rightly or wrongly land appropriation is going to be a feature of the African landscape long after Zuma and Mugabe are gone.
So, Mugabe kicking out the white farmers who had their human rights violated by being beaten and tortured, while in the process destroying the country's economy and causing it to go into hyperinflation because they no longer had the farms that were central to Zimbabwe's economy in the past was a good idea?
TUAndrew
Blue Jay
Joined: 3 May 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 89
Location: Hampshire, UK Sometimes France
21 Nov 2017, 4:44 pm
cyberdad wrote:
TUAndrew wrote:
That depends on how you define "stolen". Did the average Zimbabwean have a direct claim to the land? And even if they did have a legitimate claim, the race-based attitude after Zimbabwean independence just created another apartheid.
Technically in legal terms an occupying colonial entity (i.e. the UK) was not democratically recognized by the traditional land owners so Mugabe or other leaders in South Africa or Kenya are technically entitled to kick white farmers off their land.
What Jono said.
And which "technical legal terms" are these? If you mean local law then Rhodesia was sovereign, and if you mean international law then what part of 'self-determination' and 'human rights' lets a dictator rule with an iron fist? Also, "traditional land owners" sounds like code for ethnic nationalism.
Quote:
African leaders have infact been rather generous (particularly Mandela) in letting white colonial settlers keep their land. However it's only a matter of time as local Africans are already wondering why they live in third world conditions while their white neighbors remain quite wealthy. Whether rightly or wrongly land appropriation is going to be a feature of the African landscape long after Zuma and Mugabe are gone.
What do you mean by "white neighbors?" As in local or international?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Nov 2017, 4:59 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Its not about race or anyone paying for the crimes of their ancestors its just not rewarding them for it. Its about Justice, its about how allowing so much unearned wealth in the hands of a few how that distorts a country both economically and socially. Inequality is a negative thing, however in the capitalist system people create wealth and that benefits society on the whole and the positives of this outweigh the negatives of inequality. Aristocrats gained land through theft and oppression so we get the worst of both worlds with them.
Here in America, we're seeing an actual generation of thieves gobbling up all the wealth from the rest of us. When we complain, we're accused of "class envy." What's worse, they've got millions of poor Americans believing that if they just work a little harder, or if the rich just have one more tax break, then they, the poor, will be rich, too. And instead of blaming the social and business elites for their poverty, they blame people who have it worse than them, namely racial minorities and immigrants both legal and illegal. Hell, they helped elect one of those very bastards into the White House!
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
21 Nov 2017, 6:08 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its not about race or anyone paying for the crimes of their ancestors its just not rewarding them for it. Its about Justice, its about how allowing so much unearned wealth in the hands of a few how that distorts a country both economically and socially. Inequality is a negative thing, however in the capitalist system people create wealth and that benefits society on the whole and the positives of this outweigh the negatives of inequality. Aristocrats gained land through theft and oppression so we get the worst of both worlds with them.
Here in America, we're seeing an actual generation of thieves gobbling up all the wealth from the rest of us. When we complain, we're accused of "class envy." What's worse, they've got millions of poor Americans believing that if they just work a little harder, or if the rich just have one more tax break, then they, the poor, will be rich, too. And instead of blaming the social and business elites for their poverty, they blame people who have it worse than them, namely racial minorities and immigrants both legal and illegal. Hell, they helped elect one of those very bastards into the White House!
Its not the same, corruption is bad but it doesn't come close to actually taking away land, forcing people to pay taxes to enrich yourself. The richest American is Bill Gates a man who created a company that made the world a better place, the richest Briton is a 26 year old who's ancestors stole and oppressed people for centuries and to this day has laws written to favour his interests. Many of our politicians come from aristocratic families as do many of our journalists, I don't think a country that has always been a republic can truly have a class system, I think America is more about race but I am an outsider.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Nov 2017, 7:10 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its not about race or anyone paying for the crimes of their ancestors its just not rewarding them for it. Its about Justice, its about how allowing so much unearned wealth in the hands of a few how that distorts a country both economically and socially. Inequality is a negative thing, however in the capitalist system people create wealth and that benefits society on the whole and the positives of this outweigh the negatives of inequality. Aristocrats gained land through theft and oppression so we get the worst of both worlds with them.
Here in America, we're seeing an actual generation of thieves gobbling up all the wealth from the rest of us. When we complain, we're accused of "class envy." What's worse, they've got millions of poor Americans believing that if they just work a little harder, or if the rich just have one more tax break, then they, the poor, will be rich, too. And instead of blaming the social and business elites for their poverty, they blame people who have it worse than them, namely racial minorities and immigrants both legal and illegal. Hell, they helped elect one of those very bastards into the White House!
Its not the same, corruption is bad but it doesn't come close to actually taking away land, forcing people to pay taxes to enrich yourself. The richest American is Bill Gates a man who created a company that made the world a better place, the richest Briton is a 26 year old who's ancestors stole and oppressed people for centuries and to this day has laws written to favour his interests. Many of our politicians come from aristocratic families as do many of our journalists, I don't think a country that has always been a republic can truly have a class system, I think America is more about race but I am an outsider.
There are plenty of corporate CEOs who have taken away benefits, cut wages, and even sent jobs elsewhere in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the many.
While race is definitely a problem in my country, the fact remains, all races are losing ground as the wealthy gain it. Plus, payed for politicians play poor white people off against the poor of other races, telling them that their prejudices were always correct, and that poor minorities are getting a free ride. I wish these other rich bastards had the moral compass of Bill Gates.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
TUAndrew
Blue Jay
Joined: 3 May 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 89
Location: Hampshire, UK Sometimes France
21 Nov 2017, 8:12 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its not about race or anyone paying for the crimes of their ancestors its just not rewarding them for it. Its about Justice, its about how allowing so much unearned wealth in the hands of a few how that distorts a country both economically and socially. Inequality is a negative thing, however in the capitalist system people create wealth and that benefits society on the whole and the positives of this outweigh the negatives of inequality. Aristocrats gained land through theft and oppression so we get the worst of both worlds with them.
Here in America, we're seeing an actual generation of thieves gobbling up all the wealth from the rest of us. When we complain, we're accused of "class envy." What's worse, they've got millions of poor Americans believing that if they just work a little harder, or if the rich just have one more tax break, then they, the poor, will be rich, too. And instead of blaming the social and business elites for their poverty, they blame people who have it worse than them, namely racial minorities and immigrants both legal and illegal. Hell, they helped elect one of those very bastards into the White House!
the richest Briton is a 26 year old who's ancestors stole and oppressed people for centuries and to this day has laws written to favour his interests. Many of our politicians come from aristocratic families as do many of our journalists, I don't think a country that has always been a republic can truly have a class system, I think America is more about race but I am an outsider.
Again I'm not sure what centuries-old dynasties have to do with land theft. Like I said before, the huge rise in house prices and the generation gap has a much bigger impact on people's ability to gain a home/land rather than whether some aristocrat's ancestors did or didn't steal land from a Saxon.
22 Nov 2017, 12:39 am
Jono wrote:
So, Mugabe kicking out the white farmers who had their human rights violated by being beaten and tortured, while in the process destroying the country's economy and causing it to go into hyperinflation because they no longer had the farms that were central to Zimbabwe's economy in the past was a good idea?
No not at all. The killing and torture of white farmers is horrendous! I'm talking about government policies initiating local appropriating/taking back land.
In addition the reality is no country was applying sanctions on Mugabe (or for that matter Zuma and the ANC) when farmers were getting killed. No doubt the UN security council comprises ex-colonial states that have nothing but disdain for whites who remain in their ex-colonies...
22 Nov 2017, 12:52 am
TUAndrew wrote:
Also, "traditional land owners" sounds like code for ethnic nationalism.
Quote:
Hardly, independence movements in former colonies were driven by indigenous populations who felt oppressed, exploited and disenfranchised for several centuries in their own homeland. Decolonisation in places like Zimbabwe or South Africa is only a relatively recent phenomenon. I am old enough to remember my father debating with a white south African migrant (back in the mid 1970s). The man said that in school he was taught in Afrikaans that black people were not human and they were close to monkeys. I am simply amazed these Afrikaaners are still alive given the way they treated Africans during apartheid.
TUAndrew wrote:
What do you mean by "white neighbors?" As in local or international?
local - gated white housing estates compromising mansions where families still have servants overlooking shanty towns in places like Joburg. I doubt the shanty dwellers would feel apartheid has ended.
22 Nov 2017, 4:17 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its not about race or anyone paying for the crimes of their ancestors its just not rewarding them for it. Its about Justice, its about how allowing so much unearned wealth in the hands of a few how that distorts a country both economically and socially. Inequality is a negative thing, however in the capitalist system people create wealth and that benefits society on the whole and the positives of this outweigh the negatives of inequality. Aristocrats gained land through theft and oppression so we get the worst of both worlds with them.
Here in America, we're seeing an actual generation of thieves gobbling up all the wealth from the rest of us. When we complain, we're accused of "class envy." What's worse, they've got millions of poor Americans believing that if they just work a little harder, or if the rich just have one more tax break, then they, the poor, will be rich, too. And instead of blaming the social and business elites for their poverty, they blame people who have it worse than them, namely racial minorities and immigrants both legal and illegal. Hell, they helped elect one of those very bastards into the White House!
Its not the same, corruption is bad but it doesn't come close to actually taking away land, forcing people to pay taxes to enrich yourself. The richest American is Bill Gates a man who created a company that made the world a better place, the richest Briton is a 26 year old who's ancestors stole and oppressed people for centuries and to this day has laws written to favour his interests. Many of our politicians come from aristocratic families as do many of our journalists, I don't think a country that has always been a republic can truly have a class system, I think America is more about race but I am an outsider.
There are plenty of corporate CEOs who have taken away benefits, cut wages, and even sent jobs elsewhere in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the many.
While race is definitely a problem in my country, the fact remains, all races are losing ground as the wealthy gain it. Plus, payed for politicians play poor white people off against the poor of other races, telling them that their prejudices were always correct, and that poor minorities are getting a free ride. I wish these other rich bastards had the moral compass of Bill Gates.
Sending jobs overseas is not the same, people do not have a right to force an employer to employ them. Even cutting wages and benefits is not the same, Imagine if one day the government decides that all property is going to be split between the billionaires and everyone who owns their own home will now have to pay rent to a billionaire because that is the modern version of what happened here in the UK over centuries.
22 Nov 2017, 4:21 am
TUAndrew wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its not about race or anyone paying for the crimes of their ancestors its just not rewarding them for it. Its about Justice, its about how allowing so much unearned wealth in the hands of a few how that distorts a country both economically and socially. Inequality is a negative thing, however in the capitalist system people create wealth and that benefits society on the whole and the positives of this outweigh the negatives of inequality. Aristocrats gained land through theft and oppression so we get the worst of both worlds with them.
Here in America, we're seeing an actual generation of thieves gobbling up all the wealth from the rest of us. When we complain, we're accused of "class envy." What's worse, they've got millions of poor Americans believing that if they just work a little harder, or if the rich just have one more tax break, then they, the poor, will be rich, too. And instead of blaming the social and business elites for their poverty, they blame people who have it worse than them, namely racial minorities and immigrants both legal and illegal. Hell, they helped elect one of those very bastards into the White House!
the richest Briton is a 26 year old who's ancestors stole and oppressed people for centuries and to this day has laws written to favour his interests. Many of our politicians come from aristocratic families as do many of our journalists, I don't think a country that has always been a republic can truly have a class system, I think America is more about race but I am an outsider.
Again I'm not sure what centuries-old dynasties have to do with land theft. Like I said before, the huge rise in house prices and the generation gap has a much bigger impact on people's ability to gain a home/land rather than whether some aristocrat's ancestors did or didn't steal land from a Saxon.
Because their ancestors stole it, to this day they still own 1/3 of England and wales and half of Scotland. I believe prior to the industrial revolution it was something like 90%. The whole reason we have such expensive housing in the UK is because of that, allowing such a small minority to distort a market pushes up prices.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Nov 2017, 11:14 am
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its not about race or anyone paying for the crimes of their ancestors its just not rewarding them for it. Its about Justice, its about how allowing so much unearned wealth in the hands of a few how that distorts a country both economically and socially. Inequality is a negative thing, however in the capitalist system people create wealth and that benefits society on the whole and the positives of this outweigh the negatives of inequality. Aristocrats gained land through theft and oppression so we get the worst of both worlds with them.
