02 Feb 04
Originally posted by rwingettWhy is land reform necessary?
I am no fan of Mugabe's, but I'm going to play Devil's advocate here for a moment...
23 years after black majority rule was established, a great majority of the best farmland in Zimbabwe is still concentrated in the hands of white farmers who constitute a tiny minority of the population. Everyone (even the white farmers) agree that some form of land r ...[text shortened]... ic land redistribution, and how much is due to the drought that has been affecting that region?
I am slightly bemused by the fact that most (UK, at least) people agree that it is wrong that most of the farms should be owned by white people (who were born and brought up in Zimbabwe).
Yet if someone were to suggest that it is wrong that (for example) Pakistanis and Indians owned most of the corner shops in England, people would point out that they were born here, are as British as anybody else and that 'indigenous' English people have no greater right to property.
So why is it different in Africa?
(See, two can play devils advocate 😛)
02 Feb 04
Let us imagine then Indians arrived to colonise England in the nineteenth century. Armed with superior weapons, they rule England from Calcutta, settle in hte country and drive tenant farmers from their land, doing this as late as 1969. Indian citizens are treated more favourablly than white citizens - soldiers sent to fight in the World Wars for example were settled on confiscated land from white peasant farmer if they were Indian, and used the wealth created to build estates. Imagine if poor white farmers who tried to crop subsistence crops on unused lands - owned by their parents and taken by a racist Indian society - were driven off and their children starved Imagine most of the land in the UK owned by an Indian aristocracy while the English went through their versions of the Irish famines.
Yet if someone were to suggest that it is wrong that (for example) Pakistanis and Indians owned most of the corner shops in England, people would point out that they were born here, are as British as anybody else and that 'indigenous' English people have no greater right to property.
So why is it different in Africa?
(See, two can play devils advocate 😛)[/b]
Of course this is fantasy - - India never colonised the UK as it was the Britiish who were the colonialists. Indian shopkeepers had to buy their businesses at market rates and work hard to make a living. But this is close to what happened in Rhodesia - many of those farms were stolen by the whites.
If you can not see the difference between a farm whose ownership was gained in racist Rhodesia and an Indian owned corner shop in the UK, you have a problem.
Perhaps you shoud read some history - you could start here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,774726,00.html
Naturally Mugabe is using the veterans as pawns - he and his cronies are taking the land.
02 Feb 04
So - where would you stop?
Ok. You got to admit that if we were CONSISTENT, we would be about taking out all these despots. I don't feel real proud about the selective nature of taking out dictators. Don't you think we would be on firmer ground if we opposed ALL DICTATORS who commit genecide?
Just asking. Mike[/b]
How many despots are there in Africa as bad as Mugabe? Too many to count.
And when you finished and installed your choice - how many of them would turn out like old friends Saddam ( Rumsfield gave him golden spurs on his 80's trip) or Noriega?
02 Feb 04
Originally posted by steerpikeWell, there is no history in that article, just personal experience of one person.
Let us imagine then Indians arrived to colonise England in the nineteenth century. Armed with superior weapons, they rule England from Calcutta, settle in hte country and drive tenant farmers from their land, doing this as late as 1969. Indian citizens are treated more favourablly than white citizens - soldiers sent to fight in the World Wars for example ...[text shortened]... tml
Naturally Mugabe is using the veterans as pawns - he and his cronies are taking the land.
Anyway, I wasn't arguing that colonialism wasn't a bad thing. However, the European descendents born on those farms no more chose where to be born than the africans or than Indians living in London. Yes, the land may have been forcibly taken in the past. But many injustices were carried out in the past which would not be acceptable today.
Should non-indigenous americans be forced to give up their lands to native americans?
Even within a country - many aristocratic families gained their land/wealth/power by exploiting people. However, in Zimbabwe it is a racial issue. If the farmers had been black africans who stole the land off other black africans nobody would even be mentioning it today.
03 Feb 04
Should non-indigenous americans be forced to give up their lands to native americans?I don't believe any one should have their land confiscated, whether they be the original native owners or the or the ones who gained their land under racist laws. You were questioning land reform and suggesting farmers who gained title under the laws of Rhodesia had the same rights as UK corner shop owners. I am suggesting the owners of these farms have a responsibility to compensate the original owners. If this means the farmer has to sell the farm, so be it. It is hard on those who bought the farms recently - but it is hard for those who have unwittingly bought a stolen car too and have had the owner claim it.
Even within a country - many aristocratic families gained their land/wealth/power by exploiting people. However, in Zimbabwe it is a racial issue. If the farmers had been black africans who stole the land off other black africans nobody would even be mentioning it today.[/b]
It is a racial issue because it is no accident white farmers got the land in the past - it was delibrate racial policy. The veterans are being used - not long after they have occupied the farm, supporters of Mugabe are taking the farm back off them. So there are black farmers now who have no right to the land.
The armed confiscations are thuggery and give little or no benefit to landless people. But land reform is necessary where unjust laws have deprived sections of the population of their land.
Whether people care or not does not make it right. Land does not go away and the greviances over it last for generations.
03 Feb 04
Originally posted by steerpikeI was questioning why some people chant a mantra like 'Iraq is for the Iraqis' or 'Africa is for the Africans' yet the same people go into a rage if anyone says 'Britain for the British'.
I don't believe any one should have their land confiscated, whether they be the original native owners or the or the ones who gained their land under racist laws. You were questioning land reform and suggesting farmers who gained title under the laws of Rhodesia had the same rights as UK corner shop owners. I am suggesting the owners of these farms have ...[text shortened]... does not make it right. Land does not go away and the greviances over it last for generations.
Anyway, we are at least agreed that Mugabe is a thug who is using this for his own financial and political ends.