MUGABE Zimbabwes Chimurenga 1979 PART 2 OF 6

[matako07]

Nyadzonia was a Zim Refugee Camp Inside Mozambique..these scumbag Selous Scouts walked into the camp Dress as Revolutionaries (ZANLA) ...once everyone was gathered...the Black African Selous Scouts and White Rhodesians with black face camouflage opened fire with Anti-Aircraft guns and murdered over 1000 unarmed refugees...leaving ZANU leaflets on their corpses..hoping to Frame ZANLA...like they did in Matabeland.

[matako07]

we still don't know all the details of what scumbags like Lt.Col.Ron Reid Daly did in the hinterlands inside and outside Zimbabwe far beyond the view of news cameras and interested historians. He openly admitted to some incredible NAZI Style false flag terror operations using Black African Mercenaries disguised as ZANLA Forces, murdering, raping, poisoning with anthrax ...and getting away with it.

We know about Nyadzonia. Over 1000 Refugees/Non-Combatants were Murdered by Selous Scouts...SHAME.

[123brucieboyz]

What a great speech - its interesting to hear this from 2:06 - 2;29. and then you think about today how many Zim people have had to leave the country to put bread on table. And for the cause of the problem 3:55 - 4:10 -

"It takes a good man to gain power... but it takes a greater man to give up power"

[huskernation9]

Great job bob you are doin it! zimbabwe is soooo much better now:)...A true hero

[Kryptonian250]

The Original Mrs Mugabe. Wonder what she'd think about Grace Mugabe, the first shopper.

[jefmuj]

sally was hot.

[popmanist]

you are the true hero of all times. as before they will continue to denounce you but i know u stil have those shock absorbers my dear PRESIDENT

[crookedtongues]

Poor black aboriginal australians..look what they have been reduced to..

dont ever let them take africa... africa for africans forever..!!

[Kryptonian250]

"Thoroughly evil man" How right that journalist was about Mugabe.

[mushai]

Resign now if yu want them respected wen yu are gone. Pple are suffering coz of yu, and yo crue.Everything yu are steeling now yu will leave it behind.

[charlessmyth]

The root of the problem is that, Mugabe & his cohort were disbarred from the zero-sum-game of: what's mine is not yours, as pertained to Socialist propaganda, and the wealth established within Rhodesia over the previous 90 years of effort. Which is not to suggest that the Rhodesian administration could not have acted much more reasonably towards the non-white population. But their too similar zero-sum-game in consort with a decadence-cum-hubris, which had settled in, blinded them to reason.

[machipisazim]

Mugabe was Procapitalism 1980-97 trade freely yes but when Farmers ONLY trade in US$ and stop farming FOOD then what. 1998 economic problems caused by their choices in what to farm (tobacco, flowers and cotton) on the best soil the price of food rose and resulted to food riots in the cities that depended on the white farmers for food.

[charlessmyth]

Zimbabwe was the region's breadbasket, as well as a major tobacco producer. Since tobacco is a more valuable crop than cereals, such food could be imported from places unsuited to tobacco farming. When Mugabe handed the best farms to his chums and left the others to the 'boys in the bush' who are not farmers, and forced the white farmers who could farm, off the farms that they had turned out of bush into the best land, tobacco and cereal production collapsed, as did the economy.

[machipisazim]

not Rhodesia two years before independence Zimbabwe's black farmers produced 518,000 tons of maize/corn. 1981 only one year after white rule those same farmers produced 1,054,000 tons of maize, in 1985 they went better still and produced 1,780,000 tons of maize WHY? The price paid, in 1978 by the white government paid black farmers $53 per ton of maize. 1981 the Mugabe government paid $120 per ton and in 85, $180 per ton. This sharply revised policy is Zimbabwe's Farming Miracle not white magic

[charlessmyth]

Post-conflict, white-farmers employed more black-Zimbabewan labour to meet improved conditions. Thus your figures for increased production. As for a higher price to encourage higher production, this was simply a politically motivated subsidy from other lines of production, to placate the 'edgy guys with guns'. As market conditions deteriorated and capital was misdirected from maintaining the other lines of production the subsidy vanished. No miracles/magic, only socialist, fantasy economics.

[machipisazim]

It was Zambian & Mozambican labour because Zimbabweans were not happy working on land that was stolen from them, Zimbabweans who wanted to farm did so on the reserves. Pigs on the white farms lived better than the labour and no trade union could help them cause they were not Zimbabweans SA has the same problem today.

[charlessmyth]

It is a myth that Zimbabweans had land in the sense you are talking of, stolen from them. Industrialised farming land didn't exist until the tribal lands of the region became that of the colonial hegemony of Rhodesia, which Mugabe and his cohort expropriated for personal gain. Given the calamity of today's Zimbabwe, while Mugabe has a mansion in China to relocate to, instead of joining Charles Taylor in the Hague, it is bewildering to me, at least, how you can keep defending the indefensible.

[machipisazim]

I am not defending Mugabe I am defending Zimbabweans & that land you want us to forget exist the land is not Mugabe I can hate Mugabe but I will not hate my land. The myth ? you gave Africa GOD , I can see the land.

[charlessmyth]

You can see the quantity and quality of land you want to see. According to Nobel Prize winner, Doris lessing, a long time resident of Zimbabwe: In Northern Zimbabwe the land is returning to the bushland it used to be. Zimbabweans do not need land on which to labour as subsistence farmers, and from which they cannot reasonably survive. But they do need jobs with which to earn money, so that they can choose to purchase productive land and have their property rights secured by the government.

[machipisazim]

1: Only white farmers can give jobs?

2: Did Rhodesians buy that land and with what currency.

3: There is no dignity in being a dog no matter how full your belly is

4: Where were property rights in 1896

5: Property rights in Rhodesia secured the Oppression of the poor blacks

[charlessmyth]

1. Only because whites had that class of job to offer. 2. Rhodesians conquered the land and converted it into property, like was done in North America. Otherwise it would have fallen to whatever tribe took the initiative. 3. No. But you can choose to leave and not a be a dog someplace else, as many Africans do, via emigration. 4. There weren't any beyond the expedient agreements between tribes, which lasted as long as the chief. 5. Only temporarily.

[machipisazim]

Rhodesians conquered the land and converted it into property, so they did not pay for it after that Africans should protect them and respect property rights?

[charlessmyth]

In spite of short run inequities, in the long run, sound, inclusive government and institutions make it possible to own land or whatever else, without a revolution based on false premises, peddled by gangsters who often act as proxies. Whites paid by taking unknown risks and provided jobs which would never have existed otherwise, and turned unowned land into ownable property, which Mugabe stole and destroyed, or sold to the Chinese who sponsored/directed The Revolution.

[machipisazim]

You had 90 years to include blacks in government and make it possible for blacks to own land or whatever else, without a revolution but you with pride passed racist legislations in the colony. Not once during these 90 years did Britain use these powers although almost all legislation passed in that period was demonstrably racist. Now that Britain has no legal hold over Zimbabwe, it has shown a surprising enthusiasm to interfere in Zimbabwe. What has occasioned this change of heart .

[charlessmyth]

To the UK, the prevailing status quo is a huge drain on international aid in what was a self-sufficient region, and the level of refugeeship is too high to bear the cost of, and responsibility for. As for land, there is no scarcity of land in Zimbabwe, but that would require Zimbabweans taking the risks the whites had taken, but without security of property rights because the cost of security would mean too high a tax to make it worthwhile, unless one can defend one's property from all comers.

[charlessmyth]

Here's a thought: The white-man can be blamed for much wrongdoing, but I would contend that, in this post-independence era, if the concord and the will to act on it existed, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique, which did exist prior to 'The Scramble for Africa' could form a regional super-state to utilise pooled resources and improve their people's lives. The white-man would not be preventing it, or any other, peacefully agreed realignment. But, maybe it's too good to be the king.

[charlessmyth]

Here's another thought: It could be reasonably argued that the devastation to the industry and the economy of Zimbabwe has simply put Zimbabwe back to where it was, prior to Rhodesia ever happening. So where's the problem?

[machipisazim]

It looks like you have a problem with it. Let Zimbabweans work it out. You are showing more interest in Zimbabwean (not Africa) than European politics but why.

[charlessmyth]

Zimbabwe is a current issue which has echoes of the guff Israel has to take when defending itself against Hamas' terrorism vis-à-vis UN and international community opprobrium. In addition, politics is a global phenomenon, and the situation in Zimbabwe is a morally corrosive issue which impacts the quality of EU politics, which is bad enough, already.

[machipisazim]

Zimbabwe is the only phenomenon in Africa that impacts the quality of EU politics only because it can be a breadbasket, that can be exploited by the EU if whites in Zimbabwe continue to have best land, the means of production and can continue to exploiting the EDUCATED labour.

[charlessmyth]

The whites have the best land because they made it into and maintained it as the best land. Given that Zimbabwe is the size of, and has a population 1/7 of Germany, it is simply impossible for so few whites to dominate land use in Zimbabwe. As for the EU, there are vast tracts of land in Belarus and Ukraine to farm, as German farmers already do in Ukraine. As said already, the problem, like everywhere else, is not land, but a diversity of meaningfully waged work to pay farmers for produce.

[machipisazim]

People need incentives in an economy. If today I offered 1 oz of Gold ($888.10) for a ton of maize this will give them an incentive. In hyperinflation, money looses most of its value practically overnight but gold will not.

[charlessmyth]

True. But an economy requires as much division of labour/diversity as possible for trade to be meaningfully possible beyond what subsistence farming can ever provide. As per Prince Philip's observation of Prince Charles' advocacy of organic farming: You can't feed the world's 6.5-billion people from organic farming and have time for anything else. This why agricultural programmes which focus so much on subsistence farming will keep poor Africans poor, and dependent on western aid handouts.

[machipisazim]

I did not say subsistence yes aid is a problem but if policy is sharply revised to support TRADE not AID in Africa and US/EU this can help. Today the tech in agricultural is so good you do not need a lot of people to farm the rest can diversify

[charlessmyth]

You didn't mention subsistence farming, per se, but the preoccupation over land, can only result in such a level of agriculture with low-cost labour. And High-tech farming needs a lot of capital, and high-cost expertise to maintain. Diversification in production is a big issue in the EU and US where the traditional lines of produciton off-shored to China have not been replaced with higher wage-rate alternatives. Which has a knock-on effect for Zimbabwe's diversification development.

[machipisazim]

USA history in agriculture in the 1800s employed 70% today only 3% today globalization makes it hard to have a job for life like in nature change is the name of the game. If you do not learn new skills you die. The prices of your labour in capitalism is determined by supply & demand, if EU & US workers do not continue to learn new skills I am sorry.

[charlessmyth]

In the 1800s farming was entirely by hand labour, but for animals to pull ploughs, etc. Machines appeared by the 1930s, and French and German farming did not get machines until the 1950s. Globalization is problematic because the redistribution of certain industries to lower cost labour countries has not yet been adequately replaced. A typical Fortune 500 company now has a lifecycle of 4 years, so continuous re-skilling to remain employed, but not necessarily in the same job, is necessary.

[machipisazim]

Globalization was (1.0) about empire (colonial power) then (2.0) a typical Fortune 500 company today it is globalization 3.0 the super empowered individual and this is hard to swallow if you grow up thinking a company/country can hold on to power forever. The jobs of tomorrow will change so we cannot answer the? What I going do in 10 or even 2 years? time today but I know I need to tool up some how.

[gazzim1]

the white man didn't bring civilisation, tonafrica/zimbabwe, heard adout kush?? thats were civalisation started, the first pharoahs were black, we have the great zimbabwe now ruins thanks to the pinkman, there was another city around the chinhoyi area in the 1600 portugese and indians are known to have traded in these areas 500 nyears ago, if the white hadn't interfered with africa probably it would still be as beautifull as it was b4 the misarable destructive GREEDY crafty white devils came

[gazzim1]

what risks?? whites took the best land and chased my people to rocky arid arias, they took advantage of our gentle and trusting nature.

[charlessmyth]

Not according to Ian Smith, nor as is clearly evident by how well the 'best land' is now being looked after. prior to Rhodesia there was no 'best land', in anything like the quantity and quality you are alluding to.

[machipisazim]

So they took out the blacks from region 1 & 2 then the quantity and quality improved, ok but how pliz give a scientific response, to me the answer is you only had guns.

[charlessmyth]

No. The black-Africans were not taken out of the area, but were constrained in their ability to range at will across the area, in order to conduct inter-tribal pogroms. But it is true that guns and superior military thinking gave very few whites the ability to do so and improve everyone's lives.

[machipisazim]

the same way you are improving iraq

[charlessmyth]

After liberation from the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, Iraqis chose to kill, and intimidate each other, all by themselves. Coalition Forces would have been more than happy to withdraw by mid-2003, if it had been possible. Anyway, Iraq has nothing to do with Zimbabwe.

[machipisazim]

Iraq and Zimbabwe share (you) an enemy but Zimbabweans are lucky we are only missing shoes but Iraqis are missing their lags.

[charlessmyth]

Iraqis and Zimbabweans share a common enemy: themselves. You would be changing your tune if the enemy you refer to--and I'm assuming you are a refugee--simply exited the scene and refused to permit entry to immigrants/refugees, and withheld any Humanitarian aid.

[mjababa]

@charlessmyth i do not understand white ppl! y do they hate other races so much? and try to justify what they do!

[slimithy12]

when whites steal land its called colonialism, when the natives take it back (whatever their race) its called terrorism. if a man comes into your home with his family and friends, kills you, rape's your wife, takes your goods and enslaves your children, is it not your childrens duty to get rid of that man and everything hes brought with him (good or bad) even if it means burning down the house in the process? i say yes, some will say no, however if justice does exist then it would be on my side.

[charlessmyth]

If it ever happened as an aspect of policy, you would have a point. But it didn't. Prior to Rhodesia, land was only owned by those who could directly defend it. Farming was the most rudimentary because no tribe wuld take the risk to farm, for fear of the crops or livestock being stolen by another tribe/s. Your idea of life prior to Rhodesia is the mythology of Marxist propaganda. Life under Mugabe has been progress to the extent that life expectancy in Zimbabwe is the same as it was in 1810.

[slimithy12]

policy? it dont matter if it was policy or not cos the result was the same. white's went around the world and took things that didnt belong to them by force. that's called armed robbery. i didnt mention anything about what life was like before white's arrived in africa. however if the native's of that land were happier under white colonial rule why did they revolt from the very start? your view of colonialism is the mythology of racist colonial propaganda. theft is theft no matter how word it.

[charlessmyth]

There has to be a de-facto before there can be a de-jure, so your criticism can be applied to all circumstances everywhere. However, as Zimbabweans have discovered, the land that Mugabe stole back--mostly for himself, his Zanu-PF cohort and his Chinese backers--is of no value unless there is a long term incentive to maintain and invest in it, as the white farmers had and did. As for the white farmers, there is no shortage of land in the world, for them to farm. You lose.

[slimithy12]

its hard to invest in anything in zimbabwe when the ex-colonialist (who got their asses he kicked by mugabe and who still control the economic world outside africa) refuse to trade and subject it to economic and trade santions. as for me losing, what exactly did i lose? the only people who lose are zimbabwians of all races simply cos the racist colonialist refuse to allow non-white nations (not under their influence or control) to better themseleves if they can help it but you already know that.

[charlessmyth]

As you well know, this argument is utterly bogus. Zimbabweans cannot and will not invest in Zimbabwe because they have no right to property and the earnings from productive activity. Rhodesia, on the other hand, was the most successful country outside of South Africa, in sub-Saharan Africa. China is not a source of capital, since China already owns all that it wants out of Zimbabwe, and the mines and minerals are not going anywhere. And you can only kick the colonialists asses, the once.

[slimithy12]

i havent kicked anyones ass but i'd like to kick yours though. rhodesia was a racist apartheid state which was supported by all the worlds super powers. it had trade links that stretched the entire globe. it kept its native population down by force of arms and by religious and psychological indoctrination. the only people who benifited from the rhodesia system were the racist in control. if they were willing to shear the wealth and power then mugabe would never of existed in the first place.

[slimithy12]

the main reason rhodisia was so sucessful was more to do with its natural wealth and its support from powerful friends, then the "investments" of white farmers. it had a gold mind of wealth (literally) and only had to shear it among a tiny elite. that gave the whites the luxury to build it up. they had money and resources coming outta their asses. mugabe on the other hand was supported by no one. he had to start from stratch and had a population of ppl who had no idea how to run a modern country

[charlessmyth]

No it wasn't. That was international propaganda propagated by people who knew nothing about Rhodesia, but were prepared to destroy Rhodesia for political gain in the UK and US. The most tragic mistake that Rhodesia made was to not integrate with South Africa as suggested by Jan Smuts, so that Apartheid would have been much less likely to have become established.

[slimithy12]

the point is aparthied was established to keep blacks from bettering themselves and thats unjustifiable. south africa and rhodisia were basically the same state run by the same racist mindset. they were both states that took all they could from the country and shared as little as possible with the native population. that means knowledge as well as wealth. like i said if they had been more willing to share both then zimbabwe wouldnt be in the state it's in today. white rhodesians created mugabe.

[intrepeco]

@slimithy12 The Americans contributed financially in order to support the land redistribution program why would the country responsible for the problem behave the way they did?

[intrepeco]

@slimithy12 You are my hero 4 helping to educate racist minds who want nothing but destruction of black people and they forget that the person they blame now cooperated ((the QUEEN KNIGHTTED HIM!) after winning the liberation war for social and economic change that Zimbabweans fought for including LAND REDISTRIBUTION. This really tells me of the way of thinking of some people who refuse to acknowledge that Britain under Tony Blair wanted the current situation in Zimbabwe;

[intrepeco]

If MUgabe gave land to his cronies why would it stop the British to complete their part of the Lancaster House bargain so we could entirely blame Mugabe today?

[gazzim1]

i'm very patriotic mr charles and what you've just mentioned about my country being converted into property or whatever you were trying to insinuate,i i thoroughly disagree with you, i mean only an ignorant white person with a very shallow perspective can say that. From what you've been saying so far it seems as if you're saying colonialism is nthe best thing that could have happened to africa, i can;i even type properly now i wish i could see you then then i could put you straight

[charlessmyth]

Without colonialism there would be no Zimbabwe and/or any other sub-Saharn country to be patriotic to. Furthermore, without colonialism--which was extremely limited in its scope--Africa would have about a twentieth of the current population. Your thinking is consistent with that which has destroyed Zimbabwe.

[machipisazim]

You are not giving us any scientific data to support your population theory, Rhodesia was destroyed for good Zimbabwe is there today and Zimbabwe was there before colonialism but you want us to forget it.

[charlessmyth]

No it wasn't. Prior to 1890 the population of the area now called Zimbabwe was stable at around 300,000 due to inter-tribal conflicts, famine, droughts, accidents and disease. To the extent that Zimbabwe has regressed to life of 1890 it is actually much worse because of the huge increase in the population. You are simply repeating socialist propaganda to persist with Zanu-PF's failed ideology-cum-propaganda, to deflect criticism from their total failures.

[munya22]

you are so dumb and stupid. what has happened to zimbabwe has roots to the oppression of the blacks to begin with

[charlessmyth]

So your defense is that Black-Africans are only living down to the stereotype of the propaganda, as per what was alleged to have been done to them, and thus SNAFU. But at least its SNAFU by Black-Africans, which is SNAFU as it was pre-1890. When does it get better?

[intrepeco]

Dont be a bitter loser.. bye from Africa.. SNAFU or NOT.

[machipisazim]

And I don't want my people to be tricked by the media and you to think that the white men came to Africa to save the black man.

[charlessmyth]

The 'white-man' came to discover natural resources and thus create wealth. But, whilst sub-Saharan Africa is 4-5 times the size of western Europe, which would suggest great potential, the risks, scale, geography and climate of Africa persuaded the white-man to give it over to the Africans, as per the arbitrary borders of the 1888 Berlin, and Addis agreements. The white-man did not try to save Africans from slavery, which was long in vogue, since people were more valuable than land.

[machipisazim]

1: The Procapitalism party holds that the government must be separated from economics but UK/USA farms today live on subsidies.

2: Fantasy economics? Your government and Wall Street pushed for fiat currency.

[thegatesofhades]

3:56 you cannot fight these grievances by pleading for their recitification. you can only do so by getting to the root cause of the problem. Sir you have become the problem yourself.