 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BornAfrican
United Kingdom
119 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 01:02:19
|
Lurker, like many Europeans is one of the people who only look at one side of the story. him, like many people here in the west only hear about what the media say about mugabe and they just draw a conclusion. i have spoken to lots of people here in England who didn't konw mugabe a year ago, but if you ask them about zimbabwe, the first thing they utter is that mugabe is evil.
now, i am not trying to defend the man here. the sole cause of the Zimbabwe problem is land. Europeans have done so much evil on the African continent.
Lurker, this is how the story goes:
White European hold more land in the Southern tip of Africa than black africans. it is a problem that still exists in places like south Africa and Namibia. southern african governments have been trying to buy land from the white folks to redistribute it but they refuse. such was the case Zimbabwe. as a leader, you cannot see your people deprived of land when few white farmers control a vast area of your land.
when mugabe started seizing the land, Britain went mad. who the hell is mugabe to chuck out our farmers? we will teach him a lesson.
so they mobilised the rest of the West to sanction Zimbabweans.
in the world today, you can't touch western interest and you go free.
let me tell you the bias in here. black Zimbabweans who flee to England are given refugee status at the same time, their white Zimbabwean counterparts are given settled and given citizenship. last week, the home office said they are going to deport all the failed zimbabwean asylum seekers, because according to them, the situation in Zimbabwe is not as bad as the zimbabwean refugees put it. this is England for you. England does not give **** about Zimbabweans. it is the land they want in there. |
me |
 |
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 01:31:54
|
sorry, mr born african, but you cannot pretend to know what i think or know, for i have lived there and have seen. i do not argue with your theory about land ownership among whites. nor do i argue about the british iniquity in all of this. i never have defended any of it, as you can see from my writings.
i have, however, unlike some of you africans, got the courage to call a murderer a murderer, no matter what badge he wears when he pulls the trigger, no matter iniquities his people suffered. he abused his position. let down his people and his country. try not, mr born african, to mix up the two issues here . i have made a clear difference. my question was " mugabe, hero or villain?"
it was not " britain was a slavemaster, so is it ok for a president to go on the rampage and slaughter ens of thousands of africans?"
your previous statements were educated. your last one was patronising and condescending to me and other europeans who are more than ever aware than you and many millions of africans outside zimbabwe who know only of what they read and surmise.
you should credit some of us white folk with a bit more nous than you seem to. peace.
|
Edited by - lurker on 03 Apr 2008 01:32:54 |
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 02:15:21
|
| Yes the problems of Africa were to a great extent caused by the colonization and its attendant after effects . What is also true is that this phenomenon is not unique to Africa, colonialism covered other dominions too and what is apparent is that many of those dominions have surfaced to become the tigers and big sharks in the economic arena whilst we in Africa have to grapple with the left overs so to speak. Can we continue morning about colonialism and its effects forever? No certainly not. Our problems are to a large extend imposed on us by our various rulers and their at times outrageous acts which were at best unstudied and if they were , then they did not care about the after effects of their actions. I agree that at times of frustration one can claim that he prefers to die free than live under certain conditions ,that may be all right but is that the only way of solving the said problem? perhaps with prudence and good judgment there could a better solution to the problem.The European settlers usurped huge areas of land , developed them to the extent that they became viable economic factors which were sustaining not only the said settlers but the indigenous people too.The British shouting foul is normal and if they keep quiet others would say that should speak up. I cannot defend the motivations involved on either side but again wish to just add that had the appropriation of those farms been followed by a successful turn around use by the new owners we would not be talking about Zimbabwe's economic woes. What we witnessed is an abysmal failure of the new owners in developing the farms whether tobacco or other crop farms as it were. I also salute Mugabe on his record for fighting for the liberation of his people and country having done that he needs to get them food security , economic development and good governance. Some of us should remember that in Zimbabwe there are millions of people some of them support Mugabe and others the opposition. They are all citizens and none of them should be ignored in the quest for national development and economic emancipation. The struggle that Mugabe started could not be considered successful if he could not surmount the blockades placed before him and his government, maneuvering through such blockades and getting for his people their basic needs would have been garlands around his neck and the opposition would not have gain such success against him in elections which they claimed he rigged.A hungry person does not to be told wash your hands , just give him the food and place the water for him to wash his hands am sure the natural instinct would guide him to do the right thing. Let Mugabe give chance to others , he is not the only Zimbabwean who can lead the country.After all he was the leader for twenty eight good years, what he could not achieve in those past years could certainly not be gained by him again. Let the next president come and we wait to see what change if any he too can bring and we judge him by his achievements or failings. |
|
|
|
MADIBA
United Kingdom
1275 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 02:22:12
|
Konds
You are right. The sad thing about Guinea is that while Sekou Toure kept Guinean mineral riches intact, Conte open up like a whore. The imperialist came in raped her and continue to rape her. Guinea has the second largest bauxite reserves in the world yet Guineans are amongst the poorest of the earth. What a paradox! No one is calling for Conte's blood as long as he does as he's told.
