No more white farmers: Govt vows (Zimbabwe)

[Steinlight]

So you oppose what the Mugabe regime is doing in taking the land of white farmers?

Yes, not sure how you thought...well yeah I do, too sensitive

You were the sensitive one. You posted a video on colonialism and attacked the op and others for caring about whites in Zimbabwe. If you oppose Mugabe and his actions, than why attack the op and others in the first place?

Lets see how I "attacked" (for the not sensitive, right) the OP

ude, Did you just post a story about Zim-*******-babwe so you can play the victim? Now you cant move to Zimbabwe and start your farm like you always dreamed

Oh you're right...That looks just like the words "I support Mugabe" Dont it?

Thanks for proving my point. If you oppose what Mugabe is doing than why post videos about colonialism or posts insisting the op shouldn't care about whites? You are justifying the actions of Mugabe. Just be honest and admit it.

Someone denied that Euopeans destroyed Africa. I posted a video showing thats a lie. What should I do? Let them lie about to make you feel better?

No I just want you to be honest. Based on that video and your following post, you think the white farmers deserve what Mugabe is doing to them. Just don't be a ***** and admit it

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Hey, perhaps if the africans all turned to a modern, 8th century islamic economic model for Growth ! Lol

 

[BullKurtz]

Even the angry individual before referenced the fact that the farm that was confiscated from their "friend" wasn't even used afterward.

I'm that "angry individual" from before you ******* airhead. And their farm was destroyed by Bob's militia and abandoned...you're a waste of time and your defeat here can't be reversed by hanging in until everybody who trashed you is gone.

 

[Osomir]

Even the angry individual before referenced the fact that the farm that was confiscated from their "friend" wasn't even used afterward.

I'm that "angry individual" from before you ******* airhead. And their farm was destroyed by Bob's militia and abandoned...you're a waste of time and your defeat here can't be reversed by hanging in until everybody who trashed you is gone.

Well let me know if you are ever able to support your assertions or ever have counter evidence against mine. Or are able to ever articulate a coherent platform in general. I'll be around. Cheers!


side note: you are aware that destroying a farm doesn't remove the land from existence right? That land was likely redistributed and then remained unused because said elites weren't interested it in outside of holding it as an asset. Your own story corroborates what I have been saying. I'm sorry if that is inconvenient for you.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The. Zimbabwe economic model.....

Its another african utopia !!!!!!!!

 

[Osomir]

The. Zimbabwe economic model.....

Its another african utopia !!!!!!!!

Does it bother you that you aren't making any sense / appear to be talking only to yourself (and off topic at that)?

 

[Steinlight]

So your issue isn't with the idea of Mugabe of redistributing land from whites, just the method.

This is correct.

You are all over the place. You claim to oppose Mugabe, but that is token opposition as you support the underlying premise. That is like being a communist and saying the USA wasn't really communist because of this or that.

Not at all. I've been following the internal and economic development of Zimbabwe for over ten years and have been a constant (and published) critic of Mugabe ever since I started covering the region. There is nothing contradictory in supporting the eventual phasing of land from white control to majority control while simultaneously disliking Mugabe and his administration. There are also FAR more reasons to dislike Mugabe than his land reform laws. Those are only one factor among many.

Blacks and Whites had a higher standard of living in Rhodesia than in Zimbabwe, and a higher standard than any of the independent nations in subsaharan africa.

Most countries in Africa today have a higher standard of living than blacks in Rhodesia did. Zimbabwe has been one of the few countries in Africa that is worse off economically and health speaking post independence than pre-independence, but that just adds to the criminal nature of the Mugabe regime; it doesn't in any way compliment or justify the brutality of the likes of Ian Smith and of colonialism.

You are being incredibly disingenuous. This isn't an argument over method. But the premise of redistributing white owned land. You oppose Mugabe's method, but agree with his premise and end goal. So you aren't in agreement with the OP, or there would be pages of justification of his acts. So to say you oppose Mugabe like the op or others do is dishonest. And you are being dishonest by denying your sympathies towards this policy when others here accuse you of having such sympathies. They are right, and you are acting a shifty manner by not owning your position fully until I finally called you out to admit you support land redistribution.

