This Is the Kind of Crap that Pisses Me Off

[nationalist]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sometimes I think that Africa would be better off back under colonial rule...

I agree with you 100% Dave. I said this last semester in one of my international relations classes and nearly gave everyone else in the rooms heart attacks. My professor told me that I probably shouldn't say that outside of the classroom. Oops

[Ramo]

In certain circumstances, including Zimbabwe, expropriating the expropiators is perfectly justifiable, and in fact would be very helpful, provided it's done competently.

However, Mugabe is a statist thug. Aside from all of the crushing of dissent, getting involved in constant wars, and so forth, his land reform policies are totally insane - for instance, making it a crime to farm land or feed animals, or his half-assed redistribution agenda.

Good point - and if you can find any living people who were robbed of their land, I'm all for restitution. But the fact is that it happened far enough ago that no one on either side is alive. The current blacks have lost nothing, and the current whites have taken nothing.

Why should property rights be protected to so limited a degree? Seems awfully unlibertarian.

If all property claims should expire after a person dies, was it wrong for the property of the Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns, Bourbons, Windsors, et al. to be expropriated?

[Dis]

where's Mr. Fun. I'm sure he's got an explanation how this is O.K.

I don't really give a sh!t. Whites took their land anyways. It's not really theirs. Whites should get the f*** out. But it still is messed up they are being forced out. But they should voluntarily give up their land. It's not rightfully theirs.

[Urban Ranger]

Snow,

The difference is the Palestianians did not forcefully take the land from the Israelis. They were carted off by the Assyrians and Romans.

[Gatekeeper]

Quick! Somebody ship some bio/chem/nuke weapons to Mugabe! That'll put him on the international radar screen!

**sad sigh**

Gatekeeper

[Sikander]

EIF correctly points out that at it's core this issue is not a racial issue. It is a power issue and to a much smaller extent an ethnic issue. Mugabe is doing what Milosevic did in Yugoslavia, increasing his own power by race-baiting. In his case he needn't fear the tiny group who he is disenfranchising either. They are far too few to put up a fight. Meanwhile he is able to loot their property in order to keep his own thugs satisfied for the moment.

In terms of suffering the true losers are the blacks who are not part of Mugabe's ruling party. This includes but is not limited to the farm workers who have suffered greatly during the violent run up to the land seizures. Everyone in Zimbabwe will suffer eventually, but in the short run you can bet that those who are in the opposition will be the first to starve, along with those unfortunates in neighboring countries who depend on Zimbabwe's historic surlplus of grains to survive.

Mugabe is a murderous scumbag with nothing positive to offer the world, and should be selected for termination at the earliest possible moment.

[*End Is Forever*]

Absolutely, Sikander, absolutely...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Private property that was taken by force from the original people. All that land is stolen property to begin with. None of the whites there have a legitimate claim to the land. Their ancestors didn't buy the land, they conquered the savages and then prevented them by law from owning any land. If you are in possession of stolen property, you don't have any rights to it. And unlike the American Indians, the local Africans did believe they owned the land.

Sure it was taken but 120 years ago. How far back do you want to go? BTW Che, I know your a big supporter of the Palestinians so what would you say if the Jews said they were only reclaiming stolen property by resettling in Isreal. Is there a double standard in your logic or do we both agree there should be a time limit on digging up old grievences?

Five to six generations of ownership is far to long to start whining about things being stolen.

[Urban Ranger]

I have answered your question in a prior post.

[MOBIUS]

Private property that was taken by force from the original people. All that land is stolen property to begin with. None of the whites there have a legitimate claim to the land. Their ancestors didn't buy the land, they conquered the savages and then prevented them by law from owning any land. If you are in possession of stolen property, you don't have any rights to it. And unlike the American Indians, the local Africans did believe they owned the land.

So I take it you'll be giving your home up to the local Indian Tribal representative then Che?

As EiF says (Sikander) too. This is all about an ageing old man desperately clinging onto power any way he can. He is 78, something has snapped in his mind - the guy is not acting rationally in any way as it is obvious that he would rather destroy his country than lose power...

When he first took over in '78 he was hailed as a great leader and for the most part IIRC things were good in Zimbabwe for the better part of two decades.

Mugabe has had 24 years to sort this out, he was offered assistance by the UK years ago to sort it out - but he hasn't until now when his democratic grip on power has been crumbling!

Anyone else noticed his Hitleresque pencil mustache?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Five to six generations of ownership is far to long to start whining about things being stolen.

But it hasn't been five or six generations. Africans have been fighting for their land for more than 100 years.

If someone steals your land and then holds the land with military force for 100 years, does that really give them any legal or moral right to claim the land?

Or take the case of natives in British Columbia. The whites came along and took their land by force. For almost 100 years, the natives have been trying to get compensation for their lost land. They were ignored for decades and the BC government continues to throw roadblocks into the negotiations. And then people start saying its too late to whine about compensation.

[Akka]

Sometimes I think that Africa would be better off back under colonial rule...

an argument could be made that the blacks were better - ie safer - under white rule because of a much lower crime rate.

How it comes that I'm so often feeling I need to puke after reading David Floyd ?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
As EiF says (Sikander) too. This is all about an ageing old man desperately clinging onto power any way he can. He is 78, something has snapped in his mind - the guy is not acting rationally in any way as it is obvious that he would rather destroy his country than lose power...

I think there are two separate issues. One is what is the motive behind this land redistribution and the second one is whether this is legitimate.

Maybe he's doing it to cling on power, but this has nothing to do with whether the move is legit.

[Dinner]

Being written in the mid 1980's the book is some what dated now, however, if someone would like to read a well written and interesting history of sub-sahara Africa the I suggest The Africans by David Lamb. Lamb was the African bureu chief for the Los Angles Times and he lived in more then a dozen African countries over a twenty year period so he has extensive first hand experience.
The book does a great job in explaining how Africa got to be the way it is and breaks things down in an easy to read and understandable mannor.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I have answered your question in a prior post.

The action I was refering to is how the Romans took the land from the Jews and the Arabs took the land from the Romans. So it is still stolen land but one must look back further.
I contend if it happened more then a hundred years ago then "returning" the land to its previous owners is just as fraudulent as the original comfiscation.