Die Vryburger

May 13, 20171


Perspective of self-determination and land rights

We have stated the historical facts about separate development land and a space frame with the outlook for each nation. It was a planned and equitable land distribution, based on the historical residence patterns (and land rights) of every nationality and the terms agreed with the relevant role players.

That there were changes in the final application of separate development and group areas is indeed historically correct. Black residents moved to their homelands, and to local (RSA) reserved areas, as far as feasible in a national context.

However, many chose to stay in the RSA as laborers.

Similarly, whites were moved from areas that were allocated to the traditional black states. All of this was at the expense of the South African taxpayer.

In all cases, replacement housing, with conforming to a better condition, was provided. Refer to Nelson Mandela’s own acknowledgment regarding Sophiatown!

His attempts to fuel violence failed because people were placed in better housing than they were left.

Let us accept, for the sake of the ‘discussion,’ the urge for restitution:

Amazingly, black people now claim what they consider to be “land previously inhabited by their ancestors,” but without the return of the replacement land. (It also ignores the large-scale depopulation of SA by black-on-black violence during the Difaqane.)

Restitution is indeed recognized as a legal remedy – but with the further principle that each party will be essentially in the same position as before restitution: give and take.

Furthermore, to claim territory without compensating decades of improvement and development on top of the land to the current owners is outrageous.

Back to reality and truth: Based on the population distribution around 1910-13, settlement plans were made. Is it now our gender’s fault that black areas have never been developed by black owners?

Most black-owned land is negligently neglected; So even if it would be offered in the process of restitution, the neglect – what we see is the norm – must be taken into account.

Nevertheless, the ANC will never even accept these arguments: because they know we could cultivate this inhospitable land. They consequently (correctly) conclude that through hard work and dedication, the Afrikaner will be able to start before – read how far our ancestors migrated to 1902!

Therefore, unlike the policy of separate development, which gave people space and land rights to everyone, the ANC’s real motive is to take the Afrikaner’s land and let us as a people be without a livelihood.

It is also the pattern of Africa – before and since colonialism – to use, rather than to build.

Therefore, a system of confederate statues is not only a viable solution, but it is also the only solution that will ensure continued survival, including us.

Read the original article in Afrikaans on Die Vryburger

South Africa Today – South Africa News