Saturday, April 21, 2007

[wvns] Zimbabwe Resists Colonialism

Zimbabwe: The Resistance to Colonialism
By K. Elford
April 02, 2007,79722,.shtml

We White people hardly ever realize our offense when discounting
information being presented to us from a Black point of view. There
are informed alternatives to the White-owned mainstream media, outlets
that provide alternative views for important consideration.

There is excessive attention from the Western media on the Zimbabwe
land reclamation program. Many Whites, White journalists, politicians,
White landowners and former White landowners are voicing opposition to
this exercise. Unfortunately Whites have the loudest voice with the
least to say. That voice comes from a biased, emotionally charged and
uninformed point of view based on White mainstream media propaganda.
Whites just don't want to see the land reclamation issue differently
than how the West is presenting it.

Land illegally obtained by Whites and the efforts to reclaim it by the
rightful owners is an ongoing, significant point of contention between
the minority White occupiers and the landless indigenous Black
majority in Africa.

The ownership of land in any nation is the lifeblood of the sovereign
people. Whose hands the land is in and how it is managed controls the
welfare of the community.

Whites were enticed to Zimbabwe in search of gold by the White
established British South Africa Company (BSAC); a company granted to
Cecil Rhodes by England's Queen Victoria. Unsuccessful in their
search, instead of the riches of gold promised, they were "given"
large tracts of land by the BSAC. One of the problems with this land
handout is the British and BSAC had no real authority to give any land
to anyone.

Before Whites showed up in Africa, culturally there was a different
concept towards land "ownership". Whites will tell tales of treaties
and agreements made with local Africans (people who had no authority
to make agreements), but I find those tales hard to believe since
Whites were "negotiating the treaties". Besides the language barriers,
the concepts of owning land individually would be foreign to many
indigenous Africans so there is no way these treaties were anything
but a White concocted and enacted affair. Closer to the truth is that
the landgrab initiated by Whites brought the White settlers into
conflict with the indigenous African populations.

Africans rebelled and wars were fought in attempts to rectify the
White settler infestation and the environmental disasters being
brought on by their presence. In response to African rebellions the
BSAC officially "sanctioned" the use of force to enact their "new"
land policy concocting a "racial solution" to the land issue.

What was the solution White settlers initiated? The 1899 Order in
Council, "the Council shall assign to the natives land sufficient for
their occupation, whether as tribes or portions of tribes, and
suitable for agriculture and pastoral requirement" (Palmer, 1977). In
other words, Black Africans were "resettled" onto reserves, while
Whites allowed themselves new land occupancy with prospective settlers
continuing to get lands grants. Is any of this sounding familiar?

Within a few years nearly half of the indigenous population were
living on reserves and had lost nearly 16 million hectares of land to
the White settlers. Not long after their arrival Whites had 2500 farms
occupying approximately 15 million hectares.

White landgrabs in Africa were the beginning of the colonization of
indigenous Africans. Do Whites have the same imagery of colonialism as
those who Whites forced their institution of colonialism on? Very
unlikely. In the U.S. Whites think of a colony, the fairytale
Thanksgiving stories of White settlers taking care of the Native
Americans and for the British it would be tales of conquest of what
they feel are a lesser-type of human being under the guise of
advancing "civilization" while increasing their material wealth.

Colonization in Zimbabwe was a minority of Whites illegally occupying
the land, imposing a British structured control of resources, labor
and government displacing the indigenous Black population by
subjugation. The British colonizers became dominant using brutal force
against Black Africans during their efforts to replace the established
indigenous cultural structure.

The result has been the minority White colonizers accumulating wealth
while the majority indigenous Black population, no longer in control
of their land and resources, has been left in extreme poverty.

The occupation of land by Whites has had a direct impact on Africa's
economy preventing the ability of the local indigenous population from
competing fairly. Unless Black Africans gain access to land ownership
they remain poor, while the White minority continues to profit. This
unfair advantage in favor of Whites is what perpetuates the cycle of
poverty: a middle class from within the indigenous peoples is not
allowed to expand; the nation has the minority Whites accumulating the
most wealth; a few Blacks are being promoted, often by chance or
circumstance; and the majority Black population remains in poverty. As
long as these few Whites hold the most and the best land, there is no
way to break this poverty cycle.

Does the average citizen in the West have any idea why their
governments are so interested in the land reclamation program in
Zimbabwe? Whites tend to believe the propagandized vision of a
benevolent government that "gives" assistance to the downtrodden. What
is missing from that vision is that Western governments give nothing
and through colonization (also known as imperialism) is the reason
many are downtrodden.

If Western governments were really interested in the well-being of
developing countries, why do Western governments knowingly support
opposition organizations that have stated they will use violence to
meet their goals? In which Western country can someone threaten to use
violence to bring down a government and be free? In the U.S. and UK?
No. But when the U.S. and Britain are campaigning and plotting a
foreign government takeover, they will condone and defend opposition
parties using violence while castigating the local democratically
elected government for reacting exactly as the U.S. and European
governments would to quell any violence being used against them.

The current White instigated and maintained war in Iraq is about land
and resources.

It has become common knowledge including admissions from the U.S.
elite that the information used to rally the citizenry of the U.S.
behind the U.S. led War against Iraq was "faulty". What is the cost of
this faulty information? Besides the loss of 655,000 people and
counting, the Iraq nation has lost its identity and its land is being
destroyed while being occupied by the White invaders. Does anyone
really think that when this war ends the U.S. has any intention of
giving back the land and other resources they are taking? Would the
U.S. remove all traces of its presence and restore an Iraqi identity?
This has not happened as yet anywhere else that the U.S. has invaded,
so it would be prudent to suggest that will not be the case.

As horrifying as the Iraq War is, there is sufficient documentation of
at least 56 instances of major U.S. aggressions abroad since World War

The majority of Whites overwhelmingly and blindly consider any
alternative media, along with different perspectives (any source of
information other than the mainstream media) as "conspiracy theories"
or unpatriotic America-bashing.

The hypocrisy of this type of thinking is that the average U.S.
citizen debunks as a "conspiracy theory" any information when it
points out that the U.S. government is corrupt, but will easily accept
other governments as being guilty of "conspiracies", especially if
they perceive them as threats against them in the U.S. Imperialist
empires do depend on individual paranoia to keep the charade of
legitimacy going.

And so the U.S. and European imperialist aggressions against foreign
governments go on using brute force by the most inhumane displays of
aggression unabated with the mainstream press aiding every step of the
way. The antagonistic Western governments keep propping up puppet
governments and funding oppositions to take down resistant governments
the world over and hardly a word is spoken. White people refuse to
believe that Western governments are directly responsible for any
wrongdoings. Could Whites ever fathom that Western, White governments
are behind every major conflict in the world?

Email: zimbabwecrisis @


Britain continues to pressure UN to censure Zimbabwe
By Saeed Shabazz
Apr 13, 2007

(top) South Africa's ambassador Dumisani Shadrack Kumalo. (r) British
Ambassador to the UN Emyr Jones Parry.
'Pres. Mugabe is also in the cross-hairs of the West, because he dare
challenge the western imperialistic grip on the African continent with
programs such as his "Look East Policy," where he has built trade
relations with China, Malaysia, Singapore and both Koreas'.
—Obi Egbuna
Pan-African Liberation Organization

UNITED NATIONS ( - The United Kingdom is again demanding
that the UN Security Council place Zimbabwe on its agenda. On Mar. 17,
British Ambassador to the UN Emyr Jones Parry requested UN officials
to conduct "humanitarian briefing," however, South Africa's ambassador
Dumisani Shadrack Kumalo said his government would have no part of
bringing Zimbabwe before the Security Council.

