By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY Australia
Friday, July 18, 2008
THE British ambassador to the UN, John Sawers, was so devastated by the Russia-China veto on the politically-motivated US-drafted sanctions resolution that he described this Western humiliation as having put the British foreign policy "in disarray".
His boss, David Miliband, the foreign secretary, bemoaned the development as "incomprehensible" and Sawers vaingloriously postured as a humanitarian by claiming: "The people of Zimbabwe need to be given hope that there is an end in sight to their suffering. The Security Council today has failed to offer them that hope."
What threw the British foreign policy into disarray is not the failure to give Zimbabweans hope over their suffering. Rather, Russia and China chose to think for themselves when the US is convinced that they alone should do the thinking for all mortals on the planet.
The US-led Western alliance is dismayed that the world order that calls on all other nations not to think for themselves has been violated — that in a manner BBC correspondent Andy Gallacher can only describe as a "big blow to the West".
The West expects all nations to kow-tow to their dictates and to feed on canned and prepared stuff. They are after a world system that ensures that humanity worships at the shrine of the strong-armed Emperor.
This is the shrine at which the world must converge in condemnation of all the dissidents that dare rebel against the mighty Americans and their surrogate allies Britain.
The names of such dissidents as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela, Fidel Castro of Cuba and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe are supposed to be used somewhat as English parents used Napoleon Bonaparte’s name in the first decades of the 19th century, to frighten and admonish children.
This is what happened to Emma Goldman in the 1890s — that Russian-born American advocate of women’s rights and anti-elitism. For angering the US ruling elite, Goldman was made to enjoy national notoriety and she was virtually turned into a national bugaboo the same way President Mugabe has been turned into a Western monster.
This is the cost of rebelling against the Emperor. It is a price every revolutionary that will stand against imperialism will have to pay. For President Mugabe the price was first paid during the liberation struggle when his preferred title in the West was "terrorist". He became Mr Mugabe after he preached reconciliation and he was even honoured with an English knighthood in 1994. This was four years after the expiry of the willing buyer-willing seller land policy, in the hope that President Mugabe would dare not touch the farms.
When he revived questions about land redistribution in the mid-90s he was "beginning to lose his marbles". He did not know what he was doing, just like Martin Luther King Jnr was losing the plot when he joined the striking sanitation workers in Memphis.
When the Government wrote to Tony Blair over compensation for land that was to be acquired from some of the white commercial farmers, he was dismissed as insane.
The 1999 momentum on the land question agitated the British so much they decided to directly start interfering in our internal affairs.
The 2000 farm occupation by landless peasants were labelled lawlessness. Countries like Kenya, South Africa and Zambia were cited as good examples to follow.
But the landless villagers continued occupation of white-held farms, triumphantly declaring they were no longer less equal than others.
This kind of a declaration has a price and the Zimbabwe has been ruthlessly sanctioned as a result.
These are the sanctions whose perpetuation the Russia-China power vetoed at the UN Security Council on July 11. For their pains, the Russians have been threatened with ejection from the G8 and China has been labelled the protector of totalitarian regimes.
Emma Goldman was certainly on the mark when she contrasted the puny violence of individuals with the large-scale violence of the American state and she almost prophetically put US state power in its very sad context.
Said Goldman: "We Americans claim to be peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens of other nationalities."
This was in 1916, but one would think she could see Iraq and Afghanistan today.
To the Empire, social justice over little countries like Zimbabwe strikes as dangerous nonsense.
As such, the "nonsense" has to be stopped by any means possible. This explains the obsession with regime change in Zimbabwe.
Revolution is not a trade, as some people may suppose. If it were, then nobody would follow a trade at which you may work with the industry of a slave and die with the reputation of a mendicant.
The motives of any revolutionary must be deeper than mere pride, stronger than mere interest and nobler than just ego.
In this Zimbabwean revolution, some of us have been relegated to professional outcasts blacklisted by the mainstream capitalist job market — all for a prize that could easily be no different from what happened to Emma Goldman, to Thomas Sankara, Samora Machel, Simon Bolivar and all other heroes that were painted in the blackest of colours for standing up to the Empire.
This writer will testify that partaking in the revolution is driven by a motive far deeper than any financial reward, deeper than any form of family attachment, deeper than any level of friendship and stronger than any form of personal interest.
This is the invincible patriotic drive founded in the proud history of our motherland — the ethos we call our nationhood and our national identity. It is a quest for independence and sovereignty — values far deeper than personal ambition and so fundamental to the foundation of a nation.
No amount of persecution, ridicule or slander can possibly kill this passion enshrined in the infallible motive that drives a revolution. It is a motive no amount of riches can ever conquer and this is why the revolutionary spirit will manifest in the East, in the West, in the South and in the North — in all corners of this planet regardless of where one resides.
This is why threatening Peter Mavhunga with the withdrawal of his salary cannot silence his voice.
The path of a revolutionary for social justice and for the defeat of imperialism is strewn with thorns.
The path of a revolutionary is often obstructed by envy, sometimes growing to hatred, vanity and jealousy, and all these fill his or her heart with sadness.
It requires an inflexible will and tremendous enthusiasm not to lose all the faith in the cause under such conditions.
Even Venezuela’s Simon Bolivar ended his last days in misery and called the revolution a "thankless" cause.
The representative of a revolutionising idea stands between two fires: on the one hand, the persecution by the existing powers which hold him responsible for all acts resulting from social and political conditions around him; and on the other, the lack of understanding on the part of his colleagues and would-be followers who often judge all his activity from the narrowest of a standpoint.
Thus it may happen that the representative of a revolution stands quite alone in the midst of a marauding multitude. After all, even the Jews gave Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the very same experience.
It is the cost of a revolution, sometimes paid by the shedding of blood.
The inevitable truth is that the mist that envelops the glory of a revolutionary walk will always dissipate, many times after the death of the revolutionary.
This will explain the mystery of the irony of honouring Nelson Mandela while young Nelson Mandelas doing exactly what Mandela did when he was their age in South Africa are being ridiculed and persecuted.
It explains the irony of honouring Martin Luther King while the Kings of today are still being crucified.
It explains the vanity of honouring Zimbabwe’s Mbuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi while the living Nehandas and Kaguvis are daily ridiculed and labelled the lowest level barbarians ever.
The most publicised picture to date is arguably that of Che Guevara and he is honoured as a revolutionary who trembled with indignation at any form of injustice.
But why are the living Guevaras crucified and persecuted at the same time their dead icon is being honoured in an outstanding manner?
Those in the revolutionary walk to empower the ordinary Zimbabwean must not tire and must draw courage from the fact that the prize that awaits every true revolutionary far outweighs the tribulations of today.
Zimbabwe we are one. It is time to unite and build our nation.
The Cubans say, "It is homeland or death", and together we will overcome.
l Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.com or info@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafa warova.com
Problem with activation
Hi there, I dont know if I am writing in a proper board but I have got a problem with activation, link i receive in email is not working... http://www.rwafawarova.com/?19e0b68b2db30b819b12c072b7a,
Yes Denis
Yes Denis. You are on the proper board. I do not know why you are having problems getting to that article because it is out top article right now and will be number two shortly.
Thanks. Hopefully you will be able to join us.
The cost of being a revolutionary
Thank you for putting it rightly when one decides to partake in a revolution.Many people think that a revolution is a dinner party that is why they end up being discouraged.The path is not smooth but one will suffer for the good of his or her people.Partaking will call one to know that the reward is that of standing for your people even in a tempest because as one gets deeper in a revolution,the spirit of being a revolutionary grows and one does not expect rewards other than seeing his or her people understanding why he or she decided to leave the comfort zone.Being a revolutionary means one becomes a different being because wherever he or she is there are eyes watching him and obstacles put on the path so that the revolution cannot be a success.Being a revolutionary means one leaves the comfort zone and even accept being labelled a lunatic because what is stored inside will not be taken by anyone.Being a revolutionary is a costly assignment whereby some half-backed cakes will backpaddle as soon as they feel the heat.The revolutionary is not prepared overnight but undergoes a preparation process being incubated under tough conditions that will make him or her strong for the task at hand.Everyone wants to enjoy family life,attending parties and visiting nice resorts but a revolutionary`s mind is at his or her people.Thank you for the masterpiece.Let me say those who are destined to stand as revolutionaries,the path is full of ups and downs,thorns,it is slippery and can be like a tempest.One needs to be strong and put on a strong jacket and forget the self in the place of what he or she aims to achieve for his people.
True
You are right and I will say a revolution drives one into a commitment that knows no defeat, a never die spirit.
You don't know what it means to be a revolutionary.
Zimbabweans died for self-governance. Zimbabweans died so that their brothers and sisters could decide their own future, and could control the apparatus of state. We should be proud of those people. We should respect the memory of those revolutionaries by making sure that Zimbabweans can STILL decide their own future. That they can STILL live without fear of their own government.
When I was growing up we used to support real South African revolutionaries, missing hands from bad home-made grenades, scars where they were beaten and tortured by the South African police. Those people, and the Zimbabweans like them? You wouldn't know this, because you live in Australia, and your're too young to have seen it, but THOSE people are revolutionaries.
Not Reason Wafawarova. Not you. Not Grace Mugabe, not Gideon Gono, not Pikirayi Deketeke, not George Charamba. Not anyone living in Australia, not anyone driving a Mercedes Benz.
Sellouts.
Revolutionaries
Revolutionaries never die and I live together with those whose blood and flesh was rested so that the spirit can continue. Yes, the Tongos, the Marleys, the Garveys, the Nehandas, the Nkurumahs, the Sankaras, the CHITEPOS AND MANY OTHERS. WE JUST DO NOT DIE!
"We"?
You're comparing yourself to Marley, Garvey, Nkrumah, to Chitepo?
YOU LIVE IN AUSTRALIA.
How DARE you? HOW DARE YOU.
We
I am not cpmparing myself to any of these. I ma just identifying with the revolution. Each of us is different but we are one in the fight for justice gainst the oppressorman.
We?
What oppression? Is Zimbabwe not in a state of Zanu PF induced internal oppression right now?
I fight
I fight global domination and imperial oppression and not the excesses of little governments.
unclear
Reason, this latest article is very stirring.
But please explain — is it supposed to be in support of Mugabe, or against him?
I assume it is against him: you are championing people who stand up to tyranny and fight for social justice, right? People like King, Gevara, and the current revolutionary opponents of Mugabe, right?
Note that the ambiguity of the argument here exposes a very deep problem.
You cast your opponents as 'imperialists', but they cast YOU as an imperialist. So we get nowhere. You shout "hurrah" for people who fight for justice, but SO DO YOUR OPPONENTS. So we get nowhere.
The fact is this is not really an argument at all. It just amounts to you saying this:
"There have been some very good people in the past, and Mugabe is just like them. There have been some very bad people in the past, and my opponents are just like them."
This is not an argument of any kind. It is just a blank, unargued assertion. I might as well say. 'They have been some dumb arguments in the past, and yours is just like them."
Those of us who oppose Mugabe do so because WE TOO believe in social justice.
Personally, the ONLY reason I oppose Mugabe is because I believe in the fight for social justice. I TOO "tremble with indignation" when I see tyranny and oppression.
If you want to persuade us you must use ACTUAL ARGHUMENTS, and you'll have to show why you believe at least some of the following:
(1) That sometimes the fight for social justice requires banning free speech and suppressing opposition media.
(2) That sometimes the fight for social justice requires using state-sponsored violence to frighten ordinary people into supporting you.
(3) That sometimes the fight for social justice is consistent with allowing single corrupt rulers and single corrupt political parties to remain permanently in power in spite of apparent abuses of power.
(4) That sometimes the fight for social justice is consistent with allowing the growth vast inequalities in wealth and an obscenely extravagant ruling elite.
If you directly address, and argue for, THESE claims, then we might believe your claims about fighting for social justice. Then you wouldn't look so utterly silly when you sanctimoniously compare yourself to Martin Luther King, Che Gevara, and Jesus.
I am NOT against revolution. I am against BRUTAL DICTATORS like Mugabe and CORRUPT CAPITALIST ELITES like Zanu, and IMPERIALISTS like her majesty Mai Mugabe.
WE ALL HATE IMPERIALISTS. BUT SOME OF US KNOW WHAT IMPERIALISTS REALLY ARE.
I see
I realise you want to be like me and attack me as a friend. You hate imperialists and you believe Grace Mugabe is the epitome of imperialism. How ludicrous is that?
I am no supporter of ZANU PF but I am a firm opponent of imperialists who perssecuted everyone of those people I cited. I hate imperialism with a passion and yo cannot extinguish the hatred by pointing at Mugabe. TOO weak an argument.
I am no equal to Jesus nor Guevara but I am certainly a disciple of both.
Arguments
Arguments for (1), (2), (3) or (4) please. Where are they?
Arguments
There are some assertions that do not deserve the honour of a response.
Scared?
And there are some assertions you simply cannot respond to.
One suggests that you know more than the other, the other suggests that you know less.
Prove it is the former, not the latter.
What a shame it is, being beaten into silence on your website.
Assertions
Well, well, well. We have a politican in the making. What a wonderful soundbite you provided Reason. No substance.
Assertions, like arguments, can be deconstructed. But you choose not to. One can only assume this is because you don't have the ability to do so.
It is akin to me saying you are a madman not because you are one, but because you are right and I can respond in no way other than to throw soundbites about your sanity in an attempt to undermine you.
Assertions
The assertions are not the valid points you raised in 1 to 4. They are based on the fact that you assume that the violence and rights abuse are okay with me and that they are in the context of a sadist approach just to make people suffer.
I choose to look at the underlying factors to this unacceptable instability and I refuse to be dragged into your regime change line of thought.
You are wasting your time
Neither Reason nor his lapdog Tapiswa have any answers or, indeed, any arguments for the assertions they make. To expect them to respond to anything direct is akin to waiting for skies to fall.
Do you?
"I am no supporter of ZANU PF"
Who are you trying to fool?
New Deal?
So what are the views of this forum of the proposed power sharing deal that will now be discussed? Is this tantamount to Zanu (PF) negotiating with the west? I do not see how the MDC will come out of any talks in a less powerful position. More importantly will anti-imperialists accept an outcome where the MDC has more power in Zimbabwe?
MDC
The MDC can be respected as a homegrown party if they give up their puppetry and this is the test they want to pass in this deal.
"puppetry" = racism
Reason. Again! To accuse Africans of being puppets is to commit yourself to deeply racist attitudes towards Africans.
You repeatedly refuse to produce any response to this point. That is because it is unanswerable.
STOP INSULTING AFRICANS. STOP ENDORSING ANCIENT RACIST STEREOTYPES. MOVE ON. THIS IS THE 2Ist NOT THE 19th CENTURY.
If MDC are puppets, so was Mugabe.
By Jane Madembo
ROBERT Mugabe and his cronies badly want the people of Zimbabwe to believe that the British and American governments are using a covert operation to re-colonize Zimbabwe while using the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) as a smokescreen.
Their main argument so far against Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC is that they are backed by the British and the Americans. They have been replaying this song over and over again.
Ever since the formation of the MDC, the Zimbabwean government has tried to discredit the party and its leader Tsvangirai as puppets of the British and American governments. By calling Tsvangirai a puppet of the western countries, Mugabe is comparing him to the late Bishop Abel Muzorewa who teamed up with Ian Smith to form the so called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia government. Mugabe and his supporters claim that the MDC is supported by white Rhodesian sympathisers, who want to seize the land and power back into their hands.
Mugabe, once a respected revolution leader has outstayed his welcome. The world events have moved on. While Smith is dead and Tony Blair, his nemesis, is no longer in power, Mugabe is still fighting the liberation struggle.
Pasi nemaBritish, pasi nemaDzakutsaku, pasi nevatengesi, (Down with the British, down with the supporters of Muzorewa, down with sellouts), he still rants with his trade mark clenched fist raised at rallies which ordinary Zimbabwean are forced to attend.
There are valid reasons why most countries have a two term maximum limit on the presidency. Politicians get too comfortable and start to believe that they are the master of the house and start treating people as their children who can be beaten and punished into submission. A war veteran whose name I will not reveal told me that he didn’t go to the war to put Mugabe in power, but to liberate Zimbabwe. He told me of his anguish as opportunists like Joseph Chinotimba and others take advantage of the current climate in Zimbabwe to enrich themselves. Such opportunists sense a weakness in the leadership of Mugabe. They jump onto the bandwagon to grab whatever they can.
Mugabe is not the leader that will usher Zimbabweans into a new modern Zimbabwe. Any Zimbabwean who criticizes Mugabe is called a traitor or a sellout. Any foreigner who does the same is accused of a secret wish to re-colonise Zimbabwe. We are in the 21st Century, for goodness’ sake!
For Mugabe, the western countries, especially Britain and the USA are the most evil. During the late 90s, even as he criticised the British government of Tony Blair, his new wife Grace Marufu was dressing like a Princess Diana look-alike, wearing stuffy suits and hats like a member of the British royal family. She flew over most
African countries to shop for her clothes in London.
While Mugabe and his supporters lament that the MDC traitors whom they accuse of being funded by the western countries, underneath that venom is a secret desire for attention. They do not seriously want to be divorced from the West. Their behavior is akin to a man who criticises prostitutes, but secretly patronizes them. As I write this, many of the ruling party’s children are scattered around the globe from Australia, America, Britain, France, Ireland and many other western nations. Some have changed names to avoid detection.
If most of the Zanu-PF bigwigs had not been restricted from visiting Britain and other western countries, we would have seen them cavorting in the capitals of the “imperialist” countries.
Since independence the Zimbabwean government has benefited from trillions of dollars in foreign aid. Soon after Zimbabwe achieved independence donor agencies from all over the world poured into the country. Most of the money went to the government as most of these agencies were required to work with government or parastatals. Nobody was complaining then.
Whether the MDC is supported by the West or not is beside the point. Where can an opposition party in a small country like Zimbabwe get funding to take on a ruthless government in power, unless one is a millionaire, (Sorry, not a Zimbabwean millionaire). “Zimbabwe is not the States, where ordinary people are rich with money to spare. Had Mugabe’s government been popular, respected people’s rights and been lawful, Tsvangirai would never have been where he is today. He would probably still be the head of the ZCTU. He didn’t choose to do this. He answered a call from the people.
While foreign governments might bankroll an opposition candidate, the decision rests on the people. They have to decide through the ballot. In the case of Robert Mugabe vs. Morgan Tsvangirai the people made their choice. Mugabe had used every opportunity to paint Tsvangirai as a puppet of the west. The people decided that they would rather live in Tsvangirai’s supposedly British and American funded Zimbabwe, than in Mugabe’s poor, corrupt, violent, miserable and lawless country.
With his brand new red bus, western-funded or not, Tsvangirai represented a new Zimbabwe that was enticing, seductive and hard to resist.
Poor African countries will always need aid from western nations. They need money and aid to deal with diseases like AIDS, natural disasters and food shortages. If African countries want to be part of the club, they have to abide by the membership rules.
Thou shalt not kill or abuse the people. Thou shalt allow freedom of speech. Thou shalt allow candidates of the opposition to campaign without fear. African countries should always welcome aid, but use it responsibly.
If the money that Mugabe and his cronies accuse the MDC of getting from the west was used to commit human right violations, then it is wrong. But if the money is used towards a goal for the betterment of the people of Zimbabwe, then pamberi nemaBritish, pamberi nemaAmericans! Hail the British; hail the Americans.)
What the world does not want to see is shiploads of guns and ammunition from China in African waters en route to Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe need food, law and order, health care, peace and not guns.
In a 1979 video interview recently featured on the Zimbabwe Times website, Zanu-PF leaders, including Mugabe spoke at length about their vision for Zimbabwe. During the interview with an unidentified British reporter, Didymus Mutasa acknowledged that ZANU was being funded by several western organizations. Zanu-PF leaders took frequent fundraising trips to Europe and America. As the reporter pressed Mutasa for information whether the British government was among some of their backers, he started fidgeting around, that’s when straight talking Edgar Tekere cut in, “Well, I think it’s an interesting question just now, whether the British government does anything for Zanu-PF or not? “
More revealingly, the late Zanla commander, Josiah Tongogara put it in plain words, “we have food, clothes, everything; coming from progressive organizations in Britain, America and Sweden, all over the world. This shoe, I never bought it. Zanu-PF never paid for anything. I think it came from Sweden. If I didn’t have it, how would I walk? How would I fight? And who is giving me this jacket? The people in Britain, the people in America.”
Mugabe reminds me of a certain sister I met years ago in California. This African American sister told me that she would never buy a book written by a white person, or music recorded by a white musician. She was all about blackness.
Everything in her house was Afro-centric, right down to her clothes and dreadlocks. “Why is your name Jane?” she snapped at me one day. “What is your real name?”
She meant my Shona name. I found myself apologizing for my name. One evening she forced me to watch a one and half hour long Klux-Klan video. The Ku Klux Klan is a secret white supremacist organization that has sprung up at different times in American history. Whenever I was in her house I momentarily forgot that the days of slavery were over. Her conversation was all about racism and other evil doings of white people. Historically this is factual information, but so is the genocide of Rwanda, Darfur, xenophobia in South Africa, Gukurahundi in Zimbabwe and other events.
The people of Zimbabwe will welcome support from whatever quarter, even the West, because Robert Mugabe and his government have failed them dismally.
Lies
The British gvt never supported ZANLA materially. What was happening was that organisations fundraised for ZANLA in Britain and other Western countries. The only gvts that related financially to ZANLA were from East EUROPE and China.
The assertion of Grace wearing Western clothes is just too ludicrous for a response.
What lies?
So the people who elected "imperialists" were also funding the army aimed at overthrowing imperialists?
On a separate note, given ZANLA's Maoist leanings, can we count on a cultural revolution in Zimbabwe too, or is it already taking place?
I don't know about her clothes, but Gracelands certainly wouldnt look out of place in the French countryside, especially with all the fake Louse XIV furniture.
Deconstructing Reason's Reasoning. Part 4.
"In this Zimbabwean revolution, some of us have been relegated to professional outcasts blacklisted ...for standing up to the Empire. "
On the one hand, you claim that you are about the people. On the other hand, you fear for your personal experience. Emma Goldman as mentioned earlier, inspired the creation of the ACLU. Her ideals outlasted her. This can only happen in a democracy that affords certain freedoms. Sure she may have been insulted on occasion, but ultimately, no attempt was made to silence her or to stop her from spreading her views. And that is the democratic way. Why is it so hard to believe that there will be people for and against any given principle, and why do you insist on focusing only on a martyr (King Jr., Goldman) and the people who opposed her? What about the people who supported her?
And I must admit my admiration for your ability to wax lyrical. What a load of fluff about patriotism and motherlands and independence. Untangible, irrelevant, but poetically expressed, all the same.
Also, do all revolutions have an "infallible motive"?
"The path of a revolutionary for social justice and for the defeat of imperialism is strewn with thorns."
Yet no condemnation of Gracelands, when you know as well as I do that a hospital in its place would contribute much more to Social Justice.
Who are the Mandelas and Martin Luther King of today? War Vets/Zanu PF and Mugabe?
These are rhetorical statements that allude to a reality that simply isnt real. The junior Che Guevara's are out there on college campuses spreading their ideology in the West. And they are entitled to do so as long as tehy dont pick up a gun and shoot anybody. Ditto the Mandelas and Kings. Where are they being persecuted? In the west? In Zimbabwe? In South Africa? In Asia?
Examples, please - real examples. Otherwise this is a loaded statement that has no merit to it. A deliberate lie, if you will.
The rest of your article is normative and philosophical, and it is vague enough to ensure that it can be intepreted as one sees fit, so I will leave it as is.
Oh and Reason, since you have been astutely avoiding my questions in my other posts, I can only hope you respond to this one.
Deconstructing Reason's Reasoning. Part 3.
"This is what happened to Emma Goldman in the 1890s ...turned into a Western monster. "
There is a formula to your work. You pick some prominent activist (ML King Jr, Goldman) and then you castigate western soceity for being critical of SOME of their views.
Goldman was anti-elitist and woman's right activist according to you. She was, in reality, an anarchist and the rest of her views were based on this. But as you mention she was demonized by the Americans. Yes damn Americans.
But, in your typically shortsighted way, you fail to see the larger significance. Sure she was demonized in America but she remains respected there, with her ideals best embodied by one of the most powerful Lobby groups in America - the American Civil Liberties Union. She was so demonized and so disrespected that she managed to inspire the creation of this incredibly important American institution. One that has no match in Zimbabwe. And one that I can guarantee is anti-Mugabe. Tis a small cost of rebelling, if your ideals outlast your life. And its only in real democracies that this can happen.
""We Americans claim to be peace-loving people...helpless citizens of other nationalities."
You make it sound like an American trait. Pre-colonial Africa was a peaceful utopia. Of course you have taken that comment hopelessly out of context. In 1916, America was in the midst of its isolationism debate -should they participate in WW I (where incidentally, the Germans first used aircraft to bomb cities), or should they stay out of it? Of course, technological advances were going to take place regardless of what America thought, and in a time of deepened nationalism, they were understandably happy when they realised they could develop bombers too, like the Germans. Its a joy brought about by knowing you can match your potential enemies. But htis is all context, and detracts heavily from the qupote of your anarchist hero. Do not take things out of context in future. We are not stupid.
"But the landless villagers continued occupation of white-held farms, triumphantly declaring they were no longer less equal than others."
No, in fact, in one fell swoop, they became more equal than others. Suddenly they had rights that other ZImbabwean citizens did not. Namely the right to claim land on an arbitrary basis.
Deconstructing Reason's Reasoning. Part 2.
"The West expects all nations to kow-tow to their dictates and to feed on canned and prepared stuff. They are after a world system that ensures that humanity worships at the shrine of the strong-armed Emperor."
Do you have evidence? Please do let us know.
"The names of such dissidents as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela, Fidel Castro of Cuba and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe"
ZImbabwe is keeping good company.
Iran is a theocracy from which millions have fled. Girls get hanged for committing the dastardly crime of being the victims of rape. Students, not uneducated folk, routinely engage in demonstrations against the regime. Candidates for elections are decided by a Guardian COuncil that is above reproach. And the head of the country is an Imam who doesnt have to worry about being elected. Yeah, I guess if you replaced Khameini with Mugabe, and filled the Guardian council with Zanu PF, Iran would be the perfect model of democracy for the Zanu PF faithful such as yourself. Too bad you decided to adopt a more western version of democracy that holds all office holders accountable.
Hugo Chavez is an interesting character. The country itself is a mess - and no, it cant claim to be the victim of sanctions because there are none. Yet the economy is tanking, though this is masked by the arrival of huge oil revenue. If oil prices collapse, Chavez might be exposed as a bit of a charlatan. I admire the guy, but I don't think his economic policies are doing the Venezuela people any sustainable good. Perhaps you will study it like me and draw your own conclusions.
Fidel Castro - the client state personified. With the Soviet Union gone, Cuba is worse off than ever. They rely on tourism - selling beaches to European vacationers. And the people of Cuba? Well, more often than not, those who can try to leave the country, do leave the country, sometimes dangerously using boats in the open sea. But these are inconvenient truths. Cuba is such a great country that Cubans are fleeing.
I am sure you disagree, but I think it is fair to say that one would rather live in a western country than in one of these proud dissident countries. In fact, I dont see you pursuing your degree in Caracas.
Deconstructing Reason's Reasoning. Part 1.
Reason, as an academic training to get an advanced degree, you sure can put out a lot of terrible work. I would be very shocked if your academic essays resemble your columns, if only because you seem to be terrible at basing your conclusions on research findings.
Firstly, WHY IS THERE NO MENTION of the fact that these sanctions are AIMED AT INDIVIDUALS, and not at the State of ZImbabwe? As has been mentioned time and again, these sanctions were aimed at putting restrictions on individuals and their assets, not on the whole people of Zimbabwe. In other words, they were aimed at stopping Grace Mugabe from buying Ferragamo in Rome or stashing money in Geneva, not at depriving the average Zimbabwean of milk.
Why is there no mention of this incredibly important fact?
"Rather, Russia and China chose to think for themselves when the US is convinced that they alone should do the thinking for all mortals on the planet."
Yes, they did. They realised that the West had closed the door on Zimbabwe, so they can now move in for the kill. What kill, you ask?
Zimbabwe is going to become a client state of the two countries. How so? Look at the inventory of the Zimbabwean military - all outdated Russian and Chinese hand me downs, which the two countries stopped using decades ago, probably bought at full price. Sure every country needs an Air Force, but when you buy second hand outdated stuff, odds are you arent going to win your next war with South Africa, which is ostensibly what these aircraft are for.
And when you refuse to buy this expensive stuff at inflated prices, they cut off supply of spare parts, rendering the equipment you already have, useless, and no military in the world will allow a government to let that happen. This has been going out throughout the Cold War.
The money involved is usually in the millions, generally hundreds of millions USD. You can thank the Russians and Chinese later. All those indebted Zanu PF officials whose illegal bank accounts have been saved will eventually be called upon to return the favor. Like all other client states.
Very Good
I like it when I get this very good and well informed right wing counter arguments.
Firstly, I must say I completed my post grad degree programme a year ago and yes my essays are very different from my opinion pieces. They cannot be similar given that an opinion piece gives the writer more room to express their personal self when compared to an essay where emphasis is on research and supporting onesellf with largley precribed sources.
You would not imagine me getting a pass mark after qouting Goldman, Guevera or such other radicals.
Yes Goldman was primarily an arnachist and yes she was silenced many times, even being forced to cahnge her name to Miss Smith. She was baselessly implicated in the assasination McKinley and she was jailed on the basis of the evidence of one Mr Jacobs against 12 witnesses who vindicated her. That can only happen in a "democracy" as you rightly and proudly declare here.
Why don't you just keep this kind of democracy to yourselves if this is how good it is?
The gueveras of today are represented by all ani-imperialists in the resistance to which some of us belong. Yes, activists are being persecuted day in and day out. We rae blacklisted in the job market, defamed and framed up on a regulat basis and our privacy is violated daily by security agents.
This is neither paranoia nor speculation because we have evidence through counter activity.
If Russia and China want to make a client state out of a country that appreciates their support in their struggle against the Empire then they must be good partners. It looks to me like a mutual position far better than the unfair flow of imperial capital from the centre to the periphery.
Thank you so much for compliments about my style of writing.
Right Wing?
I am more a center leftist - heavily influenced by Rawlsian Egalitarianism. At the same time, I place a premium on freedom and democracy, one that rules out any allegiance to a leader once he stops contributing to the social good, if you will.
I am surprised by the lack of academic freedom in Australia. I wrote many a paper on and quoting Kropotkin and I routinely used Marxism as a paradigm for many an essay. Guevara does not rank as a philosopher, largely because his work was never developed enough to be treated as relevant. But hten again, you can quote anyone, depending on the manner in which you are framing your paper.
The Goldman incident can hardly be used as an indictment of democracy, or indeed of America. That such corruption exists around the world is given. But let us one again set the context. McKinley was a US President, and he was assasinated by an anarchist. Goldman was a leading anarchist at the time and had met this man.
This is not a case of a president being murdered just to frame Goldman, as you may be suggesting, but a case of Goldman, an open anarchist, having been associated with an anarchist who murdered the US President. If Mugabe were to be shot dead by an MDC supporter, would Tsangvirai not be implicated? Think about it.
Goldman was certainly not involved and did not deserve to be jailed, but her sympathies were with the murderer. Indeed, her refusal to condemn the assassin is the stuff of legend. One man killed another man, but she couldn't bring herself to admit, straight up, that murder is murder, and that killing a man cannot be justified on any ground other than self-defence. Her moral and ethical reputation is, on this basis, far from flawless. Not that she deserved to go to jail for it, but she is hardly the stuff of role models.
"That can only happen in a "democracy" as you rightly and proudly declare here."
Are you suggesting that democracy is bad for the people? What exactly is the point of this statement?
"We rae blacklisted in the job market, defamed and framed up on a regulat basis and our privacy is violated daily by security agents."
Another bold statement. Have you been persecuted? How so? As for being blacklisted in the job market, come on. As an advocate of marxist economics and reallocation of land a la Zimbabwe, do you really find it surprising that people who believe in the free market dont want to employ you? Let me put it this way - if you had to hire people to work in a bureaucracy, would you hire self-declared anarchists.
You are not blacklisted by them. You blacklist yourself. You cannot condemn an MNC, and then expect them to give you a job. If you believe so heavily in Marxism, work for a marxist endeavor, if such a thing exists. Dont openly declare that you are the enemy of the system within which a company works, and then complain when they dont give you a job.
Theres nothing wrong with being a Marxist. But dont be surprised if free marketeers dont want you running their companies.
"our privacy is violated daily by security agents."
Perhaps you will share with us an incident of your privacy being violated by security agents. And I want you to specify how it is related to your ideological leaning, and NOT to your alleged links to Zanu PF, which has essentially turned itself into an enemy of Australia, the country you live in. If you are a government agent of an enemy country, you can expect special treatment, and it is justified, just as you justify Mugabe's expulsion of the BBC and othe foreign correspondents. If, however, it is your ideology they are trying to target you for, then please tell us how.
"If Russia and China want to ...centre to the periphery."
Russia and China are in a struggle against the Empire? The Evil Empire, no doubt? Russia is a member of the G8 and wants ot be part of the empire. China supplies the empire. Russia also agreed to the sanctions before derailing them. Beware Zimbabwe, your friend has lied once, he can lie again.
As for the unfair flow of capital, do you think it will change with Russia and China. They sell you defense equipment thats rather useless and outdated, and you give them money and resources in return. Its the same flow. To Russia and to China, Zimbabwe is just some state out there that cant buy goods from the west. If it gets out of line, it will be put back in place. The Pakistanis are learning the hard way - in order to buy top of the line aircraft from China, they have to fund the Research and Development, and also pay a unit cost for each aircraft (inspite of helping develop it!!). Its a very one way flow of capital. Dont let the truth blind you.
Centre left
So you are centre left. Okay. By blacklisting I am refering to campaigners coming to pressurise employers in order to stiffle one's pocket.
There is no problem with a free market oriented company deciding who they want to hire but this is not the same with people organising to send a thousand threatening emails a day to one's employers in a bid to get them to lose their job.
This is what I mean by being blacklisted by the system and not by employers. Many leftists out there are excellent humanitarian workers who can do wonders in the UN for example but they would be chucked out immediately if ever it is known that they have been hired.
Goldman had nothing to do with the death of the President and the only place that could be respected should have been the court and that did not happen. Remember Jacobs later confessed the corruption to Goldman and I think this is what you mean by freedom in a democracy.
Some excellent points
...but to engage with Reason on this level is basically to dignify a propagandist.
What I mean is that yes, you're right that Wafawarova's 'articles' are badly reasoned, but it's not through any philosophical or theoretical failings. It's through moral failings, if you like. The 'articles' and responses aren't really about what they pretend to be about.
You defend a liberation party with the rhetoric of liberation. Even if that party is no longer a liberation party, you can only defend it by appealing to the memory of the time it was relevant, politically and morally. Now it steals and kills, and you must ignore the evidence that it steals and kills if you are to defend it—simply ignore it. That's what Reason does. He doesn't defend these allegations, he ignores them.
Secondly, if you're defending the indefensible, you must pose an even worse alternative.
I remember in the days of the 'swart gevaar', we were told every say that the ANC and the PAC were a communist threat, paid for by Moscow and intent on spreading the evil empire. The will of the black majority to end the indignity and simply participate in democracy with the chance to share the wealth they owned anyway was demonised as a threat coming from outside the country. It was a lie, and the ZANU PF propagandists are telling an identical lie now. Yes, MK members were trained in Liberia and educated in Moscow, but it didn't make the ANC imperialist puppets.
The thing is, there is no serious evidence that the MDC is an 'imperialist puppet'. As far as I can tell, the evidence simply doesn't exist. It it were real, people like Reason would post it every single day.
Reason / Herald propagandists need the MDC in order to defend the indefensible. Reason is supporting a government that has betrayed the liberation it never shuts up about when it ought to be simply governing.
In support or 'reason'...
The previous contributor started off well in stating that Reason Wafawarova made some excellent points... i think this should have been the stew of the rest of his contributions, but unfortunately it was not to be...
First of all i feel what Reason has done is very commendable, his articles if you are an honest, genuine, and true to your roots Zimbabwean will never fail to find resonance even with the most spiritless of reader... the question of sanctions is not a fabrication of Zanu or of Reason, contrary to what the contributor earlier stated, many who support Britain, US and MDC choose to ignore the fact... mdc IS a puppet of the west, if it weren't, we'd have president Tsvangirai right now in Zimbabwe... The liberation war you mentioned was never supported by the same people who so reverently defend the so called rights to democracy of Zimbabweans, the same people who armed Smith to the kilt to KILL. Bearing in mind that during liberation we had like Tsvangirai, MUZOREWA, who was willing to negate the spirit and blood of those who fought by giving himself to fighting the cause from the wrong side of the pitch. so all this nonsense about MDC not being a puppet party or Zanu swaying from the liberation is all but nonsense, and its not new. Tsvangirai Vacillates almost every two days from his various positions upon instruction form London and Washington... Why did he run off to a Dutch embassy and not the Botswana embassy or the Kenyan embassy? Why did he leave his family behind? What about the rest of the MDC leadership? Why are their 'lives' less important than his? Those who understand politics will know that this was merely a PR stunt gone bad, badly advised and badly timed because just that hour he could have won 'pity' votes from some sections of Zimbabwe. It was also badly thought out because the electorate, and need i tell you that Zimbabweans generally are very well educated thanks to Mugabe and Zanu Policies, will have weighed out that very stupid action and found Tsvangirai reasonably thick and out of touch with the electorate, many of whom would like a change of leadership but without the loss of our country to these dragons hell bent on suppressing the majority at the behest of a white minority that has caused thousands of Zimbabweans to die before 1980, millions suffered then, and millions suffer now! a minority that is unrepentant to the fact that we had to wrestle arm and leg, DIE, to bring DEMOCRACY to Zimbabweans. So there can be no law in Africa that will bedevil its indigenous, and allow foreigners to control what is in fact our god given right! After all we don’t need the UN to remind us that Zimbabwe is for the Zimbabweans, never the British or Americans or anything that smells of them, after all, truth be told, every white person IS a foreigner in Africa... that is not reasoning it's FACT.
Mr. contributor, The act of governance especially for a young country like Zimbabwe, cannot be divorced from the fact that we were not handed Zimbabwe on a silver plate, others fought, others died, sorry, were killed...by whites, armed by the British and Americans, and others survived, those who were fortunate to survive like Robert Mugabe, cannot just 'govern' a country without being mindful of the fact that, that which we fought to liberate is constantly, even more so now, at risk of being reversed! I’m sure any reasonable person will find reason in the Jews being very mindful of the holocaust and its accouters... once bitten twice shy... as Zimbabweans we will guard our independence with utmost vigor body and mind...
I think Reason is very Reasonable... his points are very noble, very accurate, his views will smell pungent to our relentless detractors and will not be palatable to many who support imperialism or it's local puppetry...MDC in the Diaspora, thank god this is not the case were the real people put finger to ink to paper... Vana Vevhu...
As Reason says, It’s Homeland or Death…
Pamberi ne Chimurenga!!!!
yes pamberi
yes pamberi nechimurenga.reason is not lost he is just being a true zimbabwean.When we got independance it was just political independance and not total independence.So the people who fought for this independance have not delivered the country to the people yet until we own all the resources in our country.We cannot be seen to going back again or give it back otherwise what will be the point of having gone to war.So if there are any people conving with the enemy SHURO NEGWENZI RAYO.
Questioning Tapiwa
Tapiwa, I daresay that the passages of Reason's work that resonate with you, resonate with every member of a former colony. He can express his love for his country well. Lofty ideals, and poetic language are great, and you cannot disagree with him on the expression of his ideals, but his FACTS are all skewered and questionable, if not outright wrong. This is where we take exception.
A warrior for social justice, he calls himself, and yet he cannot get around to condemning the bourgeois investment of capital that is Gracelands, in a country where 1 in 5 deaths is caused by AIDS. Talking about the essence of the patriotism in a revolutionary is conjectural poetry, but the facts do not support his writing.
"the question of sanctions is not a fabrication of Zanu or of Reason, contrary to what the contributor earlier stated, many who support Britain, US and MDC choose to ignore the fact"
Must we engage in this song and dance again. The sanctions were AIMED AT INDIVIDUALS, not at the state of Zimbabwe. If they can have a crippling impact on the economy of Zimbabwe despite being aimed at few Zanu PF cronies, then all fighters of social justice must wonder about the distribution of resources within the country. TAPIWA, REASON - when will you admit that the sanctions are only against a handful of Zanu PF cronies? You make it sound like 1991 Iraq style sanctions are up against you. Despite the fact that World Food Program is feeding what is it 20-30% of the population of Zimbabwe?
"The liberation war you mentioned was never supported by the same people who so reverently defend the so called rights to democracy of Zimbabweans"
This is a ridiculous statement. You are deliberately linking democracy with a lack of patriotism so as to undermine democracy in the eyes of "true Zimbabweans", if such a thing exists. Unfortunately for you, every coin has two sides, and I can only assume that this means that Zanu PF supporters are anti-democracy (since those who support it were unpatriotic to begin with) which I will take as an admission that the last election which Mugabe one was a farce. If Zanu PF and its supporters such as yourself hold democracy to be bad, one can safely conclude that elecition campaigns are treated with ismilar disdain.
"Those who understand politics will know that this was merely a PR stunt gone bad, badly advised and badly timed because just that hour he could have won 'pity' votes from some sections of Zimbabwe."
Its a pity, then, that you don't understand politics. Zimbabwe is a refugee producing country but you find it hard to believe that the leader of the opposition party might need refuge. His story is that he was being chased by some armed folk. Frankly, I never believed him, but after reading your views on democracy (associated as it is with a lack of patriotism), I would not be too surprised if you were one of the hooligans chasing him at Zanu PFs behest.
"So there can be no law in Africa that will bedevil its indigenous, and allow foreigners to control what is in fact our god given right!"
Ah, here we go. Robust, patriotism fuelled conjecture. Look the word conjecture up - it is not a compliment.
"after all, truth be told, every white person IS a foreigner in Africa... that is not reasoning it's FACT."
200 years ago, I would have agreed. Now it sets a dangerous precedent, not least for black people all over the west.
Patriotic response to 'anonymous...'
Check yourself Mr. Anonymous, Modern day society allows for an even clearer divide between Rich and poor, Black Bourgeoisie wealth in Zimbabwe is only a by-product of capitalism...(elementary knowledge) I don't think Reason has/will deny this fact. Whether it's good or bad is a matter of debate. Problem is, most Africans have become (over the years) too accustomed to only whites being wealthy, Zimbabweans have chosen to differ on this... kwete (no...an emphatic NO)... we want to be our own masters, if a country is sitting on serious wealth like Zimbabwe shouldn’t it naturally follow that the wealthiest individuals in that country be the owners of it? unless of course you're in Kenya were the wealth of that African country is controlled (on behalf of) and primarily owned by the white bourgeoisie which many in Africa are accustomed to.
Personally I seriously disagree with the morals (or lack of) in disease politics. This idea of tying political practice to AIDS is just morally bankrupt; it’s the obligation of the society as a whole. So I’m afraid Mr. Anonymous I will not be responding any further than I have to your statement on AIDS. How I wish Zimbabweans would differ about Government policy on ARV dispersion etc rather than to debate on who we are as a people, why should we argue about land redistribution? The land is who we are! When the British sit down in parliament they never argue about whether Brown is Scottish or Cameron English? They all seem to agree that they are British Period. They never argue about rights to their land or whether Gurkhas should be entitled to ‘britishness’ or any inch of Britain regardless of their role in British wars, NO! They all agree on one fundamental principle, the ‘Britishness’ of Britain. Zimbabwean Land for the Zimbabweans and this should be fundamental, devoid of any debate in spite of the manner in which the land was rescued.
The issue of sanctions, I can't believe any thinking person to agree on much undervalued British statements from a British government that has a proven track record of ‘Spin’ (modern term for lying) judging from Iraq. A government that duped the whole British electorate only yesterday, doses of dossiers piled on unsuspecting British people in the name of democracy for Iraqis, more Iraqis have died to date than all throughout Sadam's reign. Liberation? Now you tell me Mr. Anonymous did the British 'say' the sanctions are targeted? Of course they did! It’s called ‘Spin’. Are you aware Mr. Anonymous, to cite just one example, for Zimbabwe to sell soya beans, the produce has got to be exported to Kenya to have a Kenyan tag slapped on it for the produce to be acceptable to some western markets. Why has Tesco 'publicly'stopped buying Zimbabwean produce? To starve Mugabe??
On the issue of democracy, Western style Democracy is what we refused culminating in 1980 independence, the sort of democracy that allowed Smith to anyalate thousands and cause the suffering of millions including Nehanda and Kaguvi. All I’m saying is the same perpetrators of this grave injustice, malice and murder are the same culprits that keep harping on, with intended malice, about our true Democracy as we know and understand it following 1980, ZANU PF brought real democracy to Zimbabweans. The same victors, Mugabe, Msika, Mujuru for example, are now at the helm, right at the crown defending Democracy as we know it, AS WE WON IT!
The only act of farce in the last election was the sudden pullout of Tsvangirai (not surprising), A last ditch attempt to derail 'our' Zimbabwean democratic process. God will not allow Zimbabwe to be 'stolen' from us. It is at a time like this that the 'true' patriots will be separated from the dogsbodies of western machinations that are designed to foist on Zimbabweans democracy pre-1980 style, Smith style! You will find, Patriots, like Reason and I’m proud to include myself, will prevail, the bible says "the truth shall set you free" we shall see the lions from the hyenas!! Mr. Tsvangirai needs refuge? Does he? For 5days only! While at it, his family is shopping in Harare, and his fellow 'afflicted' are sitting comfortably watching his escape to ‘refuge’ on satellite TV in their well furnished with American dirty money homes!
Patriotism Mr. Anonymous is not bought or guaranteed through western cheques. Patriotism is not dependant on western backing or African bickering. Zimbabwean Patriotism is neither British nor Tswana, it isn’t Kenyan, Burkinabe, or American, It is rare it can only be found in Zimbabweans, true sons of the soil.
The truth shall set us free.
Gandanga ndizvo!
Of Mobs and Men: Tapiswa's conjectural bull&%it
This, again, is conjecture.
What is modern day society, and how do you define rich and poor? Is the democratic welfare state not a manifestation of modern day society? And does it not bridge the gap between rich and poor by guaranteeing the poor access to certain goods such as free healthcare and education, even a basic income? Define your terms, then state your case.
Black Bourgeoisie is indeed a by-product of capitalism. But you have clearly missed the long running debate on this website about where Mugabe gets his money from? As President of a state he cannot hold another job, ergo his income is fixed. Despite Zimbabwe being a democracy, there is no information on his salary. As a rough guide, the US President earns US$400,000 annually, the South African president earns US$140,000 and the Botswanian President earns $80,000 annually. As democracies they have to publish the salaries of their leaders. This is done to remind leaders that they are answerable to the people who pay their wages.
I think the general consensus here is that Gracelands cost plenty of money, certainly more than Mugabe's salary can possibly allow. Where did the money come from? You call Mugabe Bourgeoise but he doesnt profit of the work of his workers. He profits of the people of Zimbabwe. He should not be a member of the bourgeoise and he certainly shouldnt portray himself as some champion of the people when he inssits on building Gracelands where a hospital or two would have been far more appropriate. This is not patriotism on your part - this is Mugabe worship. Mugabe may be from Zimbabwe, but Zimbabwe is NOT MUGABE'S PERSONAL FIEFDOM. No patriot can claim that he shoould be allowed to get rich of the Zimbabwean taxpayer.
Let me spell it out, lest your daftness blind you. No president in any democratic country earns enough to be one of the wealthiest citizens of that country unless that money is accumulated prior to entering office. Mugabe was no millionaire before he became President - how come he is one now? What is his salary.
The moral bankruptcy is in your argument that we should ignore Mugabe's ostentatiousness just because he is the president. Members of the private sector can be as rich as they wish, but the public sector, funded by taxes, should not be producing millionaires in a country where people are starving.
Land distribution is a whole different process. Whitey sitting on the farm was told at some point that he was a Zimbabwean citizen. Its probably the only reason he stayed. The one fine day, Mugabe decided that whitey no longer had the rights of a Zimbabwean citizen, which would now, in a sort of strange reverse-apartheid, be only for African Zimbabweans. The debate is about whether whitey, having been granted the rights and priviliges of being a Zimbabwean citizen, by Mugabe in the 1980s, can have these rights stripped simply because of the color of his skin. If Mugabe had made refused them Zimbabwean citizenship, then this would be an open and close case. Instead we have Zimbabwean citizens being deprived of rights afforded to other Zimbabwean citizens. But I suspect this is meaningless to you, not because you disagree with it, but because you probably dont understand the foundations that underlie this debate. If you can deprive one minority of its citizenship rights, then can you not deny any other minority group within Zimbabwe too, African, Asian or otherwise? Stay out of debates you cannot understand.
" more Iraqis have died to date than all throughout"
Proof please, otherwise this is just another robust attempt at conjecture. And have you accepted Kurdistan as a nation, or are Iraqi Kurds simply not worth counting?
"for Zimbabwe to sell soya beans, the produce has got to be exported to Kenya to have a Kenyan tag slapped on it for the produce to be acceptable to some western markets. Why has Tesco 'publicly'stopped buying Zimbabwean produce? To starve Mugabe?? "
There are two many ways to answer this. Reaosn offered one answer for me in one of his posts - namely that UK MPs with investments in Zimbabwe refused to remove their investment. The Soya story sounds a bit conjectural, since Soya can be sold on a world market that does not specify the suppliers (like oil and diamonds). Also you do not name these countries, making this sound liek a made up story.
Why did Tesco stop buying? The explanation for this lies in a famous case in Sudan, and it may be too complicated for your intellectual capacity, but I will explain it to you anyhow. In democracies, information is freely available. Thus when Mugabe completes a farcical election, the rest of the world can see what is happening and have a negative attitude towards the regime. In Sudan, when Arab militias were killing Black Sudanese in the south, the backlash in the West was far sharper than it was in Africa. In fact most of you Africans could not care about it despite its racial overtones.At that time, public opinion got so bad, that western imperialist countries, which as we all know, are out trying to steal oil, suddenly found themselves banning oil companies from operating in the Sudan. It was because of public opinion - the people of these countries do not want to be engaged in business deals that enrichened the Sudanese goverments (through taxes etc). Thus despite the fact that there were oil resources, large western companies pulled out in face of public pressure. True to form, guess who jumped in - the Chinese. What do they care about Arab killing African when there is oil to be had.
Tesco has come to a similar conclusion and has adjusted to popular opinion. Other companies such as Sainsbury and Waitrose disagree and continue business as usual in Zimbabwe.
Nobody in the world thinks Rhodesia was a democracy. But if that is how you see the world, then Mugabe is an improvement. However his version of "Only God can Remove Me" democracy sounds more like an absolute monarchy than it does democracy.
What is truly amazing is that you quote the Bible. I don't know much about the history of Christianity in Zimbabwe, but that same Bible was used for the justification of imperialism - you know - bring civilization and salvation to the barbarians. It came violently and killed those religions practiced by Africans before whitey got here, but you happily buy into it. How Bizzare. Whiteys religion has been adopted completely. Such pride in your heritage - choosing a religion you were introduced to just five centuries ago to the ones practiced for millenia prior to that. Or maybe God punished you with colonialism? Any which way, I find it all very intriguing that you should insist on following whitey in religion while refusing everythign else.
Patriotism this, and patriotism that. You can fire up a mob with that, but don't try to use it as an argument with anybody who has half a brain. Patriotism is a fine virtue indeed, but a patriot who is bleeding his own country dry is no patriot at all.
The Truth HAS set us free. Join us.
Freedom
A non-conjecture
Your new favourite word must be conjecture! your counter arguments are quite emaciated. for someone who knows very little about Zimbabwe you certainly have a lot of cheek to term 'conjecture'democratic values of most if not all patriotic zimbabweans, in fact i don't like this term at all, i put it in the same rank as Xenophobia, words very alien to our Very African nature... Words used to create a sense of something that one really wasn't feeling,the key here is 'create'... in a very 'reverse psychology' sort of way.
anyway i really meant to respond with... we shall see the lions from the hyenas...
gandanga ndizvo!
Is your father Colonel Godfrey Matemachani?
It seems your family is doing rather well out of the current situation in Zimbabwe, no?
It's not about politics at all. It's about Mercedes Benz, isn't it?
My Father is NOT The Colonel
lol
Then why do you have his surname?
'LOL'
(Seriously, are you fourteen?)
IMPERIALISM... deny it?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fZPuuO83U&feature=user
Its also the BBC
Yeah, that is imperialism. To top it off, its BBC documentary.
Last I heard, BBC was banned from Zimbabwe for supporting "imperialists". Has it been allowed back in?
This documentary clearly shows that BBC is planted firmly in the imperialist camp. It also shows that Tapiswa doesnt know that his dad, amongst others, has banned freedom of press in Zimbabwe, you know, that fundamental tenet of democracy.
Yes, that's imperialism.
That's it. Imperialism. It's disgusting. This is all about history nearly a hundred years old. We know this. It's bad.
But this has nothing to do with the MDC, which is what you're getting schooled on after every post you make.
Seriously, start answering some specific points that people are making here instead of just going 'LOOK! THIS BAD STUFF HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!' or just... stop writing. It's embarrassing.
like it or lump it chum....
like it or lump it chum.... as for you....
nxaaa!
time waster
Tapiwa
Tapiwa was good.
'Like it or lump it'
Dude.
You're fourteen years old, aren't you?
You participate in a forum defending ZANU-PF. You're asked for evidence to support the contention that the MDC is a puppet organisation, and you don't provide any. In fact, you don't answer a single one of the really specific rebuttals and questions put to you; not one.
Instead you post a video where the people involved in what's supposed to be a 'secret' conspiracy (er.. some pretty sad white farmers) allow themselves to filmed posing for local TV cameras with big smiles. And this is supposed to be evidence that the MDC is somehow a puppet organisation.
SOther people here have totally butchered your arguments and made you look like pretty foolish already, and I can't be bothered to go over it all again.
MDC Financiers...
How raw do you want the evidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMW_EPKuPZI
Ian Smith and the big conspiracy
Proof that Zanu-pf and war veterans are the creation of the western whites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp7vMhBXE4U&feature=related
It is self evident that Mugabe and Zanupf were imposed on Zimbabwe by Ian Smith and his whites as retaliation for loosing the war. This sinister strategy were dreamed up by the selous scouts to show the world that black people cannot govern themselves. Unfortunately one has to agree that Ian Smith and the whites managed to proof their point convincingly - it is all a white superiority conspiracy. The CIA informed Obama of the fact, and he could not believe that Mugabe is a sellout to black power and a puppet to the racist whites. This video were shown to Obama as concrete proof. He was shocked and visibly shaken - This explains why Obama is so verbal against Mugabe. Never trust the white devils!