South Africa parliament votes to seize white owned land

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 02:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, if we completely dismiss advancements by any non-white culture.  

The best and most advanced places in the world have the British to thank. They knew how to properly colonize.

Thankfully we had them instead of the Spanish.

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 02:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The best and most advanced places in the world have the British to thank.   They knew how to properly colonize.  

Thankfully we had them instead of the Spanish.

Yes.  Egypt, China, all those other places the British advanced with their colonization.  

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2018, 02:01 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think you meant progress. Thanks to British colonization the world is as advanced as it is today.

No, I meant what I said. I'm inferring from what you are saying that you think the ends justify the means, and I am not certain I agree with that. But I'm also not here to debate that. The land was taken from people previously there. That is theft. If you are unconcerned with theft if it meets certain qualifying criteria then that is your moral prerogative.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2018, 02:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.  Egypt, China, all those other places the British advanced with their colonization.  

Well, we also have to keep in mind that "progress" and "advancement" are terms that aren't necessarily accurate when speaking about civilizations, societies, or cultures. Those subjective terms rest on the idea that there is an evolutionary, linear track on which civilizations progress. This is a false narrative that was concocted during the era of European imperialism in order to justify their colonization and subjugation of indigenous people the world over. However, such classifications are not accurate, are not based on objective methodology, and are now mostly dismissed. The social sciences still have a hard time moving on from them because that was really the beginning of the movement, but there is a concerted effort to focus on more objective methodology since, as the name says, they are sciences.

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 02:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, we also have to keep in mind that "progress" and "advancement" are terms that aren't necessarily accurate when speaking about civilizations, societies, or cultures. Those subjective terms rest on the idea that there is an evolutionary, linear track on which civilizations progress. This is a false narrative that was concocted during the era of European imperialism in order to justify their colonization and subjugation of indigenous people the world over. However, such classifications are not accurate, are not based on objective methodology, and are now mostly dismissed. The social sciences still have a hard time moving on from them because that was really the beginning of the movement, but there is a concerted effort to focus on more objective methodology since, as the name says, they are sciences.

Granted, but I was going for the societies that were very advanced (for their time at a minimum) without the British.

[masterpanthera_t]

(03-08-2018, 02:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, we also have to keep in mind that "progress" and "advancement" are terms that aren't necessarily accurate when speaking about civilizations, societies, or cultures. Those subjective terms rest on the idea that there is an evolutionary, linear track on which civilizations progress. This is a false narrative that was concocted during the era of European imperialism in order to justify their colonization and subjugation of indigenous people the world over. However, such classifications are not accurate, are not based on objective methodology, and are now mostly dismissed. The social sciences still have a hard time moving on from them because that was really the beginning of the movement, but there is a concerted effort to focus on more objective methodology since, as the name says, they are sciences.

Agreed.

Also what I've noticed in these type of arguments is that is heavily skewed in one sided narratives from the perspective of the victors and characterized many times by blatant omission of facts regarding atrocities that led to the destruction of a lot of human capital. While the British colonization served the Brits very well in terms of all the wealth, natural resources looted from their colonies, and helped them advance their own interests and growth, it is debatable that there was much of a NET "advancement" for the colonies. For probably every one good thing that happened, there were an equal if not higher number of negative consequences. One of the "legacies" of British rule is all the conflict zones left behind by either incompetent or intentional misrepresenting of borders. Considering that the primary strategy of British colonization was "divide and conquer", one might wonder if that just fit the pattern to keep the areas left behind in a disunited state both for weakening those areas and to make the British colonization seem like a good thing cause "look what happens after we left."

Edit:

It is also debatable that with the ever more increasing inter-connected nature of the world, that any "advancements" would not have taken place organically without colonization, which brought with it all the loss of lives that gets lost out of the "advancement" argument. I mean who cares if a "few" lives are lost to "advance" civilization, right?

[BmorePat87]

(03-08-2018, 02:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, I meant what I said. I'm inferring from what you are saying that you think the ends justify the means, and I am not certain I agree with that. But I'm also not here to debate that. The land was taken from people previously there. That is theft. If you are unconcerned with theft if it meets certain qualifying criteria then that is your moral prerogative.

End of the day, OP has argued before that genocide is ok if it means the colonizers are prosperous. At this point it is best to just ignore that garbage and just address this awful issue in a productive manner. 

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2018, 03:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: End of the day, OP has argued before that genocide is ok if it means the colonizers are prosperous. At this point it is best to just ignore that garbage and just address this awful issue in a productive manner. 

I tried that. That line of dialogue didn't go anywhere, though. I have to have fun, somehow.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 02:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, I meant what I said. I'm inferring from what you are saying that you think the ends justify the means, and I am not certain I agree with that. But I'm also not here to debate that. The land was taken from people previously there. That is theft. If you are unconcerned with theft if it meets certain qualifying criteria then that is your moral prerogative.

I certainly believe we are better off and the world is a better place because of British and Dutch colonization.

I agree this isn’t the thread for this but dismissing the Afrikaners right to own land as theft is not right.

Is there is a discrepancy in land ownership in South Africa? .... yes.

Is the solution to seize land? ..... no. Even if it was stolen, two wrongs do not make a right.

Laws only allowing businesses to hire a workforce of 8% Afrikaners is a massive problem. Also probably why there are so many Afrikaner farmers

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 05:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I certainly believe we are better off and the world is a better place because of British and Dutch colonization.  

I agree this isn’t the thread for this but dismissing the Afrikaners right to own land as theft is not right.  

Is there is a discrepancy in land ownership in South Africa? .... yes.    

Is the solution to seize land? .....  no.    Even if it was stolen, two wrongs do not make a right.  

Laws only allowing businesses to hire a workforce of  8% Afrikaners is a massive problem.   Also probably why there are so many Afrikaner farmers

Look, if the whites wanted to keep their land they should have fought harder.

They need to move if they don't like it.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2018, 05:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I agree this isn’t the thread for this but dismissing the Afrikaners right to own land as theft is not right.

Since this is the only part of your post that comes close to addressing mine, I'll reply to this line. It is still a straw man argument, however, as their right to own land is not what I am arguing is theft. I am stating explicitly, and have stated all along, that the original acquisition of the land through colonization was theft.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 02:53 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Agreed.

Also what I've noticed in these type of arguments is that is heavily skewed in one sided narratives from the perspective of the victors and characterized many times by blatant omission of facts regarding atrocities that led to the destruction of a lot of human capital. While the British colonization served the Brits very well in terms of all the wealth, natural resources looted from their colonies, and helped them advance their own interests and growth, it is debatable that there was much of a NET "advancement" for the colonies. For probably every one good thing that happened, there were an equal if not higher number of negative consequences. One of the "legacies" of British rule is all the conflict zones left behind by either incompetent or intentional misrepresenting of borders. Considering that the primary strategy of British colonization was "divide and conquer", one might wonder if that just fit the pattern to keep the areas left behind in a disunited state both for weakening those areas and to make the British colonization seem like a good thing cause "look what happens after we left."

Edit:

It is also debatable that with the ever more increasing inter-connected nature of the world, that any "advancements" would not have taken place organically without colonization, which brought with it all the loss of lives that gets lost out of the "advancement" argument. I mean who cares if a "few" lives are lost to "advance" civilization, right?

The British precisely had the correct way to colonize. You can’t just integrate with native peoples. You need to go in and set the standard at that point the natives can assimilate or fight back. It’s not easy to bring the civilized world to savages. They will get violent because they are uncivilized.

The world would have evolved much slower without the British and Dutch colonial pursuits.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 05:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since this is the only part of your post that comes close to addressing mine, I'll reply to this line. It is still a straw man argument, however, as their right to own land is not what I am arguing is theft. I am stating explicitly, and have stated all along, that the original acquisition of the land through colonization was theft.

My entire post addressed this and topic.

It’s not theft. It’s called progress. The Africans traded their land for guns and other technology. If you have a problem with colonists getting land, then go back and complain to the Zulu’s and others who gave away their land for nothing.

