Zimbabwe in ruins (jobs, cons, standard, country)

[the troubadour]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Perhaps had the former Rhodesia government and dominate citizens given thought to establishing democratic institutions, the rule of law (and more importantly justice), and equality individuals like Robert Mugabe would have never arisen because there is no shortage of evidence that despotism when violently overthrown only leads to more despotism.

I do think there is something in that. Apparently Ian Smith, the former and last white leader was rather respected by many black as well as white.
He lived very simply after retirement with many visitors from across the divide. Nobody ever tried to harm him as he would have been an easy target.

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by Chris Balducci

Would you like to live in Zimbabwe, Wild Style? I'll bet the average Zimbabwean will trade places with you in a New York minute!

I know a person from Zim right now who left a month ago for a job in Africa. There is a website we go to that links people working in the west who want to move to the continent with jobs. I am sure you will say I am lying though *shrugs* anyway, who cares, just keep living life brother, its not that serious, its just the internet.

[markg91359]

How did Robert Mugabe get away with ruining Zimbabwe?

I'll try to make this as short as I can.

Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was originally colonized by a group of white people lead by an Englishman, Cecil Rhodes. He's the same "Rhodes" who set aside money for the Rhode's scholarships, by the way. The white colonization of this area created a situation where by 1965 there were about 250,000 white settlers and over 6,000,000 Africans. Yet, the 250,000 whites possessed almost all of the political and economic power. Yet, the area remained the British Colony of "Rhodesia".

Following World War II, it became clear that the English were going to grant all their many colonies independence. It wasn't going to happen all at once, but preparations were undertaken for all of the territories colonized by the British in Africa to become independent. The English had a very tough experience in a colony neighboring Rhodesia that is the present day country of Kenya. A widespread revolt took place in this colony during the 1950's that is known as the "Mau Mau Uprising". The British sent in soldiers and went to great lengths to suppress this uprising. Thousands of Africans died in the revolt and even though a much smaller number of white people died, the revolt left a terrifying impression on the British authorities. They were determined to avoid a repeat of the "Mau Mau Uprising" elsewhere in Africa.

The British adopted a policy for all the colonies that can be summarized as "No Independence before Black Majority Rule". (NIBMAR) In essence, the British determined that they were not going to allow a minority white population to control any of the colonies following independence. This had grave implications for the colony of Rhodesia. Rhodesia was essentially ruling itself by the time independence became an issue. However, its government was totally controlled by the minority white population and the institutions were structured so that the huge black majority had no prospect of ever holding any real power.

The white Rhodesians elected a Prime Minister named Ian Smith who represented the old order. Smith, and his political party were determined that the native African population of Rhodesia would never have political control of the country. They perceived this would mean confiscation of their farms and the fortunes many had made during their years colonizing the country. Britain made it clear that not only it never grant independence to Rhodesia under those circumstances, but that it would work to establish a black majority government.

As a result, in 1965, Smith and his cadre purportedly declared their "independence" from Britain. Rhodesia was never able to gain diplomatic recognition from any country other than South Africa. A policy of international sanctions imposed by the international community gradually weakened Rhodesia. Robert Mugabe and others lead guerilla armies and began a war against Smith's government. By 1978, the *** was up for "Rhodesia". Smith was brought to his knees by both the war and international sanctions. After a brief return to British colonial rule, elections were held and Robert Mugabe was elected the leader of the new country of Zimbabwe.

Mugabe gradually transformed his government into a dictatorship. Things weren't too bad at first. Some speculated that Mugabe's wife was a moderating force and used what leverage she had to force him to treat the white settlers who remained in Zimbabwe with some degree of decency and fairness. She eventually died though and Mugabe allowed his followers to confiscate white farms and white property. As this occurred, the remaining whites left the country and the economic infrastructure of Zimbabwe simply collapsed.

Mugabe has ruled the country as a dictator and maintains control by bribing a few key friends and military people to support him. Any elections in the country are fraudulent. Supporters of other candidates are routinely kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.

In short, Mugabe got where he did because of : 1. shortsighted attempts by some to try to maintain white minority rule of the country; 2. a revolution which legitimized violence to many; 3. supporters who in exchange for bribes are willing to engage in murder and violence to maintain Mugabe as their leader; 4. an international community which is not able to do much; and 5. a population which is too terrorized to do anything about Mugabe.

Its a very sad situation and there is much blame to go around for it.

[Oleg Bach]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

How did he ruin Zimbabwe? He kicked out colonialist (or their descendants), has worked to get rid of a currency that was tied to colonialism (which is always going to result in high inflation) and is now on the road to recovery. The question that should be asked, is why don't more African leaders bite the bullet and throw off the colonial yoke as well? They tried in Cote D'ivore but those savage French played their little game in the background nicely. Hopefully someone in future will rise up and finish the job.

Why are there always negative over tones when it comes to "colonialism"..Getting rid of things out of sheer spite in not always a benefit to those "throwing off the yoke"- I am surprised there are people still using such rhetoric. Look at the sub-continent of India- some of the best parts of their society are left overs from colonialism.


Rising up- more rhetoric...Maybe you should put the books down and think for yourself......I wonder what America would be like if they got rid of the descendants of their colonialists? All cultures mix and interact..oppression occurs...and it naturally ends- Time to let go of the past and walk into the future.

[Annuvin]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

When you people get degrees in economics and then over night become Africans, then come back and talk to me. Until then, keep parroting what tv tells you, makes you sound like you know what your talking about, to other know nothings.

You claim to have a degree in economics and are trying to sell the virtues of a Mugabe run Zimbabwe?

Dude, you should shoot for a career in comedy. This post had me almost in tears from laughing so hard!

[albion]

A degree in stupidity maybe. Wild Style obviously has no grasp at all about life in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe used to be called the breadbasket of Africa,now it's just a currupt country full of starving people.

I've worked in sub-saharan Africa,and I know what can happen when a tin pot dictator like Robert Mugabe siezes power in a country like Zimbabwe, you can see the results of similar dictatorships all over Africa, starvation, poverty & the absence of democracy.

[Oleg Bach]

There is a fellow I know through my eldest daughter. He has the finest degrees in the world. He is Canadian educated at Cambridge and the London School of Economics. His primary source of income is writing for the Economist. This young man does not like to come home and has spent the last 17 years living in the Congo. From what I have heard he is now in South Africa puttering about.

During a party I questioned him on the progress in Africa and his part in it. The guy clammed up and would not say a word. I really expected that after all that time in the Congo that he would have some sort of positive news on his career as an economist. After all he is an EDUCATED expert..and writes on the subject of stability and wealth.

I believe that even though he has the best education money and privilege can buy...He had nothing to report because he is utterly useless...Those that look up to the high and mighty academic for answers and solutions should not expect much from these types as far as healing Africa..It is about common civility. No place or culture will ever thrive if the mentality exists that force and violence and encouraging the common person to hack and chop other to death under the auspice of idiots who claim power.


If you are going to be a dictator you had better be able to dictate something intelligent to the people. Nothing wrong with bright and benevolent dictatorship....BUT- the trend seems to be over the years that the most corrupt- stupid and violent seem to rise up in some nations in Africa....At least with common colonialism you have an imported culture that is a thousand years old..that is tried and true and useful. It seems some black African activists reject anything white...as I said out of sheer spite and I suspect through some half baked Marxist indoctrination.

African activists had better get with the times and let go of communist notions that are dated. Why would you adhere to a historically failed system? A system that has murdered half a billion people over the last century...


One must start fresh and toss aside any solution that comes in a little red book or a little black book...Look at the situation and see how it can be fixed..if you want freedom you need free original thought. There is the issue of bitterness in the minds of African activists...You must remember that with an economy...anyone who makes a few dollars or millions of dollars is a slave...a servant. It is about servitude..about service- about serving each other- that is civilization...NOT the hording and plundering of resources human and other wise. Dictatorship whether in China- America or Africa is about greed and mindless power.

Ignore those that seek power and wealth for the simple sake of power and wealth.

[TrueDat]

But isn't that what some in Africa are trying to do? Yes, they've got a long way to go but, as the saying goes, baby steps.

The hopeful continent: Africa rising | The Economist

Africa Rising: First it was China, now the Gulf discovers the African market - CSMonitor.com

Africa Rising: Sub-Saharan Africa set for 2012 boom - CSMonitor.com

[Oleg Bach]

I guess the reason why writers for the Economist such as Douglas Mason whom I have had the pleasure to meet- will sacrifice years of their lives in the hopeful improvement of the AFRICAN continent...Some people are committed...Doug is personally attached to Africa...I guess he will be for the rest of his life- There are probably a few of these guys there...oddly the best were educated in the home land of oppressive colonialists.

[DahomeyAhosi]

Originally Posted by Oleg Bach

Why are there always negative over tones when it comes to "colonialism"..Getting rid of things out of sheer spite in not always a benefit to those "throwing off the yoke"- I am surprised there are people still using such rhetoric. Look at the sub-continent of India- some of the best parts of their society are left overs from colonialism.

I'm really also not sure why Africans resented being pushed out of the way so that our resources could be stolen and sold to the highest bidder. The Congolese, for example, should've been grateful that they were civilized even if it meant that many hands and feet had to be chopped off and people were enslaved to harvest rubber. Why, indeed, should "elite" black Burkinabes have complained when they were kindly ripped from their families to experience the learning of French and Catholicism at boarding schools where they were beaten for speaking their own languages? Who can imagine why the Senegalese should've complained when they were sent to the front lines of some European "world war" in chains? The Herero and Namaqua of Botswana only had to be killed by the thousands to clear their land for European settlement. Yes, the joys of colonialism. We had to suffer so little to get the wonderful things we have now.

Yes it's a shame that we got rid of things out of sheer spite. Let's lobby the Europeans for a quick return and why not also re-institute chattel slavery? After all black Americans from the U.S. to Brazil have made amazing contributions to world culture.

/End sarcasm.