Africa

The president of Africa,  Mr Jacob Zuma wants to take over White Farmers land without paying compensation !

Shades of Mugabe.

[Sky NEWS]

Anti white racism alive and well...

President Jacob Zumahas called on parliament to change South Africa’s constitution to allow the expropriation of white owned land without compensation.

Mr Zuma, 74, who made the remarks in a speech yesterday/FRI morning, said he wanted to establish a “pre-colonial land audit of land use and occupation patterns” before changing the law.

“We need to accept the reality that those who are in parliament where laws are made, particularly the black parties, should unite because we need a two-thirds majority to effect changes in the constitution,” he said.

Mr Zuma, who has lurched from one scandal to another since being elected to office in 2009, has adopted a more populist tone since his ruling African National Congress (ANC) party suffered its worst election result last August since the end of apartheid in 1994.

The party lost the economic hub of Johannesburg, the capital Pretoria and the coastal city of Port Elizabeth to the moderate Democratic Alliance party, which already held the city of Cape Town.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/jacob-zuma-calls-confiscation-white-land-without-compensation/

nicko wrote:The president of Africa,  Mr Jacob Zuma wants to take over White Farmers land without paying compensation !

Shades of Mugabe.

[Sky NEWS]

Is this land that the whites stole from the Africans?

HoratioTarr wrote:

nicko wrote:The president of Africa,  Mr Jacob Zuma wants to take over White Farmers land without paying compensation !

Shades of Mugabe.

[Sky NEWS]

Is this land that the whites stole from the Africans?

The people of today are not responsible for events of the past and should not have their farms stripped of them without any compensation. As to who owns the land, well, do any of them have deeds for the claims to the lands?
Like Nicko said, its racism in reverse
Mandella would have been appalled by such a move

Yes it is racist to the farmers, but we don't hear the lefties and handwringers complaining about that over here do we?

I do also feel that we, the Dutch, Portuguese, French to name a few, took this land from them, as happened to the Indians in America, the Amazon, and build on it.

There was a treaty to not cross into Zululand, but it was ignored by one of Queen Victoria's favourites, which caused the Zulu wars. I feel that was very unfair, as eventually these great warriors were defeated and their life changed.

magica wrote:I do also feel that we, the Dutch, Portuguese, French to name a few, took this land from them, as happened to the Indians in America, the Amazon, and build on it.

There was a treaty to not cross into Zululand, but it was ignored by one of Queen Victoria's favourites, which caused the Zulu wars. I feel that was very unfair, as eventually these great  warriors were defeated and their life changed.

I agree it was all wrong Magica and even worse they could not even share the land for the time. If they had, there would not be this problem.

However, land was purchased off the Zulu's as well. So there would little legal reality to take farms on land that had been purchased. This act if it comes to pass, will send South Africa back into Apartheid and will have undone everything Mandela set out to achieve. Peace and reconciliation for all South Africans. One that was filled with a better future for everyone. This is sadly going to create more hate and divide the nation further than ever before. They certainly should be a better land share, but to call to be able to rob people of their livelihoods and property. Where even worse without any compensation. Is simple the beginnings of Apartheid being reborn in South Africa in reverse. With now the whites on the receiving end. You only need to see how devastating this was. When this taking of farms in Zimbabwe, spread so much hatred and violence. Saw the white population of 300,000 diminish to now less than 30,000 today.

Thorin wrote:

magica wrote:I do also feel that we, the Dutch, Portuguese, French to name a few, took this land from them, as happened to the Indians in America, the Amazon, and build on it.

There was a treaty to not cross into Zululand, but it was ignored by one of Queen Victoria's favourites, which caused the Zulu wars. I feel that was very unfair, as eventually these great  warriors were defeated and their life changed.

I agree it was all wrong Magica and even worse they could not even share the land for the time. If they had, there would not be this problem.

