'Zimbabweans Have Right to Claim Back Their Land' - The Herald (Harare)
Economic watcher
The Herald (Harare)
August 12, 2002
Posted to the web August 12, 2002
ZIMBABWEANS have unreserved right to claim back their land which they fought
for against the white regime during the liberation struggle, an American black
empowerment activist, Mr Elombe Brath, said in Harare yesterday.
Mr Brath, the chairman of Patrice Lumumba Coalition, who is leading a 15-member
Black- American team currently in the country to show their solidarity with the
Government on the land issue, said if the land was not given to its rightful
owners, the blacks, then the revolution would not be complete.
He said because of the growing awareness of the reparations, his organisation
was demanding that the British government pays for the damages inflicted on the
Zimbabwean people after their land was stolen from them.
"The fundamental way of doing that is to simply return the land to its rightful
owners," said Mr Brath.
His team, which comprises US journalists, lawyers, educators and political
activists, arrived in the country yesterday morning to show their solidarity
with the Government on the land issue.
"We came here to share the struggles, experiences of African renaissance and
develop a comparative analysis about how imperialism, colonialism and
neo-colonialism has thwarted our people to total freedom and restore land to
the masses from whom it was stolen hundreds of years ago," said Mr Brath.
The team is expected to go back to America and brief their respective
constituencies on the tour and also debunk the misinformation campaign against
Zimbabwe by the international media supported by the local private Press.
Commenting on this year's March presidential election, Mr Brath said President
Mugabe's re-election was far more justified than Mr George Bush's election in
the US two years ago.
He said Mr Bush's election was made at the expense of taking away votes of the
black people in that country.
"We think the US is still trying to contest the Zimbabwe election which was
fair and free," he said.
Mr Brath also paid tribute to President Mugabe for intervening in the
Democratic Republic of Congo conflict with the aim of restoring peace.
He said if Cde Mugabe had not aided the late DRC President Cde Laurent Kabila,
Americans could now be controlling that country and brutally exploiting its
people and their resources.
Economic watcher
>The Herald (Harare)
>
>develop a comparative analysis about how imperialism, colonialism and
>neo-colonialism has thwarted our people to total freedom and restore land to
>the masses from whom it was stolen hundreds of years ago," said Mr Brath.
************* Comment
OK, return the land to the Koisan people (Bushmen) from whom it was stolen 800
hundred years ago by the Bantu people.
Sadly, the Koisan people lacked funds to pay the group to visit Africa,
therefore their views are not reflected, rather only those who paid for the
trip, the Govt. of Zimbabwe.
scorpion
>
> The Herald (Harare)
>
> August 12, 2002
> Posted to the web August 12, 2002
>
> ZIMBABWEANS have unreserved right to claim back their land which they fought for against the white regime during the
>
> Mr Brath, the chairman of Patrice Lumumba Coalition,
>
> He said because of the growing awareness of the reparations, his organisation was demanding that the British government
>
> "The fundamental way of doing that is to simply return the land to its rightful owners," said Mr Brath.
>
> His team, which comprises US journalists, lawyers, educators and political activists, arrived in the country yesterday morning
>
> "We came here to share the struggles, experiences of African renaissance and develop a comparative analysis about how
> The team is expected to go back to America and brief their respective constituencies on the tour and also debunk the
>
> Commenting on this year's March presidential election, Mr Brath said President Mugabe's re-election was far more justified
> He said Mr Bush's election was made at the expense of taking away votes of the black people in that country.
> "We think the US is still trying to contest the Zimbabwe election which was fair and free," he said.
>
> Mr Brath also paid tribute to President Mugabe for intervening in the Democratic Republic of Congo conflict with the aim of
> He said if Cde Mugabe had not aided the late DRC President Cde Laurent Kabila, Americans could now be controlling that
zakanaka
"Economic watcher" <rice...@cs.comSpamNo> wrote in message
news:20020812102249...@mb-mj.news.cs.com...
