We can know what is actually happening by paying to attention to the actual reporting from South Africa rather than relying on the spin of a Fox News pundit. And I'd trust nearly any source over Trump. His inability to care about the truth is rather well documented.

Seizing property isn't necessarily a human rights issue--especially when said seizures are to reverse past seizures. Regardless, I don't understand what Zimbabwe land reform has to do with a drought and what any of that has to do with the current events in South Africa.

@jamesqf you linked to an article about the drought as an example of what happens with land seizures. Hence the confusion. As for how far back you want to go? Well, that's not up to me to decide. Looks like South Africa has that decision under control, though.

@blip Your point about the article being confusing is correct. However, you didn't address the core of @jamesqf comment. If we are moving past `seizing property is a human rights issues.' and accepting that as true, then it doesn't matter how 'in control' the South African government is of the 'how far back' question. The justification is irrelevant. It remains a human rights violation. So we need to decide whether we actually want to accept that seizure without compensation is a violation or not first.

@Edward that's a rather silly argument. If someone stole your bike, and you took it back, are you a thief? I guess someone could argue that, but most would likely think you were justified in taking it back. Also, the whole distilling of complex issues into "only look at this issue with blinders on and ignore history and context" is not a sincere way to debate a issue.

@blip But that situation is not analogous to what we are talking about here. Instead we could ask this. If my father had stolen a bike from your father and given it to me, would you be justified in taking it back from me without compensation decades later? You may have been entitled to inherit the bike, but it was never actually given to you. We can say that my father shouldn't have taken it from yours, that's obviously true. But does that mean I should be punished by having the bike stolen back from me? After all, I never participated in the thievery.

@Edward if that's the analogy you want to use, there's plenty of examples of reclamation of stolen property from past generations. Also note that apartheid isn't ancient history.

@blip No doubt that it's not ancient history. Its persistent effects are why this conversation is occurring. And there are plenty of instances of reclamation of property. Most restored property claims are easier to transfer than land rights (as an example, would someone be entitled to the house I built on the land my father stole?). Additionally, many instances of reclamation involve willing participation from those who currently own the property. The point is to correct past wrongs and ease tensions between parties. Is forced seizure without compensation achieving that?

@Edward I don't know. That's not for us to decide. Hell, the US was built upon forced seizure so it's a little ridiculous for us to be chastising anyone else. Regardless, this is just Trump being Trump and isn't really a concern of US policy in general.

@blip You're not wrong about the U.S. being built on stolen land. But this is largely seen as a mistake by people in the modern united states (assuming they know about it at all). Being critical of a nation because we think they are committing to policies that we know were mistakes in the past is not wrong. Even if it could be done better by someone with more nuance than Trump. It's not our decision to tell South Africa how to handle their land or their people. But it is worthwhile to make a statement that expresses skepticism that this will play out nicely for their government.

@Edward you're missing a gigantic difference between the two scenarios. Yes, the US (or parts of it) today realize that white europeans stealing the native lands was not the ideal thing to do.

Yet, we supported the white europeans taking land during apartheid.

So to suddenly be upset that South Africa, themselves, have decided the same thing we did (that maybe mistakes were made in history) and to attempt a remedy for it, makes us look like gigantic racist hipocrites.

But, again, this is just Trump. He's standing pretty much alone on this issue.