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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

well this article is wrong in some how justifying the brutal practice of executions of human bneings on one pretext or another. what is happeing in south africa agasint immigrants is very deplorable. zimabawe situation has worsened because of interfenrece by english parasite race.In fact pirate british are the ones respionsible for zimabwaian povwerty and instablity today..
this is what I wrote way back a few years ago..

August 2002

Mr. Mugabe does not want the english economic refugees to enjoy disproportionate amount of luxury while the rest of population is simpoly grinding to survive-so what is wrong with that thinking? It is wrong when it involves english parasites. These people had moved from Zimbawe to england soon after Independence bit when they found that englasih people live in shoe box sized houses with inflated trumped up prices and have much lower standard of living then thses colonialists moved back to zimbawe. oon after second world war america had forced Japan to do so called land reform(in order to break the power of japanese upper classes) and that was called reform. In many other countries like India the land reform was done for the sake of justice and that was hailed. Mr. Mugabe waited too long to do that sort of land reform and hwen he belatedly decided to do tthat then the english parasites and spes from english govet, to BBc and english media started barkinglike jackels. After all it is their people who are being affected this time. The english media ahd already neatralized elson mandela and installed a western stooge in south africa and made a lot of propganda agasint winnei mandela-simply becasue winnie had people;s suppoert-this is not wanted by the english meddlers. The similar thing they want everywhere-mr. Mugabe does not oblige them now so he is villain. their jeolosy about elections in other parts of world does not extend to U.s. a. or england-in fact their the false election of bush thru fraud and goonery it was the englsih media only (including bbc) which was very anxious that court does not overrule Bush election becasue as they siad bush was good for allies(read england) . no procession , no supprt for oppsiotion -on the contrary all englsh media was angry with m. gore for having pinpointed irrregularity in U.S. a. elction. all becasue the third rate country like england can live in reflected glory of Usa power.
In fact for last 20 years and more so in last 15 years the english have shown their true clour-after cold war it is clear that the impotent english have been trying to piggy back pon american strength(americans in majority are not anglosaxons)and thru america england treis to bully other nations-install dictators their and then those dictators without peoples supprt are asked to bring the money to england and buy house in london-that creates housing boom and this nation of plumbers(graduation from pirates to shopkeepers then plumbers now) feels very happy with inflated house prices and low qulaity housing and infrastructrue-the money from abroad comes to london stock exchange and fuels the stock price. The london stock price should be forced to be lowered to one fourth of its present price becasue the rest is all false pumped up price with no real value. wht does england produce that any country would want? the real indutrial nations of the worls -Japan, germany have been in recesssion for last 10years while this england has been booming after gulf war for no reason other than becasue it falsley persuaded other countries and their dicataors to bring money to london and starve the rest of worrld. For God' sake the english plumber does not even eat healthy food.--atleast not non infected.

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

THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED, PEOPLE!

YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW!

No one is justifying murder. However, the murder, madness, and mayhem perpetrated on a massive scale, heretofore unknown to humankind, by Europeans, a short time ago, is having disastrous consequences, the world over, today.

And Friend, this is just the tip of the iceburg.

If we are serious about HEALING our wounded world, before it implodes, we MUST admit our unprecedented wrongs, and convene international councils, unaffected by white supremacy, and charge them with developing HONEST solutions. This will not be easy or cheap.

ZIMBABWE'S current problems (like it or not) do have thier roots in Mass Eurpopean Murder that many of us are trying to minimize, if not flat out justify.

So get real.

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

Yes, Gary - Continue to preach your odd religion of "everything is justified in service of the revolution" and "it's all whitey's fault" and meanwhile, Zimbabwe and South Africa will continue their spiral into violence and economic decline. Maybe we can also work in Global Warming and George Bush for the next article on Zimbabwe?

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

Who knew that there are so many Rhodesians on this forum ?

They are all crawling out of the woodworks from NewZealand, Australia, etc....

They had their greedy dirty fingers on our land. No more !!

The white settler economy was never ours, we the Africans.
So Mugabe destroys it.
Big deal !!

We Africans have been tilling the land while these Rhodies gorge themselves like there is no tomorrow. It had to end one day. No ?

Otherwise the future promises us many more Mugabes to come !! How else could be ? Aren't we human ?

These British settlers ought to be going back to their country.

Instead we have over 2 million of them move to South Africa ever since the coming of the Mandela client regime.

Why does the BBC not tell the world about these British foreigners coming in to take our jobs?

Hopefully, we Africans will get wiser.

Instead of lashing out at fellow Africans we have to set the (British)Standard Bank of South Africa on fire.

It is such institutions that bleed us for the comfort of their small NAZI queen !!

Our struggle is not over.

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

Lots of responses by people completely ignorant of Africa. When Ian Smith's government was defeated and Mugabe took power, Britain promised to give the government of Zimbabwe money to buy out much of the farmland of the White farmers. Britain basically reneged on this promise. What most Whites (in England and America, as well as in southern Africa) don't want to accept is the fact that White-owned land is land that was stolen during the colonial era. Both Zimbabwe and South Africa (and Kenya in the 1960s) agreed to buy this land. How magnanimous it is to buy back your own stolen property!!

In Kenya many Whites fled the country, fearing the coming of the new African government, and much of the land was bought by Kenyans, so the land problem wasn't quite the same there. Though it has come back in different ways. In Zimbabwe the White farmers mostly stayed, they didn't want to sell and Britain didn't help to finance the buy outs as they promised. So the historical injustices of colonialism remained strong even well after independence.

You can also add in the north-south ethnic problems in Zimbabwe, and a president that became more and more dictatorial as the years passed and you have a real problem. South Africa has been a ticking time bomb. It is very similar to Zimbabwe - without the dictator.

In addition, the author was NOT justifying the act of necklacing, but using a rhetorical device to explain the much deeper causes of the recent violence. Western media generally blames Mugabe with all the problems in Zimbabwe, and they don't like Mbeki much either.

I wonder how many of those appalled by the article would react if they were in the same hopeless situations and robbed of all dignity. I doubt they would behave much differently.

I'm also amazed for the nth time of the amount of simply bad responses to any article dealing with race issues. Is the Left really that racist? Are most posters really Trolls? What is going on?

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

The monkeys are running the zoo.

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

Correction: Fatah did not commit vote fraud, they merely staged a coup...

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

Why not slag off the Whites in America. They were far more "successful" at killing the indigenous American Indians than in any other continent including Australia

The "White British" in Africa and Asia did not commit mass genocide.

The "White British" might have occupied about half the planet - even more succesful than the Romans - but like the Romans we also did a lot of good - and organised the building of roads and schools and grew lots of food for people to eat.

What are you suggesting - that all whites born in Africa and Asia come back to Europe?

That would mean we would also have to absorb you Bloody Americans

And Britain today is a completely multi-racial society and most of the time we all get on fine.

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

I would guess you are a fairly intelligent person. Therefore it is proper for me to expect you to understand the premise of most of the clear-thinking commentators.

The premise many white supremacict seem to miss is that today's curretn crisis cannot be viewed, understood, or rectified in a vacuum.

For Western (white) reporters to ignore the deep historical connections to the original SIN of mass maniacal Murder, mayhem, madness and colonization, when reporting, is to continue the racist policies that led to today's problems.

We should be beyond that. Just tell the truth, (we all know it anyway)and let's work together to rectify the very real, DEEP-ROOTED problems.

This should not be that hard for you to understand.

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

The writer has clearly not done his homework. As a South African and someone well informed as to what is happening on the ground I can say with certainty that this is not about Zulus and Zimbabweans. South Africa is far more complex - it has dozens of different tribes and sub tribes of those.
It was not only Zimbabweans that were targeted - it was Somalis, Congolese, Mozambicans, Malawians as well as many other nationals that have come here as refugees from various instabilities in the continent. And these instabilities, while partially caused by colonial history, are not about land redistribution in Zimbabwe.
In Cape Town where I live there are very few Zulu people, most of the people here are from the Xhosa nation, the nation of Nelson Mandela. Attacks on 'foreigners', referred to as kwerikweris have long been a problem, particularly on Somalis, but also on Malawians and Congolese, of which there are large communities here.
I suggest the writer leave investigation of what goes on in Africa to Africans and stick to his own balliwick. This article is biased, ignorant and based on several false premises. There are snippets of truth in amongst it such as the skewed land holdings in Zimbabwe, but similar situations remain in Namibia and South Africa yet these have not even been mentioned? This is poor journalism and is simply a trashy article not worthy of Alternet - or any other - pubication.

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

Another thing - the burning man whose image was spread around the world was not necklaced, but a blanket was doused in petrol and thrown over him and ignited. It is no less nasty but lets get our facts right.
Lets also ask the number one question journalists should always ask: Who stands to gain most from this anti-foreigner sentiment sweeping South Africa. Winnie Mandela suggested Morgan Tsvangarai, as it would help to return some of teh more than 3 million Zimbabweans here home to vote for him.
I dont believe it is that complicated. From what i have heard, and my ears are close to the ground, is that these attacks were by poor locals who simply wanted stuff. My views have been backed up by most serious media.
Something or somebody may be behind this but it was definitely not as it was painted by this very poorly researched article.
The problems of colonialism are not going to be cured by attacking each other, they will be overcome through standing together and making a better nation, region and African future for us all, no matter where we come from in Africa.

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

This story proves that a lot of stuff published on the internet is totally wacked.

The black Zimbabweans that have migrated South to SA did so to escape political persecution or even genocide by Mugabe's fifth brigade, and to find work which is NOT AVAILABLE in Zimbabwe and food which is VERY HARD TO GET in Zimbabwe. Note Zimbabwe has been 'free' of white control since 1980 and free of 'colonial' control since the 60s. It is now 2008. Is it possible that ANY of the problems in that country are due to the policies of ZANU PF led by Robert Mugabe, who has run the show since 1980, ie for 28 years? Or is it all the fault of some hard-working farmers who happen to be white?

The white farmers lost their "Stranglehold" on land in Zim in 2000-2002. In the process, 100-200 black employees and their families were THROWN OFF each these farms by the new occupants. Many of these farmworkers had no option but to seek work in RSA. Many of the new farm owners are not farmers but politicians and high ranking military/police. The vast majority of these formerly productive farms now produce very little, and if there is any production, it is consumed on the land by the new residents, who for the most part are living in mud huts.

The author fails to explain why the Mozambican, and even Nigerian immigrants are flooding in to RSA. I don't think there are more than 20 white farmers in either country. So it can't be them!

The meta-question here is whether it's fundamentally wrong for a small percentage of people with white skins to have a "stranglehold" on farms, in SA, USA, or Zimbabwe. When you eat a slice of bread made from wheat grown by a farmer, does it matter what color the farmer's skin is? Does it matter who first set foot on the undeveloped bush that later became a farm? Which would you prefer, a piece of bread affordably priced made from wheat grown by a farmer of the WRONG skin color, or no bread at all? That's the choice in Zim.

I would like to point out that in Zim or RSA or most African countries, it perfectly legal for anyone to purchase land. But what tends to happen is the land ends up in the stewardship of those best qualified to manage it. Hence, throughout the world, a small number of people who have the capital and skills to farm, end up owning the farm land. In Southern Africa, some of them are black, but for whatever reasons, a disproportionate number of them are white.

Finally, you may wonder why it is that South Africa, which is run by the ANC, is still able to provide employment and food? The answer is simple; the ANC is going down the same path in SA as ZANU in Zim, but they are just ten years behind. The same problems are starting to surface in RSA now, and that's why we have the South African blacks starting to repel the immigrant blacks. There is a new bill tabled in SA that gives the Minister the right to confiscate land without full compensation. This comes on the heels of the Land Claims process, which has expired.

One wonders where the unemployed hungry masses will go when there is no economy in RSA, just as there is none in Zimbabwe today.

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

I despise racism in any form, and rejoiced upon the establishment of Zimbabwe as an independent African nation. The subsequent years have brought much sorrow, as Robert Mugabe has betrayed his own country and its' tremendous potential. The idea that white ownership of land in Zimbabwe represents an injustice is is not supported by the facts. These white people are native Zimbabweans, having been born and raised there, and they purchased their land from the Mugabe government AFTER independence. These loyal citizens of Zimbabwe proved to be good stewards of the land, and for years their efforts made Zimbabwe a major exporter of food and the breadbasket of the region. As Mugabe, in a naked bid to hold onto power, stole more and more of their land and redistributed it to blacks, with the sole criteria being skin color and not farming expertise, this sad nation has been literally starving to death. These millions of unnecessary deaths are the real injustice. I'm shocked and disappointed that you would even print this artlcle.

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

This article is just as manichaean as the average neocon point of view; it just inverses the good and evil attributes. As such, it is an interesting exercise in choose-your-facts thinking.

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

This is a horrible piece of writing in so many ways. Forgive me if I believe that human tolerance and inclusion is defined by civil behavior. It would be an understatement to say that excusing torture is not a mark of civility. Excusing Robert Mugabe is not helping Zimbabwe or its people achieve internal peace. How does one excuse Mugabe's bulldozing shanty towns that were the home to 700,000 of his own people? How does one excuse his taking the lands of white farmers -- the breadbasket of his country, and giving those lands only to members of his own political party, many of whom do not know how to farm? How does one excuse his destruction of some of the best infrastructure in Africa -- one of the only positive things to come out of colonialism. Mugabe has taken all the wrong steps in a continent on the verge of urbanization. He has destroyed both the capacity to feed itself and its cities' capacity to absorb excess rural population. Tribalism takes many forms, most of them ugly. It doesn't require a scarcity of land or even injustice to trigger some of its worst manifestations. All it takes sometimes is a paranoid, sociopathic leader. What's going on in the RSA is another chapter in the same book.

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

Please some research first! This is a rather cold-hearted and ill-informed article on the actual suffering and plight of refugees!

Please be informed that 'Zulus' form one subculture - out of eleven other subcultural tribes in SA - such as the Tswanas, Vendas, Xhosas, Shotos, etc. etc. ALL OF THESE 'tribes' participated in the xenophobic attacks - not only Zulus. As of record - the greater part of the disturbance happened around Johannesburg - and the Zulus live more than 400 kilimetres away in Kwa Zulu Natal!!! (near Durban).

Your information about 'white' farmers being the essence of all of this - is VERY VERY FAR FETCHED! One can ask the question - WHEN last did the wrtter visit SA or Zimbabwe?

Rodes did what he did a hundred and fifty years or so ago - as the writer indicates 'liked the land' more than the 'niggers'. (Black people has never been referred to as 'Niggers'in SA or Zim - it is an Americanism, and Rhodes certainly never referred to them as 'Niggers' either.)