Also your statement on the living standard is untrue, and negates the destruction Mugabe wrought on Rhodesia/Zimbabwe under the guise of anti-colonialism

 

[Katzndogz]

It's pretty ironic. White folk on this board pissing and moaning about the injustices supposedly committed against whites in Africa.
Yet , they willfully lie and state that whites committed no genocides or slaughters to come into the control of the lands they stole or they state that those actions were justified because they elevated Africans to a higher standard of living.

Why is it that the actions that the Africans may be taking against whites is so atrocious but not when the whites were doing it to the Africans???

Because the actions taken against the whites in Africa are hurting the Africans most of all. Leading to the Africans begging whites to help them.

Let the Africans wallow in the world they wanted. No aid. No food. They can grow their own.

 

[Steinlight]

Its absolutely precious....

Seize productive farms from the minority white population, hand them over to cluelss blacks, and Zimbabwe becomes yet another starving , backward , third world republic.

Self starvation, such a progressive concept !!!!!!!!!

Yes they are so clueless they've lived there for thousands of years because they cannot feed themselves

Good they can feed themselves. Than they don't need aid from white countries. I am all for them having self determination, meaning it won't be on US and Europe's dime.

Oh great! I'm sure you'll be a hit at the UN when you give your speech

The problem is you want white money without white people. Than Mugabe blames whites when things go wrong for obvious reasons. He is a petty tyrant and demagogue.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's pretty ironic. White folk on this board pissing and moaning about the injustices supposedly committed against whites in Africa.
Yet , they willfully lie and state that whites committed no genocides or slaughters to come into the control of the lands they stole or they state that those actions were justified because they elevated Africans to a higher standard of living.

Why is it that the actions that the Africans may be taking against whites is so atrocious but not when the whites were doing it to the Africans???

Because the actions taken against the whites in Africa are hurting the Africans most of all. Leading to the Africans begging whites to help them.

Let the Africans wallow in the world they wanted. No aid. No food. They can grow their own.

With whites there Africa needed help...so theres no difference

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its absolutely precious....

Seize productive farms from the minority white population, hand them over to cluelss blacks, and Zimbabwe becomes yet another starving , backward , third world republic.

Self starvation, such a progressive concept !!!!!!!!!

Yes they are so clueless they've lived there for thousands of years because they cannot feed themselves

Good they can feed themselves. Than they don't need aid from white countries. I am all for them having self determination, meaning it won't be on US and Europe's dime.

Oh great! I'm sure you'll be a hit at the UN when you give your speech

The problem is you want white money without white people. Than Mugabe blames whites when things go wrong for obvious reasons. He is a petty tyrant and demagogue.

No such thing as white money, you're funny

 

[Uncensored2008]

Shit, I figured this would be the Obama administration....

 

[DriftingSand]

So you're one of those dumbasses who justifies a horrible wrong because horrible wrongs have occurred in the past.

So you're one of those shriveled cu-nts that tries to ignore history and it's influence in the present...

You're officially and ignoramus. Note to self: reconmark is a mental midget.

You're officially a shriveled old cu-nt...
Note to self: by nature, shriveled cu-nts are naturally stupid.

Now back to the thread at hand.

Note to self: reconmark is ALL FOR genocide of white folks. That makes him a bloodthirsty racist and likely a boy-luvin' twink.

If you didnt have a PMS argument full of emotions what would you have?

Pure common sense ... as usual. Are you pro-white-genocide too? Do you use Cain's murder of Abel to justify a current wrong?

 

[bendog]

So your issue isn't with the idea of Mugabe of redistributing land from whites, just the method.

This is correct.

You are all over the place. You claim to oppose Mugabe, but that is token opposition as you support the underlying premise. That is like being a communist and saying the USA wasn't really communist because of this or that.

Not at all. I've been following the internal and economic development of Zimbabwe for over ten years and have been a constant (and published) critic of Mugabe ever since I started covering the region. There is nothing contradictory in supporting the eventual phasing of land from white control to majority control while simultaneously disliking Mugabe and his administration. There are also FAR more reasons to dislike Mugabe than his land reform laws. Those are only one factor among many.

Blacks and Whites had a higher standard of living in Rhodesia than in Zimbabwe, and a higher standard than any of the independent nations in subsaharan africa.

Most countries in Africa today have a higher standard of living than blacks in Rhodesia did. Zimbabwe has been one of the few countries in Africa that is worse off economically and health speaking post independence than pre-independence, but that just adds to the criminal nature of the Mugabe regime; it doesn't in any way compliment or justify the brutality of the likes of Ian Smith and of colonialism.

You are being incredibly disingenuous. This isn't an argument over method. But the premise of redistributing white owned land. You oppose Mugabe's method, but agree with his premise and end goal. So you aren't in agreement with the OP, or there would be pages of justification of his acts. So to say you oppose Mugabe like the op or others do is dishonest. And you are being dishonest by denying your sympathies towards this policy when others here accuse you of having such sympathies. They are right, and you are acting a shifty manner by not owning your position fully until I finally called you out to admit you support land redistribution.

Also your statement on the living standard is untrue, and negates the destruction Mugabe wrought on Rhodesia/Zimbabwe under the guise of anti-colonialism

No he's not being disingenuous. It'd be a totally different scenario if Rhodesia has required sufficient wages for black laborers to enter the property owning class. Even had they done a Nicaragua type land redistribution by taking land from contras and giving it to the peasants who lived on it, it would have been different that what Mugabe did. But, most of the farmers were merely innocent citizens who existed in an apartheid system. And while Mugabe punished them for at the most the sins of their fathers, Mugabe didn't even act with an effort to benefit those who had been denied a human existence under the white supremacist system.

 

[Osomir]

You are being incredibly disingenuous. This isn't an argument over method. But the premise of redistributing white owned land. You oppose Mugabe's method, but agree with his premise and end goal.

There is nothing disingenuous about hating Mugabe and his administration while simultaneously supporting willing land redistribution. I am an economist and have dealt with such issues before in Africa. I tend to favor more of the WSWB (willing Seller Willing Buyer) model that Malawi used / is using to address its colonial area land disparities. In this situation white owners of land are given financial incentives to sell their land to the state who then redistributes it to poor farmers. It has been a pretty big success for Malawi thus far, and much more effective and equitable than either South Africa or Zimbabwe's attempts. In the former you have only limited closing of the gap between whites and blacks and in the later you have total economic collapse and inhumane thuggery. In Malawi you have neither.

So you aren't in agreement with the OP, or there would be pages of justification of his acts. So to say you oppose Mugabe like the op or others do is dishonest. And you are being dishonest by denying your sympathies towards this policy when others here accuse you of having such sympathies. They are right, and you are acting a shifty manner by not owning your position fully until I finally called you out to admit you support land redistribution.

I'm not sure why you need me to be in sympathy for Mugabe. I'm not. In fact, I am well versed in Zimbabwe specifically because I dislike his regime. I have seven years of journalistic experience and wrote on conflict and human rights issues; particularly those that I felt were under-reported. needless to say, Zimbabwe was a constant subject of scrutiny for its poor human rights issues, not just in its agricultural redistribution program, but also in its rigged elections, political violence and intimidation, private sector nationalization efforts, the cholera outbreaks and diaspora, and state sponsored conflict diamond mining.

 

[Steinlight]

Its absolutely precious....

Seize productive farms from the minority white population, hand them over to cluelss blacks, and Zimbabwe becomes yet another starving , backward , third world republic.

Self starvation, such a progressive concept !!!!!!!!!

Yes they are so clueless they've lived there for thousands of years because they cannot feed themselves

Good they can feed themselves. Than they don't need aid from white countries. I am all for them having self determination, meaning it won't be on US and Europe's dime.

Oh great! I'm sure you'll be a hit at the UN when you give your speech

The problem is you want white money without white people. Than Mugabe blames whites when things go wrong for obvious reasons. He is a petty tyrant and demagogue.

No such thing as white money, you're funny

Now you are just playing dumb. First you say white countries should give them money, now you say the white money doesn't exist.

 

[Steinlight]

So your issue isn't with the idea of Mugabe of redistributing land from whites, just the method.

This is correct.

You are all over the place. You claim to oppose Mugabe, but that is token opposition as you support the underlying premise. That is like being a communist and saying the USA wasn't really communist because of this or that.

Not at all. I've been following the internal and economic development of Zimbabwe for over ten years and have been a constant (and published) critic of Mugabe ever since I started covering the region. There is nothing contradictory in supporting the eventual phasing of land from white control to majority control while simultaneously disliking Mugabe and his administration. There are also FAR more reasons to dislike Mugabe than his land reform laws. Those are only one factor among many.

Blacks and Whites had a higher standard of living in Rhodesia than in Zimbabwe, and a higher standard than any of the independent nations in subsaharan africa.

Most countries in Africa today have a higher standard of living than blacks in Rhodesia did. Zimbabwe has been one of the few countries in Africa that is worse off economically and health speaking post independence than pre-independence, but that just adds to the criminal nature of the Mugabe regime; it doesn't in any way compliment or justify the brutality of the likes of Ian Smith and of colonialism.

You are being incredibly disingenuous. This isn't an argument over method. But the premise of redistributing white owned land. You oppose Mugabe's method, but agree with his premise and end goal. So you aren't in agreement with the OP, or there would be pages of justification of his acts. So to say you oppose Mugabe like the op or others do is dishonest. And you are being dishonest by denying your sympathies towards this policy when others here accuse you of having such sympathies. They are right, and you are acting a shifty manner by not owning your position fully until I finally called you out to admit you support land redistribution.

Also your statement on the living standard is untrue, and negates the destruction Mugabe wrought on Rhodesia/Zimbabwe under the guise of anti-colonialism

No he's not being disingenuous. It'd be a totally different scenario if Rhodesia has required sufficient wages for black laborers to enter the property owning class. Even had they done a Nicaragua type land redistribution by taking land from contras and giving it to the peasants who lived on it, it would have been different that what Mugabe did. But, most of the farmers were merely innocent citizens who existed in an apartheid system. And while Mugabe punished them for at the most the sins of their fathers, Mugabe didn't even act with an effort to benefit those who had been denied a human existence under the white supremacist system.

This is more of that dishonesty I was talking about earlier. You claim to oppose Mugabe, but support land redistribution. It is just in your mind he gave it to wrong blacks. You would have redistributed it to other blacks but the same premise of redistribution and end goal of no white land owners is the same.

You are going in loops more or less supporting the same policy. It is like a maoist disagreeing with a Stalinist on method. It is a shallow disagreement at best.

 

[Osomir]

You are going in loops more or less supporting the same policy. It is like a maoist disagreeing with a Stalinist on method. It is a shallow disagreement at nest.

Just because you aren't familiar enough with the issue to understand the differences doesn't mean that it is the same policy.

 

[Steinlight]

You are being incredibly disingenuous. This isn't an argument over method. But the premise of redistributing white owned land. You oppose Mugabe's method, but agree with his premise and end goal.

There is nothing disingenuous about hating Mugabe and his administration while simultaneously supporting willing land redistribution. I am an economist and have dealt with such issues before in Africa. I tend to favor more of the WSWB (willing Seller Willing Buyer) model that Malawi used / is using to address its colonial area land disparities. In this situation white owners of land are given financial incentives to sell their land to the state who then redistributes it to poor farmers. It has been a pretty big success for Malawi thus far, and much more effective and equitable than either South Africa or Zimbabwe's attempts. In the former you have only limited closing of the gap between whites and blacks and in the later you have total economic collapse and inhumane thuggery. In Malawi you have neither.

So you aren't in agreement with the OP, or there would be pages of justification of his acts. So to say you oppose Mugabe like the op or others do is dishonest. And you are being dishonest by denying your sympathies towards this policy when others here accuse you of having such sympathies. They are right, and you are acting a shifty manner by not owning your position fully until I finally called you out to admit you support land redistribution.

I'm not sure why you need me to be in sympathy for Mugabe. I'm not. In fact, I am well versed in Zimbabwe specifically because I dislike his regime. I have seven years of journalistic experience and wrote on conflict and human rights issues; particularly those that I felt were under-reported. needless to say, Zimbabwe was a constant subject of scrutiny for its poor human rights issues, not just in its agricultural redistribution program, but also in its rigged elections, political violence and intimidation, private sector nationalization efforts, the cholera outbreaks and diaspora, and state sponsored conflict diamond mining.

So if whites don't want to sell they shouldn't have to? That's good then. I disagree with you on the Malawi program. I don't think they should pay them to leave. That would be a mistake in my view. However in the future. If you disagree with a policy, don't come out and say it isn't necessarily bad or unjust when it clearly is in zimbabwe.

 

[Steinlight]

You are going in loops more or less supporting the same policy. It is like a maoist disagreeing with a Stalinist on method. It is a shallow disagreement at nest.

Just because you aren't familiar enough with the issue to understand the differences doesn't mean that it is the same policy.

It was you who posted earlier that the policy wasn't necessarily bad or unjust. If you don't mean that, don't post it.