Comments on: Has Zimbabwe’s land reform actually been a success? A new book says yes.

By: Alice

Alice — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:22:35 +0000

Moyoza, your fathers didn’t suffer a lot. If a black Zimbabwean moves to Britain and he buys a house and starts a business,what would you call British people who say “that is our house and business,yours is in Zimbabwe”?

By: Alice

Alice — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:15:33 +0000

@Kuda, in 1890 there were about 400.000 people living in Zimbabwe. A country the size of France or Texas. There were no farms and the different tribes were at war with each other. Farms have to be created with hard work and knowledge of the soil and which crops grow on which soil. What fertilizer is needed where and how much. The African people had a different way of farming, which means that the land belonged to the Chief and he will move the tribe when the soil is exhausted. After years it will recover from the damage done.

The pioneers were not colonialists as they were immigrants and they build up the country. No written language, no central government, no administration as for this you have to have a written language. There were no roads, no bridges, no towns, no schools, no hospitals and no big scale farms to feed the growing population. Even feeding surrounded countries.6000 farmers fed 40 million people.

Further the Rhodesian army was for 80% black. They fought shoulder to shoulder with the white soldiers against the tugs who wiped out whole back villages, killed teachers, nurses, laid landmines so the transport of food from the farms to the cities were under threat.

There is no good or bad land, there is good or bad ways of farming. To be a farmer there should be education how to farm. Also the success full black commercial farmers lost their land. This was about politics and power and Mugabe lost the referendum so he took power.

Mugabe is the biggest racist in the region and he filled his pockets over the backs of the black and white Zimbabweans. His private army killed 20.000 Ndebeles,the other tribe. If that is not racism then what is?

To be success full with any business, special farming,one should own it and the commercial farmers bought their land with bank-loans. They have the title deeds. the people farming on stolen land don’t have these deeds so it is easy to kick them off the land as well,if they don’t vote for Mugabe. And there was enough land, underdeveloped but anyone could apply to buy it and develop it and farm it. To steal developed land that produces food is a crime.
Who will know that if the Chinese want to take over the land that this will not happen? It will because Mugabe has to pay back the Chinese for their support. And the land legally don’t belong to the so called new farmers.
Please learn history before you make these ridiculous statements.

By: Quora

Quora — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 01:18:24 +0000

What African nations almost became developed but failed?

I nominate this dump of a country: Zimbabwe. If you look at this nice chart, in 1960 Zimbabwe wasn’t too bad a place relative to the rest of the world and it’s neighbors. It’s GDP/capita–a crude, but reasonable measure of development–was over 60%…

By: Bloody agent

Bloody agent — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:38:38 +0000

The authors of the ‘new book’ is a known Mugabe apologist and willingly collaborates with warvets.

Here’s some of their work debunked:

http://martinplaut.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/zimbabwes-land-myths-about-the-myths/

By: Ron Grant

Ron Grant — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:07:24 +0000

AS FAR AS KICKING THE WHITE FARMERS OFF THE LAND,I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROOF OF THE PUDDING BEING IN THE EATING.AN EXERCISE IN CUTTING OFF THE NOSE TO SPITE THE FACE.

By: moyoza

moyoza — Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:18:17 +0000

i totally agree with kuda.we can forgive but we can’t forget.our fathers suffered a lot.Florence land reform wasn’t racist in nature we just took what belonged to us .they are the ones who started it.Their land is in Britain not here in Zim.

By: Florence Bhengu

Florence Bhengu — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:20:24 +0000

Dear Kuda

You must be one of those fortunate black Zimbabweans that has not suffered as the rest have through the brutality and insanity of your Mugabe and his Zano PF. The land reform is racist since it is based upon black and white and nothing else. It is the reason given to you by the elite rulers to hide away their true motives. You support the destruction of your own country when there are other ways of affirmative action that are even more effective and more importantly, positive. The lie is perpetrated to instigate us to harm each other. While we are busy destroying each other, the elite/rulers know that they remain entrenced in their power and wealth.

