Lessons From Zimbabwe

Tyler Durden's picture

Simon Black's Sovereign Man is currently covering a topic that will be near and dear to all Americans' hearts if the Fed gets its way: Zimbabwe. Attached are his most recent thoughts and observations from the (Zimbabwean) field, and a summary of the political, monetary and overal social chaos that currently rules in the latest (but certainly not last) country to succumb to hyperinflation. The lesson to be learned: prepare for anything. Because nobody in Harare expected to wake up one day and see all their wealth gone.

What you never hear about in Zimbabwe

October 18, 2010
Harare, Zimbabwe

In the late 1800s, English businessman and serial eponymist Cecil Rhodes forcibly colonized a huge chunk of southern Africa on behalf of Great Britain that became known as Rhodesia.

Like other African colonies, Rhodesia was harshly segregated. By the mid-1900s, a series of black freedom movements began spreading across the continent, and one of the Rhodesian leaders was an educated, charismatic young man named Robert Mugabe.

Like Mandela in South Africa, Robert Mugabe was imprisoned for several years, a stint that did wonders for his political credibility. Upon release from prison, and with a little help from the international community, Mugabe became Prime Minister of the country.

He governed quite reasonably for the first several years, and if he had walked away from office early on, his legacy would likely be very similar to Mandela’s.

Addicted to his love for power, though, Mugabe stuck around too long and started derailing the economy. By the time he sent his military to go fight in the Second Congo War in 1998, his country was nearly bankrupt. This gave rise to the land theft and hyperinflation for which Zimbabwe is now so renowned.

Today, Mugabe is in his mid-80s and has ruled for decades.  Despite the reputation that he has achieved as a ruthless and corrupt dictator, though, many locals still revere Mugabe for standing up to the whites and helping to win their independence.

The majority of the country, however, is ready to move on from Mugabe, and one of the leaders who has emerged is Morgan Tsvangirai (pronounced Changarai), head of Zimbabwe’s “Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party.

As you probably recall, Tsvangirai was himself imprisoned by Mugabe, and upon release, he too became the country’s Prime Minister through a 2008 power sharing agreement that was brokered by Thabo Mbeki of South Africa.

The thing is, most Zimbabweans don’t think he’s going to last. Mugabe has not honored the power sharing agreement, effectively preventing Tsvangirai from governing.  Rather than dealing with the issue directly, though, Tsvangirai has gone back to the international community for help.

This makes him look very weak in Zimbabwe, and the country’s institutions have little loyalty or respect for him.  Once Mugabe finally kicks the bucket, many locals expect a power struggle among his top lieutenants, and they don’t believe that Tsvangirai is strong enough to win.

Regardless, western media have been quick to anoint Tsvangirai as man who will lead Zimbabwe into the future, and investment funds have been even quicker to move capital into the country.

To be clear, the worst is likely over for Zimbabwe.  Mugabe already destroyed agriculture and chased the mining companies away, so the economy is now trying to find its legs. Most of the ingredients for success are there, though– a solid pool of labor, massive resource wealth, and available capital.

All Zimbabwe really needs is a reasonably functioning government, and this is the bet that foreign investors are making.  Right now it’s a fairly crowded room– there are a LOT of investors taking this bet. Given the post-Mugabe future that many locals expect, though, the bet could be painful at first.

In the long run, I think the country will succeed… but for now, it does provide an important lesson.

We often talk about the boiling frog analogy– like a frog sitting comfortably in a pot of water that’s being slowly brought to boil, people let their political leadership slowly, gradually take control over the country… until one day they realize they’ve boiled and can’t even recognize the place.

Throughout the mid-1980s and early 1990s, Zimbabwe was a clear example of the boiling frog analogy; Mugabe imposed lengthy states of emergency and frequently turned the military against his own people. In the same period, he closed schools, banned homosexuality, and began small redistribution of farmland.

Once Zimbabwe reached its boiling point, the government assumed nearly limitless authority and frequently imposed drastic changes overnight.

Perhaps the starkest example is what happened to Zimbabwe’s currency. And no, I’m not talking about the period of hyperinflation when a suitcase full of cash bought you the week’s groceries, I’m talking about what happened afterwards.

