Comment by MSFT_Edging
2 days ago
> It's a bit like what happened in Zimbabwe that devastated that country 20 years ago when all the white farmers were kicked out
Land reform to repair the inequality from the previous apartheid state isn't exactly "kicked out". Zimbabwe became Zimbabwe from Rhodesia via a civil war that wrestled control away from the minority white government.
In South Africa today, 75% of the privately owned land is held by about 8% of the population(white folks), who were given legal preference multiple times in history to own all that land.
Even if you remove apartheid, you still have a similar situation to antebellum US where ex slaves were working on the same old plantations, now as share croppers. Of course in SA we're not talking about ex slaves, but you're maintaining the status quo one way or another.
Land reform is required if your country ever wants to know peace. The US never finished reconstruction and didn't redistribute those plantations and other ill gotten gains, and as a result is still struggling to move past slavery.
> Land reform to repair the inequality from the previous apartheid state isn't exactly "kicked out".
I don't know too much about Zimbabwe. From what I read about 4,000 white farmers lost house and land, and now 40 years later they are giving compensation. Why can't you say "kicked out" for that?
I do lack the knowledge to say if it was justified or not. But I consider that a kick on the way out.
Or do you mean that what happens in SA is not to be considered getting kicked out?
I mean that redistributing the fruits of an apartheid state to the previously second-class citizens is a net good, and to say they were kicked out without greater context does a disservice to the history.