And biggest land grab was by Leopold of the Belgiums, it was literally his private property.
End of today's history lesson.

4432 families seems like a extremely large number to me. 
typo

432

What conclusions should we jump to? 
You can jump to any conclusions that you like. My conclusion is that it is semi-feudal.
Some reading up on Scottish history does no harm.

In Britain...
Modern British history, excluding world wars and the loss of empire, is a record of two countervailing changes, one partly understood, one not understood at all. The partly understood change is the urbanisation of society to the point where 90 per cent of us in the United Kingdom live in urban areas. Hidden inside that trans­formation is the shift from a society in which, less than a century and a half ago, all land was owned by 4.5 per cent of the population and the rest owned nothing at all. Now, 70 per cent of the population has a stake in land, and collectively owns most of the 5 per cent of the UK that is urban. But this is a mere three million out of 60 million acres.

And that urban land is probably worth 100X per square metre what most of that rural land is worth. (The average price of UK farmland is only £2/sq meter. How much is a sq meter of land in London? )

And that urban land is probably worth 100X per square metre what most of that rural land is worth.  (The average price of UK farmland is only £2/sq meter.  How much is a sq meter of land in London? )

You've missed the point completely. 

And that urban land is probably worth 100X per square metre what most of that rural land is worth.  (The average price of UK farmland is only £2/sq meter.  How much is a sq meter of land in London? )

You've missed the point completely. 

Perhaps you never supplied it?

And that urban land is probably worth 100X per square metre what most of that rural land is worth.  (The average price of UK farmland is only £2/sq meter.  How much is a sq meter of land in London? )

You've missed the point completely. 

Perhaps you never supplied it?

Land grab?

Who wants to live in a city.

You've missed the point completely. 

Perhaps you never supplied it?

Land grab?

Who wants to live in a city.

The amount of land an individual has and the method of acquisition are orthogonal. There are just mechanisms by which people might end up with more or less land. And there are unjust mechanisms by which people might end up with more or less land. South Africa seems to illustrate unjust land grabs that concentrate and redistribute ownership.


And most people want to live in cities. It's where most jobs, friends, stores, schools, entertainments, and most things are. Most of the jobs in the countryside (e.g., farming & mining) suck, are dangerous, and don't pay well.

land grab
‘The time for reconciliation is over’: South Africa votes to confiscate white-owned land without compensation

The zulus seem to be justifying the land grab by saying that they were there first and whitey stole their land, but the reality is that the zulus (who are bantus) are not indigenous to south africa but rather originated in what is now cameroon and migrated south, "replacing" the indigenous population (and  stealing their land) so this is at least the second south african land grab by the zulus. They killed the owners of the land the last time as well.
If you want to give the land back to the "real" owners, give it to the pygmies

It is clear that there were human populations in the region at the time of the expansion, and pygmies are their purer descendants. However, mtDNA genetic research from Cabinda suggests that only haplogroups that originated in West Africa are found there today, and the distinctive L0 of the pre-Bantu population is missing, suggesting that there was a complete population replacement. In South Africa, however, a more complex intermixing could have taken place.

land grab
‘The time for reconciliation is over’: South Africa votes to confiscate white-owned land without compensation

The zulus seem to be justifying the land grab by saying that they were there first and whitey stole their land, but the reality is that the zulus (who are bantus) are not indigenous to south africa but rather originated in what is now cameroon and migrated south, "replacing" the indigenous population (and  stealing their land) so this is at least the second south african land grab by the zulus. They killed the owners of the land the last time as well.
If you want to give the land back to the "real" owners, give it to the pygmies

It is clear that there were human populations in the region at the time of the expansion, and pygmies are their purer descendants. However, mtDNA genetic research from Cabinda suggests that only haplogroups that originated in West Africa are found there today, and the distinctive L0 of the pre-Bantu population is missing, suggesting that there was a complete population replacement. In South Africa, however, a more complex intermixing could have taken place.

Yes and all those "whiteys" are descendants of Africans so they are just returning to their homeland to claim their ancestors' homelands of 70,000 years ago.

White farmers flee South Africa in fear of land grab

For a brief summary: white people good, black people bad.

White farmers flee South Africa in fear of land grab

For a brief summary: white people good, black people bad.

you've got that backwards. Black people good, white people so bad they need to be killed.
No doubt white south africans have a dream that their children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.