South Africa has the rotating presidency of the council for the month
of March.

"We will oppose any British attempt to have Zimbabwe brought before
this body," stated the South African ambassador. He said there was
nothing happening in Zimbabwe that could be construed as an issue of
international peace and security, which is the criteria for bringing a
sovereign nation before the 15-member council.

A South African spokesman agreed with the ambassador, telling The
Herald (Zimbabwe) on Mar. 24 that indeed "Zimbabwe did not pose a
threat to regional stability."

The British press has stepped up its anti-Mugabe crusade publishing
stories beginning Mar. 11, stating that the Zimbabwe police and
security forces attacked a peaceful so-called prayer vigil, which was
sponsored by the opposition political party Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC). There are claims in the Western press that opposition
leader Morgan Tsvangirai and others were seriously injured.

"We're all deeply shocked and saddened that the government of Zimbabwe
feels that it has to resort to such brutal tactics against its own
people," U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell stated,
according to The Age (Australia).

However, Minister Abdul Akbar Muhammad, International Representative
of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam,
who, at Final Call press time, is traveling from Botswana to South
Africa, argues that the western media reports only one side of the issue.

"We must examine closely the root of the problem," he told The Final
Call. "What sparked the confrontation between the police and the MDC?"
he asked. "What took place? Did the MDC, in fact, attempt to stone
people who would not join their prayer vigil? We must seek out all of
the facts," stressed Min. Muhammad.

A March 24 article in The Herald stated that "MDC hit squads are on a
campaign of assaulting members of the police force and bombing police
stations," while the South African government spokesman, Themba
Maseko, condemned the "culture of intolerance and violence from the
opposition MDC, saying the party's refusal to accept the outcome of
democratic elections was to blame for the problems in Zimbabwe."

Min. Muhammad believes that the governments of the United States of
America and the United Kingdom are behind the MDC and its shenanigans.

A press statement on the U.S. Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe's
website ( makes some salient points concerning
what they term a "clear drift of politics of violent confrontation and
blatant thuggery" by the MDC.

The press statement claims that, "MDC leadership has publicly
announced its mission to seek to topple government through civil
unrest in order to realize the British-led goal of regime change."

The statement further claims that MDC leadership is "urging their
supporters to disregard the laws of the land and undermine civil
order." There have also been statements from MDC leadership openly
"inciting their supporters to attack structures and figures of law
enforcement," notes the press release.

Zimbabwe's Minister of Foreign Affairs Simbarashe S. Mumbengegwi, in a
statement posted on his website, noted the following: "It is a most
regrettable development that the United Kingdom continues to try to
settle a score with Zimbabwe, by trying to drag her bilateral dispute
with our nation before the United Nations."

In 2005, Britain tried to have the Security Council condemn Zimbabwean
President Robert Mugabe, accusing him of not "providing proper
housing" for some 700,000 of his countrymen. The Security Council
refused to condemn the president; and the secretary-general, Kofi
Annan stated publicly that the situation on the ground in Zimbabwe was
not a violation of any one's human rights.

But, if anyone expected the 83-year-old former `freedom fighter' to
shrink under all of the negative press and condemnation from Western
leaders, they best think again.

According to stories published Mar. 23 by Agence France-Presse (AFP),
Pres. Mugabe "denounced" the MDC and its leader Morgan Tsvangirai as
"stooges of the West."

AFP reports that Pres. Mugabe noted in the speech at his party's
headquarters in Harare that Mr. Tsvangarai "would never rule the
country as long as he was alive."

"Tsvangarai, you want to rule this country on behalf of British Prime
Min. Tony Blair," the Zimbabwean president is quoted as saying. AFP
stated that Pres. Mugabe "charged Britain with using the MDC as a
front to re-colonize Zimbabwe in order to plunder the nation's minerals."

Observers say that Zimbabwe is a nation blessed with uranium, diamonds
and platinum. According to activists such as Obi Egbuna of the
Washington-based Pan-African Liberation Organization and the
Zimbabwe/Cuba Friendship Association, the tobacco company Phillip
Morris has long sought to re-gain control of Zimbabwean tobacco and
are also behind much propaganda condemning Pres. Mugabe's land reform

Mr. Egbuna, in a article published in The Herald in December 2006,
stated: "It is the liberal British Prime Minister Tony Blair, that
many in the U.S. consider a cheap imitation of Bill Clinton—who is
leading the charge to overthrow Pres. Robert Mugabe, and made George
W. Bush march to the beat of his drum." The activist told The Final
Call that Mr. Blair does not want to leave office, having not been
able to "overthrow Mr. Mugabe."

He calls the recent press attacks against the Mugabe administration "a
propaganda war." In a Jan. 12 article entitled "Zim's detractors
either uninformed or afraid," Mr. Egbuna writes that, "Zimbabwe
detractors are either uninformed, afraid or have been brought by
groups like the National Endowment for Democracy." He notes that this
is an indirect ploy to divert attention from Zimbabwe because its
enemies do not want to highlight its political will and courage.

Both Min. Muhammad and Mr. Egbuna stress that the greatest issue
angering the West is Pres. Mugabe's `land reform program.'

Pres. Mugabe addressed a group of American journalists and medical
types in Harare on Oct 9, 2002, which was covered in The Final Call
newspaper, wherein he explained what the land reform meant to Zimbabweans:

"You cannot have a country where you control only the politics of that
country. What is the vote about if it is not about giving you
strength, and, at the end of the day, consolidating your right of
ownership and the right of self-determination in regard to your entire

Pres. Mugabe then explained to the delegation the history of the
failed promises of the British and the Americans to fund the transfers
of land from Whites to Blacks that was recalled in the 1979
declaration known as "The Lancaster House Agreement." He shared how
then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave his government an
initial $40 million, but failed to fulfill their commitment, and how
the U.S. government stopped aid during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

According to Mr. Egbuna, Mr. Blair has gone as far as denying that a
Lancaster House Agreement ever existed.

Think-tanks, such as the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR), are now
arguing that the only way to get rid of Mr. Mugabe is by creating
dissension within the ZANU-PF party according to a Mar. 19 podcast by
journalist Peta Thornycroft on

Even the International Crisis Group (ICG) dares suggests that
"conditions are ripe for political change."

"The desire to remove Mugabe within the year provides a rare rallying
point that cuts across partisan affiliations, and ethnic and regional
identities," writes the ICG.

Mr. Egbuna argues that "On the ground, the people are demanding that
the president stay-the course; and not leave office until the land is

However, Western political voices are asking for more sanctions
against the Mugabe-administration, hoping to cause dissent.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, during his weekly radio message
given on Mar. 21, said he intends to push for the tightening of
diplomatic sanctions against Harare, according to the the Mar. 22
edition of the Financial Gazzette (Harare).

Washington, according to Tom Casey, the U.S. Department of State
deputy spokesman, said the Bush administration was "consulting with
like-minded countries" and the European Union, on possible actions to
take. However, EU and United Nations officials are skeptical that new
sanctions would have any affect," according to the Voice of America (VOA).

In 2002 and 2003, the U.S. imposed specific and focused sanctions on
members of the Zimbabwean government and members of ZANU-PF.

According to Mr. Casey, the U.S. is seeking new ways to "target the
Zimbabwean government" without causing additional hardships to the
general populace. Something that Min. Muhammad says is impossible.

"While there are claims that sanctions are targeted against regimes,
the truth is that it is the people who really hurt," Min. Muhammad said.

"The Congressional Black Caucus must be engaged to challenge the
Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which imposed the
initial U.S. sanctions," argues Mr. Egbuna, a point also raised by
Pres. Mugabe during his address to the delegation in 2002.

"Pres. Mugabe is also in the cross-hairs of the West, because he dare
challenge the western imperialistic grip on the African continent with
programs such as his "Look East Policy," where he has built trade
relations with China, Malaysia, Singapore and both Koreas," Mr. Egbuna


Black activists speak on Zimbabwe crisis
By Monica Moorehead, Harlem, N.Y.
Apr 12, 2007
Workers World

The Brooklyn-based December 12 International Secretariat held an
emergency community forum in Harlem on April 5 on the current and
ongoing crisis that the Robert Mugabe-led government in Zimbabwe faces
from U.S.-British imperialist threats.

Left to right, Monica Moorehead, D12 members
Colette Pean, Omowale Clay, Roger Wareham,
Viola Plummer and Coltrane Chimurenga April 5.
WW photo: John Parker

The majority Black, well-attended meeting included well-known
activists such as Elombe Brath of the Patrice Lumumba Coalition and
New York City Councilperson Charles Barron. Barron had publicly
welcomed President Mugabe to New York's City Hall in 2005 when he came
to the city for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly,
but the majority of the City Council boycotted the event.

The April 5 meeting was held at Mount Olivet Church, the same venue
where President Mugabe spoke to thousands of people in 2005.

Omowale Clay from D12, who chaired the forum, spoke about a March 11
prayer rally held in Zimbabwe and organized by the Movement for
Democratic Change, an anti-Mugabe opposition group that has the full
backing of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George
W. Bush. A struggle ensued which reportedly resulted in one MDC member
dying and 30 Zimbabwean police being injured.

Following this incident, a debate took place at a session in late
March of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva,
Switzerland, between a representative of Britain and a representative
from Zimbabwe. A portion of this debate was shown at the Harlem
meeting. The British representative raised the March 11 incident and
called for imposing more economic sanctions on Zimbabwe.

The Zimbabwean representative defended his country's right to
sovereignty and stated that sanctions are being used to strangle the
already fragile Zimbabwean economy and to isolate the country from the
rest of the African continent.

Following this film clip, the rest of the Harlem meeting was devoted
to opening up the floor to hear questions and comments from the
audience. D12 leaders Viola Plummer, Coltrane Chimurenga and Roger
Wareham, along with Clay, fielded the questions. All four of these
leaders have traveled to Zimbabwe on a number of occasions, including
before the last election when Mugabe won another term in office.

A number of important issues raised by these leaders point to the real
reasons why the U.S. and British governments want a "regime change" in
Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is the only country in Africa where the land,
stolen by white colonialists beginning in the late 1880s, has been
returned to the Indigenous population in a systematic way.

During the height of anti-colonial struggle in Southern Africa decades
ago, Zimbabwe was the first country to hold a caucus of the national
liberation movements on the continent. Both China and North Korea have
friendly relations with Zimbabwe in the areas of trade and economic
development. President Hugo Chávez from Venezuela has pledged to
President Mugabe to provide oil to Zimbabwe.

D12 explained that one consequence of the Western-imposed economic
sanctions is that Zimbabwe is denied technologically advanced
equipment to develop its land to grow enough food for the population,
especially during long periods of drought that chronically plague
regions in Africa. These sanctions have helped to deepen hunger in

As a follow-up to the meeting, D12 Movement and Patrice Lumumba
Coalition called for a march and rally in Harlem beginning at 1 p.m.
on April 14 to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the liberation of
Zimbabwe. The main theme of this protest will be "Mugabe is right!
Zimbabwe will never be a colony again!"

The march will begin at the Harlem State Office Building at 125th St.
and Adam Clayton Powell Blvd. Endorsers of this activity include
Africans Helping Africans, the All African Peoples' Socialist Party,
Black Men's Movement, Nation of Islam, African Liberation Support
Committee, CEMOTAP and International Action Center.

Email: ww @



To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email for instructions.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

No comments: