Virtually everything you're saying is, again, false. Nearly all the farmland was already owned, and the majority of it by "white people" by 1700. It was being actively utilized. And no, there was no "land grab" by the Dutch involving South Africa. It indeed IS documented history regarding the wars in the region prior to Dutch settlement while they were seeking out new diamond mines. There simply weren't many people there due to wartime devastation. Apartheid wasn't about Farms. It was about CITIES. Over 95% of the land stolen from black South Africans during apartheid was in CITIES and had NOTHING to do with farmland. The majority of the rest was non-farmland that could be purposed for heavy industry. Farms were not the consideration. Nobody has ever disputed that land was stolen during apartheid. Nobody has excused this. The land act of 1913 imposed regulations preventing white from selling to black and black from selling to white. There was no land seizure involved. However, it removed the right of black South Africans to work on White South Africans' farms. This was devastating, both to black South Africans AND white farmers. Black South Africans who were working the white farms were tenants, and lost their jobs and their homes in one fell swoop, and the white farmers lost half their workforce. It drove up food and textile prices, and only narrowly avoided causing a famine.

So, let's talk about Apartheid for a moment. What was it? Well, it was active segregation, that limited black ownership. Areas deemed "white", almost entirely in cities or areas that could be used for non-food heavy industry, were seized from black ownership. That being said, there was no mass starvation event, there was no violent targeting of blacks by white. There was no attempt at "genocide" at all. It was an attempt to control housing and industrial areas in a racially segregated manner. It was horrible, and it was evil. It was NOT genocide. Theft, yes.

So, the question goes back to your racism. Again, and again, and again. Even during apartheid, during the worst excesses of anti-Black racism in South Africa, Black South Africans were NOT violently targeted, they were NOT murdered en masse, nothing. Now, you appear to be suggesting that legislation that steals land away from white South Africans, mass attacks on white farms in South Africa, are all justified because... Uh... Reasons?

A few other things to note: In 1904 there were 3.4 million "black" people in South Africa, 1.1 million "white" people, with a very small mix of Indian and mixed race. Today, there are 41 million "black" residents of South Africa, roughly 4.5 million "white" roughly 4.6 million mixed, and 1.2 million indian/asian. For all the claims of "racism against black people" the largest population explosion OF black people in South Africa was during Apartheid. During those years the black population increased from 8 million or so to over 30 million. There was no coinciding population explosion in any other group. Food was plentiful, and tribes from other parts of Africa were immigrating to take advantage in better living conditions and higher lifestyle. Was apartheid wrong? Absolutely, as was the land act of 1913. Preventing black ownership and black employment is fucking terrible. However, now that the black and interracial population outnumbers the white population by 10 to 1, holds 100% of the power of the government, what are they doing? Taking land away from white people, taking ownership away from white people, and brutally MURDERING white people. AKA, they're doing the exact same thing to white people that white people did to black people, with the exception that they're adding murder to the list. Top that off with the farms white people are either evicted from or murdered at going fallow because nobody is now working the land, and you've got a MASSIVE problem.

Apartheid was wrong. The 1913 land act was wrong. The current policies are equally wrong, and groups going and murdering white farmers is even worse.

If you're in favor of what the government in South Africa is doing today, you're racist. Which you are. If you're in favor of Apartheid, you're racist. If you're in favor of the Land Act of 1913 you're racist. If you're in favor of the mass murder of white farmers simply because they're white, you're a racist, genocidal maniac.

Did you read all that on stormfront?
The bolded is more ridiculous than even you should be capable of.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Dec 21 2020 03:55am

If you don't like facts, don't engage in debate. We all understand that you're racist. You hate white people. You've excused riots, murder, and outright racist policies by multiple governments specifically and solely because the perpetrators were non-white, and the victims were white. Myself? I tend to think that any form of tyranny is pretty terrible. ANY form of racism, regardless of the race is terrible. What's the difference? I don't justify ANY racism. You justify ALL racism, as long as it's only perpetrated against white people. Just relax, grab a beer, admit you're a racist, and be done with it.

I support justice, and what would be considered justice for apartheid?

Seriously, justice for who, and against who? Is it justice to steal a farm from a family that has owned it for 350 years and give it to people who's family only immigrated to the nation within the last 100 years and just so happens to know nothing about farming OR how to manage the supply chain?

I'm totally down for the idea that individuals or family who had land stolen from them under apartheid receive just compensation, either in the form of real-estate or cash payout. Hell, why not charge De Beers a massive tax or tell them to get the fuck out of the Diamond mines? Fine, whatever. What you're talking about is something entirely different. When person A steals from person B, justice is not to steal from person C and give it to person D.

I mean, let's be as honest as we can here. What you're talking about is not "justice". It's "revenge". And it's revenge that does not target "the guilty" but instead targets "the white". That is inherently racist, and par for the course with your responses.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Dec 21 2020 04:14am

Who owned it 400 years ago?

Nobody. South Africa was almost completely depopulated during the tribal wars. The number of people in the entire region numbered in the thousands. It's part of why the Dutch were interested. Unlike the Brits, the French, and the Germans, the Dutch did their best to avoid warfare with tribes, and sought out areas where they wouldn't have to wipe out entrenched populations to get rich.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Dec 21 2020 05:35am

i never asked for this live
it was thrust upon me like the sword and the javelin
this is level of responsibility that we never asked for
but He has taught us how to handle responsibility and it will be ok

sometimes i just want to kill more