Should Americans give back the United States to the native Americans? Should the Jews give Israel back to the Arabs? Virtually all lands have been occupied by foreign powers historically, should they all be given back and, if so, to whom?

Compensation needs to be at fair market value which is what the court has ruled. It would be no different than a person being compensated in the United States if the government wanted to build a freeway through their land.

It would also require compensation if the land was being used economically. In other words if land was being used as a ranch then not only the land must be paid for but also the business must be compensated.

The current White land owners do not own that land , and have no right to it.That is exactly why Robert Mugabe
voided all the white Farmers land rights.
The white Europeans in Namibia,Zimbabwe
and South Africa murdered and illegally obtained African land.These are the facts.
Nothing was sold to them no one singed any treaties.They must return all land or face future consequences by many Africans who are fed up with post colonial policies, and who are still living in poverty and lives of inequality in their own country.!

Ok, a scenario for you to help you understand.

Say someone took the land named Person O, then sold it to Person A, who passed it on to person B when they died, who then sold it to person C, who then sold in to Person D, who then passed it down to person E when the died, who then sold it to person F.

Why should person F have his land stolen from him because person O may or may not have gotten the land in the first place through sketchy means? Person F surely has not done anything wrong, he did not come about this land by inheritance, he bought it fair and square.

Beyond this, person O could have been a tribesman, and immigrant, a colonist, or a host of other possibilities.

You are thus advocating wronging person F, because you suspect (not know) that person O did wrong. What if Person C was a local tribesman, would that somehow legitimize the land in your eyes? Does it really matter? The fact is that person F owns the land now, and has every right to that land. Taking it from them is thievery, not matter how you justify it, and is wrong.

__________________

Your turn to do some historical research, Disco, many treaties were signed, they are still in existence. And for interest sake, go google the battle of bloodriver, which was fought after King Dingaan signed a treaty to sell land to the whites, and then attacked and killed them. This treaty too still exists today. REsearch old boy, research.

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Typcially referred to as "Squaters Rights" common law has long established the criteria that if a person lives on property for an extended period of time they gain title to (ownership of) that property. As I recall it is actual a part of statute law that if you live on a property against the will of the title holder for a period of something like 10 years that property becomes yours.

So in the case of White Europeans that moved to S Africa and occupied the land for any extended period of time (e.g. 10 years or more) then they have legal title to that land and are the rightful owners. Of course if they abandon the land and someone else moves in they could establish the same ownership rights as well.

What you are stating shivatd is White European laws that do not apply to
indigenous African people in Africa.The whites in Africa have no right to any land.They are an invader race, with illegally gotten land that must all be returned to black Africans.

There are very few countries in the world today that have not, at some time, been conquered and occupied where the indigenous people didn't lose their lands. Japan maybe an exception as I am not up on Asian history but certainly China was overrun repeatedly as was the rest of Asia. I can't think of a single country in Europe where this wasn't the case and certainly N. & S. America meet this criteria.

And "common law" applies to all civilized nations as it is based upon pragmatice answers to sociatal issues.

So one may have the opinion that laws do not apply and that merely reflects a lawless attitude. There are families of white people living in S Africa that have been there for generations. The are not Europeans, they are S Africans. To condemn them or deny them rights enjoyed by others of the same heritage based upon the color of their skin is no more right than it is in America to deny someone their rights because of the color of their skin. It is racist and it is wrong.

These so called White South African is all a fairy tale.These people are nothing but European robbers,thieves who have stolen land from indigenous Black Africans, who are taking their land back by what ever
means they see fit.The whites have extracted many billions in mineral
resources,took the best farmland, forced Black tribes from the best farmland,and now you say they are entitled to this Blood land that they
murdered ,raped looted pillaged and burned from Black people!.I say
Whites in South Africa should think about just leaving now while they still have a chance to leave peacefully.

Ah Disco, your debating style is called "Argh, he mentioned facts, lets just ignore it it and rant on" Again, much of the land was not stolen, but bought. Also, what about the hours of labour and money that went into bettering the land? Should that too be ignored, and now stolen? Ofcourse compensation should be paid to the farmers. I agree that some land was stolen, but this was mostly since the 1960's under apartheid. Before that, much of the land, as repeatedly stated, was legaly bought.

Also, if the White South African is a fairy tale, then so is the African Amerian, the White American and the Australian. Oh., andthe White Canadian, and the New Zealander. And the Black south African for that matter.

My family has been living, working and dying in this country since 1703. How long does one have to stay in a country before you are legaly regocnised as beig part and parel of that coutry.

And, here is another fact for you to ignore. Black south Africans are not the indeginous people of this region. The first so-called Bantho tribes arrived in Sa in the 1630's, just 20 years before the ffirst Europeans. That is why they met so far north, they were not settled to the South yet. The Bushmen and the Hottentots are the idigenous peoples of this country. The black tribes murderd these peoples, enslavedt hem, and took their land. I am not saying what the whites did was right, I am saying that, according to your way of thinking, theBlack South Africans should pack up and go back to central Africa where they came from, right?

Lastly, I have as much right to live in this country as anyone else. My family has been here for more than 300 years. My family worked hard to build this country. I served my country with destinction, and are working hard to build this country. And 90% of the people in this country have no problem with the colour of my skin. and regocnise me and my people as being an integral part of this country.

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”