Racist 'alt-left' movement: "We Have Not Called For Killing White People... For Now"

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2018/06/12/malema-we-have-not-called-for-the-killing-of-white-people-at-least-for-now_a_23456601/

 

I think you're the only person calling this thing in South Africa "alt-left."

 

As with alt-right, it is what someone says it is. Ain't that neat?

 

Since when did left vs. right depend on race? Black people can't be right wing extremists? Ultra-nationalism is usually associated with the right, and Africans tend to be extremely socially conservative. It looks to me that what is going on in South Africa is just a slightly more extreme version of what is going on in parts of Europe regarding immigration and Muslims.

 

Okay. They blend fascism and Marxism, and they're condemned by an actual Communist Party. When the Dutch and British forcefully took the natives' land and implemented apartheid, it was called conquest, and they won fair and square. Now that part of the native majority wants to forcefully take back their land, it's called racism.

 

Sanatone, why do you believe that the United States (or South Africa) should be given to the descendants of indigenous people who were present 500 years ago? In your belief-system, why are 21st Century property deeds invalid for descendants of white people?

 

Zuma was really bad for South Africa. Zuma could be blamed for the rise of the EFF. The Democratic Alliance (multi ethnic) just got itself a black leader and many people think it is going to make some inroad into the ANC. It is too bad that politics is South Africa has been broken down along racial lines. I truly want South Africa to work. There will definitely need to be some compromise on land re/distribution.

 

The 21 centry property deed in an imposed system. It was imposed by force on the original owners of the land. There was some so-called negotiations but looking back there were just one sided impositions. Ownership of land was a foreign concept to Indigenous people. Land was owned by the community and the community saw themselves as Steward of the land. In many cases Indigenous people were not seen as people so the land was taken by colonial decrees for the king/queen because the land was “uninhabited”.
But you do have a point about the current ownership of land. Taking the land away will cause more harm than good unless it done in a fair manner. 500 is not that long ago, but still we have to do things civilized. The Zimbabwe model was awful and cant be supported.

 

It's a racist statement. But you know better than most that people can grow radical when the system is in fact rigged against them. Ukrainian rebel fighters of 1930ies-50ies indulged in slogans like "strike the Muscovite and the Jew" and tried to commit ethnic cleansing in Volynhia, using entirely terrorist methods. Yet they also stood for freedom for their nation when multiple oppressors could appear "civilized" by engineering population transfers and cultural genocide (also, actual genocide) merely by police methods and rigged "justice". I don't know situation in SA enough to judge if the radicals we talk about are like these rebels or more like their self-proclaimed modern heirs (who are more often than not a version of far-Right thugs).

 

Well, historical Ukrainian nationalists were economically not on the Right, either. Question is, are these SA people part on a legit liberation movement (which doesn't mean they are not racist, communist, useful idiots and in many other ways nonideal) - or not. Not following South Africa closely, I genuinely do not know an answer to that. Racist slogans are not enough to tell, one way or another. To be sure, even if their struggle is justified, I would be uncomfortable with people like those in power; they tend to not like democracy very much.
When I said the statement is racist, I meant "we might start killing white people". Well, so was "strike the Muscovite and the Jew" - racist. Peasant uprisings are often at least somewhat this.

 

Zimbabwe went through a similar situation several years ago when whites who owned and cropped farmlands were told to vacate their farms. White farmers who refused to leave were murdered, to include their families. By anarchic decree, all Zimbabwe farmlands were suddenly owned exclusively by people with black skin -- and people with white skin were not allowed to own property. Zimbabwe was previously a food exporter that fed the entire African Continent -- but their socio-racial genocide against whites led to mass starvation -- and Zimbabwe suddenly became a food importer. Robert Mugabe then reversed the socio-racial genocidal policy -- and he asked whites to return to their farmlands.

 

I was one of that youngster singing "free Zimbabwe" almost 40 years ago. However, Mugabe became a disgrace to humanity. Killing people based on their skin colour is abhorrent, or any worst word you can use. sudden mass appropriation is inhumane. However, saying all that, we still have the legacy problem that needs to be remedied. Concrete but moderate step is an option, the extremist of both are arsonists they just make the situation worst, like starting with undisputed lands then moving to disputed lands.