Terrorist States

At a time when Americans and Western European countries remember the first aniversary of the twin tower debacle, little thought is given by these same countries with the exception of Brittain of the plight of the white farmers in Zimbabwe.

These farmers are Zimbabwian citizens, but because of the colour of their skin are being discriminated against. The government of Mugabe passes laws aimed to hound these whites off their land without compensation, and if they don’t comply, are considered law breakers and punished accordingly.

Racism is an international crime. Here in Southern Africa if a white expresses anti black views, he is justly tarred with the racist brush. Blacks (especially in Zimbabwe, their president included) vomit anti white sentiment, and don’t consider that to be racist. In fact when they spew their invective against the whites, they term them as “the racist minority (notwithstanding the fact that the majority of whites are not racists)”. The are told to give up their land or go to jail, then to leave the country, even if most of them have only a Zimbabwian passport.

President Bush recently made the statement to the effect that nations who do not actively side with the USA are indirectly supporting terrorist nations such as Iraq and possibly Libyia.

I ask you. Would you consider a nation as being a terrorist nation which:

1. Disposesses its own citizens of their property without compensation, giving such property to its own supporters and lackeys.

2. Impoverishes its own nation by throwing all sound economic principals to the wind, in spite of the fact that Zimbabwe is a very fertile country.

3. Actively practises racialism.

4. Kidnapping judges who then dissapear for applying the law against government ministers acting criminally.

5. (I could give a longer list of abuses, but the above will suffice)

Yet there is not the slightest threat of invasion to replace Mugabe with a democratic leader, as the Americans and the British wish to do with Saddim in Iraq. But then again America and the Western European countries have vested interests in the gulf states, but very little in Southern Africa by comparison. (What double standards apply?)

I live in South Africa. I can assure you that the leaders of the Southern African countries who give lip service of sympathy to the events of 11 Sept 2001, are not genuine (with the exception of Mandela). They need to kow tow to the American purse holders to help fund Africa’s own economic designs in the form of NEPAD. (In fact the American representative to the World Summit For Sustainable Development in Johannesburg was virtually bo-ed by most African country representatives, in spite of a promised American handout).

Groot Voel

I totally agree with you,

I have been following this story for some time and what the Zimbabwean Government is doing to these farmers is a crime in more was than one. It is these farmers that supply the food for most part that feeds this nation. From what I have read the military is now squatting on this land and no crops are being grown. This is a bad situation and sanctions should be placed on them by all free countries of the world but it this day and age with everything else going on I fear that nothing will be done. The world is not a nice place to live in anymore, the problem is I not sure ware we can move to. I wish I had an answer but sadly I do not other then keeping my basic beliefs, be kind to all humans and embrace all our differences.

Finally, something I know a bit about. <heh> I had to study the government of Zimbabwe and their foreign policy about 7 years ago as my final project for my degree.

I had to present the foreign policy of Zimbabwe as the government of that country sees it, not how we see it in the USA. My stomach turned having to defend and support the policies that the Zimbabwean government/ Mugabe put out. I had to defend it with vigor, even though I personally found what was going on to be quite wrong.

This was all before the land re-distribution efforts. From what I understand, they are even trying to evict Ian Smith, who as far as I can tell was the last person that actually had that country moving on the right track when it was called Rhodesia. He actually countermanded the British government (the previous colonial power) and started to get Zimbabwe/Rhodesia on the road to self reliance. If they had let him finish what he started, Zimbabwe would probably rival South Africa for dominance in Sub-Saharan Africa in the current era. There would have been more employement for all citizens, black and white.

Instead Mugabe runs the country as his own personal play thing and does really give a damn about how poor his citizens are or the fact that they are next in line for the famine that has been spreading across the continent.

I agree, Mugabe has got to go, but I think the US Government isn't too worried about the citizenry in Zimbabwe mounting attacks inside the United States. The government of the US definately looks out for its own self interests, however so do the governments of every other nation in the world. That is true regardless of the level of corruption any government has. So long as Zimbabwe doesn't show up on Colin Powell or George Bush's radar, they won't care about it.

