Far more complex than is apparent, firstly. the Afrikaner trekboers, did not come into contact with the Bantu peoples until after they crossed the Fish river, thus annulling any claim by the Bantu tribes to the Cape/Karoo region. Land was traded from the Zulus for cattle, this land had been cleared of the original inhabitants by the Zulu - not the Afrikaner people so was bought from those who owned it by right of conquest. The Afrikaner people have been South Africans for 400 years, so why, just because of their racial origins and the fact that they did not pursue a policy of genocide on the tribes migrating into the country from the north (the Bantu arrived at the same time as the Dutch and displaced the San and Khoi peoples), as was done on other continents. The murders of the farmers are distinct from the shootings and stabbings common to most murders in the practice of often spending the entire weekend torturing the victims before murdering them, with no thefts usually taking place. The charity Genocide watch is monitoring the South African situation and claims the early stages of racial genocide are in progress. Finally, why was land still being sold to local whites and foreign investors under the new governments of South Africa and Zimbabwe, if the land ownership was being disputed from the beginning? These land grabs are in both cases later, politically based disputes. As a footnote, the many working farms bought and given to local blacks as part of the original land distribution have mostly failed to maintain production, so why would stolen farms be any more successful?
