Log in

View Full Version : zimbabwe?


Myron Mujadi
2008-06-06, 21:10
should we give a fuck? theres an outcry about this insignificant sudan bullshit, do you hypocrites feel the West should intervene in the place formerly known as rhodesia as well?

vazilizaitsev89
2008-06-06, 23:11
should we give a fuck? theres an outcry about this insignificant sudan bullshit, do you hypocrites feel the West should intervene in the place formerly known as rhodesia as well?

I don't think we should intervene in either case. In Zimbabwe, they dug their grave now get in it.

In Sudan, I don't give a shit b/c we tried helping in africa before, and 18 of our best wound up dead

the_coup_d'etat
2008-06-06, 23:26
I don't think we should intervene in either case. In Zimbabwe, they dug their grave now get in it.

In Sudan, I don't give a shit b/c we tried helping in africa before, and 18 of our best wound up dead

Africa is a shithole. If you want Africa to improve you need to go After the war lords.

launchpad
2008-06-07, 05:01
Obviously the U.S. has no reason to go into Zimbabwe for regime change, that would be just as ridiculously illegal as the Iraq war! The U.N. should definitely send a contingent in to supervise the runoff elections on the 17th/make sure there are no repercussions/unchecked violence after the results (I hope Tchangeray (sp) wins). Maybe this is finally the time for Zimbabwe to escape both its colonial past and it's sad and humbled time under the despotic and poor rule of Robert Mugabe.

kurdt318
2008-06-08, 03:02
Africa is a shithole. If you want Africa to improve you need to go After the war lords.

...and the dictators, AIDS, cholera, malaria, inflation, ethnic conflicts, education systems, brain drain, religious conflict, debts to western countries, racism, remenants of colonialism, lack of infrastructure, drought and other natural disasters, et al.

In Zimbabwe, the european colonists dug the Zimbabweans' grave, now get in it.

FIXED

Maybe this is finally the time for Zimbabwe to escape both its colonial past and it's sad and humbled time under the despotic and poor rule of Robert Mugabe.

Let us not forget though that Mugabe was originally elected because he was going to return Zimbabwe to its former glory. Although, I do hope Morgan Tsvangirai wins and I wish him the best, as he has a hell of alot of work ahead of him.

vazilizaitsev89
2008-06-08, 03:24
...and the dictators, AIDS, cholera, malaria, inflation, ethnic conflicts, education systems, brain drain, religious conflict, debts to western countries, racism, remenants of colonialism, lack of infrastructure, drought and other natural disasters, et al.



FIXED



Let us not forget though that Mugabe was originally elected because he was going to return Zimbabwe to its former glory. Although, I do hope Morgan Tsvangirai wins and I wish him the best, as he has a hell of alot of work ahead of him.

The european colonists fucked over zimbabwe?

It was Mugabe who took all the land away from the white farmers who knew what the hell they were doing and gave it to the blacks who didnt.

kurdt318
2008-06-08, 15:16
The european colonists fucked over zimbabwe?

It was Mugabe who took all the land away from the white farmers who knew what the hell they were doing and gave it to the blacks who didnt.

Ever heard of The Great Zimbabwe? It was a city that became incredibly rich off of the trade of gold and salt, that is until the colonists came, conquered and took all that wealth back to Europe. Yes Mugabe has fucked over his country but, to say that ALL of Zimbabwe's troubles are his fault would be wrong. Besides Zimbabwe has only had independence for less than 30 years.

vazilizaitsev89
2008-06-08, 16:42
Ever heard of The Great Zimbabwe? It was a city that became incredibly rich off of the trade of gold and salt, that is until the colonists came, conquered and took all that wealth back to Europe. Yes Mugabe has fucked over his country but, to say that ALL of Zimbabwe's troubles are his fault would be wrong. Besides Zimbabwe has only had independence for less than 30 years.

How? somehow a nation that after liberation was the breadbasket of southern africa which then turned into a shithole is somehow Britain's fault? Remember, mugabe took all the land away from the whites who knew what they were doing and gave it to his cronies who didn't. that's what fucked up Zimbabwe.

launchpad
2008-06-08, 18:22
vazilizait is right, Mugabe fucked over Zimbabwe not the colinists. 50 years ago Zimbabwe was 'the breadbasket of Africa' with the white-owned farms being responsible for most of the countries economic success - although there were still glaring inequalities.

Mugabe and his reverse-racial land reform policy divied up the land between his supporters and veterans of the war. These people did not know how to run the farms, so they ran them into the ground. All the white farmers were expelled.

Zimbabwe collapsed.

Whatever romanticized idea of The Great Zimbabwe as a pre-colonial Afrikaan kingship is merely pipe-dreams. Although every bit of politics in Africa today does have roots in colonialism, we can all point to a much more recent and much more evident reason for Zimbabwe's problems and lay them firmly at the feet of ZANU PF leader Robert Mugabe.

kurdt318
2008-06-08, 19:53
vazilizait is right, Mugabe fucked over Zimbabwe not the colinists. 50 years ago Zimbabwe was 'the breadbasket of Africa' with the white-owned farms being responsible for most of the countries economic success - although there were still glaring inequalities.

Mugabe and his reverse-racial land reform policy divied up the land between his supporters and veterans of the war. These people did not know how to run the farms, so they ran them into the ground. All the white farmers were expelled.

I doubt anyone will argue with you that land reform has so far been terrible to the economy of Zimbabwe. But, to pin all of the economic hardship on the ignorance of a bunch of african farmworkers is, well ignorant. The recent land reform historically is a case of chickens coming home to roost. The whites were incredibly racist to the blacks and should have expected the same when the blacks came to power.

You are also seriously underplaying colonialism. Back when Zimbabwe was first claimed by England the whites divided up the land and took Zimbabwe's best farmland. Farmland that was owned by blacks, who were forced to leave and find other less fertile farms. The government was well aware of who held the better farmland and thus gave loans to the white farmers and not the black farmers, giving the minority whites a monopoly on farming. And then Mugabe and the blacks come to power, so of course they are going to reclaim the land that was stolen from them many years ago. I don't think they gave a shit economically, but culturally this is epic.

Whatever romanticized idea of The Great Zimbabwe as a pre-colonial Afrikaan kingship is merely pipe-dreams.

Yes, because we all know that only white Europeans can create culturally significant civilizations.

Although every bit of politics in Africa today does have roots in colonialism, we can all point to a much more recent and much more evident reason for Zimbabwe's problems and lay them firmly at the feet of ZANU PF leader Robert Mugabe.

A much more recent reason? You are aware that many of these countries gained independence less than 30 years ago right?

launchpad
2008-06-08, 20:38
Recent when compared to the idea of a tribal African civilization...

I'm well aware of the many problems associated with colonialism. Colonialism is the reason why Africa is so fucked today. I imagine everybody (not counting racists) knows this.

I'll restate my points. 1. Despite the legitimacy of their claim to the farmland, Zimbabwe under white run farms did extremely well economically. 2. With Mugabe's land reforms and reverse-racist policies the Zimbabwe economy collapsed. 3. It seems that if the white farmers had not been forced out to make way for crooked thugs and cronies Zimbabwe would not be in the position it is today.

If you want to learn more about why some civilizations (white European) were able to grow and take control globally against other different, but equally culturally valuable societies (like sub-Saharan Africa) I would suggest ready Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

launchpad
2008-06-13, 21:10
With Morgan Tsangirai being arrested again yesterday and questioned for hours before being released, as well as treason charges against others in the MDC, what do you think will happen come the recall election? Do you think Mugabe will be able to skew the results? Will his terror campaign work? If he does lose, will the former Rhodesia collapse into civil war?

kurdt318
2008-06-14, 00:21
With Morgan Tsangirai being arrested again yesterday and questioned for hours before being released, as well as treason charges against others in the MDC, what do you think will happen come the recall election? Do you think Mugabe will be able to skew the results? Will his terror campaign work? If he does lose, will the former Rhodesia collapse into civil war?

While I am hopeful for Tsvangirai, I think Mugabe will end up "winning" the election. I am also doubtful of civil war, I heard Kofi Annan talking about other African countries putting pressurre on Mugabe to step down, but in light of Thabo Mbeki's incompetence of mediating the election, I am doubtful that this will happen either.

Slave of the Beast
2008-06-15, 13:26
You are also seriously underplaying colonialism.

The bottom line is that European colonials didn't make him slit his own argricultural throat, by rapidly replacing white farmers with ignorant ZANU PF thugs and supporters, who know fuck all about growing food. The crazy black motherfucker did that all on his own.

Colonialism is the reason why the white farmers were there, not why Zim' is starving.

Yes, because we all know that only white Europeans can create culturally significant civilizations.

It's not so much that, it's just that the blacks haven't produced a globally significant culture that anyone really gives two shits about.

While I am hopeful for Tsvangirai, I think Mugabe will end up "winning" the election.

Keep on hoping, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4136918.ece) 'cause it ain't gonna happen. With the miltary in charge nothing will change, even if Mugabe dies.

rabbitweed
2008-06-18, 22:14
Ever heard of The Great Zimbabwe? It was a city that became incredibly rich off of the trade of gold and salt, that is until the colonists came, conquered and took all that wealth back to Europe.

Ummm no Great Zimbabwe is an archaelogical mystery and noone can remember who made it.

Are you thinking of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rozwi_Empire

rabbitweed
2008-06-18, 22:17
You are also seriously underplaying colonialism. Back when Zimbabwe was first claimed by England the whites divided up the land and took Zimbabwe's best farmland.

The whites did not have the manpower to take the best farm land. They often took the worst and made it into the best.
"
Do you work for Zanu-PF or something?

And for those who don't think the US owes anything to Zimbabwe, check your history.

kurdt318
2008-06-18, 23:08
Ummm no Great Zimbabwe is an archaelogical mystery and noone can remember who made it.

Only the racist white archaeologists who come from countries that colonized Africa question who built it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

The whites did not have the manpower to take the best farm land. They often took the worst and made it into the best.

You're right, they didn't have the manpower; But, what they did have on their side was money and government. And where did they get the money to make their farms great? You guessed it, from the white government.

The white farmer population first came to Southern Rhodesia in the 1890s. In 1918, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London ruled that the land of Southern Rhodesia was owned by the Crown and not by the British South Africa Company. This ruling led to increased pressure within the colony for self-government.

After self-government was granted in 1923, the Southern Rhodesia House of Assembly created a legal framework for the allocation of land. The segregationist Land Apportionment Act of 1930 was the basis for subsequent laws and continued in effect until independence. The Land Apportionment Act divided the land of the colony into three areas: areas where only whites could own property; areas which were held in trust for indigenous tribes on a collective basis (called "tribal trust lands" by a 1965 statute and "communal areas" by a 1981 statute) and areas where only blacks could own property. One practical effect of the apportionment was that some black families were ejected from land they had held for generations. Anger arising from these ejections had a profound impact on the politics of Zimbabwe in the post-independence period.

The lack of individual title in areas designated as tribal trust lands hindered the development of the land through soil improvement, grading, irrigation, drainage, and roads. Few blacks had access to the capital funds necessary to buy large plots of land designated for sale to them in the Native Purchase areas. But many whites were able to buy and develop large areas of farmland. The designated white areas tended to be in the uplands where the rainfall was higher and soil thinner. These areas were optimal for large scale, mechanised farming. Government policy favored the more productive white commercial farms through training support, direct grants, loan guarantee schemes, and funding for agricultural research. Rural road building programs also favored white farming areas.

There was therefore a marked racial imbalance in the ownership and distribution of land. Zimbabwean whites, although making up less than 1% of the population, owned more than 70% of the arable land, including most of the best land. However, in many cases this land was more fertile because it was titled, resulting in incentives for commercial farmers to create reservoirs, irrigate, and otherwise tend the soil. Communal lands, with no property rights, were characterised by slash and burn agriculture, resulting in a tragedy of the commons.

launchpad
2008-06-18, 23:58
Most of the whites who were forced from their homes in Zimbabwe were 3rd or 4th generation...they were born there, their parents were born there...they were quite removed from the former colonial powers. I can understand why they didn't want to leave their homes to a bunch of ZANU-PF thugs.

I think this is a pretty open and shut case. When the white farmers were there Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa. Now look at it.

....

What is there to argue?

rabbitweed
2008-06-19, 09:04
Only the racist white archaeologists who come from countries that colonized Africa question who built it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

Did you even read that link?

Archaeologists generally agree that the builders probably spoke one of the Shona languages, and so were members of the Bantu family. Some have postulated that Zimbabwe was the work of the Gokomere people, who gave rise to both the Warozwi people, and the Mashona people. Great Zimbabwe and various stone cities in east Africa are also claimed by the Lemba, an ethnic group who claim ancient Jewish descent.[7] Certain features of Swahili architecture on the East Coast resemble those at Zimbabwe, in particular the great tower.

As you can see there are a number of different theories, hence "archaelogical mystery". If you think that somehow the answer to the question of "who built Great Zimbabwe" suddenly stopped being a Political one when ZANU-PF came to power, you're an idiot.

Btw, are the Lemba a group of 'colonising racists' as well? They disagree.


Also in response to your ridiculous claim that Great Zimbabwe was a flourishing civilisation until ransacked by Europeans.

Portuguese traders were the first Europeans to visit the remains of the ancient city in the early 16th century.

From your own article, no less.

You're right, they didn't have the manpower; But, what they did have on their side was money and government. And where did they get the money to make their farms great? You guessed it, from the white government.

When did I ever question any of that?

All I questioned was that always whites took the best land, as in reality it was often far easier to take control of shit land that noone wanted.

The "land issue" is a problem that came to assume a very high profile in Zimbabwe's political life. ZANU politicians pressed for land to be transferred from white to black ownership regardless of the resultant disruption to agricultural output, in order to correct the alleged injustice of the Rhodesian land apportionment. White farmers argued that this served little purpose since Zimbabwe has ample agricultural land much of which was either vacant or only lightly cultivated. On this last basis, the problem was really a lack of development rather than one of land tenure. White farmers would respond to claims that they owned "70% of the best arable land" by stating that what they actually owned was "70% of the best developed arable land" - and the two are entirely different things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites_in_Zimbabwe

Spiphel Rike
2008-06-19, 13:43
A UN contingent would be fucking useless. They'd have next to no real power, and if the results were declared unfair mugabe's guys would kill them off.

That place is under the control of fucking morons and it's costing the regular people there. Personally I think Mugabe should be assassinated and as many of his party members killed off as possible. That won't happen these days, so Africa will spend years fucking itself up more than it already has before that place either booms or busts.

Of course I'm certainly less than inclined to help out a bunch of morons who can't even run farms properly, So I think that place should be left to rot and truly cut off from the outside world.

kurdt318
2008-06-19, 13:50
Most of the whites who were forced from their homes in Zimbabwe were 3rd or 4th generation...they were born there, their parents were born there...they were quite removed from the former colonial powers. I can understand why they didn't want to leave their homes to a bunch of ZANU-PF thugs.

And who lived on that farmland for generations before the whites came?

kurdt318
2008-06-19, 14:03
As you can see there are a number of different theories, hence "archaelogical mystery". If you think that somehow the answer to the question of "who built Great Zimbabwe" suddenly stopped being a Political one when ZANU-PF came to power, you're an idiot.

Btw, are the Lemba a group of 'colonising racists' as well? They disagree.

Also in response to your ridiculous claim that Great Zimbabwe was a flourishing civilisation until ransacked by Europeans.

You're right and I'm wrong, I'll admit to that.

When did I ever question any of that?All I questioned was that always whites took the best land, as in reality it was often far easier to take control of shit land that noone wanted.

I believe your exact words were "They often took the worst and made it into the best." Yes, the blacks could have turned the poor farmland into good farmland, that is if they received funding from the government.

rabbitweed
2008-06-20, 11:06
I believe your exact words were "They often took the worst and made it into the best." Yes, the blacks could have turned the poor farmland into good farmland, that is if they received funding from the government.

Well technically they did turn the poor farmland into good farmland, as they were the ones who actually worked it (albeit under direction from whites).

Besides, for much of the 20th century black farms would have been sustinance plots and nothing more. I don't see how government money would have helped when they weren't commercial farmers in the first place.

launchpad
2008-06-26, 05:09
And who lived on that farmland for generations before the whites came?

By your logic the Native Americans should have the right to gain power in government, then run a campaign of violence to throw you and everyone else you know off the land that you stole from them.

kurdt318
2008-06-26, 15:54
By your logic the Native Americans should have the right to gain power in government, then run a campaign of violence to throw you and everyone else you know off the land that you stole from them.

Why not?

launchpad
2008-06-26, 18:31
Why not?

Well apart from the fact that we decimated them to the point where their numbers would be far from sufficient, it would create massive economic collapse the world over. Also you're assuming that one generation can be directly held responsible for the actions of generations years past. This is completely 100% unfeasible and by even suggesting that such a thing would be warranted you have made a joke out of your argument.

Native Americans don't have the right to throw us off our land and Robert Mugabe had no right to implement racist policies to force white Zimbabweans off their family land.

harry_hardcore_hoedown
2008-06-27, 11:38
We should probably use Africa for storing radioactive waste. It's about the best they could hope for.

Agent 008
2008-06-30, 19:51
Whatever happens, NATO should stay out of it.

Most dictatorships in the world survive and keep reasonable support from their people by telling them scary stories of the evil American empire. Attacking a dictatorship would only give them more fuel.

launchpad
2008-07-02, 13:53
What needs to happen in the case of Zimbabwe is condemnation from other African leaders. Sadly Mbeki isn't doing shit and the rest of them seem to be accepting Mugabe's 'victory'. Nothing is going to change if the entire area keeps hanging on to these attitudes...I thought Mbeki would see what was going on but I guess he's just a stooge.

Rocko
2008-07-04, 06:55
After seeing the unprecedented failure of attempting to intervene in Middle Eastern culture, why the fuck would we EVER want to interfere in African culture?