Economic watcher
(Harare)
>From: "zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com>
>More dribble posted by economic armchair watcher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> 'Zimbabweans Have Right to Claim Back Their Land'
>> The Herald (Harare)
>>
>> ZIMBABWEANS have unreserved right to claim back their land which they fought
>> for against the white regime during the liberation struggle, an American
black
>> empowerment activist, Mr Elombe Brath, said in Harare yesterday.
>>
************* Comment
As to it being "dribble", yes it is, but it is informative dribble to see what
message
Mugabe is putting out and whom he has hired to support his policies.
I post those The Herald stories that seem to provide an example of the mind
set of Mugabe et al, examples that most of the white news media would not
reprint due to their wishes to be politically correct.
For zakanaka, perhaps you would feel better if you simple put a block on
your receiving anything that I post.
zyro
land to be appropriated from white farmers and given to his political
cronies. nothing surprising in that.
my question is directed at the ability for zimbabwe's agricultural
economy to remain intact regardless of who owns the property. if it is
true that all of the political cronies cannot farm and cannot hire
anyone to farm, that is one thing.
the gross claims that agricultural production has dropped 75% in and
of itself does not tell me whether that is sufficient cause for
famine. certainly there are countries which have plenty of food or
food aid and for other reasons, the people starve.
i'm trying to understand as well, how many whites have played the
situation cleverly and purchased back farmland sold by those political
hacks who were only in to make a buck, and thus attained a government
certified provenance. i can certainly understand and appreciate that
such deals are not likely to accrue to the average white farmer in
zimbabwe, but knowing that mugabe does fuel business with the likes of
lonrho, certainly there are some white africans and others who are
capitalizing on depressed prices for zimbabwean farmland.
i'd also appeciate knowing what percentage of black africans who
previously worked the land owned by whites have been able to
successfully provide for themselves under the new provisions, or are
things simply to chaotic to tell. many of you must know that
african-americans, under the system of 'sharecropping' provided for
their families for two generations in the american south after the
failure of reconstruction. they never owned the land, but they worked
it and did not starve.
i am not settling for stories of how troubling it is for whites to
suffer this socialist appropriation. two wrongs don't make a right,
but nobody is going to war over this tragic issue, which means all the
people are going to have to survive. if there is any real concern for
the fate of the poorest people who will have to eat one way or
another, it will have to be done. in other words, i suspect that there
are many better methods of land reform than that which mugabe has
undertaken, but land reform was inevitable. will the world and the
west retract humanitarian concerns simply because it hurt white people
this time, or is there truly a more practical solution to feeding the
people of zimbabwe?
Tony Bryer
wrote:
> i'm trying to understand as well, how many whites have played the
> situation cleverly and purchased back farmland sold by those
> political hacks who were only in to make a buck, and thus attained
> a government certified provenance.
Uh and what difference would this make? More than a few of the
commercial farmers got certificates of no interest when they bought
all or some of their land. IIRC some actually did buy land from the
government itself. It all means nothing as recent events have shown.
--
Tony Bryer
Economic watcher
>> i'm trying to understand as well, how many whites have played the
>> situation cleverly and purchased back farmland sold by those
>> political hacks who were only in to make a buck, and thus attained
>> a government certified provenance.
>
>Uh and what difference would this make? More than a few of the
>commercial farmers got certificates of no interest when they bought
>all or some of their land. IIRC some actually did buy land from the
>government itself. It all means nothing as recent events have shown.
************ Comment
Skin color is the issue, not pieces of paper. This is racism, not property law
101.
Economic watcher
Herald(Harare)
>
>i am not settling for stories of how troubling it is for whites to
>suffer this socialist appropriation. two wrongs don't make a right,
>but nobody is going to war over this tragic issue, which means all the
>people are going to have to survive. if there is any real concern for
>the fate of the poorest people who will have to eat one way or
>another, it will have to be done. in other words, i suspect that there
>are many better methods of land reform than that which mugabe has
>undertaken, but land reform was inevitable. will the world and the
>west retract humanitarian concerns simply because it hurt white people
>this time, or is there truly a more practical solution to feeding the
>people of zimbabwe?
************* Comment
The above is the sort of thinking that empowers Mugabe to steal the land,
in particular the ignorance of the writer and his/her willingness to assume
the least bad course.
To your question of what about the farm workers of the white farmers,
the lost also. They got nothing because they are viewed as supporters
of the MDC and the whites, and they are clearly not ZANU-PF members.
As to the comment of "land reform was inevitable" only in that total
destruction of the economy of Zimbabwe is inevitable. Why is it
inevitable, why must white citizens of a country have to give up their
property and thereby destroy the rule of law in the country?
Tony Bryer
> Skin color is the issue, not pieces of paper.
> This is racism, not property law 101.
That was just the point I was trying to make. Mugabe's trampling
over the courts make all pieces of paper worthless. You are either
a friend of ZANU-PF or you are not. And if you're not, don't expect
food, justice or anything else except strife.
--
Tony Bryer
zyro
if mugabe does not honor the law at all, then that might be true. but
i would suggest that mugabe's racism is not a cause but a symptom of
his corruption. after all, before the whites lost their property, what
did they care about racism?
zyro
it is not clear to me that the MDC are totally against land reform of
any sort, or that given a working economy that rural blacks were
equals in agriculture. my research tells me that from the late 1800s
until the 1920s these rural blacks were self-sufficient farmworkers
but were then banned from competing equally with whites. simply
because mugabe's form is violent and corrupt does not mean land reform
itself is wrong.
are you suggesting that the MDC would not pursue any land reform?
zyro
[..]
> ZIMBABWEANS have unreserved right to claim back their land which they fought
> for against the white regime during the liberation struggle, an American black
> empowerment activist, Mr Elombe Brath, said in Harare yesterday.
>
> Mr Brath, the chairman of Patrice Lumumba Coalition, who is leading a 15-member
> Black- American team currently in the country to show their solidarity with the
> Government on the land issue, said if the land was not given to its rightful
> owners, the blacks, then the revolution would not be complete.
>
[..]
brath is out of touch with reality.
zyro
in the context of my post, i had assumed that all else was well in
zimbabwe. understand that we in the u.s. are only hearing from our
press that a black man is stealing from whites and that zimbabwe, once
a symbol of hope and light for 'race relations' has now exhibited
'reverse racism'.
it is clear that mugabe has long outlived his usefulness and is still
living in a revolutionary past. he must go. but that does not change
the fact that white agribusiness should have seen something like this
coming. they certainly did business with other african nations. they
were not entirely powerless. so how is it that they have not forged an
adequate coalition with the MDC? why is it that a 'white farmers
union' instead of an opposition political party is representing the
agribusiness position? are whites not allowed the vote in zimbabwe?
my research tells me that much of this appropriated land is being used
for show by corrupt bigwigs, and of course many are selling it off to
line their own pockets. how much of that can happen without buyers,
and who are the buyers?
if zimbabwe has value because it has a viable agribusiness, then those
who stand to lose the most should obviously stand with the political
party of law, order and commerce. but how many of them profited under
the zanu-pf?
Economic watcher
(Harare)
>From: six...@yahoo.com (zyro)
>>
>> Skin color is the issue, not pieces of paper. This is racism, not property
law 101.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment by "zyro" follows
>if mugabe does not honor the law at all, then that might be true. but
>i would suggest that mugabe's racism is not a cause but a symptom of
>his corruption. after all, before the whites lost their property, what
>did they care about racism?
*************** Comment
Mugabe has run Zimbabwe since 1980, prior to that the whites ran
Rhodesia (renamed to Zimbabwe in 1980). The white government was racist
prior to 1980. There were about 300,000 whites prior to 1980 and perhaps
only 30,000 whites now (there were perhaps 70,000 whites 3 years ago).
By your statement above you seem to imply that Mugabe is honoring the law.
If that is your view, almost no one save for ZANU-PF party members share
that view.
If you have the view that Mugabe is not a racist, you are likely one of the
few with that view, since Mugabe makes few efforts to control racists
comments that he makes in his speeches. Mugabe has made few efforts
to hide his hatred of whites.
If you have the view that Mugabe is not a Marxist, you are likely one of the
few that has that view, since Mugabe makes it clear that he is a Marxist.
And I expect that you are unaware of the 5th Brigade of the Zimbabwean Army
killing between five and twenty thousand Zimbabwean citizens in the early
1980s who supported the "wrong" political party. This all was reported
throughout the world.
My view is that you are a victim of reading/watching only politically correct
news media that avoids telling you about the events of the past 22 years
in Zimbabwe.
Perhaps you ought to read up on the subject of Zimbabwe and Mugabe before
you expose more of your ignorance and knee jerk assumptions that the black
Africans are right and that the whites are wrong and that the solution is to
provide more money to the black African leader of Zimbabwe (or whatever
country).
Economic watcher
(Harare)
>From: six...@yahoo.com (zyro)
>it is not clear to me that the MDC are totally against land reform of
>any sort, or that given a working economy that rural blacks were
>equals in agriculture. my research tells me that from the late 1800s
>until the 1920s these rural blacks were self-sufficient farmworkers
>but were then banned from competing equally with whites. simply
>because mugabe's form is violent and corrupt does not mean land reform
>itself is wrong.
************ Comment
The land reform that most (other than the ZANU-PF) support is the
willing seller willing buyer form of "land reform". The British Government
had provided funds for this until it began very obvious that the
"reformed land" was going to supporters of Mugabe and they were using
that "reformed land" as weekend retreats, not to produce much food.
Economic watcher
(Harare)
>From: six...@yahoo.com (zyro)
>in the context of my post, i had assumed that all else was well in
>zimbabwe. understand that we in the u.s. are only hearing from our
>press that a black man is stealing from whites and that zimbabwe, once
>a symbol of hope and light for 'race relations' has now exhibited
>'reverse racism'.
********* first comment
The only newspaper in the USA that has provided much coverage
of events in Zimbabwe is The Washington Times. The NY Times
has had a tiny bit of coverage as had the Wash Post.
Overal, Zimbabwe is far far away from the USA, most American
journalists are ignorant, and most journalists do not wish to
offend black Americans by reporting bad things about black
African leaders.
******** end of first comment
>it is clear that mugabe has long outlived his usefulness and is still
>living in a revolutionary past. he must go. but that does not change
>the fact that white agribusiness should have seen something like this
>coming. they certainly did business with other african nations. they
>were not entirely powerless. so how is it that they have not forged an
>adequate coalition with the MDC? why is it that a 'white farmers
>union' instead of an opposition political party is representing the
>agribusiness position? are whites not allowed the vote in zimbabwe?
>
*********** second comment
White agribusiness has not done business with other African nations.
Yes, there are many white citizens who are farmers in South Africa
and some in Namibia, and a tiny number in Kenya, but that is it.
And almost all of these whites are citizens of the countries where
they live.
*********************** end of second comment
>my research tells me that much of this appropriated land is being used
>for show by corrupt bigwigs, and of course many are selling it off to
>line their own pockets. how much of that can happen without buyers,
>and who are the buyers?
************* third comment
It is unlikely that much or any of the most recently seized land is
being sold. But the previous land that was transferred on a willing
seller willing buyer from whites to blacks may have been sold, and
most likely sold in years past. As far as properties sold now, most
will NOT have clear title and anyone buying them is buying property
that may at some future date be returned to their rightful owner.
***************** end of third comment
>if zimbabwe has value because it has a viable agribusiness, then those
>who stand to lose the most should obviously stand with the political
>party of law, order and commerce. but how many of them profited under
>the zanu-pf?
*********** fourth comment
This was the case, most whites were active members/supporters of the Movement
for
Democratic Change, the opposition party that seems to have won
the votes, but lost the vote counts in March 2002 and July 2000.
The Movement for Democratic Change did get offical wins for about 57
of the 120 elected seats in the Zimbabwean parliament in July 2000.