However, land was purchased off the Zulu's as well. So there would little legal reality to take farms on land that had been purchased. This act if it comes to pass, will send South Africa back into Apartheid and will have undone everything Mandela set out to achieve. Peace and reconciliation for all South Africans. One that was filled with a better future for everyone. This is sadly going to create more hate and divide the nation further than ever before. They certainly should be a better land share, but to call to be able to rob people of their livelihoods and property. Where even worse without any compensation. Is simple the beginnings or Apartheid being reborn in South Africa. With now the whites on the receiving end. You only need to see how devastating this was. When this taking of farms in Zimbabwe, spread so much hatred and violence. Saw the white population of 300,000 diminish to now less than 30,000 today.

Yes hundreds were killed and robbed of their farms Thor, which no one can say is right. Mugabe is a murdering dictator, who even treats the blacks like slaves. Yet when he came here no one said a word, yet Trump is likened to the devil incarnate. Don't get it.

magica wrote:

Thorin wrote:



I agree it was all wrong Magica and even worse they could not even share the land for the time. If they had, there would not be this problem.

However, land was purchased off the Zulu's as well. So there would little legal reality to take farms on land that had been purchased. This act if it comes to pass, will send South Africa back into Apartheid and will have undone everything Mandela set out to achieve. Peace and reconciliation for all South Africans. One that was filled with a better future for everyone. This is sadly going to create more hate and divide the nation further than ever before. They certainly should be a better land share, but to call to be able to rob people of their livelihoods and property. Where even worse without any compensation. Is simple the beginnings or Apartheid being reborn in South Africa. With now the whites on the receiving end. You only need to see how devastating this was. When this taking of farms in Zimbabwe, spread so much hatred and violence. Saw the white population of 300,000 diminish to now less than 30,000 today.

Yes hundreds were killed and robbed of their farms Thor, which no one can say is right. Mugabe is a murdering dictator, who even treats the blacks like slaves. Yet when he came here no one said a word, yet Trump is likened to the devil incarnate. Don't get it.

Just because Mugabe was not spoken against by some of the left or called for his ban. Does not mean people cannot be genuinely concerned and appalled at views made by Trump. I don't believe in banning people from entering based on their beliefs, but we should have a platform where people can challenge their said views. That they are not given free reign, but openly challenged when here.

Of course its hypocritical if people fail to speak out and call for Mugabe to be banned from entering, I agree. Though again this is admitting something is wrong with Trump. As the failing here, was on those who never called for the same with Mugabe. To be honest people did speak out at the time against Mugabe coming here. It just never had the same reaction and why I agree its wrong and should hold the same response from people.

Yes I agree Thor. I would like to see more governments in the world speak out about Saudi Arabia. They still have stoning, and execute and lash many people for simple things. Of course they got money so no government will fall out with them.

magica wrote:Yes I agree Thor. I would like to see more governments in the world speak out about Saudi Arabia. They still have  stoning, and execute and lash many people for simple things. Of course they got money so no government will fall out with them.

I agree its wrong that Governments do not speak out openly against the rulers and policies of countries like Saudi.
Its difficult to fall out. As to not do business, then effects the entire populace and they suffer, which is prejudice and discrimination. They need to target those individuals who rule by placing sanctions on them as individuals. Mind you I was really shocked to read recently. That the King of Saudi, believes Islam needs to reform and moderate. He needs to then lead by example and drop religious law for secularism and equality.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/saudi-king-calls-for-more-moderate-islam/

Lets hope he does moderate Islam, but I am clearly not convinced by his words.
Actions speak louder than words.



Have a lovely day

Catch you later

I agree, Thor.

Enjoyed our debate x

magica wrote:I agree, Thor.

Enjoyed our debate x

So did I Magica

All the best

x

part of the issue is that the guilty parties REFUSE to pay reparations for the crimes of the past and the unfair advantages it has given their descendants of the European Criminals. Ironically only the descendants of the convicts have been willing to set up a system of reparations..
The True Criminals are still in Europe and the UK. Which are also hypocrites about Africans moving to Europe and UK for prosperity, which is exactly what the white farmers in Africa's ancestors had done. Thus it allows these populous racist political movements to exist. Which again the West allows when it's own do it and calls it free speech.

the clear evidence of this is comparing Trump (leader of the western empire) to Mugabe and suggesting an equal correlation. Trump is a product of the western attitude and so it is He that represents us to the other groups and our brand of secularism and he does it in a manner that allows any other group to point out that we are hypocrites.

