Sorry CG, I can't let this slide.
The British were forced by international opinion to stop supporting Ian Smith because he was RACIST. He also used militant groups to segregate the country and forced black people to work for the whites.
Did you support Ian Smith (he dead now)? Did you agree with his goals and methods?
Not at all. That is why I said Zimbabwe went from the "frying pan into the fire." Smith kept the people fed but he did not play fair with Blacks. He should have tried to bring Blacks into the system, not keep them out. Had he done that things would have been different and the World would not have turned against him - as they are doing now to Mugabe.

You should know CG's answer is yes.

Read my post 67!

Nonsense! First of all, he isn't being made out to be anything-- he really is a racist thug whose ham handed policies have devestated the country. The preferance is/was to see the country remain as an agricultural gem of Africa, but now the world sees rampant inflation, human rights stifled, and mass starvation all inflicting far more blacks than whites.
The collapse of Zimbabwes agriculture section must have a major negative impact on nieghbouring countries that need food, yet they continue to avoid shunning mugabe if not rebuking him. Talk about 'shooting yourself in the foot'!
When Zimbabwe was as you said it was, Agricultural Gem, who did it profited? I beat you know the answer is the White people who farm it. So it did'nt make a big bite of different weather we see today Rampant inflation today, because the wealth of the country was in the hands of 2% of the intire country.

When Zimbabwe was as you said it was, Agricultural Gem, who did it profited? I beat you know the answer is the White people who farm it. So it did'nt make a big bite of different weather we see today Rampant inflation today, because the wealth of the country was in the hands of 2% of the intire country.
Well, they solved that problem. There is no wealth now!

Not at all. That is why I said Zimbabwe went from the "frying pan into the fire." Smith kept the people fed but he did not play fair with Blacks. He should have tried to bring Blacks into the system, not keep them out. Had he done that things would have been different and the World would not have turned against him - as they are doing now to Mugabe.


Good, I was hoing you weren't a Ian Smith supporter. He would have had to do a lot of other things to stop the world from turning against him. On that note, who do you think was a worse leader Ian Smith or Robert Mugabe?
I dunno which on was worse, I think it would depend on the death count, not sure what that is for both of them.

Good, I was hoing you weren't a Ian Smith supporter. He would have had to do a lot of other things to stop the world from turning against him. On that note, who do you think was a worse leader Ian Smith or Robert Mugabe?
I dunno which on was worse, I think it would depend on the death count, not sure what that is for both of them.

Who was worse? It is a toss-up. Both had opportunities and let them slip through their fingers. Both allowed skin colour to cloud their judgment. As a result, they both failed. And because of their blindness many people suffered and died needless deaths. (A dreadful lesson to us all!) :hammer:

CG and hiphopanonymous doing a book on that country hey .. . ? :D


LOL! Yes, and we are going to call it "Ebony and Ivory Both Made a Mess of We!"

I dunno how many times I can say it: I am not defending Mugabe or his actions.
You are not defending directly, but you are deflecting the focus of the problem upon the western media as if they should not say anything.

You sound like some of the folks in this country who claim that certain "white foreign writers" should not point out corruption when the person who is doing it is black.

They said the same type of thing that you are saying: "We're not defending it, but they shouldn't be saying anything bad about those black leaders. They must be racist or it must be a conspiracy because they are saying something negative about someone of a different color!"

I am saying that the western dominated media is clearly biased against him.
It might not be a conspiracy per se, but the western media is clearly co-operating with western governments and their foreign policy through their selective reporting.

Get your mind right man. Stop attacking the messenger and look for yourself at the actions of the man and how his country has fallen into abject poverty. Your focus seems to be squarely skewed on the "white man". Wrong is wrong regardless of who is doing it. The media is not doing anything wrong by reporting the travesties of Zimbabwe.

You're right it is a vicious cycle....however the people responsible for starting the whole cycle were the white, European colonizers. You've fallen into the race trap no doubt. "They" did it first, eh?

Start over.

Look at the problem. Who is causing the problem RIGHT NOW? Who is responsible for the problem getting worse RIGHT NOW? Who did not do what was needed to fix the problems in that country at this PRESENT TIME? And lastly, who is DIRECTLY and ultimately responsible for the present condition of Zimbabwe RIGHT NOW?

Even if someone else "started it", isn't it the responsibility of the person presently in power to fix it, instead of making it worse?

I do think race is a factor though. Black Mugabe took away land from white colonizers....yes he messed it up. But do you honestly think those white farmers just rolled over? No, they had contacts in various European nations. They had family and business associates. A lot of rich, powerful people were effected.
So the western nations imposed sanctions, cut aid, called in debt payments, etc.
And then the western dominated media came in. They attacked Mugabe, labelling him as a vicious black tyrant oppressing his own people.
Once again, not defending Mugabe or his actions, just pointing out the bias and the clear cut case of international powers ganging up on Mugabe.
Conspiracy theorist indeed.

O.k. let's "imagine" for a second that you're not defending him. Let me put it another way...let's just say that you are guilty of not holding him responsible for causing his country to undergo such a tragic transformation and would rather point the finger in the "white man's" direction.

Is that any better?


If they can do it do him, they can do it to anyone. We have to stand up against the co-operation of the western media and western powers before they get out of control.
I would hope that they do the same to anyone who messes up that badly WITHOUT:
1. publicly asking fellow African leaders for assistance
2. going onto global television and explaining his actions and inviting the press into his nation to see what steps are being taken to fix the problems
3. Apologizing to his countrymen
4. giving up his own salary and riches to show that he is helping in EVERY way that he can
5. knowing that the standard for black leaders is much higher, especially since we all know that our countries are already in such a fragile state. It is up to us Blacks to make sure that our leaders are aware that we do not have much room for error. African or black led countries need to rebuild our strength and we will need nothing less than the best leaders to make sure this occurs.

And as for the cooperation of the western media, that can be to our advantage if a leader is savvy enough to know exactly what it takes to play this global game of politics. Don't cry unfair when they can so easily point out the flaws in one of our leaders. You should instead be happy that upcoming black leaders will then know that we cannot be corrupt or make poor decisions at the expense of our fellow countrymen, for it will be exposed!

If you have nothing to hide and are doing nothing wrong, it is difficult for the media to crucify you.

I may sound a bit tough on the guy, but we need to stop wasting time race-baiting and put the feet of our own to the fire. We need to hold them accountable when they mess up.

HELL NO, I don't agree with the British Prime Minister. However i am not a supporter of one Gabriel Mugabe. I however want to comment a little on Zimbabwe current crisis.
First before this issue is discussed lets talk of history.
Cecil Rhodes invaded Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans fought against this beastly occupation. The unfortunate leaders of the Zimbabwean defense forces of the 1890s were hanged from treetops. Between 1890 and 1902, white settlers expropriated three-quarters of native land. The British government granted 6,000 acres of native land to each white volunteer, who as a group, proceeded to cordon off the region's best land and cattle. Between 1935 and 1955, the colonial government violently displaced 67,000 African families onto reserves at gunpoint, including 100,000 people forced into reserves in the period following the Second World War. The British also used economic coercion as part of their overall strategy of ethnic cleansing. A hut tax and poll tax forced Africans off their land, and into assuming roles deemed useful by the colonizers, such as domestic servants, and miners. The indigenous population chose to become small peasant farmers whenever possible, but they were crowded into reserves on less-productive land, taxing the eco-system. The subsequent soil erosion was blamed on "poor African farming methods." To "solve" overcrowding on the reservations, the British killed or confiscated more than one million African cattle. At the outset of land reform, population densities were over three times greater in the black than in the white areas, and some 42 per cent of the country was owned by 6,000 white commercial farmers.
The areas appropriated by the British included what became known as the "White Highlands," located in the geographic centre of the country. The Land Acts in 1967 and 1969 solidified the control of 46.9% of Rhodesia's land under the whites, who composed 5% of the population. That was how the British took land and 'ruined Zimbabwe.' On Dec. 21st 1979 the Lancaster House Agreement was signed and in it there was a protocol on land redistribution; Britain would fund the purchase of land from white settlers. The Agreement established a market-based 'willing buyer,' 'willing seller' system of land exchange, in which the government purchased land from farmers who wished to sell it. It was an international effort including some European countries, Kuwait, and the largest contributor, the U.K. The British government agreed to match 'pound for pound' contributions from Zimbabwe's government. In 1992 the British government refused to honor its own promises. The West's opposition to Zimbabwe began in the mid-90s, when the Mugabe government failed to undertake pro-foreign investor economic reforms as quickly as the International Monetary Fund prescribed. The IMF expected Zimbabwe to pare back government social spending, reduce the size of the civil service, devalue its currency, and move strongly toward an export-oriented economy - measures that would benefit international investors but would increase the hardships Zimbabweans already faced. The IMF also insisted that Zimbabwe pay full market value for the land it sought to acquire as part of its program to resettle the rural poor (land that had been stripped from indigenous Africans by European settlers).

