|
|
The
Zimbabwe Hypocrisy: White people judging Mugabe and Zimbabwe
are full of it!
Posted by Saadiq Mance
In 1889 Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company obtained a
charter to colonize the region, which they called Rhodesia,
but is now called Zimbabwe. The question I ask is who
authorized this charter? It was not an Indigenous African I
guarantee. Cecil Rhodes and his band of British terrorist
conquered this land and claimed it as their own. It would be
more than 90 years before Africans would start to see any
resemblance of self-rule again.
Today, less than 120 years after terrorist White savages
massacred millions of Black Africans and seized their land
without compensation, White people want to now cry foul
against a land redistribution plan that will compensate White
people who got the land for free. This criticism is truly
hypocrisy in its greatest moment…
Ever since Ian Smith, a staunch conservative White man, became
Prime Minister of Rodesia in 1964 and proclaimed unilateral
independence from Britain in 1965, White settlers in Zimbabwe
have been determined to keep their foot on the necks of the
Black Nationalist who wanted independence. In hindsight these
White African settlers now realize that they chose the wrong
African country to mess with. In 1970 African nationalist
groups led by Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe launched a
guerilla war against Smith and his terrorist regime and in a
matter of years was able to force the White terrorist into
submission.
History proves that the fighting force of the Black
Nationalists was not only resilient in their fight against the
White terrorist, but proved to be tactically superior, out
smarting a heavily armed and technically advanced opponent. By
1980, Smith's illegitimate terrorist government was defeated,
Black majority rule government was instituted under the new
state of Zimbabwe, and Robert Mugabe was a hero.
Even with control of the government, and after being
inhumanely treated by White people for over 200 years, Black
people showed once more that they would turn the other cheek
to their oppressors. The kind hearted Africans opened their
arms to the remaining White settlers by allowing them to keep
control of more than 80% of the available fertile land.
Obviously, no democratically run government can function when
2% of the population controls 80% of the inhabitable land, but
unfortunately, White people did not see it this way. The
hospitality of the Africans was ignored and in 1996 when the
White settlers were asked by the government to peacefully turn
over part of their land to help resettle the displaced
citizens of Zimbabwe, they refused.
Of course this refusal was a total slap in the face to now
President Mugabe considering the government was offering to
provide monetary compensation to the White settlers who got
their land for free. Any White run sovereign nation in the
world would have been totally within their rights to indict
and convict citizens who willfully broke the law of the land,
and this is clearly what the White settlers in Zimbabwe are
and continue to do. But when a sovereign African leader like
Mugabe attempts to in force the law of his land on White
people, people around the world cry that a human rights crisis
is under way quickly forgetting that it was a terrorist regime
that massacred and seized the land of Mugabe's people without
compensation.
To make matters worse, the United States is quietly assembling
a "coalition of the willing" to support a coup of
Zimbabwe's democratically elected president. In August 2004,
the new US ambassador to South Africa, Gendayi Frazer, was
quoted stating this fact. Additionally, in June 2004 the Prime
Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, told his parliament that his
government was working closely with Zimbabwe's opposition
movement to oust Mugabe.
I ask, how can these two governments be more hypocritical?
When did it become okay for foreigners to invade the land of a
sovereign people and force their leaders, cultures and values
onto them? Why didn't America and Britain assemble a
"coalition of the willing" when South Africa
inhumanely oppressed millions of Africans during apartheid?
The answer is simple, the United States and Britain are the
two biggest oppressors of Black people in the history of the
world and only care about the safety of White people and their
interest. History has proved this time and time again. Britain
ought to be particularly ashamed that they are pointing
fingers at the politics of President Mugabe when they created
him with their terrorist tactics in the first place.
It is clear that neither the United Sates nor Britain has made
any attempts to right the wrongs of their past, so if they
don't like Mugabe's tactics they either need to pay
reparations to every Black person on the globe or sit back and
shut up. People need to stop rushing to judgment on the
politics of Mugabe, it is plain to see that White manipulation
of the media, people, and politics is still rampant in Africa
and therefore misinformation is still the rule of the day.
Until the influence of a oppressor who has worked their
criminal mind into the fabric of African society is completely
rooted out, the tactics of Mugabe and his government may be
the only way to achieve a renaissance of the war torn
continent. |
|