Saudi Arabia is different but not nessarily backwards, yes it can move further towards secularism but it's secularism will never look like Anglo secularism since Anglo secularism still have roots in Anglo colonialization and moralizing that..... Basically Who is the UK to say it is better? in the past 300 years it is still one of the biggest committer's of international crime. which it no only denies but often suggests it is 'good' for. Any nation out side of Europe has the right to tell the UK to STFU about any sort of 'political morals' since it has so little. all it did was stop stealing and never actually paid any sort of compensation for what it stole. there is no moral high ground in merely stopping being evil.

.
        White farmers and mine owners in Africa are both on shaky ground...

Not only did their ancestors steal the land, but they only paid the 'black' workers on those farms and in those mines one sixth of the wages that they paid the equivalent 'white' workers..

And a Dutch-based narrowly-owned multinational company (de Beers) still controls the lions' share of the diamond trade across Europe and Africa.


Britain, Holland, Germany, France, et al, refuse to recognise their past crimes for one simple reason --  it would cost £€$ tens, perhaps hundreds of billions $£€ in compensation.  Something their economies really couldn't handle at the moment --  too much of that stolen wealth ended up in too few pockets, and much of that has been frittered away, over the past 400 years..        


Maybe the more extreme, unfair and draconian measures being suggested at this time --  compulsory land acquisitions without compensation --  are being used as leverage to get all parties back to the bargaining table.

Aiming for a better outcome, with some compensation to both sides.  And maybe a more genuine and equitable treaty ?

If S.A. went down the same path as Mugabe's Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, that wouldn't be too good for their international standing, and wouldn't be good for their economy over the long term..  Just look how far backwards Zimbabwe has fallen over the last 30-odd years...          

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:.
        White farmers and mine owners in Africa are both on shaky ground...

Not only did their ancestors steal the land, but they only paid the 'black' workers on those farms and in those mines one sixth of the wages that they paid the equivalent 'white' workers..

And a Dutch-based narrowly-owned multinational company (de Beers) still controls the lions' share of the diamond trade across Europe and Africa.


Britain, Holland, Germany, France, et al, refuse to recognise their past crimes for one simple reason --  it would cost £€$ tens, perhaps hundreds of billions $£€ in compensation.  Something their economies really couldn't handle at the moment --  too much of that stolen wealth ended up in too few pockets, and much of that has been frittered away, over the past 400 years..        


Maybe the more extreme, unfair and draconian measures being suggested at this time --  compulsory land acquisitions without compensation --  are being used as leverage to get all parties back to the bargaining table.

Aiming for a better outcome, with some compensation to both sides.  And maybe a more genuine and equitable treaty ?

If S.A. went down the same path as Mugabe's Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, that wouldn't be too good for their international standing, and wouldn't be good for their economy over the long term..  Just look how far backwards Zimbabwe has fallen over the last 30-odd years...          

1) Steal you say and not purchase land from the Zulu's?

The Zulu's are one African tribe,  Thorin...

How many tribes/"first nations" shared that territory that is now South Africa ?

What proportion of today's S.A. was Zulu lands ?
What proportion of those Zulu lands was paid for ?
How fair and reasonable were those payments ?
What proportion of the Zulu population benefiited from those payments ?

Nothing's always necessarily that simple, is it...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Zulu's are one African tribe,  Thorin...

How many tribes/"first nations" shared that territory that is now South Africa ?

What proportion of today's S.A. was Zulu lands ?
What proportion of those Zulu lands was paid for ?
How fair and reasonable were those payments ?
What proportion of the Zulu population benefiited from those payments ?

Nothing's always necessarily that simple, is it...

They were the ruling tribe Wolf and again sold vast tracts of land to the Boers.
That means many of the farms will be legally owned.
Moot points about what you class as fair, are irrelevant.
A purchase is a purchase and is binding in law.