You don’t ever hear too much about this.

In early 2009, the government of Zimbabwe finally capitulated– they realized they simply couldn’t print enough zeros in order to keep up with the hourly price changes in the country… and in the blink of an eye, they did away with their currency.

Today, Zimbabwe no longer has its own currency. The country effectively deals in cash only, in foreign currencies. Merchants take whatever they can get– US dollars, euro, South African rand, etc.

When the government abandoned the currency, though, there was no warning. Anyone holding Zimbabwe dollars was robbed of their savings overnight– there was no national program to convert Zim dollars into something else, the currency simply became unusable.

Quite literally, people in Zimbabwe woke up in the morning and found whatever savings they were holding in cash and bank accounts was no longer a valid medium of exchange… and some folks lost everything.

I think there is an important lesson here: We can all observe the warning signs, and while there’s no need to rush into panicked reactions, measured preparations are critical.

As a perpetual optimist, I’m certainly not predicting the end of the world or some sort of Armageddon… but it would be irresponsible to ignore the current and future threats to our capital, our liberties, and our families’ safety.

The warning signs are there, the problems are identified, and the solutions exist. All that’s required is the will to act– to get educated about the tools that are available and put a plan together.

I’d really like to hear from you– what lessons do you see from Zimbabwe, and what sort of plan do you think is right for you and your family?

h/t Robert

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
dlmaniac's picture

Measured preparation: Gold and silver, bitchez!!

Mako's picture

There are no lessons that have been learned.... people have been doing this for 1000s of years.  There is no avoiding the unavoidable once you took this path. 

All you printers stopped printing in 2007, now we will go from one crisis to another because you stopped printing.  You are the printer, once the printers stop then it's collapse and liquidation time.


Geoff-UK's picture

"...in more dire need of a blowjob than any man alive."


Zon's picture

i don't know about that happening to us...i know i know the whole "it cant happen to us thing" is pretty ridiculous but just look at bears track record so far this fall, we had a horrible august and september and october have been an absolute meltup, i except QE2 to just continue this meltup, there is no way the elites will let this system collapse.

masterinchancery's picture

"There is no way the elites will let this system collapse." That is what the saps always say, and once the money printing gets serious, the system ALWAYS collapses--the elites having moved into gold and foreign currencies in advance.

Oh, I know, this time it will be different.

What_Me_Worry's picture

They will probably still be screaming, "you cannot have hyperinflation when you are the reserve currency" even after the FRN is abandoned by everyone, everywhere.

midtowng's picture

A Zimbabwe future is still many years in the future. However, that doesn't mean you can't start allocating your wealth into inflation-proof investments now, such as PMs and farmland.

technovelist's picture

A Zimbabwe future is still many years in the future. However, that doesn't mean you can't start allocating your wealth into inflation-proof investments now, such as PMs and farmland.

Did you even read the article? How did investments in farmland work out for the whites in Rhodesia?

FEDbuster's picture

The overthrow of white rule in Rhodesia resulting in Zimbabwe is a different topic.  Suffice to say it did not work out well for the white farmers and ranchers, or the majority of blacks living in the Country. 

Mugabe and Co. took a wealthy, functioning country and turned it into the hell hole it is today.  An interesting poll of older residents would be "Are you better off now under "black" rule or when you were under "white" rule?"

Shameful's picture

This is simply amazing!  But then I'm a sucker for old Gideon, nothing like a little prayer at the central bank meeting.  "Sweet merciful Jesus, please make this work!"

tsx500's picture

     W A R

caconhma's picture

"Today, Zimbabwe no longer has its own currency."

