www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-41992351
Poor old Zimbabwe - raped and pillaged by a tin-pot dictator and the military take over to sort it out ? or a democratically elected government forced out of office by the military ?
|
|
Neither, its just jostling for positions once mad bob has gone.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 15 Nov 17 at 06:41
|
Lets see, Elderly old man leader loses his marbles, pretty young girl seduces him, becomes ambitious wife, takes over Army can see their power diluting to her if old codger dies, and then takes over.
You could almost make a musical of it.
Mind you I love the statement from Zanu PF. "The party said it would never succumb to military threats, and that it "reaffirms the primacy of politics over the gun".
Now remind me again, how did they get to power?
|
I had a neighbour who came to the UK from Southern Rhodesia in the 50's. He came here for University & never returned. The country he left had problems but at least there was plenty food grown & exported all over Africa.
Move on 60 years & the country is ruins, starvation as the farming has collapsed, law & order / rule of law.......... maybe, unlikely it may be, but lets's hope that the future improves for all & not just a few who prosper while 99% who currently suffer.
|
>> Now remind me again, how did they get to power?
Initially via a free and fair election after introduction of a universal franchise?
Went badly tizzup later but that's another story.
|
|
"The army said that Mr Mugabe was safe"[ly out of the way.]
|
>> >> Now remind me again, how did they get to power?
>>
>> Initially via a free and fair election after introduction of a universal franchise?
>>
Well that conveniently throws a huge chunk of history in the bin.
|
>> >> >> Now remind me again, how did they get to power?
>> >>
>> >> Initially via a free and fair election after introduction of a universal franchise?
>> >>
>> Well that conveniently throws a huge chunk of history in the bin.
>>
I guess you are talking pre the elections?
|
|
Zimbabwe is one of many countries that seem destined to be in permanent turmoil in one form or another. Makes one realise that in the lottery of life we all hold winning tickets.
|
|
Shame innit. Could have ended up as the perfect post-colonial solution (was it Leeds Castle ?) it didn't for too many reasons, mainly ones starting with M.
|
|
But whatever happens it's got black majority rule, and that's what really matters.
|
|
The colour of the majority doesn't matter, as long as they are represented
|
|
Colour shouldn't matter at all, everyone should be represented democratically.
|
>> everyone should be represented democratically.
>>
Obviously.
You both missed my irony.
|
>> >> everyone should be represented democratically.
>> >>
>>
>> Obviously.
>> You both missed my irony.
There wasn't any. Well irony anyway.
|
>> >> everyone should be represented democratically.
>> >>
>>
>> Obviously.
>> You both missed my irony.
>>
That's ironic ...
|
>> But whatever happens it's got black majority rule, and that's what really matters.
>>
As I understand it Zimbabwe is like many African countries there is a lot of variety in the black majority, some of whom are more part of the majority than others
|
The sacking of the former vice-president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, liked by the military but seen as a rival by Grace Mugabe, is relevant here.
No doubt Grace thought she had ensured her position and the continuity of the Mugabe family by getting her husband to do the deed, but authoritarian rulers often create a power vacuum as their strength wanes and their immediate family does not usually benefit in the aftermath.
Grace in any case soured her potential relationship with Zimbabwe as a whole by her extravagant, self-indulgent shopping habits and suspect academic credentials. By contrast, Mnangagwa was much more astute politically, cultivating a relationship with the security services and the veterans of the 1970s. Realistically, Mnangagwa always looked a better bet.
My guess is that Mnangagwa will be back.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Wed 15 Nov 17 at 16:26
|
Western Europe is by and large run by political parties.
Africa is by and large run by tribes.
And never the twain shall meet.
|
>> Western Europe is by and large run by political parties.
>>
>> Africa is by and large run by tribes.
>>
>> And never the twain shall meet.
Wise idea by us to stuff different ones in the same false country boundaries then
|
>> Western Europe is by and large run by political parties.
>>
>> Africa is by and large run by tribes.
False dichotomy alert.
Europe is divided into nations defined by territory and cultural values. Nationality and tribe are not, allowing for history and ease of travel, that much different.
|
|
They are fundamentally different and both cause, have caused, and require and required an entirely different structure and approach.
|
|
Western Europe tried to impose Westernization on Africa. We're reaping that now.
|
Absolutely.
We still trying to do it.
|
|
Not as sucsessfully as China.
|
>> Europe is divided into nations defined by territory and cultural values. Nationality and tribe are not, allowing for history and ease of travel, that much different.
