https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7odlcABg10w

Rossikk:

Some whites still own land in Zimbabwe. What Mugabe did was redistribution, not complete repossession. The aim? To ensure that the Zimbabwean majority owned the land, and not the 5% white population who owned 85% of the land prior to the reform program - a program for which he is despised by the west.

I am quite sure that Mugabe's plan is not to prevent every white dude from owning land. I agree with the policy of redistributing lands to blacks but I am not in support of the way Mugabe went about it.

His tendency to be dictatorial made him shelve the 'willing buyer-willing seller' policy. Though the policy had its own setback but in the time the policy lasted about 44% of the targeted potential landowners got the land they so craved for.

I believe the policy would have achieved its aim if the Mugabe led Government had been a bit patient, even though a number of white landowners were vehemently against it.

striktlymi:

Not trying to avoid your question but show how inappropriate it is. The thing here is that those who are being forced to give up their lands are Zimbabweans.

Yes, I agree that the colonial masters made a wondrous mess of things before they left but this does not give Mugabe the right to do wrong in a bid to correct a previous wrongdoing.

My stance on this land ish is that the 'willing seller-willing buyer' policy would have been allowed to stand considering the fact that both parties to the deal are citizens.

This is not the lands of whites and you now it very well. We should then exclude the words buyer, buy,buying, seller, sell, selling when we talk about lands in Zimbabwe. How can you sell to blacks a land that you stole from blacks in the first place?, a land that didn't belong to you?, so Mugabe is just redistributing what belong to blacks, and what he is doing is legal.

T

Horus:

This is not the lands of whites and you now it very well. We should then exclude the words buyer, buy,buying, seller, sell, selling when we talk about lands in Zimbabwe. How can you sell to blacks a land that you stole from blacks in the first place?, a land that didn't belong to you?, so Mugabe is just redistributing what belong to blacks, and what he is doing is legal.

Just one question: Are the white landowners citizens of Zimbabwe?

striktlymi:

I am quite sure that Mugabe's plan is not to prevent every white dude from owning land. I agree with the policy of redistributing lands to blacks but I am not in support of the way Mugabe went about it.

His tendency to be dictatorial made him shelve the 'willing buyer-willing seller' policy. Though the policy had its own setback but in the time the policy lasted about 44% of the targeted potential landowners got the land they so craved for.

I believe the policy would have achieved its aim if the Mugabe led Government had been a bit patient, even though a number of white landowners were vehemently against it.

Britain was supposed to fund the 'willing buyer willing seller' program as part of the Lancaster House Agreement after the war, which they did until 1997 when the then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, through his overseas secretary Clare Short, unilaterally halted British funding of the program, on the absurd grounds that it was not the Blair administration that entered into the agreement with Zimbabwe. In the letter sent to the Zimbabwean govt, Clare Short added. ''I myself am Irish, and Ireland was also a colony''.


Shortly after receipt of the letter, the Mugabe administration ordered the immediate confiscation and redistribution of all Zimbabwean land.

The rest is history.

striktlymi:

Just one question: Are the white landowners citizens of Zimbabwe?

They are citizens but they are not landowners

Rossikk:

Britain was supposed to fund the willing buyer willing seller program as part of the Lancaster Hpouse Agreement after the war, which they did until 1997 when the ten British Prime Minister, through his overseas secretary Clare Short, unilaterally halted British funding for the program, on the absurd grounds that it was not the Blair administration that entered into the agreement with Zimbabawe. In fhe letter, Clare Short added. ''I am Irish, and Ireland was also a colony''.


Shortly after receipt of the letter, the Mugabe administration ordered the immediate redistribution of all Zimbabwean land.

The rest is history.

C'mon Ross...the main reason why Mugabe grew impatient was because of the refusal of a number of white landowners to sell. And in any case, if Britain decides to hands off the project, how then does that justify Mugabe's maltreatment of his citizens?

Horus:

They are citizens but they are not landowners

Okay, cool!

Another question: If the same scenario played out in the united states and blacks were made to go through what this white dudes are going through, what would have been your honest reaction?

striktlymi:

C'mon Ross...the main reason why Mugabe grew impatient was because of the refusal of a number of white landowners to sell.