Now i will elaborate on what has gone on during my lifetime. The illegal sanctions on Zimbabwe by the US and EU have have one aim: to make the lives of Zimbabweans miserable so they'll oust Mugabe. The Bushes and the Blairs have for several years sanctioned Zimbabwe because of the honorable decision by Mugabe to give land to the landless. These sanctions are responsible for many problems in Zimbabwe. It may seem as if Mugabe has mismanaged the economy, but Zimbabwe's economic troubles are exogenous: drought and oil price increases, worsened by economic sanctions.
In a pastoral letter issued last spring, 13 Anglican bishops and one canon of the Anglican Church, observed that Zimbabwe's economic troubles have "been exacerbated by the economic sanctions imposed by the Western countries" which have "affected the poor Zimbabweans who have borne the brunt of the sanctions." The clergymen called upon "the Western countries to lift the economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe." imposed by the US and EU, deny Zimbabwe access to international development aid. Is it fair that Zimbabweans don't get as much aid given to there neighbors. According to a former head of UNICEF, only $4 per person is distributed per-person for Zimbabwean AIDS sufferers, compared to an average of $74 in other countries. Though i admit that many Zimbabweans abroad do not support their president. Why is it that the MDC, which such media claim has so much support, fails to rally people in the streets and to seriously contend for any election. Such readers can never understand why rightwing groups like the International Crisis Group, actually acknowledge that President Mugabe's popularity is increasing and that the opposition has hit its nadir(the lowest point). Successes have been well documented for instance Zimbabwe, using its own resources after the politicisation of the Global Aids Fund, is one of only three African countries – along with Kenya and Uganda – to have recorded a decline in the HIV and Aids prevalence rate over the past five years.Zimbabwe also has the highest adult literacy rate in Africa due to the investments made in the education sector, again using mainly domestic resources. I would like to comment on those people who say Mr. Mugabe doesn't not have any support from other africans living on that continent. On August 2004, Mugabe was voted number three in the New African magazine's poll of the 100 greatest Africans (behind Nelson Mandela and Ghana Kwame Nkrunah, the first president of post-colonial Ghana.) One of Mugabe's most vehement critics, Archbishop Pious Ncube, grudgingly acknowledges his popularity. I will like to end with the opinion of the current South African president and a kenyan writer. Many other South African President Mbeki stated that Zimbabwe "had only been singled out for attack once the West deliberately decided to 'treat human rights as a tool' for overthrowing the government of Zimbabwe'. Quoting the Kenyan writer, Ngugi wa Thiongo, to the effect that 'imperialism has [so] distorted the view of African realities ... [that] it has turned reality upside down', Mbeki insisted that Zimbabwe was a prime example of this process. 'Those who fought for a democratic Zimbabwe, with thousands paying the supreme price during the struggle, and forgave their oppressors and torturers in a spirit of national reconciliation, have been turned into repugnant enemies of democracy', he wrote. 'Those who, in the interest of their "kith and kin" [the British], did what they could to deny the people of Zimbabwe their liberty, for as long as they could, have become the eminent defenders of the democratic rights of the people of Zimbabwe.' [Mbeki abjured] African intellectuals to 'always refuse to "rationalise the upside-down way of looking at Africa.'"

Yes they did. He did it because he wanted to be deemed the black saviour of his country. "Get all the white people out" was the philosophy.
Incorrect
Agreed


Well, all leaders who try to re-distribute wealth start off just. Just that he ended off wrong....Mugabe wanted to put wealth in the hands of the people who TRULY owned that country. Nothing was wrong with that, aside from, his method.

And, what you are trying to do, is make clean the rampant racist bastards they had in Africa, in regards to Aparthied and such. Do you forget the works of Mandela and Nkrumah?