Agreed though we as a species are where we are, we cannot back track, we need to recognise globally that there is a difference between cuture and race, that a lot the problems have been caused by the imposition of a culture, colonialism had some good aspects, for instance deliving medicines, though it generally tried to impose a culture. People in all nations need to be able to protect cultures without being seen to be racist. An example might be that if we were to say that we don't want, say, Melbourne to look like Mumbai it would be seen to be racist, to be negative in respect of the Australian asian community, though most would agree that Mumbai shouldn't look like Melbourne, that it's cultural identity should be maintained and developed.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 17 Nov 17 at 03:30
|
Racist against cities? I don;t even understand your post, never mind knowing whether or not I agree with it.
To say that nationality and tribe are not that much different is ignorant in the extreme.
|
>> To say that nationality and tribe are not that much different is ignorant in the
>> extreme.
It was used as an analogy for a post that probably had a racist connotation. While I agree there are differences would you care to enlarge on ignorant in the extreme?
|
>>It was used as an analogy for a post that probably had a racist connotation
Perhaps first you could enlarge on your understanding of the word "analogy".
"Europe is divided into nations defined by territory and cultural values. Nationality and tribe are not, allowing for history and ease of travel, that much different."
>>probably had a racist connotation
Oh, FFS, more of your sniffing? Again? God knows I hate racism [and bigotry] more than most, you you see it everywhere.
You were replying to, and quoted, this...
>>Western Europe is by and large run by political parties.
>>Africa is by and large run by tribes.
>>And never the twain shall meet.
And you see racism?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 16 Nov 17 at 10:07
|
>> Racist against cities? I don;t even understand your post, never mind knowing whether or not I agree with it.
>>
I don't think it was that difficult ...
This is digressing though you're experience is relevant I guess, you want to be treated equally and with respect in Chile and you would expect Chilean family and friends to receive the same here. Though I guess you would not want European culture to be imposed on Santiago to the extent that it would be difficult to tell the difference when getting off a plane from LHR, likewise you would not want London to mirror downtown Santiago.
There needs to be a recognition that there is a difference between race and culture so protecting culture and heritage is not seen as racist.
>> To say that nationality and tribe are not that much different is ignorant in the
>> extreme.
>>
Of course they are different though largely nationality has been the European equivalent of tribe, at least for the last 1000 years.
|
I'm sure I'll miss the edit so a second post.
European colonial powers delivered a lot of good to Africa, medicines, antibiotics, antimalarial, some may say the spread of Christianity, some may say democracy; though they also brought a lot of harm and in cultural terms the imposition of western ways have largely been negative, for instance that status should be measured by the cut of your Saville Row suit, whether your 450SEL is a 4.5 or 6.3, and the size of your army.
|
|
Why is the spread of Christianity a "good thing" at the expense of their local beliefs ?
|
>> Why is the spread of Christianity a "good thing" at the expense of their local
>> beliefs ?
>>
It's not, I said "some might say" ...
|
>> Racist against cities? I don;t even understand your post, never mind knowing whether or
>> not I agree with it.
>
>I don't think it was that difficult ...
Then explain to me where this racism towards cities comes in...
As for the rest of it.....
Bromp: "Nationality and tribe are not, ..., that much different"
Hard Cheese: "Agreed..."
FM2R: "They are fundamentally different "
Bromp: "It was an analogy...."
Hard Cheese "Of course they are different..."
Bromp:"Don't panic, there's racism everywhere, Mr. Mainwaring"
Hard Cheese:"Its the bleedin' cities, innit"
How on earth could I be finding this difficult?
p.s. I might have made the last two up.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 16 Nov 17 at 11:23
|
>> p.s. I might have made the last two up.
>>
And been quite selective in your quotes ...
|
>And been quite selective in your quotes .
Do feel free to point out where.
Please, do help me understand and point out if I have mis-quoted. Or been disingenuously selective?
Your need to be an authority does rather make you say silly things at times.
|
Let's try again:
While I agree there are differences would you care to enlarge on ignorant in the extreme?
|
>>While I agree there are differences would you care to enlarge on ignorant in the extreme?
Happy to help;
It means very, very ignorant. The far extent, perhaps even the limit, of ignorance. ill-informed, wrong, ignorant of facts and reality, without merit, ridiculous.
I thought "ignorant in the extreme" was pretty clear, so I do hope this has helped you understand what I meant.
Oh, and it wasn't an analogy.
|
>> It means very, very ignorant. The far extent, perhaps even the limit, of ignorance. ill-informed,
>> wrong, ignorant of facts and reality, without merit, ridiculous.
Still seems to me that race, tribe and nationality and are all closely interlinked. We have tribal politics in Europe here and now - Catalonia, former Yugoslavia just for starters. Argument has to how close and the precise nature of the interlinks has the potential for (and has doubtless received) a deal of academic attention. I'm genuinely interested into how you can dismiss the link in such robust terms as you do.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 16 Nov 17 at 12:27
|
You said;
"Nationality and tribe are not, allowing for history and ease of travel, that much different."
Where and when did that become linked rather than "not much different"?
And what about this analogy against the racist connotations in Harleyman's post???
Let it go, Bromp, you're talking out of your a*** and it shows.
|
>> >And been quite selective in your quotes .
>>
>> Do feel free to point out where.
>>
I previously said" "Of course they are different though largely nationality has been the European equivalent of tribe, at least for the last 1000 years."
>>
>> Your need to be an authority >>
A strange comment.
>>does rather make you say silly things at times.
>>
Do feel free to point out where.
|
>> Your need to be an authority >>
>
>A strange comment.
A strange need.
>>>>does rather make you say silly things at times.
>>
>Do feel free to point out where.
Go back and read your own comments. You started off agreeing with Bromp that Nationality and tribe are not that much different, and then replied to me saying of course they are different and then say that that one is the European equivalent of the other.
.**********
|
>> >> Your need to be an authority >>
>> >
>> >A strange comment.
>>
>> A strange need.
>>
If it were true then perhaps.
>> Go back and read your own comments. You started off agreeing with Bromp that Nationality and tribe are not that much different, and then replied to me saying of course they are different and then say that that one is the European equivalent of the other.
>>
I agreed with Bromp on the false dichotomy point.
And yes, it is a very broad comparison though the creation of regional and national boundaries in Europe could be said to be along tribal lines.
|
So are nationality and tribe essentially the same thing, not that much different or quite different?
And as for a false dichotomy, then that also is wrong.
The point Bromp quoted was;
>>Western Europe is by and large run by political parties.
>>Africa is by and large run by tribes.
How is that a false dichotomy?
He said that they are not much different, then introduced nationalities and later said that it "probably had a racist connotation".
I swear you are both dodging about so much I have no idea what either of you think on this matter, but I'm damned sure that nationality, political party and tribe are different in virtually every way and have quite different causes, relevances and impacts.
I'm also pretty damned sure that Harleyman meant nothing racist by his comment. That's just Bromp and his infamous, tiresome and quite negative sniffing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 16 Nov 17 at 12:24
|
>> I'm also pretty damned sure that Harleyman meant nothing racist by his comment. That's just
>> Bromp and his infamous, tiresome and quite negative sniffing.
My mistake there in that I read Harleyman as Haywain. The latter has previous for being 'controversial' about matters of race and multiculturalism.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 16 Nov 17 at 12:32
|
So you react to the name of a person and thus assume that there are racist connotations.
Even if Haywain *had* written that, it still wasn't racist. You can't seek racism in that way; oh this person has said something I thought was wrong before so now I think everything they say should be deemed racist. Or to have racist connotations.
I mean, really.
Honestly, that is shameful.
It is exactly that level of pathetic over-reaction which passes people off and allows exactly those views to gain a foot hold.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 16 Nov 17 at 12:37
|
>>The latter has previous for being 'controversial' about matters of race and multiculturalism
and why the word controversial in quotes?
If you have something to say, say it. Don't be snide about it.
|
>> Western Europe is by and large run by political parties.
>>
>> Africa is by and large run by tribes.
Some advanced pin-head dancing has followed the above post, mainly off whatever the point was, and I am no wiser despite reading with interest.
Was the definition of 'tribe' agreed?
tribe
noun
1.
a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader.
"indigenous Indian tribes"
synonyms: ethnic group, people, race, nation; More
2.
BIOLOGY
a taxonomic category that ranks above genus and below family or subfamily, usually ending in -ini (in zoology) or -eae (in botany).
The second, scientific, one seems to be to do with race.
The first has to do with a common culture and dialect, whether following (it seems to me to mean) from geography ("communities"), or race ("blood ties") and having common allegiance ("typically [i.e. not always] having a recognised leader").
That seems to me to cover anything from race to being a Millwall supporter, or possibly the most tedious type of professional Yorkshireman/Scouser/Welshman/Londoner.
Even a political party could be a tribe; but to try and contrast a political party with a tribe, I would probably say that a tribal identity is one that its members are born or grow into, while a party is a marriage of convenience between people with shared interests to protect and a desire for gaining or keeping power, or denying it to somebody else.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 16 Nov 17 at 13:17
|
When you think about the word it does get rather complex;
Looking into your definition and others it appears that it came into common usage as a colonial word used to describe a group from the outside, rather than a word that the group would have used to describe themselves.
I would presume that it is much like an extended family or group of families who all feel related, rather than allied. Certainly that is how I have always taken it.
I am curious as to how a Zulu, for example, would describe a non-Zulu I wonder if historically they would have a word for each type of non-Zulu or non-Zulu like group, or simply a single word for all non-Zulu people and groups.
Quite what, or indeed if, a Millwall support thinks is another matter entirely.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 16 Nov 17 at 13:32
|
>> I would presume that it is much like an extended family or group of families
>> who all feel related, rather than allied. Certainly that is how I have always taken
>> it.
It could have that meaning ie analogous with a clan but my understanding was that in both African and Native American contexts it was closer to nationality and/or race. You used Zulus and their potential nomenclature for non Zulu as an example. I don't know the correct answer but a bit of reading suggests a Zulu nation existed for most of the nineteenth century.
The groups that came together as the Shona also have a long history.
www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/shona-people-soul-africa
Note that while they lived in isolated relatively self governing groups there was also an organised political state/states recognised as a source of central power.
One of Zimbabwe's problems has been differences between and Shona and Ndebele populations including mass killings and allegations of what might be termed ethnic cleansing.
I'm really not clear how that differs in principle from what has happened in former Yugoslavia.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 18 Nov 17 at 15:12
|
|
Similar to a clan, yes maybe. But to a nation, no I don't think so. At least, not the way we usually mean nation or nationality.
|
>> Similar to a clan, yes maybe. But to a nation, no I don't think so.
>> At least, not the way we usually mean nation or nationality.
The Zulu in particular had what seems to be a nation or country. Ditto the Shona and Ndebele before the British Empire. The reason for ZANU and ZAPU being separate organisations was largely around that split.
But at end of day we might just have to agree to differ.
|
Agreeing to differ is hardly the point of a forum. Equally there is little value or interest in discussing stuff with people you agree with.
I think we don't use either tribe or nationality correctly and the incorrect uses of each overlaps the incorrect uses of the other.
|
At least this time Bob did not fall asleep in front of the cameras but what a performance.
I watched it and the Churchilian voice made it worse
It was interesting to see the reporters really scrabbling to cover what none expected to happen.
Many folks will need a translation plus a dictionary to understand what he was on about.
Of course he should have gone but it seems the army is now in the clear and he is in a bigger hole.
So many years of ruling his way has ensured he ignores the obvious in front of him.
|
>> Where is henry k?
Good point. Last visited forum: Mon 20 Nov 2017
I'll drop him an email to see if he's ok.
|
It was inevitable, though Bob tried to pretend it wasn't happening.
But I hope no-one believes things will get better soon, especially if Emmerson Mnangagwa (aka "The Crocodile") returns.
|
At least it was bloodless and credit to the military for that (and I suspect influence from China).
Lets hope they move towards a fairer, freer country.
|
>> At least it was bloodless and credit to the military for that (and I suspect
>> influence from China).
>>
>> Lets hope they move towards a fairer, freer country.
>
Its not. The guy taking over is worse.
|
|
I don't know if he's worse, but he's certainly as bad.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 21 Nov 17 at 18:25
|
The Crocodile has been sworn in.
Emmerson Mnangagwa is Zimbabwe's new president. However, those hoping for change should remember Mugabe was his mentor; that he was security minister during the atrocities committed while Mugabe was in power; he has been described as an architect of Zimbabwe's economic collapse; he has a reputation for ruthlessness.
But he seems to see that he must engage with the West and he must now do something about Zimbabwe's economy. He is likely to get rid of the "indigenisation" laws, which require all companies to be owned at least 51% by black Zimbabweans, and take steps to secure foreign investment.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Fri 24 Nov 17 at 11:01
|
> But he seems to see that he must engage with the West and he must
>> now do something about Zimbabwe's economy. He is likely to get rid of the "indigenisation"
>> laws, which require all companies to be owned at least 51% by black Zimbabweans, and
>> take steps to secure foreign investment.
>>
More likely he is china's man, and will keep them happy.
|
>> More likely he is china's man, and will keep them happy.
He is and he will.
Which means he still has to get rid of the indigenisation laws.
When he sells the mines and the farms to the Chinese, they won't be happy to take 49%
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 24 Nov 17 at 11:52
|
>> Come back, Ian Smith :-)
Smiley noted but frankly the current situation is a direct consequence of the intransigence and racism of the UDI era.
|
|
I think it goes a lot further back than that.
|
>> I think it goes a lot further back than that.
Rhodes himself? :-)
|
|
The problem with all of these things is what happens when one tries to force one culture on top of another. It doesn't matter which cultures, it just doesn't work.
|
"The problem with all of these things is what happens when one tries to force one culture on top of another. It doesn't matter which cultures, it just doesn't work."
