It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White farmers asked to return

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

IF I were advising Mugabe, I'd tell him to make a small show of inviting whites to return. But I'd cut up the big ranches into smaller farms. Get your people farming with shovels and picks for five years or so. Once everyone has a job, then we can start worrying about selling produce on the international market.

But instead of white farmers growing cash crops, you need to focus on full employment and feeding the hungry. I'd go for goat and dairy, since there have been rainfall problems. Maybe encourage the white (big) operations to focus on hay.

Once your feeding people, then some of the farms can be consolidated and you bring in modern machinery.


They need cash crops in Zimbabwe to bring in foreign currency.
Tobacco sales used to account for about 50% of Zimbabwe's foreign currency earnings.
Without foreign currency coming into the country their own currency collapses and they cant import materials such as fertilizers and machinery. That's one of the big problems in Zimbabwe right now.

I don't know if the white farmers will ever move back as some of them have already moved into neighoring countries like Malawi and Zambia which, as a result of the white farmers moving there, are both having record crops as Zimbabwe's crops have fallen.

Zambia's tobacco crops are up 500 percent since 2000 while tabacco crops in Zimbabwe have dropped about 75 percent.



mg.co.za

From the 237-million kilograms in 2 000, output went down to 69-million kilograms in 2004 and 73-million kilograms the following year. This year the forecast is 55-million kilograms, blamed on the ruinous land reform programme and lack of inputs and incentives.

In 1999 before the government embarked on the land reform programme, output stood at 250-million kilograms. The decline over the years is in contrast to the country’s neighbours such as Zambia and Malawi since 2000.

In Zambia tobacco output rose from 4,3-million kilograms in 2000 to 7,3-million kilograms in 2003 to 24 000-million kilograms in 2005, representing a more than 500% increase in five years.




South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA)

Flight to New Fields
The reason for this reversal of fortunes is simple and, most likely, enduring: What Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe chased away, his neighbours courted.

‘It is our people, it is Zimbabwean expertise that they are using,’ said Duncan Miller, president of the Zimbabwe Tobacco Association (ZTA), appraising the rapid crop gains across Zimbabwe’s borders. ‘The big tobacco multinational companies say they are expanding tobacco output in countries like Zambia, Mozambique and Tanzania. But all that is driven by Zimbabwean knowledge and expertise.’



[edit on 23-4-2006 by AceOfBase]




posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I don't doubt that they need cash crops, long term, for economic reasons.

But that won't do any good until the starvation ends. A few farmers making a profit won't feed villages of hungry people. The blacks cannot eat tobacco, and the whites will not need that many black employees.

To FEED people, they will need to grow food, and have a job for at least half of the adults.

Most likely, Zimbabwe needs to do several things at once. One of those things is get people doing some subsistence farming, probably focusing on small livestock like goats, chickens and pigs.

Frankly, the best way to acheive that is to temporarily impose a modern-day version of feudalism, using local blacks as liege-lords. Pick a guy, and give him a hundred goats and several hundred acres of land. Tell him he gets to keep 10 acres for every goat he "pays" you each year.

Since that guy cannot herd a hundred goats on his own, he hires his nephew, his cousin, and the neighbor kids to help him. And he can pay them in goat meat. And he is enticed to use the land to the best in a way that maximizes goat output.

That is only a short-term solution though. More than about 5 years will degrade the pastures from overgrazing. But by then, you can start shifting to a more sophisticated production model, like cash crops.

My point is, focusing on foreign money is merely a return to the mercantalism that disenfranchized so many blacks in the first place. Having rich people present and making a profit doesn't automatically feed the hungry. I don't mean that whites are ill-disposed toward their black neighbors; just that any cash-crop farmer is necesarilly focused on profits, not philanthropy.

You have to start weaving a network of relationships that builds interdependence. Feudalism is one labor-intensive model that focuses on full bellies and total employment. It isn't democratic, but it feeds people without requiring a lot of technology. If it is temporary, it needn't be inhumane.