You seem proud of the way things are in your country. What you do not seem to understand that it is still white people who are helping you. The aid that you have received comes from the western whites. As is pointed out above, your country imports food from the very same farmers that you ousted. Furthermore, your people and your country, have placed great burdens on my country and others by sending us your traumatised refugees to look after for you. What right does Zimbabwe have in doing this?

I know a number of Zimbabweans. They are all well educated and hard working, industrious in that they are able to start businesses and succeed despite the odds against them in a foreign land. Why is it, I wonder, that it was not possible for these people to do this in their own country? Surely if you chose a more humane manner in effecting change, not one that makes Mugabe/blacks even more brutally racist, and just plain cruel, than Smith/whites, you would now still have a prosperous country where the children no longer suffered.

By: Kuda Chikwanda

Kuda Chikwanda — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:41:43 +0000

It boggles me if one thinks and alludes that the land reform was racial.It was an affirmitive action to address the racial imbalances entrenched in segregative legislations.We are not fools and Zimbabwe is ours and will not compromise.Empty promises from the UK and U.S,an insulting letter from the then Secretary Claire Short in 1997.Zimbabwe is ours and we are ready to die for what we believe.Nehanda was butchered and where were the self-professed human rights,where was the ICJ when the Rhodies,Smith and other guys killed blacks?We can forgive but we will never forget.No compensation or Marshal plan after a century of de-humanising us.Why?is it because we are black?Our hospitality is not a weakness.Don’t anger us we are our own liberators and no-one can preach democracy to us.Iraq.Libya,Egypt,Syria and now you think of Zimbabwe.Leave Mugabe to us he is ours.

By: Summersell

Summersell — Wed, 29 May 2013 14:20:34 +0000

Any research carried out by a person with a vested interest in that research is generally to be treated with suspicion, such as when pharmaceutical companies carry out research which reflects well on their medicines. “Zimbabwe takes back its land” unfortunately suffers from such a conflict of interest because of the presence of **** **** on the team. Although ***** is white, she is married to an ex military man who has been given land. They fall into the category of weekend farmers. Furthermore, *****’s status in Zimbabwe is precarious because, being white, she has always to prove that she is not like the other whites. Her position in a prominent Zimbabwean institution and her husbands ex military status both mean that she would be highly unlikely to present any critique of the government’s land reform policy. Readers need to take her position into account when deciding on the credibility of the book.

By: Summersell

Summersell — Mon, 27 May 2013 13:11:07 +0000

I would like to add that a key point made by “Zimbabwe Takes Back its Land” is that it was the marginalised black people themselves who occupied the farms, against the will of the government. This is not true. Mugabe was very much behind the reform process. He said at the WSSD in 2002: “Economically, we are an occupied country, 22 years after our Independence. Accordingly, my Government has decided to do the only right and just thing by taking back land and giving it to its rightful indigenous, black owners who lost it in circumstances of colonial pillage. This process is being done in accordance with the rule of law as enshrined in our national Constitution and laws.” He also said in a speech in Namibia: “It is a simple solution…if they (the white commercial farmers) are ready to discuss with you and give land then there is no need for a fight. But in Zimbabwe the British are not ready and we are making them ready now.”
(Mugabe, BBC News, 26 May 2000). The authors of this book are naive to believe the state politicking that implied that ZANU PF had no involvement in the violent acquisition of the farms. They must also be wary of confusing instances of opposition to the government’s wishes, based on the unfairness of their procedure, with the process being fully initiated by the people.

The solidarity peace trust (2003) have described how ZANU PF use the tactic of getting the people to do their will, whilst pretending their lack of involvement.
“It was about vandalism… We were used to do the things the State does not want to do themselves. Then they can just say ‘ it was just the youth, not us’…We are Zanu-PF’s ‘B’ team. The army is the ‘A’ team and we do the things the government does not want the ‘A’ team to do…We got a lot of power. Our source of power was this encouragement we were getting, particularly from the police and others… it was instilled in us that whenever we go out, we are free to do whatever we want and nobody was going to question that.”
(Solidarity Peace Trust, 2003)