Please look at the present today situation and don't try to factor Rhodes into the equation. There are people right here and now - sleeping out in the freezing rain and winds of up to 65kl an hour - in flimsy tents - with only the clothes on their backs that they were wearing when they escaped. It is winter - they have nothing.

dESPITE THIS most of these foreigners are well educated and skilled - and yes pleasant and well natured.

One can ask the question - have some Americans become so calloused in the face of non-American's suffering - that prompted an article - written matter-of-facttly - as if these people are not 'real' - but just part of a computer game or something....

Write something about the so called American Indians - and see what theories you can muster around 'land-grabbing'??? Or was that okay - the same okayness - as what is happening in Iraq.....

Today there are virtually NO white farmers left in Zimbabwe. The population at large also have no food - and aid workers distributed food to the masses - untill yesterday - as Mugabe decided that his people should rather starve.

I am just wondering why you actually wrote this article.... What is the point of such ill infomed statements?? What are you actually saying?

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

Stop me if you heard this before: Africa can't save itself, it needs us to do it for them. If Africans do something abhorrent, it's not their fault, it's our fault.

Is this not how you treat children? And yet this condescending and arrogant view is prevalent on the left.

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

The author makes a realistic and in context explanation regarding the terrible SA attacks on job stealing new immigrants.

One poster responded by stating: -
"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."

This self forgiving view of what Whites did to Africans while stealing their lands provides the context for the West's campaign against Mugabe - 'we stole the land fair and square from those Black bastards.'

Until Blacks recover their own stolen lands they will remain economic slaves to the White land thieves.

Mugable will be remembered in African history as a remarkable man of iron will and a champion of African liberation. My "THE BLACK BUG - The genetic bomb", views Mugabe in this light.

My "CHOSEN WORLD - Our war on Islam and our own freedoms", discusses the near future for an Africa dominated by another round of genetically engineered diseases and how Black Africa can finally be free.

Anyway, good article.

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

First, the author of the originating article is qute accurate in explaining that there are historical reasons for the tensions now observed in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Yep, white people did some really freaking hideosly bad things that resulted in a twisted mess now evident.

Tough shit; send the bill to our dead, white, grandfathers. It can sit there with my complaints about environmental degradation and the lack of Moa. Fix the problems in front of you; the past is not changeable.

Africa for africans. (one 'a') You got it. Please note that all problems are now yours and yours alone. When we get all our problems sorted out here in the North we'll give you a call. Don't wait up. We might be so kind to allow you access to our internet with it's unprecedented access to information.

IMHO, Zimbabwe is a mess precisely because Mugabe attempted to emulate Europe instead of creating a custom, home-grown solution to his problems. Right up there at the top of the list was using a floating currency rather than some sort of commodity based currency. When you have to print bills denominated in millions it's time to throw the whole mess out. Next was emulating the habits of Northern leaders who know nothing about how the potato hits the plate. Using Ronald Reagan or Joseph Stalin instead of Jimmy Carter as a leadership model was bound to backfire.

Malthus is STILL right and doubly so in Africa. It doesn't matter if every African is born with innate knowlege of organic, biodynamic, biochar and permaculture farming methods if the population doubles every 30 years. You will still starve. Do the math. Do the math. Do the math.

Africa does not get it's own physics. Right now it has to import dietary calories. Ask Cuba how well that plan works in the long run.

Good luck with that.

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

not only riddled with innacuracy and ignorance but more importantly AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE TORTURE AND MURDER OF IMMIGRANTS?!?!?! Are you serious..? You'd struggle to find such insanity on a far right site.

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

History does need to be taught in context. But incorporating the brutality of those who have usurped, suppressed, and oppressed you isn't an appropriate response. Wouldn't expelling the farmers have been more appropriate? Or subdividing the farms allowing the White farmers to stay with one caveat, they would be allowed no more than 5 acres. The remaining acres should have been given to indigenous farmers by lottery. Since the land was originally taken by force, forcing the forfeiture could only be viewed as poetic justice.

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

This article reads like a college sophomore's first discovery of colonial crimes in Africa. The author might be surprised to discover that there is a 21st century Africa as well. If the author wants to indict foreign influences, for heaven's sake, at least indict current US trade policies AND the failures of many African governments - national and local. The author's infantilization of Africans is intellectually specious and disrespectful. My suggestion to the author: get out of the books and go do some real interviews with real stakeholders in the countries you're concerned about. Then write an article.

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

Nice to see that leftists can be every bit as nasty and crazy as neo-cons. The past can not be changed, and it should not make you angry. If it does, you are just looking for an excuse to do wrong.

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

This is a thoughtful piece of writing, and it should be kept in mind when contemplating "war hero" John McCain, whose heroics, from what I can gather, consisted of flying airplanes thousands of feet above peasants and farmers and dropping huge amounts of ordnance and poisonous chemicals on them.

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

Even when Blacks are killing Blacks.

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

were you anywhere near south africa during the latest conflicts in the townships? one other comentator thanked you for contextualising this event, but you have done a horrible job of that and have twisted recent events so they fit with a narrative southern africa left years ago. no longer can we explain these recent events by simply drawing some causal links from the colonial past (actually a lot has happened since Rhodes buddy - in fact a lot has happened since 1994). furthermore, why do you single out the zulus as the rampaging mob. sure there were zulus, but there were also shangaans and tswana's and xhosa's. (is it just because the zulus fit with your idea of militant africans?) riots also took place in the townships of the cape flats too, which are just about devoid of zulu "impis" (i use the word to match your obvious idea of the zulu).

please comment on what has been happening in southern africa post-1994. can whites still be wholey to blame for regions ills. and if so it must be due to complicity by the ruling black class in south africa. no one is kidding themselves by thinking that white hands and money are totally clean in zimbabwe, but we need to broaden our view of the ruling class to include the new african elite (who less than 20 years ago were full of the ideas and ideals Alternet seems to expound).

this article is at best overly simplistic and at worst incendiary mindless drivel. in future please have columnists familiar with recent southern african politics and empathetic to the plight of people there comment on unfolding events.

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

Just a view from someone who actually lived and worked in the areas as mentioned in the article.

I lived in Bulawayo, Rhodesia for a year in the late 60s. Ian Smith had declared UDI and there were sanctions against the country. True the white farmers had the best land, however they used their knowle3dge and technology to farm the land in a proper way. Thus over many years of colonial rule their farms had developed. Huge maize yields were produced and maize is the Africans staple diet. Also enormous cattle ranches were developed and such is the quality of the land it needed vast acreage to do this. Then there was the tobacco industry of which Rhodesia was a world leader and supplier. Okay the land that was used by those rich white farmers provided work, schools, resources and indeed medical services. It was in the interest of the farmers to do this despite the fact that the lands were mechanized. Had those lands not been developed by these hardy white farmers it would today still be only providing farming at a subsistence level.

When the terrorist war started, the Rhodesian army was predominantly white and despite their smaller numbers they contained the threat for years against the likes of Mugabes forces. The whites despite sanctions etc managed the country well. They had carried our major engineering projects such as the Kariba dam which still today provides power and fish food to the nation, it is still the largest man made lake in Africa. The white population at it's peak was around 250000 and considering the size of this they did some quite amazing work. The African hospital in Harare which was then an African township was one of the most modern in Southern Africa. All built with white expertise.

To blame the colonials the likes of Cecil Rhodes for the present actions of necklacing is somewhat bizarre to say the least.

Recently the Prime minister of Poland a man short in stature and brain remarked as he tried to get more delegates in the EU. That Poland would've had a bigger population had the Germans not killed so many of his countrymen during the last war. Rather a ridiculous statement but perhaps not so disimilar to what this article writer is saying.

I spent the next six years in Malawi a country north of of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and this was ruled by an African dictator. He did little or nothing to help his population. Probably the likes of people such as me did a good deal more. And yes we made money too. When the new tobacco industry was developed it was solely owned by the President of course. And who did he use to develop the bush into viable farms? Yes those young white farmers from Rhodesia.

I could say a great deal more except to say that I finished off 12 years with 6 in South Africa and I experienced the aparthied regime and the riots in Soweto and other townships. True the country was developed to satisfy the white population but again work was provided by the whites for the local Africans. Since South Africa has changed the gulf between rich and poor is even worse and this time the exploitation is black on black. If the RSA government leaders are more concerned about their own lifestyles and that of their family and friends small wonder many black south africans have been losers. To blame Cecil Rhodes for this is ludicrous. The population is increasing at a higher level than can be properly supported. Look at the recent horrors of the intercene fighting in Kenya where the population is very well educated.

No better to look at the root cause. The Zulus were always going to be the losers as they have had no real political power in the ANC. If they're fighting it's most likely due to frustrations they face as second class citizens in RSA. The RSA government must take full blame for what is happening, they won't,they're weak. And Mugabe is fully rsponsible for the disaster in Zimbabwe.

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

Will We See The End Of Empire In Our Time?
By Richard C. Cook
5-28-8

The following is based on a talk given by the author at the "End of Empire" session of the "Building a New World" Conference of the Prout World Assembly at Radford University, Radford, Virginia, on May 22, 2008.

quote---

"
Hamilton and Jefferson split, and that split has defined U.S. politics ever since. Hamilton became the de facto head of the Federalist Party, the ancestor first of the Whigs and then of the Republicans. Jefferson called himself a Republican at first, then a Democratic-Republican, then finally his party became the Democratic Party that has lasted until today. Of course we know that the two parties have come more and more to resemble each other in recent decades in supporting policies of imperialism.

Jefferson was elected president in what was called the Civic Revolution of 1800. The first thing he did was cut military spending. He did what no one has done since, which was to balance the federal budget for eight consecutive years. Then he took an action which defined our nation to a considerable extent all the way into the 20th century. In 1803 he doubled the size of the nation overnight through the Louisiana Purchase.

So for the next century, instead of competing with the European nations for overseas colonies, our energies were devoted to settling the North American continent, to the detriment, of course, of the Native American peoples. We became, as did Russia in Eurasia and Brazil in South America, a continental land power. And we stayed that way for over a century.

But empire finally caught up with us. Across the sea in South Africa a man named Cecil Rhodes was devising a plan to make the British Empire the ruler of the globe. He created a secret society to accomplish this, called the Round Table, using money provided by the Rothschild family, who had controlled the British economy since the Napoleonic wars.

The U.S. was integral to their plans. Following is the relevant passage from Cecil Rhodes' will of 1877. His aims, he wrote in the will, were:

The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise,the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament which may to tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and finally the production of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.

Think about that: "the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire." In fact, as Professor Carroll Quigley made clear in his celebrated book, The Anglo-American Establishment, the British planners, whose descendants still rule that nation, acknowledged that a time would come when the U.S. would be the senior partner in the empire, which is exactly what happened over the century that lay ahead.

The Russian writer P.D. Ouspensky said all the history you read about in the history books is "the history of crime." This is what he was talking about.
The takeover of America was accomplished when the British, European, and American bankers created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. That year our nation was hijacked. Congressman Charles Lindbergh, father of the future aviator, called it "the legislative crime of the ages."

The Federal Reserve is a privately-owned central banking system modeled on the Bank of England. >From that day onward we got all the accoutrements of empire

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

"The Zulus who are necklacing a few poor Zimbabweans now lost out the same way, massacred by British armies using modern weapons in a series of wars a little over a century ago."

Which apparently is BAD

"... they were one of the great empires of the world, moving south in their own wave of conquest."

Which apparently was GOOD. Y'see you're only allowed to be a git if you're NOT white.

"But like everyone who got in the Empire's way, they were slaughtered and forced off the good land by the same holier-than-thou white people who stole all the farmland in Zimbabwe."

And I wonder why the !Kung amongst others are now living on marginal (at best) land. Ooh could it be the influx of Bantu speaking peoples? And what about the various Bantu speaking people that the Zulu's conquered, what happened to them - or the massacre at Weenen (commited by the Zulu during celebrations of a treaty with the Dutch colonists)? Ah, but they weren't white so they're allowed (even encouraged it seems) to murder and rape and pillage, and it's all good because their empires were "nice" murdering conquering rapacious states.

This is BY FAR the worst article I've ever read on Alternet - are you running out of decent authors? All that needs adding is that the British monarchy's really a bunch of disguised Lizard-Men and founded the Boy Scouts as a front for the Bavarian Illuminati.

It's this type of "white guilt" condescension that gives Liberals a bad name. Honestly I wonder if this article isn't as right-wing spoof it's so bad.

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

It's very sad to read an article by Gary Brecher that makes such misinformed underlying assumptions on the cause of the violence here in my country of South Africa. This is particularly in the light of Brecher's usually meticulous research in terms of what he writes about.

The facts are simple: when Robert Mugabe took over Zimbabwe, he inherited a country described as the 'breadbasket of Africa'. Today it is an agricultural desolation, created first and foremost through the policies of land redistribution of Mugabe. There are no more white farmers in Zimbabwe worth mentioning. Brecher makes a cardinal mistake in assuming that Zimbabwe's land is STILL currently occupied by them. The wasteland in Zimbabwe today is directly attributable to these policies. This is quite apart from questions of whether the land should or should not have been redistributed, and whether the white farmers deserved what they got, which are other issues entirely.

The flood of Zimbabwean refugees into South Africa is purely a result of Mugabe's domestic brutality and incompetence. It has nothing to white farmers.

Brecher's analysis of the nature of of the violence here is more or less correct, except for that it is directed at more than just Zimbabweans. Somalis, Mozambicans, even Pakistanis have suffered. And it is by more than just Zulus. Xhosa and others have also taken part. There is also strong participation by pure criminal elements that have taken advantage of the chaos to loot and plunder.

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

If people want to get out of the mouse cage of mainstream media and read some alternative reporting and commentary on Zimbabwe, go here:

Zimbabwe news

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

Heres a mand who knows what ist like being at the other end of an aggressive media campaign:

'Castro “confident of Zimbabwe’s victory”
“Castro, who met with President Mugabe for three consecutive days during the visit, said Zimbabwe would triumph in its quest to equally redistribute land, saluting Zimbabweans for their heroic efforts to control their resources.
“He added that the country would overcome the present problems despite pressure by some powerful Western countries.
“’There is no country weak enough to be crushed. That is why I am confident in Zimbabwe’s victory despite the obstacles’, said President Castro, whose country has for 43 years resisted a United States-led isolation.
African support
“African ambassadors accredited to Cuba met President Mugabe and reiterated their countries’ support for Zimbabwe in its fight against imperialist forces.
“Cuba has helped Zimbabwe since the days of the liberation struggle.
etc
Castro supports president Mugabe

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

I am amazed and disgusted by the infantile display of moral relativism so prominently displayed by Brecher in his column.

In the interests of full disclosure – I was born and raised in South Africa at the height of the apartheid era. As a white South African, I was "entitled" to a privileged life in a country of riches beyond imagination. However, I was appalled by apartheid and by the status quo; as soon as I completed my degree and had saved sufficient funds to jump-start a new life in another country, I fled to the US. I left South Africa at the age of 22, and settled in the US, to return to South Africa only for occasional vacations.

I firmly believe in the following assertion, and will leave it to other readers of AlterNet to comment on its validity:

Pointing out a fact is not, in and of itself, racist. How a person chooses to interpret that fact – how a person places that fact in an explanatory context, or how a person alludes to events pertaining to that fact, on the other hand, can indicate whether the person concerned is racist or neutral, ignorant or wise, obdurate or quick-thinking. In short, merely observing a fact cannot indicate racism on the part of the observer; it takes insight into the paradigm adopted by the observer to determine whether or not he or she is racist.

Here are some facts:

Brecher is flat-out wrong when he asserts that most victims of necklacing are already dead when they are set on fire. To the contrary; most victims of necklacing have their arms bound together by barbed wire, and frequently have their hands chopped off immediately before being set on fire. Those victims whose hands are not chopped off are frequently forced to light their own necklaces. It is not the fire itself that kills the victim; in most cases, the mixture of burning rubber and petrol releases choking, poisonous fumes that sear the insides of the victim’s lungs like rice paper. Death is agonizing and far from quick, many victims struggle for several minutes as the burning rubber literally melts into the flesh of the victim’s arms and chest.

Winnie Mandela famously endorsed necklacing in a speech delivered on 13 April 1985 in Munsieville (a township near Krugersdorp in Gauteng Province). She never retracted this endorsement (“With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.”)

When Rhodesia was handed over to Robert Mugabe some 30 years ago, it was popularly termed the “breadbasket of Southern Africa.” It had a rich and vibrant economy, and Mugabe was seen as a true leader who would carry the nation forward under a reign of prosperity and plenty.

Zimbabwe is now utterly prostrated. It is difficult to buy bread and milk anywhere in the country. Inflation hit 165,000% on 16 April 2008. Very few of the farms are functional; those that do still function are almost all still white-owned. When the Zimbabwe constitution was ratified, it included a clause similar to the “takings” clause embedded in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, prohibiting the taking of farms without just compensation. Mugabe eliminated this Clause, and the white farmers have almost all been dispossessed. It is certainly true that many of these farms were owned by white people whose ancestors robbed the native population at gunpoint – but how does this bear on the legality or morality of seizing the land several generations later?

CONTINUED...

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

Does the fact that a person’s great-grandfather robbed and killed members of a particular race several generations in the past justify murdering that person in the present? (At a personal level – my grandfather was gassed and seriously injured by the Germans during World War I. Should I now hate all young Germans?) Furthermore, many of the white farmers and their families were murdered in the dead of night by people who lack even the most basic understanding of matters such as crop rotation, irrigation, letting land lie fallow, when to plant, what to plant, and what to harvest. After being seized by so-called “war veterans” (many of whom are still in their teens), the farms have been utterly destroyed.

South Africa is now plagued by power cuts on a daily basis. Shopping centers are plunged into darkness for two or three hours every day. South Africa’s wealth lies largely in its mines (the land is rich in platinum, gold, and other precious metals and vital commodities). The platinum mines have been closed down, at least for the time being, because the power company cannot guarantee that power will be available to pull the men from the ground on a reliable basis (of course there is backup power, but such power is intended for emergency usage only, and cannot be relied on to power the day-to-day operation of the mines). When the “rolling blackouts” hit, elevators get trapped between floors for hours on end; freezers and refrigerators stop working, ruining perishable foods; traffic jams cause traffic backups at intersections controlled by traffic lights stretching for miles in every direction; bank credit and debit card verification machines are rendered useless, thereby damaging tourism (a massive source of revenue for the country); hospitals have to cancel and reschedule elective surgeries…

I graduated from the University of the Witwatersrand (“Wits”) in 1985; at that time, Wits was the largest English-medium University in the country, and degrees issued by Wits were accredited in the US. When I last went to South Africa on vacation, I visited my alma mater. Rubbish was strewn everywhere; the once-beautiful lawns, where students would sit and chat in the summer heat, were unkempt, untended, and choked with weeds; the steps leading to the Great Hall had degenerated and decayed; graffiti was sprayed everywhere.

It is not an exaggeration to state that almost all of the current administration’s key figures are under investigation for embezzlement, fraud, corruption, and plundering the public fisc. It is a fact that several prominent Ministers are under investigation for the theft of untold millions of rand (the official currency of South Africa). An historical example is that of Allan Boesak; this anti-apartheid activist was found guilty of fraud in March 1999 (he embezzled R250,000.00 from a Danish investment group, the Coca Cola foundation, and singer Paul Simon) and served just over one year of his three year sentence. He was hoisted onto the shoulders of his jailers and proclaimed a hero, even as he was led into prison. In January 2005, his criminal record was expunged and he received a full presidential pardon.

CONTINUED...

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

I wrote, earlier, that merely pointing out facts cannot be considered racist. How a person construes cause and effect; how that person chooses to view the facts in an overall context; how a person chooses to explain that which he or she observes, on the other hand, tells a vast amount about that person’s attitude to different races. What I see is one country that is utterly prostrated, and another country that is rapidly deteriorating (richer, predominantly white people now own generators that cut in when the power fails; the suburbs sound like a NASCAR track meet two to three hours every day). Thabo Mbeki continues, to this day, to refuse to acknowledge that HIV causes AIDS; in August 2007, he fired his Deputy Health Minister Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, who is widely credited with forging an aggressive assault on the epidemic by emphasizing the role of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART) in treating HIV, and for emphasizing the need for antiretroviral drugs to be made available to as many infected people as possible. Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge reported to the Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who was literally booed off the stage at the International AIDS Conference hosted in Toronto in 2007 when she insisted that a diet of African potatoes, beetroot, garlic, and lemon could bring the disease under control; obviously, tension between these two officials resulted in the firing of the junior official.

I see cultural chauvinism that makes it impossible for the black leadership to acknowledge that anything good can come from “Western” medicine. I see gross incompetence at every level of government. I see willful theft of monies that were intended to serve the poor. I see levels of incompetence that have brought the electrical supply grid to its knees.

Let me be very clear about one thing. I consider apartheid to have been a monstrous injustice; an insult not just to those who suffered under its yoke, but an insult to humanity itself. I see it as a manifestation of evil that cannot, ever, be excused or mitigated by invoking that tired old doctrine of “the end justifies the means” (a doctrine observed by many people I know).

What is the cause of all this? How much can be explained by referring to apartheid (which has been dead for 15 years)? How much of this is due to the lack of education provided to members of the ruling power under the apartheid regime?

How much is due to something else entirely? And if it is due to something else entirely, what are we dealing with?


PHILIP

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

For all I know, perhaps Gary Brecher was living alongside me in South Africa in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. I never came across his name in the struggle, which is surprising because I was one of a small number of MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe) seniors and the name never cropped up.

But aside from that, of course he is right about some of his assertions about necklacing. For example, if white farmers were still producing food, especially maize, tens of thousands of hungry Zimbabweans would not be struggling to enter and live in South Africa, where the farms are still harvesting bumper crops. The fact that the farmers are white is best left to be resolved another day. My people must have food.

Another example of where Professor Brecher is quite right concerns necklacing. We did not practice it for most of my 50 years of involvement. It only started to occur in the 80s when some of the youngsters grew impatient and began to isolate comrades they suspected of weakness. As he points out, it is a truly awful way to kill an enemy and yes, he is right to blame whites. After all, who invented petrol, tyres, and matches? Certainly not blacks. As is well recorded, Mrs. Mandela was the champion of the necklace (“With our boxes of matches and our necklaces, we shall liberate this country!”). Necklacing does not occur often in Zimbabwe because petrol and matches are scarce. Besides, Comrade Mugabe is a modest man, an intellectual who would not allow his admirers and supporters to resort to such crude measures. It is not only crude, it is unsubtle and the leader has used many alternative approaches to deter people from straying from the right path. His subtlety and modesty is illustrated in his lifestyle. He lives in a modest but appropriate palace. His transport is a perfectly ordinary Mercedes Benz 600 with the required armament for the protection of a Head of State. He is sensitive to diplomatic niceties, and only uses his Rolls Royce on special occasions.

We finally wrested power from the whites in 1994 and there have been very few necklacings since then. Zimbabweans took control of their country more than 30 years ago and have had just a few necklacings in that time. It must be stamped out everywhere in Africa, as I am sure Professor Brecher will agree. As he points out, it was only due to having firearms that the British subdued the Zulus 140 years ago. But the spear remains a potent weapon, as do the knife, the panga and the knobkerrie. If we have scores to settle, we are guided by our ancestors. We honour them by again employing their weapons, instead of the crude and uncivilized so-called necklaces.


OldDogCleve

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

I am stunned by the failure of editorial judgment represented by this article. The writer apparently believes that white farmers still control Zimbabwe, and this "fact" therefore excuses the horrors committed against Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa. Nonsense. Nonsense on stilts! The author is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own "facts." Mugabe and those who support him have seized virtually all of this land and distributed it among themselves, and the distribution of food and of food aid from elsewhere is entirely determined by support for, or opposition to, Mugabe and his kleptocrats. Mugabe has been a dictator for a long time now. He was the darling of the Africanists in the 80s due to his overthrow (with much help from others such as Joshua Nkomo) of one of the worst colonial regimes ever. But Mugabe soon showed his true nature and kicked out anyone who challenged him.

There may be some educational value in this piece in reminding us that the hard, and un-informed, left can still be just as awful as the equally uninformed far right. But another one like this and I will have to reconsider my financial support for Alternet.

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