South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, you're clearly disillusioned with the whole system—and I get it. When you say politics is just "legislated will-imposition," you're not wrong in the sense that power often masks itself in procedure. But your cynicism, while understandable, doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to ask: what should be done, if anything, when historical theft defines the present?

Power indeed masks itself in procedure. And the procedure of question-asking (under the guise of responsibility) is all part of the same idiotic process.

People will people and will self-organize.

You’ve now repeated that the Khoisan were the original inhabitants and that current policies ignore them. I agree, and that’s a serious failure. But raising that fact doesn’t negate all forms of restitution—it just demands better ones. If we don’t like the current approach, let’s demand one that honors history more accurately, not retreat into fatalism or mock anyone attempting redress as “thieves stealing stolen land.”

So how do you propose solving the bootstrapping problem of the entire notion of "land ownership"? Who gets to claim ownership to Earth in general; and subsections thereof?

How long's the original title deed valid for?

You asked rhetorically, “Is stealing stolen land wrong?” Maybe the better question is: what does justice look like when we inherit a landscape built entirely on injustice? If politics is broken and tribalism is still driving policy, then the answer isn’t to scoff and disengage—it’s to insist that truth and fairness be central in whatever comes next.

So I’ll ask again—not as posturing, but as a moral question: If restitution is so far mishandled, what would a just alternative look like? Or do you believe the injustice should simply be allowed to calcify because every attempt to address it is flawed?

Your entire song&dance is built upon social constructions that have no basis whatsoever other than tradition.

Justice and injustice? Dumb socialized ape. Doing what territorial animals do is just the way life goes.

There's no justice - only justification.

[BigMike]

What I questioned was Skepdick’s apparent disapproval of ministers stating—openly and unashamedly—that land taken by force might be subject to legal redress. That’s not the same as advocating a free-for-all or denying anyone’s rights.

It would seem to me that land seizures, under any legal paradigm, must be condemned and not merely “disapproved”. SA did turn the state over to democratic control by assenting to allow elections. That required remarkable political will and at least a good amount of good faith.

The argument that land settled by Afrikaners 400 years ago is now to be regarded as stolen, and repossessed for that reason, is plainly illegal and certainly unconstitutional. That argument would correspond to a US government official arguing for someone with native blood is justified in seizing parts of Manhattan. It is pretty absurd.

So in a sense you propose that those farmers deserve to have their lands taken away. And lack the right to defend their tenancy.

The issue (as I am beginning to understand it) is not that white farmers have lands, but rather that the government lacks the capability or the will to turn over land it owns to black farmers (by granting titles) who do not have capital and (enough) experience to become successful.

That is what I took away from the video I posted in any case.

Repossessing land owned by Whites will do nothing for black farmers trying to get started.

Alexis, thanks for laying that out clearly—there’s a lot in your post that deserves serious engagement.

First, let’s not conflate historical acknowledgment with mob rule. I haven’t argued that anyone “deserves” to have land forcibly taken, nor that tenancy should be stripped without legal process. What I did question was the moral outrage directed not at the original theft, but at the very suggestion—by ministers—that redress might be necessary. That, to me, is the real double standard.

You say land seizures "must be condemned under any legal paradigm"—but that's an idealistic stance that ignores history. The original colonial land seizures weren’t legal either—not under indigenous law, not under any system that respected human dignity. So to claim that now, in the present, all that matters is legality under current constitutions, while refusing to even reckon with the legacy of stolen land, feels like selective moralism. You want the benefits of constitutional democracy, but none of its obligations to address historical injustice.

Your U.S. comparison (Native Americans repossessing Manhattan) is emotionally compelling but legally off-base. The U.S. has in fact paid settlements to tribes in some cases, returned land in others, and continues to face lawsuits under the very same logic—acknowledging that past crimes don’t become legitimate just because time passed.

And on your last point—I agree with you! The government does own land, and its failure to empower new black farmers with capital, training, and titles is a massive policy failure. But we can walk and chew gum here: both realities can be true at once. The failure to support black farmers and the legacy of colonial land theft are legitimate problems—and dismissing one because the other exists doesn't get us closer to justice or stability.

