AFRICANS DON’T WANT DEVELOPMENT. WE JUST LOVE HUTS, STICKS AND STONES MORE!
When you travel around Africa (well outside of South Africa, since we are a mere extension of Europe through Colonialism), you instantly realize just how Africans are content with their tame surroundings.
Surroundings, which of course are characterized by deserts, huts, barren lands, unattended livestock on the highway, unemployed youths, dying, poor and sick mothers/women, dysfunctional and almost invisible men.
Where you do find infrastructure, roads, motor vehicles, clinics, schools and even “entertainment”, that is where you find Whites (foreigners with money), and of course those “elite” Blacks who think they are better than the rest just because they and their parents work for the government.
These Black elites received their education either in South Africa or somewhere in Europe or America, where they return home to “Africa” with nothing else but English twangs, coupled with with no solutions on how to advance and uplift their own people from the Dust to Life.
Like their parents, whose only legacy in these countries was to work or be friends with the dictator who gave them their first job, at the expense of closing their eyes at the level of National Sodomy that most Africans experience in the hands of the own government. They too arrive from Cape Town, shut their eyes, drive their parents Mercedes and work very hard in creating a little Johannesburg for them and their friends who are just as useless as they are.
These are the same Blacks who appear on TV and tell the world in British or American accents that all is well in Lagos or Zimbabwe. That the possibilities in Burundi are so vast, the only problem the country is facing is a legacy of Colonialism, which the people are still imaginatively struggling with.
In Africa, it is very common to find Toyota, KIA, or even Mazda dealerships, even though most of the country’s workforce cannot find jobs to even afford to get a donkey (or at least feed it, since they are always as skinny as they are) to move them from point A to point B.
No one is really concerned about manufacturing these products locally, instead of them being dumped there by (powerful) foreign countries (like China), only to increase the nations debt, since no one can genuinely afford them.
Especially when almost in every African country, the government is the biggest employer (like here in failed South Africa), retrenching hundreds and thousands of employees every year, since there is no viable tax base to sustain the governments mindless, fruitless expenses (hence the heavy reliance on Foreign Aid and China).
The locals on the other hand, always seem very happy that at least the president visits their village, sits down with them, and “listens” to their problems (problems about agricultural land, homosexuals, plots for public housing, and a whole range of issues that involve handouts). And what does this president do?
He leaves, feeling assured that hey! His people are actually mentally base as he has always known (he got his education in London or South Africa). Especially since no one is really concerned about how is it possible that since Independence (1950s, 1960s, etc.) and with the departure of Whites who actually created jobs, built schools, clinics and had the best doctors to cure them; that things became extremely and unforgivably worse at the hands of Educated Black Leaders?
Like little children who were raised to believe that they mean nothing to their fathers (and the world) who abandoned them at birth (a common trait among African men) to create other babies who would also be abandoned; they delight at the fact that at least their president appeared before them and made vain promises about their future.
At least he dared to make a promise. At least now, the self-esteem that’s been shattered by being perpetually ignored, oppressed, impoverished and failed for decades their own Black government, is now restored, even if it is only for a very brief moment.
Indeed it very true - Africans are like little toddlers who need adult supervision (China, USA and Europe) to help them think, choose what is good for them and most importantly, help them decide on what really entails a better future for them and their children.
This is evident in the fact while Colonialism was driven by the racist, erroneous belief (as well as the demonic impulse to oppress those they regarded as inferior, i.e. Africans, Latinos, etc.) that Africans are animals in the jungle, who are in desperate need for Western Civilization, in order to convert them from Beasts into Men.
As soon as Africans received their Independence, and managed to drive out their White Oppressors/Colonizers out of their countries to materialize the African Dream; all they have managed to do was to fulfill the African Nightmare, which was essentially transforming Africa into being the Shithole we now know as Free, Democratic and Independent Africa.
We also see this in the fact that Africans don’t even make the things they consume. Their supermarkets are owned by White South Africans, Chinese and Indians. Even the foods and Dashikis they are so proud of are either made in China or by the Indians they now depend on for their own survival.
All that they seem to have been successful in over the past decades (over 50 years of Independence) is either killing each other even more, imprisoning Black gays and journalists, inciting or rather, actualizing brutal civil/tribal wars, amputating albinos and rhinos. And just impoverishing each other simply because, really, this is the African Thing To Do!
Like crabs in a bucket, all Africans do is pull each other down because none of them even know what it means to go up! Being hungry and oppressed is what we consider to be the Ultimate Good!
Meanwhile, you have Black Americans who come here, seeking a “home”, since back in the US they too are murdering each other in cold blood in their own inner cities (Chicago, Compton, Harlem, etc.). And so, coming “home to Africa” will provide for them that lost self-worth that the White man supposedly snatched away from them (for more than an entire century after Slavery).
Especially when in the US, they constitute 12% of the population, but are responsible for over 50% of the entire country’s homicide; and are gravely responsible for over 90% of all the murders in the Black community.
[So much for Black Lives Matter! They obviously don't in the Black Community!]
Yet when they arrive here in Africa, desperately wanting to believe (as they do back home) that the root causes of the problems which characterize Africa, are caused by Whites who were chased out 50 years ago!
Even when you try very hard to enlighten them on what is pretty obvious, even to Africans themselves (who are mostly ignorant about anything beyond their realm of speciality, which is seeking handouts or being oppressed by their own).
They are still as delusional, and extremely senile as they were when they left the US, where they kept Barack Obama in office for 8 years for doing nothing, but for being a “Black president who can dance and loves basketball”!
[The same way they "adopted" notorious rapist Bill Clinton as "Black" just for playing the saxophone on a Black Television show.]
They do not even realize that when they arrive here, through their ignorance and natural pretentiousness that is honed by Hollywood (their most trusted source of Truth), they resemble the same “Superior” White man they hate so much back home. They too arrive here to “Save and Convert” Africans from their Barbaric ways!
Now, while we all know that real Industrialization, driven by Quality Education (which is still the legacy of Whites/White missionaries in Africa) and Free-market Capitalism (which yields jobs as we see in Singapore, Japan, Germany and even China) is the only solution to Africa’s problems.
Yet, do Africans see these as necessary or even crucial?
Or we prefer being deeply in love with our sticks, stones, and riding donkeys better?!
Perhaps, we, Africans shall answer this question a hundred years from now, when China has finished raping us like our leaders (whom we love and keep in power) have done best since we our “Freedom”.
Alas! Only Africans Can Wake Africa From Her Own Slumber!
Blessings!
© 2018 Dumisa Mbuwa
All Rights Reserved.
The numbers in the 2017 State Land Audit report on “Private Land Ownership by Race, Gender and Nationality” released in February this year have been used extensively to motivate for Expropriation Without Compensation of white owned land. In the EFF motion to amend Section 25 of the constitution the Audit is cited as the source for the claim “that black people own less than 2% of rural land, and less than 7% of urban land”.
President Ramaphosa also used the numbers contained in the report recently in the National Assembly, saying that “While more than 3 million hectares of land was restored between 1995 and 2014, the Land Audit Report indicates that white people in our country still own around 72% of the farms owned by individuals; Coloured people in our country own 15%; and Indians 5% and Africans -- who constitute the majority of the people who live in this beautiful land -- only own 4%."
Given the centrality of these figures to the demand for either eradicating (EFF) or eroding (ANC) property rights it is important to examine them closely. It is worth noting at the start that there are numerous numerical errors in the text and tables of the report, and so the reliability of the data presented below is not beyond question.
Methodology
The methodology used to conduct this land audit was to go and extract information on all property registered with the Deeds Office. This was then combined with cadastral information held by the Surveyor General to determine the extent of the properties. The nationality of origin and gender of individual property owners was acquired from the Department of Home Affairs’ population register and their race from the highly confidential census data held by Statistics South Africa.
The report states that 114m ha of 122m ha of land in South Africa is registered with the Deeds Office. The remaining 7,7m ha is unregistered trust state land in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. The registered land falls into only three categories: “erven” (urban land - 3,2m ha), agricultural holdings (a nominal 340 000 hectares) and “farms” (110,7m ha.) The study classified land held by companies (presumably including that held by state-owned enterprises), trusts, individuals, community-based organisations as “private” and land owned by “national government, municipalities, provincial government, public entities, public schools” as state-owned. This included land held in the name of Ingonyama Trust in Kwazulu-Natal. Private land came to 94m ha (77%), leaving the remainder as all state-owned land (including the unregistered state trust land) at 28m ha (23%).
Urban land
The report states that 722 667 ha - 22,6% of the 3,2m ha total - of erven are individually owned by 6 million people, of whom 3,32m were black African (56%), 1,55m white (26%), 507 829 Coloured, 414 069 Indian (6,9%) and 173 418 (2,9%) “other.” If one looks at the land extent the situation appears to be far less balanced however.
357 507 ha are apparently owned by whites (49,5%), 219 033 ha (30,3%) by black Africans, 54 522 ha (7,5%) by Coloureds, 55 909 ha (7,7%) by Indians, 14 332 ha (2%), 14 332 ha under co-ownership (2%) and 21 365 (3%) by others. The EFF’s claim that black people own “less than 7% of urban land” is based on this figure. They have divided the 219 033 ha individually held by black Africans over the total area covered by erven (3,2m ha), which comes to 6,85%.
Incidentally, using precisely the same method of calculation one could say that “only” 11% of urban land was owned by white people. The land audit report does not provide figures for erven other than those individually owned, or falling under sectional title (another 50 000 ha). It does not provide figures for “privately-owned” land in total, or the extent of erven owned by the state and parastatal corporations. The latter must be a massive proportion of the total however.
Moreover, if one looks at white individual erven ownership by province it is clear that there is some anomaly with the Northern Cape figures. 84 041 white individuals in the Northern Cape, who make up a mere 5,4% of all white erven owners, apparently own 152 624 ha of erven. This is 42,7% of the total area of erven owned by whites, and 21,1% of the total area of individually-owned erven in the entire country. According to the land audit white individuals in the urban areas of the Northern Cape own an average of 1,8 ha each (4,9 acres). This seems implausible, and given the small population of the province, it is largely irrelevant to understanding urban land ownership patterns across the country.
Excluding the Northern Cape from these figures changes the picture significantly. Outside of this province 38.1% of individually owned erven are owned by white people, 40,2% by black Africans, 7,8% by Coloureds and 7,9% by Indians. Even here about half of the remaining extent of erven, individually owned by whites, is in the Western Cape. In the seven more eastern provinces whites own 26,5% of the area of individually owned erven, black Africans 53,3%, Coloureds 6,8% and Indians 7,8%. Accepting the figures for the other provinces are correct, according to the land audit black Africans own more individually owned “urban land” than whites in seven of nine provinces, and a majority of such land in four provinces. This is before including the massive share of urban land owned by municipalities, and other state or parastatal bodies. See table below.
Table 1: Individually-owned erven (“urban” areas) by race and province in South Africa
“Rural” land
According to the figures provided by the 2017 land audit land categorised as “erven” at the Deeds Office makes up 2,6% of the extent of South Africa, “agricultural holdings” 0,3% and “farms” 90,8%. It is important to note here that the reference to “farm” is a classification of a piece of land not a description of its use, and such land could be used for a variety of different purposes other than agriculture. For example it could form a section of a national park, game reserve, water reservoir, communal area, or cover a mining or forestry operation. The land audit report is mistaken to refer to it on occasion as “farmland”. The 6,3% remainder is the unregistered state trust land referred to earlier.
In terms of ownership 30,4% of the total extent of the country is – according to the figures in the land audit - in the hands of individuals, 24% in the hands of trusts, 22,9% in state hands, 19% in the hands of companies, 2,9% in the hands of Community-Based Organisations, and 0,7% under co-ownership. As with erven, the report provides only a detailed provincial breakdown for “farms” and agricultural holdings owned by individual owners (by race and gender) only.
It is here that one finds the basis for the claim – employed by the EFF, Ramaphosa and others – that 72% of individually owned land is in the hands of whites. See table below.
Table 2: Individual land ownership of farms and agricultural holdings by race in South Africa
Race
|
Hectares
|
% of total
|
Whites
|
26 663 144
|
71.9%
|
Blacks
|
1 314 873
|
3.5%
|
Coloureds
|
5 371 383
|
14.5%
|
Indians
|
2 031 790
|
5.5%
|
Others
|
1 271 562
|
3.4%
|
Co-owned
|
425 537
|
1.1%
|
Total
|
37 078 289
|
100%
|
The focus on this particular statistic is misleading for three reasons. Firstly, such individually-owned land makes up less than a third of the extent of land in South Africa, according to the land audit itself. This means that individually-owned land, held by whites, makes up only 21.9% of the extent of South Africa. This is less than the extent held by the state. There is substantial variation by province with under 10% of the total extent of Limpopo and KZN individually owned by white “farm” owners, 12.6% in Mpumalanga, 15,1% in Gauteng, 17,8% in the Eastern Cape.
Secondly, as the provincial breakdown of these figures make clear, this pays no regard to the agricultural potential or value of the land. A substantial majority of this individually-owned white-owned land is located in arid or semi-arid areas in the western part of the country. 43,1% is located in the Northern Cape alone, 11,3% in the Eastern Cape (most of it in the drier western parts of the province), 10,14% of it in the Western Cape, and 14,1% in the Free State. As the land capability map below illustrates there is thus a huge overlay between such land and the arid or semi-arid areas in the western part of the country, which are not suitable for cultivation (in the absence of irrigation).
