"In Zimbabwe, and only because of the color line arising from British colonialism, 70 percent of the best arable land is owned by less than 1 percent of the population who happen to be white, while the black majority are congested on barren land. We have sought to redress this inequity through a land reform and resettlement program [that will result in] economic and social justice."
President Robert Mugabe used that rationale to justify the siezure of thousands of large, white-owned farms in Zimbabwe over the last decade.
Is seizing white-owned farms and transfering ownship to black Zimbabweans fair? Why? Why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This "land reform" is indeed fair, since it is quite simply splitting up the land into equal parts for evryone. However, this is a racial issue, and I wonder whether Mugabe would have gone through with plan had whites been congested on barren land. Color aside, giving everyone an equal share of land is fair and beneficial to the country's welfare.
ReplyDeleteThe seizing of white owned property is not fair because it is not fair to treat others just because of the color of their skin or the amount of land they own. However I could see why the president would be angry because the blacks are not living as well as the whites were in Zimbabwe.
ReplyDeleteIt is not fair. Even though the "whites" were in control of almost all of the farmland, it was not right for the Zimbabweans to seize their land. The Zimbabweans should have given the whites proper warning, and should not have made them have to flee. Yes, the ownership should have been distributed evenly; however, there should not have been a distinction between white and black Zimbabweans. Distinctions between the two should have been lost in the past, and should not even be mentioned now. Also, there was no plan that was made; black Zimbabweans simply came in and seized the land. They did not think of what they would have to do afterward. The white owned farms provided the country with enough food so that the economy would be able to remain relatively stable. After the whites fleed their farms, no one occupied them. Even more, Zimbabwe has chased away money donors from Britain and other European countries as well as the United States. These countries do not want to donate money to the country after having whites being killed and forced to flee.
ReplyDeleteYes, but Nick and Annelies, one must understand that the land that was seized was farmland, and in order to sustain the economy, the farmlands needed to be maintained. They were not, and the country suffered. It was okay to split up the land, but it should have been done in a more orderly fashion, rather than just scaring off the whites.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the people shouldn't have been able to steal the white-owned farms. This was completely unfair and the whites owned this land. I think the whites should've just sold the land to the blacks at cheap prices, then there wouldn't have been slaughter. The president had pretty much told the blacks that it was okay to steal from others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Annelies and Nick's statements. While this land reform could be considered racial, I believe President Mugabe was simply trying to divide the land equally among everyone. On the other hand, the decision to seize the white-owned farms and give them to Zimbabweans could have been decided based on the well-being of the black population. Ultimately, I believe the land reform was unfair because it was, in essence, stealing the white's land and giving it to Zimbabweans who didn't necessarily deserve it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Annelies, by doing this it will increase the country's welfare and things should be done with the best interest of the country. This may seem unfair to the white people but the rest of the population has been treated unfair for so many of the past years and I think it is a good time for things to be balanced off after so long of having one race/group of people take control of something so vital for the country.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Zimbabweans shouldn't devide and seize the white's farmland by force. This was completely unfair to the whites who owned the land and the main provider of food in Zimbabwe for so many years. The Zimbabweans didn't have the ability after to grow crops after gainning the farmland which eventually made the country suffered extreme food scarcity. It may seemed unfair for the Zimbabweans to get all the terrible farmland, but at least the whites could provide food for the country.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Annelies because this sort of thing may sound like it makes sense, but to me it sounds like communism, which is almost proven not to work. Splitting up the land like it is government owned and giving parts of it to others is just like communism and is completely different from the Capitalistic Ideal situation. Capitalism may sound more selfish, but it works very well for the economy. Also, doing this has not helped the economy, but has only made it worse, this shouldnt be about specific people, but the economy as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Zimbabwein's had every rite to take the farm land because after all we are intruding on there land and we are at fault. it isn't fair that we get to come in push them back and get the good farm land they should have at least bought it from us though for we were living here and how would you feel.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with Jason. The white's have been their for over a century now and consider Zimbabwe home. For Mugabe's supporters to simply deny them home is simply outrageous. The white farmers were the main source of food and boosted much of Zimbabwe's economy. Though Imperialism did take away this land from its original owners, it does not make any sense to just simply take back everything that the white's have worked so hard to create and destroy it.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is just for the people of Zimbabwe people to regain ownership from the white people who have taken it. It had always belonged to the locals but now it is taken from them by the white English people. The British do not have any say in the government of Zimbabwe. If white people had died because they did not give the farm land to the locals it was their fault. They new the risk of going against the majority of people, they did not do the smart thing and get out of the way. Hopefully in a few years time Zimbabwe can produce products and grow their economy.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not believe that stealing the locals british descended people land is right. Just because their family has taken wealth years and years before does not dictate that they should have there lives stolen and reduced just because they had more than anyone else. THey do not deserve this fate of being driven out of their home and farms just because they have more than others, and also because of their skin color.
ReplyDeleteIt was unfair for the Mugabe to seize the land from European-decendents farmers, it did not benefit anyone. Yes, the British that moved there during the age of imperialism did not 'own' the land, but their decendents have lived there for centuries and used those lands well. They grew enough crops to keep the country running. After Mugabe siezed the land by force, the local Africans did not have enough knowledge in farming, the lands went into waste and the whole country became total chaos. This result is not fair to the European-decendents chased away from their land and home by force, and it was unfair to the not educated Africans who had to farm the land they had no idea how to, and suffer the consequences.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, these white-land owners DID own their land. Their great-grandfathers may have taken the land without paying for it, but the white farmers now had absolutely nothing to do with that! Over the generations the land became the white's property, and if the blacks didn't want the whites to own this land, then they should have taken action when the whites first started colonizing the area. I agree with basically everyone else on here, seizing the white's land was a rediculous action.
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to divide the land, i dont think they should take all of their land. It wasn't fair to the locals/natives for the whites to get their land free of charge. It is rightfully the locals. They should come up with an agreement to peacefully split it, instaed of forcefully taking it away.
ReplyDeleteThe land belonged to the whites, yet it was unfair to the majority of the population allow 1% of the population own 70% of the best land. However forcefully driving the whites out was a move and unfair. The black Zimbabwe citizens should have done a "sharecropping" deal with the white citizens, where both sides profit from working with each other.
ReplyDeleteI like how Jack brought up the idea of this situation being a little bit like communism. The government tried to please everyone by stealing farmland from its rightful owners. However, it did not work, for the land was not distributed amongst the people, rather the farms were left untended to.
ReplyDeleteThese people that have all the big farms in Zimbabwe are not the original settlers that came from England. These people had been born and raised here, and whether the President thinks so or not these people are Zimbabweans in their eyes. SOmething should have been done before when the whites first colonized, or President Mugabe should have asked the whites that owned the land to share or leave. Seizing the land did no one any good, the crops died, the whites were doomed basically, and now the Zimbabweans are worse off then they were before. The President was not thinking when he decided to seize the land.
ReplyDelete