Tag Archives: Age-old custom

Land ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 1 (7)

Title: Landownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 1 (7)

Gabriel P Louw

iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093

Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).

Corresponding Author:

Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PU for CHE), DPhil (PU for CHE), PhD (NWU)

Email: profgplouw@gmail.com

Keywords: Age-old custom, colonist, frontiersman, humanity, impoverishment, indigenous people, land grabbing, landless, landownership, land redistribution, political history, radicalism, terrorism, unemployment

Ensovoort, volume 40 (2019), number 6: 1

1. Background

1.1.   Introduction

Our entry into this world may be arbitrary, but the world that greets us is not. Numerous forces vie for our attention and loyalty. Our minds are a battleground for competing ideas. The outcome of this battle determines who we become and the society we create. But the forces that win out are not necessarily the ones that serve us best. Over the course of human history, countless people have been conditioned to defend oppressive ideologies, support destructive regimes and believe downright lies.

Although the ideological, cultural and religious labels that divide us are not inherent in our nature, history suggests that the capacity to identify with them for arbitrary reasons is. This capacity enables the easy transmission of bias, prejudice and ignorance from one generation to the next. If we are to expand our freedom, we need to question our beliefs and values and the forces that brought them about. Why do we hold the beliefs that we do? Why have we formed the habits that we possess? And, crucially, whose interests do they serve? Questioning the religious, economic, social and political paradigms of our time is as urgent as it has ever been. To shape identities is to fashion the future — but what future are we creating? Today the world is scarred by war, extreme inequality and environmental devastation. If we are to create an alternative future, we can’t just reproduce the thinking that shaped the past.1:26

Seen in perspective, the matter of expropriation of land (with or without compensation) from Whites in South Africa, as presently driven by the ANC regime, seems to be fully enveloped in a history of White-Black conflict in which the racial factor is prominent. In this history, as already analysed in depth in the published articles 1 to 6 of the project on land-ownership and expropriation, bad behaviour-conditioning — to serve and to uphold exclusively oppressive ideologies and to support destructive regimes, as well as to believe downright lies and myths on the matter — stand out pertinently. The dividing forces of bad ideology, culture and religion, stretching over years, enable the inculcation of bias, prejudice and ignorance in many South Africans’ mindsets.  Prominent is the role played by such negative ideology, culture and religion that still inform our current beliefs, habits and values as active forces in seeking to mislead and to abuse us with one single object: to make us serve the interests of a delinquent master. The 1994 South African Political Dispensation and its Constitution are viewed more and more by the large mass of poor and landless Blacks to be serving only the disguised, self-centred and selfish aims and interests of the opportunistic religious, juridical and political masters of the country. It does not matter if these masters are Black or White.

The pertinent use and role of religion, law and politics, especially from 1913 until today, in an effort to bring a so-called “final solution” to the South African land-ownership dispute, need to be elucidated.

1.1.1. The failed divinely-ordained approach

From the beginning, Christianity played a very decisive role in South African efforts to solve or to address major problems when its people arrived at personal, political, social and economic obstacles and crises which seemed unsolvable to them. Prominent were also the immense personal, political, social and economic obstacles and crises central to the Blacks’ reconciliation process with Whites when the 1994 Political Dispensation arrived. Side-by-side, with the creation of juridical and political foundations for activating reconciliation and to start the new post-1994 democracy, stood the Christian religion and its message of forgiveness for the immense human and political sins of the past in a direct effort to heal and to solve especially the distrust, suspicion and hatred of Blacks for Whites and their Apartheid. The role of Christian religious ministers, from all the races and denominations, played a prominent role after the 1994 Political Dispensation to institute the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), totally outside the traditional juridical and political frameworks, in an effort to heal the emotional and spiritual wounds of Apartheid and to bring personal, psychological and spiritual reconciliation between Blacks and Whites. A religious salvation was seen as a kind of anointed solution by the leaders of the various religious denominations. Two prominent ministers of religion (one Black and one White) took the lead here, namely Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu as chairman, with Dr Alex Borraine as deputy chair of the TRC.2

But this religious inclination to solve personal, group and national hindrances and crises (and politics) was not limited to the direct impact of reverends, but also part of the opportunistic thinking and actions of South African political leaders in 1994; although indirect and faceless, they were active from a distance in an effort to sidestep their own guilt and responsibilities, as well as to prolong their wrongdoing. The long political history of South Africa shows that much (if not all) of these so-called “god-anointed” outcomes of salvation, as those that the TRC religious leaders prayed for, stayed unanswered. Very striking is the phenomenon that most of South Africans’ “religious interactions” with “their Christian God”, stretching from the early years until today, were mostly not successful, leaving many of these “anointed role-players” dead in the end or at least highly aggravated “their God” had not answered their prayers. The examples are manifold, such as Jacob Zuma’s slogan “ruling safely till Jesus comes”.2-7

Prominent here regarding such anointed-outcomes-going-bad is Chief Kgosi Mamphoku Makgoba of Limpopo, who, filled with “god-anointing” in the maintenance of his tribal land in the old Boer Transvaal, summarily lost his head in the end at the hands of another “blessed servant” of the seemingly same “Christian God”, General Piet Joubert of the ZAR. Joubert himself, notwithstanding his so-called initial “god-anointed, divinely-ordained, god-willed and god-favoured” status, was also politically eliminated when the British forces demolished the ZAR in 1902,  grabbing his fatherland, and left more than 30 000 Transvaal’s burghers dead, seemingly because “their God had changed his mind on them”.5

HF Verwoerd, in his heyday of the practitioner of Apartheid and land grabbing from non-Whites, also believed on the 6th September 1966 that “his God” was solely on his side in the practice of racism, missing out on the reality that “his God” also in the meantime had changed his mind, allowing an assassin to freely put a knife to his heart.2,3,6

Even one of the two prominent ministers who founded the TRC (with duration April 1996 to October 1998) was not so sure if “his God” was really always with the TRC and the victims of Apartheid. Pertinent stands out here the doubt of the reverend Dr Alex Borraine. In this context Chris Barron7 writes on Borraine’s gut feeling, reflecting the absence of the supposed “ever-present of his God to steer justice and godlike honesty”, as follows7:17:

He felt the TRC failed to uncover the full truth about the violations committed during apartheid, particularly by the security forces in the 1980s. The generals were “evasive and smart” and treated the TRC with “disdain and contempt.”

He said the TRC did not secure even a minimal amount of justice for those who drew up the policies of apartheid that resulted in death squads, torture, detention without trial and assassinations.

Because many of the incriminating documents were destroyed in the run-up to negotiations there was no paper trail linking senior politicians and generals to their crimes.

He said the TRC had failed to persuade the ANC government to grant swift and adequate reparations to the victims.

He thought the TRC’s demands for action against apartheid perpetrators should have been stronger.

It is clear for the critical observer that God in South African history (in this case the Jewish God/Christian God/South African Christian God) does not always (or ever?) intervene or interfere in people’s political, social and economic crises and sufferings, especially around the unique issue of land grabbing in South Africa. This, notwithstanding their intense “talking to” and their constant public praising of “their own  God”, and their often seemingly “schizophrenic” claim to be his “anointed servants”, blessed to be able to execute certain actions which they see as so-called “anointed actions”. This outcome has been reflected over many years in the so-called Christian communities of South Africa (and which, it seems, for the late reverend Alex Borraine, was also lacking in overseeing a “godsent justice” during the TRC). The false “god-besottedness” of many persons since pre- and post-1994 South Africa to address the country’s political problems as well as theirs through a “divinely-ordained solution” as the only correct one,  was in reality an action which had taken away their own cognitive reasoning and responsibility in finding constructive solutions to their crises and sufferings. On this kind of “solution” of problems the historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari gives a clear guideline on how to target and regain exclusively our “political sanity”, and thus to overcome the many dangers of “religious vanity” (and religious insanity) which lacks trustworthiness and seems never to have solved South Africa’s political problems.8,9

Michele Magwood9 describes in terms of Harari’s philosophy the falsity around the exclusive application of religion as “an only remedy” by people to solve their problems — which gives us insight into how many naive South Africans have messed up their politics and thus may also find it enlightening as regards the present landownership debacle — as follows9:61:

When you have the power to reengineer life, your views on “right” and “wrong” acquire cosmic importance. But you don’t need religion in order to have a good moral compass. For morality doesn’t mean “obeying God” — morality means “reducing suffering”. In order to act morally, you just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering.

Secular people abstain from murder not because some god forbids it, but because killing inflicts suffering on sentient beings. There is something deeply troubling and dangerous about people who avoid killing just because “God says so”. Such people are motivated by obedience rather than compassion, and what will they do if they come to believe that their god commands them to kill heretics, witches or gays?

And it is noteworthy that secular morality really works. The most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world such as Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands are secular. In contrast, deeply religious countries such as Iraq and Pakistan tend to be violent and poor.

The above warning of Harari8 about the danger of a so-called “holy inspiration to obey God just because God says so” must be seen in terms of his own biblical knowledge of the immense murder spree in old Israel under the two Jewish leaders Joshua and Moses (the last-mentioned being a cold-blooded fugitive murderer and savage from Egypt) when they started to occupy early Palestine on behalf of the so-called “Jewish nation” by “order” of their so-called “exclusively Jewish God”. This murdering occupation of the Palestinians by the Jewish leaders Joshua and Moses took place immediately after they became emotionally and cognitively “grabbed by their Jewish God” to “cleanse” Palestine of so-called non-Jews and infidel Arabs.8,9

On this madness and murder as part of a divinely-ordained “grabbing” in their effort to justify political and personal self-enrichment by the Jews of the Old Testament (and  in modern politics still today), Louw writes as follows10:2:

The Jews of the Old Testament perpetrated violence tantamount to a rape of humanity, shedding the blood of the innocent. It did not matter if the victims were men, women and children in their own homeland. Their actions were justified as a divine command. Today these murderous biblical acts of ethnic and racial cleansing and land grabbing would be classified as psychopathic and mentally disturbed behaviour on the part of political and religious leaders.

It is this same “Jewish demanding” God who also became the “demanding” God of the Christians worldwide and who, in terms of Harari’s metaphorical example, is asking, it seems, them again by times today to “obey him just because he says so”, for example in their murderous warfare in the Middle East.

In this context of dangerous anointment (and much in line with the TRC “anointed” drive), is also to be found the example of the American ex-president George Bush’s murderous thinking and doing equal to Moses’s and Joshua’s decision-making  on “god-grabbing of others’ land”, which bordered on dangerous hallucinations and delusions. Chomsky11 prominently focussed on Bush’s blind “quasi-political-religious infections”, or better “his holy inspiring to obey God just because God says so”.  In this context, doing the same murdering for his “Jewish God cum Christian God”, as did Moses and Josua for their “Jewish God”, Chomsky11 reports that Bush proclaimed11:108: “God told him to strike at al Qaida,” which he then did, and then “…again that God instructed him to strike at Saddam,” which he again did. Chomsky11 reports further that Bush said he11:108: “…received the command of the Lord of Hosts, the War God, to fight the problems of the Middle East.” What is prominent in this case of Bush’s “anointment”, besides possible psychopathological thinking, is that the Iraqi political problems are today more severe than in the times of Bush, with ISIS/al Qaida in a very strong position.11,12,23

Reading the above, it cannot escape the mind that the same “Jewish God”, as with the American Bush and his men, was transferred to the proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners’ mindsets as their “South African Christian God”, which, it seems they many times “obeyed just because he said so”, resulting as often in their murderous actions beginning in 1652 in South Africa. Louw writes13:19:

The “goodness” or “badness” of political leaders is often linked to the racial or ethnic tension that accompanies the person’s reign. Such tensions re-awaken people’s sense of belonging to either the majority or the minority group. It also rekindles feelings of revenge. Conflicts that had been over rise again (think for example of the Great Trek and how these ideas were rekindled during the First and Second Anglo-Boer Wars). Past conflicts and ideas are rekindled however inapplicable they may be, because followers want to go back to what worked in the past. This happened in 1948 with the Afrikaner Nationalists. They were guided by outdated and dangerous ideas. The immoral ideas that led to the changes in 1948 dated from 1908. The founding fathers of Afrikanerism felt strong resentment directed at English-speaking White South Africans, dissident Afrikaners and Black South Africans par excellence. Outdated racist ideas with their foundation in the Cape of the 1700s were invigorated by the nationalist Afrikaners’ executive political leaders (persons like DF Malan, HF Verwoerd and BJ Vorster, with a smack of religion and/or Nazism in their political mindsets) and such ideas became engrained in the mindsets of many very naïve Afrikaners. They used these ideas and emotional appeals to gain power.

It is clear that for South Africans, in many ways similar in terms of violence, poverty and extreme religious adherence to those of the deeply religious Iraq and Pakistan, that the TRC and other exercises, wherein religion is used as an instrument to cleanse the country’s “bad past” and to “bring harmony” between Black and White, was an outright failure and a mistake. Other approaches are needed to address the country’s serious constitutional and political-historical problems. Land expropriation is such a demanding problem which needs a lasting solution on future landownership.14-22

1.1.2.   Failed judicial and political approach

On the other hand, it is clear that a pure juridical foundation to address crises like the ongoing land issue around its exclusive White ownership, has also failed the test of quality, effectiveness, justice and honesty, as the inappropriate present Constitution confirms. The use of court cases, based on an existing faulty Constitution to solve these kinds of troubles, only works in the short term when the political and military power is concentrated in autocratic, dictatorial or fascist regimes, as the NP regime’s behaviour from 1948 to 1994 reflects. When the minority loses political and military power, as the Whites in Magube’s Zimbabwe, the Constitution and the law-enforcement system failed many times, not just in its overall decisions, but also to hear the objecting minority. In this case the process reverses to autocratic, dictatorial or fascist (unconstitutional) ruling, changing a political, cultural and historic matter such as land expropriation into land grabbing.23-27

In this context we are seeing at the moment the legal conundrum surrounding the banning of displays of the old South African flag as such an outcome, where the law suffers under the pressure of the politics of the majority who do not view the rights of the minority positively (and where revenge sometimes seems to be a prominent driver of behaviour). This flag case, brewing since the late 2017s, has now, besides the involvement of various prominent social and political organisations has now also attracted the minister of justice’s attention. The intense endangering of the legal rights of the minority of Whites is well illustrated by the CEO of the Nelson Mandela Foundation (NMF), a said Sello Hatang, when he blindly and bluntly said that any gratuitous displays of the flag constituted so-called “hate speech against and harassment” of Blacks under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Pepuda). Within this overtly political grouping is also to be found the South African Human Rights Commission, a body which must be impartial but supports the same criminalisation of the flag. This is tantamout to planned legal censorship on any White response to attacks on their role in South African history. For them, the flag has also become a symbol of objection against discriminatory Black rule and the delinquent acts of the ANC. In response to the flag which Whites see their constitutional right to object and to exercise free speech, and thus as equal to the judicial right of Whites to their present land, we find the one-sided argumentation of the NMF28:9:

“On its face, the 1928 flag itself was a vivid symbol of white supremacy and black disenfranchisement. Displaying the flag of apartheid South Africa represents support for that crime… a total rejection of tolerance, reconciliation and all of the values underlying the constitution.”

Concomitant to this kind of juridical failure to safeguard the minority’s interests, is the failing of the South African Parliament and its lawmakers when a political party such as the ANC, notwithstanding its majority legal mandate, becomes ineffective through its criminal delinquency to rule properly. Its elite lacks the abilities and skills of statesmen to steer land expropriation in an orderly and legal way with the single aim to benefit every citizen, including the correct decisions on landownership.

Judging from the current insufficient tackling of land transformation and the continuing failed and conflicting approach by the antagonists and the propagandists, the present land matter can and will never be justly and successfully solved by the present-day Constitution, nor by its lawmakers in the Parliament. The South African courts may play at the outset a certain role to solve the matter but, as seen above in the flag issue, never really bring an acceptable and lasting solution. As with the religious approach, it is doomed to failure, leaving South Africa even in a worse situation at present in 2019, with the ANC regime unable to address and to solve the issue of landownership.

1.1.3.    King Solomon’s wisdom approach

A totally new approach is needed to address the South African landownership matter and to bring a lasting solution, free from the negative impact of racism or contaminated religious, judicial  and political solutions. The primary need here is an in-depth reflection on the facts and truths, and separating the emotive from the cognitive, in order to arrive at at reasoned solution. An evaluation of the present-day situation, freed from any remnants of the past, is required.

In reflecting on the past and its negativism in order to completely overcome it, an overview of articles 1 to 6 would suffice to gain a perspective on a cognitive approach to finding a lasting solution to the South African land-ownership matter. Articles 3 to 4 reflect in-depth on the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists versus the counter arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the propagandists in articles 5 and 6, pointing specifically to the impact of the contamination of the truth by myths and lies. This offers an applicable and appropriate approach to screening the lies and myths (the rootedness of which is shown in articles 3 to 6), leaving pure facts and truth at the end in order to reach conclusions and a dictum on the land-ownership matter. It is an absolute pre-requirement that the “judgement” must be guided by compassion and an in-depth understanding of the present suffering of the masses of Blacks plagued by poverty, inequality, landlessness and unemployment. For a correct “judgement” it is essential that it be guided and steered by a good moral compass, as well as logical thinking which may result in a “responsible, human and logical” solution, one which is uncontaminated by the falsities of religion, juridical and political influence and manipulation.8,9

When taking the contents of articles three to six into account, it seems, to make sound conclusions and to deliver a wise dictum, we need old King Solomon’s wise judgements here: it seems as if one step too much to the left or one step too much to the right, may spell immense conflict and bring utmost failure.  For the “judge” can draw a wrong conclusion and deliver a wrong judgment which would not only mean the end of his “honourable seat on the bench”, but also the end of his “certification” regarding his virtue, wisdom, integrity and trustworthiness. Solomon’s proverbial reputation was unique and is described as follows I Kings 16-27:29:325-326

“Word of the king’s decision spread quickly throughout the entire nation, and all the people were awed as they realized the great wisdom God had given him”.

The central question is here: what does a “Solomon judgement” mean in real, modern life? This brings two primary questions to the fore: how did Solomon make his judgements of excellence and what were the tools used to reach findings which in the end assured him the characterisation of having great wisdom with his successful judgements? This leads to a further question: Are his “judgements and solutions” not also vested in a religious and/or a juridical foundation? The truth is the opposite when studying Solomon’s so-called “wise” judgements.29

The most prominent example of his many “wise” judgements is how he brought a lasting solution in the re-awarding of a baby to a woman whose motherhood was disputed by a false mother. As prominent tools stand out: his in-depth understanding of the suffering of humanity (in this case motherhood), his good moral compass, his logical thinking and action (who is the true and rightful mother) and his exclusive focus on the present and the future (ignoring the past and its rights).29

The under-mentioned biblical text on how Solomon had, from a pure cognitive viewpoint, addressed the conflict and determined the true parenthood of the boy, offers a good guideline on how South Africans may today, outside the contaminated and corrupted religious, juridical and political ”judgements and solutions” so far used, deal with the intended land expropriation by applying pure cognitive reasoning and wisdom. There is no doubt that a satisfactory, appropriate conclusion and finding may be reached through a cognitive approach on 1) who owns what land, 2) what are the immediate remedial actions needed, 3) what are the consequences if land reform is not introduced. In this context the outcome in 1 Kings 3:16-27 may serve as an excellent example of cognitive reasoning, totally free from the compulsion of religious and judicial contamination when it comes to decision-making. As a guideline for the approach needed to address and to solve our land reform problem logically, freed from past-contaminated influences, it was thought appropriate to quote the text. It reads as follows29:515-516:

Soon afterwards two young prostitutes came to the king [Solomon] to have an argument settled.

“Sir,” one of them began, “we live in the same house, just the two of us, and recently I had a baby. When it was three days old, this woman’s baby was born too. But her baby died during the night when she rolled over on it in her sleep and smothered it. Then she got up in the night and took my son from beside me while I was asleep, and laid her dead child in my arms and took mine to sleep beside her. And in the morning when I tried to feed my baby it was dead! But when it became light outside, I saw that it wasn’t my son at all.”

Then the other woman interrupted, “It certainly was her son, and the living child is mine.”

“No,” the first woman said, “the dead one is yours and the living one is mine.” And so they argued back and forth before the king.

Then the king said, “Let’s get the facts straight: both of you claim the living child, and each says that the dead child belongs to the other. All right, bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought to the king. Then he said, “Divide the living child in two and give half to each of these women!”

Then the woman who really was the mother of the child, and who loved him very much, cried out, “Oh, no, sir! Give her the child—don’t kill him!”

But the other woman said, “All right, it will be neither yours nor mine; divide it between us!”

Then the king said, “Give the baby to the woman who wants him to live, for she is the mother!”

Critics of Harari’s so-called “agnostic” view can now argue that the above “Solomon approach” is a return to the outdated and failed religious approach (and a “Hand from Above” to help again!), as was used previously by the TRC’s Bishop Tutu and the reverend Dr. Borraine; or that it is a legally-coded and guided device in an effort to solve the land issue, but the truth is far from it.

When reading critically the biblical text showing Solomon’s approach to drawing his conclusions and offering a solution, it is at most only a biblical-historical story. Although the remark is there that God gave him great wisdom, the text lacks any reference to Solomon having prayed even a single time to his God and asked for “divine insight” or asked his God to “divinely guide” him in his conclusion and solution in determining who is the true mother. The determining of the true motherhood by Solomon was an exclusively personal, logical and human decision, free from partisanship, as well as blurring emotions and lies. His cognitive mindset leads Solomon to the reaching of a personal conclusion, totally in line with the philosophy of Harari: a decision lacking the dangerous and blind principles of “obeying God” and “just because God says so” in his judgement. In practice, as said, it was an action solely based on his cognitive and pure human abilities, steered by a good morality, a sound insight and observation of people in their strife. He also had the ability, after the applicable information was offered to him by the two fighting parties, to separate the single truth and fact from many lies and myths, which contaminate the whole picture and which mislead the average observer.8,9,29,30

Looking further back on his above “judgement and solution”, Solomon was free at that time (making his decision easier) from the complications brought by the progress of modern-day medical science where a child can legally and biologically have two mothers by way of a donor mother and a surrogate mother. But on the other hand, lacking modern-day medical science, which can easily and quickly determine, using very specific and precise blood and DNA testing, the legal maternity of a child,  and thus reach a legal conclusion on who the true biological mother was, it was undoubtedly far more difficult for Solomon in his decision-making. In the timeframe and case-setup in which Solomon found him self, he overcomes the use, or more precisely, ignores fully any legal guidelines or prescriptions by a Constitution and a religious mandate to reach or not to reach a conclusion. He handles the problem purely in terms of his common sense and empowerment as a tribal leader who must make decisions for his subjects. Indeed, looking again at the contents of the text 1 Kings 3:16-27, Salomon29 did not, as said, use any legal code to support his finding, but, as already indicated, relies on his cognitive and moral abilities (free from contaminated emotional, religious and statutory influences and partiality) to make an excellent division between truth and many lies. Central is his intention to reduce the present suffering of the innocent victim (the true mother who was in the process of losing her child to a crook).8,9,29

From the literature, the so-called divinely-ordained and god-supported approach, in an effort to find a solution to the present land expropriation matter is greatly side-stepped by the antagonists. It is clear that an outright legal approach, namely to challenge the ANC regime’s intended land redistribution through the law-makers of the Parliament, the Constitution and the South African courts, up to the Constitutional Court, has been followed by the antagonists. This “legal” approach, similarly to the failed “religious” approach, is also viewed with a high degree of skepticism by many South Africans as to its capacity to bring a lasting success. In Zimbabwe the land issue was extremely successfully fought initially in courts there by the antagonists (mostly White landowners), but proved to be a total failure in the end. The present so-called court-case orientation here in South Africa, as driven by the antagonists — although at the moment only in a start-up process — also seems destined for outright failure. The advice from the White farmers in present-day Zimbabwe to the South African antagonists is to ignore the court solution, and instead to look at their present condition in a cognitive, open-minded, friendly and unemotional manner. They should also look in the same way at the condition of the other people in South Africa, their needs and demands, evaluate our political history and find through such an approach find, informed by facts (free from the past’s rights, etc.), a constructive, practical working solution to the land-ownership matter.23-27

1.2. Aims of articles 7 and 8

In this research project on the matter of land expropriation, introduced to the reader by six previously-published articles, the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists against it, as well as those of the propagandists for it, were described in depth. It is clear, in comparing and analysing the information, that facts and truths versus lies and myths on the intended land expropriation by the ANC regime have led to positioning by all the role-players. Although the present land expropriation, specifically without compensation, is reflected as a complex problem, one which requires extreme wisdom, divine and legal intervention and interference to steer and to solve it, this conclusion is far from the truth. On the contrary, it is a simple process to close the dispute on landownership when guided primarily by facts and the truth, and if sound cognitions outside, personal, emotional, political, judicial and religious influenes, are in place. Balancing the facts against lies and myths (see article 3 to 6), show that the facts indeed form a very small, central nucleus. A prerequisite is the outright disregard and refutation of unfounded and foolish arguments, opinions and viewpoints of both the antagonists and propagandists, to project a profile on the facts that must only serve as an instrument to drive the process of land reform in all its facets, from land expropriation with compensation to expropriation without compensation.  Central should be the use of the King Solomon’s wisdom approach in the selection of the facts and the disregard for fallacies.

We do not need more Desmond Tutus, Alex Borraines, TRCs, Constitutional Courts and Constitutions, or the court interventions of AfriForum and Solidarity to put a well-founded land redistribution program and landownership in place. We have more than enough persons of sound cognitive and objective minds, political maturity, free from religious, emotional, political and legal contaminations, to solve the present land-ownership matter with great success, applying the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach .

2. Method

The research has been done by means of a literature review. This method aims to construct a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach has been used in modern political-historical research where there is often not an established body of research, as is the case with the ownership of South African soil for the period 1652 to 2018. The sources included articles from 2018, books for the period 1944 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2017 to 2019. These sources have been consulted to evaluate and to describe the facts that must guide us to steer successful land-reform from 2019 in South Africa.

The research findings are being presented in narrative format.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Overview

The current conflict and uncertainty on landownership has been seen by many political analysts as  a result of the so-called “racial curse of revenge and counter-revenge” of South Africa, which is stemming from the disturbing of the earlier political and socioeconomic positions of its various migrating peoples. The current hostility for instance of some Blacks towards Whites and their unfounded rejection of them as an indigenous tribe, is a predictable political, psychological and pathological responses within the framework of the Herodotus philosophy, how much inappropriate and unrelated this hostility is. This kind of wanton socio-political setup makes a dramatic land-redistribution policy and programme many times an inevitable outcome as the one in Zimbabwe under Mugabe.23-27,30,31

South Africa’s present-day land reform is therefore no longer an innocent national conversation to be naively solved by foolish public utterances and delinquent intentions from either the right or the left in our politics. South Africans, especially the government as executor of just landownership, must follow a different methodology to the blunder created by Zimbabwe’s nationalism in the dispute around the future ownership of land.

The big temptations are still there to solve the botched South African landownership by criminal prosecutions and civil action against the culprits of apartheid, or by reconciliation between Whites and Blacks with respect to Apartheid crimes. These are political approaches which have in practice nothing whatsoever to do with the present topic of landownership and the redistribution of land in terms of a historical and humanely just system. There is neither sense nor reason to address South Africa’s complex past politics, racism, discrimination, indigenousness, Black and White colonialism, or the many Black persons’ unsolved personal, emotional and psychological issues and their enormous financial difficulties which are rooted in the racial discrimination that began in 1652, to activate a just land redistribution. These issues need to be addressed apart and independent from the issue of land transfer and redistribution by initiatives such as an Individual Citizen’s Land Reconciliation Commission, a South Africans Poverty Obliteration Commission and a South African Court for Apartheid Crimes.

3.2. Myth and lies busting: a retrospective

In the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) show-cased the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists for a change to or against a change to Section 25 of the Constitution to effect land expropriation with or without compensation. These opposing arguments, opinions and viewpoints presented by the antagonists as well as the propagandists represent many lies and myths, and reflect an approach to falsify the truth. The myths and lies will be revisited in this subdivision (see under 3.2.1 to 3.2.11) with a retrospective to bust this contamination in addressing the present-day land expropriation matter appropriately and correctly, as guided by the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach.  In the under-mentioned subdivisions 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists were weighed to reveal many of their misleading arguments and opinions and manipulation of information in their effort to steer the matter of land expropriation opportunistically and often mischievously, exclusively in their own interest.

It is clear from studying the under-mentioned subdivisions 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 of the discussion 3.2. Myth and lies busting: a short retrospective, that only a limited number of the arguments, opinions and viewpoints, as reflected in the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, may be taken seriously.

It must be noted that the discussion on the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists, as reflected in the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, will be continued in subdivisions 3.2.13 to 3.2.23 of the next article (Article 8, titled: “Land-ownership and -grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8).

3.2.1. The all-over presence of acquired indigenousness in South African landownership

Neither of the races nor groups living presently in South Africa are natural indigenous people to it. Landownership was in the past and is still today based on a vicious circle of land grabbing, coming over centuries and effected by various early migrating strangers from each other, making all South Africans from 1652 up to today a lot of land thieves. Landownership in South Africa is not an issue of indigenousness versus colonialism as many political radicals falsely claim today. The so-called African/South African indigenousness of Blacks, Coloureds, Asians, Indians, KhoiKhois, KhoiSans and Whites is acquired with time by their own and their ancestors’ stay in South Africa.25,32-39

Natural indigenousness to South Africa is absent from all present-day South Africans, including Julius Malema and cannot play a role in the exclusive allocation of land.65

3.2.2. Biological assimilation of Blacks and Whites in nation-building impossible

The postulation that biological assimilation of Black and White in South Africa is impossible is a myth. The Whites as the minority and as an increasingly weaker one, are culturally, racially, politically and biologically slowly being overpowered by the stronger Blacks. Although this process of integration has been taking place very slowly and insignificantly from the beginning of the 1830s, it is becoming comprehensive in our time. South Africa’s complex multiracial society reflects clearly the four intertwined steps: firstly cultural assimilation; secondly economic assimilation; thirdly social assimilation coupled with political assimilation; fourthly biological assimilation.25,32-39

At present the Afrikaners are inside biological assimilation with the Black population. This finalizing of a new South African Nation, wherein the Afrikaners are going to be dissolved by intermixing with the Blacks and by their natural extinction as a specific group, has now been activated.25

The belief that biological assimilation between Blacks and Whites is impossible is a myth.

3.2.3. There is not a demand and an urge for rural land by Blacks

The present domination by White farmers of the agricultural sector and opportunities, limited the opportunities for Blacks in this sector. Prominent is the low compensation of Blacks as labour-employees on farms and the poor treatment of them in the past by their White land-owners, a direct reason why the poor and landless Blacks moved to the cities, and not so much a real eagerness to become city-dwellers. The present so-called low interest of 8% Blacks to farm or to own land is an outcome the perilous setup into which poor Blacks in South Africa found themsleves within the post-1994 dispensation after the disastrous centuries of economic exploitation by Whites.  There is no doubt if the process of the 1994 land-redistribution should be rerun correctly today in terms of justice and the improved economic and political positions of Blacks, the repossession of Blacks of their so-called “stolen land” by Whites since 1652 may be 50% and higher.5,2141-43,45-47

The hard fact is that the cities cannot accommodate all the poor and jobless Blacks. The lack of employment in urban areas today is forcing many back to the countryside. Prominent is the immense contingent of the unemployed Black population. Immediate Black economic empowerment is a prerequisite to institute a mass of Black landownership as farmers and the creation of optimal working conditions for the Black labourers on Black or White farms.5,2141-43,45-47

The two postulations that 1) only 8% of Blacks want land or want to stay in the rural areas or 2) that Blacks are not interested in farming or land and that they want only urban jobs, are patently false. 5,2141-43,45-47

There is an urgent demand and an urge for rural land by Blacks to farm on.

3.2.4. There is not a place for a contingent mass of independent sufficient-producing farmers and farm labourers

The constant decline in South African commercial farmers from 116 000 in 1950 to more or less 35 000 in 2018, is incorrectly used to claim that more than the present ±35 000 commercial farmers in South Africa are not financially viable and sustainable.  There is no evidence that the bringing in of a contingent mass of different types of Black self-sufficient farmers will be a failure.10,13,25,48,50-57

Statistics on the so-called “commercial” 35 000 farmers in South Africa reflect that only ±3 600 of them contribute between 90% and 95% to the country’s food security. The other more or less 31 400 farmers are so-called sufficient-producing farmers. This means that these farmers produce enough food and other agricultural produce to make them and their immediate families financially independent from social grants, as well to steer themselves successfully albeit slowly into the status of financially independent landowners and active farmers. This is the intended path to follow with the contingent of incoming Black farmers. Data from present-day Zimbabwe, Botswana, Israel, Belgium and Britain reflect well on the successes of these sufficient-producing farmers and their financial independence and contributions, especially locally as to essential products.10,13,25,48,50-57

Evidence shows present-day sufficient-producing farming is working well for most of the 32 400 White farmers with a turnover of less than R5 million per annum, to stay viable and sustainable for years totally outside the small circle of ±3 600  so-called “food-security producing” farms.10,13,25,48,50-57

For the present unemployed mass of Blacks, living in shacks in cities under parlous conditions, the development at last of a contingent of land-owning Black petty bourgeoisie, may be launched. There is a place for them; no evidence exists to contradict it, except racial and political prejudice. In terms of the ratio of ±1:10 between White farmers and Black farmers, the Black farming sector has the potential to be extended to 350 000 farmers and the present Black labourers working on farms from ± 800 000 to 8 000 000.10,13,25,48,50-57

Within this Black farming sector the intention is also to create a better marketing system for the sufficient-producing Black farmers’ products through their own chain shops to bring their products directly at a good but affordable price to consumers. This will be away from the White business bullies’ present monopolistic chain shops and comprehensive local and international markets wherein all the farmers receive in general a low, limited price for their produce.10,13,25,48,50-57

There is a place for a contingent of mass, independent sufficient-producing Black farmers and farm labourers.

3.1.5. There is an absolute need for the future existence of an Afrikaner/White farming sector

The so-called importance and need of White landownership and farmers — especially the Afrikaner farmers — to maintain the present-day economics of the South African farming sector and to guarantee food security, is more and more being erased by their dwindling numbers as a so-called “tribe” within the total population. This places their future position as an absolute financial asset for the country in jeopardy.10,21,25,47,50,58-71

The ratio between the ±35 000 mostly Afrikaner commercial farmers to the rest of the Afrikaner population is 13:1000 or 1.3% of the group, while for the 35 000 farmers the ratio to the White population is 7:1 000 or 0.7%. This reflects an almost insignificant correlation between the broader Afrikaner/White population and the Afrikaner/White farming population in terms of financial interest, such as ownership of land or direct income from farming. This fact makes the direct impact of lost farmland through the planned land expropriation on most Afrikaners/Whites outside the farming sector minimal. Evidence also shows that many of the ordinary Afrikaners have started to cut their cultural cord with the so-called “Afrikanervolk” after 1994, indicating that most of the emotive rhetoric on so-called land grabbing come from a small band of Afrikaner/White individuals and groups with direct financial interests in agriculture. This exclusive farming sector represents at most 10% of Afrikaners/Whites, making the present so-called all-out “Afrikaner fight for their Afrikaner soil”, together with the exclusive need for them by the broad South African population, a myth.  Also, the ±90% Whites and neo-Afrikaners outside the farming sector accept that a new generation of South African farmers, not associated with Afrikaners/Whites, has to be born as quickly as possible to ensure food security.10,21,25,47,50,58-71

The postulation of the absolute need for an Afrikaner/White farming sector “because only they can ensure food security” is false.  It is an over-estimation of Afrikaner/White farmers as a special group in South Africa.10,21,25,47,50,58-71

On a group-count basis the White farmers are irrelevant and are part of the bigger White population’s natural dying-out.

3.2.6. The so-called 90% failure of the 1994-2019 farm-redistributions program is true

The determination that 90% of farms redistributed to Blacks in the 1994 – 2019 land-redistribution programme, were failures, is very controversial and one-sided. It must be noted that the criteria used to decide on the “success” of the so-called “functioning Black farms”, seem to be very vague and undefined. There is an indication that the whole argumentation is arbitrary.5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74

Hard evidence erases the postulate of a 90% failure-rate since 1994. The truth is that today’s farming as an enterprise and a career can be tough, ignoring the fact that it must be equally applied to the established White farmers or incoming Black farmers:.The large financial loans by the Land Bank and other commercial banks to finance the White farmers’ daily activities, is an excellent example of this struggle even by Whites.5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74

The recent request in January 2019 by the formal farmers’ sector, specifically the White ones, for R3-billion drought emergency from the government, confirms this overall struggle. The multi-year drought of 2018 left five of South Africa’s nine provinces critically parched and two others extremely vulnerable, writes Strydom.75 In this context, seven out of 10 farmers are struggling. This contradicts the antagonists’ and White politicians’ arguments that the so-called “Black 1994 to 2019 land-redistribution programme”, to establish exclusively Black farmers, was a failure. The definition of “farmers’ failure” is applicable fully to the formal (mostly) White farmers with a need of R3 billion to rescue them.75

In this ratio of 7:10 of mostly White farmers seeking rescue, it must further be noted that this represents ±24 000 (out of the total of 35 000 formal farmers) affected who are not truly part of the 3 600 farmers supplying 90% of the county’s food, but the so-called “sufficient-producing farmers” who only contribute between 5% and 10% of the food stock. The question is: if the so-called White sufficient-producing farmers are being kept alive in the farming community, notwithstanding their failure, why could this not also be done with the incoming Black farmers and their so-called failures since 1994?75

Further evidence from the country’s negative political history shows that the same kind of failures, as the alleged 1994-2019 farm-redistributions program, had happened, even on a more extreme level, under the White SAP regime and the White NP regime over many years under the government of the Union of South Africa as well as the “Verwoerdian republic”. In these White cases, long-term development corrections were allowed and constant financial governmental assistance offered. Hereto must it be noted that the NP-regime in 1994 overloaded the incoming ANC-regime with many serious political, economical and social problems, like poverty, inequality, unemployment and landless of the Blacks, which the ANC has to address with an effort of a fast driven farm-redistributions program and a Black population unknown with the formal agricultural culture.5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74

For the ANC regime to rectify in the short period of 25 years this immense South African socio-economic and political chaos, created by the various White regimes over hundreds of years, was totally impossible. To claim that the 1994–2019 farm-redistributions program was a failure, is inappropriate and reflects political opportunism.5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74

The so-called 90% failure of the 1994-2019 farm-redistributions program is false.

3.2.7. The political history of South Africa confirms that in most cases landowners were compensated for dispossessions of their land

The South African White regimes and its White inhabitants from 1652 to 1994 followed mostly a policy of land expropriation without compensation towards the Blacks. Included in this lack of compensation for occupying of Blacks’ land, are serious atrocities committed against Blacks in driving them off their land.10,16,25,51,55,76,78-88,91

The White South Africans’ own RET from 1652 to 1994, specifically that of the nationalist Afrikaners between 1948 and 1994, was so immense and of such broad spectrum that it can never be quantified in a monetary value. In this immense harvesting of wealth we find today 5 million privileged Whites against the devastating poverty of a mass of ±29-million Blacks.10,16,25,51,55,76,78-88,91

It is a myth and a total misconception that during the continued land dispossession in South Africa, starting in 1652, most of the owners had ever been compensated. Most of the cases of so-called “transferring of land” were outright land grabbing, often leaving the dispossessed owners landless and in poverty.

3.2.8. The need for land reform insignificant

The initial outcomes of the parliamentarians’ countrywide testing of the public’s opinion on the change to Section 25 of the Constitution shows that there is a strong public need by Blacks to own land. The emphasis is that land expropriation is an immediate requirement that has to be implemented.5,21,41-43,45-47

The  postulation that there is not a need for more landownership by Blacks was statistically erased on the 4th December 2018 when so much as 209 MPs voted in favour (with only 91 votes against and zero absentees) to amend the Constitution to effect land transfer (without compensation) from Whites to Blacks.5,21,41-43,45-47

The First State Land Audit of 2013 shows that the difference between the total land area and the sum of the state-owned and private land is as follows: 14% state-owned land, 7% unaccounted-owned land and 79% privately-owned land. This shows that the state does not own enough land to satisfy the total need for land by the landless and poor Blacks to farm. The Second State Land Audit of 2017 identified close to 94 million hectares as privately-owned, reports Africa Check. (A breakdown by race was only provided for privately-owned land by individuals and not for land owned by companies, trusts and community-based organisations). Agricultural land owned by individuals made up 30% of the total land area. Farms and agricultural holdings (in hectares) owned by individuals in terms of race, are the following: White: 26 663 144 (72%), Indian: 2 031 790 (5%), Coloured: 5 371 383 (15%), African 1 314 873 (4%), Co-owned 425 537 (1%), and Other: 1 271 562 (3%).89

From above is it clear that an absolute imbalance between White landownership and Black ownership exists: Whites: 72%: Blacks: 4%.89

The need for land reform is significant and is driven by a mass of Black citizens and Black politicians of status. This makes the notion that the need for land reform is insignificant by opportunistic politicians as well as the antagonists an untrue postulation.

Drastic land reform and an immense need for land by Blacks, is a burning issue.

3.2.9. The doubtful success of a new farming system within land-expropriation planning

The planned founding of a large sector of financially independent Black farmers, strongly based on inclusive capitalism and the introduction of a new sufficient-producing farming system, driven by specific farming models — varying from small-scale subsistence farmers to small-scale commercial farmers and commercial middle-level farmers — have the potential to erase the  vast debt of more than R160 billion of the majority of present-day farmers (possibly as much as 32 000 and mostly White). But at the same time it offers immense opportunities for millions of emerging farmers, specifically Blacks. It has the potential at the same time to assure food security for the country, as well as the improvement of its local food production at far more affordable costs. The incoming and the to-be-established Black farmers have the potential to be on the same level as the existing White farmers’ sector. They can dramatically improve the present 5% to 10 % contribution to the country’s food security by the present ±32 000 sufficient farmers’ sector, to 30% and more.41,42,49,92-95

This planned new farming system, based on new technology, agricultural science, fertilizers and irrigation systems, can rapidly turn much of the present-day barren rural land in South Africa into productive soil and farming areas. The turn-around characterising the modern-day East-Asian farm system (China, Japan and South Korea) is an excellent example. The East-Asian farming reform and progressive management of farming, which was very successful in the uplifting of millions of poor Asians, brought phenomenonal delivery of affordable agricultural products to their local as well as international markets, and has limited the importation of food and lowered food costs. Most of all, the system erased to a great extent the inequalities in wealth with the gradual enrichment of previously landless poor people, after placing them in financially-secure careers as new farmers and farm workers. This outcome is equal to what the ANC planned with their incoming land reform and the creation of a new generation of mass Black farmers, varying from small and commercial to mega farmers, within a comprehensively functioning Black farming community.9,95,96 In this context, is it important to note that the WIBC-organisation (Wouldn’t It be Cool) of Dr Michael Magondo already established — on unused rooftops of buildings in Johannesburg — 20 farms and six agro-processing sites. Each one of these farms represents three to four jobs, creating an income of between R15 000 and R25 000 a month. How small farming is successfully established already, is illustrated by the 35 farms in the Philippi Horticultural Area (PHA). A 2017 study by the department of agriculture found that the PHA farmland yielded a yearly turnover of between R440 million and R480 million, while creating 3 000 direct jobs and 30 000 indirect jobs. Produce is supplied to Woolworths, Shoprite, Nulaid and Checkers.9,95,96

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries plans to create countrywide so-called Aquaculture Development Zones (ADZ) to enlarge at low cost the existing small-scale aquaculture sector. Prominent stands the incoming of new Black farmers. These areas are earmarked for aqua-culture value-chain activities with official support and the upgrading of the existing basic infrastructure, writes Khumalo.  Governmental authorisations for a start-up had been received for place as Saldanha Bay, Western Cape, Qolora, Eastern Cape and for the Coega (Eastern Cape) ADZs. The intention is also to develop infrastructures at the Amatikulu (KwaZulu -Natal) ADZ and the Algoa Bay ADZ. Further is the Department, in cooperation with the provincial departments, piloting aquaculture in the Van der Kloof Dam (Northern Cape) and in Richards Bay (Kwa-Zulu-Natal). The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries also plans to establish multi-species hatcheries in the Eastern and Northern Cape. In these cases the incoming Black farmers will be provided with stock and their skills development. The intention is also to establish communal aquaculture farms.98

It must also be noted that the amount of land needed by Blacks is not, as often stated by antagonists against the land redistribution program of the government, a masse of land or a whole farm to make a living on. A 2004/2005 Human Sciences Research Council study including Limpopo, Free State and Eastern Cape found that 75% of those Blacks who needed land, wanted five hectares or less.  Similarly, a 2006-2007 study in five rural Western-Cape towns showed that the majority of households said they wanted a hectare or less. This shows that comprehensive and concentrated farming units do not need to be rural-oriented and can be executed on smallholdings of one to five hectares near city markets.89

It is clear that post-2019 government policy will activate the immense development of small-scale farmers.  It is also clear that this development will be government-orientated, free from the so-called “generosity” of the large private businesses’ domination with their agricultural inputs. This development will also be free from the present monopoly dominance of the agricultural-processing industry and food retail of the big businesses. The intention is to radically reconfigure and to expand the agricultural supply chain to make Blacks beneficiaries of it via their farming sectors.99

The doubtful success of the new farming system for post-2019 South Africa with the advent of land-expropriation planning is without foundation. It can work efficiently.