If anything, the discussion needs to evolve past “who owns what” and into how we build a fair future from a broken past. Not just symbolically, but with material, structural solutions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But let’s not pretend the core issue—the injustice of colonial land theft—evaporates because the current solutions are flawed or politically manipulated.

It seems that characterizing Afrikaner settlement in South Africa as “colonialism” is itself too simplistic. The area was settled at about the same time as the first English and Dutch outposts in America. And those people did not have a colonial relationship to the lands they settled, but a bona fide relationship. The Spaniards in many of their enterprises fit the colonial model better: they came to remove resources and to earn fortunes. The South Africans are more similar to the Americans insofar as they sought to build a world.

There is no people on the planet (excepting the Aboriginals of Australia and very early American Indians — both entered uninhabited lands) who did not gain their lands without warfare (conquest).

The argument that undermines possession on the basis of “theft” seems pretty absurd. But I recognize it is common.

[Skepdick]

First, let’s not conflate historical acknowledgment with mob rule. I haven’t argued that anyone “deserves” to have land forcibly taken, nor that tenancy should be stripped without legal process.

The legal process amounts to nothing other than the minister exercising their legal mandate to disposes you of the land you own.

By signing a document.

In effect there is no legal process because as a land owner - you have no legal recourse.

What I did question was the moral outrage directed not at the original theft, but at the very suggestion—by ministers—that redress might be necessary. That, to me, is the real double standard.

You are just angling for an attack vector like the idiot-philosopher that you are.

The expropriation without compensation bill says nothing about expropriating previously stolen land.
The state doesn't even have to prove previous owhership; or a land claim by a previous owner.

They simply take it. Because.. the law.

[BigMike]

Skepdick, you're clearly disillusioned with the whole system—and I get it. When you say politics is just "legislated will-imposition," you're not wrong in the sense that power often masks itself in procedure. But your cynicism, while understandable, doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to ask: what should be done, if anything, when historical theft defines the present?

Power indeed masks itself in procedure. And the procedure of question-asking (under the guise of responsibility) is all part of the same idiotic process.

People will people and will self-organize.

You’ve now repeated that the Khoisan were the original inhabitants and that current policies ignore them. I agree, and that’s a serious failure. But raising that fact doesn’t negate all forms of restitution—it just demands better ones. If we don’t like the current approach, let’s demand one that honors history more accurately, not retreat into fatalism or mock anyone attempting redress as “thieves stealing stolen land.”

So how do you propose solving the bootstrapping problem of the entire notion of "land ownership"? Who gets to claim ownership to Earth in general; and subsections thereof?

How long's the original title deed valid for?

You asked rhetorically, “Is stealing stolen land wrong?” Maybe the better question is: what does justice look like when we inherit a landscape built entirely on injustice? If politics is broken and tribalism is still driving policy, then the answer isn’t to scoff and disengage—it’s to insist that truth and fairness be central in whatever comes next.

So I’ll ask again—not as posturing, but as a moral question: If restitution is so far mishandled, what would a just alternative look like? Or do you believe the injustice should simply be allowed to calcify because every attempt to address it is flawed?

Your entire song&dance is built upon social constructions that have no basis whatsoever other than tradition.

Justice and injustice? Dumb socialized ape. Doing what territorial animals do is just the way life goes.

There's no justice - only justification.

Skepdick, thanks for the honesty. You’re laying your cards on the table: you reject the foundational concepts of justice, ownership, and political legitimacy as mere social fictions—useful perhaps for apes in suits, but not inherently meaningful.

Fine. Let’s take that seriously.

If we drop the whole idea of “justice” as a guiding principle and view humans simply as territorial animals acting out evolved behaviors—then what’s your actual proposal? Because from where I sit, even if all morality and law are just narratives, some narratives work better than others. Some reduce violence. Some create stability. Some even allow for long-term planning and cooperation.