These people woukd have done nothing with the lands. Just as the American Indians wasted our lands.

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 05:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: My entire post addressed this and topic.  

It’s not theft.   It’s called progress.  The Africans traded their land for guns and other technology.   If you have a problem with colonists getting land, then go back and complain to the Zulu’s and others who gave away their land for nothing.  

These people woukd have done nothing with the lands.   Just as the American Indians wasted our lands.

And now the white people lost power.  Progress!

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 05:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The British precisely had the correct way to colonize. You can’t just integrate with native peoples.   You need to go in and set the standard at that point the natives can assimilate or fight back.   It’s not easy to bring the civilized world to savages.   They will get violent because they are uncivilized.  

The world would have evolved much slower without the British and Dutch colonial pursuits.

[masterpanthera_t]

(03-08-2018, 05:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The British precisely had the correct way to colonize. You can’t just integrate with native peoples.   You need to go in and set the standard at that point the natives can assimilate or fight back.   It’s not easy to bring the civilized world to savages.   They will get violent because they are uncivilized.  

This is a hilarious interpretation of history. The idea that there's a "correct" way to colonize and some outsider needs to go in to set a "standard" pretty much sums up your worldview that many of us know you to have very well.  

The idea that the world wasn't civilized prior to the British "civilly" slaughtering thousands of people is inherently contradictory to the idea of "civilization", but I'm not sure if your western-centric view of history will allow you to understand things from any other perspective. 

Quote:The world would have evolved much slower without the British and Dutch colonial pursuits.

Colonizing isn't needed for many peoples of the world to advance organically as they interact with the rest of the world. What's even more ironic, is that we are currently speaking in this thread of an issue that had direct links to British and Dutch colonization. So if nothing else, this is just another example of where British and Dutch colonizing efforts didn't evolve a society, but rather damaged it for generations to come. There are myriads of examples all across the world where some of this can be attributed to the British, but this is neither the thread for it, nor, considering whom I'm responding to, a worthwhile endeavor in terms of honestly engaged conversation.
 

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2018, 05:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: My entire post addressed this and topic.

It may have addressed some things in the thread, but not my points.

(03-08-2018, 05:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s not theft. It’s called progress. The Africans traded their land for guns and other technology. If you have a problem with colonists getting land, then go back and complain to the Zulu’s and others who gave away their land for nothing.

So are you contesting that the people indigenous to these areas all fairly traded their lands away? Do you have evidence to suggest this is the case for all of these lands in South Africa? Every history I have read on the establishment of the Cape Colony and further settlement of South Africa was that the indigenous populations were displaced most often with force, though disease also played a role as did a few purchases. However, if you have information to the contrary I would be most intrigued to read it.

(03-08-2018, 05:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: These people woukd have done nothing with the lands. Just as the American Indians wasted our lands.

"Nothing with the lands" other than living on them in their pastoral societies that existed before the Dutch came. Your statement is thick with supremacist language. I get it, you feel that what we see as "Western" culture today is the way to be. I wonder if you would prefer there to be one homogeneous world culture that is Eurocentric.

[BmorePat87]

(03-08-2018, 05:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The British precisely had the correct way to colonize. You can’t just integrate with native peoples.   You need to go in and set the standard at that point the natives can assimilate or fight back.   It’s not easy to bring the civilized world to savages.   They will get violent because they are uncivilized.  

The world would have evolved much slower without the British and Dutch colonial pursuits.

No doubt they fought back because they're violent uncivilized savages, not because of the forceful removal from their land, the intentional spreading of diseases, the butchering of their people, the rape, and the destruction of their food source.

Yea, they're the violent ones, not the Europeans.

[BmorePat87]

I'm not sure why we keep giving people second, third, fourth, and fifteenth chances when they just come here to say that anyone who isn't white is a savage and any genocide against them is justified.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2018, 06:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure why we keep giving people second, third, fourth, and fifteenth chances when they just come here to say that anyone who isn't white is a savage and any genocide against them is justified.

As long as we're not explicitly discriminatory along racial lines, implicit racism is okay. It's like our criminal justice system in this country.