Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as those compensated are the Whites who legally purchased the land in the first place.
The problem is the Whites in that country used to rule the country, even though they were a small minority of the population. It just like if Chinese even though they are a minority of the American population rule USA. How would Americans feel if they country was taken control by its Chinese minority population and the ruling government is dominated by ethnic Chinese.
Of course there is nothing wrong with expat communities within a country for establishing a community within the country, or creating cultural establishments for that expat community, or even purchasing land if they intend to settle in the country.
Of course there are scars that linger from white rule in Zimbabwe. Plus there has been experiments by the Mugabe government that have gone wrong.
Zimbabwe has more morals than many other countries who owe the nations that they colonized, extorted and subjected to genocide/mass murder.
Good point.
Zimbabwe doesn't owe money, this was something Britain was supposed to pay and didn't. The administration didn't colonize anyone nor did they engage in genocide - this is a Western perspective/narrative. There were deaths and this happens when there are civil wars/unrest although I can see how the deaths can be perceived as genocidal This really is a separate issue.
Last edited by bayarea-girl; 07-31-2020 at 09:28 PM..
The issue isn't at all that Africans don't know how to farm; it's that the land "liberated" from white farmers was given to people who had no farming experience, and in some cases, weren't even from Zimbabwe. But there's also the matter of the difference between subsistence farming and commercial farming. The latter produces large surpluses that can be marketed not only locally and nationally, but regionally as well, strengthening the balance of trade in Zim's favor, potentially. As someone else mentioned, the White farmers are best at that type of farming.
Although I've noticed in other parts of the world, that even subsistence farming produces a surplus for local markets, and plays a valuable role in local economies and cultures. I'd be all for a combination of systems. I think there's room for both.
The way I see it and understand the situation is that the farm land that was given to the Zim Africans was not usable land. Africans farmed the land for white farmers/commercial farms too so they could have easily duplicated efforts had they had the proper land. The White farmers still had access to the land and paid lease fees for the use. But the Africans did not have external agreements with foreign entities as their counterparts in addition to not being able to participate in exports due to their sanctions. Many African farmers also didn't have funding to farm at a large scale. Also, not everyone in Zimbabwe wanted to farm as the new generation were very educated so they also had an African exodus.
If you look at Nigeria for example, not all of their people eat. This is ridiculous as they are a very rich in resource country and have plenty of land to farm and on a commercial scale but how many people want to and do farm in Nigeria or do farm for the locals?
In this day and age there is not reason for places like Zimbabwe and nations throughout Africa to not be able to produce and feed its people. But generate large amounts of food for other nations - this is really an African problem. Zimbabwe lacks focus, discipline, and vision. They could have partnered with other African nations - merged their currencies - collaborated with South Africa - Namibia - there are many South American countries they could have partnered with- wanting foreign aid and money is no way to build. Their GDP and exports are growing every year - so the root problem here is mismanagement/corruption.
As long as those compensated are the Whites who legally purchased the land in the first place.
The problem is the Whites in that country used to rule the country, even though they were a small minority of the population. It just like if Chinese even though they are a minority of the American population rule USA. How would Americans feel if they country was taken control by its Chinese minority population and the ruling government is dominated by ethnic Chinese.
Of course there is nothing wrong with expat communities within a country for establishing a community within the country, or creating cultural establishments for that expat community, or even purchasing land if they intend to settle in the country.
Of course there are scars that linger from white rule in Zimbabwe. Plus there has been experiments by the Mugabe government that have gone wrong.
Zimbabwe doesn't owe money, this was something Britain was supposed to pay and didn't. The administration didn't colonize anyone nor did they engage in genocide - this is a Western perspective/narrative. There were deaths and this happens when there are civil wars/unrest although I can see how the deaths can be perceived as genocidal This really is a separate issue.
They didn't, because Mugabe presented the "project" as being about returning land to the original population that worked the land in any given area, so Britain agreed to finance it. But then he turned around and handed out farms to his cronies, to "freedom fighters" irrespective of where their ancestral land was, and to people who joined the struggle from Mozambique. So the UK pulled out of the deal, because it turned into a phony thing.
They didn't legally purchase the land - they took it as colonizers do. Chinese people purchased what they own in the USA so there is a difference.
Well there were still white people that did purchase the land. However it was not right the White government to allow such a large proportion of land to be sold to Whites.
However Mugabe embarked on socialist programs that did ruin the economy of the country.
Upon independence in 1980, President Robert Mugabe openly stated his determination to make Zimbabwe a one party nation and his Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) party “a truly Marxist Leninist party to ensure the charting of an irreversible social course and create a socialist ideology”. Indeed, in December 1982 all 57 ministers and deputy ministers in Mugabe’s cabinet arrived at the Harare airport to greet visiting Ethiopian leader Mengistu Haile Mariam—black Africa’s arch-apostle of Marxism-Leninism. Inheriting an economy that was hobbled by racial inequalities under the former white-minority regime, there was a strong need for statism, to correct injustices committed by white colonialists.
The country was the breadbasket of the region. But state controls, state regulations and forcible seizures of white commercial farmlands without compensation destroyed agriculture and turned the country into a net food importer.
Like a large marjority of African countries that became free from White rule, the attidute of the new independent leaders were as follows:” Capitalism was rejected as a Western colonial ideology in one monumental syllogistic error. Colonialism was evil and since the colonialists were capitalists, it too was evil. Socialism, the antithesis of capitalism, was adopted by nearly every African leader and was advocated as the only road to Africa’s prosperity.
They threw out the baby out with the bath water, and not just saw White colonalism as evil and should be eradicated, but other traces of believed that other traces of White Legacy must go such as such as capitalism.
Africans are known for our farming abilities that is why so many were brought to the Americas. Sadly this will be another failed attempt to bring in foreign investment, the government has no shame or spine. Am hopeful for the people of Zimbabwe - all governments are not permanent.
Well there were still white people that did purchase the land. However it was not right the White government to allow such a large proportion of land to be sold to Whites.
However Mugabe embarked on socialist programs that did ruin the economy of the country.
Upon independence in 1980, President Robert Mugabe openly stated his determination to make Zimbabwe a one party nation and his Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) party “a truly Marxist Leninist party to ensure the charting of an irreversible social course and create a socialist ideology”. Indeed, in December 1982 all 57 ministers and deputy ministers in Mugabe’s cabinet arrived at the Harare airport to greet visiting Ethiopian leader Mengistu Haile Mariam—black Africa’s arch-apostle of Marxism-Leninism. Inheriting an economy that was hobbled by racial inequalities under the former white-minority regime, there was a strong need for statism, to correct injustices committed by white colonialists.
The country was the breadbasket of the region. But state controls, state regulations and forcible seizures of white commercial farmlands without compensation destroyed agriculture and turned the country into a net food importer.
Like a large marjority of African countries that became free from White rule, the attidute of the new independent leaders were as follows:” Capitalism was rejected as a Western colonial ideology in one monumental syllogistic error. Colonialism was evil and since the colonialists were capitalists, it too was evil. Socialism, the antithesis of capitalism, was adopted by nearly every African leader and was advocated as the only road to Africa’s prosperity.
They threw out the baby out with the bath water, and not just saw White colonalism as evil and should be eradicated, but other traces of believed that other traces of White Legacy must go such as such as capitalism.
Not to say that the "crony socialist" economies developed by many Africans nations was a success but you must admit that the colonial capitalist system wasnt working out for Africans, so some alternative had to be found.
Not to say that the "crony socialist" economies developed by many Africans nations was a success but you must admit that the colonial capitalist system wasnt working out for Africans, so some alternative had to be found.
Well Rwanda was a war torn and among the poorest countries, but today is among the best performing African countries. It is among the least corrupted African countries.
When Paul Kagame became Rwanda's president in 2000, he inherited a country that had been torn apart by genocide. To rebuild it, he had to rely on mostly uneducated guerrilla fighters and a handful of ill-trained cadres. Even the most optimistic of analysts doubted his chances.
But 19 years later, the country is stable, prosperous, unified and, in large part, reconciled. Social services, such as education, healthcare, housing and livestock are provided to the needy, with no distinction of ethnicity or region of origin - two forms of discrimination that characterised the governments leading up to the genocide against the Tutsi, which Kagame, as leader of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), brought to an end. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...095141166.html
Rwanda can be a great model. Same with Botswana which is ranked the least corrupt African country and the best economic performing country in Southern Africa. It also has a low level of Corona virus with 800 cases, yet in neighbouring South Africa has half a million corona cases.
Well Rwanda was a war torn and among the poorest countries, but today is among the best performing African countries. It is among the least corrupted African countries.
When Paul Kagame became Rwanda's president in 2000, he inherited a country that had been torn apart by genocide. To rebuild it, he had to rely on mostly uneducated guerrilla fighters and a handful of ill-trained cadres. Even the most optimistic of analysts doubted his chances.
But 19 years later, the country is stable, prosperous, unified and, in large part, reconciled. Social services, such as education, healthcare, housing and livestock are provided to the needy, with no distinction of ethnicity or region of origin - two forms of discrimination that characterised the governments leading up to the genocide against the Tutsi, which Kagame, as leader of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), brought to an end. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...095141166.html
Rwanda can be a great model. Same with Botswana which is ranked the least corrupt African country and the best economic performing country in Southern Africa. It also has a low level of Corona virus with 800 cases, yet in neighbouring South Africa has half a million corona cases.
Prosperous Rwanda is not. While Rwanda has made lots of progress it isnt idyllic and I am not sure a role model. I think that one can achieve economic and social progress without collapsing into a brutal dictatorship, or stifling freedoms. Kagame has been known to kill his opponents. In addition there is evidence that much of the tech sector, for what Rwanda is often credited for, brings few benefits to the rural populations. What happens when Kagame goes?
Botswana is a better example though it has some of the worst income inequality in Africa. What distinguished it was good governance from the beginning. In fact Seretse Khama, their first head of state, came out of traditional leadership, and that country has avoided the coups, interethnic conflicts, or military interventions that have damaged other African nations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