So if you’re saying: “It’s all power games and justification—so why pretend otherwise?” then sure, that's one take. But in that case, people pushing for land reform are also just playing the evolutionary game. They’re claiming territory the same way it's always been claimed—only now using legalese and political leverage instead of rifles and wagons. Why are they any less legitimate than the previous takers?

You can’t scoff at justice and demand that we reject redress as “unjust.” Pick one. Either you accept that it's all just animals maneuvering—and then everyone’s moves are fair game—or you admit that some frameworks, however constructed, are worth choosing because they lead to a more peaceful, functional society.

If it’s all justification, then maybe the better question is: which justifications lead to the least suffering and most stability? Because we still have to live here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You say land seizures "must be condemned under any legal paradigm"—but that's an idealistic stance that ignores history. The original colonial land seizures weren’t legal either—not under indigenous law, not under any system that respected human dignity. So to claim that now, in the present, all that matters is legality under current constitutions, while refusing to even reckon with the legacy of stolen land, feels like selective moralism. You want the benefits of constitutional democracy, but none of its obligations to address historical injustice.

My relationship to the “issue” (and I am very distant from it obviously) is different: I sense, I see, that members of the productive class (my guess is they are mostly white, or significantly culturally White-European) have the skill and the will to make of present South Africa a functional and wealthy country.

And they are certainly willing to work with a majority population who lack that skill and that culturally-derived orientation. But they can’t get enough political power to enforce their will and vision and to turn things around.

And over the last 30 years they have been powerless as the incompetent class — largely composed of black South Africans — rule the country irresponsibly, as in numerous African (post-colonial) nations.

My impression is that just now, and with the attention given to SA by the US administration (and the disapproval cast at incompetent leadership) that the “competent class” comes out of the woodwork and out of mute silence.

They say South Africa can be turned around in 10 years or so. If they can be given the power.

[BigMike]

But let’s not pretend the core issue—the injustice of colonial land theft—evaporates because the current solutions are flawed or politically manipulated.

It seems that characterizing Afrikaner settlement in South Africa as “colonialism” is itself too simplistic. The area was settled at about the same time as the first English and Dutch outposts in America. And those people did not have a colonial relationship to the lands they settled, but a bona fide relationship. The Spaniards in many of their enterprises fit the colonial model better: they came to remove resources and to earn fortunes. The South Africans are more similar to the Americans insofar as they sought to build a world.

There is no people on the planet (excepting the Aboriginals of Australia and very early American Indians — both entered uninhabited lands) who did not gain their lands without warfare (conquest).

The argument that undermines possession on the basis of “theft” seems pretty absurd. But I recognize it is common.

Alexis, you're right to push for nuance—history deserves it. But let's not let that nuance become a smokescreen for evading the moral and material consequences of the past.

You're suggesting that Afrikaner settlement wasn’t “colonialism” in the classic extractive sense, but something more akin to settler nation-building—like early Americans. Fine. Let’s grant that distinction for the sake of argument. But it doesn't erase the fact that land was still acquired through violence, coercion, and displacement of indigenous populations. Whether settlers came to extract or to “build a world” is morally secondary if the world they built depended on removing others from theirs.

And yes, it's true—most peoples on Earth have violent pasts tied to territory. But there's a crucial difference between acknowledging the universality of conquest and endorsing the outcomes as permanently justified. Saying “everyone did it” doesn’t absolve us from questioning whether the consequences of those actions should still define who owns what today.

You say that arguing possession is illegitimate because it was stolen is “absurd.” I say it’s not absurd—it’s uncomfortable. Especially for those who inherited the fruits of conquest and now face calls for redress. Legal ownership isn’t the only axis of legitimacy—there’s also historical responsibility, social stability, and moral coherence. If we never question foundational injustices just because they’re old, then what principles are we actually willing to stand on?

So I’m not arguing for blanket dispossession or romanticized reversals of history. I’m arguing that refusing to even acknowledge the injustice of foundational land grabs—whether done by colonizers, settlers, or empire builders—locks us into defending systems that were never fair to begin with. And that’s a problem we can’t reason away with historical whataboutism.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, thanks for the honesty. You’re laying your cards on the table: you reject the foundational concepts of justice, ownership, and political legitimacy as mere social fictions—useful perhaps for apes in suits, but not inherently meaningful.

Hey, I am just following your lead! Wasn't the last time the land was re-appropriated "just" and "politically legitimate"? It was certainly done legally. Or in any case - no less legally than it's going to be done this time around.

Fine. Let’s take that seriously.

If we drop the whole idea of “justice” as a guiding principle and view humans simply as territorial animals acting out evolved behaviors—then what’s your actual proposal?

I don't have one. Because I can make all arguments. In any either direction.

Even playing the "How to organize society?" game is a game of pretending that organizing society is actually possible.

Me? I'm going to game the system as best as I can. Did you know that "race" is a self-elected field in the social registers? I identify as black...

Because from where I sit, even if all morality and law are just narratives, some narratives work better than others. Some reduce violence. Some create stability. Some even allow for long-term planning and cooperation.

Well isn't that the very purpose of such narratives? Social control. For that narrative to have any such social effect, you have to already be in control; of course.

So if you’re saying: “It’s all power games and justification—so why pretend otherwise?” then sure, that's one take. But in that case, people pushing for land reform are also just playing the evolutionary game. They’re claiming territory the same way it's always been claimed—only now using legalese and political leverage instead of rifles and wagons. Why are they any less legitimate than the previous takers?

As legitimized by which legitimizing authority?

You can’t scoff at justice and demand that we reject redress as “unjust.” Pick one. Either you accept that it's all just animals maneuvering—and then everyone’s moves are fair game—or you admit that some frameworks, however constructed, are worth choosing because they lead to a more peaceful, functional society.

OK... Any framework that benefits me (even those that benefit me at your expense) are worth choosing.

Or in the case where I particularly dislike you and I harbor resentment against you then those that benefit me at your expense are worth choosing.

If it’s all justification, then maybe the better question is: which justifications lead to the least suffering and most stability? Because we still have to live here.

Well, if you ask the land owners - take their land and you'll see fucking instability. A civil war perhaps.

Or so they say.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But it doesn't erase the fact that land was still acquired through violence, coercion, and displacement of indigenous populations. Whether settlers came to extract or to “build a world” is morally secondary if the world they built depended on removing others from theirs.

But there is some nuance, at least in my researches I found this to be the case. The lands in large areas of southern Africa were sparsely, and sometimes irregularly populated. And not only white settlers but black settlers from other regions were moving in.

I recognize the argument you are working, but I do not think it is one that in truth will be a very productive one for present day South Africa.

South Africa is now a complex multi-racial and multi-cultural State with (I am told by things I read) enormous potential. That potential cannot it seems to me be taken advantage of through retributions politics.

[BigMike]

You say land seizures "must be condemned under any legal paradigm"—but that's an idealistic stance that ignores history. The original colonial land seizures weren’t legal either—not under indigenous law, not under any system that respected human dignity. So to claim that now, in the present, all that matters is legality under current constitutions, while refusing to even reckon with the legacy of stolen land, feels like selective moralism. You want the benefits of constitutional democracy, but none of its obligations to address historical injustice.

My relationship to the “issue” (and I am very distant from it obviously) is different: I sense, I see, that members of the productive class (my guess is they are mostly white, or significantly culturally White-European) have the skill and the will to make of present South Africa a functional and wealthy country.

And they are certainly willing to work with a majority population who lack that skill and that culturally-derived orientation. But they can’t get enough political power to enforce their will and vision and to turn things around.

And over the last 30 years they have been powerless as the incompetent class — largely composed of black South Africans — rule the country irresponsibly, as in numerous African (post-colonial) nations.

My impression is that just now, and with the attention given to SA by the US administration (and the disapproval cast at incompetent leadership) that the “competent class” comes out of the woodwork and out of mute silence.

They say South Africa can be turned around in 10 years or so. If they can be given the power.