Combined with Britain's refusal to fund the program as agreed. Meaning a conspiracy by the whites to sabotage the redistribution program.

And in any case, if Britain decides to hands off the project, how then does that justify Mugabe's maltreatment of his citizens?

What maltreatment? There were compulsory land seizures promulgated into law by the elected govt of Zimbabwe. Those who resisted the law were hurt. Those who co-operated were not.

Rossikk:

Combined with Britain's refusal to fund the program as agreed. Meaning a conspiracy by the whites to sabotage the redistribution program.

Nah...I do not see any conspiracy there because if there was, no land would have been redistributed.

Rossikk:
What maltreatment? There were compulsory land seizures promulgated into law. Those who resisted were hurt. Those who co-operated were not.

In a nutshell: they modified the constitution to suit the whims and caprices of the majority at the expense of the minority...that is not only unjust but also the very height of maltreatment.

I bet my last dime that if the mainstay of the Zimbabwean economy shifts to the production of Oil and Gas, this land dispute thingy would be a thing of the past.

striktlymi:

Okay, cool!

Another question: If the same scenario played out in the united states and blacks were made to go through what this white dudes are going through, what would have been your honest reaction?

Blacks are not living on stolen lands in the united states. But in the same USA if a black steal a land from a white and try to sell it to that same white he will go to jail because in the USA it is a fraud.

I'm sure many of us on this thread haven't met or interacted with the real Zimbabweans. As I'm typing this, about 4 million Zimbabweans reside in South Africa alone. That number represents over 25% of its total population. It got so bad that the South African government had to initiate a regularisation programme under the DHA sometime in 2010/2011 for illegal Zimbabwean nationals in SA. If 'Fuhrer' Robert Mugabe was that successful a leader, I'm sure Zimbabweans won't be scampering to South Africa in large numbers.

I have met and lived with several Zimbabweans, both Shonas and Ndebeles, and all they have to say is to pray for old Bob's death. Bob runs a police state similar to General Abacha's Nigeria between 1994-1998. The best of Zimbabwean's intellects have fled the country in fear over the years. To me, Zimbabweans are a conquered people under Bob and will remain so until His death. Someone mentioned that the constitution allows him to run for elections several times. I dare challenge the person to deny the fact that Zimbabwe's constitution has been reviewed several times to accommodate Mugabe's power hunger and lust!

Horus:

Blacks are not living on stolen lands in the united states. But in the same USA if a black steal a land from a white and try to sell it to that same white he will go to jail because in the USA it is a fraud.

Now you are trying to avoid my question...

The fact here is that, blacks own lands in the US just like their white counterparts. A move by the Government to forcibly take these lands from them would be seen as a gross misuse of political power and I am quite sure that the black world would condemn the act in the strongest term possible.

The white landowners of Zimbabwe acquired their land 'legitimately', though under colonial rule and in circumstances one would tag: unfair. They became citizens of Zimbabwe, developed these lands, and made sure these lands are profitable which is also very beneficial to the Zimbabwean economy.

The black Zimbabweans, understandably unhappy with the situation, wants the government to redistribute these lands that the whites have tilled and toiled on. In a bid to perpetuate itself in power, the government decides to redistribute these lands using brute force and no one sees anything wrong with this?

striktlymi:

Now you are trying to avoid my question...

The fact here is that, blacks own lands in the US just like their white counterparts. A move by the Government to forcibly take these lands from them would be seen as a gross misuse of political power and I am quite sure that the black world would condemn the act in the strongest term possible.

The white landowners of Zimbabwe acquired their land 'legitimately', though under colonial rule and in circumstances one would tag: unfair. They became citizens of Zimbabwe, developed these lands, and made sure these lands are profitable which is also very beneficial to the Zimbabwean economy.

The black Zimbabweans, understandably unhappy with the situation, wants the government to redistribute these lands that the whites have tilled and toiled on. In a bid to perpetuate itself in power, the government decides to redistribute these lands using brute force and no one sees anything wrong with this?

No I am not trying to avoid your question. To make it simple, Whites never owned land in Zimbabwe, and it is the same problem in the USA where 100% of the land belong to the native American, not the whites and not the blacks. Land titles have been established illegaly from stolen land that belong to the Native Americans and it is the same problem in Zimbabwe where land titles have been established illegaly from stolen land that belong to the Native Blacks Zimbabweans.The white landowners of Zimbabwe did not acquired their land 'legitimately' so in fact there is no white landowners in Zimbabwe. Whites do not own land in Zimbabwe they live on stolen lands. When whites steal lands it is never classified as using brute force, is it not strange?

striktlymi:

Nah...I do not see any conspiracy there because if there was, no land would have been redistributed.

What do you mean? The blacks WON THE RHODESIAN WAR. They could EASILY have seized 100% of the land at the end of the war. It was their MAGNANIMITY that even made them sign the Lancaster Agreement so as to effect a seamless transfer of resources to the majority.

So the Brits could never have conspired with the whites in Zim to retain all the land. They had no power to do that. The most they could do was a 'pretend process' that would stall and eventually stop the redistribution, which was what Blair tried. Then they tried their media demonization of Mugabe, sanctions etc etc - none of which have worked for them.

In a nutshell: they modified the constitution to suit the whims and caprices of the majority at the expense of the minority...that is not only unjust but also the very height of maltreatment.

That's democracy. It's called majority rule. And it's grossly insensitive of you to sit there and call the empowerment of the people ''suiting their whims and caprices'' . Why don't you go and dash YOUR land in your village to white folks and be a servant on it? You're very good at prescribing servitude for others.

Horus:

No I am not trying to avoid your question. To make it simple, Whites never owned land in Zimbabwe, and it is the same problem in the USA where 100% of the land belong to the native American, not the whites and not the blacks. Land titles have been established illegaly from stolen land that belong to the Native Americans and it is the same problem in Zimbabwe where land titles have been established illegaly from stolen land that belong to the Native Blacks Zimbabweans.The white landowners of Zimbabwe did not acquired their land 'legitimately' so in fact there is no white landowners in Zimbabwe. Whites do not own land in Zimbabwe they live on stolen lands. When whites steal land it is never classified as using brute force, is it not strange?

I do not quite agree with the above. The land use decree of 1978 vested all land ownership to the Government. This does not mean that the Government stole any land from anyone.

As long as a people come together to promulgate a working document, known as the constitution, of which everyone in the society is subject to then whatever the constitution dictates is necessarily binding on all members of that society.

Rossikk:

What do you mean? The blacks WON THE RHODESIAN WAR. They could EASILY have seized 100% of the land at the end of the war. It was their MAGNANIMITY that even made them sign the Lancaster Agreement so as to effect a seamless transfer of resources to the majority.

So the Brits could never have conspired with the whites in Zim to retain all the land. They had no power to do that. The most they could do was a 'pretend process' that would stall and eventually stop the redistribution, which was what Blair tried. Then they tried their media demonization of Mugabe, sanctions etc etc - none of which have worked for them.




That's democracy. It's called majority rule. And it's grossly insensitive of you to sit there and call the empowerment of the people ''suiting their whims and caprices'' . Why don't you go and dash YOUR land in your village to white folks and be a servant on it? You're very good at prescribing servitude for others.

The land thingy is not democracy but discrimination.

striktlymi:

The land thingy is not democracy but discrimination.

Really? So you consider it appropriate for 5% of the population to own 85% of the land? Including the resources beneath the land, from diamonds to gold, copper and iron?

I think you need psychiatric help.

striktlymi:

I do not quite agree with the above. The land use decree of 1978 vested all land ownership to the Government. This does not mean that the Government stole any land from anyone.

As long as a people come together to promulgate a working document, known as the constitution, of which everyone in the society is subject to then whatever the constitution dictates is necessarily binding on all members of that society.

which country are you taling about?

Horus:



which country are you taling about?

That's Nigeria and I believe the analogy also applies to various countries.

Rossik, I got ur back!!!!!!!

striktlymi:

That's Nigeria and I believe the analogy also applies to various countries.

But let us stay in Zimbabwe. How did the first whites who invaded Zimbabwe by killing Africans "acquired" these Zimbabwean lands?

Horus:

But let us stay in Zimbabwe. How did the first whites who invaded Zimbabwe by killing Africans "acquired" this Zimbabwean lands?

The British invaded Zimbabwe and acquired their land just like they invaded a number of other Countries. The point here is that the invasion of British is quite immaterial to the discourse because the said lands does not belong to the Crown any more. It belonged to Zimbabweans, though whites.

Even the constitution of Zimbabwe recognized their rights to ownership of the said property until Mugabe decided otherwise. If this was a case between Zimbabwe and the British then I would have kept my cool but what we have here is a case where a minority group is being discriminated against on the basis of skin colour.

striktlymi:

The British invaded Zimbabwe and acquired their land just like they invaded a number of other Countries. The point here is that the invasion of British is quite immaterial to the discourse because the said lands does not belong to the Crown any more. It belonged to Zimbabweans, though whites.

Even the constitution of Zimbabwe recognized their rights to ownership of the said property until Mugabe decided otherwise. If this was a case between Zimbabwe and the British then I would have kept my cool but what we have here is a case where a minority group is being discriminated against on the basis of skin colour.

Ok this is where we disagree, what you see as a futility is for me the more important point. How did the British acquired their lands?
Now when using the words: their lands, I am talking about lands that were originally in the hands of Black Zimbabweans. How did the British acquired the Zimbabwean lands?. Who have been cheated, killed for their lands by the British invaders on the basis of skin colour?

Horus:

Ok this is where we disagree, what you see as a futility is for me the more important point. How did the British acquired their lands?
Now when using the words: their lands, I am talking about lands that were originally in the hands of Black Zimbabweans. How did the British acquired the Zimbabwean lands?. Who have been cheated, killed for their lands by the British invaders on the basis of skin colour?

Lol!!!

If we want to go by that principle of who first owned the land then it would mean that no one would own some lands in some Countries, especially when almost everyone is a settler on that land.

The principles guiding ownership of lands is enshrined in the Zimbabwean constitution and by that constitution the whites were the legal owners of the land.

I love it when Rossikk is onside

I am guessing striktlymi is not a black African

striktlymi:

Lol!!!

If we want to go by that principle of who first owned the land then it would mean that no one would own some lands in some Countries, especially when almost everyone is a settler on that land.

The principles guiding ownership of lands is enshrined in the Zimbabwean constitution and by that constitution the whites were the legal owners of the land.

If we want to go by that principle of who first owned the land then it would mean that no whites can own some lands because no whites can explain "How did the British acquired their lands in the first place?. Did the Britishs came from Europe to Zimbabwe with land titles?. Whites cannot own lands that were stolen in the first place. If you used brute force to get a land then legaly you do not own that land

Horus:

If we want to go by that principle of who first owned the land then it would mean that no whites can own some lands because no whites can explain "How did the British acquired their lands in the first place?. Did the Britishs came from Europe to Zimbabwe with land titles?. Whites cannot own lands that were stolen in the first place. If you used brute force to get a land then legaly you do not own that land

Still not correct! The white owners did not get the Lands by force. They got it legally from the Crown.

Whatever way the Crown got the Lands, like I mentioned before, is inconsequential now because at the time, extending one's territory was not against any known law.

The white land owners are not British Citizens. They are Zimbabweans and by right they can own lands like any other black Zimbabwean. If they are to give up any of their lands it must be done willingly.

What is being done to them currently bothers on racial discrimination in a Counry they call home. This is very unfair of Mugabe and other persons who instigate violence against them.

Mugabe had the right intentions but executed it wrongly.

Retreiving lands that have been under ownership of the Whites for decades is not something that should be done within short notice. It takes wisdom, not force.

He could have simply told the Whites to give up an agreed percentage of their lands to black farmers using the fact that the lands were acquired forcefully by them as a bargaining chip. He also should have made them sign to assist the Black farmers with Agricultural knowledge.

That way, He still retains his economy, empower his people and still be at peace with the World.

ba7man: Mugabe had the right intentions but executed it wrongly.

Retreiving lands that have been under ownership of the Whites for decades is not something that should be done within short notice. It takes wisdom, not force.

He could have simply told the Whites to give up an agreed percentage of their lands to black farmers using the fact that the lands were acquired forcefully by them as a bargaining chip. He also should have made them sign to assist the Black farmers with Agricultural knowledge.

That way, He still retains his economy, empower his people and still be at peace with the World.

On point!