@layman
I don’t think they his this is true. Pretty much everyone is South Africa is descended from settlers. Settlers from Dutch, British, Dutch slaves from India, Indonesia,. Migrants from the Congo and inner Africa.
I know, I believe I quoted or stated this in my post in the first half.
There were contests and displaced people @anasawad bur those people are gone just like countless others. I mean I am just native Persians displaced some tribe at some point. Everyone did.
Yup. We call those modern day Pakistanis and Afghanis.
And true, there were contests over lands in South Africa, which I did put in my post, and as stated earlier, most of the contesting factions no longer exist either by being wiped out or by being assimilated into bigger groups throughout history, the only ones who still didn't are the Boers.
lumping all blacks into one group is strange as you are always at pains to point out native Americans are not. Also, your core argument for those is that there are continuous First Nations that have a case to answer. There is no such case in sa at the group or individual level.
This is probably not meant for me. but either way, I didn't lump all black people together as obvious by my statements.
Since you two literally always take the side of the non European, i suspect the position is a little neejerk. As I said, I get the concept of fixing inequality but this is ethnic nationalism and probably racism. Plenty of black individuals and sub ethnic black groups enriched themselves under zuma. Why not target them?
This is where you're wrong. I don't always take the side of non-Europeans, infact quite a good number of my positions are pro-European, (though to be fair usually not the Brits but more so either Slavs or even the Dutch in Netherlands or Greeks and Italians
). But, when it comes to things regarding colonialism and imperialism, I will take the position not of whom ever the non-Europeans are in the issue but in accordance to what I believe we would have or did in face of similar circumstances. By we I mean both Iranians and Lebanese people.
So in the case of South Africa as it is the example in the thread;
First point, land.
Lebanese people never gave up their land, for thousands of years and on going the various Lebanese tribes and factions have constantly fought to maintain their lands as theirs, the Ottomans tried to take over Lebanese ports and lands and they fought for centuries against a perpetual asymmetric war the Lebanese factions fought against the empire until it could no longer keep going and stopped trying. The Syrians tried to take over Lebanon and annex the lands and they also faced constant war and when they withdrew, Lebanese tribes funneled tons of weapons to ignite a civil war in Syria to insure they don't try again. The Israelis the same but were kicked and Israel maintains a military occupation on the Sheba farms whom belongs to Lebanese people, as long as it stays occupied your grandchildren will hear about wars between Lebanon and Israel and wont stop until its back.
The same for Iranians, Iranian land will only belong to Iranians and we're welling to do whatever it takes to insure that. Heck the whole conflict between the US and Iran started because Iranians refuse to relinquish sovereignty over their lands and resources.
The only way you could take land and keep it from either Lebanon or Iran is if you integrated so well into society that you become one of us.
And it did happen before BTW;
For Lebanon, many of the crusaders integrated so well into society that they were allowed to stay and now effectively as Lebanese as everyone else irregardless of their origin and how they came to the country. And For Iran, the various Turkic tribes that moved into the region and even conquered much of it in many occasions integrated so well into Persian societies that they're just as Persian as everyone else in Iran and still hold the lands they took.
So its not a theoretical framework 'm talking about, its generally how both Iranians and Lebanese people viewed their rights to sovereignty over their lands for thousands of years and ongoing.
We're going to apply that same standard to south Africa. If the Dutch boers don't integrate into society in south Africa and become on and the same with the rest, then they shouldn't keep any of the land they took, irregardless of how many generations have gone.
Does this mean there should be crimes done to them ? No, not necessarily; nontheless the nations in South Africa should never relinquish their sovereignty over the lands as it'll make a dangerous precedent and so they have to do what it takes to keep it. If the Boers integrated into their societies and stopped isolating themselves and effectively maintaining the status of foreign settlers then 'll call it racism and agree its bad, If they didn't, then they shouldn't keep the lands.
For Zuma, thats corruption and its an entirely different topic. But yes If you followed my posts regarding that type of actions, I do believe those guys should be punished (killed off mainly) and the wealth they unjustly took from the people returned to the people.