^That's just one of my decoy accounts. Add me as a friend, then I'll send you a link to my real Facebook profile .
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
More good news. The Britain plan to try to place "targeted" (read: personal and illegal) sanctions on the government of Zimnbabwe itself has crashed and BURNED.
So, the African Union didn't bow to British racist/imperialist shenangians and now the UN itself (where we all know Britain was hedging it's bets) has said "No, and shut the f*** up!" as well.
Gee, guess the former colonial powers are getting quit the wake-up call, ain't they? Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Happy dayz. Seems I might just see One free African country (or two...) in my lifetime. I'm rolling with Mugabe. Who U Wit?Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who will take back the land and resources for the people is a man (or woman) that I will stand with.
I never said I agree with what Mugabe has done in the past. I also feel he's too cozy with China, who is starting to dominate African industry to the point where most foodstuffs there come from China. I don't tout him as THE ANSWER.
But Africa's freedom and prosperity depends on one thing and one thing only-- that blacks and ONLY blacks be the ones who are the richest, most influential and powerful people on the continent. Those who answer to whites or arabs or the Chinese can't be tolerated. Mugabe is empowering the people and I'll stand by him as long as he does that.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Let's be brutally honest. China saved Zimbabwe's ass from the British. I'm sure they didn't do it for nothing.
Like I always say, nothing wrong with win-win situations as long as he's not putting Zimbabwe under China's thumb. I hope the relationship is one of mutual respect. I'm willing to bet on the Chinese being of the calibre of people one can depend on (unlike Westerners in general).
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's be brutally honest. China saved Zimbabwe's ass from the British.
Seeing as how Russia also blocked the measure perhaps Africa owes undying gratitude to Putin too, huh? Let's not get carrieD away with the gratitude. That's one of the African's worst habits --turning a single act of kindness/benefit into an eternal debt that makes it where we allow our one-time benefactor to walk all over us. This is how the arabs got a stranglehold on Africa and it's also how China is coming to impose economically on Africa as well. Even now we can see that their strength is coming at the cost of our own. That's unacceptable, and if that's the cost of an Afro-Asian alliance then it's a cost that's simply too high.
Yes, they did us a good turn and the African has NEVER been one to show ingratitude (the world knows this and knows that it's our Achilles heel), but they don't get to hold this over our heads. Acts of goodwill simply ensure the relationship remains friendly --it's the LEAST you can do when you're supposed to be on good terms with someone, whether it's a family member, friend, or trading partner. However it doesn't make the person you benefitted into your indentured servant. To wit: speaking up when your trading partner is under threat is part of the price of doing business.
China is looking out for China. African businesses have been having hell because Chinese competition makes it where the Africans, who are already desperately poor, will buy the cheapest goods. African farmers, manufacturers, can't compete with the rock-bottom prices coming out of China. The end result? Africa's money is going into Chinese pockets and these countries can't get any sort of industrial sector going because of this. China doesn't seem too bothered by any of this.
Sooner or later the Africans will get tired of this and decide to do something about it. When that happens China will stop playing nice and bring out the brass knuckles. That's not pessimism, that's history and simple common sense. Remember, the Chinese are still supplying weapons to the Sudanese who use them in Darfur. The Chinese haven't been too bothered by this either.
And as for that "Chinese being dependable" business, as Dr John Henrik Clarke said, "Africa has NO friends...you think the Asians are going to come to Africa's rescue?... there may be [an alliance of sorts] along some lines, but not all the way." And I'm afraid you're simply dead wrong about that "I hope the relationship is one of mutual respect," stuff. In the real world there's only relationships of mutual advantage. But as hsitory shows, where the African is concerned, we've never had anyone who wasn't looking to stab us in the back eventually. China will be no different.
Africa and China have short-term LIMITED interests, the UN vote (seen correctly) is simply part of those interests --China wants resources far more than it's rivals (the UK/US) and it's in China's interest not to allow their trading partner, and his resources, to be taken over by those same rivals. They're getting far better mineral exploitation terms from Mugabe than they ever did, or would, from the Brits.
But their vote is no excuse to deny their economic and political imposition. It makes no sense to supply China's needs at the cost of our own. It's great that China stepped up to the plate on this one, but let's not get carried away here, standing up to what was a blatant attempt to re-colonize Africa was the right and moral thing to do. I mean, all they did was simply say the word "No" when a vote was taken. They didn't vow military action if Britain tried anything, nor did they push for counter-sanctions against Britain. They simply said one tiny word, with no praise for Zimbabwe, or promises of further support, attached. China's big and influential enough where nobody can do anything about it. So they risked absolutely nothing, but will gain a lot. Exactly how much thanks should they get for THAT?
The proper thins for Mugabe to do is to say "Thanks guys," sign the next trade agreement, after rigrous negotiations, and move on. The vote is history now and should be left in the past. Besides, it's not like Beijing isn't getting anything out of this.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Western Lies and Hypocrisy How Zimbabwe Exposes Mainstream Media By Ras Tyehimba July 20, 2008
The recent Zimbabwe elections saw an escalation of attempts by external forces to intervene in the sovereign and independent nation. Given the complex circumstances surrounding Zimbabwe, for the millions of people in the Caribbean and around the world, it has been difficult to get balanced views of what is going on; ever since the Zimbabwe government, under President Robert Mugabe, started to reclaim land that was stolen during British Colonial rule. Since the start of this land reclamation exercise to now, the events in Zimbabwe have exposed, firstly, how complicit international media are in the imperial agenda of the United States and Britain and secondly, how irresponsible and lazy the local mainstream media are. Local media seem quite content to jump on the anti-Mugabe bandwagon as they casually parrot news from international media sources such as BBC, CNN, Reuters and Associated Press.
How Do We Know What We 'Know'?
In recent times I have been reasoning with many people about what is happening in Zimbabwe, and a continual theme that emerged is just how much people rely on mainstream media for views about Zimbabwe and the wider world. Many persons admitted that BBC and/or CNN were the main sources that 'informed' their perspective on Zimbabwe. However, the Western Media, especially BBC and CNN, are openly on a mission to demonize President Robert Mugabe and bring about regime change in Zimbabwe. So it is like asking a person's sworn enemy for opinions/news about that person. Very unbalanced stories will be told. It is clear that the Western international media is complicit in fabricating/distorting stories to justify intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations. And that is one of the main points that is connected to understanding the Zimbabwe issue. Local media around the world, especially where I am from in the Caribbean, simply reproduce coverage by the dominant international media. Even when local commentators try to analyze the events they end up giving a very distorted picture mainly because they assume that the news they get from Western sources are true.
What is the importance of Zimbabwe some may ask? The misinformation surrounding Zimbabwe is relevant for many reasons. Firstly, for all people, misinformation hampers the ability to make proper assessments and subsequent decisions. Secondly, people of the 'Third World' are subjected to the same racism and imperial arrogance being directed towards Zimbabwe. Thirdly, it shows that because of the dominance and supposed credibility of Western media and spokespeople, they have great influence in manufacturing reality, world views and 'truth' that excludes and denies the historical experiences and sovereignty of many 'Third World' countries.
All of this raises an important issue. How do we know what we know? Zimbabwe is but one issue, but if the mainstream media cannot be trusted on Zimbabwe, it is not likely that they should be trusted on other issues, especially issues where the domination by Western powers is being challenged. The consequences of their laziness, irresponsibility and uncritical reproduction of Western propaganda is that many people remain ignorant, including many local commentators who are in a position to influence the masses. Many people thus need to re-examine their views on Zimbabwe and President Mugabe given this inadequate and biased reporting.
The land situation in Zimbabwe is crucial to understanding the motives and interests that underlie the Zimbabwe situation. Britain never saw the importance of urgently and fairly addressing the land issue, and from the colonial period to now, it has been intent on maintaining illegitimate White control of the land, which belongs to Black Zimbabweans. What is happening now has implications for countries across the African continent, where, after political independence, White settler families have maintained control of ill-gotten land, thus perpetuating the dispossession of many indigenous Blacks who had their land stolen during the European scramble for Africa. Zimbabwe, under President Mugabe, has made the most progressive moves on the whole of the African continent in addressing the vexing land issue. For more on how the land is at the center of Zimbabwe's liberation struggles read "Zimbabwe, BBC and illegitimate White Control".
Of Sanctions, Half Truths and Outright Fabrications
Make no mistake about the situation. Things are desperate in Zimbabwe, but contrary to media reports, it is not because of the evil or excesses of Mugabe but because of the deliberate actions of the US, UK and other European countries working through, and/or sponsoring a complex web of actors including opposition forces, NGO's, the IMF and the Western media. Contrary to the views of many, sanctions against Mugabe are not a recent act, although the sanctions have increased in severity in recent times.
The sanctions started approximately ten years ago as the Western-instigated response to the land reclamation exercise that saw land illegitimately gained by Whites repossessed and redistributed to over 300,000 Black Zimbabweans. These sanctions include denial of access to development loans, boycotting exports from Zimbabwe, discouraging foreign investment in Zimbabwe and blocking Zimbabwe's access to technology, agricultural supplies and machinery. According to one commentator: "In November 1998, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) implemented undeclared sanctions against Zimbabwe, by warning off potential investors, freezing loans and refusing to negotiate with Zimbabwean officials on the issue of debt. In September 1999, the IMF suspended its support for economic adjustment and reform in Zimbabwe. In October 1999, the International Development Association, a multilateral development bank, suspended all structural adjustment loans and credits to Zimbabwe; in May 2000 it suspended all other forms of new lending."
It is understandable that some Zimbabweans support the opposition given that it is being said by Western leaders that sanctions will be lifted and life made better if Mugabe is removed. Persons inside of Zimbabwe may even have some very valid reasons for being against Mugabe, similar to many people in any country being against their present leader. That is okay if such is the case, then elections will allow them to elect and change their representatives as they want. What I am saying is that the people of Zimbabwe should determine their leader without foreign imperialistic intervention. People should be wary about puppet governments being installed to simply look after Western interests and perpetuate Western domination.
There is political violence in Zimbabwe from both sides. The police have arrested supporters of both parties for acts of violence. Mugabe has implored party supporters not to use violence; the MDC on the other hand, has encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected government by violence.
Many reports coming from mainstream sources reporting on violence sanctioned by Mugabe appears to be fabricated. For example, supposedly after the elections, there were reports of gangs of Mugabe's thugs going around and beating up those who voted for the opposition. This smells of fabrication, given the secret ballot system. There was one case where a report was made that ruling party thugs beat up a young child, which caused international furore, and was carried boldly by several international media houses. However, when independent doctors examined the child, it was discovered he was not injured but had a preexisting physical condition (club feet); the mother admitted she lied and allowed her child to be used for this ruse because she needed the money. The New York Times, among those that carried the story, subsequently issued a soft retraction. So they lie loudly and retract softly. Story is here.
There are other examples of their fabrications being exposed, a pattern of lying that is strikingly familiar to the lies and media complicity (including the invention of weapons of mass destruction) in the lead-up to the US and UK's illegal invasion of Iraq. Given the agenda of BBC, CNN and others, no report coming from them can be trusted. It is impossible to understand what President Mugabe's motives and actions really are when being relayed from his sworn enemies who have a VESTED INTEREST in demonizing him, the ruling party and their policies. That is the West's blueprint for regime change.
Blueprint for Regime Change
The events in Zimbabwe should not be totally strange to students of history as it is a simple application of the West's blueprint for regime change. This blueprint is multi-pronged and involves but is not limited to:
1) Deliberate lies, fabrications and distortions all in an effort to demonize and discredit the government they are trying to overthrow.
2) Sponsoring of opposition forces, local media groups, mercenaries, NGO's and other subversive elements to challenge the ruling party and destabilize the country. For more see "Zimbabwe at War".
3) Formal and informal economic sanctions and international isolation which amounts to economic terrorism, even in the eyes of one anti-Mugabe commentator. See "The Darker Side of Sanctions".
4) The use of organisations such as the IMF, the World Bank and even so-called independent human rights watchdogs to pressure 'problem' countries.
