Present Generation Government And Its Effect On African Land Reform.

For my blog this week, I researched the term: Gracchi “Land Reform” Africa and came across an article titled “South Africa’s Land Reform Crisis: Eliminating the Legacy of Apartheid.” Written and published by Bernadette Atuahene, the article brings light to the issues post-apartheid South Africa has had on the topic of land reform.

When apartheid ended, the new regime in South Africa promised to redistribute land that whites had stolen from blacks. Yet nearly two decades later, it has largely failed to do so—and the patience of the dispossessed is running out. According to the article in regards to “Section 25 of the new African constitution, promulgated in 1994, existing property owners (who were primarily white) would receive valid legal title to property acquired under prior regimes, despite the potentially dubious circumstances of its acquisition. In exchange, blacks (in South Africa, considered to include people of mixed racial descent and Indians) were Promised Land reform. “ (P121) “However the new government upheld only one side of the liberation bargain: South African whites kept their property, but blacks still have not received theirs. Political apartheid may have ended, but economic apartheid lives on.” (P122)

Select a quote from the ancient texts that is relevant to your selected publication.

Similarly, Gracchi’s ideas of land reform, and solving tensions between the Romans and the slaves also lead to blood boiling tensions. According to the text, the land reforms of Gracchi meant that the rich Romans “collected in groups, and made lamentation, and accused the poor of appropriating the results of their tillage, their vineyards, and their dwellings… and were angry that they should be robbed of their share of the common property. “The unfair land distribution by the South African government and its natives connects to the Roman’s opinions on land reform in Appian. The Roman public argued that they had the earned the rights to their land from military services, ancestors, or loans just as South Africans argued that “they are the natives of their land, and that land must be returned to blacks in South Africa, no matter what the consequences are for the current owners and for political stability in the country” (P122).

The author highlights how the social status and economic status of many citizens have influenced what land is divided and what land is not. The rich and more fortunate of the Romans controlled and had a great majority of the land in ancient times: as is the case in South Africa with the wealthy 10% wealthy whites and the large population of natives (black, colored and Indian) thus the idea of who had the original rights to the land is presented in both times.

Who is the primary intended audience of the publication?

Originally published in a Foreign Affairs Magazine, the article seems to be directed towards a younger generation. One that is proactive and ready to make change. Constantly throughout the article, I see the author reference the economic divide as a result to the corruption the government has in this generation. I see this article as motivation to the next generation in helping making it fair and equal.

How does the author connect the search terms one to another?

Only some of the terms I used linked together. Gracchi didn’t appear anywhere in the article but “Africa” and “land reform” were mentioned a lot in the article. Examples like these further help the author make the connection stated above (Roman and South African revolt for foreign reform.) The use of these words and how they reappear in today’s text after so long just reaffirms the concept of history repeating itself as a world of an endless recycle of information.

The appropriate MLA citation.

Atuahene, Bernadette. “South Africa’s Land Reform Crisis: Eliminating the Legacy of Apartheid.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 90, no. 4, 2011, pp. 121–129. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23039612.

Shamiso Tunduwani – Team Jupiter

The Changing Life aspects of Africa due to Land Reform

Title of the Article:

“Changing livelihoods and land reform: Evidence from the Northern Cape Province of South Africa”

What is the proper citation for this article?

Bradstock, Alastair. “Changing Livelihoods and Land Reform: Evidence from the Northern Cape Province of South Africa.” World Development, vol. 33, no. 11, 2005, pp. 1979–1992.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/science/article/pii/S0305750X0500152X?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb

What is the article about?

The article is about the Government of South Africa’s land reform policy and which groups are benefiting from it, as well as what lifestyles have changed because of it.  But the article also discusses what levels of wealth and agriculture have been affected by this plan.  The final big part of the essay that is discussed is how the low amount of technical support has an impact on those areas.

Who is the Intended Audience?
From the looks of this article, it can most likely be seen that the intended audience for this article are those that are interested in the crisis going on in South Africa.  It can most likely be seen that this story is in a way a mini book when you see its layout.  Perhaps the intended audience can also be seen as someone who is interested in Politics and wants to help with situations like this.

