South Africa seizing white owned farms


Do you think that’s true of Afrikaners too? To my (not very good anymore) ear, English South Africans do sound like other Brit colonials. But Dutch-descended Afrikaners do not. I think most of them are bilingual, are they not? All Afrikaners I have ever met have always been bilingual; English and Afrikaans.


Most I’ve know are, quite a lot speak at least a couple of other African languages also. Which makes simplistic rallying cries such as ‘sticking it to the white opressor’ quite hilarious. Ironically in going on about the Boers like that and reducing them to some collective entity where they are merely ‘white oppressors’ people play just the same games of generalization that prejudice about black Africans was based on.

1 Like

Doesn’t change the fact that the ANC is a racist, corrupt government that is running the country into the ground. They can’t even work water infrastructure properly and sell posts and land to their unqualified buddies.

1 Like

Perhaps. Although it must be remembered that the less pleasant aspects of the ANC’s policies are the direct, inevitable result of generations of brutal, degrading, murderous, violent theft of the property of black Africans, along with horrible oppression and denial of the most basic human rights. This only began to end very, very recently, practically yesterday, in the scheme of things.


Yes. I traveled around South Africa quite a bit. Johannesburg was terrifying. Everyone (well, everyone white) was armed. Capetown wasn’t nearly as bad. Pretoria was somewhere in the middle.


If I steal something and pass that someone on to my son and he passes it on to his son, do you think that invalidates the original owners moral claim on what was stolen from him? Think of it not as retribution but as restoration of stolen property.


Eminent Domain is not the correct description of what is going on. Eminent Domain describes what happens when a rightful owner has his property taken from him (usually with compensation) to be put to a different use. It does not describe taking stolen property away from a thief and giving it back to the rightful owner.


So they are returning property to the original owners?


If you can prove it was stolen, you have a case. If you think it was sold too cheap, you are just whinging.

The land is SA wasn’t stolen from the black population currently living there.


There seems to be some doubt as to the extent that this is happening. Or if it’s happening as described. And who is responsible for spreading the story.


I don’t know. I don’t think I’ve ever met one before.

From my experience and what I’ve heard, nearly everyone from South Africa and are native English speakers all sound Aussie/Kiwi. There are certain sounds or the way they speak that give them away as not being from the London-Southern England area. I just don’t know how to describe them.


I can easily tell a South African from an Australian or a New Zealander by his or her accent. I admit that I cannot tell Australians from New Zealanders, though.

And none of them sound anything like any other English speakers, certainly not from anywhere in the UK or from Ireland, and absolutely not like any Americans or Canadians.

1 Like

It’s pretty popular among White Americans of a particular political bent too.

1 Like

I have never deeply researched it. My information about the land acquisition comes chiefly from Alan Paton’s “Cry the Beloved Country”, which I consider not a terrible source. Anyway, it appears the Dutch arrived at about the same time as the Zulu did; perhaps a bit earlier. The area was then very thinly populated. The Dutch and the Zulu fought, then more or less divided up the country between them. The English came in, fought against both and took over the country, largely leaving land ownership in place.

The natives from whom the land was actually “taken” were “bushmen” hunter-gatherers who were pushed off the land by both the Dutch and the Zulu.

Later, more and more and more black tribesmen came into the area; sometimes fighting the Dutch, sometimes the English and sometimes the Zulu. Eventually, other tribes outnumbered the Zulu who were largely pushed into a province called Natal.

But it’s my understanding people can move around within the country. Zulu are not restricted to Natal. There are a couple of “independent homelands” within the country that have long been ruled by tribal rulers.

So, the parties from which the land was “taken” were the Bushmen, of whom few ever existed and of whom even fewer are left. The “original settlers” otherwise are the Boers and the Zulu.


Because it is so popular now???


Canadians are Americans! They live in the Country of Canda on the North American continent. Just as you live in the country of the United States of America on the continent of North America.


I wonder if you own anything that was stolen? Do you own property by chance? How about your parents? The second you give your property back to the native americans it was stolen from or accuse your parents of owning stolen property is when I will take you serious. Until then you are someone who thinks it is ok to give away other people stuff while protecting your own.

1 Like

So Mexicans are Americans also

1 Like

Discuss the issues and not each other.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit