Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Roots of 'Necklacing': Why White Farmers in Zimbabwe Are Responsible for the Killings in South Africa

By Gary Brecher, AlterNet. Posted June 5, 2008.


South Africans wouldn't be killing Zimbabwean refugees if it weren't for the stranglehold Zimbabwe's whites have on its farmland.
51zgqaxm6l.ss500
The War Nerd by Gary Brecher (Soft Skull, 2008).

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Gary Brecher

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"The native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise. We must adopt a system of despotism in our relations with the barbarians of Southern Africa ... I personally prefer land to niggers." -- Cecil Rhodes, Founder of "Rhodesia" (Zimbabwe) (1887)

"We do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests." -- Clare Short, UK Secretary of State for International Development (1997)

There was a sad little war in South Africa last week. Actually, it was one of the latest battles in a war that's been going on for over a hundred years. Like they say in the Congo, "Mokilo e komplike," "It's a complicated world.

Like a lot of wars, this one was between two groups that lost out in the bigger war. Now they're forced to fight each other for scraps, while the real bad guys, the British, send camera crews to go "tsk-tsk" at how uncivilized it all is. The way the BBC tells it, this wasn't even a war, just "riots" by Zulu mobs targeting Zimbabwean immigrants, but it was war. In most places and most times, war isn't uniformed armies meeting on the field of battle, but mobs looking for people from the enemy tribe to kill. When they find them, they kill them just like the Zulu mobs killed any Zimbabwean immigrant lucky enough to fall into their hands: in the goriest way possible, in order to scare the rest of the enemy tribe off the disputed turf.

It may not sound pretty, but then Gettysburg probably wasn't very pretty either, if you were screaming your head off after getting your leg blown off by a cannonball. The Great War wasn't very pretty if your eyes were melting down your face after you'd been gassed. The Eastern Front wasn't pretty, if you were a peasant woman wondering which army would be the one to rape, rob and kill you. You could go out on a limb and say that war in general isn't that pretty, if you're actually in it. So why do most people flinch at this kind of war, with mobs necklacing immigrants, more than they do at "conventional" war? One reason is that in this kind of war, the mob goes out of its way to invent new, horrible ways to kill people. Take necklacing, the favorite lynching method in South Africa for the last few decades. You tie up the victim, douse a car tire with gasoline, wrap it around his neck, and set it on fire. Pretty nasty stuff, but not "crazy" or "senseless."

The first thing to consider is how something as grim as necklacing got started. Necklacing evolved in the townships as a way of punishing police informers. You have to imagine the situation a little more vividly than most squeamish first-worlders are willing to do: the police and the army have a monopoly on weapons, so the guerrillas -- in this case, the ANC -- has to rely on its superiority in intelligence, information, secrecy. Ever since Michael Collins taught the Irish to stop trying to fight the British Army and focus on "putting out the eyes" of the occupier by killing his spies, guerrillas have been able to take down militarily superior forces. But this method requires that the guerrillas know everything about the occupiers, and the occupiers know nothing about the guerrillas. Anyone who informs for the police or army is a deadly enemy, and has to be killed in a way that will not only end the immediate threat but terrify anybody else who might be thinking of turning snitch into reconsidering.

And there are always potential snitches around. Again, use your imagination; this stuff isn't happening in Switzerland but in places where people are very poor and desperate. The police and army aren't squeamish about putting pressure on potential informants, and they control both rewards -- money -- and threats, like the power to arrest or "disappear" anybody they want. The pressure to inform is very strong.

Against that, what does the insurgent neighborhood have? It can't put people in jail, or pass out big wads of cash, or rely on moral force to keep the locals in line. Again, imagine how enemy occupation would play out in the neighborhood where you grew up (if everybody was suddenly poor and terrified). Some families might resist the occupier, but others would be, let's say, tempted. Others would just be terrorized into collaborating. Either way, they know enough to name names, provide a list that will wipe out the insurgency in your town.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: colonialism, necklacing, zimbabwe, south africa

Check out Gary Brecher's new book, "The War Nerd" (Soft Skull, 2008).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wait just a minute.....
Posted by: jpopphan@charter.net on Jun 6, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, it appears that part of the content of this article is missing. Note the first paragraph as it appears on this page.

Now, am I really understanding that this author is giving the practice of "necklacing" a pass? There is nothing in the text as posted that explains what "necklacing" is, so I had to go to Wikipedia to find out.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

"Necklacing refers to the practice of summary execution carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with gasoline, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire."

I don't care WHAT white people may have done to these Africans, but NOTHING can excuse this abhorrent and vile practice. What cruelty! What a horror! HOW DISGUSTING.

The colonialization of Africa by Europeans is NO EXCUSE for the actions of these Zulus or any other group to practice this BARBARIC form of execution. How anyone can condone it under any circumstances is beyond belief.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wait just a minute..... Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Wait just a minute..... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Wait just a minute..... Posted by: Julian
» RE: Wait just a minute..... Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: Wait just a minute..... Posted by: desidid
» You missed the point Posted by: andabottleof_rum
Why is it
Posted by: jpjmarti on Jun 7, 2008 12:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that some people seem to treat africans as uniform, inherently peaceful and noble people, who have just been corrupted by european colonization? Get real! Africans are people just as all the rest of us. Not any better and not any worse. Whites have been killing other whites, asians other asian, and africans other africans ever since our species appeared. You create a society with large tensions, poverty, income equality, and what have you and the likelihood of aggression will increase. In southern Africa africans were killing other africans even before whites appeared. Why do you think San and !Kung people, for example, are living in such deserted regions? Do you really think they would not still live in friendlier regions if they had a choice?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now he's written an Alternet "worthy" article
Posted by: blogbooks on Jun 7, 2008 12:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was shocked to read your last article on Alternet because it was not in keeping with Alternet's usual "message." However, with this article which can be summarized as follows:

"Killing all the white people in Zimbabwe is absolutely justified because they are the descendants of evil white colonialists."

I think you've adjusted your tone properly for publication on this fine website.

Well done "War Nerd", well done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jrr56
Posted by: jrr56 on Jun 7, 2008 2:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The views expressed by the author seem very distorted. I have seen the violence in South Africa first hand. The majority of the mob were in the age group of 15 to 18 years old. They had three points.
1. Soon there will be more refugees (foreigners) than us and will kill us.
2. They come here to take our work and steal our wives.
3. The price of a pint of milk was 30c and is now 7 rands, it is the fault of the foreigners.

To blame necklacing on a young white farmer in Zimbabwe who bought his farm with the blessing of the Mugabe regime is abhorrent. Even to blame Rhodes is far fetched.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jrr56 Posted by: brianct
» RE: jrr56 Posted by: jrr56
» RE: jrr56 Posted by: brianct
» The food aid issue Posted by: brianct
» RE: The food aid issue Posted by: HipPriest
» RE: The food aid issue Posted by: brianct
» RE: The food aid issue Posted by: HipPriest
Whose reality counts?
Posted by: SBK on Jun 7, 2008 2:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent piece! All history should be taught with context like this. The story of any conflict is so much more than what the media can handle explaining in 3 minutes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whose reality counts? Posted by: HipPriest
» RE: Whose reality counts? Posted by: HipPriest
» RE: Whose reality counts? Posted by: HipPriest
» RE: Whose reality counts? Posted by: jrr56
» RE: Whose reality counts? Posted by: Whistler
» RE: Whose reality counts? Posted by: desidid
Laughably Poor
Posted by: HipPriest on Jun 7, 2008 2:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What incredibly weak casuisty you've shown here.

Although the colonialization of Africa can be used to explain some of the problems on the African continent, it certainly doesn't explain how Zimbabwe was turned from - if you can forgive the term - "the breadbasket of Africa" into the retrograde, economically crippled, tyranny with the lowest life expectancy in the world. This is a problem made by Mugabe largely in the last ten years, the country was not economically gutted after the Lancaster House Agreement.. And while we're at this point "Their great-grandfathers stole it at gunpoint, or got it by dirty tricks, a little over a century ago.". Do the crimes of ones descendents - and whilst we're following your relativistic logic, they probably didn't see it as a crime when they were doing it - give the police and the extrajudicial mobs the 'moral right' to abuse, attack and kill? I think not.

You make an incredibly weak point using historical parallels. There's a causal link between the actions of Bismarck and Hitler, but that hardly makes Biskmarck reponsible for the holocaust.

Lastly and most importantly, your article seems to presuppose that poor Africans are unable to think for themselves and show restraint. That they are solely and totally victims of their environment. Whilst we're drawing historical parallels, this is precisely the way that the colonialists thought when they first took the continent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Laughably Poor Posted by: brianct
» RE: Laughably Poor Posted by: HipPriest
Ridiculous logic.
Posted by: spearchukker on Jun 7, 2008 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its typical uninformed articles like this which do nothing in the service of truth.

By examining a current problem and regressing its course of history, the blame for the problem could be laid at any person's feet. Tell me Gary, why did you not regress beyond the arrival of whites in southern africa and the reasons that many of these settlers were of Scottish and Irish nationality?

Gary, stupid articles like yours perpetuate the belief that Africa's problems are not remotely the fault of the black man or his policies, but that all problems are a hangover from white man's adventures in Africa.

By using your deeply flawed logic, one could also regress that white Zimbabweans are solely responsible for global warming.

May i please suggest that you travel to Africa and spend some time in the country with both black and white people from all classes before you make such outrageously stupid pseudo-academic comments again.

Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: idiculous logic. Posted by: Quannah
Good comments
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 7, 2008 4:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the comments here are good examples of the AlterNet crowd's critical, skeptical brand of progressivism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rev robert
Posted by: revrmaury on Jun 7, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Help us get the picture: How was the land acquired in Zimb.? What was the market rate for land in 1850, or whenever the land was bought? (I bought land in 1972 in Vermont for $300, for example; now the value is @ $18,000.)How was it that the land was so productive 10 or more years ago? What must be done to return the land to productive use? How many farms have been given to the corrupt Anglican Bishop Magabe has on the take, who is leading the murder of worshipers who are in congregations not "blessed" by the Criminal Bishop who now sits on @ 2,000 acres of land given to him to encourage his manipulation of the church on behalf of the ancient and vile Magabe?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Touched a nerve, I see...
Posted by: xi_people on Jun 7, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the comments, I see that this isn't a "progressive-friendly" piece, as it actually tries to provide some historical perspective to a contemporary problem.

Unless any of you naysayers has spent a considerable amount of time in southern Africa and thus possess intimate knowledge of exactly what is happening there, I don't accept your downgrading of this article for its supposed "white bashing".

In general, Americans are the most insulated, politically immature people on the planet. There is an urgent need for more of them to grow up and understand that we live in a nuanced world, with many factors contributing to current conditions -- historical factors being among the most important.

I view this article as one perspective on the violence occurring in southern Africa. If anyone here wants to put together a cogent piece refuting the information presented, I'm quite sure that AlterNet would be glad to consider publishing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Touched a nerve, I see... Posted by: HipPriest
» GET REAL! Posted by: klife
» RE: GET REAL! Posted by: Rod from Canada
» RE: GET REAL! Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: Touched a nerve, you say? Posted by: Stoney 12+1
» RE: Touched a nerve, you say? Posted by: surferboy2001
The turns of history
Posted by: gsmiley on Jun 7, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The simple fact now is that there are virtually no white farmers and their land was not redistributed to more committed producers or ex employees who knew the business. It went to buy the loyalty of Mugabe's thugs who aspire more to affluent middle class parasitism than getting their hands honourably dirty. Nor do they have any better access to capital than the former so production was doubly hamstrung. Modern farming is very expensive and predicated on debt in case the 'war nerd' hadn't noticed.
With redistribution on tribal and political lines and little or no food there aren't many options for most but to flee or join the 'war veterans.' Who would have thought Ian Smith's regime might ever be regarded with fond nostalgia. And in other states the British for all their self interest, perfidy and theft presided over an era of stability, protecting their labour pools from centuries old tribal bloodletting. Hardly surprising that friction amongst far larger populations should regress to the same old dynamics. "The fundamental things apply....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The turns of history Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: The turns of history Posted by: brianct
A very strange situation.
Posted by: Last Chance on Jun 7, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I don't understand is, since Mugabe was at least a Marxist, if not a Communist, when he and his popular revolution came to power, why didn't they confiscate all the White stolen farms immediately? All the other Communist revolutions did so, in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba. In Communist nations all farmland is owned and operated by the state, and in that ideology "the people are the state and the state is the people"(!) China even went so far as to execute nearly the entire predatory landlord class in thousands of peoples' tribunals, and we all know what happened in Cambodia! But since China has converted to capitalism, I wonder if the state is still the landlord, or has that also being privatized? Hmmm.

Anyway, what kind of a wimped-out Red was Mugabe if he couldn't even give the land back to the people (even if horribly mismanaged by state bureacracies)? Weird! As it's turned out he has become a perfect example of the "cult of the individual", far more like Stalin than Castro, and a total liability to the people of that tortured land. So, who or what is keeping him in power? Where is his money coming from?

Meanwhile, their population keeps growing beyond the land's ability to feed them without destroying whatever is left of the natural environment, like the rest of our endangered planet. Poor Africa. If only the Europeans had the decency to leave it alone, what a great Continent of many independent peoples it might be today, or maybe just a lot of warring empires. We'll never know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A very strange situation. Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: A very strange situation. Posted by: Last Chance
» MUGABE A HERO RE: A very strange situation. Posted by: CHOSEN WORLD OUR WAR ON ISLAM & OUR OWN FREEDOMS
A very ignorant article
Posted by: jgrossnas on Jun 7, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm pretty disappointed that Alternet would print such ill-informed trash like this. I think it's safe to say that the author's never been to Southern Africa and just got mad after reading the articles and statements trashing Mugabe.

The fact of the matter is that Mugabe was once a great leader and a model for other nations in the area. Early on, he decided that despite their history and the uneven proportion of ownership, the white farmers were necessary to help keep the country's economy on track. In fact, Zimbabwe was able to export many goods to other countries in the region after Mugabe took over and had a thriving tourist industry too- Victoria Falls is simply a breath-taking sight to behold.

Unfortunately, Mugabe later became a despot who needed to cling to power at any cost. The so-called "war veterans" (many of whom were too young to have fought in the country's war of independence) were just knife-wielding mobs that Mugabe's party had armed to drive out the farmers and gain popularity among the general populace by 'giving the land back to the people.' In theory, that's a great idea but the fact of the matter was that these mobs didn't know anything about farming and these lands became dirt because the new owners didn't know how to cultivate it. The economy fell apart and Mugabe didn't have a plan to fix it- he only blamed 'foreign media' for stirring up trouble.

The author of this Alternet article obviously bought Mugabe's line and is now ready to blame the media for Zimbabwe's problems.

But ask a few questions about the state of the country and it becomes clear about who is destroying it. Who is shutting down any newspaper in the country that's critical of the govt? Who is still arming mobs to go after opposition parties? Who is jailing the leaders of the opposition parties without any explanation? Who is shutting down an election that seems to have given the opposition parties the edge in the govt? Who doesn't have any plan to fix the economic problems of the country?

The answer to all of those questions is Mugabe and his band of thugs. They're the only who have destroyed their own country to keep themselves in power and have shown that they're ruthless enough to stop at nothing to do so. Until they're out of office, Zimbabwe won't recover from these catastrophes that Mugabe has created.

