Robert Mugabe vs. Ian Smith

[minionofmidas]

So, in short, it's all the fault of Tony Blair's complete lack of grasp of his responsibilities?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you want to make that argument (), then the responsible minister was Clare Short and this is the full quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though really the main thing (I'd argue) is that the Lancaster House Agreement (and related trimmings) was basically a timebomb. It was a mistake to demand of Mugabe et al compromise on that particular issue. It doesn't reflect well on Carrington or the Foreign Office in general that white landowner interests were such a priority.

[Gustaf]

The important impact of Mugabe's 'land reform' (which is a very generous term) was to destroy the agriculture of the country. That harmed more than just white landowners.

[Cassius]

The one who didn't steal my great-uncle's farmland.

Surely you're intelligent enough to realize that your great-uncle's farmland was likely stolen from someone else?

Well, I don't believe that the Shona or Matabele had quite the same conception of private property as we Europeans had, and even if they did, they had no legal records to substantiate their claims. Therefore, the land cannot have been stolen, it was merely... Assumed by the settlers (more to the point, the Matabele/Shona would have nicked it off someone else, if we are to go down that line of thiking). With regards to your position on 'land reform', such as policy can only ever be justified on a 'willing seller' policy (which, after the late 1990's, it wasn't), and certainly has no economic grounds to stand on if the land is being distributed to those who, a) are incapable of farming that land, b) are simply government cronies or c) are being bribed with this land. As for morality, what right do a certain section of the population have to appropriate the property of another section, purely on the basis of the fact that they were of a majorit skin-colour and had been there longer. The farms were built off the back of British capital and British entrepreneurship, and in many cases British labour as well. The black population had no right to take any of the land unless the white owners were prepared to sell it to them.

[Zioneer]

The one who didn't steal my great-uncle's farmland.

Surely you're intelligent enough to realize that your great-uncle's farmland was likely stolen from someone else?

Well, I don't believe that the Shona or Matabele had quite the same conception of private property as we Europeans had, and even if they did, they had no legal records to substantiate their claims. Therefore, the land cannot have been stolen, it was merely... Assumed by the settlers (more to the point, the Matabele/Shona would have nicked it off someone else, if we are to go down that line of thiking). With regards to your position on 'land reform', such as policy can only ever be justified on a 'willing seller' policy (which, after the late 1990's, it wasn't), and certainly has no economic grounds to stand on if the land is being distributed to those who, a) are incapable of farming that land, b) are simply government cronies or c) are being bribed with this land. As for morality, what right do a certain section of the population have to appropriate the property of another section, purely on the basis of the fact that they were of a majorit skin-colour and had been there longer. The farms were built off the back of British capital and British entrepreneurship, and in many cases British labour as well. The black population had no right to take any of the land unless the white owners were prepared to sell it to them.

Well hello there George Wallace.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I support land reform because I support agricultural  modernization and am opposed to colonialism, yes. Land reform actually increases agricultural yields along with giving impoverished laborers insurance in the form of secure assets. Redistributing land from racist imperialists isn't theft, it's justice.

Mugabe is an authoritarian monster but I'm not going to deplore an economically and ethically sound policy that is the bedrock of agrarian socialism.

To what extent has Zimbabwe's economy benefitted from these Land "Reforms"?
Also, are you too ignorant to understand that under Ian Smith the country was not a colonial state? Your post really says something about your education (or more specifically, the lack of it or how poor it was).

I'm defending the concept of land reform, not Mugabe's land reform. This is an important distinction. Right-wing posters in here were criticizing Mugabe's land reform because they're opposed to the very idea of land redistribution using terms like "theft" or "steal".

A government of white colonists intent on exploiting the native population is still a colonial government, you see.

I don't understand why you're playing the "intellectual elitist" card when you think that smoking marijuana is a harmful vice, are against same-sex marriage and support regimes founded upon segregation. These are all positions that would make you a pariah amongst any community of non-airhead college graduates.

[Hifly]

I don't understand why you're playing the "intellectual elitist" card when you think that smoking marijuana is a harmful vice, are against same-sex marriage and support regimes founded upon segregation. These are all positions that would make you a pariah amongst any community of non-airhead college graduates.

Because holding these positions (please note that supporting Ian Smith does not mean one necessarily supports segregation) are compatible with being intellectual, just as holding opposite views can also be compatible with being dumb.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I don't understand why you're playing the "intellectual elitist" card when you think that smoking marijuana is a harmful vice, are against same-sex marriage and support regimes founded upon segregation. These are all positions that would make you a pariah amongst any community of non-airhead college graduates.

Because holding these positions (please note that supporting Ian Smith does not mean one necessarily supports segregation) are compatible with being intellectual, just as holding opposite views can also be compatible with being dumb.

They're honestly part and parcel with the term at this point though, the number of academics who are opposed to marijuana legalization or gay marriage or are supportive of Ian Smith (?) are hard to find. If you're actually some kind of university student in a strong humanities or social science program, you'd be very cognizant of this fact.

You're habit of coming off as an insufferable condescending elitist would be more a worthy tactic if you'd displayed any merit or credentials through your posts. Instead it's you comes off as you attempting to avoid real dialogue via personal attacks.

[Hifly]

I don't understand why you're playing the "intellectual elitist" card when you think that smoking marijuana is a harmful vice, are against same-sex marriage and support regimes founded upon segregation. These are all positions that would make you a pariah amongst any community of non-airhead college graduates.

Because holding these positions (please note that supporting Ian Smith does not mean one necessarily supports segregation) are compatible with being intellectual, just as holding opposite views can also be compatible with being dumb.

They're honestly part and parcel with the term at this point though, the number of academics who are opposed to marijuana legalization or gay marriage or are supportive of Ian Smith (?) are hard to find. If you're actually some kind of university student in a strong humanities or social science program, you'd be very cognizant of this fact.

The amount of interest I have in what the Oxford University Biology and Biochemistry professors' views on Marijuana legalisation or gay marriage are could not be underestimated. What's more, it's totally irrelevant to being able to do your job properly or achieve your degree under them.
When my academic record and ability was assessed both in application and in interview, they could not have cared less about whatever views I had on social issues.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why would you as a Biology (?) major feel as if you have the authority to use the "education condescension" card when talking about political philosophy or public policy or history...

Stop. It's irritating, not endearing and you have the credentials of a high school graduate with regards to these subjects. I question the fact that you attend any kind of university due to the attitude you've put on display, no student one would be so brash or bold to act this way.

[Hifly]

Biological Sciences.
You can carry on questioning my acceptance to a top university to your heart's desire.
I'm commencing next Michaelmas term and I can guarantee you that my views will not change. Being socially conservative does not, and never has stopped anyone from being intelligent.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The important impact of Mugabe's 'land reform' (which is a very generous term) was to destroy the agriculture of the country. That harmed more than just white landowners.

The principle victims of what happened after 2000 were actually the black farmworkers (the lack of knowledge about this fundamental point on the internet is both depressing and telling). Who, by rights, ought to have been the very people to benefit from land reform.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, I don't believe that the Shona or Matabele had quite the same conception of private property as we Europeans had, and even if they did, they had no legal records to substantiate their claims. Therefore, the land cannot have been stolen...

It has been well established - Mabo is perhaps the best known example - that such arguments are completely irrelevant to the question of colonial land claims. Arguments on a theme of Terra nullius (beyond ludicrous in the case of Subsaharan Africa, but that's beside the point) have been so absolutely and comprehensively discredited that it is vaguely shocking to see someone brazenly flourish it around as if it were a rabbit pulled from a hat. It's not a rabbit: it's a turd. Using it doesn't make you look oh-so-very intelligent and gloriously iconoclastic; it makes you look like a tin-eared racist prick. Therefore, it is best avoided.

In any case, the issue in Zimbabwe was not/is not native title.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously that's your view, but you imply that such a few is 'matter of fact', when it isn't. One of the most important features of the state - and not just the modern state - is that it can seize property legitimately.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody here is seriously defending Mugabe's actual land reform policies. Just the principle of land reform in the case of Zimbabwe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not the issue at all. The issue is systemic social and economic injustice, rooted in land ownership (i.e. the fact that a small minority - again, just 5% of the population - monopolised the entire economic resources of the country. And land was/is one of Zim's most important economic resources). There's also the fact that - unlike Kenya, by way of complete contrast - the White Rhodesians got greedy and overplayed their hand during the age of decolonisation (i.e. they wished to maintain the entire parasitic economic and political system rather than cut their losses and become merely a very wealthy minority).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alternatively (and accurately) they were farms largely built by black labour and (much more to the point!) more-or-less entirely run by black labour. There is this idea that we're talking about smallholders or something, but that's not the case. This is the agriculture of large estates and considerable labouring workforces. We aren't talking about farmers as upright yeomen or similar nostalgic bollocks, but farmers as landowners.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(please note that supporting Ian Smith does not mean one necessarily supports segregation)

But it does mean supporting an economic and political system designed for the actually pretty conscious exploitation of 95% of the population by the remaining 5%, with the division between the two groups being made on the basis of 'race'. It can certainly be argued that such a system is actually worse than most forms of overt segregation.

[bgwah]

White Rhodesians made a mistake not joining South Africa when they had the chance.

Anyway, they're both terrible, obviously.

[© tweed]

(please note that supporting Ian Smith does not mean one necessarily supports segregation)

But it does mean supporting an economic and political system designed for the actually pretty conscious exploitation of 95% of the population by the remaining 5%, with the division between the two groups being made on the basis of 'race'. It can certainly be argued that such a system is actually worse than most forms of overt segregation.

"couldn't it be argued that slavery was a bit racialist?"  -Ali G

[minionofmidas]

The Kenya Britishers didn't really do so willingly, my friend.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Kenya Britishers didn't really do so willingly, my friend.

Actually that's true, but the hand-overplay-thing wasn't quite so... er... massive.

[minionofmidas]

They were also a much smaller share of the population; even though abnormally large by East (or Central or West) African standards.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just to reinforce one of the basic points made in this thread:

Map of land use patterns in Zimbabwe:



Compare with this map of land ownership during the 1960s:

[Indy Texas]

Mugabe's treatment of white farmers comes nowhere close to Idi Amin's treatment of South Asians in Uganda in the 1970s - he gave them a matter of a few days to leave the country with no time to sell anything and threw them out with little more than the clothes on their backs and the ones who didn't get out in time got shot. There wasn't a whole lot of outcry about that in the West when it was going on. In fact, we basically looked the other way since he was "anti-communist."

[Cassius]

Mugabe's treatment of white farmers comes nowhere close to Idi Amin's treatment of South Asians in Uganda in the 1970s - he gave them a matter of a few days to leave the country with no time to sell anything and threw them out with little more than the clothes on their backs and the ones who didn't get out in time got shot. There wasn't a whole lot of outcry about that in the West when it was going on. In fact, we basically looked the other way since he was "anti-communist."

That was wrong of course. But your point is?

[Хahar 🤔]

White Rhodesians made a mistake not joining South Africa when they had the chance.

One contributing factor to the failure of that referendum (which doesn't seem to be mentioned in that article) is that white women in Rhodesia at the time possessed the right to vote, which would have been lost had Rhodesia been annexed to South Africa.