In terms of the carrying capacity for livestock of natural pasturage Ernest Pringle has pointed out previously “In the high rainfall eastern areas of the country, the average carrying capacity is 1:4, whereas in the arid western areas the average is 1:16. This means that one hectare of land in the former region can produce the same as 4 hectares in the latter, and the value of the land should therefore be 4 times higher.”
Map of land capability in South Africa (the blues and green areas are potentially arable land)
Thirdly, the ANC and EFF have seized on a metric that effectively ‘disappears’ both the land that has been transferred to black hands by the ANC government since 1994, and that was in black hands pre-1994. Ramaphosa’s suggestion that despite 3,1m hectares being “restored” between 1994 and 2014 black African people (through land restitution) “only own 4%” of individually owned land is somewhat disingenuous.
First-off the more appropriate figure for “restoration” is in fact 8,1 million hectares (6,6% of the extent of SA), as a further 5 million hectares of agricultural land has been acquired and transferred by government since 1994 through its land redistribution programme. (In an area covering another 2,2m hectares financial compensation was accepted by claimants in lieu of land restitution).
Little of this land would be individually owned today as most land claims and redistribution projects had multiple beneficiaries, and furthermore since 2009 the government has held back from granting title to the beneficiaries of the land redistribution programme. In addition, government has made no effort to ensure those living on their ancestral land in former homeland areas acquire individual title to their land. It is unclear how such restituted and redistributed land was categorised by the land audit – other than as not individually owned - but it quite clearly qualifies as ‘black owned’ land, and it would have taken little to quantify it accordingly in the report.
If one measures the individually white owned land by province against former homeland areas and land restituted and redistributed post-1994 then one gets a far more balanced (though still highly incomplete) picture of land ownership patterns, notably in the wetter eastern regions of the country (the Free State being the exception here). See table below.
Table 3: Individually white-owned land vs. communally black-owned land by province
Province
|
Extent of province
|
Former homeland areas
|
% of total extent
|
Land owned white individuals
2017
|
% of total extent
|
Land restituted or redistributed post -1994
|
% of extent
|
As % of ind. white owned land 2017
|
EC
|
16 891 700
|
5 757 277
|
34.1%
|
3 007 709
|
17.8%
|
650 123
|
3.8%
|
21.6%
|
FS
|
12 982 600
|
238 582
|
1.8%
|
3 748 192
|
28.9%
|
444 956
|
3.4%
|
11.9%
|
GP
|
1 817 800
|
91 447
|
5.0%
|
275 021
|
15.1%
|
67 257
|
3.7%
|
24.5%
|
KZN
|
9 332 800
|
4 223 491
|
45.3%
|
853 152
|
9.1%
|
1 333 087
|
14.3%
|
156.3%
|
LP
|
12 575 600
|
3 399 298
|
27.0%
|
1 139 454
|
9.1%
|
806 256
|
6.4%
|
70.8%
|
MP
|
7 649 500
|
954 621
|
12.5%
|
967 634
|
12.6%
|
924 209
|
12.1%
|
95.5%
|
NW
|
10 488 100
|
2 079 612
|
19.8%
|
2 408 880
|
23.0%
|
853 551
|
8.1%
|
35.4%
|
NC
|
37 288 800
|
1 689 794
|
4.5%
|
11 498 449
|
30.8%
|
1 998 674
|
5.4%
|
17.4%
|
WC
|
12 946 300
|
0
|
0.0%
|
2 764 652
|
21.4%
|
543 292
|
4.2%
|
19.7%
|
Total
|
121 973 200
|
18 434 122
|
15.1%
|
26 663 144
|
21.9%
|
7 621 406
|
6.2%
|
28.6%
|
Conclusion
It is striking then that in a debate on such import for the future of the country the proponents of expropriation without compensation have employed such partial and misleading statistics. Indeed, there seems to have been a deliberate focus by the ANC and EFF on a particular metric that would exaggerate the discrepancy between white-owned and black owned-land. Most South Africans would have been unaware that Ramaphosa was talking about a minority sub-set of South African land, mostly located in the most desolate regions of the country.
To sum up then the land audit may have given the state access to highly sensitive information about the race and nationality of individual property owners via census and DHA data – essential information for any planned RET-style programme of racial dispossession – but the report itself provides little meaningful basis for discussion as to overall patterns of rural land ownership in the country, let alone of agricultural land in particular.
Politicians who continue to use these statistics are unlikely then to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Intellectual Honesty any time soon.