Only binding in European laws
No different than this forced acquisition would be Binding in South African law today. which makes it fine by the same standards. A purchase is not a purchase, when it is under unjust system or when deception is involved.

Like a typical European you only think the Law should over ride justice when Europeans are the ones benefiting, but scream unfair when a black does it back to a white in traditionally black lands, I mean Europe could take back these Europeans, tommy seems to think it is great idea for Africans to deal with Africans.


Sure it is bad for the current white farmers just like it was bad for the blacks that they 'acquired' the land from originally. Such is the way of the world. because it's not a game of pass the parcel where you get to stop the music when your holding it and expect it to not start again.
Europe could have repaid stuff earlier and we wouldn't have this issue today. but instead it's convinced it's self that earned what it stole.

veya_victaous wrote:Only binding in European laws    

Really?

Please post up evidence for your incorrect claim on this?

I got a red for posting the truth, [shakes head]

Who is the land going to be given to? Some random black people? Why would they be more entitled to it than the people who already own it?

It's strange to see lefties approving of a system where a minority is deprived of their livelihood and their homes with no compensation. I thought they disapproved of that kind of thing.

Strange one-word title.  So Africa is just one country? And the OP implies it has just one overall leader?
I could've sworn that my Geography teacher said there were over 50 countries in it lol.

Jules wrote:Strange one-word title.  So Africa is just one country? And the OP implies it has just one overall leader?
I could've sworn that my Geography teacher said there were over 50 countries in it lol.

Misdirection to the points at hand.

It might well be, Thorin, but the OP's premise is one of gross ignorance and by saying nothing, it's like you're going along with it. A massive continent with 50+ countries should not really be dismissed as a homogenous land mass with just one ruler.

Jules wrote:It might well be, Thorin, but the OP's premise is one of gross ignorance and by saying nothing, it's like you're going along with it.

How is it gross ignorance?

Is the problem, happening in the African Continent?

The answer is yes and its already happened in another African country this, called Zimbabwe.

So its you really poorly trying to deflect away from the topic at hand.

So, I think its far more ignorant to deliberately misdirect a debate, when its blatantly obvious by the proceeding points, what this is about.

The 50 + countries have very different climates, origins, histories and allegiances. If you think differently we just have to quietly agree to differ.

Better to let threads flow and let people decide for themselves what they want to contribute, rather than you trying to micro-manage everything in sight.

Jules wrote:The 50 + countries have very different climates, origins, histories and allegiances. If you think differently we just have to quietly agree to differ.

Better to let threads flow and let people decide for themselves what they want to contribute, rather than you trying to micro-manage everything in sight.

Again is this in Africa?

The answer is yes, all you are doing is avoiding the topic to deliberate start on the poster who started the topic.

Why can you not comment on the reality of South Africa creeping back into a racial war, because the very leader is going against Mandela. By wanting to rob whites of their farms without any compensation

Speaking of Zimbabwe, does anyone remember the story about the British doctor who was given a farm in Zimbabwe which was being run by white people?

His practice got closed down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/zimbabwean-doctor-who-forced-a-family-of-white-farmers-off-their/

Jules wrote:The 50 + countries have very different climates, origins, histories and allegiances. If you think differently we just have to quietly agree to differ.

Better to let threads flow and let people decide for themselves what they want to contribute, rather than you trying to micro-manage everything in sight.

Not long ago, you told people what they should be discussing in a particular thread.

Now that you know what this thread is about, perhaps you could discuss the topic.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules wrote:The 50 + countries have very different climates, origins, histories and allegiances. If you think differently we just have to quietly agree to differ.

Better to let threads flow and let people decide for themselves what they want to contribute, rather than you trying to micro-manage everything in sight.

Not long ago, you told people what they should be discussing in a particular thread.

Now that you know what this thread is about, perhaps you could discuss the topic.

It was the homeopathy thread. I made a general suggestion. I did not go on and on about it and I did not direct it at any one person. It hardly counts as a habit. Now roll your eyes some more.

