ZIMBABWE: WHITE LIES, BLACK VICTIMS

I remember in my boarding school Fatima House sang a song during the school feast celebrations. It was called Zimbabwe is Free. It was a rousing tune with a resonating bass element. I loved it. My father had told me all about Rhodesia changing hands when I was not yet ten years old, and we were happy that one more “racist bastion” as Radio Cameroon used to call them at the time, had crumbled into dust.

And all was well. Then in 2002, the Zimbabwean Land Issue became news.

Web Polls by Vizu

But what really happened in Zimbabwe? It is a story like that of the rape of Lebanon we see today, told by the Western media for their willingly brainwashed audiences. Mugabe is a fairly corrupt leader who is clinging to power. That cannot be denied. But when did his tyranny come to light? In 2002? And what choices did he actually have in the land business?

Let us go back in time. Under British colonial rule, the black owners of the land were restricted to tribal reserves. You can find a very good paper on on this and violence in Zimbabwe here.

In 1930, the Land Apportionment Act restricted access of black people to land. In the years that followed, there was increased pressure on the land, and of course the Africans were blamed for what was inaccurately and condescendingly referred to as “slash and burn” cultivation. That this method of farming was entirely appropriate in situations where there was enough land for shifting cultivation must have escaped the notice of colonial observers.

The settlers kept coming in, rising to 140.000 in 1945. But there were 4 million Africans. The Europeans decided that Africans kept livestock for the wrong reasons: “status and prestige”. So they decided to de-stock the land and herd the “natives” into more reserves to create more space for themselves. From 1946 to 1979, more than a million head of cattle were disposed of. By disposed of, I mean killed or stolen by white farmers.

Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980. Part of the talks/negotiations leading up to independence included the Lancaster House Agreement, which provided that from 1980 to 1990, a fund provided by Britain would be used to buy land from those white settlers who could not, in effect, stand being ruled by black Zimbabweans. Before that, less than 1% of the population, being the whites, owned 70% of the land. What the agreement actually did was protect white farm owners from redistribution of their land and put off possible nationalization for ten years. It was one of the conditions of Zimbabwe being granted (that’s the right term) independence.

In 1981, the Brits pledged more that 630 million pounds in aid for the land reforms. London now claims to have contributed £44m, but Timothy Stamp, Zimbabwe's finance minister, says it was only £17m.

In 1985, the Land Acquisition Act was enacted, against staunch white opposition. The act gave the Zimbabwean government first refusal, as it were, over land to be ceded by whites, which it would then purchase for the landless. But the white farmers did not want to sell their land and the Zimbabwean government did not have the money to buy. So what happened to the promised British aid, eh?

According to Human Rights Watch and others, 4.500 large-scale commercial farmers still held 28 percent of the total land at the time the fast track program was instituted after 2000; meanwhile, more than one million black families eked out an existence in overcrowded, arid "communal areas". Native reserves, they mean.

Then the veterans of the war of liberation said they wanted land. Then Messrs. IMF and World Bank came in with a Structural Adjustment package. Then there was a drought from 1990 to 1993. Mugabe was in trouble. The grassroots needed land, and the white people were not willing to share. He took the land from the white people and gave it to the black ones.

But which black ones? That is the purported source of all the noise you hear today.

Despite their pious claims, Britain and the others are not angry because Mugabe is a corrupt dictator. They sponsor corrupt dictators when it suits them. They are not angry because ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering under Mugabe. They don’t care about ordinary Zimbabweans. They were quite happy to herd them into reserves when it suited them.

No, what they care about is the expropriation of white farmers. They express indignation at Mugabe’s cronies acquiring the land. That is a bad thing, of course. I myself come from an area where government or government-affiliated bigwigs are buying up all the prime sea-front locations because they can afford them. But in the case of Zimbabwe only 0.3% of people settled on land have acquired it through undue influence or corruption. So 99.7% of Zimbabweans got their land fair and square. With Enron and cash-for-peerages scandals, who are these people to talk about corruption? Besides, the government has investigated and found that some four hundred people got their hands on land by dishonest means. It has investigated.

So we agree that Mugabe is doing a BAD THING. The bad thing is not, however, the fact that he has taken land that should go to poor landless Zimbabweans and given it to his friends. The bad thing is that he has taken the land from white people.

Now, don’t get me wrong. For some of those white farmers, Zimbabwe is their country. It is their motherland. There have been great personal tragedies as a result of the land expropriation. People have lost what they worked for over decades.

But.

Let them taste the pain of loss too. What did they think they were doing when they took the land of Africans in the first place? When the land was seized from the Africans and given to their parents and grandparents, why did they not say: “Oh no, don’t do that, it’s not cricket”? What did they think? That Africans do not have strong feelings of attachment to land, being only a kind of speaking ape? What did they think when they had armies of black servants to cater to their every whim in addition to farming the land that had been stolen from them, and being forced to sow fields they would never reap? Did they ever feel pain for the Africans? Did they acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the system? When Mugabe began to centralize power and silence political enemies, did they stand up and tell him to stop? 

No. They had their beasts of burden. That is all they needed. Now they tell you that they inherited the land, and they were not the ones who stole it. But they knew it was stolen. And when you see the child of a man from whom your father stole wallowing in mud, what should be the nice human reaction?

Hm?

Why is it that the white man’s pain is always greater than that of the black man?

They have trotted out the spectre of Africans who do not know how to run the huge farms: "You know, er, just leave the farms with us, because we’re better at running them and you guys are hopeless, everyone knows". The farms have lost some revenue. But is it because the Africans have no talent for farming? No. Here’s a quote I like:

Temporary economic dislocation is an unavoidable byproduct of land reform, but the only path to genuine and lasting progress is through land redistribution. There can be nothing efficient about a gross concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, while millions are condemned to lives of hopeless despair and poverty. No mainstream journalist has ever described the grotesque inequality of the situation inherited from colonialism and what this meant for those on the bottom.

You can read the whole article here. I have also just found out that after the reforms, cereal planted actually rose by at least 9%, according to the World Food Programme. So what are those racist lies about how Africans cannot work the farms?

But why were the white people living in a dream world where they thought they’d always own the farms and Africans would only work for them? The Africans will learn one day, as they have often learnt. The hard way.

Another aspect of this disinformation concerns what has actually happened to bring the Zimbabwean economy to its knees. It is true that a there is degree of corruption in Zimbabwe. It is true that the farms do not contribute as much as they did in terms of employment and revenue. Actually, that's not even true. Smaller, less mechanised farms mean more labour-intensive methods and increased employment.

But it is no less true that there has been a severe drought in Zimbabwe and all of Southern Africa. That is what has brought down grain production. Plus the IMF, plus the World Bank. Plus the media telling lies about Zimbabwe.

The veterans of the war of liberation were pressing for compensation. Mugabe paid up. He had no choice. It precipitated a financial crisis in 1997, but Mugabe at least had neutralized a looming threat to his power. Do George Bush and Tony Blair not neutralize looming threats to their power?

Mugabe has in fact, settled quite a few people on land. I am not saying his cronies have not got their fat, be-ringed fingers on some prime land. But so have at least 134.000 other people, who were settled between 2000 and 2002. So let’s not exaggerate here. And no, they were not all from ZANU-PF, Mugabe’s party. People from MDC, the opposition party, also got land.

Nor is it less true that the white world has decided to punish Mugabe for daring to take land from white farmers. But this is a long and different story. I will deal with it one day in an article on puppet masters.

This article is too long already, so I’ll stop here. But I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: we should not believe all the lies we read.

Comments

[Janjo Williams Junior]

Nyango Ekosso,

I will keep this short and straight to the point. An excellent reflection on the truth and lies about Mugabe and Zimbabwe is what you have provided. Fantastic reading it made and the links were wonderfull too. Keep it up. Greetings from a Bra.

[MA]

Nawain:

lefam so'o!

[BISONG CAVEN BISONG]

If a man in omibus where to ask you to answer monosyllabically to this question:is ROBERT MUGABE a traitor or/and a patroit?What shalL be your answer

[Shona Man]

True indeed. There are white lies and black victims involved in the whole land expropriation issue. However, there is a big caveat; the land grab started off as a tool for political retaliation and was carried out in a most chaotic and violent manner in order to punish the white farmers.

If Mugabe was really concerned about land distribution, he could have done it in an organized manner within the framework of the Zimbabwean state institutions and with the direct implication of security forces to facilitate the transition rather than to goard the black squatters into violence. That didn't happen.

Many of these farms lie in ruins today (yes, they do) not because black people can't handle 'civilized farming" but because the land grab took place without any consideration for the competence of those who were being allowed to take over the farms, or about the sustainability of the said farms.

Zimbabwe needed and still needs a viable land distribution policy, but not the political land grab of Mugabe and his crew. In the end, it was the Zimbabwean economy which suffered, including those "black victims" who have been twiced victimized by this Mugabe fellow...

So is Mugabe a patriot or traitor? TRAITOR!

[Eric Angu]

As always, this is a very good read from Rosemary. I find thhis posting like everything else Rose writes very analytical and objective i.e. if you side with her. Mugabe is an old hand in politics, he should have been better prepered against the 'white lies'.
Rose keep up the good work

[Ma Mary]

I always knew that there was "another side" to this Zimbabwe land palaver. The other side was not Robert Mugabe, who mostly used this instance to stay in power. The other side are the generationally displaced black folk of Zimbabwe and the failed promises of the British. The British were supposed to provide the means to allow the white farmers to make a soft landing from land reform. That was the deal. Over 2 decades passed and the political pressures started to mount.

Robert Mugabe is a dictator, no doubt about it, but the British have no problem with dictators so long as the dictator is their "nig" - dependent on them to stay in power while giving them free rein on their resources, land and people.

Perhaps they expected the Zimbabweans to accept the status quo of white ownership of the majority of the land forever. Hey, what do we expect from the inventors of plutocratic status? The greatest British inventions:

Rolls Royce
Bentley - The poor man's Royce
Golf
The Country Club
GRA
High Tea
Queen's English - to keep the unwashed at Bay

They believe that there is such a thing as "station in life" and upstarts show incredibly bad taste by not staying within its confines. Mugabe demonstrated incredible bad taste by doing just that, and that is what this is really about from the Western perspective. That said, Mugabe is a bad ruler and managed this land reform in a disruptive and violent fashion just to keep his sick octogenarian ass in power.

[lifongo VETINDE]

Great posting. I couldn't agree more with Rosemary's astute and illuminating perspective. The whites were certainly not going to give up the land unless something dramatically radical was done. But I think Mugabe's approach was chaotically dramatic, mindless and recklessly opportunistic. Why do I say this? Mugabe had all the time in the world to carefully prepare the forceful eviction of the white farmers from the land they grabbed from the blacks. He could have created schools of agriculture at the secondary and university levels to train his compatriots for the eventual take over of the farms and manage them judiciously. Such students could even have done their internships on those farms. Look at the situation now. Many Zimbwabeans who took over the farms are not producing much not because they are stupid, as the whites would like us to believe, but because they were neither trained in modern large scale farming techniques nor provided the machinery to work with. Despite the nobility of giving back the land to its rightful owners, his approach was cynically opportunistic at best. All Zimbwabeans, black and white, as well as other inhabitants of the sub-region are losers in this bleak drama.

Again, I agree with all what you said Rosemary. But I strongly disagree with Mugabe's approach.

Congratulations on the creation of this blog. Keep up the good work.

Lifongo VETINDE

[Dibussi Tande]

As I was surfing through websites linking to Rosemary's incisive analysis on Zimbabwe, I stumbled across a heartwrenching documentary, incidentally titled "Zimbabwe: Shawdows and Lies", which shows the effect of Mugabe's (mis)rule of Zimbabwe. It is available online at:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/zimbabwe504/video_index.html#

[Lloney Monono]

Please permit me to disagree here. Mugabe IS the problem in Zimbabwe. He has turned Zimbabwe from a bread basket to a basket case economically. Sure there are historical problems, but overall, I think these have been exacerbated by his corrupt misrule.

It is my view that Mugabe belongs to the crop of African leaders who must leave the scene if the continent has to make any progress at all.

Patriot or Traitor ? My vote is in the traitor camp.

Lloney

[christina]

You go girl! There is the need for land reform in every country in Africa and the Caribbean that suffered from white colonial rule. The world is still made up of too many Europeans who think that Africans do not think for themselves, so we ought to be grateful for them stealing land and "developing" it with our sweat. Most people of the African diaspora cheer Mugabe on, the way most Europeans cheer on Bush and Blair in their destruction of Iraq.

There is a very different perspective on events based on who you are and who your people are. The wealth resources of the world are in the developing world-land, oil and gas, minerals. The European-North American worlds still think that they can go where ever and take whatever with impunity. Mugabe is in their faces. I want him to stay there. Thabo Mbeki must join him. Castro and Chavez in Latin America are also in their faces for the same reasons. They will not let you develop along lines that suit indigenous people. What good does it do the people of one country if one quarter of its arable land is owned by a foreign company growing things for export when the poor people have to eat? Of what good is the growing of tobacco on prime agricultural land?. Can it feed small children's protien starved brains? Unless Third World leaders are willing to take back their natural resources, and manage them in a way that profits their own poeple, we cannot say that we are truly free.
Nationalization of resources must again be the norm for Africa and Latin America. It's the only way to give poor dispossessed people a fighting chance.

[Sean McDermott]

Some things that Africa has to learn.
1) Nationalism never works anywhere at anytime and never will. Find another way.
2) The truth sets you free. If you are not free you have not found the truth. Find it.
3) Trust no man, ever. A constitution that kicks out the leaders of government often is the only protection. No man can totally screw up a country in under 8 years. You might get the occasional 'beneficient' dictator but the gamble is too risky.
4) The State must never be bigger than the individual. If you don't matter any more, what are you going to do?

[bambam]

Sean, good points. I worry more about the US on that score than Zimbabwe that is muddling at the beginning of the process.

[Kwensi]

Sean, I agree with all the points you raised except the one about nationalism. Nationalism always works!!

America is the most nationalistic country on earth and that has worked FOR not against it thus far.
The problem we have in Africa is that we have forgotten how to be nationalistic since we fought for and obtained "political independence" in the 60s. Our elites are too busy trying to be on the good side of their minders in the West to try to get economic independence for their countries. Never mind all the talk about globalisation and global village, nationalism is alive and well in our day and age. These days politician use euphemisms like national interests and values to describe it. From the look of things African countries are not allowed to have national interests.

[emmanuel asong]

I will start by saying that Mugabe is a traitor.
Mugabe has been in power since 1987,yet it was only in 2000 that he realised that the whites were occupying the land wrongfully?
the whole thing was a political strategy, aimed at curbing the rise of the MDC.of Tsvangirai.
Yes,it is and was morally wrong for the a few whites to own the majority of the land.
Yes, this lands had to be returned to the africans.
But was that the only way to do it? one wonders.
The truth is, and i have been over there, the blacks do not have the capacity for mass agricultural production that the whites have, and that is why the country is suffering today,and the drought has made things worse.
The whites are not suffering.its true they made losses,but many just moved to mozambique and Angola, and even Nigeria to lease lands. Those countries are beneffitting from their expertise and are beginning to export food now.
In South Africa, land appropriation has been gradual, without causing much social tension. Madiba was not a fool.
The lancaster house agreements required britain to pay some monies, right. What pressure did 'Bob' put on the british. No, he was enjoying himself. If someone owes u money, u don't fold ur arms,you put pressure on him or her to give it to you.

Mugabe shoould have created programs to train rural farmers on mass scale agriculture.

Then he would started to gradually take some lands from the whites and make sure the are occupied by people with the capacity to operate them,obviously with the support from the government, be it technical or otherwise.

And while doing this , he would have been putting pressure on the British government to pay their dues, if possible with help of powerful friends in the international community.

Instead , see the mess he has created.That's not patriotism.

Surely, 'Bob', you know, and i believe you knew better than that, but the fear of losing power blinded your reason. Now you have become the scourge of so beautiful a country.

