RE: Zimbabwe's agony (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


seeksfemslave -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 12:12:19 PM)

Maybe Mugabe unconsciously wants to return Zimbabwe from this
note the date mate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1899railroad_salisbury.jpg
to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AfricanHuts2.jpg

Just to expand on what Politsub said, in fact the people who lived in Matebeleland, ie N and S Rhodesia had  in the 1880's  only been there since about 1840, and they had taken the land by force.




LadyEllen -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 12:13:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

In a nutshell, if your father or grandfather decides he'd like a personal fiefdom in someone else's country, he's an adventurer and a crook.  If a subsequent popular revolution takes the country back, he should be grateful for his life and either leave or cooperate fully with the new government.  Being given a chance to retain most of their land was more generosity than they deserved.

Looted treasures should be returned to their rightful owners, whether they are paintings or property.  You can't keep stolen goods because they were left to you by your father.


Brilliant.

I'm going to be off the forums for a while; I'm heading out to find every Beaumont and Montague to start with, then I'm going through the phone book to find every other Norman descendant in Mercia. They can either leave Mercia within 24 hours or die.

And I trust that we shall need the room too. Those Pilgrim Fathers sure had a lot of descendants in a few centuries, not to mention those Essex convicts down under, and the above principle holding true, they'll be needing the homes of our Norman overlords' descendants.

But American and Australian brethren - worry not! There'll be plenty of work available on the vast farmlands which are rightfully mine.

E




RealityLicks -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 12:43:52 PM)

*Creak*

Is that someone's back groaning or just a tired old argument?

So are you saying that the majority decision to eradicate racial privilege is unfair because, French people and Welsh people are separate races?




LadyEllen -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 12:48:45 PM)

Not at all RL. I'm saying that your point is utterly daft as an argument.

E




RealityLicks -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 12:52:11 PM)

Democracy is "daft"?  Majority rule is too good for the people of Zimbabwe?  Why so?  The white settlers were and are a class apart, all quite easily identified, so no need to resort to phone books.  You're saying a nation should be disenfranchised because of the precedent set by a medieval monarch and I'm daft?




Termyn8or -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 1:02:04 PM)

Umm, I thought Uganda was a different country than the one being discussed.

And about the idiot in this chair, let me tell you a couple things about the idiot in this chair.

The idiot in this chair can design and build a house, a TV set or a building. Can you do that ?

You want the rest of it ? I am cool with the fact that England would not let the Rhodesians back in. They went there for opportunity, they took a risk, they lost. Why the fuck should the rest of the people bail them out ?

People just do not understand that others might not be as developed, and such statements are taken as racist. YOU read that into it, I DID NOT WRITE THAT INTO IT.

I am going to put my knuckles back on the floor and take a load off. It is obvious that anything I say about certain subjects will be misconstrued or misinterpreted by the brainwashed.

This is ridiculous, in that country thry think fucking a virgin cures AIDS, Geezus fucking Christ, now there are no virgins over ten years old. Goddammit does the truth hurt that much ? this is halfway across the world, all we need to do is leave them alone.

Fact is they would never know AIDS existed unless we told them. Things would be normal, and sometimes they might say "he got sick and died" and never know the cause.

They are behind, that is a fact, if that statement labels me as a racist fine. Facts are facts. I will not go against facts and logic and if I have to stay out of threads like this so you can enjoy your bliss, as described by Orson Wells, no problem. Even if I have to leave this board I can acomodate. I don't want that, but let me know when you think I am a moron.

Remember this, and this is from someone who has REAL knowledge and REAL intelligence, not that store bought shit. I will say this.

Only a moron calls someone a moron.
Only the stupid call someone stupid.
Only an idiot calls anyone an idiot.

Those of us who know, know not to do it because we know it does us no good. Even if you are a rocket scientist and call me a moron, you are a moron. And that is true even if I AM A MORON. Get it ? It serves no purpose.

Africa is in a different state of development than Europe or Asia, get over it. Leave them alone for a hundred years or so, then when it is all sorted out, we can talk. But we can't do that. We need our dirty little fingers in everbody's pies.

Africa got exploited because we could. Sorry about their luck. Wanna get down to it ? Where are their nukes waiting to bomb NYC ? Where was their army standing to repel us invaders. Where was their government a couple hundred years ago outlawing the sale of people to the slave traders?

In fact where was anyone with a fucking shred of human decency ?

And I now add this one word to that statement : EVER.

BTW a moron is defined as a person with an IQ between 51 and 70. Mine is about 200. So absent a retraction the person who called me that has proven he does not know numbers well. I mean they can't even play acey duecy if they can't see that a number is within a certain range. Let alone count or play poker with the pros.

They better get the sticks and stones out.

T




LadyEllen -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 1:05:20 PM)

Your post didnt mention democracy, nor majority rule nor any of these subsequent points.

Your post proposed a principle whereby invasion or settlement by any other means must be turned back according to some law. An utterly daft principle as well as totally impractical in general, and a pointless and daft one in this specific instance.

Majority rule in Zimbabwe was a democratic necessity which people fought and died for, not some apologist gesture based on principle. Just as the settlers took control by force, the black population took control back by force, to make sure that democracy and so majority rule could take place. Unfortunate that the majority elected a racist just as fanatic as some of those he had struggled against - having met a paratrooper who fought for Rhodesia in those times he was a nazi too. Had the majority chosen more wisely, then perhaps Zimbabwe might today be more akin to its neighbours.

E




Politesub53 -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 1:08:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Umm, I thought Uganda was a different country than the one being discussed.


T


Term my point was anyone with a valid UK passport can get in here. Not just from Rhodesia but anywhere. I dont know where you got the idea they were stopped from. I certainly dont recall that being the case.




SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 1:21:30 PM)

The thing I can’t understand about Mugabe is the time he took to evict the white farmers? If anyone thinks he did it for any other reason than to cling to power by creating a popular yet impractical policy then they are kidding themselves.

Mugabe knew it was an unworkable solution otherwise he would have insisted upon it sooner maybe for instance after the war for independence. The fact is he was happy to live with the status quo until he was struggling for ideas for re-election and now some want to class him as something other than a politician? Why is that?




RealityLicks -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 1:47:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Your post didnt mention democracy, nor majority rule nor any of these subsequent points.


No, that particular post didn't but are you suggesting that those concepts are not germane to a discussion on the demise of a foul racist system?  Sorry for dropping them in without warning but you ought to have expected them to crop up. 

quote:


Your post proposed a principle whereby invasion or settlement by any other means must be turned back according to some law.


The land was always going to be an issue in the new Zimbabwe because it was virtually all in the hands of a small minority - one which did not view itself as part of the country, in many ways.  The chief reason for Mugabe's and Nkomo's talks in London with Carrington is that unlike Muzarewa, they did not want land off the table for generations.

quote:


An utterly daft principle as well as totally impractical in general, and a pointless and daft one in this specific instance.


Don't hold back, just say what you really think.

quote:


Majority rule in Zimbabwe was a democratic necessity which people fought and died for, not some apologist gesture based on principle. Just as the settlers took control by force, the black population took control back by force, to make sure that democracy and so majority rule could take place. Unfortunate that the majority elected a racist just as fanatic as some of those he had struggled against - having met a paratrooper who fought for Rhodesia in those times he was a nazi too. Had the majority chosen more wisely, then perhaps Zimbabwe might today be more akin to its neighbours.

E



If majority rule was a democratic necessity, the decision of that majority to elect a land reformer should be respected. 

The second Zimbabwean I knew was a fighter in Nkomo's ZAPU.  You should think very carefully before you label people as Nazis.  The treatment of Africans by Smith and his like made the Nazis look almost benevolent.  Remember the 50,000 Smith killed during the war? 

As I have pointed out, the black small-holder proved himself as efficient a farmer as the white settler and then some.  This is a fact they left out of your atlas, clearly.  But an industry needs international financial support.  Cutting foreign exchange was the end.  The IMF prevented any bank anywhere from lending to Zim. The aim was to destroy the economy. 

As with all African countries, the IMF rules are aimed at opening them up as markets to cheaper subsidised good from the US and EU.  That and the loss of aids, like price control, meant that the Zim$ went completely out of control.  Zimbabwe went from being Africa's success story to the bad guy, Mugabe became more estranged from reality and the violent wing in ZANU took control.  The Veterans started getting farms then but they're not the same as the average black small-holder.

By the way, commodities markets will trade metals from anywhere, as long as its legal.  Your earlier suggestion that neighbouring countries profit more from their mineral wealth by their supposed docility seems also to have no basis in reality.





seeksfemslave -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 4:40:47 PM)

Reality tells us that Zimbabwe's access to credit was limited.
Maybe this is why. The expenditure is on intervention in the Congo.
quote:

The Financial Times of London reported that there was a discrepancy between figures used internally by Zimbabwe's finance ministry and the statistics provided to the IMF. Zimbabwe told the IMF its spending was $3m a month, while an internal memo said $166m had been spent on funding the conflict since January and June - around $27m a month.


At a time when Zimbabwe was starting to go down the tubes this is where Mugabe decided to focus his attention.
quote:

The Second Congo War, also known as Africa's World War and the Great War of Africa, took place between 1998 and 2003 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly called Zaire), and ended when the Transitional Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo took power. The largest war in modern African history, it directly involved eight African nations, as well as about 25 armed groups. By 2008 the war and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people, mostly from disease and starvation, making the Second Congo War the deadliest conflict since World War II.


Sounds like 18th/19th century Europe to me.
Mugabe hadn't lerned much had he?




RealityLicks -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 6:53:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


The idiot in this chair can design and build a house, a TV set or a building. Can you do that ?



Why doesn't the idiot in that chair just build a space ship and get on it?  Don't bother me, I'm talking to people.




RealityLicks -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/6/2008 7:09:10 PM)

 
Mugabe is an evil bastard, he has long ago lost respect for anything bar toppling Smith and for the first few years of the country's existence. But twisting it so his history somehow exemplifies an entire continent is, incredible as you may think it, totally misguided.




LadyEllen -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/7/2008 12:52:34 AM)

 
How do you know the settlers didnt consider themselves part of the country? They first formed their own country and then agreed to share a new country with the original inhabitants given full rights. That many have left is not evidence that they dont see themselves as part of Zimbabwe, but evidence of the nazi policies of Mugabe against them and their ability (in contradistinction to the black inhabitants who find themselves on the wrong side) to go abroad at will.

Yes, we should respect the election of a land reformer. Or at least we could have done, if he had fulfilled his manifesto promises, steered the country forward and not been reelected by the most vile and oppressive methods he could muster to try to avoid liability for his utter failure and disgusting crimes.

I name Mugabe a nazi - a national socialist with all the trappings of racist ideology which unfortunately appertain to that nomenclature. As for Nkomo, well I'm not so sure now, but I'm sure I remember him and his getting their due rewards for not being on message and being a possible threat to Mugabe not long after Mugabe came to power. Mugabe is every bit as evil a nazi as the most vile European and South African nazis who went to fight for Rhodesia. Note that I dont capitalise nazi as you do - they dont warrant such respect.

And then you say that Zimbabwe has failed because of the big bad white man wanting to punish it? Come on. Its going to cost us a fortune to provide aid and rebuild the place, and none but a few nutters ever see any point or possibility in rebuilding Rhodesia rather than Zimababwe. Whats the motive exactly of the big bad white man to produce a basket case he knows he will have to bail out?

You miss the point about commodity trading. Commodities being commodities, they have a market price. Of course, commodities from anywhere, being alike in quality will trade for the same market price on the day, whether traded on the day or as futures - but that is the point. If you decide that you will reduce your market of intermediaries then you have little choice on what price and conditions those remaining will buy at. The end price to the user is the same, but you received a lower share of that final price. The success of Botswana and Namibia is nothing to do with "docility" but to do with recognising that there is a world market and that scoring own goals through adherence to racist ideology is not a wise move.

And for what its worth, I also pointed out the fact that black farm workers could easily have maintained the agricultural industry. But they were chased from the land as "collaborators" with the settlers. 

What worries me most though, is that you seem to be leading a one man cheering squad for Mugabe for some reason?

E




Politesub53 -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/7/2008 3:05:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

What worries me most though, is that you seem to be leading a one man cheering squad for Mugabe for some reason?

E


I dont see how you can say this. In the post prior to yours RL calls Mugabe an "evil bastard" hardly cheer leading is it ?




LadyEllen -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/7/2008 3:07:11 AM)

Which is what makes it worrying, all in all.

E




IXian -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/7/2008 4:54:35 AM)

Here's my 2 cents:

To understand Africa's plight and Zimbabwe isn't easy, I doubt that anyone, not even respected africans like Nelson Mandela know how to lift Africa's countries out if the (percieved?) rut they've been walking in for the last hundred years or so. In the least there are several questions that has to be answered before even a common perception of the present situation can be established.

a) Has the slavetrade and colonial exploitations been a significant factor for the social and economic disasters in modern Africa?
b) Has most of Africa's wealth allready been exploited?
c) Have any african cultural traits perpetuated Africas condition?
d) Is it possible to claim that Africa as a whole hasn't show any significant improvements since the time the colonies gained freedom?
e) Are there modern western institutions that perpetuate or actively exploit African countries?
e.1) If yes, please distinguise and explain how a institution perpetuate or actively exploit African countries?
e.2) If No, does the former colonial powers /western countries have any responsibilities towards Africa?

Regarding Zimbabwe:
f) Can historical facts legitimize a political policy of redistributing a society's wealth?
f.1) If yes, can such historical facts legitimize any kind of policy?
f.2) If no, how do you deal with the resentments that unevenly distribution of wealth creates?
g) When Mugabe or his sucessors fall, how should Zimbabwe deal with them?
h) Would there be societal consequences depending on how such an aftermath plays out?
h.1 ) if so, can any punishment fit the crime of ruining a country's economy?
i) Would a legal process to punishment those responsible improve Zimbabwe's present condition?


------
No I should at least attempt to answer my own questions:

a) Yes, but it's not the only significant reason. There are several others, for example the tribalification of local politics where people fall back on more traditional social mechanisms when they percieve a failure in more western social mechanisms.
Neither should we overlook the fact that Africa is one of the areas in the world with a host of diseases or natural disasters that affect human society and lives. (Note: I didn't specify Human diseases.)

b) Definitively no, the perception of Africa as "poor" is about as accurate as the 16 century european perception of North America as so poor that it's only fit as a dumping ground for religious fanatics. The natural wealth of africa, both in agriculture and minerals rival any other region in earth of the same size.

c) Yes, unfortunately so. I've allready mentioned the tribalification of politics, other traits is sexual morality. ( I'm not a christian or much of an "moralist", especially as I'm writing this in a bdsm webboard. ;) ) The reality is that in many regions of africa sexuality is a much more accepted, both as a bargaining chip and selfexpression. Unfortunately africa is also the home of a the number of sexually transmitted diseases that exist _because Africa is the largest continent on earth with a large primate population _and_ the oldest continent with a human population because we evolved there. This means that equivalent social dynamics in Canada if they had the same healthcare as a African country wouldn't necessarily spark a epidemic because there has been shorter time for human sexually transmited diseases to evolve other places on earth.

d) I grew up in Tanzania during their communism periode while inflation was around 1000% pr month. I can distinctly remember that my parents had to either carry 10-20 one dollar bills to pay for large 20 set dinners or bring 4 suitcases full of Tanzanian 1 Million Shilling bills. And if you didn't give the customs officials at least 2 dollars pr. person you'd spend 4 hours waiting while they "checked your luggage". This wasn't unusual and a everday occurance, neither was this unusual for _any_ east african country including Egypt. Even south africa had such tendencies but if you were white south african your manservant (aka, "colored") to care of it most of the time without you even knowing it.
Today's situation isn't by far so bad. Certainly some areas in Africa is still as bad as before (Sudan, ethiopia etc.) but even in today's Zimbabwe things are in an perverse manner "better". Not because the situation isn't bad, but african's in general _expect more_ of their leaders. For example our gardener (now deceased) in Tanzania was married to a Zimbabwean woman(also deceased) from the same tribe. He couldn't write or read before he converted to Islam, but she had recieved basic schooling and _didn't_ convert. But the most important thing is that all of their 4 children has recieved basic schooling and they aren't exceptions in todays urban&suburban areas in east Africa.

e) Unfortunately yes. Both africans and western economist claim that the IMF(International Monetary Fund) has always been controlled either by financial interests that would prefer africa to not develop an self sufficent economy _or_ it's controlled by economist's with a _naive conservative ideology_ that drives their economic thinking. Secondly, the Aid organisations has in many situations been the driving force for _naive liberal ideology_ economist that in their eagerness to "do god" don't take into account the necessity of a working infrastructure before you finance large projects. (Some second hand examples were hydroelectric dam projects, with electrical turbines that requires specially made spare parts from american or european manufaturers. Combine this with the shipping costs and the need to build a new road through a jungle each time there's a delivery makes it.. unpractical in the least.)

e.1) Se above.

e.2) This is a hard question to answer, I'm not certain myself. But I can find one _personal_ reason. If the west is willing to enter other areas on earth to "create democracy and liberate the population" wouldn't we also have such a responsibility in any other area? Is it really so that africans are "less worth helping" than say Semites like Arabs, Jews and Persians?

Zimbabwe:
Unfortunately I've got to go, so I can't answer the last of my questions now. Please read carefully and remember these are opinions based on AFAIK.

IXian.




RealityLicks -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/7/2008 6:39:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

How do you know the settlers didnt consider themselves part of the country? They first formed their own country and then agreed to share a new country with the original inhabitants given full rights. That many have left is not evidence that they dont see themselves as part of Zimbabwe, but evidence of the nazi policies of Mugabe against them and their ability.


It is ridiculous to suggest that Zimbabwe is the only country in which farmland has been nationalised.  Having been granted recognition as a sovereign state by the UN and all world governments, Zimbabwe's elected leaders enacted a policy of land refom.  A revolution had just taken place to right the wrong of racial privilege and Mugabe simply wasn't bamboozled at the conference table - the white settlers' last hope.  He's a stubborn man but by winning through he earned more enemies than friends because he overturned the assumption he'd be gipped. 

Deplore land reform if you will but I'd be interested in knowing why you have chosen a moral argument to challenge it.  What possible argument can there be for pretending racial privilege is in the best interests of the masses? It wasn't a ceasefire, pending some bullshit negotiations and hope for the best; it was a victory for the people and round my way, it was celebrated not mourned.  You?

The settler government offered suffrage as long as a pivotal number of parliamentary and cabinet seats were granted them in perpetuity.  Their aim obviously, was to maintain Smith as hegemon and ensure that Zimbabwe's wealth remained in their hands.  I don't call that "full rights" and Mugabe, rightly, told Carrington and co. to fuck off.

During the uprising, the whites created concentration camps to try and prevent guerillas gaining local support.  I see in that much more similarity with the Nazis.  Mugabe has always been a Marxist, and you yourself earlier described him as a prisoner of his party, so I regard your naming him otherwise as a mild bit of provocation.  That seems unworthy of you.


quote:


And then you say that Zimbabwe has failed because of the big bad white man wanting to punish it?


It's becoming a litany but if you go back and read what I actually wrote, I said that Mugabe's war and attempts at restructuring damaged the economy but that the final definitive nail in the country's coffin was the reduction of foreign exchange.  The US used its vote at the IMF  - at British insistence - to prohibit any one from the World Bank down to small regional clearing banks from lending to Zimbabwe.  Any industry is going to rely on a bit of Gov't support via hedges and futures but this hit really hard and it is the result of that we see today.

You might argue that Mugabe brought it on himself.  I could argue against that by showing you how his adherence to IMF regulations was destroying the economy by different means.  This does not mean that I lead a "cheer team" for Mugabe and  I don't recall mentioning a "big bad white man".  

Just so you're clear, I want Mugabe out but I distrust the incoming administration's intentions and foresee a change in MDC's policy of continuing land reform to soften things even more for the parasitic elements in Zim. 

Yes, I would prefer Mugabe to another puppet that the West puts in, only to target him for "failing" in five years, because he dares to question plans for the rape of his country. 

Yes, I know that anything which will cause a loss of western control in mineral rights will be resisted through the international diplomatic and financial system.  

No, I don't want the billion pound package they are dangling to be taken up.  I only want to see short-term emergency aid from wealthy countries, a free ballot safe-guarded by the OAU and sanctions lifted.  I don't want IMF regulations enforced because it will seed the destruction of manufacturing in Zimbabwe and jobs will be needed for the millions who will now return home.  That means a measure of prices control and targeted subsidy, which the IMF will apparently not tolerate.

All this pathologising of Africa as some terrible place where the people always fail does is compel African governments to accept policies which detriment their people and profit Western firms.  Myths abound but people are the same, in the same measure, everywhere.








seeksfemslave -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/7/2008 7:07:55 AM)

Modern Zimbabwe was built by white settlers.
All of the wealth was created by white settlers.
Mining actvitity was brought about by white expertise
Agicultural surplus likewise.
The civil engineering infra structure was designed, built and installed by whites.
How for effs sake is that raping a country ?

Sanctions which Reality keeps mentioning are targetted only against the finances of the ZANU PF bigwigs not against economic loans to Zimbabawe.

When food aid was delivered to Zimbabwe Mugabe selectively distributed it to his own supporters.
The civil rights abuses perpertrated by a Black racist government are well documented and far exceed anything nasty whitey ever did.
And still South Africa wont act.
I wonder why ?





seeksfemslave -> RE: Zimbabwe's agony (4/7/2008 7:15:25 AM)

My guess is that if Mugabe really wants to bring everything down in flames , a not unlikely desire for an 84 year old man, he will carry out his proposals to nationalise the various mining operations in Zimbabwe.

I think it is unlikely that the corporate owners of the mines will allow western governments to do nothing about it.
I hope so anyway.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125