3.2.10. A sound balance in house ownership in South Africa in terms of racial demographics is in existence

The present-day one-by-one-person racial comparison, which is based on the definition: who are the owners of what property in South Africa, as done by the opponents of land expropriation, ignores the true numbers of the various racial populations’ holding of ownership per person of land. This comparison and reflection of the total White population of ±5-million versus a sub-population of 5 million Blacks, as represented by the official holding of land and property ownership, is an outright manipulatory equalization of the various races, giving the ratio 1:1, which is an outright myth. In reality the comparison must be of the total White population of ±5-million versus the total Black population of ±45 million, being the only correct one, giving the ratio of ±1:10. This means, unmasking the manipulated equalization of the various races regarding, in reality, ±ten Whites owning a property against only one Black owner of a property. In theoretical-statistical terms it means that for the 5 million Whites who owned in some way houses, only 5 million Blacks also own houses, with in reality as much as ±40 million Blacks being homeless or lacking the ownership of houses.41,42,49,92-95

The above selective and manipulative definition of ownership also ignores the low quality of the so-called present-day “other houses” of most of the ±40 million Blacks living everywhere in South Africa. These “other houses” (excluding the low quality RDP houses) theoretically accommodate ±35 million Blacks. In this category we find the comprehensive negative “house environments” wherein millions of the other Blacks are living: the so-called shack-dwellers who lack facilities such as electricity, water, toilet facilities; living in unfavourable areas with poor or no roads and situated in isolated and underdeveloped areas, lacking public transport, shops, public schools and medical facilities. These areas are mostly ridden by crime and not integrated into rich, even middle-class White housing areas; and often located on river banks exposed to constant floods and other life threats.25,46,100

A trustworthy value guide on the present-day ownership of houses in South Africa, specifically in terms of race, is offered by the Second State Land Audit of 2017. [Note: This audit only provides a breakdown by race on privately-owned erven (houses) and sectional title units by individuals and not for land-owning companies, trusts and community-based organisations]. Africa Check reports in terms of the Second State Land Audit of 2017, focussing on the individual ownership of 1) erven (which includes houses), which make up 0.6% of the total land area, and 2) sectional title units, which make up 0.009% of the total land area, in terms of White, Indian, Coloured and Black, as follows:  A) Erven (hectare): White: 357 507 (49%), Indian: 55 909 (8%); Coloured : 54 522 (8%); African 219 033 (30%), Co-owned 14 322 (2%) and Other 21 365 (3%), and B) Sectional title units (hectare): White 5 118 (45%), Indian 5556 (5%), Coloured 2 375 (21%), African: 1 989 (17%), Co-owned: 655 (6%), Other: 703 (6%).This confirms an absolute disproportial ownership of erven and sectional tile units, favouring exclusively Whites.90,96,97

In terms of ownership based on race, Whites own 49% of the erven (houses) and 45% (sectional titles), while they represent only ±9% of the total population.

It is an outright lie to say home ownership in South Africa matches the racial demographics.

3.2.11. White socioeconomic and political cooperation with the ANC regime overshadowing White socioeconomic and political resistance against the ANC regime

There is critical thinking, planning and action in present-day South African politics and socioeconomic planning within the greater Afrikaner/White community, especially the White farming community, in relation to Black empowerment in general. The basis for Black empowerment — which often leads to conflict — is that the contingent of privileged South Africans, mostly Whites, can no longer remain comfortable while the majority of the country languishes in squalor and poverty. This inequality must be addressed and the best way is through an official empowerment of the poor, through landownership.101-107

Many of the constructive changes planned by the ANC regime to better South Africa’s financial, political and racial environment, are just outright unacceptable to and resisted by the White group’s leaders by all means. Especially the issue of land ownership, as part of the Whites’ exclusive financial interests, figure prominently in this resistance. This immense resistance fully overshadows the Whites’ commitment to freely and willingly participate in land reform.101-107

White socioeconomic and political resistance against the ANC regime’s politics overshadows White socioeconomic and political cooperation with the ANC regime to uplift the poor and landless Blacks.

4. Conclusions

In this article the antagonists’ and the propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints against or for the changing of Section 25(2) of the South African Constitution to enable land expropriation without compensation or not, were brought directly into comparison through the use of King Solomon’s wisdom approach to logically differentiate between truths/facts and the mass of lies/myths.

It is clear from studying subdivisions 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 of the 3.2. Myth and lies busting: a short retrospective, that only a limited number of the arguments, opinions and viewpoints, as reflected in the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, can be taken seriously. Or, better, as Harari describes this mass of untrue information, hanging on in the mindsets of many South Africans: they are mindsets deluged by the positing of immensely irrelevant information by political opportunists, exlusively to gain political power and are in fact fallacies.

In the sequential Article 8 [titled: “Land-ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8)”], subdivisions 3.2.12 to 3.2.23 will further reflect on the truths/facts that are needed to lead the thinking, planning and action on land expropriation after May 2019.

As to the analysis and evaluation of this article, it is at this stage clear, from the studying of subdivision 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 that myths and lies played an enormous role in misleading and misinforming the general South African public on the good intentions of the intended land expropriation and the amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution. It seems so far as if an untrue, distorted picture was created, obstructing the good intentions of land reform. Land reform seems to be an urgent matter which needs immediate implementation. This postulation will be further tested in the sequential article 8.

A full conclusion will be offered at the end of Article 8, titled “Land-ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8)”.

5. References

  1. Martinez R. Creating Freedom. London: Canongate; 2016.
  2. Barron C. Alex Borraine: Architect of TRC, but the felt it failed SA. Sunday Times (Obituaries). 2018 Dec. 9; p. 17.
  3. Dousemetzis H. Messenger of death. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Nov. 25; pp. 1-2.
  4. Dousemetzis H. The man who killed Apartheid. Pretoria: Jacana; 2018.
  5. Makgoba T. Community needs, not politicians, should lead the redistribution debate. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 23; p. 21.
  6. Smith T. Understanding an assassin: a new look at the man they called insane. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Nov. 25; p. 2.
  7. Bright J. A history of Israel. London; SCM Press; 1972.
  8. Harari YN. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. New York: Jonathan Cape; 2018.
  9. Magwood M. Which turn will the 21st Century take? Sunday Times (Review). 2018 Sept. 26; p. 61.
  10. Louw GP. Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa (1). Ensovoort Volume 38 (2018). Number 12:1: 1-75.
  11. Chomsky N. Masters of Mankind. London: Penguin; 2015.
  12. Collins J. Good to Great.  London: Random House; 2001.
  13. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 2: The entities in government and society that executive political leaders used to aid their political behaviour. Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 6(2): 1-38.
  14. Du Pisani K. Jan Smuts: Van boerseun tot wêreldverhoog. Pretoria: Protea; 2017.
  15. Ferguson N. The War of the World. London: Penguin; 2007.
  16. Friedman B. Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  17. Holomisa B. South Africa is in the grip of ‘citizen rage’. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 4; p. 18.
  18. Kenney H. Verwoerd: Architect of Apartheid. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
  19. Pirow O. James Barry Munnik Hertzog. Cape Town: Howard Timmins; 1958.
  20. Roberts JM. The Penguin History of the World. London: Penguin; 1995.
  21. Tomlinson FR. Samevatting van die Verslag van die Kommissie vir Sosio-ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
  22. Verwoerd WJ. Verwoerd: Só onthou ons hom. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2001.
  23. Du Plessis C. Baie emigrante kom terug na Suid-Afrika. Beeld (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 16; p. 14.
  24. Land expropriation talk spreads to Namibia 28 years after independence. [Cited 2018 Apr. 10]. Available from https://www.biznews.com/africa/2018/09/28/namibia-land-grabs-poverty?utm_source= Biznews.com+Main&utm_campaign=e99d7
  25. Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
  26. Mangu X. Early Zimbabwe land reform showed the value of small-scale farmers. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 22.
  27. Steyn P. Zim-boere dink nuut oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 12.
  28. Germaner S. Old-flag flutter heads to court. Sunday Times (News). 2019 April 28; p. 9.
  29. 1 King 3:16-27; pp. 515-516) In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
  30. Joshua 11:14, 11:16 and 11. 23; pp. 325-326. In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
  31. Dalrymple W. From the Holy Mountain. London: Harper Perennial; 2005.
  32. Kapuściński R. Travels with Herodotus. London: Penguin; 2007.
  33. Afrikaners are black. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 July 8]. Available from http://www.news24/Afrikaners-are-black-20130223
  34. Afrikaner genes could hold key to diseases. Bioformatics Database.[Internet]. [Cited 2018 Aug 27]. Available from http://ichts.tripod.com/Julyupdate/trJuly9-3.html
  35. Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press; 1996.
  36. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  37. Greeff J. Deconstructing Jaco: Genetic Heritage of one Afrikaner. Annals of Human Genetics: 2007; 71(5), 674-688. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Dec. 5]. Available from https://DOI:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00363.X
  38. Population genetics and Huntington Disease. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 May 2]. Available from http://web.stanford.ed/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/population-genetics-and-hd/
  39. South African History Online (SAHO). History of Slavery and Early Colonisation in South Africa. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Mar. 4]. Available from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/histiry-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-africa
  40. The purity of Arthur Kemp’s People: The Afrikaner. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Nov. 18]. Available from http://www.geocities.ws/kempcountrymen/afrikaner1.htm
  41. Barron C. Tread carefully on new land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 9.
  42. Bruce P. EFF’s Dr Charming pulls a fast one on TV. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 20; p. 16.
  43. Joffe H. Urgency needed in fixing problems that fed into recession. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 2.
  44. Van den Heever CM. Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog. Johannesburg: AP. Boekhandel; 1944.
  45. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 Mar. 11; p. 21.
  46. Opperheimer M. Six myths about land reform that show the folly of meddling with Bill of Rights. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13; p.18.
  47. Speckman A. Little consumer relief in GDP data. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 3.
  48. Bernstein A. Jobs crisis needs new approach. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 30; p. 21.
  49. Derby R. Sober address should set the tone for ministerial introspection. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
  50. Fourie J. Herverdeling neem ons oog van die bal af. Rapport (Sake). 2017 March. 12; p. 4.
  51. Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
  52. Khumalo A. Once empowered argument may have outlived its history. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 6; p. 10.
  53. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652-2018. Part 1: Leadership characteristics in perspective. Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 6(1): 1-27.
  54. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 3: Factors that influence the development of executive political leaders. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(1): 1-46.
  55. Louw GP. Perspectives on the background to the landownership dispute (2). Ensovoort, 2019; 39: 1(1): 1-61.
  56. Malope L, Van Rensburg D. Presidensie vat nou oor. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
  57. Speckman A. Corruption ‘limits SOE contribution’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 8.
  58. Brun B. Africans must be first in line for empowerment. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 22.
  59. Bruce P. EFF’s Dr Charming pulls a fast one on TV. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 20; p. 16.
  60. Bulger P. A melting pot in which the flavours refuse to mingle. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 10; p. 20.
  61. De Lange J. Grondwet kan op vroegste middel Mei 2019 verander. Rapport (Nuus) 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
  62. De Jager T. ‘n Mening: Met onteiening is meer as plase op die spel. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 3.
  63. De Jager T. Grond: Koeël is nog nie deur kerk. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; pp. 4-5.
  64. Jordan B. Land: first fix state’s own tenant crisis. Sunday Times (Busines). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 10.
  65. Malema J. Land restoration began five years ago with the birth of the EFF. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22; p. 3.
  66. Khumalo F. Beloved book, still crying. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 September 30; p. 17.
  67. Mthombothi B. This week’s protests had faults, but flying the apartheid flag was the least of them. Sunday Times. 2017 Nov. 5; p. 25.
  68. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 March. 11; p. 2.
  69. Nortje B. Lessons from our close neighbour’s house fire. Sunday Times. (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
  70. Ngcukaitobi T. Land could right so many wrongs. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 8; p. 23.
  71. Skenjana S. SA must make most of investor interest. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
  72. Speckman A. Treasury rallies to aid of a recovering SARS. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 125.
  73. Vilakazi HW. The probability of revolution in South Africa. In: M. Albeldas, A. Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  74. Powell J. Talking toTerrorists. London: Penguin; 2014.
  75. Strydom TJ Farmers seek R3bn in drought emergency. Sunday Times. (Business Times). 2019 Jan. 27; p. 1.
  76. Barron C. Now’s the time for business to open its wallet. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 9.
  77. Bruce P. Careful moves as the endgame begins. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 31; p. 12.
  78. Eisenberg G. A shadow regime has hijacked control of SA’s borders. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  79. Haffajee F. State capture – it isn’t over. And you’re still paying. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 2.
  80. Jonas M. The future state of the nation. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Dec. 2; pp. 15-16.
  81. Jonas M. We need to act on a systematic and practical basis to generate inclusive economic growth. Only then will South Africa emerge from poverty. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 17.
  82. Maimane M. The DA’s 2019 promise is to bring change that builds one SA for all. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 22.
  83. Mkhondo R. We need to tell our kids about racism, the heroes and its perpetrators – right back to Adam. Sunday Times. 2018 Sep. 2; p. 25.
  84. Mokone T, Makinana A & Deklerk A. Cyril takes over North West. Sunday Times (News). 2018 May 13; p. 2.
  85. Stremlau JJ. Obama’s Mandela lecture comes at an auspicious time for democracy. The Star (Inside). 2018 July 16; p. 11.
  86. Mthombothi B. Gupta heist was an inside job, but the insiders are about to get away with it. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  87. Tshabalala M. Beware, the snake might  be dead but these who share its secrets can still bite. Sunday Times. 2018 Jan. 7; p. 13.
  88. Tabane OJJ. Should the media take sides in elections? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 10.
  89. African Check. FAQs about land in SA. City Press.2019 April 21; p. 1.
  90. African Check. Farming hard and smart. City Press. 2019 April 21; p.13.
  91. Wa Afrika M. State airline’s R2.4bn fuel con. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 1.
  92. Corrigan T. There’s madness in the land debate, but not in pointing out the risks. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  93. Derby R. Land reform is a necessary fix for the faultiness in our economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
  94. Derby R. Beware the traps of populism in dealing with land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
  95. Versluis. J. SA bewaringsboere wys grond se gehalte. Rapport (Sake). 2019 March 17; p. 3.
  96. Huisman B. Fight to preserve farmland. City Press. 2019 April 21;p.13.
  97. Peter Z. No land? No problem. City Press. 2019April 21. ;p.13.
  98. Khumalo K. Aquaculture Development Zones in the planning stage. The Star. 2019 April 10; p. 16.
  99. Ngcukaitobi T. The Land wars of 2019: Analysing the EFF and ANC manifestos. Mail & Guardian. 2019 Feb. 8-14; pp.10-11.
  100. 100.Haffajee F. Who owns the land? It’s not all black and white, audits reveal. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 6.
  101. Koornhof N. Gematigdes moet lei. Beeld (Middelblad). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 17.
  102. Leon T. On expropriation, let’s not be glad to settle for half a loaf. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 18.
  103. Light is being shone in dark, festering places all over the country. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 16.
  104. Ngcobo S. Land rights activist who was snubbed by town hall: 1969-2018. Sunday Times (Obituaries). 2018 May 27; p. 20.
  105. Grindrod S. What does the DA actually stand for? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 13; p. 14.
  106. Umraw A. Same old same old likely from ANC manifesto. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 8.
  107. Tsotetsi PB. With our country in ferment, let’s stir in some youthful idealism. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 22; p. 21.

PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; External peer-reviewed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares that he has no competing interest.

FUNDING

The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa.

UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS

Please note that I, the author, am aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). The terms do appear in dated documents and are used or translated as such in this article for the sake of historical accuracy. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting on the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanization and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.

Land ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8)

Land-ownership and -grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting: Part 2 (8)

Gabriel P Louw

iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093

Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).

Corresponding Author:

Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PU for CHE), DPhil (PU for CHE), PhD (NWU)

Email: profgplouw@gmail.com

Keywords: Age-old custom, colonist, frontiersman, humanity, impoverishment, indigenous people, land grabbing, landless, land ownership, land redistribution, political history, radicalism, terrorism, unemployment

Ensovoort, volume 40 (2019), number 6: 2

1. Background

1.1. Introduction

This study, a continuation of the previous article: Land-ownership and -grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting: Part 1 (7), analyses and discussses further the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists against, as well as those of the propagandists for, land expropriation. The focus is again, as in Article 7, on a comparison and an analysis of the information with the intention to separate facts and truths from lies and myths that have became intertwined into the fight around landownership. Prominent is once more the use of the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach central to the selection of the facts and the disregard of fallacies. Sound cognition, outside, personal, emotional, political, judicial and religious contamination, is also the central the guide here, in order to bust unfounded and foolish arguments, opinions and viewpoints of both the antagonists and the propagandists, enabling us to project a profile on the facts that must drive the process of land reform in all its facets, from land expropriation with compensation, to expropriation without compensation.

1.2. Aims of articles 7 and 8 (continued)

The primary aim of this article (Part Two: Article 8) is thus to continue the reflection on these various elements and role players as already described in the previous article (Part One: Article 7). In this context of manipulation and misrepresentation around the South African land expropriation matter, it is important to note that Chomsky1 points out that modern politics often hampers rational thought: It allows the practice of freedom, but limits the pursuit of truth, thus creating ignorance among a large percentage of the population in many countries. This notion is very much applicable to the thinking of South Africans on the landownership matter and its concomitant drivers of indigenousness and poor political and personal integrity. This contaminated paradigm limited the pursuit of truth and blocked the development of a critical role for leaders of integrity and independent thinking in the country’s skewed political system. This vacuum caused a lack of responsibility to provide students, individuals, citizens, politicians, and the wider public, with the knowledge and skills they need to be able to learn how to think rigorously, to be self-reflective and to develop the capacity to govern rather than be governed.

For Chomsky1 it goes much further and deeper. He postulates that it is not enough for the voter to learn how to think critically, but that engaged intellectuals must also develop an ethnic imagination and sense of social responsibility necessary to overcoming the politicians’ blocking of the truth, as well as to make power accountable to the drivers of politics around demanding matters tending towards conflict. It is for Chomsky the intellectuals’ duty to deepen the possibilities for everyone to live dignified lives infused with freedom, liberty, decency, care and justice. It is in this emptiness that the antagonists and propagandists, together with opportunistic and delinquent politicians, exploited the South African fight around landownership. The lack of knowledge and understanding, absolutely needed for sound cognitive thinking, created the opportunity to propagate lies and myths around the country’s critical landownership issue. These widely propagated fallacies bring us nowhere besides the creation of racial and political unrest, with the potential for revolution.1

The aim in this context is to evaluate further the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of both the antagonists and propagandists and to bust their unfounded and foolish arguments, opinions and viewpoints where applicable, in order to project a profile on the facts that must drive the post-2019 process of land reform in all its facets, from land expropriation with compensation, to expropriation without compensation.

2. Method (continued)

The research has been done by means of a literature review. This method aims to construct a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach has been used in modern political-historical research where there is often not an established body of research, as is the case with the ownership of South African soil for the period 1652 to 2018. The sources included articles from 2018, books for the period 1944 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2017 to 2019. These sources were consulted to evaluate and to describe the facts that must guide us in steering successful land reform from in South Africa from 2019 onwards.

The research findings are being presented in narrative format.

3. Results and discussion (continued)

3.1. Overview

As illustrated in the previous article, Landownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 1 (7), there is again a determined and focussed intention to bring clarity to the current conflict and uncertainty around landownership. The various kinds of arbitrary sociopolitical ideologies and delinquent actions by role players to damage a future land-redistribution policy and programme must be noted and unmasked.

3.2. Myth and lies busting: a retrospective (continued from article 7)

In the previous seven articles there was an in-depth analysis that showed not only the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists for a change to or against Section 25 of the Constitution to make land expropriation with or without compensation possible, but also that both the antagonists and the propagandists represent many lies and myths in their presentations, and an intention to falsify the truth. These myths and lies (as was previously done in Article 7: 3.2.1 to 3.2.11) will be revisited in this subdivision (see understanding 3.2.12 to 3.2.23) with a retrospective to bust this falsification, as guided by the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach.

