NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/10/15/zimbabwe.farmers.reut/index.html

I'm against it. Why? Because then all the fuckers can starve without white produce.

What do you think?

I'm against it. Why? Because then all the fuckers can starve without white produce.
So the Zimbabweans should starve 'cause their dictator doesn't like white people?

So the Zimbabweans should starve 'cause their dictator doesn't like white people?

Sure, why not?

They can "allow" white farmers back, but I think it'd be great if none took them up on the offer.
They grabbed up those farms even though they didn't know how to grow enough stuff; let 'em get the Darwin Awards they applied for.

As for the Zimbabwean civilians, I didn't hear of any serious revolts or major protests against the land grab idea. Let 'em reap what they sowed. Or didn't properly sow, as the case may be. (A few protestors don't count. There's always a few dissenters, even if the general populace thinks an idea is great!)


But reading the article, I think maybe it's the white farmers who are applying for Darwin Awards:

President Robert Mugabe's government has received more than 200 applications from whites to take up farming again, land minister Flora Buka said on Saturday during an agriculture conference in South Africa.

"As regards white commercial farmers, there are some who have indicated that they would want to continue farming," Buka told Reuters.
They apply, DESPITE:
Asked if the government was still confiscating land from whites to redistribute to blacks, Buka said: "Yes, we are still resettling our people on the land that is state land."

As long as that bullcrap is going on, they ought to stay away if only for their own safety. By that statement of Buka's, it looks like they may just get their land stolen again if they return!

Sure, why not?
It seems a little pointless. People starving only seems to strengthen dictators (as they can control who gets the limited amounts of food available).

It seems a little pointless. People starving only seems to strengthen dictators (as they can control who gets the limited amounts of food available).

See Fergi America's post.

i think all white people should leave africa and ignor it. including charity groups.

i think all white people should leave africa and ignor it. including charity groups.

No, Africans are counting on us to feed them. That's why they are making 6,7 children per women.

I think someone should come back to run these farms because its unfair to let the entire of Zimbabwe starve. But when the Whites come back I think they should make it entirely clear to the populace that the sole cause of their last few years of problems has been because they refused to stand up for the rights of the farmers.

This seems as good a practical lesson as I can think of that minorities should be afforded full rights and not dicked around by the tyranny of the masses.

Sure it would be detrimental for the white farmers to reapply to farm in Zimbabwe, but where are white Zimbabweians to go? South Africa? Even if they get visas and whatnot approved - difficult, since South Africa is very xenophobic of other African nations, regardless of race - what awaits them there? Their southern neighbor isn't exactly the model of stability and economic excellence.

So, what else is there really for poor white Zimbabwe farmers to do, other than do what they've always known and farmed?

I could write pages and pages on why all this would be different if South Africa had not had an apartheid government or had given up such silly things by the 1960s like everyone else that considers itself a western nation, but I don't feel like it.

Of course, I could also write a few pages on how this could have been different had the colonial British embarked on a campaign of ethnic cleansing, but the alternative where less people got slaughtered would have been the prefferable one.

No, Africans are counting on us to feed them. That's why they are making 6,7 children per women.

thats my point. i dont think we should help countrie(or continents) that have dictators, invadsions, genital mutilation, murdering enviromentalists, murder and those who come over to help them.

No, Africans are counting on us to feed them. That's why they are making 6,7 children per women.

They make that many children per woman because according to the culture of southern Africa, a woman has to bear a man 7-8 children to prove she's fertile before she can marry him... and then the guy usually ends up not marrying her anyway.

So it turns out reality is even stupider than what you postulated.

EDIT: This is a traditional practice amongst poor, uneducated blacks. Educated blacks and whites don't do this.

No, Africans are counting on us to feed them. That's why they are making 6,7 children per women.
Right. Because everybody knows: the more secure the food & living situation, the higher the birthrate.

Oh, wait...

Right. Because everybody knows: the more secure the food & living situation, the higher the birthrate.

Oh, wait...

See my post above about birthrates. He got the right number, but the wrong reasons.

And you have to keep in mind logic always fails in the face of long-held tradition and ignorance.

I also want to make it perfectly clear that I'm not posting this to defend Nordland - the thought of doing that makes me sick to my stomach - but to curb a useless argument based on a misconception.

If the nation is going to progress, it has to look beyonds its colonialist past and toward the future, let white farmers farm, it'll bring food to people, thats the most important thing. The leader shouldn't let some idiotic hatred of a race ruin his nation anymore.

If the whites are going to return, they better ask for an amendment to the constitution that protects private property from being nationalised, especially when that nationalisation is based on race.

If the nation is going to progress, it has to look beyonds its colonialist past and toward the future, let white farmers farm, it'll bring food to people, thats the most important thing. The leader shouldn't let some idiotic hatred of a race ruin his nation anymore.
But then people will whine and complain when the "white" farmers again begin to prosper and earn more money than they do.

Plus, it'll take a great number of years to undo the significant amount of damage done by these policies.

Some of these posts are the most terrifying, uninformed and worrying pieces of idiotic rubbish I've ever read.

You people scare me. Zimbabwe is in an appalling, appalling way at the moment. People are starving and slaughtered in the streets by death-squads, imprisoned for being against the government etc. And you say things like serves the Black population right because they didn't stand up for the White farmers if the Whites don't return. Crazy. The people who took the farms were these 'war veterans' who were just mates of Mugabe. NOT the populace of Zimbabwe who are terrified and starving: one simply needs to examine the amount of illegal immigration into South Africa and check the nationality of the black workers on white farms in South Africa near the border to see the truth in this.

Without the West's original interference and colonialism none of these countries would be in the shit they are in now. Without the West ceasing it's continual screwing of continental Africa in terms of trade and debt the continent will continue to have dictatorships in many of it's countries, starvation and a lack of education:

To say that whites and educated blacks don't partake in certain cultural practices is worrying. I don't agree with much of the old animist practices (female circumsicion (sic) for example) but do we have the right to ascribe our own culture onto others? I'm not sure. And whites most definitely do do things as described, don't fool yourself.

Without the West's original interference and colonialism none of these countries would be in the shit they are in now.
That's a different topic entirely. Plus, you're wrong (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11810573&postcount=34).

That's a different topic entirely. Plus, you're wrong (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11810573&postcount=34).


Totally barking argument. You choose one post-colonial dictatorship that culminated in free and fair general elections as an argument as to what could have been achieved in the African countries. Well what about the dictatorship to the North of South Korea?

That was under Japanese rule as well was it not? And, oh look, the post-colonial dictatorship has led to a country with an extraordinarily poor human, rights record, no free elections, a government which focuses in entirely the wrong areas and therefore neglects social progress, creating poverty...

Sound familiar? One positive example of post-colonialism does not negate the hundreds of negatives.

Sound familiar? One positive example of post-colonialism does not negate the hundreds of negatives.
Nope, but it does refute the causal relationship.

Ah, it's so heart-warming to see NN and The Potato Factory give each other a nice big bigoted help-whites-are-oppressed-by-leech-like-nonwhites tug. I hope one day their relationship can blossom into something less narrow and focused, into a general, beneficial one where both partners are equal and fulfilled. :)

Ah, it's so heart-warming to see NN and The Potato Factory give each other a nice big bigoted help-whites-are-oppressed-by-leech-like-nonwhites tug. I hope one day their relationship can blossom into something less narrow and focused, into a general, beneficial one where both partners are equal and fulfilled. :)

Well, actually the whites in Zimbabwe were oppressed. This guy moved in, stole their land, and proceeded to ruin the economy and make things worse for everyone. Racially motivated "land reclamation" schemes are not good for any country, and the damage that the moron has done to his country is so severe that Zimbabwe has fallen from a food exporter to a country where bread isn't even on the shelves due to hyperinflation and mismanagement.

Well, actually the whites in Zimbabwe were oppressed.

That's not really the issue. The issue is the certain bigoted assholes making statements like:

I'm against it. Why? Because then all the fuckers can starve without white produce.


No, Africans are counting on us to feed them. That's why they are making 6,7 children per women.

So on one hand we have one guy advocating genocide, on the other someone expounding on his pet theory that Africans (and NonWhites) are trying to out-breed Whites into submission as part of - well, genocide! See how it works; genocide is OK against black people, but the world's evillist conspiracy against white people.

So on one hand we have one guy advocating genocide

Not making food for people isn't genocide. The Zinbabweans were so eager to confiscate white land and give it to black farmers, and now there isn't any food being produced. They made their bed, and now they can sleep in it.

Ah, it's so heart-warming to see NN and The Potato Factory give each other a nice big bigoted help-whites-are-oppressed-by-leech-like-nonwhites tug. I hope one day their relationship can blossom into something less narrow and focused, into a general, beneficial one where both partners are equal and fulfilled. :)

When I take over the world, NN will be one of my ministers.

That's a different topic entirely. Plus, you're wrong (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11810573&postcount=34).

Actually he isn't. The example you chose makes your argument entirely unsustainable. South Korea, like Isreal, is and always has been an American ally against communism. That's why the dictator was able to turn GDP per capita around, because he had help, massive help, from the United States which is very contradictory in who they deem to be an "evil dictator" and who they help oppress his own people.

It has always been the habit of the UK and US to walk into a country, fuck it up entirely, and then leave without picking up the pieces like a small child.

They make that many children per woman because according to the culture of southern Africa, a woman has to bear a man 7-8 children to prove she's fertile before she can marry him... and then the guy usually ends up not marrying her anyway.

So it turns out reality is even stupider than what you postulated.

EDIT: This is a traditional practice amongst poor, uneducated blacks. Educated blacks and whites don't do this.

India is uneducated and poor as well, but their birthrate is far below african countries.

Some of these posts are the most terrifying, uninformed and worrying pieces of idiotic rubbish I've ever read.

You people scare me. Zimbabwe is in an appalling, appalling way at the moment. People are starving and slaughtered in the streets by death-squads, imprisoned for being against the government etc. And you say things like serves the Black population right because they didn't stand up for the White farmers if the Whites don't return. Crazy. The people who took the farms were these 'war veterans' who were just mates of Mugabe. NOT the populace of Zimbabwe who are terrified and starving: one simply needs to examine the amount of illegal immigration into South Africa and check the nationality of the black workers on white farms in South Africa near the border to see the truth in this.

Without the West's original interference and colonialism none of these countries would be in the shit they are in now. Without the West ceasing it's continual screwing of continental Africa in terms of trade and debt the continent will continue to have dictatorships in many of it's countries, starvation and a lack of education:

To say that whites and educated blacks don't partake in certain cultural practices is worrying. I don't agree with much of the old animist practices (female circumsicion (sic) for example) but do we have the right to ascribe our own culture onto others? I'm not sure. And whites most definitely do do things as described, don't fool yourself.


I think if you are starving, to give birth to 8 children is pure stupidity, rather than culture.

Not making food for people isn't genocide. The Zinbabweans were so eager to confiscate white land and give it to black farmers, and now there isn't any food being produced. They made their bed, and now they can sleep in it.

I see, so you think that punishment by death will deter them in the future. Do you regularly advocate starvation as a means of education?

Come off it, you want them all to die. It really doesn't work if you then turn around and try to deny it. You and NN both, you constantly, consistently make bigoted statements and then turn around and try to deny it.

It's like you're ashamed of yourselves. ;)

Hey thats mighty white of them dont ya think ?

I can't imagine many will take them up on it after those savages' shenanigans.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/10/15/zimbabwe.farmers.reut/index.html

I'm against it. Why? Because then all the fuckers can starve without white produce.

What do you think?Clicking on this thread, I thought I would agree with you, that we'd both find it great that some injustice would be mended. Instead I find you ranting this reprehensible bullshit. Good job there :rolleyes:

Not making food for people isn't genocide. Tell the Ukranians. ;)

Sure it would be detrimental for the white farmers to reapply to farm in Zimbabwe, but where are white Zimbabweians to go?

They have had many offers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1816436.stm

"Angola and Mozambique are encouraging white farmers from Zimbabwe to emigrate and settle in an attempt to revive their shattered agricultural sectors.

Hundreds of white Zimbabweans have left for greener pastures in neighbouring countries such as South Africa and Botswana.

Others are heading for Britain, the United States of America, Canada and Australia.

But Angola and Mozambique, both of which have massive agricultural potential, are keen to welcome new arrivals."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4247993.stm

"White farmers - evicted from their farms in Zimbabwe during the country's controversial land redistribution policy - have just been given the all-clear to begin farming in Nigeria's western state of Kwara.

The invitation came from Kwara's state governor, Bukola Saraki, whose goal is to use the farmers to kick-start Nigeria's moribund agricultural sector."

I hope none of them take up the offer. Their land was brutally stolen and the black population of Zimbabwe seemed more than happy to let it happen. So they can live with the consequences of their actions. If that includes famine then so be it.

Actually he isn't. The example you chose makes your argument entirely unsustainable. South Korea, like Isreal, is and always has been an American ally against communism.
And? If you look at the history of any given number of failed African States, you'll see that the dictators there supported either one side or the other.
That's not the determining factor.

That's why the dictator was able to turn GDP per capita around, because he had help, massive help, from the United States which is very contradictory in who they deem to be an "evil dictator" and who they help oppress his own people.
And Zaire for example didn't get heaps of help from the West? Then how did Mobuto Sese Seko get so rich?

Neither South Korea nor Taiwan got free money from the West. They got loans, and they attracted foreign investors. African countries could have done the same thing.

It has always been the habit of the UK and US to walk into a country, fuck it up entirely, and then leave without picking up the pieces like a small child.
Well then, let's look at one of the prime examples - Vietnam.

Vietnam was against the Americans, Vietnam had been fucked up big time in the war. By your logic, that means the Vietnamese must be among the poorest people on the planet.

They're not. It's got a GDP per capita of $2800, a growth rate of more than 8% and a decent level of investment and saving.

I hope none of them take up the offer. Their land was brutally stolen and the black population of Zimbabwe seemed more than happy to let it happen. So they can live with the consequences of their actions. If that includes famine then so be it.You're more than willing to molest a friend of mine when she rides the tube, considering you're apparently a white Englishman. Aren't overgeneralizations fun?

You're more than willing to molest a friend of mine when she rides the tube, considering you're apparently a white Englishman. Aren't overgeneralizations fun?

Didnt the African-Americans there fight and win a war to drive the white farmers out?

It isnt a generalization, they were forced out violently.

The famine should be relieved, obviously, but it isnt safe for the whites to go back to their land, so I dont see why many would take up the offer.

You're more than willing to molest a friend of mine when she rides the tube, considering you're apparently a white Englishman. Aren't overgeneralizations fun?
I'll admit that I do have a bit of a habit of generalising but I don't think I was in this case. Just because Mugabe's a dictator doesn't mean that this policy is unpopular. Many dictators engage in populist policies if it suits them in order to solidify their position. With Zimbabwe being a dictatorship, we ca't be 100% certain on the matter, but I do get the impression that the land grab policy was a largely popular one.

Didnt the African-Americans there fight and win a war to drive the white farmers out?

It isnt a generalization, they were forced out violently.

The famine should be relieved, obviously, but it isnt safe for the whites to go back to their land, so I dont see why many would take up the offer."...the black population of Zimbabwe seemed more than happy to let it happen" is an overgeneralization.

I'll admit that I do have a bit of a habit of generalising but I don't think I was in this case. Just because Mugabe's a dictator doesn't mean that this policy is unpopular. Many dictators engage in populist policies if it suits them in order to solidify their position. With Zimbabwe being a dictatorship, we ca't be 100% certain on the matter, but I do get the impression that the land grab policy was a largely popular one.Considering that anyone that disagreed with Mugabe had other worries (such as getting their houses bulldozed come election time) whether they were white or black, might explain why there wasn't much done to prevent it.

Didnt the African-Americans there fight and win a war to drive the white farmers out?




