VTMBH Article: Body
The debate about land redistribution has been heating up in Southern Africa, namely Zimbabwe and Namibia. South Africa has kept the agitation of its own citizens under wraps. The West severely criticized President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe for wresting back control of arable lands in the country from the very small minority of whites who control them, so as to redistribute them to Africans. Namibia, another African country with almost the same history as Zimbabwe, has exactly the same land problem: a very small, white minority controls more than 60 percent of the arable land. Though President Sam Nujoma tried to approach the question of land redistribution differently from President Mugabe, he encountered the same intransigence from white farmers as in Zimbabwe.
Despite all the propaganda that has been employed by the West, through the white media, to discredit Mugabes attempt to right the wrongs committed against Africans in Zimbabwe, the fact remains that majority of the 800 million Africans support his land redistribution policies. As much as the Western media tries to paint Mugabe as a monster, intent on starving his own peoplea problem that only arose this yearthe question remains: should the lands in the Zimbabwe and Namibia, for which hundreds of thousands of Africans were massacred and uprooted from their natural environment, be left in the hands of the descendants of the men who massacred them?
Between 1892 and 1905, when the brave people of Africa challenged the authorities, the German army massacred over 60,000 people, about 80 percent of the Herero and Namas people of former South West Africa, now called Namibia. They then left 15,000 to starve to death.
Namibia is now a country of 1.8 million people, and the descendants of those Germans who massacred innocent Africans, including other whites, now constitute about seven percent of the population, or about 126,000 people. But while the white population constitutes only seven percent of the whole, it controls more than 60 percent of the arable land in Namibia.
After so-called Europes scramble for Africa, or, more appropriately, Europes invasion for Africas natural resources, the Germans annexed the territory from the Portuguese and renamed it South West Africa. In 1915, after the German defeat during World War I, the then-government of South Africa took over the territory, but in 1920 it was given a mandate by the League of Nations to govern the territory.
In 1946, the United Nations refused to allow South Africa to annex the territory, which South Africa proceeded to do anyway, refusing to place the territory under U.N. Trusteeship. With white racism surging through South Africa, it began to introduce the same type of laws in South West Africa.
In 1958, Africans formed the Ovamboland Peoples Congress, which became the South West Africa Peoples Organization (SWAPO) in opposition to the South African government. In 1966, SWAPO launched an armed struggle against the racist apartheid government of South Africa. In the fight for the liberation and independence of Namibia, thousands of Africans lost their lives. But, on the other hand, in most cases the small white minority assisted, participated and fought on the side of the white South African government.
As this newspaper noted in its August 8-14, 2002 issue, the same murderous rampage was employed by the British in the case of Zimbabwe. In that article, we noted that, The word Bulawiyo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for slaughter, and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes, who crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow
poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or exterminated. Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then-Southern Rhodesia independent, while he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed when he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, The more we killed, the happier we were.
Yes, that is what Ian Smith was quoted as saying, and he never denied saying it. On the other hand, the governments of Zimbabwe and Namibia have neither asked for nor sent troops to massacre the white population to seize back the land. All they have done is plead with the small minority of white farmers to be fair and see the tragedy of denying access to arable lands to 99 percent of the population. As Mugabe rightly told Mr. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, you keep your Britain, I keep my Zimbabwe, in reference to the fact that the Europeans were the ones who seized other peoples landsAmerica, South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, just to name a fewwithout a cent in compensation.
Unfortunately, the fact remains that the debate on the question of land redistribution in Zimbabwe, and now Namibia, has been appropriated and left in the hands of the Western media. Again, the so-called African intellectual elite is being brain-washed into mouthing the same platitudes that the white media has been spewing out on this issue.
Some of us may not like the politics of either Mugabe or Nujoma, who has already vowed to step down after his term as president expires in 2004. The muscling of the press and the jailing of journalists in Zimbabwe should be condemned by all.
But it is time that Africans in the Diaspora got involved in the debate about the right method of land redistribution in Zimbabwe or Namibia. Of course, there are those who have joined the Western media in accusing Zimbabwes Mugabe of using the issue of land redistribution to save himself from political humiliation and defeat. He has also been accused of giving to his political cronies and relatives the land that his government has purchased back from the white farmers.
Granted that the above were true, the question still remains: when is the right time, and under what circumstances should land redistribution happen in Zimbabwe or Namibia? Also, should Africans, who are always turning the other cheek to be slapped, compensate the descendants of those who massacred their ancestors and throw them out of the land that they now claim as theirs?
