Zimbabwe's Hitler Wages War Of Land!!!

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by SIZZLA, Jul 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SIZZLA

    SIZZLA New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 1999
    Messages:
    7,907
    So, what exactly did Mugabe do to be reviled as Africa's Hitler?

    Embarked on wars of conquest, insisting on his country's primacy over all others? Nope. That's the sole province of George W. Bush, who has been jackbooting around central Asia, setting up military bases far and wide, rattling his sword, and no longer even making the effort to seem as if the United States intends to respect the rule of law. Geneva Conventions? The UN Charter? What are they against the authority of the imperial Presidency?

    Of course, in a world not so polluted by the thick smog of self-serving propaganda, it would be immediately clear that if anyone is deserving of the epithet 'Hitler' it is Bush, as too a fair number of his predecessors, not Milosevic, not Lukashenko and not Mugabe. The charge sheet against Bush reads: fostering a chauvinistic, violent patriotism, a readiness to eclipse civil liberties, concentration of power in the executive office, a robust expansionism, a brand of official racism aimed at Muslims, disregard for international law, and a muscular militarism.

    Still, so impenetrable is the fog that billows forth from the White House, State Department, and Pentagon, to be concentrated into an even denser soup in the nation's newsrooms, that it remains impermeable even to those you would think would have some chance of piercing it -- the US left. But the US left, or the larger part of it, reacts with high dudgeon at even the hint their president is worthy of the hated name. Dumb? Yes. Corrupt? Certainly. Cold? Inarguably. Subservient to powerful corporate, and especially oil, interests? Without a doubt. But a Hitler? Never. As to Milosevic, Lukashenko and Mugabe: Why, of course, they're Hitlers.

    Mugabe's transformation from unremarked and anonymous leader, to personification of evil, began in 1997. And it all was traceable to an issue that has plagued Zimbabwe from even before it achieved independence in 1980 -- the land question.

    Before 1980 Zimbabwe was a white-supremacist British colony that went by the name of Rhodesia, after the British financier Cecil Rhodes, whose company, the British South Africa Company, stole the land from the indigenous Matabele and Mashona people in the 1890s. British soldiers, who laid claim to the land by force of arms on behalf of Rhodes, were each rewarded with nine square miles of land. The Matabele and Mashona -- those who weren't killed defending their land-- were rewarded with dispossession, grinding poverty, misery and subjugation. Today, in a country of 13 million, almost 70 percent of the country's arable agricultural land is owned by an elite of some 4,500 mostly white farmers, many descendant from the British soldiers who Rhodes blessed with a claim to stolen land, to pass down the generations.

    O'the shit gets deep!

    http://www.swans.com/library/art8/gowans21.html
    test
  2. barnizzle

    barnizzle HIP HOP

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    7,636
    droppin knowledge
    test
  3. Tequila Jong-il

    Tequila Jong-il SALAD TOSSER

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426
    The true victims of mugabe are not the white land owners. By and large they had the finances to escape zimbabwe and start their life over. The true victims of mugabe are the millions of poor blacks who have no option but to endure the economic hardship that mugabe's policies have brought about, and feel the wrath of his security forces should they not acquiesce in silence.

    Its a measure of the way zealotry can ravage ones powers of reasoning that two supposed black nationalists can act as cheerleaders and appologists for a man as he inflicts misery upon millions of blacks.
    test
  4. SIZZLA

    SIZZLA New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 1999
    Messages:
    7,907
    wait a min, Africa's freedom from colonial powers will not come without a price! freedom is not free people! Zimbabwe has over 500 years of gold reserves only feet below the surface, 1000 years of platnum and 101 native grown fruits and vegies not marketed by europeans! i see its worth the Britts wanting to spend their hard earned money to go in and wadge war against a people with what? nothing to give? i dobt that seriously! at some point and time, Africa must be for the African and that means without outside influence! nothing came from the Britts rule except poor Africans, wealthy Britts and a people being pushed further and further into depedency than ever so, as i said, some sacrafices must be made if there will ever be a free liberated African...
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)