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not long ago, you told people what they should be discussing in a particular thread.

Now that you know what this thread is about, perhaps you could discuss the topic.

It was the homeopathy thread. I made a general suggestion. I did not go on and on about it and I did not direct it at any one person. It hardly counts as a habit.  Now roll your eyes some more.

I'm not going on about it either, I said it once. You're the one arguing about it.

veya_victaous wrote:Only binding in European laws    
No different than this forced acquisition would be Binding in South African law today. which makes it fine by the same standards. A purchase is not a purchase, when it is under unjust system or when deception is involved.

Like a typical European you only think the Law should over ride justice when Europeans are the ones benefiting, but scream unfair when a black does it back to a white in traditionally black lands, I mean Europe could take back these Europeans, tommy seems to think it is  great idea for Africans to deal with Africans.


Sure it is bad for the current white farmers just like it was bad for the blacks that they 'acquired' the land from originally. Such is the way of the world. because it's not a game of pass the parcel where you get to stop the music when your holding it and expect it to not start again.
Europe could have repaid stuff earlier and we wouldn't have this issue today. but instead it's convinced it's self that earned what it stole.

Well said, Veya. I read your post before I entered this thread. Having made your point so eloquently, I could think of nowt more to add.
Night! x

The trouble is that some people are not seeing these white people as individuals, and they're not seeing the black people as individuals either. They see it as "white people" stole the land, so "black people" will steal it back, without any consideration as to which individuals should actually own it.

If that's not divisive and encouraging segregation, I don't know what is.

Jules wrote:Strange one-word title.  So Africa is just one country? And the OP implies it has just one overall leader?
I could've sworn that my Geography teacher said there were over 50 countries in it lol.

I was going to comment on Nicko's racist ignorance too.
and they wonder why South Africa is telling the world that they are IGNORING European's laws and taking the farms away.

@Thorin
THE OP
read it the Laws of Europe are NOT BINDING any more, end of story
why should anyone continue to impose injustice just because Europe decided it was legal a century or 3 ago.
This is the SAME bullshit we had to go though to return 'crown land' to the Aboriginals.
Europeans need to FUCK OFF look at your own Problems! You got Fuck loads and they are caused by European Arrogance not immigrants.

Raggamuffin wrote:The trouble is that some people are not seeing these white people as individuals, and they're not seeing the black people as individuals either. They see it as "white people" stole the land, so "black people" will steal it back, without any consideration as to which individuals should actually own it.

If that's not divisive and encouraging segregation, I don't know what is.

And all could be solved if Europe paid REPARATIONS
but it's failure to do so has left bad blood and enmity
and Now the South Africans have elected the Equivalent of a Donald Trump or 'Britain First' ...

at least their animosity has some REAL basis, not just ignorance and denial of history like Europeans are DOING RIGHT NOW in backwaters like the UK

Where is the Love for this action taking, straight talking government that takes nonsense approach to solving issues and Ignores Political Correctness ????
We have heard HOW you love it when Trump does it?

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Only binding in European laws    

Really?

Please post up evidence for your incorrect claim on this?

the OP
how hard is it to see that it DOES NOT APPLY IN SOUTH AFRICA !!!!!

only Binding in European Eyes
And not binding at all in reality, because the rest of the world doesn't have to Pussy foot around the Ultra violent war mongering uncivil Barbarians anymore!!

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:It might well be, Thorin, but the OP's premise is one of gross ignorance and by saying nothing, it's like you're going along with it.

How is it gross ignorance?

Is the problem, happening in the African Continent?

The answer is yes and its already happened in another African country this, called Zimbabwe.

So its you really poorly trying to deflect away from the topic at hand.

So, I think its far more ignorant to deliberately misdirect a debate, when its blatantly obvious by the proceeding points, what this is about.

Not only is it gross ignorance on nicko's part -- as you know quite well, Thorin...

But nicko continually compounds his gross ignorance across several of his recent threads, by only returning to distract from his own themes while attacking his opponents..

