« Francis Maude attacks Labour's increasing dependence on union funding | Main | The working (not workers') revolution »


Ted: If your land is taken and settled by others is it right to attack the settlers?

That is an inaccurate but widely held view of the history of southern Africa. The Boers moved into empty land, and the 'native' Africans moved south afterwards. The Boers were actually there first so please spare us the incorrect "and your land taken" line.

Apartheid was an evil thing, but Ghandi promoted civil disobedience to fight his cause and Mandela became a terrorist.

My position on acts of terror against civilians is that they are wrong. I do not believe they should go unpunished

Adams and McGuiness? I believe they should be arrested and charged for terrorist activities. Considering what you have said, do you agree?

"If your land is taken and settled by others is it right to attack the settlers?"

Isn't that the justification that Robert Mugabe and his thugs use in Zimbabwe for their actions against white farmers?


Firstly I was talking about the more recent movements of black South Africans as a result of Apartheid and land seizures resulting from the creaion of homelands not the 19th century. My family settled in South Africa prior to the British taking Cape Town and I am well aware of my fathers homeland's history. The Zulu expansions, Nguni migrations and Boer treks resulted in de-population as tribes scattered to avoid bloodshed. Much the same as the de-population of the Highlands in Kenya. Whether the lands were truly un-occupied is still a source of legal arguments over many farms today.

I agree on Adams & McGuiness - they took up arms in a democracy where civil resistance & the ballot are potent weapons.

Ghandi promoted civil disobedience but other India liberationists were not so concerned with being non-violent. It worked there because there were so few occupiers and so many Indians - not sure it would work were there are considerable populations in both sides (Palestine/Israel for example). Would like to think it would though.


The excuse but in very different circumstances. Mugabe had a democratic alternative that respected property rights and the constitutional settlement was democratically adopted so that white Zimbabweans were no longer colonial but locals. The UK and EU were willing to fund purchases and support the incoming farmers with training & loans.

Our excuse in Zimbabwe was much the same as Geoff's comments above - the Matebele invasion and subjugation of the Shona earlier in the 19th century had left much high veldt land de-populated so farms could be established without much occupation of already settled land. Sort of African version of the US eminent domain.

We are right to give aid to Africa and personally I believe the government are right in increasing it but I fear that often it is spent on the wrong things.
I have always believed that the key to solving many of Africa`s problem is Education.Far too many on the continant grow up without a basic education.
If we educate the young properly and give them the skils they need to improve the life of there continant Africa would slowly grow out of the dark ages it is at present.
As for Christina. I am afraid her rants on this thread are simply racist. Cultures and traditions can live in harmony side by side and to say that the culture and tradions of our fellow African and Asian citizens is going to destroy the traditonal British culture is nothing more than total tripe!

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker