How will it end for Zimbabwe - Civil War, Recoloniasation?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Mugabe like Nyerere managed to create a country with a singular identity - even if some things still resemble the rest of Africa.

He is a socialist - which means and has always meant the idea of overthrowing him in a coup would forever remain a mirage. Real socialists are never overthrown in Africa. The closest they come is to be deposed in an inside the palace coup. Otherwise one has to kill them.

Mugabe avoided both and is on his way to die in office - partly because nobody allowed him to make his own choice and he is given to defiance.

I can't see power leaving ZANU PF. I think a loyalist will take over. The MDC has no chance in Zimbabwe having been exposed as a white man's front. Changerai had a chance if he had cut off the support of the white farmers.

Just for the record: I have never once stopped supporting Bob Mugabe.

Mugabe lost it in the early 2000s.  When ZANU faced its first challenge.  Mugabe being like Nyerere on non-tribal unity is news.  Especially for the folks who found themselves on the business end Gukurahundi in Matabeleland. 

That people think Mugabe cares about Zimbabweans does not surprise me these days.  There are folks who think Uhuruto care dearly about Wanjiku and will be up before 4 am to join a long line in August because Jubilee-tena.

I get that the land issue was explosive.  But what happened in early 2000s had less to do with the land justice than keeping Mugabe in power at all costs, including the economic foundation of Zimbabwe.  If he had not faced a realistic challenge, the bazungu would still be happily farming and fewer Zimbabweans would have drowned in the Limpopo river fleeing their proud country.

[Kadame5]

Mugambe spend 30 yrs doing all that. Brits promised Mugambe money in 1975!! - same arrangement kenya got in 1963 to buy out white farmers and loan africans the money to buy those farmers- the money never came - British kept changing PMs and goal posts. And Mugambe took action in 2005 - 30yrs after he became PORZ.

You've to appreciate that Zim whites were really rogue - they declared independence and enacted minority rule - when British was giving up colonies. There was only one way to do this - FORCEFULLY. The same way Mugambe kicked them out violently in 75 was the same way they got kicked out of the land 2005. There was no other way. Mugambe never imagine the racist UK-US-Canada-Australia would crush their country - kicking them out of modern economy - tobbaco exchange - gold exchange - name it.

The way Mugabe went about taking back land (and his motives) were not good. I believe Namibia did it better with less populism and more fore thought. But I utterly agree with you re bazungu countries. They really messed those Zim guys up. Bazungu countries are no angels. This is why baafrika must learn to get our act together and rely on no one but us. Zims would not have suffered so much if we had our act together.

Yes, a serious mistake on his part. Failing to realize that what WE would clearly recognize as racism even though Bazungu would not still is a yuuge factor: bazungu are just as tribalist as we are. Just think of their tribe as "the West".  Mugabe should have factored that in.

We in Kenya/Africa have a very fake/glamorized view of Bazungu societies. They champion liberal values so we assume they have conquered tribalism. We think only Republicans and fringe European far right groups still suffer from racism. I'll tell you what. Living in a true white Western country will quickly rearrange your view of those societies and their approach to the world. Bazungu 'liberals' (assuming the colloquial American use of the word) think that because they vote Lefty parties and have laws that make blatant racism illegal, they cannot therefore be and are not racist in any way. That is true if racism is the open kind.

They would not be caught dead saying blatantly racist things. But day to day behaviour of the most liberal of them will show you they DON'T think of you as an equal or as one of 'them'. You will always be othered. Whether in a way that demonizes you (the far right kind) or a way that patronizes you (the "poor you, dear less intelligent, unenlightened being: aren't I just a saint to play this game where I let you think we are equal?) which the liberals do. And they are in denial of these prejudiced assumptions because PC culture has meant that having attitudes capable of the label racist makes one an evil monster. So bazungu will never admit to such attitudes even when they are blindingly obvious to the outsider. They also enjoy monopoly of media and good will assumptions around the world that they are fair and truthful, so they can demonize the hell out of any target they want, as long as they deem you an enemy of the West.

No, Mugabe is no saint. I wish he'd go away so Zims have a shot at rebuilding their country with another person in charge who may perhaps be able to renegotiate.

But no one should ever act on the assumption that in a case where there's a mzungu and a baarfika in an argument, that the other bazungu will be objective and fair-minded about the whole thing. You will be sorely disappointed. I have seen a situation where a he-said she-said situation involving only the two people there be turned into a whole everybody-vs-one situation against the baafrika with only the three or so other Africans in the group even bothering to listen to the other side/acknowledging there are two sides there. These are very good people by the way, they don't think they are being unfair. They just are predisposed to believing their own and assuming the worst about you, the othered one. Really frightening to witness as a person who shares the skin of the isolated fellow, I'll tell you. Never been the same since.

I honestly think Africans may be the least racist people. Even tribe comes up mainly with elections but I don't remember witnessing an African truly mistreating someone based on even tribe bar election madness. On the other hand, bazungu have paved the way for the fair treatment of sexual minorities which we have not, so yes, there's something to admire in them. But up close and personal you never forget there's an impenetrable glass/invisible door around a circle you are not allowed to join...not really anyway. And it doesn't mean they will be rude or impolite to you. They'll just keep you out and you will know it but it will seem like THEY have no idea.

[Omollo]

Tarmie

There is more than met the eye.

Lord Soames writes that he did all he could to prevent Mugabe from winning the elections. He preferred Joshua Nkomo.

Mugabe organized himself so well and because unlike Nkomo he had the support of the people, he could tell reporters at his hideout ( he was being hunted by Gen. Walls to be assassinated) the exact number of seats he would win!

Thus Britain handed over Zim to Mugabe but was not all pleased. The idea that Mugabe was a communist simmered under the ground and did appear in tabloids attributed to the so called hard Right. In private the Conservatives said that they had handed over Rhodesia to a communist.

South Africa was most keen to present and promote the picture of Zimbabwe as a communist country. The sabotage that it had subjected Mozambique, Angola and Zambia was immediately extended to Zimbabwe with several raids ostensibly targeting "terrorists". The war of terror was started in South Africa decades before Bush declared it in Europe.

It is in this context you have to see the activities of Joshua Nkomo. He was intent on staging a coup and taking power and he expected and would have obtained South African support and the recognition of the West.

Mugabe took action to completely obliterate the danger. Did he over do it? May be but to me, Nkomo ceased to be an internal danger. He would later be granted a free hand in Matabeleland where is reported to have stolen whatever he could lay his hands on before he died.

Mugabe has faced a hostile media from the days in the bush. His successes in the bush war were attributed to Nkomo while Nkomo moved from Capital to another overeating.

Mugabe took power to face a white media that found it hard to accept the defeat of Rhodesia. No wonder that media has promoted Gukurahundi in Matabeleland to a near mythical status. What is forgotten is that when one mentions North Korea, the cold war constellations emerge.

I do not see how land would have remained in black hands if Mugabe had vanished in 2000. I therefore find your position perplexing. what happened in early 2000s had less to do with the land justice than keeping Mugabe in power at all costs, including the economic foundation of Zimbabwe. The whole idea of sponsoring Morgan Changerai and the MDC was to save the land from going to blacks.

I believe the MDC lost fairly. They aligned with whites and that woke up the veterans. Unlike Kenya where you only find really old people in Kalenjinland, in Zim they are a common sight and they are well educated. I did not see how the MDC was going to win.

But it got the best press for any inept opposition party.

The sanctions will one day collapse. May be after Mugabe leaves. Then the economy will recover and the land would be in the hands of Africans. Then South Africa will look with envy at Mugabe for taking the bull by the horns and accepting pain to solve an intractable problem. At that time, I believe blacks would be seizing white owned farms in South Africa, having given up on the ANC and elected Julius Malema.

Mugabe lost it in the early 2000s.  When ZANU faced its first challenge.  Mugabe being like Nyerere on non-tribal unity is news.  Especially for the folks who found themselves on the business end Gukurahundi in Matabeleland. 

That people think Mugabe cares about Zimbabweans does not surprise me these days.  There are folks who think Uhuruto care dearly about Wanjiku and will be up before 4 am to join a long line in August because Jubilee-tena.

I get that the land issue was explosive.  But what happened in early 2000s had less to do with the land justice than keeping Mugabe in power at all costs, including the economic foundation of Zimbabwe.  If he had not faced a realistic challenge, the bazungu would still be happily farming and fewer Zimbabweans would have drowned in the Limpopo river fleeing their proud country.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Kadame,

Liberals are fine.  I am loathe to paint with a broad brush, but on the whole, they are not racist.  If anything, they tend to be the other extreme - what you call patronizing.  They are aware of and somewhat embarrassed by white privilege. 

That said, they are not immune to subconscious bias driven by the media.  The difference is they are open to learning and re-evaluating their biases.  Biases even blacks themselves are not immune to.

A conservative on the other hand is steeped in his biases and binges on material that reinforces them.  Sean Hannity is the final authority.   In the US at least, conservatism is increasingly difficult to separate from bigotry. 

It's kind of hard to blame how people would view blacks in general given the facts.  We have had over half a century of real freedom to prove them wrong and have come up woefully short.  If that doesn't change, you can expect some level of doubt, even if subconsciously.  Robina presumably a black expresses it openly.

[Kadame5]

Termie,

I havent been in the U.S. for more than a few weeks so I'll concede that bit. But in the city I HAVE lived in, in Europe, literally no one I know would describe themselves as conservative in the American sense of the word. They are to a man aligned with the American left. Very proud of, even in love with Obama. Repubs would get 5% from this crowd if at all, should they be allowed to vote in an American election.

And YET. I have seen what I have seen. Up close and personal. Among the leftiest least xenophobic die in the wool Western academics. They are blind to the double standard. They would be devastated if someone thought they were racist. They are not hateful. But you will still always know you are on the outside of the circle. You will notice newbies come in from all corners of the world and be 'accepted' two weeks later as long as they are white. That just will not happen for you unless you sell your soul by pretending the guy they ganged up on totally had it coming. It may help if youre afro-asiatic or western born. But being unambivuously black AND from Africa means you will always be at a disadvantage with almost every new person you meet.

I have no problem with ignorance esp about Africa. But there are many who are just not  curious. Polite yes, but  not curious and therefore not educable. You belong in a certain box. Its an insurmountable task to crawl out of a box you didnt put yourself in if someone just isnt intrrested.

I have come to glaze my eyes over that label liberal: in real life, in my experience, it just means someone who wants kudoz for treating you with basic respect. I find it very annoying. It is tonnes better than in-your-face racism on the right but highly insulting still. You know deed down they are operating under the assumption that you are some kind of underclass that they are such good persons for pretending not to notice.

Maybe its too much disillusionment talking but I think all those labels mean little when it comes to how people actually behave at home, the office etc.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Termie,

I havent been in the U.S. for more than a few weeks so I'll concede that bit. But in the city I HAVE lived in, in Europe, literally no one I know would describe themselves as conservative in the American sense of the word. They are to a man aligned with the American left. Very proud of, even in love with Obama. Repubs would get 5% from this crowd if at all, should they be allowed to vote in an American election.

And YET. I have seen what I have seen. Up close and personal. Among the leftiest least xenophobic die in the wool Western academics. They are blind to the double standard. They would be devastated if someone thought they were racist. They are not hateful. But you will still always know you are on the outside of the circle. You will notice newbies come in from all corners of the world and be 'accepted' two weeks later as long as they are white. That just will not happen for you unless you sell your soul by pretending the guy they ganged up on totally had it coming. It may help if youre afro-asiatic or western born. But being unambivuously black AND from Africa means you will always be at a disadvantage with almost every new person you meet.

I have no problem with ignorance esp about Africa. But there are many who are just not  curious. Polite yes, but  not curious and therefore not educable. You belong in a certain box. Its an insurmountable task to crawl out of a box you didnt put yourself in if someone just isnt intrrested.

I have come to glaze my eyes over that label liberal: in real life, in my experience, it just means someone who wants kudoz for treating you with basic respect. I find it very annoying. It is tonnes better than in-your-face racism on the right but highly insulting still. You know deed down they are operating under the assumption that you are some kind of underclass that they are such good persons for pretending not to notice.

Maybe its too much disillusionment talking but I think all those labels mean little when it comes to how people actually behave at home, the office etc.

I don't know your exact situation.  But if you feel alienated, that might be different - though again, it could be cultural shock that will wear off eventually - that can take a while.  Someone familiar with the culture can walk in from outside and settle right in while you are still figuring what the hell is going on.  That usually happens on a corporate scale, but I guess it could even happen at the scale of a country.

In general I find libs to be free of the racial prism, but occasionally loaded with what a right winger would call white guilt - they go overboard to make you feel welcome.  In other words, you become popular where you ordinarily would just disappear into the multitude. 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Tarmie

There is more than met the eye.

Lord Soames writes that he did all he could to prevent Mugabe from winning the elections. He preferred Joshua Nkomo.

Mugabe organized himself so well and because unlike Nkomo he had the support of the people, he could tell reporters at his hideout ( he was being hunted by Gen. Walls to be assassinated) the exact number of seats he would win!

Thus Britain handed over Zim to Mugabe but was not all pleased. The idea that Mugabe was a communist simmered under the ground and did appear in tabloids attributed to the so called hard Right. In private the Conservatives said that they had handed over Rhodesia to a communist.

South Africa was most keen to present and promote the picture of Zimbabwe as a communist country. The sabotage that it had subjected Mozambique, Angola and Zambia was immediately extended to Zimbabwe with several raids ostensibly targeting "terrorists". The war of terror was started in South Africa decades before Bush declared it in Europe.

It is in this context you have to see the activities of Joshua Nkomo. He was intent on staging a coup and taking power and he expected and would have obtained South African support and the recognition of the West.

Mugabe took action to completely obliterate the danger. Did he over do it? May be but to me, Nkomo ceased to be an internal danger. He would later be granted a free hand in Matabeleland where is reported to have stolen whatever he could lay his hands on before he died.

Mugabe has faced a hostile media from the days in the bush. His successes in the bush war were attributed to Nkomo while Nkomo moved from Capital to another overeating.

Mugabe took power to face a white media that found it hard to accept the defeat of Rhodesia. No wonder that media has promoted Gukurahundi in Matabeleland to a near mythical status. What is forgotten is that when one mentions North Korea, the cold war constellations emerge.

I do not see how land would have remained in black hands if Mugabe had vanished in 2000. I therefore find your position perplexing. what happened in early 2000s had less to do with the land justice than keeping Mugabe in power at all costs, including the economic foundation of Zimbabwe. The whole idea of sponsoring Morgan Changerai and the MDC was to save the land from going to blacks.

I believe the MDC lost fairly. They aligned with whites and that woke up the veterans. Unlike Kenya where you only find really old people in Kalenjinland, in Zim they are a common sight and they are well educated. I did not see how the MDC was going to win.

But it got the best press for any inept opposition party.

The sanctions will one day collapse. May be after Mugabe leaves. Then the economy will recover and the land would be in the hands of Africans. Then South Africa will look with envy at Mugabe for taking the bull by the horns and accepting pain to solve an intractable problem. At that time, I believe blacks would be seizing white owned farms in South Africa, having given up on the ANC and elected Julius Malema.

Mugabe lost it in the early 2000s.  When ZANU faced its first challenge.  Mugabe being like Nyerere on non-tribal unity is news.  Especially for the folks who found themselves on the business end Gukurahundi in Matabeleland. 

That people think Mugabe cares about Zimbabweans does not surprise me these days.  There are folks who think Uhuruto care dearly about Wanjiku and will be up before 4 am to join a long line in August because Jubilee-tena.

I get that the land issue was explosive.  But what happened in early 2000s had less to do with the land justice than keeping Mugabe in power at all costs, including the economic foundation of Zimbabwe.  If he had not faced a realistic challenge, the bazungu would still be happily farming and fewer Zimbabweans would have drowned in the Limpopo river fleeing their proud country.

I am not even remotely suggesting the Rhodesian kaburu was a good guy.  I am told they are among the worst racists you can find in this corner of the universe.

I'll address the bolded part.  I agree land was a big issue in that election.  When Mugabe thought it was going to cost him the election, he became extremist.  His actions were motivated more by staying in power than actually turning over land to the blacks.  He had generally been content enough to ignore the simmering issue prior to the early 2000s elections.

[Kadame5]

I don't know your exact situation.  But if you feel alienated, that might be different - though again, it could be cultural shock that will wear off eventually - that can take a while.  Someone familiar with the culture can walk in from outside and settle right in while you are still figuring what the hell is going on.  That usually happens on a corporate scale, but I guess it could even happen at the scale of a country.

In general I find libs to be free of the racial prism, but occasionally loaded with what a right winger would call white guilt - they go overboard to make you feel welcome.  In other words, you become popular where you ordinarily would just disappear into the multitude.

Well, to be fair, Im not the most extraverted sort, so you may have a point. I tend to have my circle around my job/school/family etc. Outside of those three, it takes me forever to know people well enough to call them friends. So literally everything Ive described here is a work thing. So maybe it is a coperate thing and not a country thing as you've pointed out.

Maybe its culture shock. Which is funny since I always thought myself very well informed about the west but aithuru. I just know I have never once been suspected of being some kind of criminal until my first landing in Europe when I was picked out from a queue for extra checks, kupapaswa and that xray machine. I was beyond shocked. At least until I noticed that they picked every other non white. Then I was so pissed! Still makes me real mad that it happened in such a progressive country, so they claim. Ive gone through there three other times and that didnt happen so maybe someone noticed.  But that was my introduction and man, it blew my mind.

I hope Im not coming across as bitter, or (gasp!) racist myself but I had no idea such things would be so noticeable
to me...they are. I admit I do NOT believe Im the same person I was before. I dont see things the same and I dont even value the same things. None of which was ever foreseeable to me but Oh well.

That said, maybe Americans are different from their European counterparts.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I don't know your exact situation.  But if you feel alienated, that might be different - though again, it could be cultural shock that will wear off eventually - that can take a while.  Someone familiar with the culture can walk in from outside and settle right in while you are still figuring what the hell is going on.  That usually happens on a corporate scale, but I guess it could even happen at the scale of a country.

In general I find libs to be free of the racial prism, but occasionally loaded with what a right winger would call white guilt - they go overboard to make you feel welcome.  In other words, you become popular where you ordinarily would just disappear into the multitude.

Well, to be fair, Im not the most extraverted sort, so you may have a point. I tend to have my circle around my job/school/family etc. Outside of those three, it takes me forever to know people well enough to call them friends. So literally everything Ive described here is a work thing. So maybe it is a coperate thing and not a country thing as you've pointed out.

Maybe its culture shock. Which is funny since I always thought myself very well informed about the west but aithuru. I just know I have never once been suspected of being some kind of criminal until my first landing in Europe when I was picked out from a queue for extra checks, kupapaswa and that xray machine. I was beyond shocked. At least until I noticed that they picked every other non white. Then I was so pissed! Still makes me real mad that it happened in such a progressive country, so they claim. Ive gone through there three other times and that didnt happen so maybe someone noticed.  But that was my introduction and man, it blew my mind.

I hope Im not coming across as bitter, or (gasp!) racist myself but I had no idea such things would be so noticeable
to me...they are. I admit I do NOT believe Im the same person I was before. I dont see things the same and I dont even value the same things. None of which was ever foreseeable to me but Oh well.

That said, maybe Americans are different from their European counterparts.

Hehehe...that's hilarious.  No, you don't sound bitter.  Your observations are on point.  But sometimes, you want to remember, you have grown up in an environment where you are anonymous and suddenly that is taken away from you, with a pat down to boot.   

The hardest part though are the nuances.  Because racism is no longer overt, you can easily mistake harmless behavior for it.  I am sure, you stay long enough, and you'll realize some of the things you attributed to race might have been totally innocent misunderstandings due to maybe inability for you or both parties to read and understand something as simple as facial expressions that mean different things in different places.

[Omollo]

Age 18 - 28 ish utasumbuliwa in europe until hens piss

I don't know your exact situation.  But if you feel alienated, that might be different - though again, it could be cultural shock that will wear off eventually - that can take a while.  Someone familiar with the culture can walk in from outside and settle right in while you are still figuring what the hell is going on.  That usually happens on a corporate scale, but I guess it could even happen at the scale of a country.

In general I find libs to be free of the racial prism, but occasionally loaded with what a right winger would call white guilt - they go overboard to make you feel welcome.  In other words, you become popular where you ordinarily would just disappear into the multitude.

Well, to be fair, Im not the most extraverted sort, so you may have a point. I tend to have my circle around my job/school/family etc. Outside of those three, it takes me forever to know people well enough to call them friends. So literally everything Ive described here is a work thing. So maybe it is a coperate thing and not a country thing as you've pointed out.

Maybe its culture shock. Which is funny since I always thought myself very well informed about the west but aithuru. I just know I have never once been suspected of being some kind of criminal until my first landing in Europe when I was picked out from a queue for extra checks, kupapaswa and that xray machine. I was beyond shocked. At least until I noticed that they picked every other non white. Then I was so pissed! Still makes me real mad that it happened in such a progressive country, so they claim. Ive gone through there three other times and that didnt happen so maybe someone noticed.  But that was my introduction and man, it blew my mind.

I hope Im not coming across as bitter, or (gasp!) racist myself but I had no idea such things would be so noticeable
to me...they are. I admit I do NOT believe Im the same person I was before. I dont see things the same and I dont even value the same things. None of which was ever foreseeable to me but Oh well.

That said, maybe Americans are different from their European counterparts.

[Kadudu]

Mugabe lost it in the early 2000s.  When ZANU faced its first challenge.  Mugabe being like Nyerere on non-tribal unity is news.  Especially for the folks who found themselves on the business end Gukurahundi in Matabeleland. 

That people think Mugabe cares about Zimbabweans does not surprise me these days.  There are folks who think Uhuruto care dearly about Wanjiku and will be up before 4 am to join a long line in August because Jubilee-tena.

I get that the land issue was explosive.  But what happened in early 2000s had less to do with the land justice than keeping Mugabe in power at all costs, including the economic foundation of Zimbabwe.  If he had not faced a realistic challenge, the bazungu would still be happily farming and fewer Zimbabweans would have drowned in the Limpopo river fleeing their proud country.

You seem to be one of the few in this forum who got it. Even Omollo who is usually very sober sides with Mugabe's propaganda. I read the other day the veterans who had taken over some land from wazungus were asked to vacate to make way for Mugabe's daughter to take the very same shamba. Another paradox is many of the few well connected black Zimbabweans who were allocated land now have White managers running the farms.

[Omollo]

You seem to be one of the few in this forum who got it. Even Omollo who is usually very sober sides with Mugabe's propaganda. I read the other day the veterans who had taken over some land from wazungus were asked to vacate to make way for Mugabe's daughter to take the very same shamba. Another paradox is many of the few well connected black Zimbabweans who were allocated land now have White managers running the farms.

Kadudu

On one had you warn against propaganda but then fall for well, propaganda before the hen swallows hindi!

1. According to Mzungu, land taken from them should be distributed to blacks in sizes no bigger than a postage stamp to London. For that fits in to the propaganda and beliefs that the white man holds about African Land use. Zimbabwe created smaller holders but was also keen to have large scale farmers
2. The question of Mugabe's corruption and that of his family has been debated and over-debated. Mugabe told then in 2000 to go to Scotland and if they find the house he was supposed to own, grab it and if they need his signature he would issue power of attorney for that purpose. Nobody ever produced a photo or any evidence. The focus then shifted from Bob to the wife. Bob's wife can be sharp tongued like Winnie and that tends to play into Mzungu propaganda very well.
3. I see no problem with having a manager for my shamba - be he white or black. Jobs are rare these days and advertise for an expatriate and see how many Mzungu CVs you would get. Recently we were planning to start some industry in Kisumu (postponed until Uhuru is speaking Gikuyu to his mother in a refugee camp in Uganda). When we travelled to Finland to evaluate Human resources not only did we find more than enough and cheap but we got word that we could get even better qualified Russians and Ukrainians for half of the wages. I have since never seen the purpose of going to China to get labour when there is overqualified European manpower. 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Mugabe lost it in the early 2000s.  When ZANU faced its first challenge.  Mugabe being like Nyerere on non-tribal unity is news.  Especially for the folks who found themselves on the business end Gukurahundi in Matabeleland. 

That people think Mugabe cares about Zimbabweans does not surprise me these days.  There are folks who think Uhuruto care dearly about Wanjiku and will be up before 4 am to join a long line in August because Jubilee-tena.

I get that the land issue was explosive.  But what happened in early 2000s had less to do with the land justice than keeping Mugabe in power at all costs, including the economic foundation of Zimbabwe.  If he had not faced a realistic challenge, the bazungu would still be happily farming and fewer Zimbabweans would have drowned in the Limpopo river fleeing their proud country.

You seem to be one of the few in this forum who got it. Even Omollo who is usually very sober sides with Mugabe's propaganda. I read the other day the veterans who had taken over some land from wazungus were asked to vacate to make way for Mugabe's daughter to take the very same shamba. Another paradox is many of the few well connected black Zimbabweans who were allocated land now have White managers running the farms.

I agree Omollo, would normally be well informed on this topic.  But I detect he has picked a side and has to defend it, no matter what.  Mugabe's legacy, when all is said and done, was bad for Zim.  He is an educated version of Idi Amin.

[MOON Ki]

The sanctions will one day collapse. May be after Mugabe leaves. Then the economy will recover and the land would be in the hands of Africans. Then South Africa will look with envy at Mugabe for taking the bull by the horns and accepting pain to solve an intractable problem. At that time, I believe blacks would be seizing white owned farms in South Africa, having given up on the ANC and elected Julius Malema.

Without getting into emotive issues---such as who grabbed what land, who deserves to own what land, who shed blood for the land, etc---may I ask this: what is the point, after all?   I note that, for example,  in Kenya, where we proudly "own our land", we nevertheless keep begging for food (from ... guess!) ... seemingly with no end in sight.  To my mind, one of the most important things tat one can and ought to with land is to feed oneself.

[MOON Ki]

Even tribe comes up mainly with elections but I don't remember witnessing an African truly mistreating someone based on even tribe bar election madness.

Really?   Look all over the continent and the last 50+ years, and consider the basis on which people have been slaughtering each other.

Yes, places like Kenya are "nice and peaceful", but look even there: who's doing the real eating at any given time?   And in answering that question, you can start with the history of Johnstone Kamau.   There might not be random insults on the streets or the gratuitous violence---unless you exclude the "routine tribal clashes" that each year kill more than "terrorism"---but real maltreatment on the basis of tribe is all over the place (including Kenya).   

Do you really believe that employment, economic, etc. opportunities in a place like Kenya are dished out independently of tribe?    When Uhuru and Ruto state that they plan to split things 50:50 and they will "kula nyama" no matter what, which two parties do they have in mind?

The senior civil service in Kenya is full of serious incompetents.    Thieves operate at every level, with those near the top grabbing the most.   But nothing can be done because the first cry is "our people are being finished!".    Who is "our people"?  Are the people who are not "our people" not getting maltreated on the basis of tribe?

Elections only bring things to a boil, because it is the time to decide which "our people" get to grab the most for the next 5 or whatever years, and so "tribe" rears its ugliest head.   In general, tribe is probably the #1 thing that stops Africa from really developing the way it should.

In the overall context of your statements, there's something to be said for this one from Terminator:

We have had over half a century of real freedom to prove them wrong and have come up woefully short.

That pretty much nails it.   As long as we continue to f**k up, we should expect substandard treatment everywhere, because we are taken as representative or reflections of where we come from.   We can insist that we are equal and demand equal treatment, but we will never get it until things change at "the origin".   It's that simple.   And, logically,  why should it be any different?    Imagine a guy who, month after month, blows his salary on hookers and booze, forgets to plant in time, keeps beating the crap out of his family, can't be bothered to maintain his homestead.  Etc. Etc. Etc. He does anything and everything, except show responsibility and a serious sense of purpose.   Yet every month he comes to you, begging bowl in hand ... things are desperate ... and every month you help.  And if, because you are getting tired of the routine, you suggest that you might not help unless he takes care of his shite, he starts screaming about this *ism and that *ism.   Would you accept him---your typical African country---as an equal?   

But up close and personal you never forget there's an impenetrable glass/invisible door around a circle you are not allowed to join.

That's certainly awkward, and I remember having such a feeling years ago.  But as I got older, I got to looking at things differently:  Why should I have to "join" them?    How would it positively improve my life and theirs?  So what if I don't get to "join"?  How would it negatively impact our lives (especially mine) if I did not get to "join"?.   Etc.  Etc. Etc.  I feel that I have gained a great of freedom in asking (and answering) such questions---with respect to groupings based on  race, nationality, tribe, clan, profession, hobbies, etc.   

[MOON Ki]

I agree Omollo, would normally be well informed on this topic.  But I detect he has picked a side and has to defend it, no matter what.  Mugabe's legacy, when all is said and done, was bad for Zim.  He is an educated version of Idi Amin.

Omollo has given us some colourful bits.   Here's one that I like: Bob's government can't be fully blamed for the mindless printing of currency because (supposedly) MI6 and the CIA decided to join him in the exercise!   Maybe they had a better and faster printing press?

[Kadame5]

Even tribe comes up mainly with elections but I don't remember witnessing an African truly mistreating someone based on even tribe bar election madness.

Really?   Look all over the continent and the last 50+ years, and consider the basis on which people have been slaughtering each other.

Yes, places like Kenya are "nice and peaceful", but look even there: who's doing the real eating at any given time?   And in answering that question, you can start with the history of Johnstone Kamau.   There might not be random insults on the streets or the gratuitous violence---unless you exclude the "routine tribal clashes" that each year kill more than "terrorism"---but real maltreatment on the basis of tribe is all over the place (including Kenya).   

Do you really believe that employment, economic, etc. opportunities in a place like Kenya are dished out independently of tribe?    When Uhuru and Ruto state that they plan to split things 50:50 and they will "kula nyama" no matter what, which two parties do they have in mind?

The senior civil service in Kenya is full of serious incompetents.    Thieves operate at every level, with those near the top grabbing the most.   But nothing can be done because the first cry is "our people are being finished!".    Who is "our people"?  Are the people who are not "our people" not getting maltreated on the basis of tribe?

Elections only bring things to a boil, because it is the time to decide which "our people" get to grab the most for the next 5 or whatever years, and so "tribe" rears its ugliest head.   In general, tribe is probably the #1 thing that stops Africa from really developing the way it should.

In the overall context of your statements, there's something to be said for this one from Terminator:

We have had over half a century of real freedom to prove them wrong and have come up woefully short.

That pretty much nails it.   As long as we continue to f**k up, we should expect substandard treatment everywhere, because we are taken as representative or reflections of where we come from.   We can insist that we are equal and demand equal treatment, but we will never get it until things change at "the origin".   It's that simple.   And, logically,  why should it be any different?    Imagine a guy who, month after month, blows his salary on hookers and booze, forgets to plant in time, keeps beating the crap out of his family, can't be bothered to maintain his homestead.  Etc. Etc. Etc. He does anything and everything, except show responsibility and a serious sense of purpose.   Yet every month he comes to you, begging bowl in hand ... things are desperate ... and every month you help.  And if, because you are getting tired of the routine, you suggest that you might not help unless he takes care of his shite, he starts screaming about this *ism and that *ism.   Would you accept him---your typical African country---as an equal?   

