English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i read that black african congress want to strip awa land from the whites.

2006-12-15 18:09:31 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Travel Africa & Middle East South Africa

15 answers

+ I have heard the same thing. I thin they may want to sell land and get out now.

2006-12-15 18:11:23 · answer #1 · answered by Clamdigger 6 · 5 1

The situation in South Africa is still a see saw.
One day the African National Congress copies Zimbabwe type legislation and the next day they pass legislation that complies with the UN declaration of human rights.

It is nervewracking waiting to see which way the country will go. It took 21 years for the rule of law to be overthrown in Zimbabwe. SA has had majority rule for 12 years and the independance of the judiciary and compliance with the constitution has not been as good as it should be.

The constitution prohibits discrimination while acknowledging past injustices. The Black Employment Equity Legislation means that whites are struggling to get jobs. If you look at the job advertisements they say affirmitive action or employment equity which means that whites need not apply. There have been a few cases taken up to the constitutional court because whites have been denied promotions because of their skin colour.

The government's new censorship legislation, discussions about abandoning the willing seller willing buyer principle with land restitution and the racist rhetoric in parliment are worrying. The basic rights of all South Africans, of any colour, of life, liberty, person, property and reputation are under attack from criminals- and the government's anti-crime strategies are not working. More people are murdered each year in South Africa than are being killed in Iraq - and that's a war zone.

Already between one sixth and a fifth of whites have emigrated because they see no future for themselves in the country. I'm waiting to see what happens in the 2009 elections. Maybe your question will be answered then.

2006-12-15 20:41:24 · answer #2 · answered by df382 5 · 1 0

More than 95% of agriculture land is still in white hands... The government plans to put 30% of land into black hands by 2015. I don't have a problem with that as long as the new owners of the land are properly trained... On the other hand: Some of the people were driven off their land under apartheid; so if they are rightful owners, their land has to be given back. I believe white South Africans have a future, but crime and affirmative action is one of the reasons why many white South Africans leave the country... the question one has to ask is: Does South Africa has a future without the white people? The answer is probably no - not because white people are by any means superior to black people, but because most whites are skilled and contributes to the SA economy. White SA's are still by far the richest (eg. 93% of white South Africans have life insurance compared to 5% of black people); so the majority of taxes (which are used for amongst other social grants for the poor) are payed by whites. The ANC has many policies aimed at whites eg. affirmative action, but at the end of the day, like I said, whites are still in control of the country's economy - the private sector and the stock exchange are controlled by whites... so beside violent crime (which is a huge problem); whites cannot complain too much...

************

CattyOne, I take not of your opinions... and I agree with many of them... but you have to remember that the black people came from the North of Africa and settled in South Africa. The Bushmen and colored people were first here. Another thing: South Africa isn't an agriculture country, so black people's main activity, agriculture, was practiced in a country not suited for it. One of the reasons why they moved to the cities? More than 50% of SA's best agriculture ground was in the homelands although blacks owned only 13% of the ground during apartheid.

2006-12-15 19:41:59 · answer #3 · answered by Malan 3 · 0 0

This is the problem we had to start of. We wanted a future and we got it. The only problem was that dear old Pres. Verwoerd gave it a name, and yeah you guest it, apartheid. If we kept it quite and not announced it to the world we could have had a better future, but we didn't.
With the consequence that we had experience more pressure from other countries to change our ways and something had to give and it did in 1989 with the removal of the 'passbook' and with that the borders opened to the neighboring countries. From there on wards it was all down hill. Will all the immigrants in the country the government felt pressure from 'the people' and they firstly release Pres Nelson Mandela and then announced the 1992 Yes / No poles and quest what? The immigrants got the upper hand and forced the democratically elections of 1994 and that was the end of that.
I don't say that we should have continued with apartheid but if toke it away when the time where right we could have had a much better future.
I still think that there is war looming in South Africa (I believe what Siener Van Rensburg said) and you can say no there will never be a war but its coming just wake up before its to late.
There is a future in SA but only after the war.
Sorry my mistake there are a future in SA now! We need you for training for the war...Lol

2006-12-18 07:34:56 · answer #4 · answered by BoetIngelands 1 · 0 1

I really hope so. Currently the cracks of bad government seem to show that We're going down the same road as the rest of post-independence Africa. I remain hopeful though that South African voters will realise what's going on and that leaders will emerge who knows that South Africa needs ALL her people (not only black people) to help build a bright future and who moves away from racial obsession. I work overseas now, not because I don't want to be in my beloved country, but because, with 3 university degrees and a willingness to use my knowledge to the benefit of my country, I can't get a decent job in SA. Currently the enormous potential is there, the leaders to harness it are not.

To CattyOne: YOU are the one that doesn't respect others. You need to educate yourself. White people arrived in many parts of SA before black people (not the KoiSan), i.e. the Western Cape, Southern Cape, Namaqualand, Karoo, Northern Cape and parts of the Free State. Much of the rest was purchased by the Voortrekkers by agreement with local chiefs. Don't be such a racist and hypocrite. If you are tired, imagine how the young white people feel who can't get a job because of the colour of their skin. If we are to leave the past and build a better future for ALL South Africans we don't need that kind of attitude.

2006-12-15 21:21:43 · answer #5 · answered by Vango 5 · 1 0

they have been saying that for years but dont forget in reality not much has changed about the ultimate control of South Africa ,only the upfront players have changed,
Behind the scenes the Openheimer empire still rules.
the controling Elite are still white ,
Nelson is of Royal Blood ,does this mean that he is a dark illuminati????

And yes many Farmers have for a long time already ,given land to the people living on the farms,which they would have lost anyway because of coming property rights

would be interested in other opinions if they have depth,as I am planning on returning there

2006-12-15 18:24:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I am tired of this. I mean really. Anyone has a future anywhere in the world you just have to respect other people and think of each other as being on the same level (as human beings).
Yes south africa is doing some sort of land reform. I mean, if you think about it, land in SA was never really owned by whites, just like in Zimbabwe and any other colonised country for that matter. So by right, seeing as we live in civilised societies, human rights etc, black people should get back the land of their forefathers. However, I think the only problem is that white people feel, they have done so much for the country through agriculture and for the economy etc, so in a way they feel they have the right to the land.
If you are a drug dealer and become a millionaire off it, then change your ID, and start donating some of your riches to the community, that doesn't mean you are not a criminal.

The land, together with the diamond mines owned by De Beers should go back to their rightful owners. White people who currently own the land, should get something but the majority should go to where it belongs. There are numerous achievers in universities (blacks) who can train in the fields required. It should about empowering the black people of south Africa. Apartheid is over, in principle, but the reality is that it isn't really over - If you live in SA, you know the truth.
White people along with Indians, and any other races have a future in SA as long as they buy their own land etc like you would if you decided to move to England, you wouldn't just do it like the Gypsies do. Just because black pple want to get involved in running their country, it doesn't mean that whites or anyone else is not welcome. Mind you, there white people born and raised in SA, so that makes them south african too.
Its all about equality. Whatever they do, should be done well, unlike in Zimbabwe.

2006-12-16 00:09:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

Hell no.
Everything will be stolen from them to give to people whose ancestors, nomadic savages, supposedly 'owned' the land.
European settlers built South Africa, much as they built the rest of Africa. Now, just as has happened in the aftermath of the so-called 'wars of liberation', in all other so-called colonialist African countries, Marxist revolutionaries, in the guise of the ANC, have seized power, and like every other Communist entity before them, are proceeding to loot a once prosperous nation and leave the population to suffer worse than they did before.
These particular Communists play the race card whenever questioned. It's a great scam they have going.

Amazingly, people still buy into the Mandela myth, that he is some great liberator/freedom fighter, when, in fact, he is nothing more than a gangster and a terrorist.

It's a sad fact that blacks in Africa cannot run their own countries.
South Africa came from savagery, and is now on its way back to savagery.

Ashes to ashes.

2006-12-16 10:00:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Yes, white people in South Africa do have a future. But that future will only be determined by a war. The trigger for the war is near.

2006-12-15 19:14:59 · answer #9 · answered by DieWaarheid 2 · 0 3

White people are SOUTH AFRICA. Were have u been?

2006-12-15 18:17:55 · answer #10 · answered by BERT G 2 · 0 0

Catty one Shut up your black of course youll say that you dont what your talking about

MALAN tops buddy i can see you know your facts and i agree 100% with you

2006-12-17 05:23:26 · answer #11 · answered by boskafur 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers