main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Zimbabwe

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Bobavader, Sep 13, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Humble extra

    Humble extra Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 12, 1999
    well before i weigh in here, i'd like to point out that there are several zimbabwe threads in this forum already, but they tend to drop down pretty quickly, i guess questions of gods are more interesting to most in here.........anyway, that aside

    secondly, and i am being anal here i will admit, Britain hasn't really had much to do with Zimbabwe ever, if it had, then this whole problem wouldn't have happened.

    From day one, that is, when the white settlers first moved into what is now zimbabwe, they were under private control, that of Cecil Rhodes primarily. Sure he had a crown charter but it wasn't an official colony like say, pretty much every other place in the British Empire, it was basically private property, run by the British South African Company.
    Now this company pretty much dominated Southern Rhodesia politically till ww2......and for a long time, maybe till the 1920s even the white settlers didn't have political control over rhodesia, it rested with the company. Except for a brief bail out by British forces in 1896 when the local blacks revolted after most of the armed white men left to invade the REpublic of Transvaal in the Jameson Raid sometime in 1895-6/

    The BSAC was primarily a South African creation, it was created by financiers in Johannsburg and Kimberely, and politically motivated by imperialistic english speaking citizens of Cape Colony and Natal, f often with some support from figures in British government. It was in large part a local response to the growing power of the white Afrikaner states immeditally to the north of the british colonies.

    Now after the Anglo Boer war of 1899-1901 or was it 02 and the subsequent Union of South Africa in 1910 Rhodesia was under some pressure to join. It being economically and culturally tied to SA. However it never did, although in the 1920s there was a referendum about this i think. It seems the english speaking whites wanted to keep their distance from the increasinly afrikaner dominated Union of South Africa. This has been a theme in rhodesian and now zimbabwean history, near total dependence on SA, but a strong desire to retain independence.

    During the 1930-50s there was a local movement among the whites to get domininion status from Britian, and become equivalent to SA, NZ, Australia, and Canada. However this status was never granted, instead Southern Rhodesia was given the northern British colonies of Northern Rhodesia and Nysaland as sops. Basically to plunder economically, and so until about 1959-1960 Southern Rhodesia/ZImbabwe was the centre of a large federation covering what is now Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi.
    Salisbury/harare was the federal capital and the infrastructure of the state was centered on it and Southern Rhodesia. By 1960 Black opposition had grown massively to imperialism around Africa, and France and Britain began to divest their colonies, to varying degrees. Of course the blacks of teh Central African Federation wanted political freedom/control as well, and since legally NRhodesia and Nysaland were still British Crown Colonies, despite being part of the Federation they were given independence by Britain, becoming Zambia and malawi. Leaving Southern Rhodesia alone as being white dominated, and given Britain's attitude to its remaining African colonies it was clear this wouldn't remain the case for long.
    So in 1965 or thereabouts the Rhodesian Parliament, controlled by extremists, the Rhodesian Front (who were supported by a majority of whites) declared a Unilateral Declaration of Indepedence from Britain, known to the world as UDI.
    After UDI they were put under ineffective sanctions by Britain and the commonwealth, but retained support from South Africa, who basically propped up the UDI regime. A very loose coalition of Black guerilla movements formed and began war within the borders of Rhodesia in the late 1960s. They performed ok against the white government, but never really posed a threat to white rule until the mid 1970s when the portuguese colony of Mozambique gained its independence, and started supporting the
     
  2. padluv

    padluv Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 20, 2002
    I agree with you completely red seven.

    And forgive me if i missed it upon reading the long posts, but one point not brought up which i find extraordinarily relevant is the fact that Mugabe is giving these 'redistributed' lands to his black cronies in the government and business as kick-backs and pay-offs for political favor, etc.

    The NYT reported that there is very little likelihood that any of the black elite who have been given the white farmers' land, land which was actually used agriculturally to feed people in a starving nation, would be actually farming the land now.

    So that makes sense, huh? Take away the agriculturally profitable lands from people who would actually utilize it and help the economy and give it to corrupt black politicians and businessmen who know nothing about running ranches and whose only use for it is a symbolic one. (oh, and the writer mentioned 'country' get aways for the rich from the nasty city).

    Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Anyone who doesn't believe that Mu. is a dictator and only in this land business for his own gain is either oblivious or so skewed in racial views that they can't see the trees for the forest.

    IMHO.
     
  3. Uruk-hai

    Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 26, 2000
    Displacement and land stealing is not a valid argument in Africa. It's been going on for millenia. The Matabele tribe displaced the local population well before white people got to Rhodesia.
     
  4. Humble extra

    Humble extra Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 12, 1999
    well, about 30 years before the whites came anyway.......point to consider is whether the land distribution will favour the mashona peasants over the ndebele peasants?
     
  5. imzadi

    imzadi Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Firstly, if a nation is part of the Commonwealth it does not necessarily mean they are not independant of England. My country is part of the Commonwealth and we are not under the rule of the Brittish. The monarchy's role in our government is a mere technicality that is controlled by our own government anyway.

    Anyway, as I understand it the problem is mostly confined to the farming population, though I'm sure there are tensions elsewhere. I know a few white Zimbabweans whose parents are professionals who have been quite safe. That said, these families are considered extremeley rich with servants and vast properties. Anger and resentment from the native population is entirely understandable, but the way they are going about the situation is unacceptable and detrimental to their cause. Not only that but it is damaging to their economy.

    Higher taxes on 'rich' landowners, both white and black, and then more money spent on the rest of the population would have been a compromise. But the 'government' wants power and is willing to distabalise their country to do it.

    The only way this will be solved is with democratic, internationally supervised elections. I know that's what happened when Magabe was elected, but I still think it's rather dubious. And I don't think a government that condones vigilantes going around threatening and perhaps killing people can truly be considered democratic anyway.

    So, suspension from the Commonwealth plus additional trade sanctions is really the only thing that can be done at the moment.
     
  6. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    All of the international observers (except those from neighboring African States like SA) were in agreement that Mugabe stole the last election.
     
  7. dizfactor

    dizfactor Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2002
    The white farmers occupying the land are citizens of Zimbabwe, as their parents have been. Are you justifying racial discrimination? Are you saying that the crimes of generations past are inherited by subsequent generations?

    i can't speak for anyone else, but here's my position on it. the white farmers may have inherited it from their ancestors, but their ancestors stole it and had no right to pass it on to anyone. it's not a question of respecting private property rights; their claims to the property are invalid. if you steal a car and then give it to me, it's still not mine.

    i can say that i have zero sympathy for the white landowners. they were living well off land that didn't belong to them while the rightful owners toiled in poverty. it's not a question of holding them responsible for their ancestors crimes. they knowingly perpetuated the colonial injustices and that's a crime in and of itself. they knew their forefathers stole the land. did they give it back? no. they kept it and got offended when it was pointed out that it wasn't theirs.

    to go back to the car analogy, let's say you're my dad and you steal a car. you have your thugs protect the car in your garage from the rightful owners until i'm old enough to drive it. then you leave town. i drive around in the stolen car and wonder why the victim's children don't like me. i mean, after all, you stole it, not me. i just inherited it. they are probably just jealous because i've got such a nice car and they just have a few rusty bicycles.

    that said, Mugabe is pretty much a thug and can't really be trusted to pass it on equitably either. the rightful owners of the land won't get theirs unless they're in good with Mugabe, and if they are, they'll get theirs and someone else's, too.

    however, it's not like there's a good solution at hand and the situation is intolerable as is. i have to say that i'm of two minds on the subject, honestly.
     
  8. imzadi

    imzadi Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    So by that reasoning America has no right to its land, nor does Australia, England, Canada, Israel, China, and countless other countries. How many generations does it take? I'm not saying that stealing land is okay, but to change it now is not viable. How many times has land been bought and sold since colonial times?
     
  9. Humble extra

    Humble extra Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 12, 1999
    i think you will find most landowners in zim have purchased their land since Independence.

    and, as i mentioned before, the elections that elected mugabe back in 1980 were hardly free or fair.......there were tens of thousands of armed guerillas, pro government militas and such running about outside the cities.......the commonwealth supervision was a friggin sop
     
  10. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    Does Anyone in America Care?


    This is the story of a woman in Zimbabwe. She is not one of the white farmers being extracted from their land and homes by President Robert Mugabe and the veterans of the 1980 war for independence, who are in the front lines of the takeovers. This woman is black and is being punished for her support of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the leading opposition party.
    Her tormentors are members of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), which has been in power since independence was won under Mugabe's leadership. I learned of her story from a June 20, 2002, report by the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition?a wide range of what we call civil rights groups fighting for a "civil society." Among them: trade unions, women's rights organizations, students, and the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. Leading the report is a letter of confirmation signed by Desmond Tutu, archbishop emeritus, Cape Town, South Africa?a world-renowned paladin of the anti-apartheid movement.

    This thoroughly documented and voluminous Zimbabwe Report contains many horror stories. This one is "Case 2 and 3: Baby 4 months old, and mother of child: interview with mother . . . Date of Incident: from November 2001, and still continuing in April 2002."

    "B is four months old. When he was only eight days old . . . he was taken from his mother at midnight by 12 war veterans and held upside down by his ankles. The war veterans said he was a whip and they would use him to beat others. They slapped him on the face and all over the body and said that he should die because he was 'an MDC property.' The mother was gagged and beaten."

    While she was eight months pregnant with B, the mother was attacked by war veterans who kicked her in the groin and lower abdomen "until she bled profusely from her vagina." She couldn't go for treatment at any clinic in her district because "she is among those blacklisted as an MDC supporter." (An interesting use of "blacklisted.")

    Refused health care throughout her pregnancy because of her pariah status, she delivered by herself at home. She has had no postnatal care. Her child "has also received no medical attention whatsoever?his birth is officially unrecorded and he has received no immunizations."

    In hiding and on the run, she is "in severe pain" and "needs urgent specialist attention for her back and needs to see a urologist" for problems that started "from her beating when eight months pregnant."

    The entry of this case in the Zimbabwe Report closes with "The history is remarkable as to the violence against a newborn baby; but otherwise it is in agreement with other testimonies of reprisals against MDC supporters."

    There is a foreword to the report by Pius A. Ncube, archbishop of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: "In the past two months, I have known of a number of persons who have died of hunger right here in my city. We have seen police and militia threaten, intimidate, and sometimes attack unarmed civilian protesters. We have spoken out, only to be threatened and attacked ourselves. Writing a report such as this one by the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition carries great risks. Those risks must be borne by us all if we are to find a more peaceful path into the future."

    The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in New York and Washington has distributed this report to members of Congress and other groups. But while there has been considerable coverage in newspapers, though not on television, of what is happening to the families of the foreclosed white farmers, the desperate condition of huge numbers of black Zimbabweans is largely ignored.

    In his letter that prefaces the report, Archbishop Tutu writes: "The hard facts on the ground in Zimbabwe, so well compiled in this report, suggest an alarming array of policies and practices that may be leading the country to a catastrophic future. . . . The ongoing political violence . . . must be brought to an end. The threatening
     
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Cheveyo pointing out that the theft of black lands took place isn't racist. We all know if whites were stealing black lands (Heaven forbid!) it not recieve nearly as much as attenion as it does. To suggest otherwise is un-democratic and anti-Bush, and speaking out against the Beloved Leader is un-American.

    It just offends the sensibilities of white people to suggest uppity blacks, treating whites with nothing like the kind of degradation they suffered for centuries as slaves, etc, might be karmaic. And white men aren't racist, hell no!

    And kudos for taking the "idiot" call on the cheek. I would not have tolerated him calling me that. [face_plain] After all, you write well researched, thoughtful, encompassing posts. Which makes you 1 - 0.

    Cheveyo = Correct.

    E_S


     
  12. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    (no message)
     
  13. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    The people that are taking it back are only hurting themselves, they won't be able to use that land the way the white farmers did. Yea, starving people in the name of "justice" is a darn good idea.

    So, they're not smart enough to use the land? What? You think Africans are dumb? Oh good call, CoolGuy. Your .sig about your username might be due for a revision and expansion, don't you think. [face_plain]

    You say Che was living under a rock - where were you when the words "PAN-AFRICAN", "ANTI-COLONIAL" and "INDEPENDENCE" were being taught in history? Hang on! The US supported these movements, even at the expense of British ties - like in the Suez Canal. Didn't they teach you this in school? [face_plain]

    E_S
     
  14. Coolguy4522

    Coolguy4522 Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Whatever. I didn't say Africans are stupid, although they DO have significatly less eductation, and that is something that MUST be changed. What I said was the subsitance farmers that are taking over this land from the white farmers are NOT growing more food, and they are causing starvation, which is WORSE than trying to pay back for the wrongs of the past. I didn't say what the BRITISH did was right, and I don't think it was, but that was a long time ago. The problem is that these Africans are forcing the whites from the farmland, and I don't think it is justifiable. The white farmers were using modern farming techniques to utilize the land the best, now we are giving it to the masses who will split it up and halt the export of foodstuffs, thus killing more AFRICANS.

    Let me make this clear.

    I AM NOT A RACIST

    I am about to SERVE 2 WHOLE YEARS OF MY FREAKING LIFE TO BLACK AND HISPANIC PEOPLE and have friends from both races. It seems a white conservative guy can't use the word "black" without being branded a racist. I refuse to use PC crap like "African-American" or any other -American, because you either are one, or you aren't.

    I am not going to address this issue any more because it gets me so upset, and want to use words that are libel to get me banned. Heck, I was sure I was going to get banned for calling you an idiot, but I calls it as I sees it, and if that makes me the idiot, so be it. I guess I need to go the "higher" road from now on, so I am sorry.
     
  15. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    I agree with coolguy, to some extent. But I would like to remind you that every nation on earth has had someone taking their land at one point or another. Yes, even the ultra-cool people from Oz have done this as well. Do you suppose we should give them back their land? Live on the ocean? From what I've heard, you're either black and love it. Or you're white and consider this unfair. I like what George Carlin has to say about race. It makes sense actually. If I ever feel like typing it up, I will. :p
     
  16. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    It seems that John Cleese was right about irony being a lost cause on your continent. I don't condone what happened, it find it ironic that the same thing whites did to blacks is being done and people are getting so upset.

    As the old adage goes, "You reap what you sow." This is what's happening here. As Mugabe, a tyrant for sure, said to Tony Blair, "You keep your England and I'll keep my Zimbabwe." That is, it's a domestic matter. Leave it as such. Until it spills over, then it's noone's concern. Well, it is as much the Wests's business as Guantanamo Bay is the world's business.

    E_S

    EDIT: Coolguy, my obtuse friend, it's lucky you didn't call me an idiot. For your sake. I don't suffer fools kindly.
     
  17. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    Well, look. It's moral idiocy to condone acts occurring now that you considered wrong in the past, simply because it fits some sort of perverted definition of retribution, as if that were a valid justification. And it's idiocy to sign off on Mugabe's regime and their repression of dissent...check, make that *liquidation and torture* of dissent, simply because he's taking a few grandchildren of colonialists down with the thousands of black Zimbabweans he targets. And it is naive idiocy for you to somehow claim this isn't the world's business, as if his neighbors and other African nations and the World community is somehow barred from condemning Mugabe's actions, trying to rescue or prevent millions from starvation, or see how instability and violence can easily spill over borders. Clear?

    You're an intelligent chap, but I think you are letting personal feelings, insults and snarky jokes affect your posts. And you are dead wrong here.
     
  18. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    How, pray tell? I say this, again; it is wrong but it also ironic. Ironic in the sense that it has happened to black Africans for centuries, and to white Africans for a year, and it's treated as if the white farmers loss is a unique event.

    Now, I think it's wrong and will hurt Zimbabwe, but it's Zimbabwe's problem. That's the letter of the law on this. Now, if we need to convene a CHOG meeting, then so be it.

    E_S
     
  19. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    The insinuation that I or anyone else is making a big deal about this because part of what is wrong is happening to white farmers is insulting. Actually, it fails as an assertion because it seems the entire world doesn't care, anyway. I have no problem with irony; I have a big problem with the mindset that says we can't criticise what is occuring because it is the <gasp> africans perpetuating wrong this time. Because they are Africans, isn't it racist to hold them to a different standard than Western nations, and simply shrug your shoulders and turn your head in their case. Of course, this assumes you would not do the same were it to be happening in a Western country, but somehow I feel safe in that assertion.

    And as far as it being a purely internal matter, I find it hard to believe you don't support some sort of effort to try to curb or stop Mugabe's power consolodation through starvation/torture/land redistribution. What is the point of the international community or South Africa's regional influence if it cannot be a force for good?
     
  20. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Once again, I find it disturbing that I can be labeled a racist for illustrating the irony of this situation.

    Specifically regarding the aforementioned topic of farmland redistribution, where have you seen state-sponsered violence? I have yet to be shown, and I have it to find, any such reports.

    I find it typical that my opinion is so widely received as anti-white, racist, anti-establishment, anti-peace, and generally inhumane. Without dipping into my personal history (lest I by charbroiled for bringing that up, as well) I will point out the deplorable hypocracy that abounds by saying the white farmers were treated "unfairly".

     
  21. JediSmuggler

    JediSmuggler Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 5, 1999
    Cheveyo:

    These farmers do own the land in question. At the very least, they are owed full and fair compensation for their property. Mugabe is even denying them that piecemeal item, which they can justly claim.

    They were NOT the ones who allegedly stole the property - many have lived there their whole lives. Why are they getting the shaft and how is that just?
     
  22. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    ...they are owed full and fair compensation for their property. Mugabe is even denying them that piecemeal item, which they can justly claim.

    No, they cannot. It was the manner with which their families acquired that land that has brought about Mugabe's action. They took the land by force, with no compensation to those who previously used that land.

    They were NOT the ones who allegedly stole the property - many have lived there their whole lives. Why are they getting the shaft and how is that just?

    Their familes took the properties, and have passed the land down from generation to generation. It was not their's to begin with.
     
  23. JediSmuggler

    JediSmuggler Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 5, 1999
    Cheveyo:

    They are still owed compensation - they were not the ones that did it. There is no system of justice that has EVER accepted the notion that children or other descendants ought to pay for the alleged crimes of their ancestors.

    At the very least, they deserve compensation for being ripped out of the only home they have known. They don't even get that. What is happening in Zimbabwe is nothing more than state-sanctioned armed robbery against a group that "progressives" do not like.
     
  24. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Some sort of compensation would have been kind; however, given the way the land was taken to begin with, nothing is "owed" to these people. It would be like offering the wife of a car thief compensation for impounding the stolen car she used.
     
  25. JediSmuggler

    JediSmuggler Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 5, 1999
    Cheveyo:

    You are missing the point.

    The problem is that we are not talking a RECENT theft. We are discussing an alleged theft that occured at least 100 years ago.

    We are talking about individuals who had NOTHING to do with that theft - who have lived there for all of their lives, and who are now having their items STOLEN at gunpoint. Several of the farmers who have resisted have ended up dead.

    At the very worst, the land might belong to someone else, but the buildings, the equipment (tractors and things like that), and the crops belong to the farmers who are currently on the land.

    These farmers are not getting anything that remotely resembles due process. They are NOT getting ANY form of compensation. There is NO effort made to sort out what, if any, rights the farmers have.

    Has there been anything but Mugabe's purely arbitrary decision to carry out this "land reform" program? I'm sorry, this thing still appears to be nothing more than state-sponsored armed robbery directed at a class of people who are politically incorrect in Zimbabwe.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.