But up close and personal you never forget there's an impenetrable glass/invisible door around a circle you are not allowed to join.

That's certainly awkward, and I remember having such a feeling years ago.  But as I got older, I got to looking at things differently:  Why should I have to "join" them?    How would it positively improve my life and theirs?  So what if I don't get to "join"?  How would it negatively impact our lives (especially mine) if I did not get to "join"?.   Etc.  Etc. Etc.  I feel that I have gained a great of freedom in asking (and answering) such questions---with respect to groupings based on  race, nationality, tribe, clan, profession, hobbies, etc.   

I overspoke there, but in all honesty, for Kenyans at least, people will not complain of being looked down upon by a person of another tribe in their day to day life outside politics. Yes, we have that communal/nepotism thing going on with jobs but I still think it is of a qualitatively DIFFERENT sort than the kind of othering I am talking about. The only thing I think compares to the kind of madharau I'm talking about here might be perhaps the way SOME city kids might look at a kid straight from shags who comes to school speaking with a very thick accent....emphasis here on kids. Or how they may look at a chokoraa. That's my view. Even then, I have personally never witnessed social exclusion of the sort I'm talking about within a group of peers. It is mostly mchuongoano.

I think I have gotten very good treatment from people who see me as something beneathe them to be honest. They expected some kind of primitive bush lady from what I gather. I know this because I have seen a dude outrightly ostracized in a way that frightened me. He had issues and needed to go, yes, but for me it's just the complete absence of anyone acting fairly, all of them on one side, that shocked me. We may crack jokes and go out to dinner together but something in me is never at home, because someone will say something or look at me a certain way that just reminds me ....I'm not truly included. There are some people who DON'T make me feel that way but I've seen a bit too much not to think that a discomfiting proportion do have certain unkind views they would never voice.

And that guy you describe is at best the corrupt leaders. A fair person would be loathe to put the harrassed wife, children and neighbours in the same basket as the guy you describe. That's who the regular African is, the harrassed.

To the contrary, I think Western media is to blame for those widespread negative views, both entertainment and news reports, nothing else. Many people only have those pictures and that's what 'Africa' comes down to for them: disease, famine, poverty, war and beautiful animals. Worse, I think it is a deliberately skewed portrayal and not accidental at all. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie spoke in her Ted talk (check it out 'the danger of a single story') of how this is an established tradition in he West spanning centuries. Explorers would go back to Europe describing beings that were half-child and half-demon, something to patronize and hate, and this has continued since in less blatant ways to the present. Except now we have google and people have no excuse, especially media houses, of continuing to insist on one skewed portrayal of a continent and a people. One of Chimamanda's professors reprimanded her for writing a novel in which she portrayed a true Nigerian life in the city, claiming it was 'not African'. Basically, there is a box with your name on it and you are not allowed to leave that box.

In one city in which I was attending a workshop, introductions were done by showing the city you came from (pictures). Apparently, that guy couldn't be bothered to find a picture of Nairobi on the internet. Ended up showing some bush. The game was they showed the picture and everyone would guess where that was. For all the Africans they should these unrecognizable bushy places with a commentary from the guy explaining how "hard" it was to find appropriate pictures from sub-Saharan Africa to allow guessing as it was all bushy places that no one could tell apart from another...my foot! Google Nairobi and see if you find bushes or foresty pictures That kind of thing is not confusion because 50 years since independence..etc etc

[MOON Ki]

I overspoke there, but in all honesty, for Kenyans at least, people will not complain of being looked down upon by a person of another tribe in their day to day life outside politics. Yes, we have that communal/nepotism thing going on with jobs but I still think it is of a qualitatively DIFFERENT sort than the kind of othering I am talking about.

How is it qualitatively different, even outside politics?   The average person from Tribe X does not, in day-to-day life, look down on the person from Tribe Y.   OK.  But the person from Tribe Y gets denied a job or other economic opportunity because he or she is not from Tribe X.    Is that really being in a better situation than that of a black person who gets employed (maybe even in a really good job)  by whites who nevertheless look down on him or her?    How many Africans  complaining of racism in America would happily give up a reasonably good life there to go back to Kenya (or wherever in Africa), where they are not looked-down-upon in their day-to-day lives?   I think we should look at these things in real, practical terms.   

And that guy you describe is at best the corrupt leaders.

Indeed, it is.   But the essential point is that our countries are f**ked up, primarily by our own people.    In Kenya we are now about to elect the next set of "leaders".    Will people be voting on any objective criteria?   Why should the people not be held responsible for the people they vote into power?   In any case, it doesn't matter whether it's about the nice, regular folk---like you and me!---or the venial, corrupt lot.   We all share in the burden of the result.   Kenyans after (as usual) electing their dodgy "leaders"  will be (as usual)  in no position to complain the the clueless government that makes a noise about all sorts of things but goes begging for food is just "those corrupt leaders" and not them.   And the rest of the world that is being begged can't be bothered to make such distinctions anyway.   That was my point.

To the contrary, I think Western media is to blame for those widespread negative views, both entertainment and news reports, nothing else.

Really?   I get most of mine from the Kenyan media---the Daily Nation, the Standard, the Star, etc.   Most of the time, whenever I wish to highlight a particular issue, I will do so by quoting or "linking" some article in one of those.   I don't see any dirty Western hand there.

Right now Kenya has gone from begging for food, after numerous ignored warnings, to playing politics with maize and whatever.   It's the same circus year after year, seemingly without end.   Where does the Western media come in?   

Explorers would go back to Europe describing beings that were half-child and half-demon, something to patronize and hate, and this has continued since in less blatant ways to the present. Except now we have google and people have no excuse, especially media houses, of continuing to insist on one skewed portrayal of a continent and a people. One of Chimamanda's professors reprimanded her for writing a novel in which she portrayed a true Nigerian life in the city, claiming it was 'not African'. Basically, there is a box with your name on it and you are not allowed to leave that box.

I think the fundamental question is this: what have been doing or are doing to "leave that box".  Running down their countries while endlessly blaming and begging others? 

For all the Africans they should these unrecognizable bushy places with a commentary from the guy explaining how "hard" it was to find appropriate pictures from sub-Saharan Africa to allow guessing as it was all bushy places that no one could tell apart from another...my foot! Google Nairobi and see if you find bushes or foresty pictures That kind of thing is not confusion because 50 years since independence..etc etc

Sadly, there is a certain reality in those images of Africa that we'd rather the rest of the world did not see.   The painful reality is that many Africans still live in questionable conditions, barely have enough to eat, don't have even clean drinking water, die from easily preventable diseases, are constantly victimizing each other on the basis of tribe, etc.    Yes, we would like the Western media to show the high-end of peaceful Nairobi, but that is not the reality for the majority.   Kenya, the "economic powerhouse of Eastern Africa", is begging for food.   How does Google change an image of that reality?   Nairobi?   What will Google Earth or whatever show of a place like Kibera?     And many places in Africa are worse off than Kenya.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with "bushes or foresty" places.    There is something to be said for them, and in many places the rich have a "bushes or foresty" place to go to for relaxation; others---stuck in their concrete, high-rise boxes---just envy them.   We should be concerned with a decent standard of living, rather that high-rises and malls and whatever ... put aside hurt feelings about being seen as "primitive", "jungle" types and work on what really matters ... forget what others think of us and focus on what's good for ourselves.     

A summary of what I have been trying to say: 

- It is possible to come up with any number of strong arguments and great examples of why the West and its media are wrong about Africa.    None of those will make the slightest difference. Never have.

- What will make the difference is the doing.  Consider, for example, how the Western views on the Japanese, then Koreans, and lately the Chinese have changed and on what basis.  Us?   Now, we jump up and down about how we will turn East or that other way, according to the changing winds, but on improving out lot?   

- We still keep begging all over the place, even for basics like food, and in some places that happens with no shortage of money and resources for weapons to kill each other.   We will never get respect as long as that sort of thing continues.   

We want the West, the East, the Wherever ...  to view us in a certain way .... supposedly the way we really are (or at least see ourselves to be).    Fair enough.  But that is going to be achieved only by making changes sufficient to narrow the gap between self-image and reality.   

We need to move beyond images, *isms, take responsibility and seriously work on a re-imagined and re-thought Africa. Otherwise, projections such as those of the World Bank---that by 2050 or so, the Asia, coming from behind, will have moved ahead, and the world's most desperate will be concentrated in Africa---will be the reality.  If, on the other hand, we do what needs to be done, then we will earn the respect that we yearn for.

[Kadame5]

I don't think anyone doubts that those things exist in Africa. Nor do we have a problem with that getting reported. The problem exists in pretending that that is ALL there is to Africa. Like in all places, presenting a fuller and more realistic picture of Africa would not create those caricatures that exist in the West in a frighteningly widespread way even among highly educated people.

Also, no one said bushy places are bad. I asked you what you find when you google Nairobi. The point here is whether you think someone insisting that the only pictures he could find of African cities are bushes that are indistinguishable from each other is being honest, or has something else in mind. We have bushes in Africa that we like. We also have cities. Actual cities, not bushes we have named cities: what is the motive in pretending that bushes is all there is?

The Daily Nation does not present skewed one-sided presentations of the place. Anyone of my colleagues going through any of our papers or TV news would be highly impressed with what they find there, which is orders of magnitude better than what they EXPECT is there. They expect ONLY extreme poverty, disease and war. They expect nothing positive or heck, just NORMAL, there.

While the Asian's image may have improved, I have my doubts whether they ever had to contend with something nearly as negative as what Africans do.

I also don't see the point of saying that talking about this won't change it: Did I say it would? Do you only talk about things that you think simply by discussing them you would change them?...Sometimes people can have a pleasant conversation without going into full out activist mode, Moonki, sheesh!

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Kadame,

It would be nice if they looked at Africans differently.  But don't feel like you have to carry the burden of the continent on your back.  You won't change anyone's(the bazungu) mind. There are stereotypes that are centuries old and it's not for lack of having seen exemplary Africans.  I suspect part of it is you recalibrating to being different and thinking you are being judged all the time.  You probably pay more attention to it than the bazungu themselves.