₦airaland Forum

tylann:
We're catching up with them.in terms of skycrapers we beat them except maybe johannesburg.we are working on transport infrastructure in Nairobi

Lagos plans to catch up with Casablanca and Algiers

Really bru?? you have one city with skyscrapers... We have Joburg, CT, Pretoria, Durban, Bloem ect ect

We have over 50 buildings of 100m + you have 11....yet you are beating us?

GreenandGold:
Let's not ruin this thread any further than this.... So I will end by this; the Voortrekkers (Boers) did not buy any land in SA.

I thank you

voortrekkers maybe not... The Transvaal definitely

Thanks for the debate my bru

GreenandGold:
1. Found Bantu settlements in SA go as far as 200AD, it's a known history from all verified proven history sources.

2. Low population does not mean "vacant". The highvelds of Mpumalanga, Free State and the Northern Cape are still low populated, are they vacant lands? No, each-and-every inch of land is under the ownership of someone or entity. Same as back then, every piece of land was owned by a certain chiefdom, river-to-river. Vacant lands exist, but on Mars.

3. Dingani killed Piet Retief, it is valid. Do you know the words that Dingani gave before killing Piet Retief, you know " bulalani abathakathi or "kill the witches". Let me school you a bit, in IsiZulu, umthakathi (a witch) is someone who lies (fabricates, falsifies), manipulates and of course a sorcerer. So why did Dingani call Piet Retief a manipulator?

----------------------------------------------------------------

NB: Boers always claim to have found vacant lands in SA, but the same Boers also claim to have made treaties with the people they found on those lands.

1. What settlement and where?

2. So every inch of land back then was owned by a mere 1 million people?.... Please bru!! Be logical but let's use you logic for a second if every piece of land was indeed owned that means every piece of land was owned(by for exp the Khoi) before bantu settlers arrived in SA.... So why do Bantu settlers who did not originally own the land have more claim to it than any other?

3. My argument doest have much to do with Piet Retief but actually treaties of The Transvaal Republic with several Bantu tribes like the Pedi ect ect....it is due to some of these treaties that led to the formation of certain homelands in Apartheid... This is especially true with Lebowa since the pedi had treaties with the Transvaal since the mid to pate 1800s. Also Dingaan did meet his match a few weeks after killing Piet Retief.

P.S Finding vacate land and finding non-vacant land isn't mutual exclusive

Gireiboy:
I'm guessing some of these sources are from Whities

probably yes.... Hence why I said I'm more than willing to evaluate evidence to the contrary

Gireiboy:
They feeling is mutual

yeah you already said it my bru no need to repeat yourself

Gireiboy:
Like i said, i don't give a damn about the feelings of a white person.

congrats my bru maybe you don't know but neither do I care about your opinion

GreenandGold:
1. You're not going to be factual, iron age settlements date back to 200AD.

2. South African population was about 1 million people at the beginning of Shaka's reign, this ALSO includes the populations of the Khoi, Dutch, French, German, Malay, Madagascan and English populations in the Cape Colony. Shaka's direct wars did not go beyond Pongola river and the modern-day Eastern Cape. Even the chiefdoms he scarted had smaller regiments that would have caused not more than a few thousand deaths to the populations they met in their exiles.

3. Your so-called documented "passing of land" contract from Dingani to Piet Retief is a Voortrekker fairytale. It's a void contract that Dingani never read nor signed, signed only by Piet Retief himself and his so-called witnesses.

1.I'm simply quoting historical fact that stats most Bantu tribes arrived in South Africa(not Southern Africa) between 1000 - 1700ad

2.source?? Every research I found stipulated that the Mfecane resulted in the deaths of between 1mil-2mil.....also again if there were only 1 million people in SA how is it possible that there was No vacant land? Your arguments contradict each other...

3.the same Piet Retief that was clubbed to death along with all his so called witnesses?? My bru I'm talking long after that when the transvaal Republic had several treaties with the likes of the Pedi tribes and Zulu tribes....

Tinfoil:
Nevermind, it actually doesn't matter. The good thing is that although SA has challenges it is currently at peace, the future belongs to God.

Ive nothing against whitey, my children are half white

shot

Shma:
Trams are the best too.... I respect your preference. Kenya is setting up trams in less than 4yrs to come. Maybe it will be the first one in sub-Saharan - I don't know about SA. I believe Morocco and tunis have already achieved that.

we have BRTs we don't need trams

Gireiboy:
Still! it doesn't change the fact that 'white south Africans' are settlers. Besides, since when did white people become indigenous to Africa? Black people have more legitimate right to claim does land than some Whitey.

so Germans had the right to invade the entire Europe because they are white?

GreenandGold:
The "vacant land" theory is 100% false, in fact, it was used by Boer settlers to later justify Aparthaied land grabs.

1. The land was ALWAYS settled by certain Bantu groups. Iron age tools dating as back as 200AD were found in South Africa. In fact we have a copper smelter dating back 12 000 years ago in South Africa, who smelted metals in SA? the Bantus, not Khoi.

2. Shaka Zulu wars did not kill 2 million people, there was never that amount of people in the region in the first place. In fact, Shaka's regiments were about a few 1000 warriors the most. Even in the chain of events (Mfecane), there was no way 2 million people could have been killed directly or indirect (because; the first reason in this point).

3. Land sold to the "Boer settlers" is a myth. Vortrekkers claim that Dingani (Dingaan) signed off the land from Durban to Vryheid to them. They claim that he signed a contract written in Dutch. A Zulu man that has never seen written text was given a contract in Dutch to sign off 33% of the Kingdom to some guys who came from across the ocean? It's a laughable and invalid claim.

On the other hand, I do not agree with EFF's land policy, in fact, I don't agree with any of their policies, politics or whatever economic ideologies they have.

You say vacant land is a 100% myth but then contradict yourself by saying that 2 million people could not have died in the mfecane because there weren't so many people?? How can so few people occupy all the land in SA?

1. I'm simply going by factual evidence that Bantu tribes migrated to South Africa happened around 1000-1300 AD

2. Again my statement is backed by historical evidence... If you have evidence contradicting mine please post it

3. Not a myth.... Again its documented historical fact... If you hace evidence to the contrary please post it

We have that in common

P. S I would love your perspective on SAN history not necessarily saying my post above is 100% factual but simply based of my own research.... We can start another thread if you like

Tinfoil:
Oh really, Don't blame whitey, what about apartheid

did I condone apartheid?

Sorry for derailing... I'm done now

davefurn:
Well, no wonder they didn't leave but decided to be citizens; your complex history says it all.

we are all in fact colonisers of South Africa (Black and White) it was only the khoi people that are indigenous to SA..... Ironically the khoi SAN were not white enough in apartheid to benefit from it and now ain't black enough to benefit from BEE and AA....

Even though back then everyone participated in the conquest of Southern Africa, today its just easier politically to blame everything on the whitey

davefurn:
50%, why are you guys giving them that much?.... That's too much for a group of minorities that's 9% of your population; just a honest opinion

generational wealth! that's why whites still have the majority of land and wealth ....unfortunately most black South Africans were denied the opportunity of building generational wealth because of obvious reasons.... That said its difficult with South Africa's complex history to ascertain what land was taken by force, what land was vacant, and what land was bought from one tribe/people from another.... We do have actual documentation of land bought by the Boers from other tribes and vice versa, just like we have proof of land taken by force by the boers and land being taken from the boers by force by other tribes and obviously between bantu tribes themselves.... The Zulu kingdom under the reign of Shaka for example killed more than 2million people during their conquest(Mfecane). At the end of the day who do you give the land to?? I mean EFF leader Julius Malama is always the first to say that land should be taken without compensation from white people but fails to acknowledge his own history as Pedi whoms land was taken firstly by the Ndwandwe, and then annex by the British,it was then the Boers whom not only released the Pedi King after defeating the British but also granted the Pedi kingdom independence once again....that said the Transvaal Republic and Pedi kingdom also had several disputes and wars in the years preceding the above.

Lurker4Long:

Me, I blame jl115 for responding to every delusional Lilliputian who decides to come spank his monkey here!

guilty as charged

Stormtrooper11:
Imagine you being so delusional. Below is your land audit report. Blacks held ransom by White landowners (godfathers) in their own country.

this report has been debunked many a time.... Whites only own about 50% of the total land in SA......46% of fertile agricultural land is owned by none whites, the 72% referred to in the land report is commercial agricultural land that includes companies, trusts and partnerships.... It does not take into account the millions of hectares of land owned by black people used for subsistence farming..... The biggest single land owner in SA is in fact the state, whom alone own 24% of the land.

Whites can't hold Black people ransom in a country that is controlled and Governed by black people themselves

Kuruptnigga:
Its because I don’t waste my time talking to a hoodlum like you.

yet you are literally quoting me!!!

Kuruptnigga:
You’re too small for me to tell you directly. Hoodlum!

yet you are doing it now?

Kuruptnigga:
Am not a drug addict like you, idiot! Abuja is cleaner than your Johansbourg

and how did you come to that conclusion?

Kuruptnigga:
Abuja will forever be ahead of Nairobi. Wether skyscraper or not. Abuja is the most planned city in Africa. Far more cleaner than Johansbourg and Nairobi

Don't do drugs kids

Kuruptnigga:
That idiot white prick is just foool of himself. Even the South Africa he lives in, is a disaster hellhole. Not even my goat will smell that shambolic shithole, walai!

Why don't you quote me directly my bru?.....instead of spewing race rhetoric behind my back?

tylann:
Please tell me the link between population growth and economic growth

you joking right?

Bacteria8:
I won't like to derail this beautiful thread... So I won't indulge you nor anyone else after this


Without the Whites, South Africa would have still been a British colony till like forever...

Without the Whites, South Africa is just another glorified Congo republic...

Julius Malema and the EFF knows better than a Nairaland keyboard warrior.

Adios

#ifa

case and point

Bacteria8:
The land of South Africa belongs to the black people... every other thing in that country belongs to the White folks therein.

So technically it is still white people supplying arms to white people.

#ifa

Imagine being this ret@rded

Shma:
Your logic is off.

Wuhan is there and Durban is not.
Dubai is on the list and Johannesburg is not.
Mumbai is well represented and Cairo is not.
Nairobi is up there and Kampala is not.

I don't know, maybe the aforementioned are just as sh*tholes as they sound.

But I would have agreed if sh*thole definition is any city outside Kuala Lumpur, Newyork, Hongkong, Singapore, and all other Alpha ++ & fully developed Cities.

I was talking about the "Most Dynamic cities" not that other Alpha, Beta what what list of yours

Also as you've rightly stated, Dynamic cities are the fastest changing cities however nothing you have stated debunks my argument...simply look at GDP growth figures of Developed Countries vs Developing countries over the past 20 years.....same with infrastructure development, and the cause of these developments is pretty simple...population growth!

obaaderemi:
Bullshit as usual. Most of those indexes should be taken with a pinch of salt. One put Nairobi ahead of Algiers. Nonsense.

go cry to the world bank, Ipsos, WEF ect ect who did the ranking

obaaderemi:
Where's Your fact to support your claim of Kenya being Ahead of Nigeria in terms of infrastructure?

I've posted several infrastructure indexes on this thread before.....consult the archives!!

P.S I literally have 0 reason to pick a side or choose Kenya over Nigeria, Im simply stating the facts

Shma:
We all know that Jorburg is more advanced than Nairobi. "Most dynamic' is a term to showcase the rate at which we're catching up.

Your least developed countries generally tend to have the highest growth rates and development rates.....it's quite logical!! hence most of the cities on the list are sh1tholes!!

vankelvin:
Why the sudden change of tune?
So you knew all these and you had the effrontery to call West Africa a shithole ?

Dude, your line of arguement sucks

I won't bring Abuja in to the discussion.....it ranks 213th on Mercers QOL index

samorobo:
Lol please shut it,QOL has everything to do with infrastructure. Relocate Nairobi to turkana and watch your zoo become the worst cities on the WOL index.

nope it doesn't...It is just one of the metrics used

theenchanter:
I don't agree with this.

Dynamic only mean "changing". So, in this case, cities listed as most dynamic are the cities that are changing very fast, it could be environmentally, infrastructure-wise, socio-economically and so on, but JLL uses socio-economic and commercial property metric..... Many north African cities usually dominate that in the 2010s.

U may call them shitholes, well, that's ur opinion, and it negates many shitholes that are not listed........ The fact is that those are the current most dynamic cities around the world according to JLL.

My comment was tongue in cheek.....same way Kenyans use the "most dynamic" ranking to somehow prove Nairobi is better than Joburg