Marxist Propaganda about White Land Ownership in South Africa

  And his statement that he disputed the notion that white people stole all the land simply cannot be argued against.  Doubtless there were cases where it happened – no one could reasonably deny that – but to claim, as the ANC loves to do, that all whites stole all the land from blacks is nothing but an outright fabrication.  And a fabrication is a lie.  This vast “land theft” is a myth.

  So how much land is in black hands, actually?  According to Frans Cronje, deputy CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations, it is close to 50%!   He wrote, “some basic arithmetic reveals that a far greater share of the country is in black hands than is acknowledged.”  And then he proceeded to produce the facts.  Not emotional knee-jerk reactions as is so typical of the Communist “Comrades” in the ANC – real facts.  Here they are:

 “South Africa has a total surface area of 122 million hectares.  As of March 2011, 31 million hectares or 25% of that area was owned by the state.  The remaining 91 million hectares or 75% of the area was privately owned…. State-owned land would previously have been regarded as part of the white-owned 87%.  It follows then that it should now be regarded as black-owned, which means that at least a quarter of the country’s surface area is in black hands.  There is nothing preventing the state from handing title to much of that land to black people.

  “Since 1995, 2,6 million hectares or the equivalent 2,1% of all land has been handed to blacks via land-restitution programmes.  This figure pushes the amount of land in black hands to at least 27,1%.  More than R5 billion was paid out to restitution claimants who accepted cash payments instead of land.  That R5 billion was sufficient to purchase 2,6 million hectares which would have pushed the amount of land in black hands to just on 30%.

  “The land-redistribution programme, which is a distinct programme from the land-restitution programme, had by 2010 handed a further 3,1 million hectares, or 2,5% of the surface area, to black South Africans pushing up the share of black-owned land to at least 32,5%.  This figure is more than double that of the 13% often cited by government officials.

  “These calculations have not taken into account land traded between private owners.  Accurate data on the extent of such trades does not exist.  There is significant anecdotal evidence that such trading between former white and new black landowners has taken place.  Whether the amounts traded are equivalent to 10% or 15% or 20% of the surface area of the country cannot be known.  However, any of these figures would push the figure for black land ownership to between 40% and 50%.

  “If the 49 million hectares of the Western Cape and Northern Cape are subtracted from the total that blacks are entitled to then their share of ownership would rise even further.”[12]

  Bottom line?  The ANC government is lying through its teeth about land ownership, as are all those other racists wanting to drive white commercial farmers off their land.

 

  “Land is a very emotional issue which has led to numerous wars.  The president asks for a national dialogue about this issue.  Such a discussion cannot be undertaken with propaganda facts, twisted history and emotional slogans…”.

  Precisely.  And yet propaganda, twisted history and emotional slogans are the very weapons the ANC uses in its emotion-driven lie about whites “stealing” all the land.  And as any sensible South African knows, when the ruling party calls for “dialogue”, this is all just window-dressing.  The ANC never actually listens to what “the people” have to say.  It calls for dialogue to give the appearance of “consultation” having occurred, but then it goes ahead and does what it always intended to anyway, regardless of what the people think.  This was shown when abortion was legalised, even though the vast majority of South Africans opposed it.

 

“The ANC readily speaks of ‘Black people in general and Africans in particular.’  Sir, Africans in particular never in the past lived in the whole of South Africa.  The Bantu-speaking people moved from the equator down while the white people moved from the Cape up to meet each other at the Kei River.  There is sufficient proof that there were no Bantu-speaking people in the Western Cape and North-western Cape.  These parts form 40% of South Africa’s land surface.”

  Here Mulder was again absolutely, 100% correct.  Blacks did not live in the whole of South Africa in the past.  There is no escaping this, it is historical fact.  Liberal, revisionist historians may attempt to say otherwise, but facts are facts.

  We have to agree with Frans Cronje of the SA Institute of Race Relations, however, when he wrote: “it is here that Mulder makes a political miscalculation.  Mulder’s history is correct that white colonists met black colonists in the vicinity of the Little and the Great Fish rivers.  However, using that history to imply that blacks have no claim to the Northern and Western Cape is to imply that whites have no legitimate claim to the northern reaches of the country.  This is a position that Mulder’s supporters in the Free State and former Northern and Western Transvaals would have a problem with.”[13]  Cronje was correct here.  However, it is more likely that the only point Mulder was seeking to make was that the claim that blacks lived in the whole of South Africa in the past is a false claim.  After all, recognising both whites and blacks as South Africans, they should all be free to purchase land anywhere in the country.  Blacks did not own all of it, and whites did not own all of it; but blacks and whites are all here now, they are all part of South Africa, and that is all that matters.