Составить 5 специальных и 5 альтернативных вопросов к тексту as well as the two above categories of private property and customary tenure, the colonial state asserted its own land rights over what was variously called public, crown or state land (usually subsuming “native” land). it justified its claim as building up and protecting the 'public interest', on the basis that surplus land was either unoccupied (the concept of terra nullius, now discredited since the mabo case in australia) or not in obviously beneficial use. once claimed, the state could then transfer that land through grant, sale or lease to new settlers or public bodies, which might be central government itself, regional or local authorities, or parastatal bodies (such as railways). after independence, in a reaction against socialist-driven attempts at land reform. neo-liberal policies have supported large-scale transfers of state land into the hands of private individuals and legal entities. along with these separate and exclusionary categories of land went restrictions upon the movement of people, especially of the non-white colonial subjects (such as freed slaves, indentured and migrant workers), applied through requirements to carry travel and work documents. plantation owners and mining companies wanted to stop their workers from absconding, while the state assumed the role of managing the migration of workers between and within colonies: the transition from private to state control over the mobility of workers has been interpreted as part of a historical dialectical transition from feudalism to capitalism. the most infamous example of controlled population movement was the south african pass laws, which denied access to white or other segregated areas for africans without the correct pass. africans occupying land without approval, for example in areas redesignated under the group areas act, could be designated as squatters, and forcibly cleared from such 'black spots” and removed to the black 'homelands or townships. such a destruction of complex socio-economic networks of kinship and neighbourhood, as was involved in the racial reordering of cape town, for instance (particularly the notorious clearance of district six), has been likened to 'a man with a stick breaking spiderwebs in a forest.
1) What did the colonial state assert?
2) How did the colonial state justify its claim?
3) When did neo-liberal policies support large-scale transfers of state land into the hands of private individuals and legal entities?
4) Who wanted to stop their workers from absconding?
5) Why did the state think about the role of managing the migration of workers between and within colonies?
6)Why has such a destruction of complex socio-economic networks of kinship and neighbourhood been likened to 'a man with a stick breaking spiderwebs in a forest?
АЛЬТЕРНАТИВНЫЕ
1) Was it the most infamous or the best example of controlled population movement the South Africa?
2) Did Africans or Europeans occupying land redesignate under the Group Areas Act?
3) Was this land forcibly or voluntarily cleaned from such 'black spots”?
4) Did the state think or forget about the role of managing the migration of workers between and within colonies?
5) Have neo-liberal or old-liberal policies supported large-scale transfers of state land into the hands of private individuals and legal entities?