Asong

[abdou kalkaba]

Just to say for this beautiful literature... I really enjoyed and it was very instructive...
Many Thanks

[Shawn Crisp]

I've noticed that many of the most fervent black African supporters of land-grabs now live in European countries. I wonder how they might feel if their adopted white governments decided that the European 'native' homeless were now entitled to their property for simply being white and poor. Wouldn't sit well, would it? The land situation in Africa has to be addressed obviously, but please don't rush too quickly into judgements that inflict loss and pain on people who didn't live at the time when the problem was created.

[Ma Mary]

REFERENCES:
Frontline Documentary: Zimbabwe: Shadows and LIes

Shawn has a point, but we are not talking about identical situations here. There is one striking difference. Most African property owners in the West bought their property as individuals in a fair manner on the open market. In Rhodesia, Cecil Rhodes moved entire populations by force from arable land to install a relatively white farmers, turning the indigenous population effectively into serfs for the settlers.

This injustice was the course of the liberation war in Zimbabwe, and land reform had to be one of the social justice outcomes.I do not think that is in question. The problem is with the methods employed by Robert Mugabe.

Shawn's comparison would hold true if a bunch of Africans went to some place in Europe, pushed out everybody by force and intimidation and took over their property. I think the grand children of the aggrieved would have rights to claim the plundered property. As an example, descendants of holocaust victims are claiming houses and objets d'art plundered in Austria and other places.

Certain acts cry for justice across the generations.

[Bryan]

This is a very good piece of writting. However there are a few points that puzzel me? When white people first came to africa where blacks farming? where they growing corn or cereal? So what where they using the land for?

If they were not using the land then how can it be claimed that the land was stolen? if they were not farming then it makes sense for them to be moved because if they are not farming they do not need furtile land. this makes sense. Now all those years ago when they were moved, did they know anything about farming.... no. Its only after white people worked the land and made money that it suddenly dawned on them.

How many people who had there land "stolen" by those "evil white people" are alive today? are those "evil whites" alive today? so the black people who are taking the land today were not alive when the farms were "stolen", they were not alive when the whites turned bush into farms, they were not alive to feel the "pain" of having their land that they did not use "stolen" so really they are just plain old black people stealing farms because farms were "stolen" from their grand parents. man whites in zimbabwe were born after white rule but do blacks show them any respect.....NO. these "evil whites" did not steal anything but the black people were allowed to steal form them because they are white.

you talk about the land grabs as if they are a good thing. why dont you live in zimbabwe? Do you think the people who are going to strave this year think that the land grabs are a good thing?

[Saeed Mulagata]

The post by Bryan reflects a hostillity to truth and history that only could come from an American or a lying apologist for colonialism. He begins with the question How many people who had there land "stolen" by those "evil white people" are alive today? are those "evil whites" alive today? He does not wait for an answer, he arrogantly assumes that no African alive in Zimbabwe had his land stolen. Worse he presupposes the descendants of those who were dealt unjustly are not worthy of justice by having the land of their ancestors returned.

This arrogance is exceeded by this statement:
When white people first came to africa where blacks farming? where they growing corn or cereal? So what where they using the land for?

If Africans were only using their land to let monkeys poop on it who are white men to say they loose the use of it?

Finally yes Bryan, the whites who stole land and killed Africans were and are evil. Your sarcasm makes this no less true.

[Patrick Gathara]

The lopsided distribution of land in Zimbabwe should have been dealt with as an economic, not political, issue. After all, in the United States, approximately 3% of the population own or control 97% of privately owned land. In Kenya, only 20% of land is in privately owned and the majority of that is concentrated in the hands of a few. The question should be whether this harms the economic interests of the majority.

I accept that injustices were perpetrated against Africans during colonial times. I also accept that the white land grab was an act of thievery. But this was nothing new. Pre-colonial Africans routinely fought over and appropriated the land of their weaker neighbours (the idiocy of Bryan's comment above notwithstanding). The Maasai of Kenya believed all cattle was theirs by right and didn't hesitate to relieve their neighbours of their stocks. Romans, Huns and countless others did much the same thing in Europe. The English did it to the Irish, Scots and Welsh.