One last point about Zimbabwe. Let's look at another hated leader whose disastrous policies have caused misery and doesn't seem to care about the consequences. Anyone want to defend George W. Bush?

As for South Africans, the millions of people who lived in the homelands had high hopes that the end of Apartheid would bring not just freedom but also economic justice for everyone. The problem was that the old system left the country so broken and lopsided that the ANC couldn't possibly fix it any time soon. As a result, crime is a huge problem there now and many people still live in squalid conditions and don't have jobs. That makes for a very volatile situation. Then when you have people coming in from other countries taking jobs, that's a recipe for anger and resentment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The basic problem ignored Posted by: Last Chance
» immigrants taking jobs Posted by: ptown
» It's not the immigrants fault Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: A very ignorant article Posted by: brianct
» RE: A very ignorant article Posted by: ciccio
» RE: A very ignorant article Posted by: PaseƱa
Mugabe blames others for his own personal evil
Posted by: mia66 on Jun 7, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh no - the defunct British Empire is responsible for yet another atrocity!
I am personally far more concerned by the actions of the present American Empire but... If we are going to talk about it:
Zimbabwe/Rhodesia is not the only country to suffer at the hands of Cecil Rhodes & his family. I live in an ex-British colony town that has a couple of stately homes that he built, streets named after him & a statue. What he did personally & for the British Empire was extremely destructive. What is important now is how to right those wrongs in a manner acceptable to all.
Mr. Mugabe gave the impression that he would be the right person for the job back when he was originally voted in by the newly Zimbabwean population.
Unfortunately he did not take the path to reconciliation that New Zealand has taken.
New Zealand set up the Waitangi Tribunal to negotiate settlements and reparations with the local tribes, whereas Mr. Mugabe chose forceable evictions of the white farmers.
I am appalled that the author of this article could possibly condone necklacing as a valid form of protest by the South African population. Necklacing is not a form of performance art - it causes real suffering and death.
The Zimbabwean refugees are victims of Mr. Mugabe's shocking policies to keep himself in power - not some mythical white farmers. If the author had bothered to do some research, he would have found that these farmers were run off their land years ago and are not relevant to the current situation. The veterans have made no effort to run the farms that Mr. Mugabe so generously gave to them.
Zimbabwe has recently lost a lot their middle class educated black citizens because they can afford to leave - I know, because a lot of them have escaped to my country. The reasons for leaving that they give is that they no longer want to be a part of what is going on in their own country. They say that Mr. Mugabe lost his reason after his wife died & his new wife has encouraged him in his present endeavours.
Whether or not this is the case - Mr. Mugabe is determined to blame the British - and more recently the Commonwealth for the state of his country.
I have to accept that he must be psychotic & that Zimbabwe hasn't a hope of relief until he is dead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hysteria Posted by: brianct
» RE: Hysteria Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Hysteria Posted by: brianct
The ultimate in white liberal guilt ...
Posted by: johnshadows on Jun 7, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... one of the most ridiculous articles I've ever read. Many of these refugees are actually fleeing because of the hyperinflation caused by decreased farming yields, after the 'courageous' Mugabe handed the lands from professional white farmers to a group of thugs who couldn't grow weeds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

saddened
Posted by: Becky on Jun 7, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am saddened by the racism in some of these comments. the author's point is that the people committing this latest atrocity are not categorically different from other people who have committed the wide variety of human atrocities in the world, and that their actions are located in a historical context that includes unbelievable violence, displacement, cruelty, poverty-colonialism, in short. It is not racist to decry this violence and work to end it, but it is racist to say that the people committing these acts are categorically different, and worse, than the millions of wildly creative torturers, lynchers (remember where that word comes from?), rapists and murders in human history. given the right circumstances, all human beings are capable of incredible goodness and incredible evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: saddened Posted by: Prairie Waif
What a lot of C**p
Posted by: rhstracey on Jun 7, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoever Gary is he is to be polite, ''confused''. He is ranting on about a subject that he knows nothing. I wonder if he knows that the Matabele are actually Zulus? Yes, they headed north just before the whites and took the land from the Shonas who are not warriors. They had an annual fun trip killing as many Shona as possible and ''borrowing'' their women. The whites soon spoilt their fun and stoped the practice. Mugabe was a psycho. when he took power by the barrel of a gun....one of the first thing he did was have his own brother bumped off then he got his revenge on the Matabele by sending his 5th brigade to slaughter a few thousand of them. As usual the world and the UN did nothing and it is doing nothing now! Gary go write about something that you know!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So Americans should burn aliens?
Posted by: billwald on Jun 7, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unemployment is up to 5.5% We should burn foreigners?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who teaches you kids this crap? Posted by: blogbooks
Colonization is actually parasitation
Posted by: jhubbard on Jun 7, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought Gary did a good job!

