The latest from Zimbabwe

[Dame]

Creepy over-extension of the concept of the public good.  Certainly explains the increasing intensity of American politics.

[Ryder]

Get over it we have a world to save.

[opsec]

Eloquently stated.

[Eddie]

Interesting stats.

"less populous Zimbabwean ethnic groups include white Zimbabweans, mostly of British origin, but some are of Afrikaner, Greek, Portuguese and Dutch origin as well, who make up less than 1.0%. The white population dropped from a peak of around 296,000 in 1975 to possibly 120,000 in 1999 and was estimated at no more than 50,000 in 2002, possibly much less.[115] Most emigration has been to the UK, South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand".

So the black indigenous people, make up 99% of the population of the country out of an estimated 12 million.

Good news Future, Canada was on the list.

Since there is a mixture of races and nationalities, it would be interesting to know if only the whites have to leave as the article sugests.

 

[The Future]

You can't put a price on people's right to self determination which the Zimbabweans really were robbed of. That being said, retroactive revenge is not justice and does nothing to compensate the victims who are now deceased. They are just striving for injustice in their favor.

Agreed with the exception I haven't seen any evidence that the victims in this case are all deceased.  Legislation was drafted in the 1930s that effectively gifted whites hundreds of thousands of acres or prime land and robbed blacks of any useful farmland.  (Ironically, those same blacks are being blamed for low productivty of farmland)  I would wager that there are people alive today that were alive in 1930, even if they are 80 or 90 years old or older.  Of course the longer these injustices foment we enter into a territory where restoration becomes a very messy situation.  To be clear the western countries have supported the wholesale terror wholeheartedly in the same way they did apartheid for the bulk of its implementation and thus are somewhat a party to it.  The 1% whites who remain control a disprortionately huge volume of land.  The govt. issued the documents that gifted them this land and have the absolute right to revoke those documents.  When that type of actions is taken and it should be as a last resort, it should be done for the greater good and in as tasteful a way as possible.

It should also be noted that for years the UK facilitated a willing buyer willing seller transaction, funded by UK money, but very very few willing sellers were found.  This cannot be compared to eminent domain situations.

[offdalip]

I don't know why you keep preaching the cause for tilting at windmills.

All of that is over and done with.

My own family had a huge bulk of land, banks and possessions stolen in the early '60s as well
by governments that say they know what is best for the people..
I can bitch , but to no good , I'd rather move forward in a positive way.

[The Future]

To be clear, I'm not advocating for any particular cause.  I am clarifying the fact that the initial premise of this thread - that folks were having "their" land taken based on their racial origin skirts the reality and complexity of the situation.  That's it.  I concur with the move forward in a positive way position 100%.  At the same time let's not accept lies about the present or past either.

[offdalip]

that folks were having "their" land taken based on their racial origin skirts the reality and complexity of the situation

racial or economic .... both?


so , you are saying there should be justice?

The victor writes the history books unfortunately

[opsec]

It is also interesting to hear people justify the unjustifiable acts by whites yet cry racism when the indigenous (finally) take action to restore justice.

These unjustifiable acts weren't commited by "whites", they were commited by individuals. To hold an entire race responsible for the acts of individuals is as racist as racist can get. They aren't trying to restore justice. They just want money and self righteous gratification.

The business owners in Zimbabwe did not take the land away from the natives. But the natives are taking away accumulated wealth, the value of their businesses, and robbing these business owners of their right to self determination. So I guess what we're left with then, is that when whites do these things to minorities, it's evil, yet when minorities do this to whites, it's morally sound. Call me strange, but to me that looks like a differential standard of behavior based on race and I don't see how that can possibly be an instrument of justice.

[The Future]

that folks were having "their" land taken based on their racial origin skirts the reality and complexity of the situation

racial or economic .... both?


so , you are saying there should be justice?

The victor writes the history books unfortunately

Justice under these circumstances is very complex.  I don't agree with the status quo, nor do I agree with the tactics used by Mugabe.  South Africa is probably a better example of trying to establish balance in these entrenched situations that have long time horizons but by no means am I saying their approach is without flaws.  Of course justice - if by that you mean a fair and equitable outcome - should be served.

[The Future]

These unjustifiable acts weren't commited by "whites", they were commited by individuals.

Seeing as all acts are committed by individuals this is so vague as to be an essentially meaningless statement.  The historical record shows that an organized group perpertrated these acts culminating in establishing themselves as a government, gifting land to the mercenaries who participating in the invasion and expulsion of natives and subsequently writing into unjust law, that blacks could not own the land they and their ancestors had worked for millenia.

To hold an entire race responsible for the acts of individuals is as racist as racist can get.

At no point have I seen any evidence of an entire race being held responsible for the acts of individuals.  In your courts of law, those who knowingly receive the proceeds of crime are prosecuted as criminals themselves.  To bring "an entire race" into the picture is laughable.  The individuals who benefited from the crime are being focused on.

They aren't trying to restore justice. They just want money and self righteous gratification.

This is one of many possible motives.  Not sure how you are qualified to have eliminated all others and concluded on this one.  But you are entitled to your opinion.  Let's not confuse it with fact though.

The business owners in Zimbabwe did not take the land away from the natives. But the natives are taking away accumulated wealth, the value of their businesses, and robbing these business owners of their right to self determination. So I guess what we're left with then, is that when whites do these things to minorities, it's evil, yet when minorities do this to whites, it's morally sound. Call me strange, but to me that looks like a differential standard of behavior based on race and I don't see how that can possibly be an instrument of justice.

You are confounded again by your own logic.  The invaders took the accumulated wealth and value from the natives and built on it.  The government is attempting to take it back and deliver it to the natives.  The natives aren't taking anything.  The government is attempting to and not without due process.  If you read the history of farm land negotiations in the place it span decades.  You paint an irrational picture of one day people just waking up and taking innocent people's land - extreme oversimplification.  Oh and by the way, the natives are not minorities!  Funny how pervasive the false association with people of color and terms like minority are eh?

It is all too convienient to be an invader, smash and grab and kill, and then promote moral behaviour.  Wasn't it you who was calling vicious attack against an alleged child molester justice?  Per my prior post, I don't agree with the tactics being used to create fairness but I don't agree that you can blame a rape victim for how they react to being raped either. 

[Eddie]

The historical record shows that an organized group perpertrated these acts culminating in establishing themselves as a government, gifting land to the mercenaries who participating in the invasion and expulsion of natives and subsequently writing into unjust law, that blacks could not own the land they and their ancestors had worked for millenia.

This is true, and they happened to be of white race. I think the article would have been more appropriate to have substituted "British" or maybe just "foreigners". I did read somewhere that military personell who were with the Rhodes invasion recieved large tracks of land, some as large as 9 square miles. I couldn't find one instance where a foreigners of another race was allowed to stay either.

I think this is another chalk up against the Brits from the natives of another country. Its to bad for the settlers who were actually born there, obviously getting screwed, but like many of us today, they probably cut their losses and made arrangements to split the country once Magube came to power,the writing was on the wall.

[opsec]

It is all too convienient to be an invader, smash and grab and kill, and then promote moral behaviour.

Just as it is all too convenient to claim victimhood, smash and grab and kill, and then promote it as moral behavior.

Wasn't it you who was calling vicious attack against an alleged child molester justice?

Yes, and it's was proven, not alleged. Occasionally justice happens even in injust places.

At no point have I seen any evidence of an entire race being held responsible for the acts of individuals.  In your courts of law, those who knowingly receive the proceeds of crime are prosecuted as criminals themselves.  To bring "an entire race" into the picture is laughable.  The individuals who benefited from the crime are being focused on.

In your postings you have repeatedly condemned whites as a group. There is no way for the Mugabe government to find out who to give the land back to in the first place. For him to take person A's land back from invader B and then "give it back" to native person C is like you getting your bike stolen and then the police find it and give it back to some other kid who had his bike stolen. That isn't justice. All the Zimbabwe government is doing is making native people the next ones in line to receive the proceeds of this national crime.


Keep in mind too that the natives in Zimbabwe are the decendents of tribesmen who fought and conquored each other to gain territory. It's not like they were just wandering around the jungle one day, found Zimbabwe and started farming. These far-from-innocent Zimbabweans were themselves invaders at one time and perpetrated whatever atrocities they needed to in order to secure their dominion over the land they stole from it's previous occupants. To claim victimhood after being the perpetrator is disingenuous to say the least.

[The Future]

I would challenge you to point out where I have condemned whites as a group - quite a bold but unsubstantiated statement.  If you read carefully you will note I have condemned what specific actions were taken by specific people at specific times.  There is a difference condemning someone and condemning what they did.

Also once again you speculate (opinion) on the history of Zimbabwe to justify well documented actions (facts) against the natives.  It is important to note that your property rights references may be very different from those of the natives.  In many cases there is evidence for example, communal use of common land where no individual has "ownership" in a western sense.  E.g. there were leaders who controlled the land on behalf of the people and apportioned it according to need.  No one claimed ownership.  I saw this also in Hawaii where the invaders determined using their reference points that no person owned the land and thus rationalized setting themselves up as owners.  I say all this to say that "individuals" may well not have had their land taken at all.

Entire groups did and thus if an appropriate means were taken to return land to an entire group, it would not be the "person A to person B to person C" scenario you paint.

There is ample evidence the natives where removed enmasse by an organized group so I am not sure why you continue to dispute this (clamining victimhood in your words) but I'll leave you to it.

[Eddie]

It is important to note that your property rights references may be very different from those of the natives.  In many cases there is evidence for example, communal use of common land where no individual has "ownership" in a western sense.

This is really the key I think, and has been for centuries even in American Indian history. The group that succeeds in conquering the other wins the rights to pitch a teepee. There are no established borders per se. As you pointed out opsec, the tribes that existed prior to Rhodes invasion, fought each other and had no surveyers staking territories and deeds of trust to record and file makes no difference. It would if the ratio were the other way, but you have roughly 50k "whities" to 12 million negroes who have ancestoral roots dating back to monkeys, as some believe (not me).

It boils down to, "whitey" has no business being surrounded by pissed off negroes, telling them what to do. Best thing to do as I said, cut losses and run for those who were even born there.

Where would you rather live Detroit or Zimbabwe?