.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I wouldn't come back. I mean after they kicked you out violently, there would be no way in hell.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Thinking of better ways to explain my ideas.

I will be the first to admit that Western (particularly US/Canada style) farming is the best system on earth for solving the problems of efficiency and profit.

My contention is merely that cash-farming doesn't solve the particularly problems of Zimbabwe in 2006.

Cash farming (based on my own experience in the American plains) is oriented toward two goals:

-maximizing dollar return per hour of labor
-minimizing tax liability

So, cash farming relies on large diesel engines that are essentially a tax write-off (in the US, at least). Because labor costs in the US are high, success means maximum bushel yields per hour of hired labor.

This system suits the people who inhabit it. Most American farmers get their food from the grocery store in town, and pay with credit. The specialists (mechanics, fuel and chemical fertilizer providers) that service the farm drive out from the regional population center, then drive home at night. The whole system is predicated on affordable diesel fuel.

Now, how useful is that system in today's Zimbabwe?


Here's a thought-experiment:

Imagine you are mayor of village X in a semi-arid area of Zimbabwe. There are three farmers that would like to move into your community. But there is only enough arable land for one of them.

"Farm A" will, after paying its 6 employees, turn a $60,000 USD per year to its owner, by growing cotton.

"Farm B" will employee 20 workers, and turn an annual profit of $20,000 a year, by share-cropping sorghum, maize (american corn), and wheat, as well a a couple dozen cows. The produce that is not quality enough for export will be sold in the village square.

"Farm C" plans to employ about 60 workers, and only clear a few thousand dollars for its owner. It will produce melons, maize, sorghum, and a little wheat, plus a lot of goats, pigs and chickens; most of which will be sold in the village square. Some of the produce will be cheap enough that local villagers can buy it and transport it themselves to the regional capital, and sell it at a profit to city dwellers.

Now, as the mayor, which farm would you want in your village? Which farm will raise the standard of living for your whole village over the next 5 years?


.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

So, cash farming relies on large diesel engines that are essentially a tax write-off (in the US, at least). Because labor costs in the US are high, success means maximum bushel yields per hour of hired labor.

This system suits the people who inhabit it. Most American farmers get their food from the grocery store in town, and pay with credit. The specialists (mechanics, fuel and chemical fertilizer providers) that service the farm drive out from the regional population center, then drive home at night. The whole system is predicated on affordable diesel fuel.

Now, how useful is that system in today's Zimbabwe?


It worked very well for many years.
It's just since the land reform that it stopped working.

Based on your scenario I think the mayor would still go with the cash crops because even if the people aren't working directly for the farms the farm is still bringing money into the community.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Based on your scenario I think the mayor would still go with the cash crops because even if the people aren't working directly for the farms the farm is still bringing money into the community.


I disagree completely. Only six people will have jobs. The rest will starve. And the money "coming into the community" will all be in the hands of one man. And what will he buy in the community? Mud huts? Dirt?

He'll be flying to Europe to take his family shopping. And spending that money there. Or buying farm machinery.

But other than the noise, it won't impact any except six in the village.

Maybe he'll hire a few a maids or servants or something, huh? That would provide what, 3 or for extra jobs? Verses 20 or 60?
.



[edit on 22-4-2006 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
The problem with most black communities is rather simple and apparently common no matter where they are from and that is they are dependant on someone else for their survival.

Just like in new orleans.

Just like in this case.

Bill crosby tried to tell them this but theyd rather label him a "racist" or an "uncle tom". perhaps this stems from slavery, I dont know, I find it hard to believe that this would cross generations like this.

Bill cosby old them to stop wasting money on sports stuff and "bling" and invest in education and books and they threw a fit. Education is very important for self growth. (one of the few things I agree with the liberals on).

a big concept that seems to have escaped them is self-reliance. Not dependancy on others or the government. This, IMO, is the basic difference between repulicans and democrats in the US. democrats wish to continue, either unknowingly or purposely, to force a people who are already dependant on others, to become further dependant on the government thus continue the slave frame of mind in the black community.Republicans would rather strive themselves, to provide for themselves. (this was in theory and has resulted in cut throat business which is another matter entirely).

Stop handing people things and make them grow. Make them self-reliant,
just like that scripture "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." and people say the christian bible is worthless......



Wow, such wisdom...


I gotta agree with zarby with regards to this post, it's hidden race trashing. Funny that you make a judgement on the present without looking at the past. It would be like saying "those damn Injuns shouldn't have fought back" a year or 2 after "Manifest Destiny."

Not defending Mugabe, but I think he just wanted to stick it to people of European descent for all the crap done in Africa. In that respect, I can't blame him, because a LOT of shot has happened; why shouldn't white people get robbed in Africa? Revenge is a part of human nature, deny it if you want.
I mean, if Africans had taken control of the diamonds in South Africa, imagine how much better off Africa would be (that's one of the biggest hustles ever). At the same time, I have to lay some blame on my African brothers for not taking control over some of the bountiful resources on that continent.

At the same time, he's a brutal dictator, and I don't think he didn't KNOW that no one was educated in farming, he didn't CARE that no one was educated in farming. So, it didn't matter to him initially that he shot himself in the foot.

Meanwhile, the hungry people in Zimbabwe are screwed regardless. What a shame. And, I LOVE the whole "black people are lazy" argument. I'd like to ask a black slave if he was lazy. Funny how if you force people to work for you, THEY'RE the lazy ones, not you...



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Herr Doktor is right. Never underestimate the cruelty, callousness or malice in another human being.

The feudalism is an excellent idea, but it also needs a way to generate profit. The country slipping further and further into debt is of little help, especially if essential services (what little there are) end up comprimised from neglect. All the goats in the world won't help much if you can't get them water, and same with crops you may buy from goat-sale.

DE



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I actually met 2 south Africans when this was going on, 1 was white and fled to England, one was black and went to England a few years earlier, I talked to both of them about it..
It was bad enough taking the land of the white farmers, as it was, but thats not my main point, my main point is the way they went about it.


1. Slaughtering whole white families.
2. raping the white women and the little girls.
3. Having to sleep with a shot gun under the bed.

Also I know a couple of Nigerians, and a bloke from Guinee, and they told me that South Africans, don't like anyone who's not from there neck of the woods..

MIKE



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx


The feudalism is an excellent idea, but it also needs a way to generate profit. The country slipping further and further into debt is of little help, especially if essential services (what little there are) end up comprimised from neglect. All the goats in the world won't help much if you can't get them water, and same with crops you may buy from goat-sale.

DE


Yes.

Phase two is, you get into meat packing. Canned meat doesn't sound very appetizing to Europeans/North Americans, but in a torrid region it is a readily marketable product with a long shelf life and low unit cost--even poor farmers can afford a can for the family on a holiday. An additional plush is it's easy to export - by diesel truck, oxcart, or in someone's pocket.

Meatpacking is another labor intensive industry, and many of Zimbabwe's neighbors have trouble with the quality of the local diet, even though they have money to import food.

The next trick is a local commodities market, giving rise to a local securities market.

At that point, you begin centralizing your agribusiness so it looks more like the west over time. THIS is where white farming and manufacturing expertise comes in.

For those hostile to this plan, think of it this way: what I'm really doing is re-capitulating the industrial revolution on a single-nation scale: feudalism/subsistence, leading to industrial production and economy of scale, which leads to auction markets, which leads to centralization of production.

Basically, I'm thinking of re-inventing the Zim economy that Mugabe has sucked dry like the vampire he is.

Personally, despite other posts, I don't even think Mugabe attacked whites out of racism. No, I believe it's worse than that: he exploited the racism of his followers, surely. But his personal motives were even more venal: opportunism.

.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The major problem was that he took the land, and just gave it to his buddys. And they didn't farm it.

As to how to modivate people to work or farm? Greatest modivator would be they need to farm to get food to live, make a living.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
What everyone is missing in this issue is the most obvious issue: reality. If you want to kick somebody out of your house so that you can take over running it then you better be able to do the job yourself. The thugs that did this did not think of this nor care. They did what they did for selfish reasons and only they have benefited from it.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MadGreebo
Nope sorry I'd let them all starve, and keep my white farmer butt nice and safe whilst laughing heartily at the devastation that inbred tin pot dictator caused because of his racist genocide against the white.


Racist genocide against white people? Laugh about people starving? I should probably not even ask.


Any white who goes back, farms and feeds Mugabe and his people is as guilty of complicity as any of the killers,


Which killers would those be?


because if they stay away the countries regime will fall quicker than if it is fed.. and after seeing what they did to the land and people, just why would you want to go back with the threat of death hanging over you all the time?/


Because farmers love the land ( their land) and they would go back if they felt their security would be ensured.


Oh and did Mugabe suddenly realise that the blacks couldn't even be bothered to farm the land ?? oh my my theres a suprise....

Stay away - let them starve.


Mugabe is a dictator who told his people that they could have the land back for DECADES and when people finally took up arms for lack of him doing what his been preaching he had to let it happen to stay 'popular' and keep what support he has. Do you REALLY believe he WANTED this to happen KNOWING would the result would be? If you really do your not only ignorant but far far worse. I really suggest you share no more of your opinions on this topic.

There are SO many circumstances that you are not taking into account that it simply beggars any imagination one cares to employ.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I have to agree on this one. The above poster's words may seem heartless...BUT THEY ARE NOT.


They are not only heartless but ignorant and , for that matter, many other 'bad' things.


I remember the violence, murder - no, just as he said - genocide, that took place when the white farmers were either driven from or killed on their land.


So when five hundred thousand to one million Rwandians are killed it's genocidal status is debated but when twelve white farmers in Zimbabwe are killed then it merits so in your opinion? In South Africa hundreds of white farmers have been murdered in the same time frame and i do not see that being called a genocide either. Feel free to explain your standards Vall.


And NOW, the black populace apparently doesn't know how to pick up a hoe and work land, and the black government is unwilling to buy seed.


They were always using those tools to work the land but you need far more than labour to move produce ( even if you get it to grow) to a market where you may earn a profit given that you could manage the loans needed to buy the seed in the first place. The government is not as much unwilling to buy seed as they expect banks to provide the same loans they used to extend to white farmers. Why should the government now spend money they do not have for that sort of thing?


Nope - I wouldn't come back either.


And that sort of statement proves you have no idea what your talking about when it comes to loving 'the land'.


They either need to learn how to feed themselves, or they can kiss the world's backside as they fall into malnutrition at their own hands.


They know how to feed themselves but when all opportunities is taken away from the people they WILL starve as numerous episodes in human history should have shown you.


The world didn't bring them to this.


The world mostly did, as it always does.


The white farmers didn't bring them to this.


Partly did as they all share in the responsibility of owning land that they full well know were taken from others which they then failed to share the spoils off in a proper timely fashion.


THEY brought themselves to this...THEY need to fix it.


'THEY will help themselves if allowed to do so by the world press and international agencies which are for the most part doing their best to prevent any progress.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
When cecil Rhodes drove through Rhodesia, the land was empty bar a few tribes of hunter gatherers. When he settled the land and brought agriculture and mining enterprise, the country became the bread basket of the African continent - The jewel in the crown so to speak. When the war of independance was fought, and it turned into zimbabwe, mugabe was seen as a savior by BOTH whites and blacks, because the land went from English control to Zimbabwean. The white farmers have been there for nearly 2 centuries now, and are as much zimbabweans as the Black - even more so as massive amounts of black zimbabweans only settled there after the war....

Mugabe cooked his own goose when he started killing the whites in a racial genocide, and killed the very thing that let him sit in opulence - the crops that brought in the cash. farmers had many many WELL PAID workers who coveted the jobs on the farms, and were treated just as that, workers not slaves- so all this 'white man oppressor' rubbish is just that - pure and utter rubbish. If the blacks were able to farm, whys mugabe begging for whites to return?? They had years to get to grips with it, so....... Let them starve, die off, then walk back in when their all dead and start afresh in a beautiful beautifl country minus Mugabes racist genocidic attitudes.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
South Africa has started buying farmers land and giving it to the blacks but it is only a matter of time before they take the land forcefully.


VERY little land has been bought ( at negotiated prices, meaning market or above thus once again taking money from tax payers which could have been spent in more appropriate ways) from white farmers and redistributed. It is only a matter of time before that happens if the government does not live up to his promises of giving far more land back to previous owners or just general black empowerment.


They want 30% of all farm land in black hands by 2015. The program to teach these blacks how to farm is useless so i don't see what progress will come out of this.


The programs are admittedly not very good but that mostly shows that the government does not care enough to make them work. Why the government would choose not to properly educate the new farmers ( by retaining the former white owners as resident consultants) in any given way is another interesting question that SHOULD be the focus of this discussion instead of all the ignorant ranting.


All most all of them will end up doing nothing at all with the land.


Without proper backing even white farmers goes bust in the extremely competitive international farming arena. If the west in general got rid of their farming subsidies the rest of us would have a chance but as it stands even good farmers need a lot of financial backing ( long term credit from banks) to ride out the bad patches. Since banks are unlikely to extend the same loans to new black farmers they do not trust with their money nothing will happen unless the government does more than buy land and then stop supporting said farmers. Without serious government backing commercial farming is plain difficult.


In South Africa they also made all the white business owners give half of their companies to blacks or black empowerment groups.


Complete nonsense and that is putting it the best way i can imagine atm.


I'm glad i left that place when i did, if they want to fix the country they need to fix the education system first.


I agree that they should have educated you far better than they did.



What do they expect will happen if they force white people to give their land and businesses to blacks who are uneducated?


What happens normally when you give the wrong person the wrong job whatever their colour or nationality.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
It's not. You are calling it that because we have made statements you didn't want to read.


You in fact made statements that had nothing to do with reality which is probably what he objected to.


That doesn't make those statements race baiting or anything else.


Well it's something and it ain't a good thing.


It makes them our opinions. My opinion is based on what happened a few years back. I'm assuming the other poster's is as well.


Your opinion is based on something but what i am not exactly sure as it did not happen on this planet.


If the blacks want their land back they need to work it.


Well if white people can take land with guns and general violence why should blacks be excluded from attempting the same, against all odds?


They don't need to invite their "oppressors" back so that the land can be worked and then another phase of violence occur.


They need the expertise back and they knew it all along but the media never covered that part so how could you know about it?


Get up and feed yourself.


Their doing their best with the little support they get from the world community and local banks.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
You have got to be kidding! Yet it was inevitable. South Africa's current leadership is just Mugabe-light.


Mugabe and Mbeki dislike ( some say hate) each other quite passionately and they have very little in common.


No leaders with strategic vision such as a Mandela or that nice poet fellow which ran Senegal after the French left.


Mandela did very little to change South Africa for the better and to actually help the newly liberated towards more than just the ' freedom' to be as poor ( or more so) than they used to be.


I remember when I was in South Africa the health minister had to send for doctors to convince the President that AIDs was a disease and not poison being placed in the water supply by whites (!) that's the tip of the iceberg.


This is a complete lie from bottom to top but i expect no less from people who watch CNN/BBC and imagine their being informed in some way. The president ( rightly) believes that HIV( whatever it is) does not cause AIDS( whatever that is) and that people are dying from all the usual suspects related to general poverty.


The corruption is increasing rapidly along with the poor policy. Tragic really.


I would say the corruption is not nearly as bad as the focus of the government spending that results from their focus of privatization and generally assuming that the 'economy knows best'.


I just hope S.A. doesn't go the way of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe since that was a great country (even with all the racism crap) before Mugabe came along.


It seems to be South-Africa is .ed in a very different direction ( not least because we have a service economy) than Zimbabwe is if only because our current leaders do mostly exactly what would have been expected of a white government in the same situation. Colour is not nearly as relevant as some think it is and it only becomes a issue when the leaders (whatever their colour) brakes ranks and do not play their parts as expected in the globalising new world order.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
The problem with most black communities is rather simple and apparently common no matter where they are from and that is they are dependant on someone else for their survival.

Just like in new orleans.

Just like in this case.

Bill crosby tried to tell them this but theyd rather label him a "racist" or an "uncle tom". perhaps this stems from slavery, I dont know, I find it hard to believe that this would cross generations like this.

Bill cosby old them to stop wasting money on sports stuff and "bling" and invest in education and books and they threw a fit. Education is very important for self growth. (one of the few things I agree with the liberals on).

a big concept that seems to have escaped them is self-reliance. Not dependancy on others or the government. This, IMO, is the basic difference between repulicans and democrats in the US. democrats wish to continue, either unknowingly or purposely, to force a people who are already dependant on others, to become further dependant on the government thus continue the slave frame of mind in the black community.Republicans would rather strive themselves, to provide for themselves. (this was in theory and has resulted in cut throat business which is another matter entirely).

Stop handing people things and make them grow. Make them self-reliant,
just like that scripture "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." and people say the christian bible is worthless......



Wow, such wisdom...


I gotta agree with zarby with regards to this post, it's hidden race trashing.


ermmm....how is it race trashing to state the fact that blacks are too dependant on others? Oh of course! we arent suppose to help them!
We are suppose to keep them the way they are!....


and robbing someone because he is white and you want revenge(for what his ancestors MAY have done) is hypocrisy.

You are making excuses and are attempting to encourage them to have a way of life that is destructive. YOU CANNOT RELY ON OTHERS FOR YOUR SURVIVAL! plain and simple, you will die! you are encouraging the slave frame of mind to continue. Why not try to break them of those mental chains? make them realise they are more and can become more. They need to be independant!

The "someone will help provide for me" is what a SLAVE would think!

This is not hidden race trashing and I NEVER said they were lazy, you put that in my mouth.

and for your information I, nor my parents, nor my grandparents or even great grandparents never made someone work for us.

also I dont think zarby was refering to my post

So I dont get where you come up with that argument......


[edit on 22-4-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
XphilesPhan,

Why did you start talking about the blacks in Africa then start comparing them to the blacks in New Orleans? Then why did you go off on Bill Cosby and something about bling bling? Zimbabweans have problems because they wear bling bling and mistreat Bill Cosby? Anyone who read your post would think you were linking the lazy blacks in Zimbabwe to the lazy blacks in New Orleans. So therefore it's a black problem, something inherent in racial makeup, right? I swear, you far-right guys all the same.

And instead of anyone calling you on this, the other posters, even ones who I figured were BETTER than that, would rather continue to say over and over "too bad, it's their fault let them all starve" and "why can't they help themselves". I'm glad to see that some posters had an understanding of history and how it can still affect people today.

And a good point was raised. Why do you get guys get so enraged when a dictator's thugs kill a few white farmers, but when it's millions of brown people elsewhere, there's not as much outrage. Also, you blame the people and condemn them all to starvation because of the actions of some Hitler-mustachioed nutcase. I notice you don't the same when it comes to North Korea or Serbia, or even Iraq.


[edit on 4/22/2006 by Flinx]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join