Alexis, what you're articulating now isn't just an historical argument—it's a political and cultural one, and it walks a very fine line.

You’re essentially proposing a kind of benevolent technocracy: that a “competent class,” largely white or culturally European, could fix South Africa if only it had more political power. But that premise rests on two dangerous assumptions:

1. That competence and governance capacity are racially or culturally fixed, and
2. That the current majority population's democratic will should be sidelined in favor of a minority elite, because the elite is better equipped to rule.

Let’s take this apart.

Yes, South Africa faces massive governance problems. Yes, decades of ANC mismanagement, corruption, and patronage politics have done real damage. But the idea that a return to white or Eurocentric rule—or even just white managerial “guidance”—is the solution echoes the very colonial paternalism that got us here in the first place. It suggests that justice, democracy, and equality should be secondary to efficiency and economic performance—as long as the “right” people are in charge.

But governance isn't just about getting the trains to run on time. It's about legitimacy, representation, and building systems that reflect the dignity and agency of the full population. The minute you start suggesting that democracy should yield to a more "competent" minority, you’re not solving the problem of post-colonial injustice—you’re rebranding it.

And by your own framing, this “competent class” had 300+ years of dominance. If cultural superiority and skill were all it took, why does South Africa still carry the scars of inequality so deeply?

Let’s aim higher than reverting to elite management. Let’s talk about investing in broad-based education, infrastructure, and economic opportunity—so that governance doesn’t depend on which ethnic or cultural group is “in charge,” but on whether the system enables competence, equity, and accountability at all levels.

South Africa doesn't need a return to hierarchy. It needs a transformation of structure—one that’s just, inclusive, and built for the long haul.

[Skepdick]

South Africa doesn't need a return to hierarchy. It needs a transformation of structure—one that’s just, inclusive, and built for the long haul.

You are about to solve all of South Africa's problems by giving South Africans the proper conception, definition and implementation of "justice".

Aren't you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Whether settlers came to extract or to “build a world” is morally secondary if the world they built depended on removing others from theirs.

But the real issue is that a culturally advanced, technologically advanced, European people did come, and did create a very viable European-like civilization. Yes, it arose in Apartheid, but that arrangement only became untenable relatively recently. It was, in its way, natural and inevitable for a long time.

The real issues in South Africa seem terribly and also tragically complex because, one way or another, these people are going to have to work this situation out, with potential great success, or the whole place will collapse.

I fall on the pragmatic side frankly. Take the situation as it is and make the best of it. But that requires or will require a power-play for the productive and willing classes to get to the center of things.

And there is where power and the use of power come into the picture. The US (a seat of power, a fulcrum) might lend power to the productive class to make bold moves to recapture the power center.

I speak as a political realist here.

[BigMike]

Skepdick, thanks for the honesty. You’re laying your cards on the table: you reject the foundational concepts of justice, ownership, and political legitimacy as mere social fictions—useful perhaps for apes in suits, but not inherently meaningful.

Hey, I am just following your lead! Wasn't the last time the land was re-appropriated "just" and "politically legitimate"? It was certainly done legally. Or in any case - no less legally than it's going to be done this time around.

Fine. Let’s take that seriously.

If we drop the whole idea of “justice” as a guiding principle and view humans simply as territorial animals acting out evolved behaviors—then what’s your actual proposal?

I don't have one. Because I can make all arguments. In any either direction.

Even playing the "How to organize society?" game is a game of pretending that organizing society is actually possible.

Me? I'm going to game the system as best as I can. Did you know that "race" is a self-elected field in the social registers? I identify as black...

Because from where I sit, even if all morality and law are just narratives, some narratives work better than others. Some reduce violence. Some create stability. Some even allow for long-term planning and cooperation.

Well isn't that the very purpose of such narratives? Social control. For that narrative to have any such social effect, you have to already be in control; of course.

So if you’re saying: “It’s all power games and justification—so why pretend otherwise?” then sure, that's one take. But in that case, people pushing for land reform are also just playing the evolutionary game. They’re claiming territory the same way it's always been claimed—only now using legalese and political leverage instead of rifles and wagons. Why are they any less legitimate than the previous takers?

