قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / Land grab in South Africa, nationalism in America

Land grab in South Africa, nationalism in America



"South Africans are currently in intense debate over the prospect of expropriation of land without compensation as one of several measures to reform [land]." Ramaphosa continued to rant, "Commentators [who] have limited themselves to it. It's a bad idea to get your information from Tucker Carlson's Fox News program to another topic than," What? "(19659002) If that's an indication of Fox News was, does Ramaphosa have a point talking white nationalists of today? "

Throughout the Carlson program, the screen burned with Chyrons claiming that South African land seizures had already occurred:" South Africa's farm seizures begin, "" Chaos in South Africa, since land expropriations begin ". "The South African Government now confiscates land from white farmers," "South African Land Grab: Threat of Violence and Economic Collapse"

But there was no fit it to this day. Not a farm was taken by a white peasant without compensation. The law that allows such seizures is not passed. The constitutional amendment that the law would allow was not adopted.

It is also not true that South African white farmers are massacred by angry blacks. The South African crime statistics do not make it easy to identify how many victims of violence are rural as opposed to urban, or to identify rural victims by race. South Africa suffers from a horrifying level of crime and violence, and rural areas are even less well protected than cities. Although violent crime is still shockingly widespread, it has fallen sharply since the end of apartheid. US-funded scholarships have shown that violence in rural areas is mostly concentrated among the poorest and under-educated ̵

1; who are very unlikely to be white.

There's no secret why Trump could be vulnerable to a murderous fable Black and bullied whites. See the same segment that Trump has seen, and you will not overlook his obvious racist incitement, including the suggestion that President Obama approves the plundering of whites: "Why did former President Barack Obama have a racist a few weeks ago? How Cyril Ramaphosa publicly praised? "Why should he do that?"

The correct answer to this question is that Obama praised Ramaphosa for the same reason Western leaders did in general, not least the British Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May. May led a delegation of 29 UK business and finance executives visiting South Africa this week to welcome Ramaphosa's approach to investment and land issues. Ramaphosa is generally considered by Western governments to be the worst alternative for South Africa, certainly in preference to his boldly outrageously incompetent predecessor, Jacob Zuma.

But that's not the answer Carlson shared with his audience. When his guest refused to give an inflammatory answer to Carlson's question to Obama, instead suggesting that Obama call Ramaphosa to protest, Carlson himself replied, "I wish he had said that in public when he spoke he had a chance, but of course he did not, he was a coward. "

Carlson's deceptive reporting – his devious incitement to racial resentment – was intended to mislead poorly informed, gullible and racially biased viewers. And unfortunately, one of those ill-informed, gullible and racially biased Carlson viewers happens to be President of the United States.

But Trump's prejudices should not excuse anyone. Since Trump's August 23 Tweet in South Africa, liberal commentators have gone deep into South African history to justify – or at least approve – the impending land seizures. But the most pressing story is much more relevant here, not the 1913 Act, but the transition of political power in 1994. This comparatively bloodless and harmonious transition has been achieved, simply because it guarantees existing property rights.

This guarantee was codified in the South African Constitution of 1996:

"Nobody may be privileged beyond the common law, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property."

Property may only be expropriated in general law, (a) for a public purpose or in the public interest and (b) subject to compensation, the amount and timing and method of payment either accepted by the person concerned or by a court decided or approved. "

The 1996 Constitution explicitly dealt with the abuses that had arisen from the land office of 1913 and authorized the return of property to them in 1913, not only for individuals, but also for communities of which it was particularly important a large part of the land allocated to the white owners in 1913 never had an individual African owner, but the new constitution also confirmed that every person, trust or corporation that has lost land for historical purposes is entitled to a just African Compensation had.


Source link