NationStates Jolt Archive

Zimbabwe´s governement is scheduled to get passed by the Legislature a constitucional ammendement that will assure that all agricultural land in the country will be in the hands of zimbabwean´s black citizens. The governement has for some time been taking numerous farms from white Zimbabwean citizens to this effect. Do you believe that the governement of Zimbabwe is doing this out of anti-white racism? Or its motivation is simply to correct a historical injustice in the distribution of farm-land in the country, as it has proclaimed? And what of the support that many African neighbouring countries give to Mr.Mugabe on this issue, such as Mbeki´s South Africa?

Yeah Robert is a racist

No, he's not. He is many things, but not a racist. I agree that the land should be restored to the black citizens of Zimbabwe. The white people who own the land now may have paid for it, but they bought stolen property. It's unfortunate for them, but... And if they inherited the land, they have absolutely no right to it.

Maybe not a racist, but he sure is a baddy (who doesn't sit on a lot of oil - too bad now, ain't it?).

Sergio the First, if you take your post as a valuable argument - the U.S. would surely have a problem, since their Indian policies in the past have been exactly that: Drive off the tribes, take the land, and sell it to someone else. Stolen is stolen? Guess not.

Yes, he is a racist. He encourages the rape and murder of the European descendants in Africa as well as funds and organizes what can only be described as the genocide of the European descendants in Africa.

If Mugabe is a rascist, why did he allow his wife to go on shopping trips in Europe and Hong Kong? He is just blaming whites for all of the nation's ills to take attention off him. It hasn't worked, and he blames that on whites, too :p .

No, he's not. He is many things, but not a racist. I agree that the land should be restored to the black citizens of Zimbabwe. The white people who own the land now may have paid for it, but they bought stolen property. It's unfortunate for them, but... And if they inherited the land, they have absolutely no right to it.



Odd, I didn't know communism could be used to justify racism. Hmm, oh well.

Let's see, he's using race as an excuse to oppress a minority... Yeah, I'd have to call that racist. :rolleyes:

Odd, I didn't know communism could be used to justify racism. Hmm, oh well.
Racism to deal with racism. Have you ever taken a gander at how badly distributed land ownership is in Africa?


That said, there are about a million and two better ways of dealing with this then playing "bulldozer".

Let's see, he's using race as an excuse to oppress a minority... Yeah, I'd have to call that racist. :rolleyes:
But there is a difference between minority opression and rascism. Many states oppress minorities to use as scapegoats. A few, however, don't. The Nazi regime, for example, truely believed that non-German minorities were dangerous, and must be wiped out before they poison humanity. In today's world, it is often said that virulent, though subtle, rascism in Japan prevents immigration. Does it even exist? I don't know, but if it did, it'd be rascism. Junchiro Koizumi is not letting those dirty little Chinese, Koreans, Russians, or whatever the hell it is, from not coming in because he claims that they are troublemakers. If that's the problem, then it's the people themselves. The government could probably care less. Rascism has to be a.) at the grassroots, and b.) truely bellieved.

Racism to deal with racism. Have you ever taken a gander at how badly distributed land ownership is in Africa?


That said, there are about a million and two better ways of dealing with this then playing "bulldozer".Could you list them, please?
There is no easy solution to land distribution problems in Africa (or the Americas). The land should be restored to the natives. Whites should not be prohibited from owning land; they should be able to buy it back at a fair price from the current rightful owners.
I'm white, and my family had to leave the Cote d'Ivoire a few years back because the natives were getting angry at their white oppressors. My family was not opressing anyone; they were the first generation of immigrants to the country, and they did not own land. My grandfather was a teacher there. Was it fair to them that they got kicked out of the country even though they had done nothing wrong? Not really. They were grouped in with all the whites who were keeping the natives down.
It's not fair, and it's not easy, but as far as I can see, there is no better or more fair solution.
If you have one in mind, please enlighten me.

Could you list them, please?
There is no easy solution to land distribution problems in Africa (or the Americas). The land should be restored to the natives. Whites should not be prohibited from owning land; they should be able to buy it back at a fair price from the current rightful owners.
I'm white, and my family had to leave the Cote d'Ivoire a few years back because the natives were getting angry at their white oppressors. My family was not opressing anyone; they were the first generation of immigrants to the country, and they did not own land. My grandfather was a teacher there. Was it fair to them that they got kicked out of the country even though they had done nothing wrong? Not really. They were grouped in with all the whites who were keeping the natives down.
It's not fair, and it's not easy, but as far as I can see, there is no better or more fair solution.
If you have one in mind, please enlighten me.
How about paying for the land (voluntary), giving tax breaks for those who want to sell, or even using taxes to nudge people in the right direction.

No, he's not. He is many things, but not a racist. I agree that the land should be restored to the black citizens of Zimbabwe. The white people who own the land now may have paid for it, but they bought stolen property. It's unfortunate for them, but... And if they inherited the land, they have absolutely no right to it.
Well, at least you agree with the BNP on something! Seriously, the fascists are congratulating Mugabe on taking back land for the pure native African race. These are the same people who advocate the policy in Europe (except propoerty being taken from black people here).

If Mugabe was not racist, then he would be taking all the land and distributing equally to all of Zimbabwe's people, both white and black. Why should the current white people of Zimbabwe be made to pay for the crimes of their ancestors?

He's certainly very discriminatory towards white farmers. But I suppose he's shown an equal amount of love for those that voted against him...

No, he's not. He is many things, but not a racist. I agree that the land should be restored to the black citizens of Zimbabwe. The white people who own the land now may have paid for it, but they bought stolen property. It's unfortunate for them, but... And if they inherited the land, they have absolutely no right to it.


He is a racist. He's taking land from the whites who are capable farmers and growing a lot of crops, and giving it to his henchmen, who aren't growing or even doing anything. (except take more land).

Mugabe needs to be thrown in Prison for the raping over of his country that he's commited. He's an idi Amin in progress.

How about paying for the land (voluntary), giving tax breaks for those who want to sell, or even using taxes to nudge people in the right direction.Those solutions are too expensive to be feasable in Zimbabwe. Aside from that, he government should not be expected to buy back stolen land. They have every right to restore it to its rightful owners. Buyer beware, eh? Don't buy stolen property.

He's using race as determinant for stealing property from its owners and redistributing it to others who are of another race. It seems racist to me.

Of course, his opponents aren't too well off either, so he's not totally motivated by racism. He's a ruthless and thieving tyrant who is only harming his people with his pointless (and often racist) schemes.

Those solutions are too expensive to be feasable in Zimbabwe. Aside from that, he government should not be expected to buy back stolen land. They have every right to restore it to its rightful owners. Buyer beware, eh? Don't buy stolen property.

They bought the land, and are now its rightful owners. Unless you can prove beyond a doubt that that land once belonged to someone else and was stolen from them and then sold to its current owners, his moves are illegal.

Plus, he's killing the economy and making his people suffer more than they were.

Yes, Mugabe is a racist.

Those solutions are too expensive to be feasable in Zimbabwe. Aside from that, he government should not be expected to buy back stolen land. They have every right to restore it to its rightful owners. Buyer beware, eh? Don't buy stolen property.That's never worked when it came to states and property rights, Oxwana. I know of a couple other African states that actually ARE buying back the land (forcibly) and they couldn't afford it any better than Zimbabwe at the time Mugabe came to power. The problem with his "land reform" is that the people he gives it to have no clue how to work or fix the machinery they have, leading to a break down of the entire economy.
As for the "rightful owners", they are, sorry to say, long dead. It doesn't make it right that it was only white farmers that owned land, but what Mugabe did was not the solution to the problem.

He's using race as determinant for stealing property from its owners and redistributing it to others who are of another race. It seems racist to me.

Of course, his opponents aren't too well off either, so he's not totally motivated by racism. He's a ruthless and thieving tyrant who is only harming his people with his pointless (and often racist) schemes.


Will have to agree with this. Was going to comment but this is about the position i take. I personally think he needs to be taken out and shot. Who will do that? We will wait and see.

Those solutions are too expensive to be feasable in Zimbabwe. Aside from that, he government should not be expected to buy back stolen land. They have every right to restore it to its rightful owners. Buyer beware, eh? Don't buy stolen property.

Would that not give everyone the right to take back the land originally settled by their ancestors? e.g. Native americans taking back land in the US , etc. Is it therefore just a matter of the power to do so

Well, at least you agree with the BNP on something! Seriously, the fascists are congratulating Mugabe on taking back land for the pure native African race. These are the same people who advocate the policy in Europe (except propoerty being taken from black people here).The two situations can not be compared. Blacks did not steal that land from the Europeans. They are legitimate immigrants who have purchased property that was willingly sold by its previous owners.

If Mugabe was not racist, then he would be taking all the land and distributing equally to all of Zimbabwe's people, both white and black. Why should the current white people of Zimbabwe be made to pay for the crimes of their ancestors?This is not about punishing the whites in Zimbabwe. They are unfortunate casualties of the restoration of ancestral land to the black people of Zimbabwe.
It's not like I'm happy about this. I wish there were a better way, but I honestly don't think that there is. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

Will have to agree with this. Was going to comment but this is about the position i take. I personally think he needs to be taken out and shot. Who will do that? We will wait and see.What's the difference between him and Musharraf then? Oh, Pakistan isn't doing so badly. You can't just go around wishing that every Head of state you can't agree with should be executed. That's not how the world works.

Would that not give everyone the right to take back the land originally settled by their ancestors?Yep. It would.

e.g. Native americans taking back land in the US , etc. Is it therefore just a matter of the power to do so.I do think that the Native Americans should have their ancestral land and the wealth that goes with it restored to them.

In a word: yes.

Yep. It would.

I do think that the Native Americans should have their ancestral land and the wealth that goes with it restored to them.

At the expense of throwing millions of people out of their homes and into poverty because of events which happened hundreds of years ago?

The two situations can not be compared. Blacks did not steal that land from the Europeans. They are legitimate immigrants who have purchased property that was willingly sold by its previous owners.

Do you know beyond a doubt that all of this land was stolen from Africans and was not purchsed legitimately by white immigrants? If not, you can't even begin to justify taking it.


This is not about punishing the whites in Zimbabwe. They are unfortunate casualties of the restoration of ancestral land to the black people of Zimbabwe.

"Unfortunate casualties"...yes, the total destruction of an entire class of people's well being is an unfortunate casualty. Don't forget the economic damage wreaked on blacks by this scheme, and the rapid decline in agricultural production as a result.

Furthermore, how do you know the current Zimbabweans have a claim to this land? They may have just as easily taken it from a culture before them and settled here...and so it's equally justified to take land from the current residents and give it to their predecessors and so on back to the beginning of ownership.

You cannot justify stealing land that was bought and paid for by its current owners because it was taken in the past.

Those solutions are too expensive to be feasable in Zimbabwe. Aside from that, he government should not be expected to buy back stolen land. They have every right to restore it to its rightful owners. Buyer beware, eh? Don't buy stolen property.
And he's destroying what's left of his economy through his current schemes. What I proposed is slower, yes, but it keeps intact trust of the government, something that is extremely vital in Africa or any country.

They bought the land, and are now its rightful owners. Unless you can prove beyond a doubt that that land once belonged to someone else and was stolen from them and then sold to its current owners, his moves are illegal.I was unaware that there were people who doubt the fact that the land in dispute is the tribal land of the Natives of Zimbabwe.
Here I was thinking that the white people had conquered Africa and its peoples. Silly me.

I do think that the Native Americans should have their ancestral land and the wealth that goes with it restored to them.

And how do you calculate that? Some tribes drove others away and conquered their land, and these went on to conquer others, and so territory was in a state of flux. What of the land taken by the Aztecs from other tribes? Do they get to take land owned by Aztec descendants and make it their own? How do you calculate these things?

I was unaware that there were people who doubt the fact that the land in dispute is the tribal land of the Natives of Zimbabwe.
Here I was thinking that the white people had conquered African and its peoples. Silly me.

What of those white people who moved to Zimbabwe at a later date and bought land from black people of Zimbabwe?

I was unaware that there were people who doubt the fact that the land in dispute is the tribal land of the Natives of Zimbabwe.
Here I was thinking that the white people had conquered African and its peoples. Silly me.

Africans conquered other Africans, just like how they enslaved each other. They wern't all innocent people uniformly attacked by the whites (and Arabs before them); many of them were active accomplices in the enslavement of their fellow Africans.

This

Yep. It would.

I do think that the Native Americans should have their ancestral land and the wealth that goes with it restored to them.


and this


And if they inherited the land, they have absolutely no right to it.


Contradict.

I was unaware that there were people who doubt the fact that the land in dispute is the tribal land of the Natives of Zimbabwe.
Here I was thinking that the white people had conquered African and its peoples. Silly me.That is silly. The Germans prided themselves for instance, that unlike the British, their entire empire was based on buying the land from local chiefs. I doubt all of this is true, but it certainly changes a lot. And while we're at it, do you propose to completely remap all of Africa? Because that's what it's gonna take to restore tribal lands (we might need to kick the Arabs out of the North African countries too, those damn invaders).[/rant]

This
and this
Contradict.If you inherit stolen property, it is not yours. If you inherit property that rightfully belonged to your parents, it is yours. Please don't quote me out of context again.

If you inherit stolen property, it is not yours. If you inherit property that rightfully belonged to your parents, it is yours. Please don't quote me out of context again.

Did all of them inherit land that their ancestors personally stole? Many whites came in to Africa after it was colonized and bought land, and were never involved in its conquest.

That is silly. The Germans prided themselves for instance, that unlike the British, their entire empire was based on buying the land from local chiefs. I doubt all of this is true, but it certainly changes a lot. And while we're at it, do you propose to completely remap all of Africa? Because that's what it's gonna take to restore tribal lands (we might need to kick the Arabs out of the North African countries too, those damn invaders).[/rant]I never said that all the land in Africa was stolen. Some of it actually was bought fairly. Some of it was bought for much less than it was worth from people who did not know the value of their own land.
If land was actually fairly bought from the original owners, then obviously it is the rightful property of its current owners.

I never said that all the land in Africa was stolen. Some of it actually was bought fairly. Some of it was bought for much less than it was worth from people who did not know the value of their own land.
If land was actually fairly bought from the original owners, then obviously it is the rightful property of its current owners.

You seem to be backpeddling from your previous post to Vetalia

I never said that all the land in Africa was stolen. Some of it actually was bought fairly. Some of it was bought for much less than it was worth from people who did not know the value of their own land.
If land was actually fairly bought from the original owners, then obviously it is the rightful property of its current owners.

How do you determine these values? What is the fair value of land, and how do you know whether or not it was paid for at fair value? What of the Africans who bought land; what if they didn't pay fair price for it, especially those who profited from the slave trade?

Did all of them inherit land that their ancestors personally stole? Many whites came in to Africa after it was colonized and bought land, and were never involved in its conquest.If you read the original post that started this, I stated that people who buy property from theives have no right to said property. I happen to think that this is pretty tragic, because the current owners have done nothing wrong. If you inherited it, on the other hand, you stand to lose nothing that was rightfully yours in the first place.

I never said that all the land in Africa was stolen. Some of it actually was bought fairly. Some of it was bought for much less than it was worth from people who did not know the value of their own land.
If land was actually fairly bought from the original owners, then obviously it is the rightful property of its current owners.Are you suggesting Namibia, Tanzania, and Cameroon be returned to the rightful owner, the German government, after the British and French stole them from us after WW1? I really doubt that would have any merit and those claims are even more recent than tribal ones.

You seem to be backpeddling from your previous post to VetaliaHow so?
If my previous post was misunderstood, then that is unfortunate. Consider the post that you quoted to be a clarification of my opinion on the matter.

If you read the original post that started this, I stated that people who buy property from theives have no right to said property. I happen to think that this is pretty tragic, because the current owners have done nothing wrong. If you inherited it, on the other hand, you stand to lose nothing that was rightfully yours in the first place.Right, but when it comes to such issues, disowning people outright is not an acceptable solution.

If you read the original post that started this, I stated that people who buy property from theives have no right to said property. I happen to think that this is pretty tragic, because the current owners have done nothing wrong. If you inherited it, on the other hand, you stand to lose nothing that was rightfully yours in the first place.

But how do you know all of the land that was accquired by governments from Africans during the colonization period was stolen? Furthermore, what of claims between African tribes that stole land from each other? Do the purchasers of land from the groups that stole the land negate their rights to ownership as well? That's a very, very slippery slope especially when carried out to the constantly shifting territorial situation in Africa even before the colonial era.

They bought the land, and are now its rightful owners. Unless you can prove beyond a doubt that that land once belonged to someone else and was stolen from them and then sold to its current owners, his moves are illegal.

I was unaware that there were people who doubt the fact that the land in dispute is the tribal land of the Natives of Zimbabwe.
Here I was thinking that the white people had conquered Africa and its peoples. Silly me

I never said that all the land in Africa was stolen. Some of it actually was bought fairly. Some of it was bought for much less than it was worth from people who did not know the value of their own land.
If land was actually fairly bought from the original owners, then obviously it is the rightful property of its current owners.

My point was that there seems to be a change in what you are saying there

Are you suggesting Namibia, Tanzania, and Cameroon be returned to the rightful owner, the German government, after the British and French stole them from us after WW1? I really doubt that would have any merit and those claims are even more recent than tribal ones.If you look at it like that, then all of the land in the world is stolen. The only land that I'm talking about is that which was conquered unfairly.
Well matched opponents have every right to fight over land. Whoever wins, gets it. I don't agree that war is a valid form of determining who has rights to land, but if both concerned parties do, then whatever. It's up to them.
I don't know enough about any of the countries that you mentioned to have an opinion on that particular instance.

If you look at it like that, then all of the land in the world is stolen. The only land that I'm talking about is that which was conquered unfairly.
Well matched opponents have every right to fight over land. Whoever wins, gets it. I don't agree that war is a valid form of determining who has rights to land, but if both concerned parties do, then whatever. It's up to them.
I don't know enough about any of the countries that you mentioned to have an opinion on that particular instance.

How do you decide who is well matched though?

If you look at it like that, then all of the land in the world is stolen. The only land that I'm talking about is that which was conquered unfairly.
Well matched opponents have every right to fight over land. Whoever wins, gets it. I don't agree that war is a valid form of determining who has rights to land, but if both concerned parties do, then whatever. It's up to them.
I don't know enough about any of the countries that you mentioned to have an opinion on that particular instance.



So, if we laid down our guns, took up shield and spear, and defeated them in combat, we would somehow rightfully own the land? It's rather odd, but if it gets us free land... >.>

If you look at it like that, then all of the land in the world is stolen. The only land that I'm talking about is that which was conquered unfairly. Well matched opponents have every right to fight over land

Whoever wins, gets it. I don't agree that war is a valid form of determining who has rights to land, but if both concerned parties do, then whatever. It's up to them. I don't know enough about any of the countries that you mentioned to have an opinion on that particular instance.

By that definition, all land was conquered unfairly because the only way it was conquered was by attacking places weaker than the aggressor. So, every single country in existence has claims against each other because there has never been a conquest which was elicited by a match between to equals. In order to win, one has to be better than the other and so a truly equal match is impossible; otherwise, it would be a stalemate.

If you look at it like that, then all of the land in the world is stolen. The only land that I'm talking about is that which was conquered unfairly.
Well matched opponents have every right to fight over land. Whoever wins, gets it. I don't agree that war is a valid form of determining who has rights to land, but if both concerned parties do, then whatever. It's up to them.
I don't know enough about any of the countries that you mentioned to have an opinion on that particular instance.Considering the circumstances, I really don't see why Germany has less rights to it's former colonies considering that the German colonies were taken while some lands you mentioned were possibly bought from the indigenous population by the colonists.
Stealing the land back is not an option. Compensation is necessary and you need to ensure that the economy doesn't go bust through such actions.

My point was that there seems to be a change in what you are saying thereIf it seems that way, then you misunderstood me. The first post you quoted was me being sarcastic. I was replying to Vetalia's post that claimed that there is no way to prove that any of the land in Africa was stolen from the natives. It happens to be true, in most cases, but is a very pathetic way to justify maintaining the status quo.
My sarcastic response stated no clear opinion of mine.
The second post clarifyied my stance after the first post was misinterpreted.

By that definition, all land was conquered unfairly because the only way it was conquered was by attacking places weaker than the aggressor. So, every single country in existence has claims against each other because there has never been a conquest which was elicited by a match between to equals. In order to win, one has to be better than the other and so a truly equal match is impossible; otherwise, it would be a stalemate.I was refering to a "bow and arrow vs. cannon" sort of unfair fight.

If it seems that way, then you misunderstood me. The first post you quoted was me being sarcastic. I was replying to Vetalia's post that claimed that there is no way to prove that any of the land in Africa was stolen from the natives. It happens to be true, in most cases, but is a very pathetic way to justify maintaining the status quo..

We know that there was land stolen, but we don't know who stole what and which property it is. The problem with this is that it targets only white people and totally disregards the history of African intertribal warfare, and at the same time worsens their situation rather than improving it.

Stealing the land back is not an option. Compensation is necessary and you need to ensure that the economy doesn't go bust through such actions.I'm not against compensation. In cases where the government really can't afford to, though, they should not be expected to.

I was refering to a "bow and arrow vs. cannon" sort of unfair fight.

Technology doesn't always ensure victory. You also have to take in account the hundreds of other factors that affect the probability of victory and whether or not the opponents are matched. Technology doesn't help when the opponent is superior in all other aspects; the US losses in Vietnam against a technologically inferior enemy more than suggest this.

This is not about punishing the whites in Zimbabwe. They are unfortunate casualties of the restoration of ancestral land to the black people of Zimbabwe.

It's not like I'm happy about this. I wish there were a better way, but I honestly don't think that there is. Feel free to convince me otherwise.
Why should land be restored back to black people in particular? Why not divide up all the land and give it to all the people equally? Why do black people come before white people? No true leftist supports any form of racial supremacy.

Besides, Mugabe isn't even giving to the blacks in Zimbabwe. The only people he's helping are his political allies, and he's punishing his opponents both black and white.

I'm not against compensation. In cases where the government really can't afford to, though, they should not be expected to.Countries like Namibia, for instance, which is compensating? Countries like Zimbabwe could well have done compensation without being stingy before Mugabe ruined the economy.

Why should land be restored back to black people in particular? Why not divide up all the land and give it to all the people equally? Why do black people come before white people? No true leftist supports any form of racial supremacy.I don't think the blacks should get the land because they are black. It is the descendents of the native Africans who the land was stolen from who have rights to the land. Native Africans all have black ancestors. It's not about race (not that there is such a thing).

Besides, Mugabe isn't even giving to the blacks in Zimbabwe. The only people he's helping are his political allies, and he's punishing his opponents both black and white.Exactly. I'm not saying he's a nice guy. I just don't think he's a racist. If no whites support him politically, then he isn't giving them land because they do not support him, not because they are white.

Countries like Namibia, for instance, which is compensating? Countries like Zimbabwe could well have done compensation without being stingy before Mugabe ruined the economy.But as of now, Zimbabwe cannot afford to compensate the white settlers. That is no reason to not restore the lands to the natives.

I don't think the blacks should get the land because they are black. It is the descendents of the native Africans who the land was stolen from who have rights to the land. Native Africans all have black ancestors. It's not about race (not that there is such a thing).
There are hundreds of African peoples. See Vetalia's post. It's ridiculous to just call them all "native Africans". There is no certainty as to who owns the land. I disagree with the idea that white people don't have a right to live in Zimbabwe. Do you suggest they all be uprooted and "sent back where they came from" (that sounds familiar)?

But as of now, Zimbabwe cannot afford to compensate the white settlers. That is no reason to not restore the lands to the natives.
Condemning the whites to either exile or poverty.

But as of now, Zimbabwe cannot afford to compensate the white settlers. That is no reason to not restore the lands to the natives.Yes it is. You can't just steal land. They did plenty of that in the GDR. The way we dealt with that after reunification was that anyone that owned land that was gained that way because they inherited it and wasn't using it themselves, lost it. That is a better solution.
As for the economic situation, who's fault is that exactly?

I don't see why this is even a debate. Everyone knows that black people can't be racist. The only time persecution based on skin color is racism is when the perpetrator is white and the victims are black. Have any black people been forced off their land by this guy? Would he be doing this if there were no white people in his country? Does it matter? No. It doesn't matter, because he is black, and therefore he cannot possibly be racist.

No, he's not. He is many things, but not a racist. I agree that the land should be restored to the black citizens of Zimbabwe. The white people who own the land now may have paid for it, but they bought stolen property. It's unfortunate for them, but... And if they inherited the land, they have absolutely no right to it.


The same could be said of white people living in America. Should they be thrown off their land and have it returned to the Native Americans? Should all the Latino people in south america have to return the land to the natives and head on back to spain and portugal? You cannot just throw people off their land because their ancestors got that land by foul means. half the people in england are descended from Norman and viking invaders. We cant just kick them out back to france or denmark. And don't get me started on australia.

I don't see why this is even a debate. Everyone knows that black people can't be racist. The only time persecution based on skin color is racism is when the perpetrator is white and the victims are black. Have any black people been forced off their land by this guy? Would he be doing this if there were no white people in his country? Does it matter? No. It doesn't matter, because he is black, and therefore he cannot possibly be racist.We left that point behind a long time ago. Fact is, he is racist. Someone that calls white farmers "the enemy" isn't likely to be what I'd call "tolerant" when it comes to other skin colors. (and he has forced black people off their land. Havent you seen the bulldozers tearing down the houses?)

Fact is, he is racist.
Yes, and it is a blatantly obvious fact. My previous post was sarcasm intended to illustrate how ASININE it is to say that he isn't racist. My only regret with this post is that I am not able to put sufficient emphasis on the word asinine.

Yes, and it is a blatantly obvious fact. My previous post was sarcasm intended to illustrate how ASININE it is to say that he isn't racist. My only regret with this post is that I am not able to put sufficient emphasis on the word asinine.I noticed you were being sarcastic. I just wanted to emphasize that we had gotten to the point where we were discussing whether the disownment was legal or not. That and I wanted to add something I'd read while I was searching for things to back up my hypothesis about the compensation.

Could you list them, please?
There is no easy solution to land distribution problems in Africa (or the Americas). The land should be restored to the natives. Whites should not be prohibited from owning land; they should be able to buy it back at a fair price from the current rightful owners.
I'm white, and my family had to leave the Cote d'Ivoire a few years back because the natives were getting angry at their white oppressors. My family was not opressing anyone; they were the first generation of immigrants to the country, and they did not own land. My grandfather was a teacher there. Was it fair to them that they got kicked out of the country even though they had done nothing wrong? Not really. They were grouped in with all the whites who were keeping the natives down.
It's not fair, and it's not easy, but as far as I can see, there is no better or more fair solution.
If you have one in mind, please enlighten me.

Bringing back European colonialism.

I noticed you were being sarcastic. I just wanted to emphasize that we had gotten to the point where we were discussing whether the disownment was legal or not. That and I wanted to add something I'd read while I was searching for things to back up my hypothesis about the compensation.
I see. My excuse is I joined this thread late, and didn't read all of it.

There are hundreds of African peoples. See Vetalia's post. It's ridiculous to just call them all "native Africans". There is no certainty as to who owns the land. I disagree with the idea that white people don't have a right to live in Zimbabwe. Do you suggest they all be uprooted and "sent back where they came from" (that sounds familiar)?How is calling all people native to Africa "native Africans" ridiculous???
I never once said that white people do not have the right to live in Zimbabwe. As a matter of fact, I support their right to buy the land back from the natives. I specifically stated that in another post.

The same could be said of white people living in America. Should they be thrown off their land and have it returned to the Native Americans?Yes. For the last time, yes.


Should all the Latino people in south america have to return the land to the natives and head on back to spain and portugal?No, but they should be forced to give up their huge plantations that were won by "foul means" (as is happening in Brazil). This is not about kicking s=anyone out of any country. It's about restoring the land to their rightful owners.


half the people in england are descended from Norman and viking invaders. We cant just kick them out back to france or denmark. And don't get me started on australia.And if there were still people in England who didn't have ancestors from all over the place, I would support the restoration of land to the natives. It has been a few thousand years. The invaders are the natives now.

We left that point behind a long time ago. Fact is, he is racist. Someone that calls white farmers "the enemy" isn't likely to be what I'd call "tolerant" when it comes to other skin colors. (and he has forced black people off their land. Havent you seen the bulldozers tearing down the houses?)Exactly. He's being an ass to everyone, black and white alike. He is not a racist, as far as I can tell. Just a hoser.

How is calling all people native to Africa "native Africans" ridiculous???
I never once said that white people do not have the right to live in Zimbabwe. As a matter of fact, I support their right to buy the land back from the natives. I specifically stated that in another post.

So...which natives? For how much? Is it even worth it???

Mugabe's policies have single-handedly taken Zimbabwe from prosperity to famine, at minimum, you should consider what capital improvements were made to the properties taken. Certainly the dirt...but a Farm is more than dirt, it's irrigation systems, fencing, tractors, implements, and buildings-none of which the "Native Africans" put on that land, yet all of which are being seized, and without which, it becomes valueless economically.
If Mugabe's policies put the land into the hands of the Blacks who worked on those large farms as employees, you could have a point-they, after all, have the skill and knowledge as well as the sweat-and-blood investments to justify the transfer. You may note, that he is giving it to his cronies and putting those people off along with the whites. In this case, your Land reform, legal or not, is indefensible from a perspective of doing the right thing for your majority population. (Pre-siezure, Zimbabweans had enough to eat, plus exports of food. Post Seizure, Zimbabwe is starving and importing food-aid.)

In Land reform, you do NOT give it to people that either can not, or will not, do an effective job of land management. Fact is, Mugabe's policy is not about "Justice" or "Reform", it's about "Racism" and "Power".

Blame the Whites for your problems, strip them of their rights (Rights guaranteed when you took power, by the way), then distribute the property you seize to your most aggressive supporters without regard for actual skill, merit, or ability.
Repeat scapegoating as necessary until you achieve a situation equivalent to the 12th Century's "Worst Places To Live"-or until you look like Liberia.

In the 1980's Zimbabwe was held up as an example of why South Africa was wrong- the country was treated as a model of racial cooperation and Tolerance. Today, it is an example of something much, much, nastier than Apartheit. It's the nightmare the Afrikaner Extremeists were claiming would happen if the ANC were legalized and Apartheit ended.

I don't know whether I have a complete understanding of the situation, but from what I have seen, he is being racist. I don't understand the whole 'returning the land' thing in this case. What is it that gives people with dark skin a right over others? I would assume that at least some of the white farmers wish to take part peacefully in the affairs of the country and cooperate with others, and I don't see what about the situation makes it so that they should be forced off the land.

I understand that it was originally stolen by the whites from the blacks, but both the criminals and the victims are long dead, if I have the timescale right, and there is not a way to right that wrong. Presumably before this, people were on a more equal footing (the whites not owning all the land, and blacks having a means to purchase land), and trying to give everybody their rights back and such is as much as I know of that could be done.

To me, it seems like the whole situation is way too sticky to just say "Give the blacks all the farms". It just doesn't make sense to me.

Exactly. He's being an ass to everyone, black and white alike. He is not a racist, as far as I can tell. Just a hoser.Ah, so Hitler wasn't a racist because he murdered Germans that disagreed with him up too? I seriously doubt it.

I don't know whether I have a complete understanding of the situation, but from what I have seen, he is being racist. I don't understand the whole 'returning the land' thing in this case. What is it that gives people with dark skin a right over others? I would assume that at least some of the white farmers wish to take part peacefully in the affairs of the country and cooperate with others, and I don't see what about the situation makes it so that they should be forced off the land.

I understand that it was originally stolen by the whites from the blacks, but both the criminals and the victims are long dead, if I have the timescale right, and there is not a way to right that wrong. Presumably before this, people were on a more equal footing (the whites not owning all the land, and blacks having a means to purchase land), and trying to give everybody their rights back and such is as much as I know of that could be done.

To me, it seems like the whole situation is way too sticky to just say "Give the blacks all the farms". It just doesn't make sense to me.


Like I said earlier-this has nothing to do with Justice, or righting wrongs, it has to do with POWER. Mugabe doesn't want to leave office, in order to remain in office, he needs thugs, and thugs need to be paid, or they'll find someone else to work for. the game works like this (and it's older than Hitler), Find a minority that is already neutral/unpopular, blame all problems on that minority, then take whatever they have of value and use that to pay your supporters.

Repeat as necessary, or until you run out of minorities to dispossess-at which time, you step up to accusing your majority opponents of being uncle-tom to the dispossessed minority, and so on. In the name of "The People" you wind up placing all the wealth in the hands of a chosen few, and dividing your victims against one another.

Find a minority that is already neutral/unpopular, blame all problems on that minority, then take whatever they have of value and use that to pay your supporters.Hm... this sounds a lot like the Iraq war to me...
Saddam, terrorists... unpopular
Link to Al Qaeda... blame
Sell contracts to American companies to rebuild Iraq... pay supporters

But as for the unpopular minority in Mugabe's case, the white farmers actually managed to band together with the opposition to prevent Mugabe from being able to disown the farmers without paying any compensation at all, instead of much less than the land is worth...

Zimbabwe´s governement is scheduled to get passed by the Legislature a constitucional ammendement that will assure that all agricultural land in the country will be in the hands of zimbabwean´s black citizens. The governement has for some time been taking numerous farms from white Zimbabwean citizens to this effect. Do you believe that the governement of Zimbabwe is doing this out of anti-white racism? Or its motivation is simply to correct a historical injustice in the distribution of farm-land in the country, as it has proclaimed? And what of the support that many African neighbouring countries give to Mr.Mugabe on this issue, such as Mbeki´s South Africa? Yes, he is a racist. He is anti-white. Just because it is against whites, it is not any less racist.

Its a sad sign in the world that someone would even have to ask this question. I don't have to ask if the KKK or Nazis are racist, everyone just knows. Mugabe is just another thug from a rats ass country, its almost enough to make you wish that one of the great empires were still around to stick a sword (or musket) up his oh-so-noble posterior.

I don't know whether I have a complete understanding of the situation, but from what I have seen, he is being racist. I don't understand the whole 'returning the land' thing in this case. What is it that gives people with dark skin a right over others? I would assume that at least some of the white farmers wish to take part peacefully in the affairs of the country and cooperate with others, and I don't see what about the situation makes it so that they should be forced off the land.

I understand that it was originally stolen by the whites from the blacks, but both the criminals and the victims are long dead, if I have the timescale right, and there is not a way to right that wrong. Presumably before this, people were on a more equal footing (the whites not owning all the land, and blacks having a means to purchase land), and trying to give everybody their rights back and such is as much as I know of that could be done.

To me, it seems like the whole situation is way too sticky to just say "Give the blacks all the farms". It just doesn't make sense to me.
The problem isn't what race owns the land, it's that the land is far too concentrated in the hands of too few people. A very fucked up land-gini curve, if you will. This is bad enough in large, developed nations like the US (see problems we have with 'family farms' giving way to gigantic megacorps), but in agrarian/'third world' nations, it's crippling. It tends to create a situation worse then sharecropping, and leaves many people without any way of surviving. However, this is a rather horrid way of going about rectifying the problem. Example, in South africa "Land reform has been a priority for the ruling African National Congress since it won power in 1994. The 1913 Land Act, which reserved 87% of the country's land for the white minority, was followed by decades of forced removals by successive apartheid governments. So the authorities are buying claimed land and giving it back to its original owners or their descendants, while planning to redistribute 30% of white-owned commercial farmland (22m hectares) to black hands by 2014—on a willing-buyer-willing-seller basis."

Its a sad sign in the world that someone would even have to ask this question. I don't have to ask if the KKK or Nazis are racist, everyone just knows. Mugabe is just another thug from a rats ass country, its almost enough to make you wish that one of the great empires were still around to stick a sword (or musket) up his oh-so-noble posterior.
Oh yes, so they can redo the wonderful job they did in the first place :rolleyes:

Could you list them, please?
There is no easy solution to land distribution problems in Africa (or the Americas). The land should be restored to the natives. Whites should not be prohibited from owning land; they should be able to buy it back at a fair price from the current rightful owners.
I'm white, and my family had to leave the Cote d'Ivoire a few years back because the natives were getting angry at their white oppressors. My family was not opressing anyone; they were the first generation of immigrants to the country, and they did not own land. My grandfather was a teacher there. Was it fair to them that they got kicked out of the country even though they had done nothing wrong? Not really. They were grouped in with all the whites who were keeping the natives down.
It's not fair, and it's not easy, but as far as I can see, there is no better or more fair solution.
If you have one in mind, please enlighten me.


What about people who fairly paid for it originally??

My grandparents family in NZ purchased land from the local Mauri (sp) tribes and paid what they would pay a colonial owner for it, but if NZ had the same laws as Zimbabwe is emplacing they would lose it.

Those solutions are too expensive to be feasable in Zimbabwe. Aside from that, he government should not be expected to buy back stolen land. They have every right to restore it to its rightful owners. Buyer beware, eh? Don't buy stolen property.


actually in 1983 (when he came to power i think) Zimbabwe was one of the largest EXPORTers of Grain stuffs in the world (third i think)

And if there were still people in England who didn't have ancestors from all over the place, I would support the restoration of land to the natives. It has been a few thousand years. The invaders are the natives now.


At what point do you become a native? How many years (even approximately)???

Mugabe's Plan:

1. Get rid of whitey

2. ??????

3. Profit!


Now if he could only remember what phase two was supposed to be...I'm thinking "starve everyone to death" was it.

I'm a white Zimbabwean, hear my point of view.

1, Mugabe is not a racist, but he knows that South Africa in particular and most of Africa in general still see the world in terms of black good white evil, something not helped by the Iraqi war! In order to keep the ANC on side Mugabe has sold the political rape of the country as undoing the colonial past, something that I might add does not sit well amongst most of the black population. By about 1998 race had fallen away as the predominat political issue, replaced by the congolese war. The inter-racial good will that was arround in 2000-02 was really quite amazing, not to say that there were not still racists on both sides of the colour divide.

2, The details of what is happening are quite misunderstood by the outside. The occupation of white land that constitutes 35% of arable land in Zim (not 70% of all land) was not an attempt to isloate the white farmers who were politically weak, but rather to dienfranchise their workers. Roughly 45% of the population had employment (directly or indirectly) on the farms and they were amongst the most disillusioned by uncle Bob. When Mugabe's constitution was rejected in the referendum in 2000, the heaviest, unexpected lossess were in farming constituencies. By occupying the farms, Mugabe made thousands of people who would have voted for the MDC homeless, you can not vote in Zimbabwe unless you can prove where you live with a bill or a letter from your employer.

3, If you want to see the real conflict you must look at the protagonists, Mugabe and aged intelectual surrounded by party loyalists and senior officers too scared to protest and oppertunists (all aged between 60 and 80) allied to some mercinaries, unemplyable thugs and some brutalised children (most under the age of 25) on one side vs an alliance of the professional classes, white farmers, working classes, the inteligencia, and the poor (aged between 20 and 60).

4, the only way Zim will be fixed is military intervention, followed by letting us create our own organisations; and it is time that Britain and the US realise that it serves South Africa's long term aims to have a weak Zim and that they are the only contries with the ability and incentive to do something over South Africa's head.

Those solutions are too expensive to be feasable in Zimbabwe. Aside from that, he government should not be expected to buy back stolen land. They have every right to restore it to its rightful owners. Buyer beware, eh? Don't buy stolen property.

Dear Oxwana,

Zimbabwe is not some poor back water underdeveloped country, we had the highest adult literacy in the English speaking world, better that either Britain or the States; in the late seventies and early eighties the Rhodesian/Zimbabwean Dollar was worth two pounds and our three small armies were amongst the most professional in Africa. Until the late nineties we could have been the model for post colonial Africa on how to let capitalism take place effectively in a Socialist state.

Poor economic and political management in the last half a decade and a dodgy war in the Congo has lead Zim to where it is now, and with a better government there is no reason why our economy could not be on a par with Spain or Mexico

The two situations can not be compared. Blacks did not steal that land from the Europeans. They are legitimate immigrants who have purchased property that was willingly sold by its previous owners.

This is not about punishing the whites in Zimbabwe. They are unfortunate casualties of the restoration of ancestral land to the black people of Zimbabwe.
It's not like I'm happy about this. I wish there were a better way, but I honestly don't think that there is. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

Sorry to sound like I'm picking on you Oxwana, but your arguements are quite dangerous. Firstly the black population of Zimbabwe are not indigenous to Zimbabwe. The Ndebele are native of South Africa and have only lived in Zimbabwe for 80 years longer than the Whites, the Shona arrive 300 years earlier from central Africa, about the same time as Boers arrived in the Cape. the native population of Zimbabwe are the KoSan who live in the caprivi Strip of Namibia and constitute at most 3000 people and the Rosvi who are all dead! If we take your arguement back to it's natural conclusion we should all live in the rift valley and all be called Africans, and give back to the animals the rest of the world.

I'm not much up on the topic in question but here's my tuppeth worth.

In today's modern times of clearly delineated countries, it's not right for one country to go marching in on another and taking it's land.
However we're not talking about today, we're talking hundreds of years ago. There's not a country in the world that hasn't been settled by people from another country. In Britain it's hard to tell the difference between Celts, Saxons, Normans, Vikings etc. so there's no question of who owns what land. This isn't the same in Africa, white's are obviously not indigenous.
I think that in the past, if a land was conquered, it belongs to the conquerers. If the orginal settlers (who probably took it from someone else beforehand) won't put up a fight for it, they don't deserve to keep it.
Also in the case of African land, the white settlers moved in to an underused resource and made it work. Now that the farms are all up and running, after decades of hard work, they want it back.
However in the end, noone ever actually owns the land, we just rent it for a while.

And if there were still people in England who didn't have ancestors from all over the place, I would support the restoration of land to the natives. It has been a few thousand years. The invaders are the natives now.

Oh ok..... that says a lot

Indeed, I believe he is racist.

A white man hits a black man and is called for hate crimes, a black man destroys and steals property from a white man and to some it is all fair.

Who says it was their land to begin with?

Did they have their names on it.

Btw, now that all this is happening Zimbabwean Cricket is suffering.

Like I said earlier-this has nothing to do with Justice, or righting wrongs, it has to do with POWER. Mugabe doesn't want to leave office, in order to remain in office, he needs thugs, and thugs need to be paid, or they'll find someone else to work for. the game works like this (and it's older than Hitler), Find a minority that is already neutral/unpopular, blame all problems on that minority, then take whatever they have of value and use that to pay your supporters.

Repeat as necessary, or until you run out of minorities to dispossess-at which time, you step up to accusing your majority opponents of being uncle-tom to the dispossessed minority, and so on. In the name of "The People" you wind up placing all the wealth in the hands of a chosen few, and dividing your victims against one another.

Exactly. Mugabe didn't give a fuck about the white farmers until he watched CNN and learned that they were contributing to the political campaigns of his opponents. After that Mugabe went apeshit and started confiscating their lands for redistribution.

And don't think this has anything to do with racial justice, folks. All the "black farmers" getting these lands are all 100% Mugabe Cronies, some of whom don't even have jack shit worth of farming experience.

Sorry to sound like I'm picking on you Oxwana, but your arguements are quite dangerous. Firstly the black population of Zimbabwe are not indigenous to Zimbabwe. The Ndebele are native of South Africa and have only lived in Zimbabwe for 80 years longer than the Whites, the Shona arrive 300 years earlier from central Africa, about the same time as Boers arrived in the Cape. the native population of Zimbabwe are the KoSan who live in the caprivi Strip of Namibia and constitute at most 3000 people and the Rosvi who are all dead! If we take your arguement back to it's natural conclusion we should all live in the rift valley and all be called Africans, and give back to the animals the rest of the world.
But, but, but, but, but, the white people are white!!!

I'm a white Zimbabwean, hear my point of view.

1, Mugabe is not a racist, but he knows that South Africa in particular and most of Africa in general still see the world in terms of black good white evil, <snippage>
Sorry, but "Whites are evil because they are white!" is racism. No two ways about, Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki are both racists.

We left that point behind a long time ago. Fact is, he is racist. Someone that calls white farmers "the enemy" isn't likely to be what I'd call "tolerant" when it comes to other skin colors. (and he has forced black people off their land. Havent you seen the bulldozers tearing down the houses?)
I agree with Oxwana on this one. He calls the farmers who oppose him the enemy. Mugabe has been more than happy to give land to Chinese investors.

People miss the point, Mugabe is just trying to hold on to power until he dies naturally, and selling everything we own to the Iranian, Cuban, Malaysians, South Africans and Chinese is just a stalling measure, it is not aboutt race!

People miss the point, Mugabe is just trying to hold on to power until he dies naturally, and selling everything we own to the Iranian, Cuban, Malaysians, South Africans and Chinese is just a stalling measure, it is not aboutt race!
I think most people know that he is just another despot desperate to cling to power.
The point under discussion (by some people anyway), however, is whether he is also a racist. I think he is.
Personally, I don't really care, but there are people who have a special way of hating racists and this would be of particular interest to them.

People miss the point, Mugabe is just trying to hold on to power until he dies naturally, and selling everything we own to the Iranian, Cuban, Malaysians, South Africans and Chinese is just a stalling measure, it is not aboutt race!I'd say that's a bigger problem, but not that it keeps him from being racist. You have a better insight though, so I'll put a lot of value on your opinion and take it into account. :)

I think I should point out two things.

I have met Mugabe 3 times (my father used to work for government), and the man is very inteligent, charming and whitty and has a fixation for all things British (except Tony Blair whom he loaths, and I do agree with his assessment). The second thing is, Mugabe is one of those people (oddly like Rhodes) who doesn't beleive in anything except power, and the means to get it. He comes accross as racist because his main audience is South Africa which is institutionally racist, and the rest of Africa which has suffered at the hands of Europe and not had the better parts of colonialism (because unlike Zim the Brits never intended on staying). The great problem with Mugabe is he is a rational, reasonable man when you meet him and his assessments of Britain and the US under their present administrations are sufficiently close to the truth to make him look good to those who want a reason to hate Britain and the US. The truth, when you look at the irational behaviour of the government of Zimbabwe has to be, either Mugabe is no longer completely in control of the monster he created (ZANU (PF)) or he is not always in control of himself. With Mugabe gone ZANU (PF) will rip itself to pieces and we can rebuild our home.

What about people who fairly paid for it originally??Then it is theirs, fairly bought and paid for, obviously.

My grandparents family in NZ purchased land from the local Mauri (sp) tribes and paid what they would pay a colonial owner for it, but if NZ had the same laws as Zimbabwe is emplacing they would lose it.Only land that was taken from its original tribal owners should be restored to the blacks of Zimbabwe.

Only land that was taken from its original tribal owners should be restored to the blacks of Zimbabwe.

Sorry, did you not read the response I wrote to you on this, the original tribal owners of what is now Zimbabwe have either ceased to exist or been driven into the Namib desert, not by the British settlers, but by the Shona invaders from central Africa 400 years ago.

When the Rudd agreement was signed it bought land and mineral rights from Lobengula, land I might add that he as an Ndebele King did not own as it was Shona at the time.

Also can I point out that for the twenty years of ZANU (PF) rule that proceeded this last painful stage there was a policy in place that farm land that was for sale had to be offered to the state for first dibs (and that the world Bank did offer loans to the state if it wanted them in order to purchase the land) before it went on the market and all land transactions were engaged in on a willing buyer willing seller agreement, underwhich the state aquired about 30% of the arable farmland in Zim (Acording to the Zimbabwe Farmers Union when the took the government to court as of 2002 about 80% of farm land had changed hands at least once since the end of settler rule, predominatly to the state 30% and to companies 20% and large scale professional black farmers 15% Total 65%), most of which was asigned to co-operative plans that fell flat on their faces because the state refused to give these black farmers the deeds, so they could not secure loans from the banks to buy fertaliser and seeds. When the land grab started it took the black poor by suprise as they (more than the whites or the middleclasses) had been calling for greater acountability of money spent by the state (thinking specifically the congolese war and ministerial privages). Even now there is no way in God's green earth that a non state owned bank will offer money to the resettled farmers as they have no colateral, and the state has simply taken the land back from many of the farm invaders and settle ministers and their cliques on these farms, whick lie idle.

Then it is theirs, fairly bought and paid for, obviously.

Only land that was taken from its original tribal owners should be restored to the blacks of Zimbabwe.


So... how do you prove it belonged to someone? or was paid for fairly, my grandfather still has a transfer of property deed framed on his wall, it says his family paid something like 100 pounds for the land, this was a valid price then, but would you accept a piece of yellowing paper as proof? or would you need more?

actually in 1983 (when he came to power i think) Zimbabwe was one of the largest EXPORTers of Grain stuffs in the world (third i think)

Whole world actually, top twenty! Mugabe became President in 1987 when he merged the job of President and Prime Minister and scrapped the Senate, before which he was Prime Minister. Third lagest producer of Tobacco in the world until 2000.

Very glad to see a spirited debate going on, specially with valuable insight from some elements that actually witnessed the situation unfold upclose and personal. Still, something in this issue has always striked me as very odd: in the ´80´s, one saw, and rightfully so, a staunch campaign from almost every sector in western societies against South Africa´s Apartheid sistem. Nowadays one doesn´t see much moral outrage when it comes to this state of affairs in Zimbabwe. Anyone has some sort of insight on this? And what to say of the stance Mozambique has taken, selling vast amounts of workable land to disposessed Zimbabwean white farmers under very generous terms?

Very glad to see a spirited debate going on, specially with valuable insight from some elements that actually witnessed the situation unfold upclose and personal. Still, something in this issue has always striked me as very odd: in the ´80´s, one saw, and rightfully so, a staunch campaign from almost every sector in western societies against South Africa´s Apartheid sistem. Nowadays one doesn´t see much moral outrage when it comes to this state of affairs in Zimbabwe. Anyone has some sort of insight on this? And what to say of the stance Mozambique has taken, selling vast amounts of workable land to disposessed Zimbabwean white farmers under very generous terms?

Mozambique, like Nigeria, Zambia, Angola and Botswana have realised that the disposesed white farmers are a useful asset, their knowledge and experience is worth having when trying to rebuild their countries. The simple reality is most of the white farmers were no steryotypical racists as portrayed by Mugabe and they have found it easy enough to settle into other African countries.

Mozambique, like Nigeria, Zambia, Angola and Botswana have realised that the disposesed white farmers are a useful asset, their knowledge and experience is worth having when trying to rebuild their countries. The simple reality is most of the white farmers were no steryotypical racists as portrayed by Mugabe and they have found it easy enough to settle into other African countries.
If that is true, then how come none of zimbabwe´s neighbours has adopted a tougher attitude towards Mugabe? A couple days ago, the former president of Mozambique was appointed by the president of the African Union to mediate between Mugabe and MDC. However the ZANU-PF´s officials stated that MDC wasn´t a "democratic patriotic movement" (whatever that means) and that such matters were strictly in the sphere of zimbabwe´s internal affairs. Mr. Chissano (the appointed mediator) was only to glad to agree. So,what gives?

Democratic Patriotism is a euphamism for Shona Nationalist, this is because the MDC is comprised of Shona, Ndebele, Mixed and White members, mainly professional classes while ZANU (PF) is made up of predominatly former revolutionaries with no professional skills or serious education.

Mozambique has the problem of its own history, Frelemo is historically pro ZANU while Renamo was pro (PF)ZAPU/Rhodesia/South Africa. Neither party can rule in Mozambique without the aquiensance of the other - hence the war - so Mozabique can neither truely support uncle Bob or denounce him. A lot of our problems lie in the notion of Pan Africanism, and the fact that every quasi-democratic leader could become another Mugabe and does not want to see the presidence set of being toppled by force.

If you look at the relationship between Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa you will notice that what happens in Zambia is coppied by the others but through progressively bloodier processes. Company property to British Colony to Socialist Nationalist government to Labour based opposition that becomes the viable government. I dread to think what blood bath will happen in SA when COSATU becomes a viable political party to threatern the ANC.

Democratic Patriotism is a euphamism for Shona Nationalist, this is because the MDC is comprised of Shona, Ndebele, Mixed and White members, mainly professional classes while ZANU (PF) is made up of predominatly former revolutionaries with no professional skills or serious education.

Mozambique has the problem of its own history, Frelemo is historically pro ZANU while Renamo was pro (PF)ZAPU/Rhodesia/South Africa. Neither party can rule in Mozambique without the aquiensance of the other - hence the war - so Mozabique can neither truely support uncle Bob or denounce him. A lot of our problems lie in the notion of Pan Africanism, and the fact that every quasi-democratic leader could become another Mugabe and does not want to see the presidence set of being toppled by force.

If you look at the relationship between Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa you will notice that what happens in Zambia is coppied by the others but through progressively bloodier processes. Company property to British Colony to Socialist Nationalist government to Labour based opposition that becomes the viable government. I dread to think what blood bath will happen in SA when COSATU becomes a viable political party to threatern the ANC.
Actually i truly believe Mozambique has already reached a stage where political dispute is solved through a free and fair election process...the war as ended for quite sometime now.

There is no doubt that Mozambique will not return to conflict, but regardless, the government can not effectively rule without the aid of Renamo. Zimbabwe is a foreign policy issue and therefore not a rock upon which the government will want to crash its good ship co-operation upon. It is therefore easier to leave it well alone. Also remeber, that regardless of how bad Zim is now it is nowhere near as bad as what Mozambique got to during the war.

But still why do public opinion in the West still largely ignore the events in Zimbabwe?

The cynic in me says "no oil"

But still why do public opinion in the West still largely ignore the events in Zimbabwe?There's nothing much we can do that wouldn't completely destroy international relations again. The EU at least is pressuring the AU to do something, and you know they'd go apeshit if there where European or American soldiers doing anything in Zimbabwe, let alone in Sudan...

There's nothing much we can do that wouldn't completely destroy international relations again. The EU at least is pressuring the AU to do something, and you know they'd go apeshit if there where European or American soldiers doing anything in Zimbabwe, let alone in Sudan...
But´when i talk about "public opinion i dont mean the western governement´s.I´m adressing the view of the man in the street. During Apartheid years, western governements only took a tougher outlook on South Africa when a widespread political campaign erupted in the midst of european and american societies against the Apartheid sistem. So, how come one is yet to see demonstrations taking place in front of Zimbabwe´s embassies in the west. Is there a double standard?

But´when i talk about "public opinion i dont mean the western governement´s.I´m adressing the view of the man in the street. During Apartheid years, western governements only took a tougher outlook on South Africa when a widespread political campaign erupted in the midst of european and american societies against the Apartheid sistem. So, how come one is yet to see demonstrations taking place in front of Zimbabwe´s embassies in the west. Is there a double standard?With all due respect, it's tragic, but right now the situation in Niger is worse. We've been seeing a lot about it, but honestly, what does Mugabe care that he can't come to the EU? What would he care for a bunch of people holding signs in front of the Zim embassy?

But´when i talk about "public opinion i dont mean the western governement´s.I´m adressing the view of the man in the street. During Apartheid years, western governements only took a tougher outlook on South Africa when a widespread political campaign erupted in the midst of european and american societies against the Apartheid sistem. So, how come one is yet to see demonstrations taking place in front of Zimbabwe´s embassies in the west. Is there a double standard?

There have been protests outside the embassy in London for the last six years every weekend, we collected just under two million signatures for patitions to the UN, Commonwealth, British Government and South African Government last year alone. But Zimbabwe has not captured the imagination of the left because it is oftern portrayed as a anti-black man campagin by other Africans.

The AU is a pointless extension of the racist bile that was the OAU, the sooner we build real democracies in Africa the sooner they will create real democratic institutions like the EU!

With all due respect, it's tragic, but right now the situation in Niger is worse. We've been seeing a lot about it, but honestly, what does Mugabe care that he can't come to the EU? What would he care for a bunch of people holding signs in front of the Zim embassy?

Mugabe doesn't care, but think how a democratic Zimbabwe would ofset the problems of Niger and Mauritania with our food growing expertise in the long term. I know that a democratic Zimbabwe could take a lot of Africa's problems off the hands of the west. Maybe that sounds like patriotic posturing, by it can be done.

Does anyone notice that Mugabe has made worse by replacing all the employers withhis buddies from the "government" of Zimbabwe

But´when i talk about "public opinion i dont mean the western governement´s.I´m adressing the view of the man in the street. During Apartheid years, western governements only took a tougher outlook on South Africa when a widespread political campaign erupted in the midst of european and american societies against the Apartheid sistem. So, how come one is yet to see demonstrations taking place in front of Zimbabwe´s embassies in the west. Is there a double standard?
Ever wonder if it's a kind of subconscious racism? That when it was white people doing it to blacks it was terrible, because whites should know better or maybe because they made us white westerners look bad, but when it's blacks doing it well, who would expect better of them?

Does anyone notice that Mugabe has made worse by replacing all the employers withhis buddies from the "government" of ZimbabweNo. [/sarcasm]
Did you bother reading the thread?

Ever wonder if it's a kind of subconscious racism? That when it was white people doing it to blacks it was terrible, because whites should know better or maybe because they made us white westerners look bad, but when it's blacks doing it well, who would expect better of them?
I think you may have a valide point there...for some time i´ve been noticing that some western european sectors keep blaiming all of Africa´s current predicaments on Europe´s colonial dominance there, which ended decades ago...i supose i´s somewhat racist yes, because this kind of view doesn´t allot any kind of responsability to african leaders for their actions...as if they had no free will...a kind of paternalistic racism...

I think you may have a valide point there...for some time i´ve been noticing that some western european sectors keep blaiming all of Africa´s current predicaments on Europe´s colonial dominance there, which ended decades ago...i supose i´s somewhat racist yes, because this kind of view doesn´t allot any kind of responsability to african leaders for their actions...as if they had no free will...a kind of paternalistic racism...The ended isn't quite true. They've been left behind and now have to catch up and that's something that doesn't happen over night, especially not with the way some African countries are run...
You can't really blame any of them for not having caught up to Europe having been crippled for most of the race, can you?

The ended isn't quite true. They've been left behind and now have to catch up and that's something that doesn't happen over night, especially not with the way some African countries are run...
You can't really blame any of them for not having caught up to Europe having been crippled for most of the race, can you?

Nonsense, Look at the state of Western Europe in the post war years, Japan, South Korea, even parts of South America have drawn themselves up from being a total mess, and as much as I'd hate to admit it the Apathied and Rhodesian Governments ran economies that were far more efficient than their European or American counterparts decause (not dispite) of their sanctions.

The ended isn't quite true. They've been left behind and now have to catch up and that's something that doesn't happen over night, especially not with the way some African countries are run...
You can't really blame any of them for not having caught up to Europe having been crippled for most of the race, can you?
Well, Africa has had thirty years (sometimes more) to make at least some recovery...what one sees is that many African countries are nowadays worse off thatn they were under colonial rule...look at Angola, for instance, former collony of my home country, Portugal. A vast majority of the peolple lives in blatant poverty, while the governement keeps getting bribes form oil companies that later end in Swiss acounts...

Nonsense, Look at the state of Western Europe in the post war years, Japan, South Korea, even parts of South America have drawn themselves up from being a total mess, and as much as I'd hate to admit it the Apathied and Rhodesian Governments ran economies that were far more efficient than their European or American counterparts decause (not dispite) of their sanctions.Total mess? Europe has, unlike most African countries, a working infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, etc) that are not present in others. The apartheid governments were in countries where Europeans intended to stay, were they not? That explainy why there was actually some effort to build roads so that people could go places instead of just for exploiting the natural resources.
There were actually some West African cities that could only be reached by boat because there just weren't any roads.

Edit: I forgot to add that this infrastructure wasn't completely demolished by the world wars. We still have plenty of Nazi-made Autobahn sections (Ike loved the Autobahn so much because it facilitated his march through Germany that he copied the idea and brought it to the US).

There is considerabliy more infustructure in Africa than you are lead to beleive. the main population areas are easily comparible to late Tzarist Russia or Post war Italy, and Some cities like Dar es Salam, Harare, Jo'Burgh Nairobi etc are at similar developmental levels to many of their western cousins.