 | |
08-23-2002, 05:46 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,539
| » 
Simbabwe: After Effect of the Colonial Games
Warning: This is a controversial thread. Proceed at your own risk.
I don't understand the white farmers in Simbabwe. They came with the colonial powers. They took land from Simbabwe and called it their own. They did not buy it. They set up massive farms and lived like kings.
Now they are complaining as to why Mugabe and Simbabwe want their land back and the foreign white farmers out?? What exactly did they expect to happen to them after the bloody war of independence?? Do these white farmers condiser themselves to be of the Mobutu clan???
They should have packed and left when the colonial powers were kicked out, the fact that they stubbornly, or greedily stayed is why I have no sympathy for them.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like Mugabe or his regime, but I am not swayed by the media that leave half the story out of their reports.
Fact is that whats going on in Simbabwe is and was expected, after all, which nation on Earth would allow remnants of a former colonial invader to remain in their country and use up their own resources?
Anyone see this differently?.
CM.
|
| |
08-23-2002, 05:58 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 400
|
Of course I do.
The foreign invaders have lived there as long as the residents. They have lived nowhere else. They are not invaders but citizens in a land full of prejudice and hatred.
You are probably right about the fact they should have left. But put yourself in their shoes. And you are the one who have spent a lifetime building or keeping something going. Now some little penny ante dictator wants to kick you out of your home. I would leave personally but I can see someones resistance to leave their homeland.
As far as using up their resources. Who's resources do you refer to. If every one has lived in a land and the colonial powers have been removed then the resources are being used by citizens of the country. Both black and white are therefore are part of the same economy now. This is evident in the fall of the economy as they steal back the lands from the decendents of the wrong do'rs.
But my history of the region is not up to snuff.
Last edited by Epidemic; 08-23-2002 at 06:05 AM.
|
| |
08-23-2002, 06:04 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,539
|
I too would have packed and left right away (which was not long ago by the way, only 25 years ago). And that's why I have no sympathy, they came to abuse and did so, now they should pay the price and get out.
It doesn't matter that they spent a lifetime building somthing, because they spent this lifetime buidling in someone elses country and on someone elses land, these are two facts that can't be ignored IMO.
|
| |
08-23-2002, 06:13 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 400
|
No they built it in a country. If you live in a country you are part of that country with out the influence of the colonial power.
They came to abuse in a time where abuse was not considered so. The individuals which make up the population did not come to abuse. The policy may have been abusive. But the individuals did not say how can we bleed this country dry.
By your logic if I were to say that mexicans came here not to take part in the american dream can be shipped out and their property distributed. Same for muslims who say that they are here waiting for the call of alah to be his sword. Kick them out and seize their lands. No matter how many years or generations they have been there.
The folks of the world who try to take vengence for historical injustice are no better then the original perpertraitors.
|
| |
08-23-2002, 06:20 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,539
| Quote: |
If you live in a country you are part of that country with out the influence of the colonial power.
| It depends how you enter the country in the first place. These people came with a colonial force to domimate Simbabwe, they did not come in peace, domination is an act of war, and it took a bloody war to get these forces out of the country.
And yes, anyone who comes into a country to dominate it, destroy it and abuse it should be sent back. And this happens throughout the world today, it's called deportation.
|
| |
08-23-2002, 06:23 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 400
|
The USA does not use it enough. Many people speak out against the US and say that they will fight to bring it down from within when the call comes. This makes them not americans from my point of view.
But they are not simply seizing the lands they are killing and terrorizing the farmers and land owners.
|
| |
08-23-2002, 06:30 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,539
|
That is to be expected when the frustration of the opressed masses is chanelled into desirable directions.
Even more reasons for those farmers to have left the country when going got tough.
I agree that killing and terrorising is wrong, but to focus only on these two issues serves only to ignore the bigger picture.
|
| |
08-23-2002, 06:31 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Guest |
Are these farmers the original founding farmers, or are they the children of such? There's no reason that children should pay for the crimes of the parents. I don't agree with them having taken the land in the first place, but racial hatred and prejeduice is something that lasts and lasts and lasts (and is still around in the U.S. today though I've never met any slaves). If the current farmers took the land, by force, for the indiginous people, then I don't see why they have any right to the land. If the accused children are now the owners however, they should not be expected to give up their lives and well being for the sins of the father, as it were. Much like either of you, I'd have gotten the hell out of there while the getting was good, but you can't expect people to leave something they've known their whole lives nor something that is as profitable as the farms seem to be (from what I gather here.)
Did that make any sense?
-Whir
| |
| |
08-23-2002, 06:34 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,539
|
It does make sense, but not in todays world.
The 'children' in Germany and Austria had to pay for the actions commited by, not their parents even, but by their predecessors of 70 years.
So, given the fact that it's ok to do this elsewhere, it should be ok to do this in Simbabwe too, lest we all become hypocrites.
|
| |
08-23-2002, 06:38 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: South Jersey
Posts: 3,081
|
I would be more sympathetic if Mugabe was interested in "giving" the land back to the people, but he's primarily interested in grabbing land and assets for himself and his buddies.
By the way, I can think of a recent example of Europeans moving into a land, displacing the people who had been living there for generations, and claiming the land for themseves. Israel.
|
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | Most Active Discussions  | | | | | Recent Discussions  | | | | | |