Here in America, we're seeing an actual generation of thieves gobbling up all the wealth from the rest of us. When we complain, we're accused of "class envy." What's worse, they've got millions of poor Americans believing that if they just work a little harder, or if the rich just have one more tax break, then they, the poor, will be rich, too. And instead of blaming the social and business elites for their poverty, they blame people who have it worse than them, namely racial minorities and immigrants both legal and illegal. Hell, they helped elect one of those very bastards into the White House!
Its not the same, corruption is bad but it doesn't come close to actually taking away land, forcing people to pay taxes to enrich yourself. The richest American is Bill Gates a man who created a company that made the world a better place, the richest Briton is a 26 year old who's ancestors stole and oppressed people for centuries and to this day has laws written to favour his interests. Many of our politicians come from aristocratic families as do many of our journalists, I don't think a country that has always been a republic can truly have a class system, I think America is more about race but I am an outsider.
There are plenty of corporate CEOs who have taken away benefits, cut wages, and even sent jobs elsewhere in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the many.
While race is definitely a problem in my country, the fact remains, all races are losing ground as the wealthy gain it. Plus, payed for politicians play poor white people off against the poor of other races, telling them that their prejudices were always correct, and that poor minorities are getting a free ride. I wish these other rich bastards had the moral compass of Bill Gates.
Sending jobs overseas is not the same, people do not have a right to force an employer to employ them. Even cutting wages and benefits is not the same, Imagine if one day the government decides that all property is going to be split between the billionaires and everyone who owns their own home will now have to pay rent to a billionaire because that is the modern version of what happened here in the UK over centuries.
If an employer expects loyalty from his or her workers, then he or she must extend loyalty to said workers as well. And that means ensuring job security.
Whether it's a matter of taking land, or depriving people of jobs, the result is the same: a whole lot of impoverished, dependent people.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 Nov 2017, 11:34 am
Its just not the same though, you are not entitled to force someone else to employ you nor are they paying you for loyalty. People go to work for money, employers pay people because they want work done it has nothing to do with loyalty both are motivated by self interest and naturally when a better option comes up both sides will take that whether that being the employer sending jobs overseas or the employee working for another company. Someone stealing your property cannot be compared to this.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Nov 2017, 2:18 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Its just not the same though, you are not entitled to force someone else to employ you nor are they paying you for loyalty. People go to work for money, employers pay people because they want work done it has nothing to do with loyalty both are motivated by self interest and naturally when a better option comes up both sides will take that whether that being the employer sending jobs overseas or the employee working for another company. Someone stealing your property cannot be compared to this.
But the result is still the same.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 Nov 2017, 3:10 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its just not the same though, you are not entitled to force someone else to employ you nor are they paying you for loyalty. People go to work for money, employers pay people because they want work done it has nothing to do with loyalty both are motivated by self interest and naturally when a better option comes up both sides will take that whether that being the employer sending jobs overseas or the employee working for another company. Someone stealing your property cannot be compared to this.
But the result is still the same.
That can be said about a lot of things, if you stole food from someone and they starved to death you would be at fault, there are people who are starving and you not choosing to give them money means they will die the results will be the same yet you are not at fault.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Nov 2017, 5:41 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its just not the same though, you are not entitled to force someone else to employ you nor are they paying you for loyalty. People go to work for money, employers pay people because they want work done it has nothing to do with loyalty both are motivated by self interest and naturally when a better option comes up both sides will take that whether that being the employer sending jobs overseas or the employee working for another company. Someone stealing your property cannot be compared to this.
But the result is still the same.
That can be said about a lot of things, if you stole food from someone and they starved to death you would be at fault, there are people who are starving and you not choosing to give them money means they will die the results will be the same yet you are not at fault.
But business people who leave their employees destitute are at fault.
Because business thinks their only responsibility is to make money - by hiring as few workers as possible, at as low a wage as possible - it only shows that those businesses are irresponsible. Were they responsible, they'd understand that with more money in the hands of workers, there is more demand, thus more money to be made. But instead, business leaders are motivated by short term greed.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