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

Please post up evidence for your incorrect claim on this?

the OP
how hard is it to see that it DOES NOT APPLY IN SOUTH AFRICA !!!!!

only Binding in European Eyes
And not binding at all in reality, because the rest of the world doesn't have to Pussy foot around the Ultra violent war mongering uncivil Barbarians anymore!!

Again you keep making an unfounded claim

Post up your evidence that the sale of land is not binding?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How is it gross ignorance?

Is the problem, happening in the African Continent?

The answer is yes and its already happened in another African country this, called Zimbabwe.

So its you really poorly trying to deflect away from the topic at hand.

So, I think its far more ignorant to deliberately misdirect a debate, when its blatantly obvious by the proceeding points, what this is about.

Not only is it gross ignorance on nicko's part --  as you know quite well,  Thorin...

But nicko continually compounds his gross ignorance across several of his recent threads, by only returning to distract from his own themes while attacking his opponents..

Its not gross ignorance and you are doing the same, looking to misdirect the topic onto a poster and not the points.

Lets get this straight, the only "attacking" I do on this Forum is against the most blatant insulting poster on the site, namely, Wolfie.
This "man" continually attacks the same posters with insults and put downs every day,and has the bare faced cheek to complain when some one takes offence at him. I have never seen such an hypocrite as this poster !

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The trouble is that some people are not seeing these white people as individuals, and they're not seeing the black people as individuals either. They see it as "white people" stole the land, so "black people" will steal it back, without any consideration as to which individuals should actually own it.

If that's not divisive and encouraging segregation, I don't know what is.

And all could be solved if Europe paid REPARATIONS
but it's failure to do so has left bad blood and enmity
and Now the South Africans have elected the Equivalent of a Donald Trump or 'Britain First' ...

at least their animosity has some REAL basis, not just ignorance and denial of history like Europeans are DOING RIGHT NOW in backwaters like the UK        

Where is the Love for this action taking, straight talking government that takes nonsense approach to solving issues and Ignores Political Correctness ????
We have heard HOW you love it when Trump does it?

It's not Europe's problem, and I don't think S Africa should be rewarded for having such a racist regime. They've had tons of money given to them in foreign aid anyway. I think the UK cut aid to them though - not sure about that.

"Backwaters like the UK" Your racism is showing again,

If the land was bought, it wasn't stolen was it? That seems obvious to me.

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Not only is it gross ignorance on nicko's part --  as you know quite well,  Thorin...

But nicko continually compounds his gross ignorance across several of his recent threads, by only returning to distract from his own themes while attacking his opponents..

Its not gross ignorance and you are doing the same, looking to misdirect the topic onto a poster and not the points.

Nicko's ignorance is clear and indefensible, as is Ragg's'...



Re: the more intelligent discussions :

Contracts signed under duress can be contested in court...
Courts in Holland, Germany or the UK do not take precedence over South Africa..
Despite what many Euro-centric types may think.

If the S.A. government feels that Europe is dicking them around, what's to stop it nationalising all those farms and mines that gained land title under suspicious, criminal or fraudulent circumstances  ?

And then worry about compensation further down the track..
Then use the historical value of that land (as paid to the Zulus..) --  adjusted for inflation of course -- and start from there;  rather than current "improved" values..  And then lose another 30% to the lawyers...        

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its not gross ignorance and you are doing the same, looking to misdirect the topic onto a poster and not the points.

Nicko's ignorance is clear and indefensible, as is Ragg's'...



Re: the more intelligent discussions :

Contracts signed under duress can be contested in court...
Courts in Holland, Germany or the UK do not take precedence over South Africa..
Despite what many Euro-centric types may think.

If the S.A. government feels that Europe is dicking them around, what's to stop it nationalising all those farms and mines that gained land title under suspicious, criminal or fraudulent circumstances  ?

And then worry about compensation further down the track..
Then use the historical value of that land (as paid to the Zulus..) --  adjusted for inflation of course -- and start from there;  rather than current "improved" values..  And then lose another 30% to the lawyers...        

