Shaun KingVerified account

A process of a country giving back land that was originally stolen by violence and theft in the first place is NOT "institutional racism." It was the Xhosa and Zulu of South African that endured institutional racism for 100+ years. So what are you talking about?

That violence is called war. It happens regularly. They were inferior at war, the end.

Might doesn’t make right. That said I don’t see how South Africa can continue as a successful democratic state if the only requirement for land reallocation is race. Also having land alone isn’t going to improve individual lives of black South Africans

Land is a start. It is a return of ownership and a form of wealth from whom it was originally stolen.

It’s the quick short term solution that will not bring justice or long term political stability. It’s not worked out elsewhere in Africa. There needs to other criteria in addition to race when giving land from white SAf to BlackSAf because justice needs to be personalized.

So you are saying that the white man can but we can’t? Hmmm

I’m not saying that at all.

When the Dutch arrived in the Cape no one inhabited the land. The British bought land from the Zulu King. Other whites bought land from other African kings, many of those deeds are in museums. So much of the land wasn’t stolen at all.

If no one lived there, for whom did the Zulu King reign?

We are talking about two different areas of South Africa. Zulu land isn’t even close to the Cape region where the Dutch first arrived and found uninhabited land. The Zulus made deals with the Brits many years later after Bantu migration.

Then your a hypocritical fool.

If all things were fair, 10% would own 10% of the land. Correcting an injustice isn’t hypocrisy

They stole 93% of the farmland at the height of Apartheid. That they only resolved 18% back to the indigenous people in 25 years is exactly why the government has stepped in at this time. Reparations should have been done long ago.