In a proper vote count they likely would have won ten to twenty more seats.
Thirty seats are appointed by the president of Zimbabwe, Mugabe
for a total of 150 seats.
zyro
> >Subject:Re: 'Zimbabweans Have Right to Claim Back Their Land' - The Herald
> (Harare)
> >From: six...@yahoo.com (zyro)
>
> >in the context of my post, i had assumed that all else was well in
> >zimbabwe. understand that we in the u.s. are only hearing from our
> >press that a black man is stealing from whites and that zimbabwe, once
> >a symbol of hope and light for 'race relations' has now exhibited
> >'reverse racism'.
> ********* first comment
> The only newspaper in the USA that has provided much coverage
> of events in Zimbabwe is The Washington Times. The NY Times
> has had a tiny bit of coverage as had the Wash Post.
> Overal, Zimbabwe is far far away from the USA, most American
> journalists are ignorant, and most journalists do not wish to
> offend black Americans by reporting bad things about black
> African leaders.
most americans, including black americans, don't care what happens in
africa, except for south africa and at the slaving castles in west
africa. starving babies in east africa, any bad news on khadaffi, a
bleeding heart story about aids or something about animals. that's
about it. the failure at mogadishu fairly sums up the average
american's geopolitical perspective of african politics.
nevertheless there are plenty of americans who have been deeply
involved in the anti-apartheid movement, who have friends and family
in various african nations, and who have lived on the continent who
follow a bit closer. such people can be overwhelmingly influential in
any political consciousness that bubbles up in the states.
the washington times is not considered editorially credible by most
people with a college education.
the better newspapers are more likely to first quote the news
services, then write 1000 words. the truth eventually gets here
because we americans have so many sources (such as this place here).
> ******** end of first comment
> >it is clear that mugabe has long outlived his usefulness and is still
> >living in a revolutionary past. he must go. but that does not change
> >the fact that white agribusiness should have seen something like this
> >coming. they certainly did business with other african nations. they
> >were not entirely powerless. so how is it that they have not forged an
> >adequate coalition with the MDC? why is it that a 'white farmers
> >union' instead of an opposition political party is representing the
> >agribusiness position? are whites not allowed the vote in zimbabwe?
> >
> *********** second comment
> White agribusiness has not done business with other African nations.
> Yes, there are many white citizens who are farmers in South Africa
> and some in Namibia, and a tiny number in Kenya, but that is it.
> And almost all of these whites are citizens of the countries where
> they live.
i have come to understand that most of the white agribusiness is not
corporate but 'semi-feudal', with the exception of a few like vumba
farms. they appear to be no more networked and sophisticated that the
average small american farmer, and many of them do have subordinated
black african sharecroppers who are also threatened by the evictions.
in that regard it makes sense that there isn't much international
institutional support and that they are 'unionized'. i wonder how well
these unions have gathered, organized and supported the sharecroppers.
nobody seems to care that the sharecropping tenant farmers (who appear
to be all black) are also being roughed up by the mugabe government.
this is very important because if the world news had portrayed mugabe
more as a marxist than as a racist, you would have gotten more
positive political support from america.
> *********************** end of second comment
> >my research tells me that much of this appropriated land is being used
> >for show by corrupt bigwigs, and of course many are selling it off to
> >line their own pockets. how much of that can happen without buyers,
> >and who are the buyers?
> ************* third comment
> It is unlikely that much or any of the most recently seized land is
> being sold. But the previous land that was transferred on a willing
> seller willing buyer from whites to blacks may have been sold, and
> most likely sold in years past. As far as properties sold now, most
> will NOT have clear title and anyone buying them is buying property
> that may at some future date be returned to their rightful owner.
> ***************** end of third comment
this is a disastrous state of affairs, as is my discovery that the
courts in conflict with mugabe's plan do not seem to be heeded at this
time.
> >if zimbabwe has value because it has a viable agribusiness, then those
> >who stand to lose the most should obviously stand with the political
> >party of law, order and commerce. but how many of them profited under
> >the zanu-pf?
> *********** fourth comment
> This was the case, most whites were active members/supporters of the Movement
> for
> Democratic Change, the opposition party that seems to have won
> the votes, but lost the vote counts in March 2002 and July 2000.
> The Movement for Democratic Change did get offical wins for about 57
> of the 120 elected seats in the Zimbabwean parliament in July 2000.
> In a proper vote count they likely would have won ten to twenty more seats.
> Thirty seats are appointed by the president of Zimbabwe, Mugabe
> for a total of 150 seats.
if only mugabe had weapons of mass destruction, our myopic leaders
here in the states would take notice. but his capacity to destroy his
own nation will fall on deaf ears. much of that fault lies in the
racial politics white africans share with white americans. so long as
white americans can feel that their tawdry race relations are similar
or better than that of white and black africans, any disputes white
africans have with blacks are dismissed. there is a self-righteous
american feeling that whites in africa bring pain upon themselves for
not sharing power with blacks.
Economic watcher
(Harare)
>From: six...@yahoo.com (zyro)
>the washington times is not considered editorially credible by most
>people with a college education.
>
>the better newspapers are more likely to first quote the news
>services, then write 1000 words. the truth eventually gets here
>because we americans have so many sources (such as this place here).
************** Comment
The Washington Times is politically conservative in its opinion and its
reporting
is brief and factual.
You of the Left hate such newspapers as The Washington Times because it
does not support the "truths" that you hold, "truths" unsupported by facts.
You of the Left refuse to read news sources such as The Washington Times
because they do not support your "truths" and may in provide facts that
disprove your "truths".
Yes, I would agree that The Washington Times is not considered
creditable by most liberal arts university professors, all Greens,
and almost all of the Left. And you ought never to read it or any other
sources of information that do not support your "truths".
I attempted to respond to your vague efforts to seek information and
I got in return expressions of ignorance and disdain for information that
does not support the views of the Left.
Please avoid reading all postings to this news group from The Washington
Times, Telegraph (UK), The Wall Street Journal, and The Times (UK) for
they all are likely to offend you.
Goodbye.
zyro
> >Subject:Re: 'Zimbabweans Have Right to Claim Back Their Land' - The Herald
> (Harare)
> >From: six...@yahoo.com (zyro)
>
> >the washington times is not considered editorially credible by most
> >people with a college education.
> >
> >the better newspapers are more likely to first quote the news
> >services, then write 1000 words. the truth eventually gets here
> >because we americans have so many sources (such as this place here).
>
> ************** Comment
>
> The Washington Times is politically conservative in its opinion and its
> reporting
> is brief and factual.
>
> You of the Left hate such newspapers as The Washington Times because it
> does not support the "truths" that you hold, "truths" unsupported by facts.
'we of the left' don't know who you are pointing at.
>
> You of the Left refuse to read news sources such as The Washington Times
> because they do not support your "truths" and may in provide facts that
> disprove your "truths".
>
> Yes, I would agree that The Washington Times is not considered
> creditable by most liberal arts university professors, all Greens,
> and almost all of the Left. And you ought never to read it or any other
> sources of information that do not support your "truths".
>
> I attempted to respond to your vague efforts to seek information and
> I got in return expressions of ignorance and disdain for information that
> does not support the views of the Left.
>
> Please avoid reading all postings to this news group from The Washington
> Times, Telegraph (UK), The Wall Street Journal, and The Times (UK) for
> they all are likely to offend you.
>
i suppose i'll have to be satisfied by the new york times, the
washington post, the bbc, stratfor, the economist, the los angeles
times, slate.com, the guardian, the independent, xinhua, le monde and
my own personal network, out of which you are in danger of falling my
foreign friend. as for the wall street journal, i take all of its
editorials to be derivative of that in the economist, who at least
have the benefit of an arrogance befitting stiff upper lips the world
over. all that's easily countered by the nation, which i also read on
equal occasion.
that's my 12 against your 3.