Many people believe that the most dominate organism of any ecosystem are the one's who directly kill and consume or eliminate their prey or competitors!
But this is NOT so! The most dominate one's are the one's that use the most clever forms of deception, one's that do not kill their prey directly, but turn others into LIVING SACRIFICES to do the bidding of the SLAVE MASTER, or Parasitizor, alias Colonizer!

I am a grass roots farmer from Kansas. Africa is not the only place that colonization takes place, it does so right here in the land of the free! Big moneyed interests, or those who are part of the International Banking System, have found clever ways to turn some of the most valuable assets of the land of the free, USA, into their colonized possessions!

Those who produce food, people energy, of America as well as other countries, have been effectually turned into slaves to those who control the world's money flow!

The 13th amendment outlawed slave labor on paper, but those who are clever enough and rich enough, have found ways to subvert this amendment!

In colonization, the colonizer does not want to necessarily own the land, just the land owner or operator of the life supporting resources they personally need to survive!

To me, it is much more evil than those who openly seek to take what others have that might benefit them and their offspring directly!

Why? The colonizers come in as the colonized's friend! We are going to civilize you and help you when their goal all along is to legally rob them of what valuable resources they have while leaving them to have to cut each other's throats in order to survive! And of course, they can keep the Bibles, complements of the Colonizers or civilizers!

Colonization may seem less barbaric to some, but to me, it's long term costs, as (GARY so well pointed out in this article), the underlying monsters it ends up creating while shifting the blame from the colonizers to the uncivilized colonized, is much more evil and barbaric!

Many of those who wrote negative comments about this article, probably believe they are totally innocent of such crimes as are taking place in Zimbabwe, not believing how that Americans, making up less than 5% of world population, while using more than 25% of it's annual useable energy supply, including rich food diets, could possible have any connection to what is going on in a nation thousands of miles away!

Whenever one starts, looking closely, their are very few, if any, totally innocent!

Jerold Hubbard, Top Soil Miner alias Grass Roots Farmer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "African World War"
Posted by: johnclark on Jun 7, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad AlterNet fails again to listen to the voices of Africans. Just bring in another racist white liberal to be apologist for the "more revolutionary" faction. This article doesn't bring anything to the discussion of what is really happening. Where were you when the dock workers stopped a Chinese arms shipment a few weeks ago? What coverage have you given the MDC? And what about Kenya?

Of course land reform is the major issue facing both South Africa & Zimbabwe. Those of us who "have been following the situation" knows how responsible "New Labor" was for contributing to the mess, but to make land reform succeed, it has to be fair to all parties. It also has to be structured so that production remains constant & the new owners are given the education they will need to make this happen.

South Africa's land reform is following this model. And, from everything I've heard from Tsvangirai, he will follow this model. I also have confidence that when Sen Obama becomes our president, that he will use his knowledge and skill to help Africa deal with the situation. The peace deal in Kenya, while not perfect, is an example of what Africans can achieve when the world community listens. In the case of Zimbabwe, the MDC must be allowed to take power. Mugabe should have accepted the offer to peacefully step down. Hopefully, his old self will tell him to do what is best for all Africa.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The "African World War" Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: The "African World War" Posted by: bingahaba