As legitimized by which legitimizing authority?

You can’t scoff at justice and demand that we reject redress as “unjust.” Pick one. Either you accept that it's all just animals maneuvering—and then everyone’s moves are fair game—or you admit that some frameworks, however constructed, are worth choosing because they lead to a more peaceful, functional society.

OK... Any framework that benefits me (even those that benefit me at your expense) are worth choosing.

Or in the case where I particularly dislike you and I harbor resentment against you then those that benefit me at your expense are worth choosing.

If it’s all justification, then maybe the better question is: which justifications lead to the least suffering and most stability? Because we still have to live here.

Well, if you ask the land owners - take their land and you'll see fucking instability. A civil war perhaps.

Or so they say.

Skepdick, you're doing a damn good job of laying out the full absurdity of the human condition—I'll give you that. You’re embracing the nihilism and calling everyone else a hypocrite for pretending otherwise. But here's the thing: even if you’re right that it’s all games, power, and narrative—your position still doesn’t lift you above the game. It just makes you the guy laughing on the sidelines while the house burns, waiting to loot the ashes.

You say:

"Any framework that benefits me, even at your expense, is worth choosing."
That's honest. It’s also indistinguishable from the mindset of every tyrant, warlord, and monopolist in history. So again—you’re not wrong, but you’re also not new. You're just wearing the old Darwinian mask without the pretense of moral makeup.

And when you say:

"Even playing the 'How to organize society?' game is a game of pretending that organizing society is actually possible."

You’re right that society is a messy, emergent thing—like language or culture. But it does get organized, imperfectly and unevenly, and that organization shapes who eats and who starves. If your only move is to opt out, game it, or mock it, you're still part of it—you’re just a saboteur rather than a builder.

So when you ask:

"As legitimized by which legitimizing authority?"

The honest answer is: by whichever story enough people are willing to die—or live—for. And that's exactly why the land question matters. It’s not about purity. It’s not about moral perfection. It’s about who gets to write the next chapter of the story—the one people will buy into, build on, and maybe believe in.

You say you identify as black to game the system. Fine. That just proves the system matters enough to manipulate. So if you're going to play, even cynically, then own that your actions reinforce the importance of these narratives. You're not above the game. You're another piece on the board—just self-aware enough to be smug about it.

You want chaos? You want stability? You want power? Pick your story. Pick your side. Or keep heckling from the shadows—but don’t pretend you’re not in the game.

[Skepdick]

Whether settlers came to extract or to “build a world” is morally secondary if the world they built depended on removing others from theirs.

But the real issue is that a culturally advanced, technologically advanced, European people did come, and did create a very viable European-like civilization. Yes, it arose in Apartheid, but that arrangement only became untenable relatively recently. It was, in its way, natural and inevitable for a long time.

The real issues in South Africa seem terribly and also tragically complex because, one way or another, these people are going to have to work this situation out, with potential great success, or the whole place will collapse.

I fall on the pragmatic side frankly. Take the situation as it is and make the best of it. But that requires or will require a power-play for the productive and willing classes to get to the center of things.

And there is where power and the use of power come into the picture. The US (a seat of power, a fulcrum) might lend power to the productive class to make bold moves to recapture the power center.

I speak as a political realist here.

Western models of governance do not work in Africa.

For various African reasons.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But the idea that a return to white or Eurocentric rule—or even just white managerial “guidance”—is the solution echoes the very colonial paternalism that got us here in the first place. It suggests that justice, democracy, and equality should be secondary to efficiency and economic performance—as long as the “right” people are in charge.

That is, basically, my position. Based in a type of political realism.

It’s not only white rule though. It is that of the competent classes: East Indians, Muslims, and certainly Blacks who wish to align themselves with competence and competent rule.

My view is that the core objective has to be defined and agreed upon: the success of the State as a joint enterprise. That is first. The details of justice and a strong rule of law, that follows.