Losethem (imported) wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2002 2:49 pm Instead Mugabe runs the country as his own personal play thing and does really give a damn about how poor his citizens are or the fact that they are next in line for the famine that has been spreading across the continent.

I

Woops! That should have said, "...does not give a damn..."

I understand that Mugabe is corrupt and

homophobic (I am gay myself, so obviously

I would appreciate some regime change there),

but that hardly justifies losethem's endorsement

of Ian Smith. losethem says Smith "countermanded

the British government" but does not say WHAT

the British government had ordered that was

evil enough to need countermanding. The

answer is simply that it had ordered democracy

in the country. Ian Smith was a far more

oppressive despot that Mugabe ever *can* be.

More to the point, we should all remember that

200 years ago, there were NO white citizens

of Rhodesia. The claim that there are some,

now, is basically preposterous. HOW exactly

did white farmers in Rhodesia COME TO OWN

their farms?

The unrepentant Boer from South Africa who

started this mess says that racism is an

international crime, but I'm sorry, Africans

did not get on boats and travel to 5 other

contintents and exterminate, exploit, and enslave

the people there. And then claim thereafter that

the victims of this should be GRATEFUL because

we the conquerors owned the farms that fed them.

The fact that imperialism only happened in

one direction (until we get to China) really

is relevant here.

Riverwind said:

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2002 12:18 pm what the Zimbabwean Government is doing to these farmers is a crime in more was than one. It is

these farmers that supply the food for most part

that feeds this nation.

To which any intelligent human being would

retort, WHY is all the best farmland in the

nation owned by its TINY minority of white

people? HOW DID THEY GET IT?

This is just blatant racism on Riverwind's part,

which makes it all the more galling that later

on in the same message, he says,

that we should respect all our differences.

If he respected black people then he would know

that they, TOO, when there are 10 MILLION of them,

are ENTITLED to own SOME of the land in THEIR

OWN country that food can be grown on -- instead

of remaining in poverty while people who STOLE

THIS LAND FROM THEM AT GUNPOINT claim (wrongly)

to have a morally legitimate claim to it.

Greeneg, I wish to reply to you:

1. I do not consider myself a Boer, but a proud gay South African, with South African citizenship, which I will not swop for any other nation’s citizenship in the world, my family having more than a 300 year ancestory (since 1688) here in South Africa. We also have the most profound and most liberal constitution (more liberal than even the constitution of the USA) in the world. At least our government abides by the constitution. You call me an UNREPENTANT Boer. What am I expected to repent from?

2. History cannot be changed, it is a fixed fact of life. Yes there were historically many injustices on the part of the white colonists of the day to the blacks. But so too were there historically also injustices on the part of the blacks to the original San, Bushmen and Hottontot inhabitants of South Africa whom they also dispossesed when they invaded the country from the north. There were wars fought between black nations in South Africa as well as wars fought between white nations in South Africa. We as blacks and whites in this country have also just come out of and come to amicable terms with one another from an unjust and inexcusable racial past.

3. The Zimbabwian farmers are Zimbabwian citizens irrespective of the colour of their skin, recognised as such by the Zimbabwian law and constitution. Most of the white farmers are now third to fourth generation people of the country. My argument is that Mugabe is not recognising these farmers right to be citizens of the country, on the grounds of the colour of their skin (his declared racialism) which happens to be white. Mugabe (a SHONA, original ethnic tribe of Zimbabwe) has no problem with the Matabele (with Buluwayo as their capital) who have only been approximately 50 years longer in Zimbabwe than their English white counterparts. The Matebele were Zulus from Natal (about 800 km away), fleeing from king Shaka. These Matebele visiously displaced the Shonas by occupying almost half of Zimbabwe in the west. (Incidently the Shonas some few hundred years earlier moved down from the north and east and destroyed the Rezi peoples, the original builders of great Zimbabwe).

4. My argument is that if Mugabe wishes to implement a land reform, do so by all means, but at least do so in line with international norms and practises by, compensating these farmers adequately (and not as just handouts to his supporters and lackeys), and also in a phased in fashion which does not destroy the economy of his country. Greeneg, it does not help to be pontifical by inferring that the whites deserve what they are getting, when the government is unable to supply the necessary training and expertise to the new occupants in running these sofisticated farms. The stark fact is that these farms are now becoming wastelands, causing famine to the new occupants. This has a chain reaction on my own country, because starving people from Zimbabwe are now flooding over the border into our own slender labour market, causing concern for our own economy and social structures.

