Zimbabwe Coup

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/zimbabwes-mugabe-passes-deadline-to-resign-now-impeachment/ar-BBFjKIC?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

What's sad is that Zimbabwe was a very prosperous nation in its early years as an independent nation, and that Mugabe wasn't always loco.

I think Africans taking their land back is a just action. Mugabe was corrupt and just gave it to his supporters hence why it failed.

There's no coup. The militia that took over state television news said so.

And the Mugabe dictatorship becomes just another page in history.

Gaining independence and promoting racist ethnic nationalism are two different things; unfortunately Zimbabwe committed the latter.

Taking back stolen land is not ethnic nationalism, here in the UK 1000 years ago our land was stolen and these families still mostly own that land to the point that we have the second most unequal distribution of land in the world only better that Brazil.

That depends on how you define "stolen". Did the average Zimbabwean have a direct claim to the land? And even if they did have a legitimate claim, the race-based attitude after Zimbabwean independence just created another apartheid.

The colonists used violence to take land so I would define that as stolen. If the land wasn't private then it was public and they stole it from the nation.

Take land from who? Some tribe who likely used violence to gain it themselves? If so, then isn't that basically saying that colonialism is ok unless it's from a boat?

As for the 'UK 1000 years' thing, I'd think that baby-boomers and foreign investors are a bigger issue to housing prices than the Normans.

The aristocracy still own 1/3 of England and wales and half and Scotland. I think using violence to gain wealth is always wrong but when you allow very few people to own so much stolen wealth it completely distorts a society.

You're saying that all or most of the upper class have been in the UK for 1000 years?

Or a cadet branches of families that have yes. The richest British Citizen is the Duke of Westminster who's ancestor sent 60 warships to England in 1066.

Within those 1000 years the average white British person has roughly the same amount of Norman DNA to Saxon DNA. How is it relevant to land theft?

Plus, why should the descendants of Norman invaders pay for the crimes of their ancestors?

Its not about race or anyone paying for the crimes of their ancestors its just not rewarding them for it. Its about Justice, its about how allowing so much unearned wealth in the hands of a few how that distorts a country both economically and socially. Inequality is a negative thing, however in the capitalist system people create wealth and that benefits society on the whole and the positives of this outweigh the negatives of inequality. Aristocrats gained land through theft and oppression so we get the worst of both worlds with them.

White farmer's ownership of land (whether Kenya, South Africa or Zimbabwe) was originally ratified under a colonial administration which (for obvious reasons) was correctly ousted in each of the above examples as an occupying colonial force. Technically in legal terms an occupying colonial entity (i.e. the UK) was not democratically recognized by the traditional land owners so Mugabe or other leaders in South Africa or Kenya are technically entitled to kick white farmers off their land.

African leaders have infact been rather generous (particularly Mandela) in letting white colonial settlers keep their land. However it's only a matter of time as local Africans are already wondering why they live in third world conditions while their white neighbors remain quite wealthy. Whether rightly or wrongly land appropriation is going to be a feature of the African landscape long after Zuma and Mugabe are gone.