3.2.12. Various statements by the antagonistic White group against the ANC’s land reform are free from comprehensive misrepresentations and suspicion mongering

The present generalising writings in newspapers by various journalists, especially those coming from the antagonistic White group, constantly point out how ill-conceived the planned land expropriation of the ANC is, the wrong way the expropriation is going to be implemented and the evil outcomes to be expected from the land-redistribution program. These generalisations are mostly absolutely misleading and consist of unnecessary suspicion mongering. Specifically the allegation of the inflated political scores that the ANC as a party and its leaders such as Ramaphosa, had allegedly gained through the recruiting of so-called unruly and indecisive Black voters during the past 2019 election with the inclusion of comprehensive land expropriation without compensation as a vote magnet, is without foundation and ill-disposed. On the contrary, the ANC, notwithstanding its propagation of “land grabbing”, performed worse than in the 2014 National Election.

The plethora of ongoing orchestrated false allegations and propaganda regarding the total nationalision of the White farming sector and the redistribution of land away from Whites are plainly foolish and baseless. It lacks evidence. What the antagonistic White group successfully did with their false allegations was to create hostility within the White population against not only the ANC as a regime, but also against Black people in general. Specifically the mass of poor and landless Blacks were fingered. Many ordinary Afrikaners/Whites, even those outside the farming sector and the capitalistic business sector, became fearful of their future in the country. This placed Black and White on a collision course, with the Afrikaners/Whites mistakenly seeing the poor and landless Blacks as the “takers” of their property, forcing the country into a dangerous face-off between “haves” and” have-nots”.1-26

These misreprsentations and suspicion mongering seem to be anchored in the mindsets of some Afrikaners/Whites; essentially because they selfishly want more attention, privileges and benefits than the rest of the South African races and ethnic groups. It reflects a limited understanding and honesty on their part about the true and good intentions of land reform by the ANC regime. Such intentions are blindly and bluntly ignored, together with the exclusive and immense wrongdoing of the proto-Afrikaners and nationalist Afrikaners between 1652 and 1994, which is politically calculated to put the ANC regime under suspicion.1-26

There is conclusive evidence that it is not the post-1994 ANC which is responsible for today’s mass of poor and landless Blacks, but a failed racial-political setup, directly linked to the pre-1994 White rulers’ monopoly on political power, creating almost exclusively White wealth. In reality, it is the Afrikaners/Whites and their ancestors who had robbed millions of Blacks over centuries not only of their self-respect, but plunged them into poverty. This led to a social structure in which millions of Blacks are still today lacking self-respect and dignity, while inequality, poverty, unemployment and landlessness are dominant features of the present South African Black lifestyle.1-26

The present misrepresentations and suspicion mongering, specifically against the person and leadership of Ramaphosa, is cemented in the contaminated mindset of those Whites who wantonly create false allegations against Black rule and politics in post-1994 South Africa. This is a malicious attitude that is directed against any other Black in a leadership position, as Nelson Mandela also quickly came to experience in South Africa after 1994 at the hands of the so-called Afrikaner/White rescuers and saviours, just because he was a Black ruler of the country.1-26

Most of the various statements by the antagonistic White group against the ANC’s land reform is undoubtedly comprehensively misleading and based on suspicion mongering. In general they are false and cannot be taken seriously.

3.2.13. Alleged crookery, corruption and other crimes are uncommon to the South African Black and White executive political leaderships from 1652 up to 2019

The present-day ANC’s alleged corruption and immense political delinquency from 1994 to 2019, thought to be unique to South African political history, is a myth. The presence of crookery, corruption and state capture under the Zuma regime, which the Ramaphosa regime fully inherited in 2018, cannot be disputed. However, various pre-1994 White regimes also clearly stand out as immensely affected. This is a process that commenced in 1652.3,11,15,20,27-44

The early political history of the country’s corruption statistics and records reflect large-scale evidence of corruption and theft of state assets. Prominent are the delinquent actions by Simon and Willem van der Stel. There is further the evidence that the various White regimes under the NP between 1948 and 1994 were also saturated with serious political and socio-economic misdemeanours in which state money played a central role. It indeed cost John Vorster his prime-ministership.3,11,15,20,27-44

It is wrong to assume that South Africa since 1652 has not been betrayed by many of its executive political leaders through their crookery, corruption and other crimes.

3.2.14. The role of terrorism, autocracy, fascism and undemocratic actions in the obtaining of South African landownership is unique to the ANC

The accusation that the ANC is a terrorist organisation which, as a result, is alleged to lack the integrity and ability as a legal government to make constructive social, economic and political contributions to improve South Africa for every citizen but has failed since 1994 to uplift the mass of poor Blacks, may also be levelled at the various White regimes since 1652. The process of terrorism, specifically around land grabbing by the Whites had just played itself out more slowely and over a longer period, namely 1652 to 1910, 1910 to 1948 and 1948 to 1994. This stretched time-frame makes it less obvious than the alleged delinquent actions of the ANC between 1994 and 2019. The various White regimes were also unable to run passable governments or to improve the quality of life of all South African people, beyond their provision of handouts mainly to Whites. Especially prominent among such handouts were those received by the Afrikaners from 1948. The Blacks’ as well as the Whites’ historical and modern land grabbing, have thus been founded on liberation actions and the committing of terrorism alike.3,11,30,31,39,45-47

Evidence contradicts outright the allegations of the ANC as an autocratic, fascist and undemocratic regime in terms of the governmental rules agreed on by the 1994 Political Dispensation and embodied in the Constitution. The labels of racial discrimination, autocracy and fascism are more applicable to the Whites’ various regimes stretching from 1652 to 1994. Democracy as practised in the politics of South Africa under the various White regimes from 1652, especially those from 1913 to 1994, was an exclusive “Whites-only democracy”. This was one which was enjoyed solely by the Whites occupying and owning 93% of the country known as South Africa. It was executed with an exclusive policy of White one-man-one-vote, based on absolute autocracy and fascism predominating during this White era, subjecting the voiceless majority of the Black population to the status of second-class citizenship.3,11,30,31,39,45-47

Terrorism, autocracy, fascism and undemocratic behaviour in the obtention of landownership for Blacks exclusively are at this stage absent from the ANC. It is indeed characteristic of the various White regimes during the period from 1652 to 1994.

3.2.15. Political and racial radicalisms associated with the present-day ANC are early manifestations of land grabbing within Mao-Stalin-Mugabe-horrors

The prospect of the horrors of land grabbing as reflected by Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s anti-landowners inclination or Robert Mugabe’s land-grabbing policy in Zimbabwe, to establish and uplift the poor via agriculture, features prominently in the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists against any form of land reform. The antagonists offer Mao’s, Stalin’s and Mugabe’s delinquency as examples of how bad the present-day South African land expropriation can or will turn out. Such representations represent planned malevolent distractions from South Africa’s present economic and political realities by the White antagonists for opportunistic reasons. The so-called sudden rise in and presence of farm-murders as indicators of a Mao-Stalin-Mugabe-scenario-in-waiting are part of a well-planned false-news media system, consisting of manipulated information which is sent out constantly and continuously to the world by the antagonists. It is the use of “stretched statistics” by a section of the Whites from within their constant supply of outright “false news” and their ongoing White supremacy. It is totally contradicted by true hard statistics.11,15,48-59

The racial factor is undoubtedly present in some of the post-1994 South African incidence of murder (primarily with Whites as the victims), but it is insignificant as a cause of murder in general in South Africa. The average Black’s inclination and attitude are very positive towards Whites and absolute lacking murderous intent based on the landownership of Whites or as a form of revenge because of Apartheid.11,15,48-59

Political and racial radicalism, associated with the present-day ANC, as early manifestations of land grabbing within Mao-Stalin-Mugabe-horrors, are falsities.

3.2.16. The probability of racial genocide, driven by revenge and counter-revenge in the future political history of South Africa, is absent or minimal

Racial and ethnic genocide had started in 1652 at the Cape Settlement. It was executed in time by Whites as well as Blacks all over South Africa. It was first practised by the Dutch and the British authorities at the Cape. This is evidenced by the Dutch and the British authorities’ extreme suppression and abuse of the indigenous inhabitants at the early Cape and of the proto-Boers, as well as the British genocide during the Second Anglo Boer War (1899–1902) against the Boers and their families (as well as a contingent of non-Whites). The proto-Afrikaners’ and later Afrikaners’ political delinquency against the non-Whites equals these earlier genocides. Also the political crimes of the Black tribes against each other during the first and second Black colonisations of South Africa between 1810 and 1840 (which represent South Africa’s first known full-scale genocides), had led to brutal ethnic wars and the murder of Blacks by Blacks for landownership. Many of these various genocides were anchored in revenge and counter-revenge.7,47,60-81

It is a myth to accept the statement that genocide in some form is not a general phenomenon in the South African political history. It was indeed practised by most of its people. Thus we have to reject the statement that some of the radical racial groups will not get involved again in revenge or counter-revenge in an effort to rectify what they see as the wrongs of the past. Prominent in this regard are the poverty and inequality of more than 60% of the Black population who can retaliate against the failure of the ANC regime to improve their situation dramatically now after it won a mandate to rule for the sixth time.7,47,60-81

The probability of racial genocide, driven by revenge and counter-revenge in the future political history of South Africa, is not absent or minimal.

3.2.17. Anarchy, revolution and political coups are not specific future outcomes of the Black masses’ poverty, landlessness and inequality

In many of the bloody civil wars, the availability and ownership of water, food, accommodation and land played central roles when these essential shortcomings occur for long periods in the greater community. In the pre-1994, as well as in the post-1994 periods, all-out revolutions and coups, prominently driven by the poor and landless Blacks, have been absent from South Africa.48,52-54,82-85

Chronic anarchy has shown up the last decade in some form or another. The landownership issue has played a prominent role here. This is an outcome which has been driven by the poverty, human indignity and inequality of the mass of neglected Blacks. This conflicting and unstable situation was created over many centuries by the delinquent actions of White regimes. This outcome is not because the mass of landless and poor people are Black (meaning any group can reacts with this kind of behaviour under circumstances of political, social and economic stress, as the Boers reacted at the early Cape against the British), or because Blacks have an inborn characteristic to commit anarchy and revolution (If it was an inborn characteristic, the Blacks would long ago have reacted against their wrongdoers).48,52-54,82-85

It must also be noted that there are no political intentions to derail by military or other physical means the present-day land reform by the ± 4-million modern thinking and politically-orientated Afrikaners/Whites. These ± 4-million Whites clearly dissociate themselves from the at most ± 300 000 so-called White antagonists who undoubtedly show serious hostility against Blacks.48,52-54,82-85

But, taking certain indicators into consideration, it must be acknowledged that revolution seems undoubtedly a strong possibility if the poverty and landlessness of the mass of Blacks are not sufficiently and immediately addressed, meaning that human deprivation and misery can be the primary drivers. The chances for a coup in terms of political ideologies and party-political interests are minimal at this stage in South Africa. Although there are clear links between the Zimbabwe’s politics, the Arab Spring and the collapse of the communist regimes in Europe in 1989 and present-day South Africa, the current South African situation differs far more from those examples, than it shows any similarities. Prominent here is the country’s sound democracy since 1994, which the present ANC regime underwrites and will respect if they lose any National Election. In addition, the South African Defence Force is not much connected to domestic policies, and will probably not participate in a coup favouring the ANC or an opposition group. Land expropriation as a primary driver of revolution because of the Whites’ enormous holdings of land and thus bringing death to White land owners, is out.48,52-54,82-85

Anarchy, revolution and political coups are not natural outcomes of the personal and political characters of South Africa’s poor and landless Blacks. But those could be specific future outcomes if the South African poor and landless Blacks’ immense poverty, landlessness and inequality, accumulated over many years, are not rapidly addressed.48,52-54,82-85

The postulation that anarchy, revolution and political coups will not and cannot be specific future outcomes of the Blacks’ poverty, landlessness and inequality, is a myth.

3.2.18. The absence of Black poverty within present-day South Africa’s  wealth

It is a myth to accept that the years of isolation of the mass of Blacks in Black territories (areas representing in practice only 15% of the total South Africa geography), did not contribute directly to the present-day immense Black poverty and the Blacks’ political and economical disempowerment. A long-term programme of comprehensive land redistribution is an absolute must to rectify the economic condition of the poor and landless Blacks.11,86-110

The negative impact of poverty and inequality on the Black population is well described by the fact that out of the total population of South Africa (±55-million) who need some basic income to be able to live, only 15 million are working in some form of established job. Of the± 55-million the Blacks form ± 45-million with 29 million living in poverty. This immense Black poverty and discrepancy with the Whites’ wealth in general, shows up when comparing Whites versus Blacks: the ratio for Whites is ten in work against 13 unemployed (10:13 or 71:100), while the ratio of Blacks employed versus unemployed is 10:28 (36:100). Technically it reflects, in terms of numbers, a White unemployment of ±1.5 million persons against a Black unemployment of ±29 million persons. The official unemployment number, putting the unemployment of Whites at 7% versus 30% for Blacks, is untrue. The 30% for Blacks is more likely to be ±60%.11,86-110

Compared to the various White regimes’ official socio-economic uplifting of the so-called Poor Afrikaners (1830 -1939), as well as the uplifting after 1938 to 1960 of Whites by nationalist Afrikaner politics — especially with its extreme racial favouring of the remnants of the still poor and unsuccessful Afrikaners in the economically progressive South Africa — there was an absolute absence of financial uplifting of Blacks in the political history of the country. The post-1994 BBBEE and land redistribution policies have been totally insignificant and incomplete. They also came also too late after a period of more than 300 years of immense deprivation.11,86-110

The awarding of land through land expropriation to the poor and landless Blacks, using Majority Procurement (MP), after their suffering for many years under the extreme practice of Minority Empowerment (ME) of the Whites’ discriminatory politics, is a prerequisite in a balanced democracy.11,86-110

To posit that there is an absence of Black poverty within present-day South Africa’s wealth, is a wanton lie.

3.2.19. The increase of inclusive (social) capitalism will endanger exclusive (classic) capitalism and the economy stability of South Africa

The present condition of mass poverty and inequality needs a form of capitalism that seeks to put society rather than profit at the heart of decision-making, away from the manipulating actions of business bullies and the rich (which includes mostly the Whites) whose exclusive contemporary capitalism places profit in a central position. The postulation that society always has in the past, and will again benefit from exclusively capitalist instruments, is opportunistic and false.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

The model of exclusive (classic) capitalism in South Africa’s economic and political thinking, planning and doing, has been going on for ages — a model which imitates the economics of the Western world with outcomes that are not always good — has only resulted in the growth of a small group of super-rich and the growth of a mass of super-poor, bringing immense poverty to as much as ± 29 millions of poor and marginalised Black people in South Africa.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

The introduction of inclusive capitalism is not intended to erase exclusive capitalism or to change South Africa’s economic system to an exclusively socialist or Marxist model. It is a separate economic-financial model that is needed, parallel to the exclusive capitalistic model, but intertwined to form a progressive socio-economic system to benefit every citizen as well as the country as a whole. This model reflects the justified redistribution of the financial assets, including the redistribution of land to the poor masses, which have been discriminated against outright since 1652.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

The proposed implementation of inclusive capitalism, to drive and to establish land expropriation, is just an extension of the old existing inclusive capitalistic model emanating from the pre-1994 use of the South African state-owned enterprises (like today’s Transnet, SABC, Eskom, SAA), as well as primary and secondary education, etc. It is a financial policy which was also extensively used by the early White regimes to uplift the poor and landless Whites. It indeed reflects, notwithstanding the outcry of the antagonists, the country’s own socialistic-capitalistic governmental system, dating back to 1910.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

Inclusive capital must be seen as intertwined with exclusive capital. It is a supportive system to improve the present-day disadvantaged people as was done many times during the uplifting of the Poor Whites in South Africa.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

It is a myth that increasing inclusive (social) capitalism will endanger exclusive (classic) capitalism and the economy stability of South Africa.

3.2.20. The functioning par excellence of the 1994 Dispensation within the mandate of South Africa’s Bill of Rights

The South African Bill of Rights is not an internationally-lauded constitution which is premised on freedom, dignity, and equality, as it is described by the antagonists. Its most prominent shortcoming is its lack of understanding for the country’s indigenous problems, realities and challenges to make South Africans true Africans. It is a piece of legislation which exclusively favours Whites and has so far stood in the path of a totally South African Rehabilitation. It did not clear the immense backlog created by the centuries-old comprehensive deprivation of non-Whites and led to further financial imbalance after 1994.1,3,7,31,125,130-132

The 1994 Dispensation and the Constitution represent (and safeguard) a still self-appointed European supremacy, as in pre-1994 South Africa. Its premise is “to plan and to may think” for Blacks on democracy, human rights and other demanding and society-shaping realities, as well as to assure post-1994 benefits to the White minority and to safeguard their exclusive and permanent interests. Its incompleteness is well reflected by its inability to institute a balanced and just landownership.1,3,7,31,125,130-132

To say the 1994 Dispensation within South Africa’s Bill of Rights is functioning par excellence in the service of all citizens, especially the poor Blacks, is a misrepresenation and a farce.

3.2.21. The altering of Section 25 will cause a negative effect for South Africa’s local and foreign economics

South Africa can still develop immensely without foreign investment. Even in its most extreme land reform mode, the country’s economy will not necessarily be devastated as predicted. In this context, it must be noted that the intended land expropriation is not going to be radical in line with nationalisation and there is no intention to block foreigners from the ownership of land either. These foreigners’ opportunities will be left untouched. The present decline of radical political parties propagating land grabbing and the nationalision of public and private assets during the May 2019 election, such as Black First Land First, confirms the excellent prospects for a continuing democracy and individuals rights in future south Africa.117-129,137-142

On the availability of capital for development, is it important to note that there is more than enough South African capital internally available to help a start-up of large-scale Black farming without the so-called saviour’s help from foreigners.117-129,137-142

The argument that Section 25’s alteration would block the country’s so-called “flourishing economy” and that foreign investors for instance will not risk to have their land confiscated when they can pick any number of other nations that will protect their investments, is fake news par excellence. It is just not true.

The changing of Section 25 will not bring a negative effect for South Africa’s local and foreign economics.

3.2.22. Unnecessary to restructure South Africa’s colonial financial-political-structure and landownership in 2019

The political, social and economic — basically bankrupt — setup that the ANC regime unwillingly inherited from the NP regime is unfortunately part of a colonial financial structure and landownership that dates back to the White colonial years. It reflects the same centuries-old colonial-political “White privilege”, including their domination of the Black population, White landlordships and the benefits of an exclusive White farming economy, as well as the in-depth practice of exclusive capitalism by a few White rich who manipulate the country’s economics and politics in the background. Any change to the colonial financial-political structure and landownership structure means the end of their White empowerment.4,6,22,23,93,143-145

This present-day one-sided colonial financial-political structure and landownership structure make it possible that the country can still be governed by a self-serving White minority, who is mostly well-established in the White business and financial sectors, and includes a strong foreign component. Notwithstanding their so-called “awarded” political liberty in 1994, the majority of Blacks are still disenfranchised economically, socially and to be honest, even politically. This is essentially because of the faulty 1994 colonial Constitution in which the land matter was never clearly spelled out and truly addressed. This situation makes the comprehensive decolonisation of South Africa an absolute necessity. Prominent in this respect is the much-needed modernisation of the agricultural economy, in which the implementation of a comprehensive program of land reform and landownership is central. Included in this modernisation of the agricultural economy is the need to establish a large community of Black farmers that may compete with the present-day monopolised White colonial farming system and its models. On the other hand, there is the absolute need that they must take over the functions of the diminishing White farmers and White population to assure that South Africa stays economically effective.4,6,22,23,93,143-145

The ANC is in the process of addressing the exploitation inherent to the present-day one-sided wantonly-colonial financial-political structure and landownership system, such as the imbalance and injustice of landownership which is today still mostly located in White hands. The only solution is through the direct restructuring of these structures. This process, as activated by the ANC, is democratic and free from colonial autocracy; it is characterised by a politics that eschews the pre-1994 as well as the present financial and political structures. Their intention is to intertwine exclusive and inclusive capitalism.4,6,22,23,93,143-145

It is an utmost necessity to restructure South Africa’s colonial financial-political structure and the form of landownership that goes with it.

3.2.23. Land reform’s short and long-term upheavals will bring serious consequences

The truth is that land reform always brings some upheavals in which there is bad for some inhabitants and good for others. The key to doing this division is primarily to consider the numbers of the people to suffer versus the numbers to benefit. Secondly, the way in which the victims of the proposed land reform had come into possession of their wealth needs to be considered during this reform.11,15,55,86,91,96,101,103,106,111,146-165

Derby’s150 guideline in this context is more than clear when he writes150:2:

But of course, as part of land reform, some farmers will find themselves having to carve up their lands; one can’t ignore our shared history. Land reform comes with great upheaval as it involves taking land from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t. To unleash it, title deeds are necessary. Landowners, white farmers, the government and our chiefs and kings need to buy in so South Africa can reap the economic rewards.

Whites are the minority of inhabitants, benefiting immensely from landownership and wealth accumulated over many centuries, clearly at the cost of the majority of Blacks. The Blacks’ immense suffering before 1994 was not much of a concern to most of the Whites. There is undoubtedly a price to pay by the Whites in the land-transformation process.

Land reform and expropriation, where applicable, are needed to uplift the poor and landless Blacks and to make South Africa an effective and happy country for the majority of its people.

The good of the proposed land expropriation absolutely overshadows the bad of it.

The intended land reform does not hold serious short and long-term consequences and upheavals in broad terms for the country.

4. Conclusions

It is clear from studying the above subdivision “3.1. Myth and lies busting: a short retrospective, in this article (Part 2: Article 8)” as well as the previous article (Part1: Article 7), that myths and lies have so far played an enormous role in misleading and misinforming South Africans on the intended land expropriation and the amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution. It is clear that only a limited number of the arguments, opinions and viewpoints as reflected in the previous four published Articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, can be trusted as true.166,167 Or, better, as Harari166 describes this mass of untrue information, hanging on in the mindsets of many South Africans: they are mindsets deluged by the posting of grossly irrelevant information by political opportunists to get exclusive political and economical empowerment and are in fact falsities.

In this article the antagonists’ and the propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints against or for the changing of Section 25(2) of the South African Constitution to enable land expropriation without compensation or not, were brought directly into comparison with the exclusively used King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach to differentiate between the few truths/facts and the mass of lies/myths. This brings us to the existing few facts and truths, guiding us clearly to the truism that land expropriation is unavoidable in post-2019 South Africa.

There is clearly large-scale resistance to land reform, specifically among the White farmers. This resistance, which is turning more and more into hostility, has over time spread extensively to the general White population. This issue was wantonly generalised and politicised in the past by the various so-called saviours and rescuers of the Whites. Most of these persons and groups are purely driven by their own selfish and opportunistic interests, while many of them reflect political remnants of the old Apartheid ideology of the NP and the Broederbond. The hard fact is here that the majority of people in the country cannot be held back by false sentiment and the exclusive interests of an increasingly diminutive group, who were in the past the unjustified beneficiaries of the discriminatory political system from 1652 onwards. The overwhelming interests of the mass of Black poor and landless people can no longer be ignored. The present status of landownership and economic empowerment is a recipe for revolution.11

Land expropriation with reasonable compensation is a must that needs immediate activation. But, where applicable, land expropriation without compensation should also be part of the tools to rearrange the South African scene as to land ownership. In this respect, state property stands out prominently as the first stage in activating land expropriation. The mass of poverty, landlessness, indignity and inequality, which had became a lifestyle for nearly 30 million Blacks — people isolated socially, economically and politically from their rights as South Africans and exposed to delinquencies equal to crimes against humanity — creates the potential for country-wide anarchy and revolution, to flame up from the end of 2019, if not fully addressed. This makes land expropriation an absolute priority.168

The prominent question at this stage is: are there South African political parties to rapidly steer the initiative of land expropriation with success into the future? This is a very complex question to answer, given that popularity at the ballot box does not guarantee that a government of quality and ability is put into power. The political analyst, Mamokgethi Molopyane169, writes that for all 48 of the parties that had taken part in the May 2019 election, there is the sign of a kind of “adapt or die” in the political outcomes of the past election. Indeed, seen from a critical focus, most of the 48 parties had already died silently on May 8, without pain or a being missed by the population. Even the three main contenders, the ANC, DA and EFF, are at a crossroads. There are immense weaknesses in their political bodies borne out by the election. Prominent among these is their disconnection from the people they assumed supported their ideologies and actions. Pertinent here, in their confusion, is to be found the issue of land expropriation without compensation and the negative racial context created by land grabbing and the nationalisation of Whites’ assets.169

Molopyane169 gives good insight into the three main political parties’ failure to live up to the standards required of a ruler of quality and their present political constitution. He writes as follows on them169:21:

“The coinciding decline of the ANC and the Democratic Alliance (DA), contrasted with the below-expectations growth of the Economic Freedom Fighters EFF), are unsurprising developments with far-reaching, unique consequences for each.”

Undoubtedly this puts my question, “…are there South African political parties to rapidly steer the initiative of land expropriation with success into the future?” directly in the foreground. In the context of doubt on the future abilities of the ANC, DA and EFF Molopyane posits169:21:

“The ANC’s support is waning. It’s proving to be devoid of freshness, with leaders who have been in politics for so long they may be reluctant to envision change. The party must undergo a makeover of its leaders and change the perceptions they’ve created. If a credible, attractive opposition emerged, its hold on power would fail. Its biggest hurdle is itself.”

On the DA he writes169:21:

“These elections have shown that having a black man in charge doesn’t translate into resonance with black voters. The DA’s crisis may not be as apparent as that of the ANC, but it’s similarly struggling to contemplate change. Worse, it’s riddled with the fear that it might alienate its white supporters.”

With reference to the EFF, he postulates169:21:

“We tend to forget the enthusiasm and political cult of youth doesn’t offer value for voters. Populism in the age of social media doesn’t mean the same in real life. The election showed the red party will have to come up with a new approach. Its change in direction must reflect the challenges faced by a society in an ever-changing globalised economy. Although appearing to make the right noises, voters denied the EFF that 15%. Was it a case of dislike, distrust or low turnout?”

The land expropriation issue, together with the question of the trustworthiness and the integrity of the three parties, not only to govern the country but also to successfully execute a comprehensive and justly balanced land expropriation programme, is important here. Where the DA successfully resists radical politics, its ultra-conservative land-reform policy is a loser for the mass of poor and landless Blacks. In contradistinction, both the EFF and the ANC show revolutionary thinking on the assets of the White population, while the ANC in its 25 years of rule has displayed an absolute lack of integrity and trustworthiness.

The ANC won with a national majority of 57,7% for a sixth term the right to be the country’s ruling party until 2024, and thus seems as if it is going to be the sole executor in terms of its promises on land expropriation (which seemingly includes expropriation without compensation in certain appropriate cases) in its political manifesto (its so-called “political CV”) for the May 8, 2019 election. However, there is also an absolute prerequisite for it to reflect on the strongest opposition parties’ political manifestos for the May 8, 2019, election regarding their promises and abilities to execute land expropriation successfully. It is necessary to see how these opposition parties in theory could be evaluated as good versus bad regimes should they have win the ruler’s throne in May 2019. (This approach would give also a preview of their potential as good versus bad opposition parties on the land matter, specificallly for the period up to 2024).170,171

Closely linked to these political manifestos in the description of the three parties’ “characters”, are also the public viewpoints as a further descriptive guide on the three parties’ “characters” up to May 8, 2019. These public viewpoints are best reflected by the reporting on them by investigative journalists (their so-called “political letters of reference”). These mentioned letters of reference are seen by many political commentators, strategists and analysts as the most (and only) decisive guide for the true description of a political party and its leaders’ quality and integrity; far more trustworthy than the so-called “trust for the party” brought out by the voters at the ballot box.

Land grabbing is an age-old custom in South Africa. It was practised by Blacks on Blacks as well as Whites on Blacks for more than three hundred years. It is thus of utmost importance that this custom is not restarted again in 2019 and that a perfect solution to the present imbalance between White landownership and Black landownership is rapidly found, without falling back into the past’s vicious circle of revenge and counter-revenge to erase the manifold injustices done before 1994.

South Africa’s political history is far from completion. Also, there is an immense political history that needs to be retraced and to be rewritten, or at least to be corrected. It does not matter if we liked it or not: it is a must. Angelo Fick172, the director of research at the Auwal Socio-economic Research Institute, guides us here par excellence when he writes172:29:

We have unfinished business from the distant past — questions of land dispossession unaddressed, issues of colonial and apartheid spatial dynamics in our towns and cities that affect the life chances of the majority, the poor, in the most unequal society in the world.

We have urgent business from the more recent past, the fetid pollution of corruption, maladministration, theft of state resources and non-delivery of services.

At this stage the most demanding question, in terms of Kgosana’s168, Molopyane’s169 and Fick’s172 pinpointing of the wrongs of our politics and the immediate demand to fix our past and our future, is: can land expropriation (with compensation or without compensation) be executed after more than three hundreds of years of failure — correctly and with justice?

In the next three successive articles (Articles 9 to 11) the political manifestos of the DA, EFF and the ANC for the May 8, 2019 election, together with the reporting of investigative journalists on these three parties’ political thinking, planning and actions, will be put into perspective in an effort to reflect on how the expected land expropriation will or may turn out.

5. References

  1. Chomsky N. Occupy. Parktown: Penguin; 2012.
  2. Barron C. Now’s the time for business to open its wallet. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 9.
  3. Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press; 1996.
  4. Booysen V. Ramaphosa se plan: Briljante idée, maar… Beeld (Sake). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 18.
  5. Haffajee F. State capture – it isn’t over. And you’re still paying. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 2.
  6. Haffajee F. Gordhan’s Gornado shakes up public enterprises. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 2.
  7. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  8. Jonas M. We need to act on a systematic and practical basis to generate inclusive economic growth. Only then will South Africa emerge from poverty. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 17.
  9. Jonas M. The future state of the nation. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Dec. 2; pp. 15-16.
  10. Light is being shone in dark, festering places all over the country. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 16.
  11. Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
  12. Mkhondo R. We need to tell our kids about racism, the heroes and its perpetrators – right back to Adam. Sunday Times. 2018 Sep. 2; p. 25.
  13. Maimane M. The DA’s 2019 promise is to bring change that builds one SA for all. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 22.
  14. Mokone T, Makinana A & Deklerk A. Cyril takes over North West. Sunday Times (News). 2018 May 13; p. 2.
  15. Opperheimer M. Six myths about land reform that show the folly of meddling with Bill of Rights. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13; p.18.
  16. Prince L. ‘CR moet wys hy is álmal se president’. Beeld (Nuus). 2019 Jan. 11; p. 4.
  17. Roodt D. Wat gedoen kan word aan ongelykheid in SA. Rapport. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 4.
  18. Rantete J. The African National Congress and the Negotiated Settlement in South Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik; 1998.
  19. Steyn P. Zim-boere dink nuut oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 12.
  20. South Africa. Unie van Suid-Afrika. Samevatting van die verslag van die Kommissie vir die Sosio-Ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
  21. Stremlau JJ. Obama’s Mandela lecture comes at an auspicious time for democracy. The Star (Inside). 2018 July 16; p. 11.
  22. Tsotetsi PB. With our country in ferment, let’s stir in some youthful idealism. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 22; p. 21.
  23. Umraw A. Same old same old likely from ANC manifesto. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 8.
  24. Van Rensburgh RJ. Só bereik Kriel, Buys en Van Zyl niks nie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 10.
  25. Wa Afrika M. State airline’s R2.4bn fuel con. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 1.
  26. Wyngaard H. Grondkwessie bied die land ‘n tweede kans. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 6.
  27. Bruce P. Careful moves as the endgame begins. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 31; p. 12.
  28. De Groot S. The politics of perspective and the power of dissent. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Apr. 15; p. 16.
  29. Eisenberg G. A parallel, shadow regime has hijacked control of SA’s borders. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  30. Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
  31. Louw GP. Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa? Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 7(3): 1-59.
  32. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 2: The entities in government and society that executive political leaders used to aid their political behaviour. Ensovoort, 2018; 8: 6(2): 1-44.
  33. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 3: Factors that influence the development of executive political leaders. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(1): 1-54.
  34. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 4: A basic checklist for the appraisal of executive political leaders and regimes. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(2): 1-36.
  35. Maimane reasserting his leadership to steer his party on a new course. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 16.
  36. Morudu P. Wie dra die meeste skuld? Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 22; pp. 4-5.
  37. Mthombothi B. Gupta heist was an inside job, but the insiders are about to get away with it. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  38. Olof Palme. Prime minister of Sweden assassination 1986. [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 3]. Available from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/europe/sweden-olof-palme-killing.html
  39. Powell J. Talking to terrorists. London: Penguin; 2014.
  40. Retief H. ‘n Halfeeu oue seer brand nog. Rapport (Nuus). 2016 Mar. 15; p. 11.
  41. Sampson A. Mandela. The authorised biography. London: Harper Collins; 2000.
  42. Smith T. Timol inquest breakthrough is an important step in exorcising ghost of BJ Vorster. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Oct. 15; p. 18.
  43. Spence J E. Republic under Pressure. A study of South African Foreign Policy. London: Oxford University Press; 1965.
  44. Tshabalala M. Beware, the snake might be dead but these who share its secrets can still bite. Sunday Times. 2018 Jan. 7; p. 13.
  45. Scholtz GD. Suid-Afrika en die Wéreldpolitiek: 1652-1952. Pretoria: Voortrekkerpers; 1964.
  46. Van der Merwe PJ. Van Verversingspos tot Landbou-Kolonie: 1662 – 1707. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  47. Van der Walt AJH. Die Eeu van die Veeboer-pionier: 1707-1779. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: NASOU; Annon.
  48. Bruce P. Genocide on the farms? Show us the facts. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 20.
  49. Halt descent to law of jungle. The Star (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 12; p.12.
  50. Kok A. Lys: AfriForum het volste reg. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2018 Aug. 16; p.16.
  51. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 Mar. 11; p. 21.
  52. Monama T. AfriForum slams farm murders stats. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; p. 2.
  53. Monama D, Mashaba S. We are a country under crime siege. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; pp.1-2.
  54. Monama T. Murder spree leaves SA reeling. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; p. 3.
  55. Mtongana L. Black miners fear charter will fall short. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 6.
  56. Mthombothi B. Now that Zuma’s gone, if not forgotten, the red berets reveal their true colours. Sunday Times. 2018 July 29; p. 19.
  57. Ncube J. Editor’ Note. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; p. 2.
  58. Ndlovu R. Harare scraps contentious ‘indigenisation’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 8.
  59. Ndlovu R. It won’t be easy to clean up Bob’s mess. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 15; p. 3.
  60. Buys E. Tien redes waarom wit mense moeg is vir verskoning vra. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Apr. 23; p. 11.
  61. Cronjé F. Etniese verskille kan SA pad van Brexit laat loop. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 July 3; p. 6.
  62. Chigumadzi P. Helen Zille and the myth of the White Saviour. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 21.
  63. Croucamp P. So, wat gaan in jou kop aan? Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Mar. 12; pp. 4-5.
  64. De Wet C, Hattingh L, Visagie J. Die VOC aan die Kaap: 1652 – 1795. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2017.
  65. Friedman B.Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  66. Hancke H, Sejake E. Coligny-drama se pyn en puin. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 May 14; p. 7.
  67. Hancke H, Sejake E. Die pot kook oor in Coligny. Rapport (Nuus), 2017 Apr. 30; p. 3.
  68. Joubert JJ. Advice in many shades from Helen Zille. Sunday Times (Politics). 2017 Apr. 22; p.4.
  69. Khumalo A. Transformation not pacification. Sunday Times (Business Times). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 10.
  70. Muofhe MS. Xenophobia. This violence is not SA way. Sunday Times. 2017 Mar. 5; p. 18.
  71. Norman K. Into the Laager. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
  72. Pirow O. James Barry Munnik Hertzog. Cape Town: Howard Timmins; 1958.
  73. Retief H. ‘Mense moet onthou dis Afrika dié.’ Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 May 19; p. 3.
  74. Schlemmer L. South Africa’s National Party Government. In: L Berger, B Godsell. (eds.). A Future South Africa: Visions, Strategies, and Realities. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau, Tafelberg; 1988.
  75. Shattuck J. I loved my granny…but she was a Nazi. Saturday Star. 2017 Apr. 1; p. 16.
  76. Steyn R. Jan Smuts: Afrikaner sonder grense. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2017.
  77. Swanepoel E. ‘Party skole wil nie praat oor die verlede.’ Rapport (Nuus). 2017 May 14; p. 6.
  78. Van den Heever CM. Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog. Johannesburg: A.P. Boekhandel; 1944.
  79. Vilakazi HW. The probability of revolution in South Africa. In: M Albeldas, A Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  80. Wa Afrika M. ‘Stop xenophobia or students warn.’ Sunday Times (News). 2017 Feb. 26; p. 4.
  81. Zille H. White-bashing cancer destroys SA from within. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Apr. 30; p. 18.
  82. Buthelezi M. I never committed violence or sought amnesty – and it wasn’t an impi. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept.16; p. 18.
  83. Fuzile B. Soweto bomb threat to US over Trump tweet. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 6.
  84. Mthombothi B. Failure to crack down on the wave of anarchy will let it swell to a flood that destroys democracy. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 17.
  85. Shoba S. Honour the aged by all means, but let’s be frank about Buthelezi’s past. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 9; p. 21.
  86. Albright M. Fascism: A Warning. New York: Harper Collins; 2018.
  87. Bernstein A. Jobs crisis needs new approach. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 30; p. 21.
  88. Bruce P. Free from theft, we get to make good choices at last. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 20.
  89. Corrigan T. There’s madness in the land debate, but not in pointing out the risks. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  90. Davies M. Taking the terrifying path paved by Brazil. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Aug. 20; p. 3.
  91. Derby R. It’s jobs, not polls, says Cyril. Sunday Times (Business Times), 2018 Sept. 23, p. 1.
  92. Derby R. Sober address should set the tone for ministerial introspection. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23, p. 2.
  93. Derby R. Land reform is a necessary fix for the faultiness in our economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
  94. Derby R. Beware the traps of populism in dealing with land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
  95. Fourie J. Herverdeling neem ons oog van die bal af. Rapport (Sake). 2017 Mar. 12; p. 4.
  96. Haffajee F. Who owns the land? It’s not all black and white, audits reveal. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 6.
  97. Joffe H. Boldness needed to boost economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 9.
  98. Joffe H. Set out the right bait and business will bite. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
  99. Khumalo A. Unions must adapt to the new world. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 13.
  100. Khumalo A. Cyril’s tough truth is better than fantasy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 30; p. 10.
  101. Khumalo A. A persistent beggar that needs to learn to fly by itself. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 10.
  102. Khumalo A. Policy consistency is crucial to economic stimulus. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 10.
  103. Mthombothi B. It’s criminal the way we are unable to deal with our crime. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 16; p. 17.
  104. O’Connor T. Whatever Moody’s says, the economy is in dire straits. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
  105. Pilling D. African cities growing fastest. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept 16; p. 20.
  106. Saunderson-Meyer W. A lifetime tussling with tyranny. Sunday Times (Lifestyle). 2018 Oct. 21, p. 11.
  107. Speckman A. Corruption ‘limits SOE contribution’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 8.
  108. Skenjana S. Rising poverty brings urgency to universal basic income debate. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 30; p. 9.
  109. Quinn D. Land: get it over with now. Sunday Times (Readers’ View). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 2.
  110. Vegter I. ‘Hulle het ons hier gevind…’. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; pp. 4-5.
  111. Brun B. Africans must be first in line for empowerment. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 22.
  112. Ditshego S. Decadent ruling class in SA remains undaunted. The Star (Opinion). 2018 Sept.12; p. 12.
  113. Du Plessis T. Anti-kamp kry sójuis teendeel vermag. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Apr. 29; p. 6.
  114. Khumalo A. Capitalism needs to find its conscience. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 22; p. 10.
  115. Khumalo A. In the downfall of two business leaders lies a lesson. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 10.
  116. Barber M. How to run a government. London: Penguin; 2015.
  117. Biko H. Socioeconomic trust is key to uplifting the poor and eliminating white privilege. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22: p. 4.
  118. Bruce P. A better way to reach for the promised land. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 4; p.14.
  119. Bruce P. Make no mistake, we’re in survival mode. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22; p. 2.
  120. Bruce P. If we have to fiddle with the constitution, how about… Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 11; p. 20.
  121. De Klerk FW. Hof versaak minderhede. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Jan. 21; p. 7.
  122. Du Plessis C. Woman in the Wings: Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and the race for the presidency. Johannesburg: Penguin; 2017.
  123. February J. Our constitution offers all the guidance we will need. Sunday Times (Insight). 2017 Aug. 17; p. 25.
  124. Fuzile B. Not yet the promised land for MK vets. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 8: p. 6.
  125. Gerber J. Land expropriation: DA vows to go to court if Parliament adopts report [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 3]. Available from https://www.new24com/SouthAfricaNews/land-expropriation-da-vows-to-go-to-court-if-parliament-adopts-report-20181204/
  126. Jordan B. Harvest of happiness for Cape farm workers. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 10.
  127. Kriel K. ‘Afrikaners is moeg vir skurk-etiket’. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 3.
  128. Kriel K. Repliek: Minderhede sal ander uitweg moet soek. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Nov. 14; p. 11.
  129. Kriel K. Treat violent incidents between races equally. Sunday Times; (Opinion). 2017 Aug. 27, p. 24.
  130. Louw GP. Perspectives on the background to the land ownership dispute (2). Ensovoort, 2019; 39: 1(1): 1-61.
  131. Mkhwanazi S. Parliament adopts land expropriation report [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 3]. Available from https://www.lolco.za/news/politics/parliament-adopts-land-expropriation-report-18380096/
  132. Makinana A. Parliament gives go-ahead for land expropriation without compensation. [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Feb. 3]. Available from https://www.timeslive.co.za/2018-12-04-parliament-gives-go-ahead-for-land-expropriation-without-compensation/ >>>>>>
  133. Malema J. Land restoration began five years ago with the birth of the EFF. Sunday Times. 2018 July 22; p. 3.
  134. Munusamy R. Cyril plays nice while Julius seizes moment to change game. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 4; p. 16.
  135. Mthombothi B. ANC fawns over Malema and takes SA down the road of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 4; p. 15.
  136. Mthombothi B. The ANC is drunk from the alcohol of corruption, and its growing support is bad news for South Africa. Sunday Times. 2018 July 22; p. 3.
  137. Matiwane Z. ‘Zuma is not in any way involved in affairs of province’. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 29; p. 4.
  138. Mkhize Z. To reverse ANC’s decline, look to its past heroes. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 3; p. 22.
  139. Matiwane Z, Deklerk A, Mvumu Z, Umraw A. Putting loyalty first: ‘presumed innocent’ is ticket to election. Sunday Times (News), 2018 July 29: p. 4.
  140. Mthombothi B. With Zuma on the way out, EFF thugs are seeking new targets for their perpetual rage. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Jan. 21; p. 17.
  141. Umraw A. Grandfather seeks return of his grandfather’s land. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 22; p. 22.
  142. Venter T. ANC volg NP se pad. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 7.
  143. ANC finally wakes up to the fact its grip on power is slipping. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 13; p.16.
  144. Hafffajee F. Judging the ‘Cyril effect’ after 100 days. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 27; p. 8.
  145. Koornhof N. Gematigdes moet lei. Beeld (Middelblad). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 17.
  146. Barron C. Standing firm amid ill wind of populism. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 10.
  147. Barron C. WEF paints ’too bleak’ a labour picture. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 13; p. 8.
  148. Bruce P. Business is still willing to help a responsible state. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 16.
  149. Bruce P. Debt leaves no room for ANC dithering. Sunday Times (Opinion) 2018 July 8, p. 22.
  150. Derby R. Populism is still ad tantalising and easy an option as in Zuma years. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Oct. 21; p. 2.
  151. De Lange L. Onsekerheid is toksies en laat mense op hul geld sit. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 19; p. 4.
  152. Groenewald Y. Banke oor onteiening: ‘Ons leen nog; ons is net versigtig’. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 19; p. 1.
  153. Haffajee F. Ramaphoria just can’t keep up with Addo-ration. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 6; p. 2.
  154. Kawadra H. Finance sector code will help fund black business. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 10.
  155. Khumalo A. The billions Africa needs are available. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Nov. 11; p. 10.
  156. Kodwa Z. The ANC is not on trail at the commission of inquiry into state capture. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  157. Mtongana L. ‘Cyril effect’ could restart the stalled mining engine. Sunday Times. (Business). 2018 Feb. 25; p. 7.
  158. Mthombothi B. Zuma’s homage to Biko seeks to fill the abyss left by the ANC’s exhausted ideology. Sunday Times. 2017 Sept. 17; p. 21.
  159. Mthombothi B. Cyril bends over backwards to placate the ANC, but the rest of us long to see him moving forwards. Sunday Times. 2018 Aug. 5; p. 3.
  160. Munusamy R. ANC wanders into uncharted territory with announcements on land but no coherent policy. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
  161. Mvumvu Z. Transnet brass clash over ‘nonexistent’ meeting. Sunday Times. 2018 Aug. 19; p. 1.
  162. Seccombe A. “It’s not too late to turn corruption around”. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 5.
  163. Shoba S, Mthetwa B. Ramaphosa bends the knee to Zulu king on tense land issue. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 2018; p. 4.
  164. Tabane OJJ. Policy – or a rash bid to steal the EFF’s thunder. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
  165. Taljaard J. Dalk is ANC se sebra ‘n donkie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; p.15.
  166. Harari YN. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. New York: Jonathan Cape; 2018.
  167. Magwood M. Which turn will the 21st Century take? Sunday Times (Review). 2018 Sept. 26; p. 61.
  168. Kgosana R. Unemployment stats improve while Eskom causes irritation. The Citizen. 2019 May 15; p. 4.
  169. Molopyane M. Lessons from the election. The Citizen. 2019 May 15; p. 21.
  170. Marrian N. 2021: ANC, DA could lose metros. Mail & Guardian. 2019 May 17 to 23; p. 5.
  171. Munusamy R, Hunter Q. Cyril rescues ANC. Sunday Times. 2019 May 12; p.1.
  172. Fick, A. SA today is another country. Mail & Guardian. 2019 May 17 to 23; p. 29.

PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; External peer-reviewed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares that he has no competing interest.

FUNDING
The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa.

UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS
Please note that I, the author, am aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). The terms do appear in dated documents and are used or translated as such in this article for the sake of historical accuracy. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting on the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanization and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.

Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa? (1)

Gabriel P Louw

iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093

Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).

Corresponding Author:

Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PU for CHE), DPhil (PU for CHE), PhD (NWU)

Email: profgplouw@gmail.com

Keywords: Age-old custom, colonist, frontiersman, humanity, impoverishment, indigenous people, land grabbing, landless, land ownership, land redistribution, political history, radicalism, terrorism, unemployment

Ensovoort, volume 38 (2018), number 12: 1

1. Background

1.1 Introduction

So Joshua conquered the entire land – the hill country, the Negeb, the land of Goshen, the lowlands, the Arabah, and the hills and the lowlands of Israel. The Israeli territory now extended all the way from Mount Halak, near Seir, to Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon, at the foot of Mount Hermon.1

All the loot and cattle of the ravaged cities were taken by the Israelis for themselves, but they killed all the people. For so the Lord had commanded his disciple Moses; and Moses had passed the commandment on to Joshua, who did as he had been told: he carefully obeyed all of the Lord’s instructions to Moses.1

and

So Joshua took the entire land just as the Lord had instructed Moses; and he gave it to the people of Israel as their inheritance, dividing the land among the tribes. So the land finally rested from its war.1

The Jews became colonists, and with time indigenous colonists, and at last indigenous people to a part of Palestine and of today’s Jewish nation-state of Israel. The Western and Christian world believe this as the truth and the only truth, and acknowledge today these Jews as indigenous people of Israel and as true and rightful owners to it. The fake stories of the Jewish past became the grandparents of the fake news of today’s Israel and Israelis.

When one reads Old Israel’s political and biblical history, it is striking how similar South African political history reads. Only the geography, regional names, the names of leaders, participating tribes and historical periods are different. These histories boast the same radical ideologies on racism, cultural dogmas, doctrines, religious blindness and murderous intentions. The Jews of the Old Testament perpetrated violence tantamount to a rape of humanity, shedding the blood of the innocent. It did not matter if the victims were men, women and children in their own homeland. Their actions were justified as a divine command. Today these murderous biblical acts of ethnic and racial cleansing and land grabbing would be classified as psychopathic and mentally disturbed behaviour on the part of political and religious leaders.1,2

In South African history, we see this abnormality in the murderous sprees of Shaka [Chaka], the King of the Zulus, during the Mfecane and Lifaqane wars. He not only murdered the warriors of the many Black tribes he conquered and whose land and cattle he stolen, but also the women and children of these tribes, just like Joshua. We also see it in the history of the early Afrikaners, the White frontiersmen. They murdered the KhoiSan and captured their women and children to keep as slaves in their hunger for land, money and political power in the early Cape. We see this abnormality in the genocide of Boer women and children during the Anglo Boer War (1899–1902) under Alfred Milner. His British Empire had an insatiable hunger for self-enrichment, political power and control of the land in South Africa.2,3

What stands out here is land ownership and physically taking land with war, killing and murder. These killings and murderous acts always lead to a vicious cycle of more wars; killing and murder ensure “legal” land ownership through land occupation and forced land transfer. This land transfer is simply land grabbing. Other direct outcomes of the efforts to maintain power and ownership include the development of exclusive political and economic government models, like racial domination. The Grand Apartheid of the Afrikaners and the European supremacy of the British through their Empire serve as examples.2 Enclosed here stands the distortion of history, leading to each group embracing a “fake story”.

The fake stories of the South African Blacks and South African Whites gave birth to the fake stories and fake news that dominate the relationship between South African Blacks and Whites.

The main aim of this project of seven articles is to examine the land redistribution debacle harrying South Africa now in the light of the country’s history of land grabbing as an age-old custom. The article series offers a perspective on the current troubled political state of South Africa and the possible future awaiting the country if the envisaged land redistribution fails.

The aim of this first article is to evaluate and describe land ownership in the period 1652 to 2018 by considering the following:

  •     Who pass as indigenous peoples, colonists and indigenous colonists?
  •     Legal indigenous land ownership versus predatory land ownership
  •     The role and influence of the land terrorism and land grabbing in South Africa’s past

The evaluations and descriptions outlined above are contained in the Results and Discussion sections (Sections 3 and 4).

2. Method

The research was been done by means of a literature review. This method aims to construct a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach is been used in modern political-historical research where there is often not an established body of research, as is the case with ownership of South African soil for the period 1652 to 2018. The sources included articles from 2016 to 2018, books for the period 1944 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2016 to 2018. These sources were been consulted to evaluate and to describe past and present land ownership in South Africa. This would put the different thoughts, views and opinions on land grabbing as an age-old custom in South Africa into perspective by identifying indigenous and colonial people; indigenous, legal and predatory land ownership; and the role and impact of land terrorism and land grabbing in the past of South Africa.4-6

The research findings are presented in narrative format.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Land ownership obtained by means of modern terrorism in South Africa

Land ownership has always been problematic in South Africa. Problems started when the early proto-Afrikaners, supported by the VOC at the Cape, drove the KhoiKhoi off their traditional land in the Liesbeeck Valley (Western Cape) during the KhoiKhoi War (1658–1660).2,7 Geen7 describes it as the first commissioning of White terrorism perpetrated on non-Whites in South Africa in the form of planned land grabbing. This early White terrorism meets all the requirements of the current British definition of terrorism, which reads8:9:

  1.     Violence against a person or serious damage to property;
  2.     Designed to influence a government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public with the aim of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

It is politically-historically correct to describe the moment that Jan van Riebeeck planted the VOC-flag at the Cape in 1652 to establish the Cape Refreshment Station as the first land grabbing by Whites in South Africa. However, generally speaking, land grabbing in South Africa goes further back to the southwards migrating fore fathers of the modern Black South Africans. They ousted the KhoiSan and KhoiKhoi from their South African territories, which these tribes in turn possibly grabbed from earlier unknown inhabitants.2,7,9

It is interesting that in South African land ownership is been established along the same route as that of land ownership in the time of Joshua’s Old Israel (land/property being stolen from inhabitants, who in turn settled there by stealing it from another group by means of terrorism). The recently established (1948) new democratic Jewish state of today looks similar. Kaari Ward10 writes as follows on this type of land ownership during Joshua’s time10:101:

Land ownership, was a matter of family inheritance. In Scripture, the tradition can be traced back more than 1,000 years to when Joshua distributed the lands of the newly conquered Canaan among the tribes of Israel according to God’s plan. Ownership was supposed to pass in an unbroken line down through the generations, from father to sons, the eldest receiving double the share of any of his brothers. As the younger sons usually received shares too small to sustain independent farms, they had little choice but to shell their inheritance to the principal heir, who was thus able to keep the ancestral family farm intact. The then landless younger sons might remain in the village, taking up a trade or working as farm labourers for their brother, or they might leave the village to join the large numbers of migrant workers who found casual labour where they could, or they might even resort to becoming brigands. If a landowner died, leaving no sons, the property went to his daughter or if he had no daughter to his brothers, uncles, or nearest relative.

The above ownership of land (of the land obtained by their ancestors through land grabbing), that is passed on to the ordinary Jew through inheritance, has changed dramatically. The Jewish political environment and the country’s executive political leadership were been taken over by powerful foreigners (colonists) and rich and politically untouchable Jewish groups (indigenous colonists). Land ownership changed during the Roman occupation and rule. The Romans favoured Jewish civil and religious elites. This left many of the ordinary Jews landless as peasants and labourers, living in poverty. The same metamorphosis is apparent when one looks at South African history. Early Afrikaners (colonists) and later Afrikaners (indigenous colonists) experienced a growth in their land ownership and riches as result of land grabbing from non-Whites. This left most of these non-Whites (indigenous colonists) landless and poor, and that state of affairs lasted up to today.1,2,3,7,9 Ward comments as follows on the Jewish experience10:100:

…in some parts of Palestine, the best properties at this time were in the hands of a relatively few landowners – mainly Rome’s rulers, the Herodian family, and the priestly aristocracy. In these places, the farmers working the land might have been tenants or even slaves.

South Africa currently has to balance two strong opposing views on land ownership at present. There is a clear division between those who favour land transfer and -redistribution with compensation on the one hand, and those in favour of land grabbing without compensation on the other. This mostly Black-versus-White issue started in 1652 and results in a daily growth in hostility. In this context is it the landless Blacks, mostly unemployed and impoverished, who are standing up against what they see as South Africa’s modern “Rome’s rulers, the Herodian family, and the priestly aristocracy” of Whites”; the people who are also still the land owners of the country. The developmental economist Jason Musyoka11 emphasises that the South African land reform issue has become more than a showdown between Blacks and Whites. It is now a fight between two types of South African localized nationalisms – one progressive and the other conservative. The basis of the conflict centres on whether the Blacks or the Whites are the rightful franchisees of the South African land. Musyoka11 classifies the two opposing role-players, each representing various subgroups, as follows11:18:

The progressives (or left-wingers) consist of the Nationalist left (the EFF), the social democratic left (the ANC and alliance partners), and solidarity groups such as the Black Management Forum, and others. The conservative nationalists (right-wingers) range from the centre-right DA, agriculture-based associations – most of which represent the interests of White commercial farmers – to far-right groups as the Freedom Front Plus and solidarity groups such as AfriForum.

The support of the progressives mostly comes from the poor masses of blue-collar workers and the untrained rural population. The conservatives are more representative of the minority richer classes and the financial sector, with a strong foundation in the global economy. Although there is undoubtedly a clear Black-versus-White inclination here, Musyoka11 emphasises that there is a crossing of Blacks and Whites to both sides of the dispute over land ownership, making it a critical issue that should be addressed urgently.11,12

The fact that more than 24 years have passed since 1994 without land ownership having been addressed in a balanced and just manner, draws attention to the failure of the new democracy to serve the individual citizen. This failure equally pertains to farmland and plots for housing in urban areas near the financial hubs. The poor landless and unemployed Black population attribute (rightly so) much of their misfortune to Grand apartheid and the years of White political domination. However, the failure of the ANC regime to address land reform constructively in the course of their 24 years of reign is also prominent8.12-14 Land ownership is becoming a political stew pot. Musyoka11 in this regard warns11: 18:

South Africa’s land reform is therefore no longer an innocent national conversation. Rightly so, given that two decades have passed since the country became a democracy, and South Africa’s half-a-generation-old miracle moment is well in the rear-view mirror. It would be naïve, therefore, to imagine that the outcome of land reform is a fait accompli simply based on public utterances and intentions from either the right or the left.

Worse still, Zimbabwe bungled its land reform process, thereby becoming the rulebook of what expropriation of land without compensation in South Africa might look like.

On this basis, even if the South African government follows a different methodology, it is difficult to imagine any different outcome. Zimbabwe’s nationalism blunder has become the reference point for the nationalist right in South Africa.

Like language and culture, while land is a national asset, it reflects a struggle for nationalism – and these have been unkind to the history of the last century. The nationalisms of the 20th century are howling from the other side of the grave, and South Africa’s current land debate is answering their call with enthusiasm.

3.2 “Uhuru” has arrived in South Africa at last

Musyoka’s description11 of the present-day conflict surrounding land ownership is excellent. His precise rendition shows that land ownership far more than a general, one-sided emotional debate. Uhuru has arrived in South Africa at last, although sixty years too late. Musyoka’s11 emphasis that land is a national asset is clearly meant as a wake-up call to the predominantly White farmer class and many ordinary Afrikaners who argue (and seem to genuinely believe) that land ownership is (and always was) the exclusive right of a certain group. Musyoka points out that it is a right to all South Africans, a national asset, not a personal asset. Any occupation of land sealed by a deed of conveyance for the purpose of improving the land and making a living from it is always a temporary right of care of the state’s assets, nothing more. South Africa’s political history from 1652 reflects this well. Land ownership changed involuntary from the KhoiSan and KhoiKhoi to the migrant Black tribes from North Africa and later to the colonial White frontiersmen (early Afrikaners) who came from Europe and moved north from Cape Town. The ownership of the Black tribes in northern South Africa changed to the White frontiersmen (Trekboers and later Voortrekkers). This chain of tragic South African events confirms the vicious cycle of war, bloodshed and terrorism, built on a foundation of ethnicity and racism.2,7

The envisaged process of Black occupation of White farmland and other land – land that Whites obtained from the KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi and Black tribes by means of force from 1652 onwards – is therefore a normal and unavoidable process in the post-1994 South Africa. The decisions on whether land reform should be with or without compensation clearly do not constitute a first autocratic act as portrayed by especially White landowners. It is a democratic act based on majority consultation and decision. This process of majority consultation and decision-making on the country’s interests is a principle that the Afrikaners endorsed when they transferred their political power in 1994. They cannot deny this reality or try to obstruct it with all kinds of foolish arguments and actions.2

It does not really matter how the process of land transfer takes place. Whether it is a Zimbabwe-style act of violence or a democratic process without conflict or bloodletting, it will happen, perhaps as soon as this year given the ANC’s clamouring for votes in the 2019 elections. There is very little difference in the thought process at the foundation of land occupation by the VOC, the British, the Boers, the apartheid government and Robert Mugabe. All these instances are overshadow by a lengthy history of murder, genocide, injustice, impoverishment and suppression of the previous landowners who had lost their land to outside intruders and conquerors through multiple atrocities. What is different in South Africa is that many White citizens have erased knowledge of the cruel and unjust political history of land grabbing from 1652 to 1994. They have selective amnesia, brought on by a political history that deceived them to perceive themselves as good. White Christian capitalism is central to this skewed perception, although Christian principles always came in second to the Afrikaner drive for self-enrichment at the cost of non-White South Africans.2

3.3 The Herodotus Rules as predictors of South Africa’s current land dispute

The current uncertainty on land ownership is been saw as the curse of revenge and counter-revenge. This mechanism is not only apparent from the teachings of the Old Testament, but also of the Greek historian Herodotus. This is undoubtedly belief systems that the Afrikaners and the Blacks have embodied from early on. Land transfer, radical economic transformation (RET) and radical social transformation (RST) is an inevitability awaiting the Whites in South Africa if one views it in the context of revenge. The Herodotus Rules were been formulated more than 2 500 years ago as a guideline for good governance. The goal is respect for other persons in governing, no matter their race, religion or status. Herodotus reasoned that any ruler (or ruling group) should adhere to six rules to stay in power and to lead a long and happy life as a ruler. The rules are meant to ensure that when a group is no longer in charge, there would not be reprisals and retaliation from aggrieved subordinates or conquered groups and their descendants.2,15,16

The six rules that a good ruler should underwrite, practice and respect are2:

  •     Always act with fairness and wisdom towards your subjects;
  •     Empower each individual politically, legally, socially, and economically;
  •     Do not favour or put certain individuals or yourself above others;
  •     Act with self-control at all times;
  •     Do not be self-enriching at the expense of your subjects, and
  •     Given the power of a ruler, avoid and be free of power mismanagement and     emotional and physical exploitation, abuse and misuse of your subjects.

The above six basic rules provide an excellent explanation of the deep-seated views among Blacks about racism and its accompanying land grabbing by the Afrikaners. One of the revenges is grabbing land “back” from Whites, a sentiment fuelled by the EFF and other radical Black politicians. The current hostility of some Blacks towards Whites, especially Afrikaners, and their rejection of Afrikaners as an indigenous tribe is a predictable political, psychological and pathological response within the framework of the Herodotus philosophy. It makes a dramatic land redistribution policy and programme inevitable. It will happen and Whites must enter the process less rigidly and address the situation constructively.15-17

3.4 The shortcomings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) with respect to addressing land ownership

The TRC’s main aim was to bring reconciliation between Afrikaners and Blacks with respect to apartheid crimes, a task that they mastered to a certain extent. Criminal prosecutions and civil action against the culprits of apartheid are the primary tasks of the NPA and of course the ANC regime itself.18

South Africa’s complexity of politics, racism, discrimination, Black and White colonialism and need for Black empowerment asks for more than the emotional catharses of forgiveness for politically and morally reprehensible behaviour by individuals and groups that characterized the TRC proceedings. The TRC left many Black persons not only with unsolved personal, emotional and psychological issues, but also with enormous financial difficulties rooted in the racial discrimination that began in 1652. Most of these issues are exacerbated by landlessness, either for farming or for housing.3,18-20

The ANC is now emphasising the rectification of apartheid wrongdoings and the role Afrikaners played in the previous regime. Other Black factions are joining in to mobilise the poor as voters, using false rhetoric to reclaim land that has never really been the land of the Blacks. A kind of Land Reconciliation Commission (LRC) seems needed. A Poverty Obliteration Commission is needed.

There has indeed not been any real legal, civil and financial transformation and correction in the form of criminal prosecutions of apartheid leaders and their immediate accomplices after 1994. The TRC could not rectify wrongdoings, like the land grabbing of Black land during apartheid. There has been no organised effort by the ANC regime to repossess the properties and assets of the Whites who benefited or to compensate those who lost their land or the land of their fore fathers.3,18-22

Many of the poor, landless and jobless Blacks of yesterday are still waiting for a restitution process that would do them justice at last. Many are of the opinion that grabbing White property, land and assets, a more radical BEE, and reducing government protection of the rights of Whites, is an unavoidable process that must start soon.3,15,21-21,30-32,35-36

However, at the centre of South African legal land ownership is the question of who should be regard as a colonist and who should be see as an indigenous person who could claim. Emotional and political rhetoric and opinions became intertwine; overshadowing logical, historical and legal reasoning. Whites are been regarded as the sole thieves of South African land and as unwelcome and uninvited settlers. South African land is seen always having belonged to Blacks; arguments that are not always true representations of the facts.29-35

3.5 The failure the National Prosecution Authority to start land reform

The envisaged efforts by the NPA to prosecute individuals for apartheid crimes (which includes the possibility of compensating the victims by repossessing properties and assets if found guilty), are too late and will surely involve only a few prosecutions. This is a task which should have started in 1994; most of the NP culprits are deceased or have left the country. Only a programme of immediate, dramatic and fast land reform would solve the “long outstanding land-reforming issue” to which Musyoka11 refers. He sees it as a “crucial issue” that can address the NPA’s failure to start some form of redistribution in 1994. This suggestion is the wish of many wronged Black persons who are still living in dire financial situations on White farms, caught in abject poverty and economic deprivation. The present post-1994 political dispensation offers these unfortunate citizens no hope of escaping poverty or becoming farmers or homeowners. Essentially, their lives are very similar to the pre-1994 political setup. Land redistribution is the only solution to get them out of this hole. Anyone who sees the failed land reform policy introduced in 1994 as a fait accompli is underestimating this troublesome matter. Terrible violence is waiting if the matter is not successfully settled.11

The South African government and its justice system failed the Blacks in terms of addressing their loss of land over many years as Whites grabbed land without compensation. Land ownership should be immediately after 1994 be addressed, but the political system was manipulated and inefficient. Had this matter been settled, there would have been better reconciliation between White and Black, instead of the present ongoing uncertainty and fighting around land ownership (which is becoming more and more racially laden).18,20,36

3.6 The failure of the ANC to offer a sound programme of land redistribution from 1994

It is important to understand why land redistribution is now only after 24 years of democracy and Black rule addressed. The ANC regime’s failure to create an LRC in 1994 was not due to a lack of political will, but rather a lack of political power (which includes military). It is important to note the nationalist Afrikaners under their NP leadership was well armed in 1994. Any provocative action, like the large-scale prosecution of the political and military leaders, or redistribution of land, assets and property of the nationalist Afrikaners would been seen as a threat to the Afrikaner’s immediate safety and rights. It would have triggered a White military intervention that could have thwarted the transfer of power to the Blacks. The late Nelson Mandela and his counsellors knew this well and took the wise route of not prosecuting the NP-regime and its elite immediately after 1994.2,15,21,22,37-42

The further failure of the ANC to correct the imbalance in land ownership later on between 1994 and 2018 when the ANC had the political and military power is not a strange case of political failure. The constant manipulative efforts of Whites to de-empower Blacks – politically, socially and economically – are cemented in South Africa’s political history. This manipulation began in 1652 and involved brute force from 1853 up to 1994. It is a still present in South Africa’s political dynamics; planned, steered and dominated by the country’s mighty business bullies and their political associates. At moment, it takes the form of well-organized opposition to any form of land redistribution.43

This outcome of a disempowered Black populace – politically, socially and economically – are traced in more detail below to show why 2018 brings with it an awakening from political passivity, leading to an overemphasis on land redistribution.

3.7 The sidelining of Blacks from politics and land ownership from 1853 to 1994

3.7.1 The Cape Constitution of 1853, Constitution Ordinance Amendment Act of 1872 of the Cape Colony and the Union of South Africa of 1910

The Cape became in 1853 a colony of the British Crown. The Queen instituted in the same year a parliament in terms of the Cape Constitution of 1853.7,9,46- 48

This first Parliament (1854–1858)7:81-82 gave the vote to all British adult male subjects who earned at least ₤50 a year or who had occupied a property with a minimum rental value of ₤25 per annum for at least a year. This Act was been applied to its logical conclusion with Ordinance 50 that prohibited any discrimination on the grounds of race or class. This created a non-racial qualified franchise. The same qualifications for suffrage applied equally to all males, regardless of race. However, the impoverished non-Whites experienced what Geen7 refers to as the so-called “liberal franchise” awarded to British subjects as discriminatory. The Cape Constitution of 1853 used wealth as a selection criteria to deny non-Whites their right to political decision-making, including their right to vote on matters related to land ownership. The Blacks found themselves in a situation of declining political power and the matter of land ownership that had been contentious from 1652, became the worst it had ever been.7,9,46- 48

Eighteen years later the Constitution Ordinance Amendment Act of 1872 upheld the non-racial nature of the Cape Constitution of 1853 as a core value. The universal qualification for suffrage of ₤25 was seen low enough to ensure that most owners of any form of property or land could vote. The political position improved for Blacks, seeing that their economical welfare was much better than in 1853, while the franchise requirements of 1953 had not been amended.7,9,48 This improvement in the financial position of Blacks led to the registration of large numbers of new rural Xhosas voters on the frontier on the grounds of communal land ownership. Geen’s7 “liberal franchise” was quickly becoming a “Black danger” for the Whites with respect to political, social and economic power because of the growing political self-empowerment of the new Black voters. The Cape Whites mobilised to limit the liberal policy on Black political rights propagated from London to keep Blacks from gaining a possible majority at the Cape. Such a majority would have had a great impact on the government and land possession.7,9,48

The Whites’ political manipulation to de-empower Blacks with the 1886 adjustment of voting qualifications was to counter the possible influx of Black voters as result of the annexation of British Kaffraria in 1865. When the Transkei territories were been incorporated into the Cape Colony, bringing more potential Black voters, the White parliament enacted a bill that disqualified Black voters specifically. It read7:86: “No person [could] be deemed to be a registered voter by reason of holding land on tribal or communal tenure”. There was already a differentiation between “Coloured non-Whites” and “Black non-Whites” in 1886, showing the worsening political situation of Blacks when it came to human rights, equality and unrestricted rights to land ownership in South Africa, then the Cape Colony. The “Coloured people” had a slightly better deal when it came to voting, but they were in truth also being kept out to ensure White power.7,9,46,48-50

The above discriminatory changes of 1886 were been upheld when the franchise laws were amended in 1892 during the premiership of Cecil Rhodes. Geen7 reports that this had to 7:86: “prevent the ‘blanket’ Kaffirs of the Transkeian territories from the right of voting”. They had to be cut out of White and Colonial politics.7,46,49

The law was been amended in 1892 and the salary qualification was abolished. The occupational qualification was been raised from ₤25 to ₤75 per annum. The Act was also been amended with the stipulation that voters had to be able to write their names and occupations. This change was racially oriented, although well masked. The fact that no drastic change was been made to the liberal franchise created by the 1853 Cape Constitution, reflects a thoroughly considered racially discriminative plan on the side of the Cape Whites to get the 1872 dispensation going without obstruction by London. On the surface, the legislation gave equal rights, but the door was left wide open for future human rights abuses without interference from London. The 1872 negative change to the Cape Constitution was a result of the hidden intentions of the Cape parliament to discriminate against Blacks later on.7,9,46,48,49

The 1853- and 1872-constitutions were nothing more than paper constitutions when it comes to the political, economic and social rights of non-Whites in South Africa. Both constitutions ensured that the country would be steered by the Whites, mostly at the costs of the Black inhabitants. The British Empire’s ability to uphold the rights of non-Whites and to safeguard them from White opportunism was limited from 1892. From 1892 onwards, Black political rights were gradually limited, especially given the post-1892 passivity of London with respect to the political, social and economic rights of non-Whites in South Africa. Black land ownership and just political policies never reached maturity in the Cape Colony. This discriminatory policy, although liberal in comparison with that of the Transvaal and Free State republics (British colonies after 1902) was later transferred to the Union of South Africa in 1910. By then the liberal Cape Dutch inhabitants were politically trounced by the racial Transvaal and Free State burghers and the wheels had been put in motion for ever-limiting policies of discrimination against non-Whites, ultimately culminating in the Grand apartheid of 1948 to 1994. Land grabbing from Blacks and land ownership became an issue that needed urgent attention, but it was bluntly and blindly ignored by the Whites. The fact that non-Whites were the majority from 1652 caused the Whites, especially the Afrikaners after 1910, to see this as the “Black problem” or the “Black question”. The Whites conquered by means of military, social and economic domination, so one could say there was actually a White problem. The British imperial mentality at the time was that numbers did not count in politics and government, only military and political power. The White problem continued uninterrupted up to the end of apartheid. This “problem” is now very visible in the dissatisfaction of the Black masses with respect to land ownership, the enforcement of restitution and the completion of the transition to new dispensation and its constitution.7,9,46,48-50

The great political injustices committed in South Africa from 1652 bring Blacks and Whites into direct conflict on land ownership. It all started with the rather innocent intention to establish the Cape Refreshment Station as a temporary settlement. Now there is an age-old conflict between the White colonists or settlers and the indigenous Blacks. Under below is the validity of the claim that all Whites are colonists and all Blacks are indigenous, as the foundation for the legality of the demands from Blacks with respect to land redistribution, evaluated.

3.8 The dilemma of ignorance about the indigenous status of the South African peoples

3.8.1 Myths, lies and facts on the rightful franchisees of South African land

Political clichés on the rightful franchisees of South African land and on which Black tribes and White groups have rights to South African land ownership have become prominent over the last five years.2,11 Many of these statements are purely political, filled with emotional rhetoric. They often reflect the speaker’s lack of understanding of the political history of South Africa, and, most of all, a lack of basic knowledge on political governance and science. Remarks range from Blacks referring to Whites as colonists who stole Black land, to threats to kill the White colonists, with a cursory “but not yet” added on. On the other, some Afrikaners claim ownership based on their fore fathers who took possession of undeveloped, uninhabited and barren land. References to the Boer victory over Dingane of the Zulus in the Battle of Blood River, are frequent.7,9 This kind of rhetoric is many times fake news, but fake news is only a very small part of political misinformation and intolerance. Governments worldwide use the media to stay in power and to crush any opposition. The NP was and the ANC is a master of the art of exterminating enemies. History and false histories are part of this political misinformation and intolerance.

It is therefore of great importance to separate myths and lies from the truth to determine who the non-indigenous colonists (the land predators) are, who the true indigenous people (the native or natural people) are, and who the indigenous colonists (foreigners who become natives over time) are. Only then can the various claims of who the rightfully owners of the country’s land is, be discussed. It will help us determine if the intended land redistribution without compensation by the Blacks is justified, or if a process of land redistribution with reasonable compensation should be followed to do justice to all South Africa’s people.

3.8.1.1 Early inhabitants and their indigenousness

The earliest inhabitants (settlers) of South Africa, before the Europeans and Blacks arrived, were undoubtedly the KhoiSan and the KhoiKhoi. It is unknown who the people were before them, if there was any. The settlement at the Cape brought an infusion of an Asian, Indian and Malay blood, resulting in a new race in South Africa, namely the Coloureds. This kind of a mixed race was commonly in the Far East, the Middle East, or in European territories. In addition to the Coloureds, this infusion resulted in an Indian population that has become as indigenous as any White, Black, KhoiKhoi and KhoiSan group. This unique constellation of ethnic groups in South Africa brings the many clichés on who the rightful landowners are to the foreground. The pre-1900s South Africans’ were six broad racial and ethnic categories, namely the KhoiSan, the KhoiKhoi, the Black tribes, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. Their history and arrival in South Africa are discussed below.2,7

3.8.1.1.1 The KhoiSan

This group, probably the first inhabitants of South Africa, seems to have migrated from the central parts of Southern Asia. The theory is that their migration to South Africa was by a scarcity of food and/or that they were been driven from Asia by other stronger races. The initial tribe ultimately split into three sub-tribes: one group moving south-east to the Malaysian Peninsula, the Philippines and as far as Australia; the second group moving west as far as Spain and the third group moving into North Africa and from there southwards as result of attacks by the Hamites in the Nile region. A subgroup of this third group moved downwards from the eastern part of Africa to gather south of the Zambezi in the 1600s.

The KhoiSan was nomadic hunters, living largely on game and gathering roots for their daily food. Geen7 describes them as follows:7:10

Their family and tribal ties were weak, their ideas of religion rudimentary and their vocabulary limited, but they had considerable artistic talent; and

…their neighbours, both the Hottentotte [KhoiKhoi] and Bantu [Blacks], doubted whether they were quite human and so it is not surprising that the Europeans also proved enemies, and that today Bushmen [KhoiSan] remain only in very small numbers in the Kalahari Desert and South-West Africa.

Today the KhoiSan are not prominent role-players when it comes to land due to their small numbers and lack of political and economic power. The KhoiSan of today sadly finds themselves in the age-old position of the winner(s) takes all. They can claim land based on their history of miscegenation with Blacks, Coloureds and the KhoiKhoi.

3.8.1.1.2 The KhoiKhoi

The KhoiKhoi are slightly bigger and a little darker than the KhoiSan. They probably owe their origins to an intermingling of KhoiSan and the Hamites in Somaliland. Geen7 states that it seems they travelled south-west down into Africa to the region of the Great Lakes, and, after staying several centuries, they moved further southwards around 600AC to reach the Orange River. They established themselves along the banks of the river and the West Coast, from Walvis Bay to the Umtamvuna River. Later on, they split into smaller group, each group with a name and their own customs.7

The KhoiKhoi were pastoralists and hunters. During the 1713 small pox outbreak, many died.7 Geen writes7:10: “…today few pure-blooded Hottentots exist, but their blood has been absorbed by the Griquas and the Cape Coloured people and, in varying degrees, by many Bantu tribes”.

As a group in itself, apart from their intermingling with the Coloureds and Blacks, the KhoiKhoi have very little impact on today’s land ownership debacle. However, in terms of equality and human rights as protected by the South African Constitution, they should as a group given the opportunity to claim ownership of the South African soil.

3.8.1.1.3 The Indians, Asians and Malays

These late comers to South Africa, mainly as result of the import of labour to Natal in 1860, have like all the other races in South Africa, become indigenous to the country. Many of their fore fathers or tribal associates were Asian, Indian and Malay female slaves who came to the Cape Refreshment Station between 1650 and 1670.2

It is important to mention that research adds a 7.2% to 10.7% Indian influence into the Afrikaners’ matrilineal gene pool from Malaysian and other slave women (up to the early 1800s, 80% of the slaves came from India. It was only from 1730 onwards that the import of slaves from Madagascar was intensified).50,51

These historical facts reflect a horizontal biological association between the races in the Cape, especially immediately after the introduction of the free burghers in 1657 up to 1671. The fact is that three out of four children born to slave mothers during 1650 to 1670 had White fathers (meaning that the direct, first line infusion of “non-White blood” into the White parent stock can even be as high as 75%). Between 1657 and 1671, the early male ancestors of the Afrikaners at the Cape also took Black and KhoiKhoi women. These non-White women were accepted into the White community as either concubines or wives. They, together with some White women, became the parent stock of the White population and the later Afrikaners. These non-White women’s children, especially the females, were mostly assimilated into White society directly and horizontally to make up for the shortage of women without any discrimination or stigmatisation.2,50,52,53

It is clear that the Asians, Indians and Malay claim on South African land ownership is not limited to their South African identity, it is strengthens by their interbreeding with the Whites and the Coloureds.2

3.8.1.1.4 The Coloureds

There is an erroneous argument that the early Cape Settlement’s intermingling with non-Whites was limited to a small number of White families, and that these 6% to 10.7% mixed Afrikaner descendants were pushed from the White society to form the new Coloured population at the Cape. A vertical biological development of a closed and outcast group of mixed people, mostly excluded from the White nucleus that formed the modern Afrikaners, is surely true as evident from the existence of South African Coloureds and other mixed people of today. The fact is that the situation can be described as a “schizophrenic” split between the Whites and the Coloureds, peoples of the same bloodline, basically because the one group supposedly has “more non-White blood”. One can explain it as the same father having children by two different women (the Arabs and the Jews have the same “schizophrenic” origin). Evidence of an immense horizontal biological impact of “Coloured blood” on Afrikaners’ genes confirms the superficiality of this split between Coloureds and Whites. This contradicts the idea that there is only 6% to 10.7% of mixed Afrikaner descendants and of an exclusive separate vertical development of the Coloureds as a separate ethnic group. This fellowship between White Afrikaners and Brown Afrikaners makes the claims of White Afrikaners on land ownership applicable to the Coloureds and vice versa.50,54,55

Looking more critically at nationhood in South Africans is it only the Coloureds who can pride themselves on being a true mix of the various racial and ethnic groups in South Africa. They are indeed South African Creoles to the quick. Notwithstanding this right of birth and the fact that they are the second largest tribe in the country, they are still politically, economically and socially marginalises as in the previous dispensation.2

3.8.1.1.5 The different Black tribes

The first real physical contact between the White settlers and the Black settlers occurred more or less in the 18th century. The Blacks, like the Whites, are comparative newcomers to Southern Africa, writes Geen7:10. The South African Blacks probably came from Central Asia. They moved into Africa en masse, splitting in two: one group moving down into the middle of Africa and the second group moving along the East Coast to reach Sofala by the 10th century. When the Portuguese established themselves on the East Coast, various eastbound Black groups moved as far down as Natal and in the 1650s the area around the Kei River. The central group also moved southwards to establish themselves in the vicinities of the Vet and Caledon Rivers in the 1750s.7

Geen7 describes the unique characteristics of these various groups of Blacks, moving as foreigners southeast and southwards into Southern Africa. They constituted an ethnic group who matched the power and political intentions and motives of the White frontiersmen from day one at the Eastern border of the Cape Colony. Geen says the following7:11: “The Bantu [Blacks], mentally alert and physical strong, had a complex tribal system with hereditary chiefs whose powers were limited by their councils of headmen”.

Looking critically at the tribal and leadership customs and traditions of the early Blacks during their First and Second Colonization of South Africa between 1810 and 1840, we see similarities with Joshua and Moses and their conquest and creation of a New Israel. The Blacks wanted to become permanent settlers with indigenous status (especially through land grabbing, war and the extermination of their opponents by robbing them of land and cattle).2,3

The constant references to the Afrikaner as an alien, murderous colonist in South Africa, the only colonist in South Africa, are clearly false. It is an undeniable fact that the current Black population are also foreign to South Africa and is indeed in the same boat as the Afrikaners. The term “alien murderous colonists” is also applicable to them.

The Blacks have no more right on land ownership in terms of citizen-rights than the KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds, Asians, Indians, Malays, Whites and Afrikaners. They are simply a larger population and can therefore occupy proportional more land as the smaller groups. Their present claims on land and their focus on land redistribution without compensation amounts to land grabbing and terrorism, as did their fore fathers when they settle here as foreigners.2

3.8.1.1.6 Whites and the Afrikaners

The widely accepted and propagated views that the Afrikaner is a unique and “pure” White, European and Caucasian race that had its cultural origins in 1652 at the Cape Settlement, is, as indicated above, wrong. The proof in literature of miscegenation and a multiracial component is a fact that most Afrikaners hush. The White Afrikaners’ earlier Afrikaner families are descending from various racial and ethnic bloodlines to form the trunk (nucleus) of the Afrikaner family tree that branched out to today’s Afrikaners.52,56

The multiracialism of today’s Afrikaners makes their legal claims on land ownership equal to that of South Africa’s Asian, Indians, KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds and Blacks. The Afrikaners have become indigenous, as have the Asians, Indians, KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds and Blacks.50-53,57,58

3.9 Liberation, terrorism and land grabbing in South Africa

As indicated in the title of the article, land grabbing is an age-old practice in South Africa. The question is by whom. Two main ethnic role players are prominent: Whites versus Blacks. From a modern political perspective, the two main role players are the National Party (NP) up to 1994 and the ANC after 1994.

3.9.1 The liberation and terrorism heart of the ANC elite and their supporters

An in-depth analysis of the political history of the ANC is helpful for understanding more of the political heart of the party and its leaders in 2018 and of their demand for land grabbing. Mhtombothi writes23:17 that the ANC’s modus operandi, their raison d’être and their main skill is to destroy rather than to build. Liberation movements (like the ANC) in Africa, Latin America and East Asia have been unable to run passable governments or to improve the quality of life of the people beyond giving them handouts. These handouts come from the redistribution of the wealth of the “conquered” groups. Instead of growing the cake, they redistribute what is already in existence by means of land grabbing and stealing from the minority and defenceless individuals and groups. What is more, there is an unbalanced allocation of these resources to party cadres and elites.23,59-64

Historical and modern land grabbing alike are been founded on liberation and terrorism. This has to be high light here. The official British description of terrorism (See: 3.1Land ownership obtained by means of modern terrorism in South Africa) is quite applicable to the South African situation. Terrorism is been described as serious violence against a person or serious damage to property to influence a government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public with the aim of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.8

The ANC’s current ideas on land grabbing are rooted in the first Black colonization of South Africa. Their fore fathers simply sought freedom and a better life in Southern Africa. This soon turned into fighting with the other incoming Black tribes and local non-White tribes and groups. The resulting land grabbing and murder of the legal owners of the territories by the fore fathers of the present ANC, was nothing else than terrorism. The unique characteristics that we associated with many of the ANC’s executive political leaders are the same as those associated with their fore fathers, who were without doubt freedom fighters, terrorists and liberators.2,3,8,26,52,65,66-67

Many of the current behaviours of Black leaders, like their intentions of land grabbing, RET and RST, are part of a culture passed on from their fore fathers. The unjustified oppression they experienced at the hands of the Whites (specifically the early Afrikaners and Afrikaners between 1910 and 1994) undoubtedly exacerbated their desire for terrorism and land grabbing with the focus on Whites specifically.2

These early negative values, internalized long ago as good customs, traditions and habits inside the Black culture were been transferred over the years to later generations. Many of the modern South Africa Black leaders who come from this culture have captured the unstable political setup after 1994 for their benefit and to spread their terrorist thinking among their Black supporters.23,27,59-62,68-71

The Black population initially migrated to South Africa to settle in areas that were at that time mostly KhoiKhoi and KhoiSan territory (territory that they also occupied as settlers earlier). These occupations were illegal in terms of modern international law. The establishment of a permanent stronghold in their new homeland is been seen, as said, as the first Black colonization of South Africa. However, the initial colonization did not last long. There was infighting over land, livestock, water resources and political rights. This led to brutal wars in the newly occupied areas. Groups tried to drive each other out of the new territories. These series of expulsions are been regarded as the second Black colonization of South Africa. The years 1810 to 1840 (known as the Mfecane in the coastal areas and the Difaqane inland) led to widespread Black-on-Black bloodshed in the northern parts of South Africa. This “Black re-colonisation” process took place more or less simultaneously with the northward migration of the Trek Boers and Voortrekkers into the interior from the Cape Colony.3,7,9

In this second Black colonization, King Shaka, the king of the powerful newly formed Zulu kingdom is been pinpointed as the main culprit of wrongdoings. His murderous behaviour around 1819 led to political, social and economic chaos and large-scale land grabbing. He was the main perpetrator of Black colonialism and land grabbing between 1810 and 1840, leading to the eradication and re-colonization of other Black tribes. The remnants of these broken Black tribes fled and settled away from the Zulus and other occupying tribes. This led to the depopulation of large parts of South Africa because of further infighting and land grabbing. Intense food shortage followed and it is been estimated that more than 28 independent Black tribes were completely wiped out. The total death toll has never been determined, but the estimation is between one and two million.3,7,9

Mzilikazi (Msilikazi), the king of the Matabele in Transvaal between 1826 and 1836, also played a prominent role in this genocide. He also ordered widespread killings of other Black tribes and the removal of all opposition to his new Ndebele order.3,7,9

These first and second Black colonisations represent South Africa’s first genocides. This is a political-historical fact that is been ignored and hidden from the public eye in the present context of the ANC’s post-1994 policy on guarding the Blacks’ political power and unity. Today, Black South Africans seem to refuse to accept personal blame and responsibility for their ancestors’ colonial atrocities. These atrocities were committed simply to obtain new land.2,3

3.9.2 The liberation and terrorism heart of the early and later Afrikaner leaders and their supporters

The current noises of land redistribution without compensation are making some Afrikaners nervous, especially White farmers. However, they are wrong to point a finger at the ANC when it comes to land grabbing. The early proto-Afrikaners grabbed land from the early 1700s up to 1910, where after the Afrikaner Nationalists continued from 1910 to 1994.2,3,9,48,52,67,72-74

The Afrikanerism of the early and later Afrikaners represents terrorism, supporting and upholding a liberation movement. It often became radical and extreme, especially between 1948 and 1994. The modus operandi of the early proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaner Nationalists and the liberation principles of the ANC is the same. In the Afrikaners’ case, their initial early enemies were the English. Later, the “Black danger” came to the foreground as the most pertinent issue. The tendency of Afrikaner leaders to see themselves as the liberators of the Afrikaner tribe and to pursue White supremacy, were found necessary to explore. 2,48,52,62,71,72,74,75

The history of the Afrikaners, from the early days of the Cape Colony to the later Boer republics, the period from 1910 to 1948 and the Afrikaner Nationalists from 1948 to 1994, reflect active and destructive terrorism by a liberation movement. This was long before the ANC appeared on the scene. The timeline concurs with that of Shaka and other Black leaders. Both the White and Black groups destroyed the opposition and preyed on their assets. Afrikanerism also meets the British definition of terrorism, just like the ANC. Land terrorism and land grabbing without compensation (but with bloodshed) as propagated by ANC was part and parcel of the way in which Afrikaners took possession of land from 1652 to 1994. It brought the Afrikaners in possession 85% of the South African territory. In other words, the ANC is not planning anything that the Afrikaners did not do.2,3,7,9 Both of the two prominent role players were and are nothing other than political mobsters. Boon3 describes their characteristics as follows3:75:

Selfishness; delinquent inclinations all-over; strategies total stripped of all democratic principles, traditions, thinking, planning and doings; absolute intolerant; anti- order; minorities are quickly eradicated; coercion actions characterized by destruction, threat, killings and brutalities; aim the creation of a delinquent mob-reign; aim the exclusive of executive political mob-leaders to reign the country.

Just as some of the bad early political-history of some of the Black-tribes of in South Africa became part of ANC’s culture, the years 1652 to 1910 cemented certain thought patterns in the Afrikaners. From 1910 up to 1994, it took an extreme form. The Malan manifesto of 1948 that introduced Grand Apartheid confirms this.48,52,71,72,74-76

The radical racist land grabbing behaviour of 1948 to 1994 on the side of the Afrikaner Nationalists has a much deeper aetiology that dates from the 1700s. Some of the deviant behaviours are been founded in the history of the Boers on the borders (Grensboere) and the migratory Boers (Trekboere). Geen7 describes these groups as White frontiersmen. Some deviating behaviours became entrenched as acceptable in the minds of these White frontiersmen.2,7,52,76

Geen7 quotes Deneys Reitz’s book titled “No outspan on the early Afrikaners”, as follows7:69: “Knowing my countrymen as I do, I think the cause of their leaving [Great Trek] was not so much hatred of British rule as a dislike of any rule”. Reitz7 reflects on the foundation of the racist and defiant thinking of the early Afrikaners. They expressed their Afrikanerism without inhibition, among other things by means of terrorist attacks on Blacks. Geen7 writes7:69:

The frontiersmen – and it was they and not the well-to-do farmers of the western districts who went on trek – were stock-farmers and hunters with a low standard of living who were used both too isolation and trekking, so that though the Trek implied an uprooting it did not mean a change in their way of life. The dangers of the interior were undoubtedly great, but at any rate, the leaders of the various parties knew that of all the tribes the Griquas, Matabele and Zulus alone were to be feared. Any other people but the Boers might have rebelled in similar circumstances, but since the trek-spirit was in-born farms were either sold or abandoned and their holders went off into the interior, where cheap land and labour would be plentiful and government interference of the slightest. It seems probable that the Great Trek would not have happened had the scene not been South Africa and the actors Boers.

Geen7 continues to describe the defiance of the White frontiersmen and their refusal to submit to law and order. He states7:68-69:

Traditions of government in the Cape Colony were bad, as the frontiersmen had been used to too little control in the days of the Dutch Eastern India Company, when they had provided their own defence and so had become their own law. They had become a race of extreme individualists with an inherited suspicion of any authority and discipline, so that they viewed with dismay the steady extension of magisterial districts, which in their eyes meant stricter government control and, moreover in 1828 involved the abolition of the representative Courts or Heemraden.

It is very important to pause for a moment to consider this early Boer mentality and their views of what is civilized and uncivilized behaviour, of what is right and wrong. Land grabbing and suppression of other groups were part of their way of doing. This was been transferred to the Boer republics and later to the modern Afrikaners. Geen continues7:72-73:

For many years, the trekkers and their descendants led a roving life in the interior cut off from educational facilities and other civilizing agents. Their education was first that of the open veld and then that of the isolated farm, but it was neither literary nor industrial and made the Boers far more backwards than their counterparts in Australia and the American Middle West. The isolation in which the children and grandchildren of the trekkers grew up has helped to create the Poor White problem of today [1946], for the civilizing work of the original trekkers was superficially done and was spread far too thinly over a wide area.

The fact that the Boers constantly moved northwards confirms that: “they wanted to do things their way”. Their way was not always within the limits of the law (like land grabbing and the planned termination of non-Whites like the KhoiSan). It resembled terrorism as described by Powell8 and Boon3. Their terrorist behaviours, as already indicated, reappeared during the Great Trek when the Voortrekkers started to occupy land that they argued and rationalized as “uninhabited and ownerless,” while in reality it was the property of Black tribes who used it as hunting grounds and pasture for their cattle and as a defence zone between hostile tribes. Despite this reality, the Boers occupied the land, often by brute force and the loss of Black lives. This first forceful occupation of Black land north of the Cape Colony’s border took the same form as the killing and atrocities during the migration of Black tribes southwards with the first and second colonization of South Africa.2,52,76

It is important to look at Powell’s8 description of terrorism again. When considering the actions of the Boers, it resembles Saddam Hussein’s unlawful occupation of Kuwait that caused the world to react with full military force. In modern times, the behaviour of the early Boers would bring them before the International Criminal Court for terrorism, the unlawful occupation of foreign land and murder.8,77

The aggression of the Boers escalated with the large-scale occupation of Black territory to form the Boer republics. They drove away or killed the Black owners. They used the same tactics that Shaka used to take over the land of other tribes. This early occupation facilitated the founding of the two Boer republics, both of which supported racial discrimination. This shows how much terrorism and Boer liberation are internalized in the minds of the Afrikaners.2,9,47,52,65,66,67

The purpose of the terrorism and land grabbing of the Boers was to create an economic system that would be theirs exclusively. Their dehumanization of Blacks also served this purpose. Chomsky78 says it well78:28:

Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle.

After the fall of the two Boer republics, the Transvaal and the Free State, the Boers gained the political upper hand again with the formation of the Union of South Africa. They were still been driven by their rigid racism (which included the dehumanization of Blacks and the capture of Black interests). This negative energy was been channelled into the racial policy of the Union and from there into the Grand Apartheid of the Verwoerd Republic, which only ended officially in 1994.2,52,68,69,76,79

Researchers have thus far refrained from studying the land grabbing of the early Boers in the Transvaal and the Free State because it is so politically sensitive. The same goes for the earlier actions of Whites in Cape Colony and later in the greater South Africa. The South African situation does not differ much from the early American terrorism against the Native Americans (Red Indians) in their land grabbing. Martinez80 writes as follows about the ignored colonial history of the Americans80:151:

 When freedoms clash, some must take priority over others. In the economy, the     mechanism that determines which freedoms are prioritized is the property rights system. Property rights bestow the freedom to control and profit from what is owned. They determine who has     decision-making authority over a given commodity. Ownership is     necessarily exclusive: as soon as one person owns something, the     rest of the world does not. When the Wild West pioneer claimed to     own ‘newly discovered’ land and made it his home, he appropriated resources that had been the preserve of Native Americans for thousand s of years.

Martinez80 reports further80:153:

The history of colonialism and imperialism poses further challenges to the legitimacy of property rights today. From the fifteenth century onwards, European nations took control of much of North, Central and South America, large swathes of Asia and, by the twentieth century, most of Africa. Indigenous populations were wiped out or pushed off their land, communities were devastated and resources were appropriated for Western profit; and

There is nothing voluntary about this process. Indeed, it is hard to see the original appropriation and privatisation of commonly owned resources as anything but theft.

Geen’s7 description of the early Boers’ land grabbing by terrorism is reminiscent of the White Europeans early land grabbing from the indigenous populations of Norh, Central and South America, large parts of Asia and most of Africa (1500s to 1800s). The behaviour of the Whites, aggravated further after 1910, has contaminated all possibilities of successful and civilized land transformation in South Africa. Land grabbing is an evil that has affected all the populations of South Africa. Geen7 writes as follows in the context of the tragic chain reaction of early White land grabbing7:73:

As the Trek is responsible in some measure for the Poor White problem of the present so also it made the segregation of the Bantu [Black] tribes forever impossible. Despite the wars of Chaka and Msilikazi in the land into which the trekkers moved was by no means empty of population for Native [Black] wars were not unduly destructive of life. Having subdued the Native tribes the trekkers soon disposed them of their lands and thus helped to create a landless class of Natives, which is the source of many of the Union’s economic troubles at the present time [1946].The trekkers hardly exemplify a judicious Native policy, for their haphazard apportionment of land often without survey at all mean that the Natives became mere squatters on their own tribal land; and in looking at the things exclusively from the point of view of European interests the trekkers set the disastrous fashion of ignoring the very existence of the Native population. Sir T. Shepstone was near the truth when he wrote to the Colonial Office in January 1880 that “the government of the (Transvaal) Republic never thought it necessary even as a matter of mere prudence, to set apart land for the occupation of the natives”. The Native Problem that exercises the attention of S. African statesmen today [1946] is largely the creation of the trekkers, who in the interior provinces of the Union laid the foundation of a civilization based on a landless Bantu proletariat and a rigid maintenance of the Colour Bar in State and Church.

Looking at the current landlessness of many Blacks and their dire ongoing poverty, the above words are applicable to the South Africa of 2018. The fact that the Afrikaner Nationalists are no longer in power makes it possible for widespread land redistribution to start at last to erase the injustices of the past.

4. Conclusions

The political dispensations of Cape Colony of 1853 and 1872 and the Union of 1910 offered excellent opportunities to redistribute land and hand it back to Blacks to create an open, just South African society. The much later 1994-dispensation failed completely. This makes the current land redistribution, which may also just become land grabbing, a natural and unavoidable interference and intervention. Land redistribution is a necessary must. It is unavoidable. It needs a solution.

From 1652 to 1994, many Whites in South Africa had it good, especially the Afrikaners. They still see their possession of certain valuable land as normal, rightful, certain and permanent in 2018. This is an illusion that has lasted nearly four centuries because of the Afrikaner’s refusal to become an indigenous South African and to make the change from an outdated European to a modern African identity.

The bad parts of South African history are as intertwined as the bloodlines are. South Africa’s Blacks and Whites are indeed equals when it comes to freedom fighting, land terrorism and land grabbing. Now is there only one prominent difference between the two: The Afrikaners own most of the land that the Blacks want. The prominent question is how the transfer will take place: Will it be another land grab; or will there be a reasoned, a balanced and a just land transfer and redistribution? The last option has been absent for all of South African political history.

The refusal on the part of the Whites to surrender capital to the Blacks is concerning. Not even the various political consequences of the post-1994 dispensation could detangle and break down the intertwined self-enriching politics and economics of especially the Afrikaners.

Louw writes in this regard2:93:

Negative thought patterns like racial discrimination, forged by years of exposure, examples and compensation, will not be erased easily from the thinking of most Afrikaners, especially if they are not rational. The lost privileges, rights, benefits and empowerments are seldom reclaimable. Most Afrikaners find themselves in an unbearable dilemma today.

The Afrikaners as individuals and a tribe are over-estimating their current importance and role in South Africa. They do not see the fact that they are probably moving towards dissolution in a century’s time. Some of the ANC elite and other radical Black politicians know this well.2 For these Blacks, especially those still thirsty for revenge after apartheid, the prominent question is: So why care about the Afrikaners’ rights and concerns? Did the Afrikaners care for non-Whites from 1652 to 2018?

Land redistribution has the potential to become a much more devastating and life-threatening phenomenon than Europeans have ever seen in the history of Africa. It has the potential to overshadow the murderous acts of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Patrice Lumumba in the Belgium Congo. In this new South African history there seems to be only one short-sighted loser: the Afrikaner landowner. The position of the Whites will certainly be far less favourable than their present one if there is a orderly land redistribution, but the alternative is anarchy that the Afrikaners would be lucky to survive.2,68,69,79

The Blacks have no more right to land ownership than the KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds, Asian, Indians, Malays, Whites and Afrikaners. The present claims by some Blacks that they have the sole right to grab land, are been based on a false indigenous identity. It is a new land terrorism, similar to what their fore fathers did when they settled here as foreigners.2

What is been needed is an appropriate, equal land redistribution programme in terms of the tribal proportional numbers of the Blacks, KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds, Asian, Indians, Malays, Whites and Afrikaners. The issue of land for the poor should take centre stage. This will bring some justice and harmony to the South African population at last.2

The Blacks and the Whites of South Africa are equally foreign, equally indigenous, equally colonialist. The claims that the Blacks deserve to be here more in anyway, are based on a denial of history.2,3,7,9,81

Mthombothi82:21 write as follows on the lack of a South African patriotism:

Sometimes we view other people either as enemies or as the source of our problems.

One often wanders why some South Africans, for instance, are filled with love for complete strangers from Europe or other parts of Africa – which is a good thing – but at the same time show an aversion for some of their compatriots who happen to be of a different colour.

Perhaps South Africans on the whole are still struggling with the notion of identity. We’ve been rudderless for a while. Are we one people or a collection of different nationalities who happen to inhabit a single geographic area? And where in the political cosmos do we belong?

Mthombothi82 is correct when he posits that South Africa is not an empty landscape: that it is flesh and blood and its people needs respect. To address land expropriation needs first the healing of South Africans’ estrangement from each other. If we addressed this matter many years ago, we would be a united nation today.

5. References

  1.     Joshua 11:14, 11:16 and 11. 23; pp. 325-326. In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible.     Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
  2.     Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
  3.     Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press;     1996.
  4.     Bless C, Higson-Smith C. Fundamentals of Social Research Methods: An African Perspective. 2nd ed. Kenwyn: Juta; 1995.
  5.     Louw GP. A guideline     for the preparation, writing and assessment of article-format     dissertations and doctoral theses. 2nd ed. Mafikeng Campus: North-West University, South Africa; 2017.
  6.     Maree K, Van der  Westhuizen C. Head start in designing research proposals in social     sciences. Cape Town: Juta; 2009.
  7.     Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
  8. Powell J. Talking to Terrorists. London: Penguin; 2014.
  9. Scholtz GD. Suid-Afrika  en die Wéreldpolitiek: 1652-1952. Pretoria: Voortrekkerpers; 1964.
  10. Ward K. Jesus and his times. New York: Reader’s Digest Association; 1989.
  11. Musyoka     J. Ghouls of global nationalism stalk our land question. Sunday     Times (Opinion). 2018 May. 6; p. 18.
  12. Tabane OJJ. Calling the ANC’s dangerous bluff on land reform. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 18.
  13. Derby R. Land reform is a necessary fix for the fault lines in our economy. Sunday Times     (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
  14. Mkhondo R. Let’s put it to a vote – referendums would rejuvenate our jaded democracy.     Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 18.
  15. Dalrymple W. From the Holy Mountain. London: Harper Perennial; 2005.
  16. Kapuściński R. Travels with Herodotus. London: Penguin; 2007.
  17. Van Rensburgh JPJ. Die Ooste teen die Weste. Herodotus se geskiedenis. Pretoria: Hans     Kirsten; 1994.
  18. Boshomane P. ‘Want us to get over it?’ Send them to jail. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 Apr. 10; p. 19.
  19. Morudu P. Wie dra die meeste skuld? Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 22; pp. 4-5.
  20. Retief H. ‘n Halfeeu oue seer brand nog. Rapport (Nuus). 2016 Mar. 15; p. 11.
  21. Ramphele M. The ANC is no longer the solution. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 June 4; p. 20.
  22. Ramphele  M. State capture: how ‘liberation culture’ damage SA’s future. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 Apr. 10; p. 21.
  23. Mthombothi B. Zuma’s political demise no instant cure for a country caught in the grip of     an unreconstructed ANC. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 10; p. 17.
  24. Barnes M. Throw away the rule book, draft a new one. Sunday Times. 2017 Feb. 5; p. 2.
  25. Cwaile M. Class traitors cleave to an unjust status quo. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Feb. 5; p. 17.
  26. Mpofu D. Niks so ergs as skoen pas nie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 Nov. 20; p. 6.
  27. Hartley R. The rainbow nation in Black and White. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2014.
  28. Young J. Rassisme: Waarom nou? Beeld (Kommentaar). 2016 May 18; p. 24.
  29. Chigumadzi P. Helen Zille and the myth of the White Saviour. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 21.
  30. Chigumadzi P. White men – the Black woman’s burden. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Mar. 26; p. 6.
  31. Du     Preez M. ANC se misdaad teen mensdom. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2016 Dec. 13; p. 6.
  32. Khumalo     A. Transformation not pacification. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 10.
  33. Khumalo A. Sowing the seeds of real change. Dlamini should take a leaf out of Creecy’s book on BEE initiatives. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Mar. 12; p. 10.
  34. Mbatha K. Unmasked. Cape Town: KMM Review Publishing; 2017.
  35. Zille H. White-bashing cancer destroys SA from within. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Apr.     30; p. 18.
  36. Lesufi P. Racism is not making a comeback: it never quit. Sunday Times. 2016 July 10; p. 17.
  37. George L. Die Hlope beskaam nie. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 June 11; p. 6.
  38. Malan K. Of jy daarvan hou of nie: Howe is elite se regsarm. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 15; p. 11.
  39. Malan K. Dié hof se visie is dieselfde as die ANC. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 1; p. 4.
  40. Molewa E. A tendency to be swayed by tears, M’lady. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 July 1; p. 18.
  41. Mombembe P. Hlope showed bias for lawyer, appeal judge finds. Sunday Times     (News). 2017 June 11; p. 6.
  42. Scholtz L. Kruispaaie. Pretoria: Kraal-Press; 2016.
  43. Anestos P. Big business bullies choke SA’s economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 20, p. 7.
  44. Immelman RFM. Men of Good Hope, 1804-1954. Cape Town: CTCC; 1955.
  45. McCraken JL. The Cape Parliament. Oxford: Claredon; 1967.
  46. Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Apr.18]. Available from     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_Cape_of_Good_Hope
  47. Wiid JA. Politieke Ontwikkeling in die Kaapkolonie, 1872-1896. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  48. Friedman B. Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  49. Cape Colony. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Apr.18]. Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Colony
  50. The purity of Arthur Kemp’s People: The Afrikaner. [Internet]. [Cited     2016 Nov. 18]. Available from http://www.geocities.ws/kempcountrymen/afrikaner1.htm
  51. South African History Online (SAHO). History of Slavery and Early     Colonisation in South Africa. [Internet]. [Cited 2017 Mar. 4]. Available from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/histiry-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-africa
  52. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  53. South Africa. Unie van Suid-Afrika. Samevatting van die verslag van die Kommissie vir die Sosio-Ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
  54. Afrikaner genes could hold key to diseases. Bioformatics Database.[Internet].     [Cited 2016 Aug 27]. Available from http://ichts.tripod.com/Julyupdate/trJuly9-3.html
  55. Population genetics and Huntington Disease. [Internet]. [Cited 2017 May 2].     Available from http://web.stanford.ed/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/population-genetics-and-hd/
  56. Van den Heever CM. Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog. Johannesburg: AP. Boekhandel; 1944.
  57. Afrikaners are black. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 July 8]. Available from     http://www.news24/Afrikaners-are-black-20130223
  58. Greeff J. Deconstructing Jaco: Genetic Heritage of one Afrikaner. Annals of     Human Genetics: 2007; 71(5), 674-688. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Dec. 5]. Available from https://DOI:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00363.X
  59. Mthombothi B. By his friends – thugs, smugglers and scoff laws – shall you know him.     Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Oct. 29; p. 24.
  60. Mthombothi B. Our double dose of despair: courtesy of Zuma and his cabinet of     incompetents. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Oct. 29; p. 25.
  61. Mthombothi B. A constitution designed for a Mandela buckles when someone like Zuma     is at the helm. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Oct. 22; p. 21.
  62. Bezuidenhout A. Spelreëls van SA politiek. Die Burger (Forum); 2017 July 22; p. 15.
  63. Gumede W. Zuma has been so bad, he has in some ways actually been good. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2018 Jan. 14; p. 13.
  64. Bruce P. A country imperilled by one man’s strange fears. Sunday Times (Opinion).     2017 Oct. 22; p. 20.
  65. Bosman ID, Oorheersing en Vrywording, 1877-1884. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  66. Grundlingh MAS. Vyftig Jaar Britse Bestuur, 1806-1854. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL     Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  67. Sampson A. Mandela. The authorised biography. London: Harper Collins: 2000.
  68. Engelbrecht T. ‘n Kroniek van ‘n kaalgatperske. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Jan. 21; pp. 12-13.
  69. De Lange J. Die plan: Stuit die wit mens! Rapport (Nuus). 2017 Dec. 17; p. 2.
  70. Mnguni L. ANC sidelines constitution and its own processes in secret “talks”. Sunday     Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 11; p. 21.
  71. Venter T. ANC volg NP se pad. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 7.
  72. Ginsberg A. South Africa’s future: From crisis to prosperity. London: MacMillan;     1998.
  73. Kenney H. Verwoerd: Architect of apartheid. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
  74. Verwoerd WJ. Verwoerd: Só onthou ons hom. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2001.
  75. Malloch-Brown M. The Unfinished Global Revolution. Johannesburg: Penguin; 2012.
  76. Boëseken AJ. Jan van Riebeeck en sy stigtingswerk: 1652-1662. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA     Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  77. Chomsky N. Masters of Mankind. London: Penguin; 2015.
  78. Chomsky N. Occupy. Parktown: Penguin; 2012.
  79. Holomisa B. South Africa is in the grip of ‘citizen rage’. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 4; p. 18.
  80. Martinez R. Creating Freedom. Power, London: Canongate; 2016.
  81. Ngcukaitobi T. Land could right so many wrongs. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 8, p. 25.
  82. Mthombothi B. The country we love is not an empty landscape, it is flesh and blood. We should act accordingly. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 3, p. 21.

PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author has no competing interests to declare.

FUNDING

The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa.

UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS

Please note that I, the author, is aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). These terms do appear in dated documents. These terms or translations are use for the sake of historical accuracy in this article. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting on the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanization and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.