Quite bizarre ...... whenever I say that multiculturalism won't work, the sniffers leap out and cry 'racist'.
|
|
Multiculturalism is more one than one co-existing, surely? Not one forced over and on top of another?
|
"Multiculturalism is more one than one co-existing, surely? Not one forced over and on top of another?"
Multiculturalism is the dream but, sadly, history is the reality.
|
I don't really understand why you're bringing multiculturalism*, but since you want to; The truth of the matter is that the *only* solution to Zimbabwe's, and many other countries' issues, *IS* multiculturalism.
The various cultures involved, wherever they come from, need to co-exist.
*well, I do really, I just don't think its a very good reason, is it?
|
>> Quite bizarre ...... whenever I say that multiculturalism won't work, the sniffers leap out and
>> cry 'racist'.
You are right. Wont work. we need to send the scots back across the wall, the welsh back across the dyke, and the irish back across the sea at once.
|
"You are right. Wont work. we need to send the scots back across the wall, the welsh back across the dyke, and the irish back across the sea at once."
Are you including so-called 'travellers' in this proposal?
|
I don't know what "so-called" travellers are. Do you mean travellers?
Do-as-you-likeys should be dropped off a cliff somewhere, but people who simply travel as a way of life without abusing the rest of society should be able to do whatever and go wherever they wish, still abiding by the law, of course.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 22:07
|
"I don't know what "so-called" travellers are. Do you mean travellers?"
'Travellers' is a euphemism used to described a bunch of people who live by their culture of doing what they like. They have their culture, and it doesn't appear to meet your approval. We are living in a multicultural society, so we should learn to love them....... shouldn't we?
|
I don't really understand your question. Could you explain a bit more clearly?
I've never used the phrase "so-called travellers", so I wasn't sure what you meant. I can't say your subsequent mumblings have helped much, and I still don't know what you mean - don;t see the connection between travelling and doing what you like. one seems rather wider than the other.
Still, if you could help me understand what it is you want to know or are confused about, then I will try to answer any questions you have.
Did you manage to get the difference between multiculturalism and forcing one culture on top of another sorted out in your mind? I know you weren't clear before.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 22:23
|
You said ......
"The problem with all of these things is what happens when one tries to force one culture on top of another. It doesn't matter which cultures, it just doesn't work."
Forcing one culture on top of another is multiculturalism - and you are saying that it doesn't work. I agree.
|
So what happened about travelling? And as for multiculturalism, I didn't say it wouldn't work, I said it was essential.
Sorry, I'm clearly not in a very bright mood today, you've lost me completely. Perhaps you need someone more of similar intellectual level to yourself? It might help the conversation run more smoothly perhaps.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 22:35
|
"Sorry, I'm clearly not in a very bright mood today,"
Clearly, you aren't. Zero suggested sending the Irish back across the sea, and I asked (tic) if this would include the so-called travellers (aka do as they likeys).
BTW - your idea of dropping them off a cliff because you don't agree with their culture seems a bit brutal.
BTW2 - I don't give frownies.
|
Still don't know what a "so called traveller" is.
Who said anything about dropping a particular culture off a cliff? Why would you do that? I don't understand why you are so obsessed with different cultures.
Dropping a bad behaviour off a cliff, on the other hand, seems entirely appropriate.
But I'm sure you're quite aware of the difference. You're just flogging a dead horse.
|
>> Smiley noted but frankly the current situation is a direct consequence of the intransigence and racism of the UDI era.
After 30 or more years? - Come on!
Could it not be fiercely tribal (or even parochial) nature of the indigenous peoples?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 21:36
|
>> Could it not be fiercely tribal (or even parochial) nature of the indigenous peoples?
Yup probably, not helped of by the arrival of fiercely tribal, and very parochial non indigenous white colonialists
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 19:36
|
Can't say I miss Mugabe,from a white colonial mess he managed to make the situation even worse for his own black peoples future.
Multiculturalism such a long complex word.Does it work? I'm not clever enough to answer that question whit a few short sentences.The Brexit vote was that about multicultirism? or just we want immigrants out except the people with a top job and highly educated.
Could be a long discussion about who we really are and what we want for the human race.Sorry to jump in just a interesting discussion.
|
>> Could it not be fiercely tribal (or even parochial) nature of the indigenous peoples?
Tribalism and the nationalism and racial superiority you espouse are, if not twins, than at least first cousins.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 26 Nov 17 at 10:05
|
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wdl7t
This was re-broadcast this afternoon. Excellent crammer on the history of Mugabe's rise to power.
|
Good News ? Bad News ? - sooty123
