This article is misleading. Aside from very small groups such as the San and the Khoi peoples, and the larger Cape Coloured community of mixed race (the aforementioned groups and Europeans), the black population of most of South Africa belong to peoples (tribes from distant parts of Africa) who arrived AFTER the Boers, or in some cases about the same time. All of which is to say there is no "taking the land back" because it never belonged to the black majority in the first place. Some of this farmland is only viable because the Boers created irrigation systems. Before the Boers arrived it was arid and empty.
So there is no "taking back" land that was "stolen" from black Africans. It is simply a proposed theft from white Africans.
(There are of course a few exceptions, but most of those have already been dealt with by the legal system.)
There is no justice in the attempts to steal land from the Boers, just a thirst for raw power ... and suicide, because the black majority has very few people who understand modern farming techniques, and the farms that have already been purchased from Boers to be given to black farmers are mostly lying idle now, producing either nothing or just a fraction of what they were producing when farmed by Boers. If this expropriation happens thousands of Boers may die, but afterwards millions of blacks will starve. What's more, a good portion of black South Africans understand these things and support the Boers, from both a sense of justice and of self-preservation.
He claims that politicians need to be honest about the causes - and then immediately lies about it. Anyone who tells the truth is thrown in jail. LOL - what a joke!
May not be related, but I know many people turned against Levi's after Levi's turned against fundamental human rights.
It was Jefferson more than anyone who moved to end slavery in the United States. He was not able to get his fellow citizens to end it as soon as he liked, but he was instrumental in ending the importation of new slaves to Virginia, and later to the United States as a whole. Furthermore, he inspired generations after him to oppose slavery.
But the leadership of Charlottesville have spoken. They want to destroy the foundation of anti-slavery sentiment. If they and others want slavery to return, then it is only just that they and their families be the first to be put in irons.
It is especially ironic that now Charlottesville will honor the beginning and ending dates of Jefferson's vision for American Liberty - the day he introduced the Declaration of Independence, and the day that Union troops arrived in Charlottesville to extinguish the independence and liberty for which Jefferson and his peers fought.
Why does she ask Kiwis to be inclusive while wearing a hijab to signal that she wants to be separate? Immigrants should adapt to the culture of the country they immigrate to, not expect their hosts to change their culture in major ways to accommodate immigrants. Whose country is it anyway?
Kudos to George Mason for standing up for principles, such as the presumption of innocence.
I don't believe that Miss "17 going on 70" Fishburn will be missed.
If the highest level of offender is someone who offers to pay willing young women for vanilla sex, where the only question of consent is due to arbitrary definitions of who is able to consent without regard to human history or biology, something is clearly wrong with the system.
How are we supposed to rate men or women who use extortion or psychological abuse to obtain sex? How are we supposed to categorize those who use physical force? How are we supposed to categorize those with sadistic tendencies? How can we judge those who have malicious intent? Selfish intent? How do we categorize those who may mean well but have demonstrated an utter inability to control themselves?
If this is the "highest level" of offender, then clearly the system has failed.
Some nice ideas but I'd like to see where you fit in Haidt's sixth moral foundation, Liberty.
And is it possible that some foundations, such as Liberty, are inherent in some individuals or ethnicities but not others?
The right to self defense is a natural and inalienable right. Governments can only recognize this right, they cannot give it - as every individual has it already.
This is genius.