How did the search words connect to this article?

The search words “Gracchi “land reform” Africa” did have a large significance on the article.  Now, the word Gracchi didn’t show up in the text itself, but the other words did.  The first line of the introduction straight up connects them by saying “This paper examines the changing livelihoods of eight beneficiary groups situated in the Northern Cape province of South Africa who have accessed land through the government’s land reform program.”.

What part of the text we read relates to this?

“Other gains included the abolishment of debt-bondage in 326, access to public land, and allotments of conquered territory for the poorer citizens. The alleviation of the burdens of the poor ended the plebeian struggle as a radical movement.” This can be seen as a relevant quote from the text that we read as it shows how the people were more able to gain control of the land that they needed rather than the government.  The story also discusses a lot about the struggles of the people in South Africa who relied on agriculture, yet had that suffering through the long dip in agricultural production.

#CLAS6 #LongLivetheRepublic #GracchilandreformAfrica

• Scott Vincent, Team Cronos

LAND REFORM IS TRICKY

Throughout history, one’s symbol of status, a source of social and political influence and value/wealth was often determined by means of how much land he or she possessed. The value of land in an area is determined based on how scarce it is. Thus, the less amount of land that is available for use, the more valuable it would be. In turn, when there is a huge population and not enough of something, as with many things in life, the land is distributed unequally which causes conflicts in communities amongst economic and social classes/groups. This is where land reforms come in. By definition, land reforms are “a purposive change in the way in which agricultural land is held or owned, the methods of cultivation that are employed, or the relation of agriculture to the rest of the economy.”(Tuma)

“When the African National Congress (ANC) took power in 1994, with the black majority’s overwhelming backing, whites owned about 87% of South Africa’s farmland. The new government set a target for at least 30% of it to be transferred to blacks by 2014. More than a decade on, only 4% has changed hands.” (The Economist) Therefore, after the period of apartheid, the land was clearly not distributed fairly and the land reform did not work. The article uses the search term in many instances. For example, Mohammad Karaan, who chairs the National Agricultural Marketing Council states,”It’s not the lack of will but rather the lack of synchronization between state and market that fails land reform” (The Economist). The main reason as to why reform doesn’t work is because the reformers (government) proclaim to carry out certain objectives and make promises to appeal to the disadvantaged ones, the blacks in South Africa, but to no avail. There are, however many other contributing factors that play a role in the failure of land reform. The South African government blames the farmers for raising the prices of their land, the Department of Land Affairs is lacking the properly trained officials, files have been lost and when land is eventually sold many do not know how to run a farm and due to industrialization farm workers are left unemployed. Simply put,  the government and landowners need to work hand in hand to cater to each other needs instead of pointing fingers and casting blame. This article was written for the audience of the general public, specifically those interested in land reform in South Africa

During the Roman Republic, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus sponsored land reforms in an effort to restore the class of small independent farmers. In the section, Appian Civil Wars,8, he proposed, “that nobody should hold more than 500 jugera of this land” ( Readings on the Roman Republic page 24) the land that was acquired from the wars. He wanted any extra land that the rich owned to be taken away and given to the poor. However, he wasn’t successful because the ones who he proposed this law to, the Senate, were mainly the ones who owned the land because of their wealth. Eventually, “Gracchus himself … was slain at the door close by the statues of the kings”(page 26). Hence, it is clear to see that from the second century in the Roman Republic up to present day in South Africa, land reform is, in fact, tricky to implement. Both then and now land reform has the ability to help out the poor areas but rich people prefer to remain on top and become angry when anyone wants equality and change.

Chanté, Team Venus

Source Citations   (MLA)

“Why land reform is so tricky; South Africa.” The Economist, 5 May 2007, p. 60(US). Academic OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=cuny_broo39667&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA162945585&it=r&asid=56e2969cccd31c572ff0777980c93bd4. Accessed 5 Nov. 2017.

Tuma, Elias H. “Land reform.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 3 Oct. 2013, http://www.britannica.com/topic/land-reform#toc329193main.