To what extent should Britain, which promised to make 50 million pounds or $75 million available to the Zimbabwe government to repurchase the lands, but later reneged on their promise, be held accountable for the land redistribution debacle in Zimbabwe?
We cannot continue to allow the Western leaders and their media to instigate the debate for us. It always happens, and then we turn around, postmortem, to accuse them of not playing fair and hijacking our issues. It should be our debate.
Despite all the propaganda that has been employed by the West, through the white media, to discredit Mugabes attempt to right the wrongs committed against Africans in Zimbabwe, the fact remains that majority of the 800 million Africans support his land redistribution policies. As much as the Western media tries to paint Mugabe as a monster, intent on starving his own peoplea problem that only arose this yearthe question remains: should the lands in the Zimbabwe and Namibia, for which hundreds of thousands of Africans were massacred and uprooted from their natural environment, be left in the hands of the descendants of the men who massacred them?
Between 1892 and 1905, when the brave people of Africa challenged the authorities, the German army massacred over 60,000 people, about 80 percent of the Herero and Namas people of former South West Africa, now called Namibia. They then left 15,000 to starve to death.
Namibia is now a country of 1.8 million people, and the descendants of those Germans who massacred innocent Africans, including other whites, now constitute about seven percent of the population, or about 126,000 people. But while the white population constitutes only seven percent of the whole, it controls more than 60 percent of the arable land in Namibia.
After so-called Europes scramble for Africa, or, more appropriately, Europes invasion for Africas natural resources, the Germans annexed the territory from the Portuguese and renamed it South West Africa. In 1915, after the German defeat during World War I, the then-government of South Africa took over the territory, but in 1920 it was given a mandate by the League of Nations to govern the territory.
In 1946, the United Nations refused to allow South Africa to annex the territory, which South Africa proceeded to do anyway, refusing to place the territory under U.N. Trusteeship. With white racism surging through South Africa, it began to introduce the same type of laws in South West Africa.
In 1958, Africans formed the Ovamboland Peoples Congress, which became the South West Africa Peoples Organization (SWAPO) in opposition to the South African government. In 1966, SWAPO launched an armed struggle against the racist apartheid government of South Africa. In the fight for the liberation and independence of Namibia, thousands of Africans lost their lives. But, on the other hand, in most cases the small white minority assisted, participated and fought on the side of the white South African government.
As this newspaper noted in its August 8-14, 2002 issue, the same murderous rampage was employed by the British in the case of Zimbabwe. In that article, we noted that, The word Bulawiyo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for slaughter, and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes, who crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow
poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or exterminated. Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then-Southern Rhodesia independent, while he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed when he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, The more we killed, the happier we were.
Yes, that is what Ian Smith was quoted as saying, and he never denied saying it. On the other hand, the governments of Zimbabwe and Namibia have neither asked for nor sent troops to massacre the white population to seize back the land. All they have done is plead with the small minority of white farmers to be fair and see the tragedy of denying access to arable lands to 99 percent of the population. As Mugabe rightly told Mr. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, you keep your Britain, I keep my Zimbabwe, in reference to the fact that the Europeans were the ones who seized other peoples landsAmerica, South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, just to name a fewwithout a cent in compensation.
Unfortunately, the fact remains that the debate on the question of land redistribution in Zimbabwe, and now Namibia, has been appropriated and left in the hands of the Western media. Again, the so-called African intellectual elite is being brain-washed into mouthing the same platitudes that the white media has been spewing out on this issue.
Some of us may not like the politics of either Mugabe or Nujoma, who has already vowed to step down after his term as president expires in 2004. The muscling of the press and the jailing of journalists in Zimbabwe should be condemned by all.
But it is time that Africans in the Diaspora got involved in the debate about the right method of land redistribution in Zimbabwe or Namibia. Of course, there are those who have joined the Western media in accusing Zimbabwes Mugabe of using the issue of land redistribution to save himself from political humiliation and defeat. He has also been accused of giving to his political cronies and relatives the land that his government has purchased back from the white farmers.
Granted that the above were true, the question still remains: when is the right time, and under what circumstances should land redistribution happen in Zimbabwe or Namibia? Also, should Africans, who are always turning the other cheek to be slapped, compensate the descendants of those who massacred their ancestors and throw them out of the land that they now claim as theirs?
To what extent should Britain, which promised to make 50 million pounds or $75 million available to the Zimbabwe government to repurchase the lands, but later reneged on their promise, be held accountable for the land redistribution debacle in Zimbabwe?
We cannot continue to allow the Western leaders and their media to instigate the debate for us. It always happens, and then we turn around, postmortem, to accuse them of not playing fair and hijacking our issues. It should be our debate.