You have to be stupid, if you said that there was not a need to exersize the white supremacists in South Africa.

Mugabe showed us how not to go about it....that is all.

Most likely not.
Politically correct statement. Most likely the only thing out of my text you were able to comprehend. But, just re-read some of the information, and then try to capture the value.
:)


Well, they have not. That is obvious. I am not saying it can't be done but the government over there did not give them the help and expertises needed. Owning a farm is one thing running it another, and running it at a profit something else again. And the bigger the farm the bigger the headaches.
When Zimbabwe was Rhodesia, it traded with other African nations and became rich. There is more that enough of a market in Africa alone (in food) to be profitable. But if they are now growing so little that can't feed themselves, how can they export to anyone?
Well, after I got through half of your speil, I have issue with the sentence oin bold....with the arid lands, the lack of funds for proper irrigation and, the subsidized trade practices of the western world, Africa has been on an up-hill battle since they started to take political control of their countries- before we address the issues that the colonial powers left behind- from borders, to multinationals that buy elections for poor African politicians....


The problem is not the land and who owns it or even market forces. The problem is Mugabe.

Not how it started off. And, if you read what was said to you, you would not take such a simple look at the issue.

Just re-read it CG. You are a smart man.
:)

...Well, after I got through half of your speil, I have issue with the sentence oin bold....with the arid lands, the lack of funds for proper irrigation and, the subsidized trade practices of the western world, Africa has been on an up-hill battle since they started to take political control of their countries- before we address the issues that the colonial powers left behind- from borders, to multinationals that buy elections for poor African politicians....

I was talking about the White farms that were taken over by the Black. These were working farms, irrigation, well managed, profitable farms. Those farm were taken out of competent hands and put into incompetent hands and no training was given to them by the government. The economic pressure is a result of Mugabe's "Land Reforms!" The failure of those farms is a result of Mugabe's belief that if a guy can grow a few Cassavas in his back yard he can manage a multi-million dollar farm.

You said (post 3) " Mugabe needs to be assassinated." Are you changing your tune now and saying it was not his fault?

I was talking about the White farms that were taken over by the Black.
Is color the only thing you see?
:gi:


These were working farms, irrigation, well managed, profitable farms. Those farm were taken out of competent hands and put into incompetent hands and no training was given to them by the government.
Half right. No training was given to them by the private market either. Something in which is right by all accounts of people, whe believe government should stay out of issues as this.

The "private" white farms, should have had in place a training session for the black workers...OH WAIT...they did not because they monopolized it. Silly me.

So, we have again, racism at the root of that one. Also, no one argues the fact that they may have been ill-equiped, or, as you have said "incompetent" to handle the farms. This is exactly what I have told you- in my own way. However, this is where Mugabe went wrong and this is where it went down hill. The government distributed, but, who they distributed it to had no training from their former owners.

The economic pressure is a result of Mugabe's "Land Reforms!" The failure of those farms is a result of Mugabe's belief that if a guy can grow a few Cassavas in his back yard he can manage a multi-million dollar farm.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over again CG. Mugabe was wrong and he gave it to incompetent blacks blah blah blah. We get it CG. But, what I want you to do is understand it in all of the context it happened in. Go back and re-read the comparison between France and Britain, in contrast to Zimbabwe.
:)


You said (post 3) " Mugabe needs to be assassinated." Are you changing your tune now and saying it was not his fault?

Nope. He is wrong now. Wrong for his political ambitions and his cruel intentins, in regards to human rights. But, his actions on the onset was just- taking back black lands, from white racist monopolizers CG.

What was the fault with his policy, is that he did not factor in the negative affects of his re-distribution policy. Something that at that time, nobody knew would be disasterous policies because no one ever expereinced it until Mugabe made this error.

Mugabe has made history, but, in the wrong way....

And, what you are trying to do, is make clean the rampant racist bastards they had in Africa, in regards to Aparthied and such. Do you forget the works of Mandela and Nkrumah?
You have to be stupid, if you said that there was not a need to exersize the white supremacists in South Africa.Don't assume what I am trying to do.

Nice try at using other examples of glaring racisms to bolster your argument.


Mugabe showed us how not to go about it....that is all. Oh, so you do admit that I'm right...

OK