very biased
HOW COME THEY DID NOT TALK ABOUT HOW "WHITE AFRICANS" TREATED BLACK AFRICANS BEFORE THEIR INDEPENDENCE.
shareI thought it was a bit odd alright.
They tried to save the large amount of land, which their ancestors basically just took because they had guns etc. and the natives had nothing.
It's kind of ironic.
You reap what you sow.
You’re so cool. You’re so cool. You’re so cool.
I have no wish to dispute what you are saying or condone the actions of their ancestors but nothing forgives the barbaric acts that family had to endure in what should be a civilized country.
This was an astonishing documentary and I am very surprised it was not one of the final 5 nominees at this year's Oscars. I know it made the shortlist of 15 but there is an argument to have included this if only to give the human rights situation in Zimbabwe more exposure. I felt anyway that it was far more powerful and professionally constructed than both Which Way Home & The Most Dangerous Man in America, the other nominated documentaries I have seen.
[deleted]
Allow me to disperse the rhetoric from both sides, the facts are that just 17% of the 4,000 white farmers were descendent of the soldiers who stole land in the First Matabele War, and yes they stole it. After Cecil Rhodes had conquered the land he gave every soldier that had accompanied him 9 square miles of land. The descendent of those soldiers ought to be made to pay the government whatever the going rate of land is or else, yes, be forced if necessary of the land.
But apart from that, the 83% who bought land legitimately, the land is theirs and always will be. The fact they are white is irrelevant, they are still Africans. If you do wish to divide them as whites and blacks however, and not as simply as Africans, the facts are that if they bought land legitimately then that land does belong to the whites and not the blacks.
The colonization of Zimbabwe officially began on October 13, 1888, with the Rudd Concession. Orchestrated by Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company (BSAC), the concession allowed for mining by the British. King Lobegula, signatory of the concession, felt he was misled by Rhodes.
As Queen Victoria signed a charter for the BSAC to take control of the territory, the British South African Police invaded, killing Lobegula and the majority of the tribe's warriors.
The Ndebele tribe responded by leading attacks against whites throughout the territory, but after the assassination of their religious leadership, the tribe surrendered its strongholds to British control.
http://www.ehow.com/about_4567725_colonial-zimbabwe.html
Regardless of whether they were descendants of soldiers or families of soldiers is irrelevant. They were still part of the group/empire that took the land by force.
I have very little sympathy for the farmers, they really shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I'm Irish and Britain did the same to Irish people over the years, pushing people off the good land, raping and murdering so that people will be forced under British rule.
To hell or to Connaught...
It's very sad what happened to the farmers, but the British really had no right to colonise anywhere.
You’re so cool. You’re so cool. You’re so cool. share
Then we must disagree on the semantics of who exactly the colonisers were.
You believe that all the British who went were the colonisers, even by association. I believe colonialism that only those who invaded the country were not innocent of any crime.
All of the other farmers (the 83% who weren't descended from soldiers) had already paid for the land, in my opinion it is theirs.
Put it this way, I'm guessing that most people did not think that the guy in Mugabe and the White Man was a colonialist, why? Because he bought the land, he did not steal it. That is the situation that 83% of the farmers were in before they were forced of their land.
Who did they purchase the land from though?
They purchased land from the British.
I find it hard to believe that the people who bought the land didn't know exactly how the land was obtained.
I just think that the land really belongs to the people of the country.
People were fooled by the British in the 1880's/90's and that is how the land was taken.
The locals didn't know exactly what was going on and then when they tried to voice their unhappiness about the colonisation, people were killed until they surrendered.
You can talk about legal ramifications all you want, but they took the land from the natives of Zimbabwe and then sold it on to other people who thought that they could make themselves rich through owning that land.
You’re so cool. You’re so cool. You’re so cool.
I am defending the farmers (who bought it) not soldiers (who stole it). Let the British government pay if they must (as they invaded), indeed I believe they did until Blair cut it off after it became apparent Mugabe was pocketing the cash or else giving farms to his cronies.
This woman Clare Short cut it off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Short#Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe
It is wrong to equate White Africans with Europeans, they are African not European. (I am not a white african btw, just interested in Africa).
Well, of course you anti-colonialists are always right! The Brits violently
"stole" the land from the poor natives and subjugated them while the Brits
enjoyed the fruits of the land.That's why not too long ago there existed a
thriving nation named Rhodesia where the majority of whites and blacks lived
in relative peace and prosperity,and where the country met the agricultural
needs of a large portion of Africa.Today the "hero" Mugabe has restored the
barren wasteland of Zimbabwe to its black native population who are starving.
Makes about as much sense as the rest of the claptrap you turkeys spew in your efforts to save the world.
BTW I'm not an Anglophile.
Tha-Guardian
You are an idiot. You are Irish you say? Would you consider yourself one of the Celts then? The Celts that emigrated from Southern Europe and took Ireland by force?
Don't tell me you are Irish-American, probably have a great great grandfather who once knew someone called Paddy. I AM Irish. Were the Irish a peaceful people? Nope, early culture was based on Blood and Death much like any other people. Christ, a huge proportion of the British army during the building of the Empire were Irish.