When we in Africa attained independence we were no longer small ethnic states as before. For better or worse, the white man had (dis)organised us into nation-states. Our leader's responsibilities, therefore, were no longer to a select tribal grouping but to the nation as a whole.

Land, like minerals or oil, is an economic resource that belongs to the entire nation. How best to utilise it in the interests of all should be the guiding principle of redistribution, not short term political or racial considerations.

[Ma Mary]

This is what Bill Fletcher, Jr, immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, the organization started by Randall Robinson says about the matter. Robert Mugabe is a disappointment to most of us who supported the anti-colonial struggle in the 1970s.

[West AFrican]

I lost all trust and respect in Mugabe long ago. Those who followed the history would recall that there were two movements, ZANU and ZAPU. Mugabe was ZANU boss and ZANU had a predominantly Shona following. Then there was ZAPU, which had a predominantly Matabele base (The Joshua Nkomo people). The war with Ian Smith ended, and ZANU being the larger force took power.

There was some disatisfaction with the outcome in Matabele land. Mugabe's response was to send a North Korean trained counterinsurgency unit to the area around Bulawayo, where they committed serious atrocities. That was just months following independence.

This is an evil, ruthless player and he needs to die soon and fertilize the soil.

[Vito]

The whites are supposed to use violence and murder to sieze our land but we are expected to be democratic,well mannered and cultured in our bid to get it back."Who born dog?"
In my country ,there is black on black colonisation with annexationist forces "buying" our land,changing the names of our towns and employing us in plantations on our very own ancestors' soil;and today they want to sell what little's left of it to white men under the guise of privatisation.Whenever we get our independence,we're seizing back everything so whoever "buys" land in my country will have to deal with worse than Mugabe sooner or later.
ROBERT MUGABE?HERO!

[jonas]

A catchy title, but from another perspective (& experience) it could also be viewed ZIMBABWE: BLACK LIES, WHITE VICTIMS.
It's a good article to get a dialogue going but one comment - be cautious of bias. Your quotes and statistics reveal only one side of the massively complicated Zimbabwe issue.

We should learn from history and not re-do past mistakes. Otherwise we are moving backwards in our development as humans.
Example: Many bloggers talk of 'righting the past' with reference to the 1800's land-grab by white settlers.
Okay, we know there have been huge steps with land redistribution, but in this regard Mugabe was also quoted as saying "...the government's seizure of white-owned farms have benefited fewer than 10% of black Zimbabweans."
And yes, the whites have suffered immensely and bled as a consequence of this.
We all know (secretly) that most of the African leaders see the scenario in Zimbabwe as 'justice' - the white, oppressor is simply getting what he deserves.

So in the end, the deed is done and we need to ask ourselves what's been the benefit to the Nation as a whole? Is it the 80% unemployment and inflation of approx. 1200% or is it the life expectancy rate of approx 40 years?
Can we play the blame-game and pin this on the Colonials as well, even though it's been nearly 26 years of independence?

I have a few questions for readers:

Why are black Zimbabweans fleeing the country, while a few whites are trying to stay and build a future there?
And just who are these so-called WHITES. Are they not born and bred Zimbabweans? Can we even call them Africans?
In fact, you are just as likely to pass a 3rd generation, white Zimbabwean in the streets of Harare as you are a black Zambian for example. Which one is a true child of Zimbabwe? How would you decide, based on what aspects?

While other Zimbabwe citizens flee the chaos a few whites elect to remain (less than 1% of the population), to work towards a better future. I wonder again, why are they being victimized?
These are after all the only whites remaining in Zimbabwe, there are no others? No other bogeyman in the cupboard.
So what's with this white/ black issue?
My caution – we are here and now in the present, the past is gone. Labeling is bad and racism is racism.

By the way, my interest is in anthropology and so one final question, who were the ancient, original 'guardians' of the land within Zimbabwe territory (that is before the Shona, Matabele etc).

[vito]

Right;and i think the president should give some soft loans to the new and rightful owners to enable them employ the "staying on" whites as foremen and labourers.They do have much technical know how and as true and patriotic citizens,should be ready to dispense it for the development of the nation in whatever capacity.