5. Further greeneg, don’t be hypocrytical by condemming Mugabe for his anti gay stance because you happen to be gay (I am also gay) whilst on the other hand inferring support for his land grabs.

So he said:

>

Groot Voel (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:13 pm I do not consider myself a Boer, but a proud gay

> South African, with South African citizenship,

That is NOT your call. If both of your parents

are Boers then YOU ARE one, IRrespective of what

you may call yourself. ETHNICITY IS HERITABLE,

BY DEFINITION; that's just a fact of life.

Your decision about what you want to call yourself

has no bearing on it.

> which I will not swap for any other nation’s

>

Groot Voel (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:13 pm citizenship in the world, my family having more

> than a 300 year ancestory (since 1688)

> here in South Africa.

That is irrelevant. What IS relevant is what

they DID with their presence and influence in

the country. If all they did was plunder it of

gold and diamonds while herding most of the

black population into migrant worker camps,

shantytowns, and "homelands" then that HARDLY

qualifies as the kind of nation-building that

merits citizenship. More to the point, going

back THAT many generations, you have at least

1000 ancestors and they Did*NOT*ALL* live in S.Africa in 1688.

Maybe the ones you took your name from did, but

that paternal line is a SMALL fraction of the

total.

>

Groot Voel (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:13 pm We also have the most profound and most liberal

> constitution (more liberal than even the > constitution of the USA) in the world.

NO thanks to YOU, fool. THAT constitution is

the way it is BECAUSE OF THE VICTORY of black

and communist forces like the ANC *OVER* YOU.

> At least our government abides by

>

Groot Voel (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:13 pm the constitution. You call me an UNREPENTANT

> Boer. What am I expected to repent from?

If you were born in 1943, and your tribe of

South Africans institued apartheid over the

other tribe in 1948, then you have lived your

entire life as a beneficiary of it, unless your

parents quickly disowned their ethnicity and

threw in with liberal Brits. Which would be hard

to envision; the party representing MOST Boers

(the Nationalist party) sided with the Nazis

in WW2. That and the ENTIRE MODERN HISTORY OF

APARTHEID IN YOUR NATION is what you are expected

to repent from, unless you already worked to undo

it. You seem fluent in English; maybe your

native language is NOT Afrikaans; maybe your

parents did NOT support DeKlerk or apartheid;

I don't know. But by apologizing for white

farmers in Zimbabwe, you are certainly supporting

it now.

We apologize for giving you doctors and free medical care, as a

result of which you have been able to survive plagues and catastrophes

and grow in numbers;

We apologize for teaching you to read and write, and for

building you thousands of schools which we have repaired after you

vandalized them and burned them down, After all, if you could not read

how could you have learned the words of Karl Marx, Mao Tse-tung, and

others who taught you how evil we are and how oppressed you are?

We apologize for building factories and highways and buildings

that gave you employment;

We apologize for developing farms which to this day feed the

bulk of Africa;

We apologize for providing you with warm clothing made of

fabric instead of leaving you wearing the animal skins which you wore

before our arrival;

We apologize for taking minerals from the earth which you

neither used, nor wanted, nor even knew were there;

We apologize for those among us who have established welfare

organizations and have devoted their entire life towards making life

richer and better for your people;

We apologize that we have built roads and railroad tracks

between towns and cities which you now use every day without thinking;

We apologize for paying the lion's share of taxation while

spending less on ourselves than on you;

We apologize for giving you law and order and a strong central

government which prevented your own warrior nations like the Zulu and

the Matabele from slaughtering black people by the hundreds of

thousands as they did year in and year out before we came;

We apologize for teaching you the English language which has

opened to you the entire world of European thought, culture, and

commerce;

For all these sins we humbly beg forgiveness, and if you will

only accept our apology we will be happy to take back all of the above

evil and horrible things we have done to you and return to our European

homeland.

Greeneg. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder. That is your problem. Rant and rave as much as you wish. I am not prepared to take any further notice of you.