A tiny proportion of Europe has the same people now that were there prior to the Romans, should we all move back to Italy or Norway because that's where the majority of our bloodline comes from.
If it's a matter of time then when does something belong to those who live there and not "indigenous" peoples? 1000 years? 500? 200? 100? 50?
What is the difference between Australia, the USA, Africa, South America, Canada etc? All were colonised in the last 400 years or so. How about the USA give it back to the English and Spanish? They did after all fight the war of independence a mere 20 years before the Irish relinquished there Parliament and came under British rule. What's the difference?
White farming in Africa began over 400 years ago, compare that to the USA, whats the difference?
and thus you are an evil irish whithey and should be driven out of africa if you'd be so unlucky to be born there. Guess racism and ethnic cleansing is awsome as long as whites are the ones its being done to. Be glad you live in ireland where you have the luxury to live with your politically correct crap without having it challenged, numbnuts. The whites left in africa and the whites in the 800 no-go zones in france and now popping up all over europe where immigrants are launching a race-war against whites to drive them out are not so lucky.
shareThere was NO, I repeat NO modern agriculture going on b4 the white European immigrants. You teach someone how to make fir, and they set you alight- that's the lesson to be learned here. Disgusting!
shareBen Freeth paid for his farm legally. He did not steal it from anyone. It is outrages the way he and his family have been treated. Beaten up, house burnt to the ground. and the poor children. Ben came across as a very decent chap I admire his grit. But if I was in that situation I would call it a day. He has to put the safety of his family first.
As for the farmers who have inherited their farms from the soldiers (family ancestors). The descendents,,,, again how can you hold them accountable they did not steal anything. They have lived in Africa for generations and to them they are African and know nothing different. Where do expect them to go? Why should they pay the price now for what their ancestors did. How can any nation, at this present time take the blame for the mistakes made in history by our ancestors.
couldn't agree more summitnax. these farmers who paid for their land had done nothing wrong. the only reason their farms were burned and they were run off was the fact that they were white. it is racism, pure and simple. a racist dictator managed to turn a booming agricultural industry into a country that can't even feed its own people - all because he hates people with lighter skin. say whatever you want... it is racism. racism by blacks, against whites.
shareThis film definitely brings upon a discussion on the role of colonialism and the issue of race in settler colonies. I feel everyone here has made good points, and it's definitely a sensitive issue. I'm white, from the States, and have lived in Africa. The inhumanity of Europe's colonial legacy in Africa is undebatable. I'm of the opinion that the whole ordeal was for nothing more than capital gain, not to bring development, religion (although that is certainly an enduring legacy), or 'civilization' to African peoples. That rationale was merely a guise to keep Europeans at home in concert with the efforts of men like Stanley, Rhodes and the governments who hired them.
I can certainly understand the sentiment of black Africans who still feel a great deal of animosity towards whites, be they European, African-born, American, whatever. Obviously, race is a contentious issue here in the U.S. and in damn near every other part of the world. For me, there were two very telling scenes in this movie. The first being when the ZANU-PF official came to seize the Campbell's farm, and he says something along the lines of "we like the Chinese, the Indians, but we are finished with you whites." Strange to me how many leaders will bemoan neocolonialism, yet accept selective foreign investment. In a way, capital investment is neocolonialism, and necessity for industrial development in Africa because the whole point of colonialism was to prevent Africans from industrializing or building infrastructure for their own use. The second point I found interesting was when the white farmer says "you can be white and be an American or Australian, but you cannot be African." Obviously, Europe, the US, Canada, etc. don't slap that restriction on black citizens, but here brings the issue of slavery. In drives me (and I'm sure a lot of other Americans) crazy when we make the distinction 'African American' or 'Latino.' Why bother? Why not just say 'American'? Now obviously, Europeans were not forcefully relocated to Africa, but the legacy of the trans-Atlantic trade, and the colonial era have certainly placed a profound and continued impact on race relations and the manner in which different people interact. It's a shame that things have played out the way they have in Zimbabwe. When I was living in Ghana, 99% of the people I met were genuinely friendly, sincere, caring and unconditionally helpful, and that was a colony that had very little to no European settler population.
What I don't understand about people who support Mugabe is how they can possibly believe that he is helping Zimbabweans. People are not allowed to speak out against the government. It is a police state where fear is the rule of law. Currency is worthless. Zimbabwe's inflation rate doubles DAILY. Over 70% of the population works in the informal sector due to a lack of formal employment opportunities, and Mugabe recently attempted to forcibly oust the informal sector (Operation Murumbatsvina). The liberation wars made Mugabe a rightful African hero, but in hindsight of his 30 years of rule, I don't know how any African could still consider him such.
One or two questions-what did the black man do with Africa before the white man arrived? How many Africans would even have been born had we not colonised Africa? Ian Smith was owed a lot of apologies.
shareOf course they were all sitting on their hands waiting for whites.They built empires,gold,farming,etc. There wasn't all this disease and everything else because they knew how to take care of their land. Africa would not be in the same state without colonization. They developed on their own. Enough with the bs white education "we brought civilization to everyone" nonsense. When in reality a lot of Europeans studied in places like Egypt and the Moors brought so many things to Europe.
- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
The people there now HAD NADA to do with colonization, these ppl are FARMERS!
share