The imperial logic is that the more poverty, inflation and violence there is, the more desperate the local population will get to remove the leader. Also, the consistent unfair demonization of Mugabe and the ruling party has created allies for the Western intervention project as a direct consequence of the West's web of propaganda that says that Mugabe is solely responsible for the present economic and social woes of Zimbabwe. The United States sponsored 'Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act' of 2001 authorized President George W. Bush to fund 'opposition media' as well as 'democracy and governance programmes' inside Zimbabwe. In fact, the United States and Britain have been quite open about their desires for regime change and the fact that they are actively spending millions of dollars to accomplish that.
The Real Bullies and Dictators
I should state that I have many points of disagreement with Mugabe. However, he does not deserve the type of demonization that he is being subjected to in the Western media. It other words, it is not that Mugabe is not without his faults like any other leader, but his demonization is reflective of Western RACISM. For example, no matter how many millions Bush, Blair, Clinton and many other Western leaders kill, maim, oppress and starve with their sanctions, policies, bombs and acts of violence, they will never be mentioned in the same deep negative light.
Sensible people should easily recognize who are the ultimate dictators and bullies. It is those same countries that are accusing Zimbabwe of human rights abuses and dictatorship that have a long rap sheet of genocide, illegal interventions, economic terrorism and hypocrisy. I am not even slightly convinced that these Western powers are even minimally concerned about human rights and the welfare of ordinary Africans. The United States and Britain are quite content to support the most rabid of rulers and regimes, once it suits their strategic interests. Little mention is made in the Western press about the Ethiopian regime, headed by Meles Zenawi, who has imprisoned opposition members, stolen elections and carried out a brutal invasion of Somalia at the behest of Western powers.
It is the US, the UK and other Western imperialist regimes that have been acting like world dictators and bullies, and they are quite accustomed to supporting dictators who follow their agenda while, on the other hand, resorting to intervention and violence when the actions of a country threaten their interests or capitalist ideologies. The circumstances of Haiti, Venezuela, Iraq and Afghanistan (TO NAME A FEW) show the lengths that these dominant world powers will go to get their way. The invasion of Iraq was a classic example of their blueprint for regime change, one that involved deliberate lies about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for invasion and their dismissal of the objections by the international community.
The Age of Information and Misinformation
People should not be casual about accepting information; instead they should make the effort to explore alternative perspectives and sources. Given the stranglehold that mainstream ideas, views and Western media have on shaping people's world views, in this age of information and misinformation, those who have access to better information should not be naïve or lazy. I would strongly recommend that people expose themselves to a variety of perspectives to better understand what is happening in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Watch website (www.zimbabwewatch.com) is a good place to start. The local media houses also need to get their act together and look at how they get their international news. However, when the public becomes more informed then they can pressure mainstream media into being more responsible.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Britain has only 60 million people yet manages to fund the BBC[funded by the British government] which has a massive global reach with broadcasts in many languages. The BBC also has a large retinue of reporters almost everywhere.
The sad thing is that Africans get news about the continent mainly from the BBC. And most listeners just naively believe what they hear. Maybe it's because the newscasters are African for news about Africa.
By now there should have been an ABC with African reporters everywhere on the continent and all the other continents too, all broadcasting back to Africa. If Britain can afford it, then why not Africa--with a much larger population?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Dont worry the Yorubas are soon gona launch the "NuBian TV" which is going to save the continent from missinformation and BBC.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, at least the Yorubas are making an attempt. What are you doing?
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alive, you just made my freaking day! Now, if the Africans get smart and put those immigration controls in place so the Chinese can't get it all will be right with the world.
Africa is purging itself and the white trash is self-deporting. A condition that couldn't come soon enough!
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Man it makes me feel like so weird when I read about Zimbabwe and South Africa...
I just don't get why these people like Mugabe are doing what they are doing. I hope that some how some way the Zimbabweans find a way to take control of Zimbabwe and put a better person to rule the Nation. If the opposition manages to usher in a democratic change it might help.
