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.
Are there any actual Zimbabweans in this forum or is this thread being discussed mostly by foreigners, perhaps most don't have any connection to Zimbabwe?
An Associates degree in African Studies doesn't make someone an expert. This is racist and ethnocentric to call white born Zimbabweans "foreigners". Since the land reform the number one crop export from Zimbabwe has been cotton. I don't know how that contributed to easing food shortages there but okay...
It was purely an economic handout of other people's capital to buy votes. The sanctions came later when the same guy ran out of people to plunder for votes and resorted to violence to keep his hold on power. This is like blaming the police for a criminal having an unproductive life. The failure of this and nearby nations ability to fairly protect capital is a cause of their poverty.
Forgot to also mention that when an African child is born in the UK they aren't automatically considered British citizen but African. In the USA there are distinctions between groups (African Americans, Chinese American, Indian American etc,) why aren't these groups just called Americans? Is this racist or ethnocentric?
An Associates degree in African Studies doesn't make someone an expert. This is racist and ethnocentric to call white born Zimbabweans "foreigners". Since the land reform the number one crop export from Zimbabwe has been cotton. I don't know how that contributed to easing food shortages there but okay...
It was purely an economic handout of other people's capital to buy votes. The sanctions came later when the same guy ran out of people to plunder for votes and resorted to violence to keep his hold on power. This is like blaming the police for a criminal having an unproductive life. The failure of this and nearby nations ability to fairly protect capital is a cause of their poverty.
Yes, it is. Some will try to defend it, but that's exactly what it is. If you were born in Zimbabwe, you are not a foreigner. If you are a citizen of Zimbabwe (regardless of race), you are not a foreigner.
Yes, it is. Some will try to defend it, but that's exactly what it is. If you were born in Zimbabwe, you are not a foreigner. If you are a citizen of Zimbabwe (regardless of race), you are not a foreigner.
No they are considered foreigners because most of the settlers never denounced their citizenship to Britain. In addition if a child is born in Zimbabwe but the father of the child is not a Zimbabwean citizen, that child is not considered to be Zimbabwean. This has to do with their law not a ethnic perspective, These laws throughout Africa are pretty similar. African nations do not operate like the USA. European nations have similar rules.
Yes, it is. Some will try to defend it, but that's exactly what it is. If you were born in Zimbabwe, you are not a foreigner. If you are a citizen of Zimbabwe (regardless of race), you are not a foreigner.
Honestly, my impression of white Zimbabweans, and white South Africans as well, is that they strike me more as "economic citizens/expatriate workers", ie here while the money and living is good, then gone as soon as things go south.
I have a perspective that is related to this topic in a way. Allow me to explain.
In South Africa and Zimbabwe, there is a sport called cricket that is very popular with the white citizens. The game is also played heavily in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. For years, South Africans represented South Africa in the sport. Starting in the 90s, South African cricket players began to exploit loopholes in the immigration laws that allow them to go and represent England in cricket, provided they first disavow all cricket links to South Africa. Hundreds of them are doing exactly that.
Arguably the most famous one to do this is a guy called Kevin Pietersen. His mother is English and his father is Afrikaaner. He proceeded to give interviews in which he claimed that despite living and playing in South Africa till age 20, he actually had always loved England and not South Africa. He got tattoos of the English 3 Lions as well. Just to let everyone know that he was essentially an Englishman who had been stuck in South Africa all this time. Again, there are tons of them in England doing the same thing in different fields.
This was NOT the case in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s. Ironically, the 70s and 80s in particular would have been forgivable as South Africa was barred from international sport due to aparthied. Yet I remember only five guys in 4 decades who moved to play for England or Australia during that time. Most white South Africans were perfectly happy to stay in their "home" country because in spite of all the bad press from apartheid, financially and politically the going was great for them, since they controlled everything.
Fast forward to today, they dont control anything so now they are jumping ship. No, I wouldnt want people like that as citizens. Fair weather people. So no, I dont consider them true Africans.
Well no, it's not just that they "don't control anything" but that they've been specifically targeted for displacement by official government policy (Zimbabwe) or unofficial government blessing (South Africa). And many of the whites who left Zimbabwe stayed in Africa -- quite a few to South Africa and have now found they've fled right into what they sought to escape.
It also doesn't help South Africa's case the security situation has so deteriorated that anyone of halfway decent means needs to live in a fortified development and those who can afford it are advised to have a 24/7 security detail. So yeah... suddenly Australia starts to look pretty appealing.
And why aren't whites fleeing Namibia? Same situation -- whites were in charge of everything once upon a time, now they're not. Perhaps it's because Namibia hasn't descended into a cycle of racial recriminations like Zimbabwe did and now South Africa has, and land reforms are being carried out methodically by attrition rather than by gunpoint. The latter method has proven too tempting in other nations and has led to far greater economic and social destabilization than it was purported to "fix."
Well no, it's not just that they "don't control anything" but that they've been specifically targeted for displacement by official government policy (Zimbabwe) or unofficial government blessing (South Africa). And many of the whites who left Zimbabwe stayed in Africa -- quite a few to South Africa and have now found they've fled right into what they sought to escape.
It also doesn't help South Africa's case the security situation has so deteriorated that anyone of halfway decent means needs to live in a fortified development and those who can afford it are advised to have a 24/7 security detail. So yeah... suddenly Australia starts to look pretty appealing.
And why aren't whites fleeing Namibia? Same situation -- whites were in charge of everything once upon a time, now they're not. Perhaps it's because Namibia hasn't descended into a cycle of racial recriminations like Zimbabwe did and now South Africa has, and land reforms are being carried out methodically by attrition rather than by gunpoint. The latter method has proven too tempting in other nations and has led to far greater economic and social destabilization than it was purported to "fix."
Attrition? as in hope that over time, these people will grow old and die off or eventually sell? That is a process that would take several decades if not centuries. There is no way you could expect the majority who had been given scraps for hundreds of years to happily sit back and wait another century for this process to happen. You complain about land being taken "at gunpoint"...well that's just karma. The land was taken by gunpoint (you can go back and read the history books of blacks and coloreds being forced to move to bantustans and other crapholes so that whites could get the best land for themselves) so the cycle goes round and round back to where it started.
You bring up Namibia, but I wouldnt get too excited about it. Taken from Wikipedia here are some interesting facts about that country:
Namibia has one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world
About 4,000, mostly white, commercial farmers own almost half of Namibia's arable land, meanwhile, nearly half of the population (mostly black) survive on subsistence agriculture on the rest of the viable land. In other words, they barely scrape by.
The current income share held by the highest 10% is approximately 51.8%
Two different studies determined the unemployment rate to be 36.7% (2004) and 51.2% (2008), respectively
In other words, Namibia is a ticking time bomb. It just has a longer fuse than Zimbabwe and South Africa do. Simply put, when 95% of the population is given scraps so that 5% can live like kings, eventually things are going to collapse. And that is not even an African thing. The French had the same issue and ended up cutting off the heads of their King and Queen back during the French Revolution. Same with the Russians in 1918.
The problem is that the African leadership has not had the foresight to ensure that the resources taken from the Whites are then managed professionally to ensure that the gains are maintained, but this time shared by ALL the people, not just the privileged white race. By ensuring that economic growth was shared by the majority, this would have substantially reduced the crime problems we see today. People with decent jobs that allow them to feed themselves and their families are not going to jeopardize that by resorting to murder. Alas, they got useless people like Zuma and the rest.
Last edited by biafra4life; 08-10-2020 at 03:44 PM..
No they are considered foreigners because most of the settlers never denounced their citizenship to Britain. In addition if a child is born in Zimbabwe but the father of the child is not a Zimbabwean citizen, that child is not considered to be Zimbabwean. This has to do with their law not a ethnic perspective, These laws throughout Africa are pretty similar. African nations do not operate like the USA. European nations have similar rules.
That applies to birthright citizenship. Zimbabwe allows for citizenship other ways and there are white citizens of Zimbabwe. Thus, I reiterate what I stated. The only countries in Africa I am tracking that ties race--in part--to citizenship are Liberia and Sierra Leone. And Zimbabwe specifically allows for citizenship by registration.
And the link you provide does not support your position that most of the settlers (and for the purpose of this conversation, we are talking about the less than 30,000 whites who remain in Zimbabwe as the hundreds of thousands who left aren't physically present to be considered "foreigners" or locals). It merely spells out the requirements of citizenship.
It is bold to claim without evidence that most of the whites in Zimbabwe didn't renounce their British citizenship. Of course, even if they did renounce their British citizenship for the purpose of gaining Zimbabwean citizenship, that doesn't actually mean that the UK considers them to have renounced their citizenship.
Edit: per the Zimbabwean citizenship law, there is also a loophole that allows for dual citizenship (specifically for those who applied for citizenship by registration in 1985 and did not renounce their secondary citizenship):
Quote:
Provided that a person who, at any time between the 1st January, 1985, and the 31st December, 1985-
(a) became a citizen of Zimbabwe by registration, and
(b) was enrolled as a voter on any roll in terms of the Electoral Act, 1979 (No. 14 of 1979);
shall be deemed not to have lost his citizenship of Zimbabwe solely on account of his not having renounced his foreign citizenship in terms of this subsection.
Fundamentally, though, unless Zimbabwe actually strips you of citizenship for failing to abide by citizenship laws, you are still a Zimbabwean citizen. Conversely, I am a citizen by birth of Ghana, though I have never stepped foot in Ghana and I am not on Ghana's citizenship roles. In both cases, the nation state has to take affirmative action to effectuate the awarding or loss of citizenship.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 08-10-2020 at 05:23 PM..
Honestly, my impression of white Zimbabweans, and white South Africans as well, is that they strike me more as "economic citizens/expatriate workers", ie here while the money and living is good, then gone as soon as things go south.
I have a perspective that is related to this topic in a way. Allow me to explain.
In South Africa and Zimbabwe, there is a sport called cricket that is very popular with the white citizens. The game is also played heavily in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. For years, South Africans represented South Africa in the sport. Starting in the 90s, South African cricket players began to exploit loopholes in the immigration laws that allow them to go and represent England in cricket, provided they first disavow all cricket links to South Africa. Hundreds of them are doing exactly that.
Arguably the most famous one to do this is a guy called Kevin Pietersen. His mother is English and his father is Afrikaaner. He proceeded to give interviews in which he claimed that despite living and playing in South Africa till age 20, he actually had always loved England and not South Africa. He got tattoos of the English 3 Lions as well. Just to let everyone know that he was essentially an Englishman who had been stuck in South Africa all this time. Again, there are tons of them in England doing the same thing in different fields.
This was NOT the case in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s. Ironically, the 70s and 80s in particular would have been forgivable as South Africa was barred from international sport due to aparthied. Yet I remember only five guys in 4 decades who moved to play for England or Australia during that time. Most white South Africans were perfectly happy to stay in their "home" country because in spite of all the bad press from apartheid, financially and politically the going was great for them, since they controlled everything.
Fast forward to today, they dont control anything so now they are jumping ship. No, I wouldnt want people like that as citizens. Fair weather people. So no, I dont consider them true Africans.
That's interesting. I think that most who could afford to leave almost certainly did leave. But there are some left who can't seem to afford to leave. The same goes with some whites in South Africa, many of them who are dirt poor today.
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.