Reports monitored from Senegalese online radios have it that demonstrators in Senegal have been manhanled by the security forces for merely speaking out against the high cost of living. There's no condemnation from the self-appointed world police yet. Is it becos President is one of their Nepad 'good boys'?
Africans SHOULD EMACIPATE THEMSELVES FROM MENTAL SLAVERY.Courtsey of Bob Marley |
madiss |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 04:47:45
|
Yes Brothers corruption and greed are everywhere in Africa and as usual it's
the white man to blame! Is Mugabe a good egg? I doubt it,but perhaps he is..... after all he is not white is he! |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 08:23:37
|
Was it possible for Mugabe to redistribute revenue from the land through monetary and or physical policy to improve the lot of the landless instead of seizing land from their current holders??
Would this method be more successful and less damaging, economically and politically?? |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 08:56:55
|
that's a good point, Kay. however, i think that the nation feels that the physical land is their birthright and that the actual physical ownership seemed to redress the imbalance better than the benefits that would be accrued from your suggested wealth benefits.perhaps a short-sighted view.this is a deep-rooted desire which mugabe manipulated to the fullest extent. perhaps a short-sighted view. as Kanibaa says, it is the mismanagement of the farmlands that has left Zim starving and in ruin and this is for all the reasons i outlined earlier.
but the whole economy and political machination has been handled badly. again , as said by others here, he had a country to rape, which did for 28 years. time someone democratically elected had a chance to do what Mugabe never managed to do after he took power- work for his people and not for his own bank account. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 09:09:16
|
How do you think the opposition if they take power, should correct Zimbabwe's current political and economic impasse?
Where should they start? |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 09:27:12
|
wow. hard and huge subject. maybe...
1)get the farms working. place real farmers on the lands that the ministers appropriated and get them producing food for the nation.
2)regain control of the tourist national parks , repopulate with wildlife and bring back tourist dollars and interest
3) strip the party faithful bank accounts of money that cannot be proved to have been earned legitimately and use that to fund the nations rebuilding
4)take advantage of the investment from abroad that will flood in and use it wisely
5)purge corruption - not like kenya promised and failed to do-be seen to do it properly
6)get the micro-economy going to create jobs
7) find a real, properly educated fiscal management team to bring in polcies to control and reduce inflation by the relevant means
8)keep in touch with the people - continue travelling around the country. ask what they want and need. let them have a say in the directionality of the next 5-10yrs. the people need to feel as one and as a part of the programme
9)take the army off the streets in every day life
10)bring in teachers and reinvigorate the schooling system. make sure that all kids get education.
i would not really know the correct way to do it, but i suppose that getting control of the economy is the first step and politicians are supposed to know how to do that.!
It is such a cataclysm that this would probably take years and i think it is impossible without vast foreign investment, a subject which angers some.
what do you think? |
Edited by - lurker on 03 Apr 2008 09:29:10 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 10:26:48
|
I agree with all of those. They are important steps any succession regime in Zimbabwe might want to take in order to succeed.
However, I suspect the issue of land may remain sticky in Zimbabwe for some time... |
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 10:52:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Santanfara
utter nonsense . the country became backrupt because it was sanctioned. again the white farmers were growing more tobbaco than food crop. don't mislead people. how did those farmers get the lands in the first place? was that an equatable way to get land by drawing colonial bounderies. who named the whole zimbabwe after himself? stop messing about.
Originally posted by Santanfara
Mugabe is a HERO to Most of the AFRICANS and those against IMPERIALISM.
S'tanfara, Madiba & my friend Kondorong (this time i agree).
i'm glad there is a strong camp in the Bantaba against neo-colonialism.
there are those who think land reform is happening only in Zimbabwe. there is land reform in almost every country in S.Africa. in fact as we write its happening in South Africa.
the Land reform in Zimbabwe was key to the end of the War there. It was based on a Willing-buyer/Willing seller! a very slow process but the British accepted responsibilty to fund it.
ofcourse once they decided to stop paying for it, i dont see Zimbabwe tax payers paying White farmers to get off land they killed people to get in the first place. anyone who things like that is STUPID.
selfishness in thinking that only white people should be treatet with respect is disgusting. if you remember during the Apartheid years, again i like to give this classic example to show British Foreign Policy in Southern Africa.
When Mandela was fighting for the dignity/justice of his people, The Britsh Primeinister at that time was not Blair but Thatcher. To selfishly guard british mining interest and investments just like Blair did, she call Nelson Mandela a TERRORIST. Across the aAtlantic, the current US Vice Presidnet Dick Chenney fought against releasing Mandela.
As Kondorong rightly said, Sekou Toure looked at De Gaulle and said ''Non'' in his face. today there is no evidence that countries that followed France are any better than those that did not.
White landowner in Africa have no regard for people. In Kenya a British Aristocrat shot people for entering his farm couple of years ago as if they're animals. Perhaps this is what the british still think of Africa, a place for absentee Lord XXX and Lady YYY to own vast amount of wilderness and game.If he pulls the right strings he will get aways with it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/18/wchol18.xml
|
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 11:39:34
|
kay, you asked a valid question. but remember land issue in the southern hemisphere is a sensitive subject. why did mandela refuse to revenge the injustices of the former white rulling class? if he does ,that country would have destroyed just like zimbabwe is today. when some people are talking about human rights, they don't mean a man has you know it. remember that. they cry all over the place with human rights and what not but who they refer to as humans have a specific characteristics. many britishers have investments in the gold mines and other mineral sector of zombabwe, i wouldn't be surpirised if lurker is just defending his interest here.
how can we forget about the past ,,when it the past that entangle the currrent mess? the zimbabwean foreign currency department was controlled by a british company untill lately. the hyperinflation is a direct cause of the silly sanctions. western rulers and governments have dealt with dictators allo ver the place. we cannot exempt the key issue here. land is not just about food farming but MINERAL. remember that guys. they hope to make you think it is about food, .hell no. the lands controlled by whites have minerals of many sorts. easy money for the aristocrats and some banks. that is the issue. still some westerners ae controlling many mineral lands. the government want a systematic redistribution. democracy is a system that africa need to adopt to its environment. the adoption of westernisation will not work. we have our own value system, let us model our democracy according what we know. if not they will sit all over the place and judge us without any good reason. |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 11:57:45
|
if any one is an appologist for the past murders ,lurker that is you.
i defended mugabe's decision to swiftly take back the lands. his decisoin against some of his opponent could have been handle better. but what you are hiding is that ,the the britsih intense polarisation on zimbabwe is not about there interest but democracy. that is a big fat lie.
you know quiet well that the britsih didn't start talking about zimbabwe until when he started the land redistribution proper. i stated here clearly that mugabe should have done that job earlier. but he went along with the hypocrical diplomacy ,he was deceived over and over again. that is what diplomats know well. tell you sweat words and then hang you to dry. mugabe's opponent in most cases provoke him. no governemnt any where in the world will sit and watch its citizen collude with those against her interest. tell me one country that allows that? yet do we see that media attention of injustices in the west and other places? some times we do but only when there is a materail interest to gain or a political capital to win.
the land is the issue. every thing went beely up beacuse mugabe dear over rule the greedy land owners backed by the former rulers.
mugabe is no saint ,he made mistakes just like blair did, just like bush did and many other leaders before him. did he over stayed? yes. |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 12:10:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
Yes Brothers corruption and greed are everywhere in Africa and as usual it's
the white man to blame! Is Mugabe a good egg? I doubt it,but perhaps he is..... after all he is not white is he!
instead of asking us whether mugabe is good or bad egg,what do you think after all the delibarations? don't be a seating on the fense kind of debater. mugabe has his wrongs and rights just you toubab and me santanfara. but should the attention be focus only on the ills? the truth is ,mugabe angered the ''gods'' of his land. the ''gods'' took revenge on him. even during apathied, there were many whites who oppose that illigal ,inhuman system but many went along with it .but hey that is history they will say. it is no history. south africa is awaiting to be another zimbabwe. we will see the eruption and comdemnations when any leader there wish to go full blown land reallocation. |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2008 : 12:50:28
|
hey, santa, why am i an apologist for murderers? i have NEVER defended any aspect of colonialism or its crimes.i have never defended the brits for their part in zimbabwe. in fact, i always stay clear of that as they are largely indefensible. i only criticise the monster for what he is and has been and ask for opinions. that's all.blaming colonialism/land issues/banking from europe/racism etc etc for his massacre of 30000 ndebeles, his deliberate destruction of the agricultural industry,, the total disintegration of a once vibrant economy doesn't hold water. how and why do you try and defend him on those counts. of course he liberated zimbabwe. that is the whole point!
he took hope and turned it into despair beacuase he is a bitter man, full of hatred, corrupt, evil and inhuman.i think he is as racist as the people he liberated his country from.
he used the manifold injustices to line his own pockets and for personal gain. that is why he is a monster. he destroyed the very country he purported to have liberated. what was the point of the liberation, to then go and trash the people and the place??????
he could have been a true hero...but he failed.
.
alas, some of you seem to think i am making a personal attack on africa, which i am clearly not.
question was about mugabe's actions and his behaviour and your opinions. now we have them. thanks. |
Edited by - lurker on 03 Apr 2008 13:01:59 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
