Page 1 of 6 [ 82 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,867
Location: Houston, Texas

20 Nov 2017, 9:09 am

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.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

20 Nov 2017, 9:30 am

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.



TheSpectrum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,116
Location: Hampshire

20 Nov 2017, 11:41 am

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


_________________
Yours sincerely, some dude.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,097
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Nov 2017, 8:22 pm

And the Mugabe dictatorship becomes just another page in history.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


TUAndrew
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 89
Location: Hampshire, UK Sometimes France

21 Nov 2017, 11:16 am

Daniel89 wrote:
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.


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



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

21 Nov 2017, 11:38 am

TUAndrew wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
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.


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.



TUAndrew
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 89
Location: Hampshire, UK Sometimes France

21 Nov 2017, 11:52 am

Daniel89 wrote:
TUAndrew wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
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.


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.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

21 Nov 2017, 12:11 pm

TUAndrew wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
TUAndrew wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
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.


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.



TUAndrew
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 89
Location: Hampshire, UK Sometimes France

21 Nov 2017, 12:20 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
TUAndrew wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
TUAndrew wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
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.


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.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

21 Nov 2017, 12:32 pm

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.



TUAndrew
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 89
Location: Hampshire, UK Sometimes France

21 Nov 2017, 12:37 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
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?



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

21 Nov 2017, 12:50 pm

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.



TUAndrew
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 89
Location: Hampshire, UK Sometimes France

21 Nov 2017, 1:37 pm

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?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,097
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Nov 2017, 2:40 pm

TUAndrew wrote:
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?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

21 Nov 2017, 3:01 pm

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.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,778

21 Nov 2017, 3:30 pm

TUAndrew wrote:
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.


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.