Anyway, I think that America needs to do more in Africa, especially South Africa and other developing African nations like Nigeria and Mali
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually would like to see America do less, especially less of the current forms of "help" that really hurt more than anything else. Right now, in order for Africans to get food aid, they often have to DISMANTLE their OWN food banks and agriculture networks, so that they can import AMERICAN GROWN food aid. That is bull sh*t.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is obvious that these countries are incapable of self government. Because of idealism we dismantled colonialism and as a result badly hurt the african people.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO, You, DJ, KIK are birds of a feather, or even better, peas in a pod.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: It is obvious that these countries are incapable of self government. Because of idealism we dismantled colonialism and as a result badly hurt the african people.
Incorrect. These countries STILL are dominated by white minorities who control large portions of the land and economies of these nations. And the corruption stems from the influence of FOREIGN interests and money into the hands and pockets of dictators. Much of the support was originally justified under the guise of Cold War politics. Now everything is simply about resource control and resource security. Such ideas are contradictory and make no sense, because Africans have NO resource security OF THEIR OWN, so how on earth does someone come in and talk of food security or resource security when Africans HAVE NONE to speak of? In other words, it is all about the foreign desire for African resources that has led to the situation in Africa for the last 400 years. Only a retarded racist would claim that colonialism was the best thing for Africans, when colonialism NEVER did anything for Africans. The only thing colonialism did was rape, kill and DESTROY Africans on a large scale. Any fool who suggests otherwise is to stoopid to even begin having a sane discussion with. The disruption of African lives due to slavery and colonialism has had a SEVERE impact on the fabric of African life and brought about the situations we see in Africa today. Africans WERE NOT starving, suffering from diseases or engaged in endless nonsense conflicts when Europeans first arrived in Africa. It has only been SINCE this time that these conditions have been created and most definitely BECAUSE of it. It was Europeans who mustered black African troops to do the killing and maiming of other Africans in the service of colonial administrations. It was black Africans who were forced to commit the atrocities in Congo under Leopold. It was black Africans who were mustered into the Armies of the Rhodesians and South Africans to kill their brethren thinking they would get ahead. So please, stop spewing ahistorical nonsense that does not reflect the FACT that the WEST and COLONIALISM are DIRECTLY responsible for the state of Africa today. Not only historically, but RIGHT NOW in the present day, through their ONGOING efforts to gain control of AS MUCH of Africa's natural resources they can get their greedy hands on. Where do MOST of the Arms being used in the conflicts in Africa come from? Africans can't even produce a decent MEAL for themselves yet they are armed to the teeth with weapons to kill? How can THAT come about without the assistance of foreigners? It can't. And it is AGAINST Western interests to get rid of the dictators in Africa, because the West only stands to LOOSE the cushy relationships that allow them to CONTINUE to loot the continent of wealth, to the detriment of the people of Africa.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" Africans can't even produce a decent MEAL for themselves yet they are armed to the teeth with weapons to kill?"
Have you lost it Dude? What the **** are you saying???
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know someone like this: some people go on a rant and magnify everything when they are overly frustrated.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, sports -> I've heard from someone that there is already a plan to purge in the works (and liberate) and that they are just waiting for the proper times/signals.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): I know someone like this: some people go on a rant and magnify everything when they are overly frustrated.
Yes it's quite annoying. I actually call it anti-African propaganda. Most rural Africans (from where I'm from anyway) have more food than they could possibly consume without trading it for something else. It's a giveaway most times.
And we cook the most fantastic meals. We have pounded yam with egussi, or with okro, or with gbegiri or with spinach stew. We have amala, we have asaro, we have ... in fact, it's rediculous trying to list all the tasty meals we make in my small part of the Yoruba land in West Africa. Imagine what else is out there in gigantic Africa.
Also, the average Nigerian has more "living space" than the average Westerner. This is a fact.Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Heru/HORUS OF EDFU: Yes it's quite annoying. I actually call it anti-African propaganda.
Darn right it is, and thanks for dropping that information.^^
quote:pounded yam with egussi,
this sound delicious and you've mentioned this before, but what are these things?:
quote:with egussi, or with okro, or with gbegiri
??
quote:... in fact, it's rediculous trying to list all the tasty meals we make in my small part of the Yoruba land in West Africa. Imagine what else is out there in gigantic Africa.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What the **** are you saying???
Printer-friendly view of this topic