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