Hyperinflation...sad that its "them ([URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/africa/02zimbabwe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all) but elated that its not us (http://www.centralbankbahamas.com/)!

Now that's really depressing. Countries like that...are hopeless, and their leaders usually live in the lap of luxury.

Now that's really depressing. Countries like that...are hopeless, and their leaders usually live in the lap of luxury.

I wouldnt say hopeless...but they have a lot of work to do...stop printing money for starters...remit that money in the swiss bank account into the country's national treasury...accountability, transparency...and Mugabe is building himself a 25 room mansion...

...if you look close enough our country is headed down this path if we dont stop it!

What a tragedy! It used to be the “Jewel of Southern Africa.” But bad leadership has turned it into.....????? A dreadful warning to us all. The most telling thing is that its infant death rate is 51 in 1000 births. (Ours is 28 in 1000, I think.) How long can that go on? :dgi:

everything always has a context...

Zimbabwe's Mugabe and White Farmers
by Dr. A. Chika Onyeani, Guest Commentator

Dr. Chika A. Onyeani is Publisher & Editor-in-Chief of The African Sun Times, based in East Orange, NJ.


In Zimbabwe, white farmers are still being defiant to the order issued by the government of President Robert Mugabe that they should vacate farm lands that government has targeted for take over. Others have decided to obey the order. Unfortunately, the issue of land re-distribution, or "seizure" as the foreign media would have us believe, has been the most misunderstood, to the extent that it has been lumped together with the politics of President Mugabe. But the issue of politics in Zimbabwe, and ultimately that of Mugabe, should not be allowed to becloud the attempt by the country to the equitable re-distribution of land stolen by whites in the first instance without compensation to its rightful African owners.

While white farmers continue to shed crocodile tears, it is a matter of record that in a land of more than 11 million people, the whites who make up less than 2% of the population, control more than 60% of the arable land. It is also a matter of record that although 95% of the white farmers have received notice to quit the land, those whose land has been taken over have all received compensation, and of the 500 who have agreed to leave peacefully some have also already been paid.

It seems the height of hypocrisy that the world should be focused on the plight and
non-payment of compensation to white farmers, without as much as a mention of the savagery with which the Black African owners were massacred and their lands seized without compensation. The word Bulawayo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for "slaughter," and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes who had crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who had publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or be exterminated.

Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then Southern Rhodesia independent, when he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed while he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, "the more we killed, the happier we were."

As the Zimbabwe minister of industry and commerce, Nathan Shamuyarira once said, "The land we are talking about was occupied entirely by our people, the indigenous people of the country, until 1890. The [the British] reserved the best resources - land, cattle, forestation, what have you - for themselves.... What the bill simply states is that Zimbabwe belongs to the indigenous people of Zimbabwe. It does not belong to anyone else."

It should also be remembered that in the early 1900s, African agriculture competed head to head with white settler farmers for the market of the growing towns and mining centers in the country. However, in 1915, the Native Reserves Commission expropriated more of the high potential land and initiated a new form of taxation to suppress the indigenous competition. By the 1930s, the corn purchasing board had established regulation which discriminated against African corn, while the state moved more Africans to the non-fertile communal lands. The result of this was that the Africans who had wedged such competition against the white settlers were rendered idle, and forced to indenture themselves as laborers to the white farmers.

As we noted earlier, despite all the vociferous claims of injustice by the white farmers, the fact is that most of those whose land has been seized have been compensated by the Zimbabwe government. In point of fact, the new law passed by the Zimbabwe Parliament addresses the issue of some farmers having as many as 20 or more arable farms, some of which they have left fallow, while Africans are left with nothing.

Again, some of us, including this writer, have allowed our warped perception of Robert Mugabe's politics to becloud the other issue of compensating the white farmers. Britain, which has been acting like the ostrich it is, giving the impression that it wants real solution to the land issue, should be held totally accountable for what is happening today in Zimbabwe. As the Zimbabwe government has rightly contended, the responsibility for compensating the farmers lies with Britain, since the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had agreed to provide the funds as a condition of Mr. Mugabe signing the Lancaster House agreement, which finalized Zimbabwe's independence 22 years ago.

"That agreement," according to Shamuyarira, "was abruptly abandoned when the Blair government came to power. The British Minister, Mr. Cook, has now indicated that the British government would contribute to a resettlement program. That is a good change of position." The agreement had further made it clear that if Britain failed to pay the compensation, then Zimbabwe had no obligation to pay for the land taken back for resettlement of landless Africans.

That agreement had barred the new Zimbabwe government of 1980 from grabbing
privately-owned farmland for the first 10 years. For that guarantee, Britain had agreed that it would match a dollar for every dollar that this new independent Zimbabwean government would put as compensation to buy back the farms.

The British government of Tony Blair is now arguing that Zimbabwe had not put in place the mechanism for distributing land to the poor of Zimbabwe. "We agree," said the British government, "that there is a very strong case for land redistribution in Zimbabwe.... Unfortunately, the government of Zimbabwe has not put in place a program of land reform that would provide land to the poor of Zimbabwe."

Now, Britain is looking out for the poor in Zimbabwe rather than fulfilling its obligation under the Lancaster agreement of 1979.

Those of us who have pointed accusing fingers at the politics of President Mugabe, should do our homework. Robbers and murderers should not be allowed to keep the fruits of their ill-gotten gains. Zimbabwe belongs to Africans, even the whites who consider themselves Africans, but the land does not belong to murderers who savagely exterminated Black Africans and seized the land without compensation. That would be a great misapplication of justice.

Contraire to what? I was simply lamenting, as you were, the conditions in Zimbabwe. I did not mention land or anything like it. But as you bring it up, I thought it was a dead issue now. The Black Africans have their land back - mostly. Let us hope they can make it work as well as it used to. :voodoo:

PS. inflation for April was 1042.9%, the highest in the world. So far they are not doing to well.

The question is not land reform per say, it is how the government went about this reform. It took land from people that knew how to run it and made it profitable and gave it to people that did not know how to run it. Zimbabwe lost it tax base, its ability to feed itself and so on..... Many of the farmers that were displaced have set up in other parts of Africa and doing well, from what I hear.

Mugabe, the same guy that said there was no such thing as AIDs, it was a Western trick. The same guy, that because of his policies, allowed thousands of his country men to die from AIDS. Is now the one who presides over the failure of land reform. I see Dr. Chika A. Onyeani does not mention that.

Contraire to what? I was simply lamenting, as you were, the conditions in Zimbabwe. I did not mention land or anything like it. But as you bring it up, I thought it was a dead issue now. The Black Africans have their land back - mostly. Let us hope they can make it work as well as it used to. :voodoo:
PS. inflation for April was 1042.9%, the highest in the world. So far they are not doing to well.
The question is not land reform per say, it is how the government went about this reform. It took land from people that knew how to run it and made it profitable and gave it to people that did not know how to run it. Zimbabwe lost it tax base, its ability to feed itself and so on..... Many of the farmers that were displaced have set up in other parts of Africa and doing well, from what I hear.
Mugabe, the same guy that said there was no such thing as AIDs, it was a Western trick. The same guy, that because of his policies, allowed thousands of his country men to die from AIDS. Is now the one who presides over the failure of land reform. I see Dr. Chika A. Onyeani does not mention that.




You are consistent in your lack of misunderstanding of the conditions in africa, or for a matter of fact even in your own back yard, may be you should work on becoming a better budhist and understanding the wheel of karma, but that might be to much to ask..

I wouldnt say hopeless...but they have a lot of work to do...stop printing money for starters...remit that money in the swiss bank account into the country's national treasury...accountability, transparency...and Mugabe is building himself a 25 room mansion...
...if you look close enough our country is headed down this path if we dont stop it!




I have yet to undertake a census count of block heads living in the congo, but i suspect that it is very high, you would be at home there, a blockead united party.


Hey get an enema today, do your self a favor.

everything always has a context...
Zimbabwe's Mugabe and White Farmers
by Dr. A. Chika Onyeani, Guest Commentator
Dr. Chika A. Onyeani is Publisher & Editor-in-Chief of The African Sun Times, based in East Orange, NJ.
In Zimbabwe, white farmers are still being defiant to the order issued by the government of President Robert Mugabe that they should vacate farm lands that government has targeted for take over. Others have decided to obey the order. Unfortunately, the issue of land re-distribution, or "seizure" as the foreign media would have us believe, has been the most misunderstood, to the extent that it has been lumped together with the politics of President Mugabe. But the issue of politics in Zimbabwe, and ultimately that of Mugabe, should not be allowed to becloud the attempt by the country to the equitable re-distribution of land stolen by whites in the first instance without compensation to its rightful African owners.
While white farmers continue to shed crocodile tears, it is a matter of record that in a land of more than 11 million people, the whites who make up less than 2% of the population, control more than 60% of the arable land. It is also a matter of record that although 95% of the white farmers have received notice to quit the land, those whose land has been taken over have all received compensation, and of the 500 who have agreed to leave peacefully some have also already been paid.
It seems the height of hypocrisy that the world should be focused on the plight and
non-payment of compensation to white farmers, without as much as a mention of the savagery with which the Black African owners were massacred and their lands seized without compensation. The word Bulawayo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for "slaughter," and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes who had crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who had publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or be exterminated.
Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then Southern Rhodesia independent, when he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed while he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, "the more we killed, the happier we were."
As the Zimbabwe minister of industry and commerce, Nathan Shamuyarira once said, "The land we are talking about was occupied entirely by our people, the indigenous people of the country, until 1890. The [the British] reserved the best resources - land, cattle, forestation, what have you - for themselves.... What the bill simply states is that Zimbabwe belongs to the indigenous people of Zimbabwe. It does not belong to anyone else."
It should also be remembered that in the early 1900s, African agriculture competed head to head with white settler farmers for the market of the growing towns and mining centers in the country. However, in 1915, the Native Reserves Commission expropriated more of the high potential land and initiated a new form of taxation to suppress the indigenous competition. By the 1930s, the corn purchasing board had established regulation which discriminated against African corn, while the state moved more Africans to the non-fertile communal lands. The result of this was that the Africans who had wedged such competition against the white settlers were rendered idle, and forced to indenture themselves as laborers to the white farmers.
As we noted earlier, despite all the vociferous claims of injustice by the white farmers, the fact is that most of those whose land has been seized have been compensated by the Zimbabwe government. In point of fact, the new law passed by the Zimbabwe Parliament addresses the issue of some farmers having as many as 20 or more arable farms, some of which they have left fallow, while Africans are left with nothing.
Again, some of us, including this writer, have allowed our warped perception of Robert Mugabe's politics to becloud the other issue of compensating the white farmers. Britain, which has been acting like the ostrich it is, giving the impression that it wants real solution to the land issue, should be held totally accountable for what is happening today in Zimbabwe. As the Zimbabwe government has rightly contended, the responsibility for compensating the farmers lies with Britain, since the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had agreed to provide the funds as a condition of Mr. Mugabe signing the Lancaster House agreement, which finalized Zimbabwe's independence 22 years ago.
"That agreement," according to Shamuyarira, "was abruptly abandoned when the Blair government came to power. The British Minister, Mr. Cook, has now indicated that the British government would contribute to a resettlement program. That is a good change of position." The agreement had further made it clear that if Britain failed to pay the compensation, then Zimbabwe had no obligation to pay for the land taken back for resettlement of landless Africans.
That agreement had barred the new Zimbabwe government of 1980 from grabbing
privately-owned farmland for the first 10 years. For that guarantee, Britain had agreed that it would match a dollar for every dollar that this new independent Zimbabwean government would put as compensation to buy back the farms.
The British government of Tony Blair is now arguing that Zimbabwe had not put in place the mechanism for distributing land to the poor of Zimbabwe. "We agree," said the British government, "that there is a very strong case for land redistribution in Zimbabwe.... Unfortunately, the government of Zimbabwe has not put in place a program of land reform that would provide land to the poor of Zimbabwe."
Now, Britain is looking out for the poor in Zimbabwe rather than fulfilling its obligation under the Lancaster agreement of 1979.
Those of us who have pointed accusing fingers at the politics of President Mugabe, should do our homework. Robbers and murderers should not be allowed to keep the fruits of their ill-gotten gains. Zimbabwe belongs to Africans, even the whites who consider themselves Africans, but the land does not belong to murderers who savagely exterminated Black Africans and seized the land without compensation. That would be a great misapplication of justice.



There have been a number of you internet bots who get your underware in a wad when i have categorize some of you as block heads, village idiots and coconuts.

But this is a very interesting artical, but charecteristically taduffy is unable to understand it thus she is in all aspects a block head, then follows Cg with a triad of nonsense only exceeded by the two village idiots rory and y2kbad, please note that rory is no longer a block head after extensive psychological evaluation he has been placed in the proper diagnostic box of village idiot.

There have been a number of you internet bots who get your underware in a wad when i have categorize some of you as block heads, village idiots and coconuts.
But this is a very interesting artical, but charecteristically taduffy is unable to understand it thus she is in all aspects a block head, then follows Cg with a triad of nonsense only exceeded by the two village idiots rory and y2kbad, please note that rory is no longer a block head after extensive psychological evaluation he has been placed in the proper diagnostic box of village idiot.

haha u learnin da lingo over der huh?

haha u learnin da lingo over der huh?


yall still replying to the nut case .. LOL ..
a1sucker doesnt even know what a bot is yet ..yet a1 is a trojan bot ..:hammer:

yall still replying to the nut case .. LOL ..
a1sucker doesnt even know what a bot is yet ..yet a1 is a trojan bot ..:hammer:
MAYBE if someone did use a trojan...........:taped2:

MAYBE if someone did use a trojan...........:taped2:


Makes the Pro choice people look like angels of mercy.
:taped2:

This is such an important article, yet we have this block head ranting about the Truth Commission, by the assimilation list bishop tutu: lets not forget the other Block head CG who oppresses any movement by non European people to govern themselves or see the world from their perspective what is the issue here its an issue of land. The land question here ia a small section of the article I know that most of you here have a problem reading anything that’s more than five sentences must be "ADD":

In Zimbabwe, white farmers are still being defiant to the order issued by the government of President Robert Mugabe that they should vacate farm lands that government has targeted for take over. Others have decided to obey the order. Unfortunately, the issue of land re-distribution, or "seizure" as the foreign media would have us believe, has been the most misunderstood, to the extent that it has been lumped together with the politics of President Mugabe. But the issue of politics in Zimbabwe, and ultimately that of Mugabe, should not be allowed to becloud the attempt by the country to the equitable re-distribution of land stolen by whites in the first instance without compensation to its rightful African owners.
While white farmers continue to shed crocodile tears, it is a matter of record that in a land of more than 11 million people, the whites who make up less than 2% of the population, control more than 60% of the arable land. It is also a matter of record that although 95% of the white farmers have received notice to quit the land, those whose land has been taken over have all received compensation, and of the 500 who have agreed to leave peacefully some have also already been paid.
It seems the height of hypocrisy that the world should be focused on the plight and
non-payment of compensation to white farmers, without as much as a mention of the savagery with which the Black African owners were massacred and their lands seized without compensation. The word Bulawayo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for "slaughter," and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes who had crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who had publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or be exterminated.
Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then Southern Rhodesia independent, when he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed while he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, "the more we killed, the happier we were."
As the Zimbabwe minister of industry and commerce, Nathan Shamuyarira once said, "The land we are talking about was occupied entirely by our people, the indigenous people of the country, until 1890. The [the British] reserved the best resources - land, cattle, forestation, what have you - for themselves.... What the bill simply states is that Zimbabwe belongs to the indigenous people of Zimbabwe. It does not belong to anyone else."

Think about this issue

I have been around long enough to know that there are people in this world who have such massive inferiority complexes that they find it necessary to attack from the shadows. They come out of these dark shadows, from time to time. Their attacks fill their faltering egos because they think the have won - they have not won, but they think they have.

Signs of such people:
1. They see themselves as intelligent, and never miss a chance to remind people how intelligent they “are.” A person that is really intelligent does not know he is! Others have to tell him so! A truly intelligent person knows - that he does not know!
2. This kind of person sees others as fools or idiots. It makes him feel taller to knock someone down and stand on their fallen body - even if they have not really knocked someone down and there is no body to stand on.
3. They feed on the perceived misery they cause. It makes them feel better when they think others suffer as much as they are.
4. They can’t enter into debate because the feel they have the truth. The “truth” is they have nothing. In their heart of hearts they know this, that is why they are so abusive.
5. They are often veracious readers. But they read only those writers that support their views - and quote them back to anyone that they perceive as a danger to their ego.
6. They suffer from anger! They read or listen to other people’s words and filter them through their own anger. Therefore, they feel that everyone is angry.

What can we do? Simple! Ignore them! Such egos “feed” on feed-back. It builds the misconception that their “ideas” are worthy of consideration. Do them and yourself a favor don’t feed them!

This site represent a cross section of the Bahamian community. As a result, we have such people here. Happily only two, maybe three. Feed them not! For their own ultimate well being, so that one day they can wake up and see they are the very thing they call others. From that realization they can grow into something of value. :)