Friday, 24 March 2017

The White Supremacists' Fairy Stories Of Zimbabwe

I have had to write yet another post to defend the present and point out where white supremacists' media propaganda have brazenly twisted the past so that the gullible blacks among us are now able to glorify our oppressors and the years before independence. The white supremacists' propaganda and media have now turned the white settler farmers as heroes of that era. They have made us forget the exploitative and racial degradation that we suffered between 1890 and 1980.The stories are being constantly and persistently repeated that we now have a generation that believes them.


THE LAND GRAB STORY

The white supremacists have always said Mugabe unlawfully took land from the  white settlers.The land was not grabbed by Robert Mugabe contrary to what we read in the white supremacists' media. It was legally acquired and appropriated under an Act of Parliament. The Land Acquisition Act of 1990( as amended) was the piece of legislation used to resettle over 300 000 households on farms which were owned by 3000 whites.


The land grab story has been distorted to the point that Robert Mugabe gave the land to his relatives and cronies.Now, if you are a person with 300 000 cronies surely you deserve to rule a country. Robert Mugabe must really have a large extended family, according to the media, even by our African standards.




THE BREAD BASKET STORY



This is one mean story.Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa, the displaced Rhodesian settlers are fond of repeating this false story. It was never a bread basket of Africa or even southern part of Africa. Rhodesia was the bread basket of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It could feed the population of Rhodesia, Zambia, and Malawi in the 1950s. The total population of the three countries was less than the population of modern day Zimbabwe.

So every time you read this bread basket story dismiss it with the contempt that it deserves.



THE GUKURAHUNDI STORY



Here is the Gukurahundi story. on one side we had a Super Zapu armed and financed by apartheid South Africa. The purpose of Super Zapu was to destabilise Zimbabwe.It was not a Ndebele or Shona conflict as the white supremacists' media propaganda always repeat. It was a security issue and the government of Zimbabwe dispatched the famous 5th Brigade to deal with Super Zapu dissidents. It is true that civilians died in the conflict.

The Catholic Peace and Justice Commission carried out an enquiry and found out that the conflict had resulted in the death of under 4000 people, that includes both Ndebeles and Shonas.The white supremacists have now spinned the deaths to 40 000.

The white supremacists' media has politicized this story into a Ndebele-Shona.It is a fact that the 5th Brigade comprised of both Ndebele and Shona combatants.


THE RHODESIA WAS BETTER STORY


The issue that has interested me and which is an obvious regime change tactic is the myth that Rhodesia was better.I borrow these words from a Facebook friend, Chenhamo Mutengure.
The arguments placed are that because Rhodesia had a strong currency and economic activity then this is evidence that indeed we were better off under the racist Ian Smith government.


But is this true?Was Rhodesia a great country for all or it was great so long as you were white?

First does a strong currency really translate to better living conditions for black peoples?Or maybe we are just looking at statistics that had absolutely no bearing on the standard of living for the black man.

Now let us look at the facts of Rhodesia.In Rhodesia, 80% of the population lived in the Tribal Trust Lands.This means that only 20% of people about 9% of whom were either white or Indian constituted the urban population.
So another myth that is thrown around looks we were better as our streets were clean, had good services etc yet the reality is Ian Smith artificially kept down urban populations so as to protect white privileges like running water, electricity and avoiding overcrowding of his streets for the benefit of the white man.
Also under Rhodesia, 60% of black people were illiterate and add to that only 3% of our people had secondary education.
Now, what happened to this 60% who couldn't read or write?Or the 97% that didn't have a secondary school education?
This means this was a segment that had no chance in life whether at home or abroad.

THE RHODESIA WAS HEALTHIER STORY
In 1980 we notice that Infant Mortality was at a staggering 120 in every 1000 children born, that is 12% of black babies dead.Contrast that to the present 25 in every 1000. There were fewer clinics in 1980 than today. Today it is government policy that you do not need to walk six kilometres to a clinic. 
Now how can a sane person say Rhodesia was better? Why is not the same media quiet on sanctions as well as their effect on our health system?

THE MUGABE IS OLD STORY


This is the story that the white supremacists' media has repeated on Mugabe since 1980. Mugabe was an old man in 1980.Everyone knew that when we elected him into office in 1980.The white supremacists' view is based on racism on one hand and ageism on the other. It is raw discrimination.
This is a story based on discrimination. Mugabe is old, so what? Why should his age matter? Is he going to be recruited in the police or army? For the record, the longest ruling Head of State is Queen Elizabeth of Britain. Not one white person has ever told her to resign.
The whites hate the old man and we love him.



Featured post

Bond Notes and Cashless Tips

GO MOBILE   You need a debit card to survive in these times. There are cards that you can get for free. Ecocash, Telecash and Textacash a...