retired_ks reddy

Are we talking about the same Africa here?

retired_shaneargy

Well, most of Africa is relatively stable compared to today's Zimbabwe. And most African nations have overthrown their communist freedom fighters or they've abandoned the communism.

retired_annmariealexander

Because big farms demands a bit competent leadership and knowhow of farming and the members of Mugabe's militia who took over as farmers aren't up for the task? </BLOCKQUOTE>

no. same reason why the Rubber Industry in Indonesia colappsed immedeately after the Dutch left.

Nothing to do with knowledge (suddenly the people working there didn't know how the production of Latex works just because there's a change in management? Very unlikely!) but everything with mentality.

Short term thinking. In the case of the rubberplanitations in Indonesia it was overuse of the trees. If you sap a tree too much it does not produce (or produces less) the next year so you have to really plan things and be carefull how you produce the latex.

So what happened was a huge overproduction the first year as that would generate extra income. The idea that the prices for latex would suffer and that the next year would be a problem was something that was long term thinking and all that was important was the here and now.

A thing that caused every former colony to blow up it's economy. Those, so called freedom fighters were in power not for 'their country' and people but to get rich fast.

Well, that's why most former colonies became development countries in the decades that followed.

retired_eoconnor

Yeah, that's from the BBC, hardly a neutral observer.

The why is simple enough BG. For 100 years, more or less, until Mugabe won independence for Zimbabwe the natives were continually displaced from the land by the white rulers including waves of immigrants from Britain post WWII. Even after independence which was only agreed to on the proviso that the land refrom would be slow at best and non-existent at worst there was very little reform. Then in the late nineties Mugabe started forcefully taking the land and giving it to his own supporters.

There was much belly-aching etc with heart rending reports of white people having to leave the land they grew up on. I wonder how many similar reports made it to the pages of London newspapers in the 1880s and 1890s when genocide & ethnic cleansing was committed by Cecil Rhodes? But I suppose that's excusable as it was the practice at the time, whilst economic sanctions are excusable at the moment as somebody would dare to remove western influence and attempt to exert local control, albeit in an extremely incompetent, unjust and brutal fashion.

retired_ks reddy

Well, most of Africa is relatively stable compared to today's Zimbabwe. And most African nations have overthrown their communist freedom fighters or they've abandoned the communism. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, relative to today's Zimbabwe. I'll let you off :thup:

retired_ks reddy

Who're the neutral observers then?

retired_ks reddy

Yeah, things were just dandy until the late 90's - as long as they could keep plundering the Congo anyway. When that came to an end so did the economy.

Genocide? Odd how while the British were indulging in all these gencides the populations under attack were increasing at a faster rate than ever before. Not very good at it really, were we?

retired_boombalabutt

How in God's name did the colonial oppressor's card make an appearance in a thread on Mugabe? Its not white people starving to death in one of Africa's most fertile lands under his rule ffs.

Can't stand people who denigrate British imperial rule because they think its no longer au fait.

retired_ks reddy

It's a huge catch-all excuse that stupid people find easier to use than thinking.

retired_boombalabutt

Especially since British rule would be infinitely preferable to living under that nutcase right now.