I don't why you're banging on about Europe and European courts. This is about S. Africa, and your ignorance is merely motivated by your hatred of Europe, particularly the UK.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its not gross ignorance and you are doing the same, looking to misdirect the topic onto a poster and not the points.

Nicko's ignorance is clear and indefensible, as is Ragg's'...



Re: the more intelligent discussions :

Contracts signed under duress can be contested in court...
Courts in Holland, Germany or the UK do not take precedence over South Africa..
Despite what many Euro-centric types may think.

If the S.A. government feels that Europe is dicking them around, what's to stop it nationalising all those farms and mines that gained land title under suspicious, criminal or fraudulent circumstances  ?

And then worry about compensation further down the track..
Then use the historical value of that land (as paid to the Zulus..) --  adjusted for inflation of course -- and start from there;  rather than current "improved" values..  And then lose another 30% to the lawyers...        

Again you are talking gibberish with no comprehension of the history of South Africa.
You seem to be under the delusion, it was under duress.

LEGAL SALE/PURCHASE
The sale of said land on July 25, 1846 were between King Masous (representative of the Zulu) as seller; and Commandant SJZR Burg (representative of the Dutch South African nation) as buyer and a copy of the agreement is filed in the Government Archives under file R117/46.
The original agreement is in Dutch and apart from King Masous, the following witnesses signed for the Zulu nation: Samkoela (chieftain), Makienkaan (chieftain), Mandalea (chieftain). As witnesses for the Dutch South African nation it was signed by WF Joubert, JC Steyn, JM de Beer (field cornets), L de Jager, J Lotter, H Breytenbach and PJ Coetzer.

From Ohrigstad to the north till the Olifantsrivier, then downwards to the Delagoa Bay line; to the south till the Crocodile River; to the west to Elandspruit till the 26 degrees line; east till where the Crocodile River joins the Komati River.


The sale was conducted at Kjakas Kraal, Umkumaas.

It states: (in Dutch) …ten dienste van de Hollandsche Zuid Afrikaansche Natie die thans binnen dat grond zyn en noch in vervolg door de wettige gezag onder hun ter inwooning zal gepermitteerd worden…

In English it states that the land is sold to those members of the Dutch South African nation and “those who in future will be permitted by their legal guardianship (not Government)…


PAYMENT FOR THE LAND
The receipt for the payment of the said land is filed in the Government Archives in 1846 and the copy was certified by State Secretary NJR Swart.

The receipt for the last payment in cattle was received in January 1856 and also included the Deed of Sale of July 21, 1855 to conclude the sale.

The receipt was issued by Maloenke (Zulu representative) at Tabankolea on February 5, 1860 and signed as witnesses by chieftains Sonagla, Jogo, Santlant, Omglagen, Malayde, Kaompeunis and Kampa. Commandant WF Joubert signed for the Dutch South African nation with FJ Joubert and H Joubert as witnesses.

The only ignorance I am seeing is from yourself on this, using this as an excuse to attack a poster.

Now considering the the Anglo-Zulu war was not fought until 1879, how do you claim it was under duress, when the Zulu's was an independent Kingdom?
Who also do you think sold guns to the Zulu's?

This is not about European courts, but international law on treaties.
This is binding in international law, not your made up leftist mythical law.

Yes I hate ignorance from the left, when they post up regressive revisionist history

Now I have asked both you and Veya to post up evidence for your claims

They think they know the history of S.A, In fact they know fuck all,
just lefty bullshit.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules wrote:

It was the homeopathy thread. I made a general suggestion. I did not go on and on about it and I did not direct it at any one person. It hardly counts as a habit.  Now roll your eyes some more.

I'm not going on about it either, I said it once. You're the one arguing about it.

Correct. And it was not YOU that I was referring to, when I said that. It's not all about you, Ragga. I did reply sharply, sorry about that.

"Arguing"?? How so? All I've done is reply to a couple of Thorin's posts plus one of yours, all of them addressed directly to me.  Yes, both of you 'approached' me, not the other way round, and I simply replied to both of you. Replying isn't the same as arguing. Surely it would have been rude to ignore people who were speaking to me.