A white male speaks about Zimbabwe's resistance to colonialism

Publié le 23 septembre 2007 par hort

Zimbabwe: The Resistance to Colonialism
Monday, April 2, 2007
By K. Elford

We White people hardly ever realize our offense when discounting information being presented to us from a Black point of view. There are informed alternatives to the White-owned mainstream media, outlets that provide alternative views for important consideration.

There is excessive attention from the Western media on the Zimbabwe land reclamation program. Many Whites, White journalists, politicians, White landowners and former White landowners are voicing opposition to this exercise. Unfortunately Whites have the loudest voice with the least to say. That voice comes from a biased, emotionally charged and uninformed point of view based on White mainstream media propaganda. Whites just don't want to see the land reclamation issue differently than how the West is presenting it.

Land illegally obtained by Whites and the efforts to reclaim it by the rightful owners is an ongoing, significant point of contention between the minority White occupiers and the landless indigenous Black majority in Africa.

The ownership of land in any nation is the lifeblood of the sovereign people. Whose hands the land is in and how it is managed controls the welfare of the community.

Whites were enticed to Zimbabwe in search of gold by the White established British South Africa Company (BSAC); a company granted to Cecil Rhodes by England's Queen Victoria. Unsuccessful in their search, instead of the riches of gold promised, they were "given" large tracts of land by the BSAC. One of the problems with this land handout is the British and BSAC had no real authority to give any land to anyone.

Before Whites showed up in Africa, culturally there was a different concept towards land "ownership". Whites will tell tales of treaties and agreements made with local Africans (people who had no authority to make agreements), but I find those tales hard to believe since Whites were "negotiating the treaties". Besides the language barriers, the concepts of owning land individually would be foreign to many indigenous Africans so there is no way these treaties were anything but a White concocted and enacted affair. Closer to the truth is that the landgrab initiated by Whites brought the White settlers into conflict with the indigenous African populations.

Africans rebelled and wars were fought in attempts to rectify the White settler infestation and the environmental disasters being brought on by their presence. In response to African rebellions the BSAC officially "sanctioned" the use of force to enact their "new" land policy concocting a "racial solution" to the land issue.

What was the solution White settlers initiated? The 1899 Order in Council, "the Council shall assign to the natives land sufficient for their occupation, whether as tribes or portions of tribes, and suitable for agriculture and pastoral requirement" (Palmer, 1977). In other words, Black Africans were "resettled" onto reserves, while Whites allowed themselves new land occupancy with prospective settlers continuing to get lands grants. Is any of this sounding familiar?

Within a few years nearly half of the indigenous population were living on reserves and had lost nearly 16 million hectares of land to the White settlers. Not long after their arrival Whites had 2500 farms occupying approximately 15 million hectares.

White landgrabs in Africa were the beginning of the colonization of indigenous Africans. Do Whites have the same imagery of colonialism as those who Whites forced their institution of colonialism on? Very unlikely. In the U.S. Whites think of a colony, the fairytale Thanksgiving stories of White settlers taking care of the Native Americans and for the British it would be tales of conquest of what they feel are a lesser-type of human being under the guise of advancing "civilization" while increasing their material wealth.

Colonization in Zimbabwe was a minority of Whites illegally occupying the land, imposing a British structured control of resources, labor and government displacing the indigenous Black population by subjugation. The British colonizers became dominant using brutal force against Black Africans during their efforts to replace the established indigenous cultural structure.

The result has been the minority White colonizers accumulating wealth while the majority indigenous Black population, no longer in control of their land and resources, has been left in extreme poverty.

The occupation of land by Whites has had a direct impact on Africa's economy preventing the ability of the local indigenous population from competing fairly. Unless Black Africans gain access to land ownership they remain poor, while the White minority continues to profit. This unfair advantage in favor of Whites is what perpetuates the cycle of poverty: a middle class from within the indigenous peoples is not allowed to expand; the nation has the minority Whites accumulating the most wealth; a few Blacks are being promoted, often by chance or circumstance; and the majority Black population remains in poverty. As long as these few Whites hold the most and the best land, there is no way to break this poverty cycle.

Does the average citizen in the West have any idea why their governments are so interested in the land reclamation program in Zimbabwe? Whites tend to believe the propagandized vision of a benevolent government that "gives" assistance to the downtrodden. What is missing from that vision is that Western governments give nothing and through colonization (also known as imperialism) is the reason many are downtrodden.

If Western governments were really interested in the well-being of developing countries, why do Western governments knowingly support opposition organizations that have stated they will use violence to meet their goals? In which Western country can someone threaten to use violence to bring down a government and be free? In the U.S. and UK? No. But when the U.S. and Britain are campaigning and plotting a foreign government takeover, they will condone and defend opposition parties using violence while castigating the local democratically elected government for reacting exactly as the U.S. and European governments would to quell any violence being used against them.

The current White instigated and maintained war in Iraq is about land and resources.

It has become common knowledge including admissions from the U.S. elite that the information used to rally the citizenry of the U.S. behind the U.S. led War against Iraq was "faulty". What is the cost of this faulty information? Besides the loss of 655,000 people and counting, the Iraq nation has lost its identity and its land is being destroyed while being occupied by the White invaders. Does anyone really think that when this war ends the U.S. has any intention of giving back the land and other resources they are taking? Would the U.S. remove all traces of its presence and restore an Iraqi identity? This has not happened as yet anywhere else that the U.S. has invaded, so it would be prudent to suggest that will not be the case.

As horrifying as the Iraq War is, there is sufficient documentation of at least 56 instances of major U.S. aggressions abroad since World War II.

The majority of Whites overwhelmingly and blindly consider any alternative media, along with different perspectives (any source of information other than the mainstream media) as "conspiracy theories" or unpatriotic America-bashing.

The hypocrisy of this type of thinking is that the average U.S. citizen debunks as a "conspiracy theory" any information when it points out that the U.S. government is corrupt, but will easily accept other governments as being guilty of "conspiracies", especially if they perceive them as threats against them in the U.S. Imperialist empires do depend on individual paranoia to keep the charade of legitimacy going.

And so the U.S. and European imperialist aggressions against foreign governments go on using brute force by the most inhumane displays of aggression unabated with the mainstream press aiding every step of the way. The antagonistic Western governments keep propping up puppet governments and funding oppositions to take down resistant governments the world over and hardly a word is spoken. White people refuse to believe that Western governments are directly responsible for any wrongdoings. Could Whites ever fathom that Western, White governments are behind every major conflict in the world?

Email: zimbabwecrisis@yahoo.com

Mugabe's hold on Africans

Despite an economy in turmoil, four-figure inflation and the exodus of millions to neighbouring countries, Zimbabwe's president can rely on the support of his African peers. Peter Biles spoke to one of them in a bid to discover Robert Mugabe's secret. The photographers and cameramen had been waiting patiently outside the Mulungushi conference centre in Lusaka.

Southern African leaders were arriving thick and fast but the man everyone was waiting to see was Mr Mugabe. He may be a pariah in the capital cities of the European Union but here in the heart of southern Africa he knows he can count on a fair degree of undying loyalty. When the Mugabe motorcade eventually swept in there was a noticeable tightening of security.

A small pick-up truck bore three heavily armed soldiers in the back, and bodyguards surrounded the black limousine as the 83-year-old president emerged. He smiled and stepped forward with his wife, Grace, to meet his Zambian hosts. There was certainly no hint that this was a head of state under intense domestic pressure.

Liberation generation

Zambia is a place that all the southern African leaders know pretty well. On this occasion, they had come for a routine summit but, for some, Lusaka is like a home from home. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa lived here for years when he was an exiled member of the ANC. Zambia has always offered a hand of friendship to refugees, especially during the days of the liberation struggle in South Africa and what was Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.

Robert Mugabe spent his time in Mozambique during the bush war but a warm welcome is still assured when he meets his fellow leaders. He is the longest-serving head of state in the region - bar one - and he clearly relishes his position as one of the elder statesmen. You have to appreciate the bonds of loyalty that defined the struggle for independence in post-colonial Africa to understand why it is that Robert Mugabe is still treated with so much respect, even when his country is collapsing around him and he is largely to blame. African tradition dictates that he should not be criticised in public whatever private thoughts his peers might harbour.

Kenneth and Robert

In Lusaka, I ran across Kenneth Kaunda - independent Zambia's first president. We first met 20 years ago when he occupied State House. Having been the nation's founding father, he had led the country since 1964. Not unlike Zimbabwe, Zambia's post-colonial era was characterised by optimism to begin with, but then came economic mismanagement, social unrest, and the emergence of political opposition. But Kenneth Kaunda did something unusual. He fought an election in 1991, lost and stepped aside gracefully after 27 years in power. That is exactly how long Robert Mugabe has been around.

Mr Kaunda was never the greatest leader but he was - and still is - a well-meaning man with real charisma. As we sat talking the other afternoon, there seemed to be no better person to shed light on Robert Mugabe. Kenneth Kaunda is near enough the same age, just two months younger. They were both born in 1924. These days, KK - as he has always been known - enjoys his retirement with dignity and seems to command genuine respect. As we chatted a stream of passers-by - most of them young enough to be his grandchildren - lined up to greet him and shake his hand.

I tried to picture Robert Mugabe in a similar situation but, to my mind, he and Kenneth Kaunda were poles apart - the despot clinging to power and the happily retired politician, once renowned for his national ideology of humanism. An improved spirit? So I asked Dr Kaunda if he could help explain Robert Mugabe's popularity in the region.

And Kenneth Kaunda speaks for many in the region in blaming not Mugabe for Zimbabwe's troubles but successive British governments. "It's no good demonising Robert Mugabe," he says. "We should all put our heads together, talk to him, and work with him on a solution." But that is not to say that even those closest to the Zimbabwean president want him to seek another term in office in his 84th year. Because by all accounts they do not.

My last glimpse of President Mugabe during his brief visit to Lusaka was on a wind-swept parade ground at the city's military airport. He and the other southern African leaders had come to inaugurate a regional brigade - a key component in a new African standby peacekeeping force. As the presidents stood shoulder to shoulder they released a bunch of green, blue, and white balloons.

It was a symbol of what this region aspires to - an improved spirit of togetherness and closer integration designed to stimulate economic growth and development. But because of Zimbabwe, southern Africa is facing its most serious crisis in years. And love him or loathe him, it is Robert Mugabe who holds centre stage.