No, actually. The black people of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe lost a war to drive the white government out.

Permit me to explain. Rhodesia fought a guerrilla war for almost twenty years, using largely mercenary forces, against a continuous string of uprisings and incursions sponsored by their black neighbours. The well armed and ruthless mercenaries tended to slaughter the idealistic, badly trained and badly equipped black insurgents by the truckload - Rhodesia was never in any real danger of falling to any of the uprisings.
However, in time even the hardline white government became sick to death of all the killing. They signed a peace treaty with the moderate elements of the black opposition, resulting in multi-party elections and peace. One of the signatories was one Robert Mugabe, by the way.
According to the treaty, white and black people would be treated equally by the new government, and aside from certain strategic industries, whites would not be dispossessed of businesses or land.

It actually worked. Until just a few years ago, Zimbabwe was the jewel of southern Africa, relatively wealthy, peaceful, racially harmonius and with a good standard of living. Since then, by breaking the treaty, Mugabe has made it just another African hellhole.

"...the black population of Zimbabwe seemed more than happy to let it happen" is an overgeneralization.

Considering that anyone that disagreed with Mugabe had other worries (such as getting their houses bulldozed come election time) whether they were white or black, might explain why there wasn't much done to prevent it.

Did the African-American population support the white farmers' government or oppose it?

If they supported it, why was it replaced by an African-American government, which came to be led by mugabe, &c.

At any rate, if it can be made safe for european farmers to set up commercial farming, it should happen.

The farmers need some means of getting compensation for what was taken from them, and profitable farms are a good start.

They have had many offers.

I wasn't aware of this. If displaced farmers choose to do that, more power to them, although they still don't have their property back.


To say that whites and educated blacks don't partake in certain cultural practices is worrying. I don't agree with much of the old animist practices (female circumsicion (sic) for example) but do we have the right to ascribe our own culture onto others? I'm not sure. And whites most definitely do do things as described, don't fool yourself.

I lived in South Africa for 8 years. As a rule, educated people (which, in southern Africa, tends to be well-off blacks and virtually all whites) don't partake in the illogical, detrimental traditional cultural practices that mess the region up more than it already is. So you can cram the self-righteous bullshit saying that the ignorant over there behave just as the informed do, because that's incorrect.

And do we have the right to force our cultures onto others? No. But did I say that's what we need to do? No. I said the practice of the uneducated masses (who are uneducated due to governmental failure) exacerbate their situation by having half a dozen kids they can't support. Regardless of your cultural frame reference, that's a bone-sick stupid thing to do.

Did the African-American population support the white farmers' government or oppose it?

If they supported it, why was it replaced by an African-American government, which came to be led by mugabe, &c.


Zimbabwe, I'm sure, has a minimal African-American population, although it has a large black one.

You do realize African-American refers to black U.S. Americans, right?

I wasn't aware of this. If displaced farmers choose to do that, more power to them, although they still don't have their property back.

But they won't get it back if the go back to Zimbabwe either. As I understand the scheme, they're only going to be allowed back to farm the land under a lease program, not to own it again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4937310.stm

"Deputy Information Minister Bright Matonga told the BBC any Zimbabwean can apply for land and that farms would be allocated on long leases.

But he said that farmers would not necessarily get back land they lost. "

And this little tid bit is rich...

"The Zimbabwe government is portraying white farmers as having finally come to their senses, accepting that they cannot resist Mr Mugabe's land reform programme.

"They are begging us for land," Mr Matonga told the BBC."

Check out the "Feed back" at the end of the article. It gives interesting perspectives from Africa as well as the rest of the world on this story.

Tell the Ukranians. ;)

No, that IS genocide. The Ukrainians made their food, then the Soviets confiscated it. That's artificial famine.

Zimbabwe, I'm sure, has a minimal African-American population, although it has a large black one.

You do realize African-American refers to black U.S. Americans, right?

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT It's politically incorrect to say black!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Granada, you're fucking up the page.

go edit.

Granada, you're fucking up the page.

go edit.



But its too late for him now, already caught in the trap, his angel's kiss was a joke, and she is not coming back.