It is very interesting:

  • The "legitimate" government of Zimbabwe behaves like it is a gang of bandits 
  • The present South African government supports Mugabe's brand of "democracy". The same is true for the Obama administration.
  • Finally, the Western Democracies provide Mugabe bandits with means and assistance to hide the loot stolen from Zimbabwe people.
zaknick's picture






In July, 1944, during World War II, economist John Maynard Keynes of England, and Harry Dexter White of the United States, organized the United Nation’s Monetary and Financial Conference (or Bretton Woods Conference) in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to lay out a plan for stabilizing the world economy. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed; and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and International Monetary Fund were established. In the early 1960’s, the American economy began declining, and the international situation became unbalanced again. On August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced a new economic policy. The dollar was devalued, and its convertibility to gold was suspended. He initiated a 90-day wage price freeze, stimulative tax and spending cuts, and placed a temporary 10% tariff on most U.S. imports. Japan and Western Europe were pressured into relaxing their trade barriers, in order to give the United States more access to them; and Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were requested to decrease the flow of goods and textiles into the country. These moves offered relief to the country’s economic woes, but was an indication that Nixon was retreating from the global policies which were formulated during the 1960’s.



Very interesting, highly documented.

The Monkey's picture

What if the good ol' US dollar is our best bet?

The Monkey


Oracle of Kypseli's picture
  1. Get rid of all debt.
  2. If your debt is too high and can't pay it, stratigically default. (feeding your family is sacred)
  3. From whatever you have, keep 60% cash, 40% gold and silver
  4. Keep cash in the bank only for your monthly bills and needs
  5. Hide a safe in the house. Wrap the cash and PM's with a welding blanket (good to 1800 degrees F) before you put in the safe http://www.steelguardsafety.com/welding-blankets.htm?gclid=CLmM4JKN3qQCFctL5QodVihNGg (buy the white silica)
  6. Stock on food and water for 6-12 months,
  7. Get two or three good quality bicycles. (One should have a detachable cargo carrier) 
  8. Stay with one car, preferably diesel, retrofitted with extra diesel tank.
  9. Tell no one
  10. Keep a low profile, work hard, love your wife and hug your children often.
  11. Guns and god are optional as you wish.
  12. Join the movement to re-install a constitutional government

The rational on 60/40 on cash to PM's is that if the dollar plunges say 50% gold and silver will most likely triple. So far you are ahead. If the dollar limps along without major setbacks, then no worries.


dark pools of soros's picture

who cares about money - a bj is still worth a night's rent...  build out the rest of the economy from there

Oracle of Kypseli's picture

You may have to spend lots of money in drinks to get rid of the after-taste.

strannick's picture


Im only telling you guys this cause I like you. Get a sailboat, some fishing tackle, few crab traps, and a star to steer by. Its a big ocean out there. You could be heeled over for weeks before seeing a soul, with nothing but to see God in His splendors, in the text that nature renders. Leave the riots, prisons and  ghettos to the fiat fetishists.

patience...'s picture

Totally agree, been there. If the SHTF bad enough I'll find a cheap boat.

dussasr's picture

I've been thinking about that.  However, I think it might be better to work with my family, friends, and neighbors for mutual assistance and defense - have to help/convince them to prepare in advance.

A guy in a boat is very alone (lonely) and also very vunerable to pirates who will flourish if the feces hit the fan blades.

patience...'s picture

I've got a stack of 50 trillion dollar Zimbabwe bills which I hand out.

If the people of Zimbabwe were caught off guard when their money became 

worthless, what can you say.

Dr. Acula's picture

>All Zimbabwe really needs is a reasonably functioning government

Please stop propagating this fallacy.

People do of course need security and arbitration services, but those can be provided easily through a free market by entrepeneurs seeking profit opportunities and striving to satisfy consumer demands. And a free market yields services at better prices and better quality than monopoly services provided by a bunch of corrupt government thugs in exchange for "protection money".

In practice, all the government can do is steal 30% of your paycheck and then fail to actually protect you when someone mugs you on the street. And even if they could protect you, it is logically a farce for a government to claim to be protecting your property rights while at the same time threatening to kindap or shoot you for not paying subscription fees.

Really, the only time governments are better at doing security than freely acting individuals is when the governments are busy securing people in ovens.

As empirical evidence, note how Somalia's people are a lot better off now that they aren't human chattel under the yoke of a bunch of violent sociopath politicians:



midtowng's picture

Excuse me? When the violent politicians left, the violent warlords took their place. Same thing happened in Afghanistan. It always happens that way.

No one is going to respect your property rights if the government doesn't exist.

Clancy's picture

I hope I end up with a good warlord.  I really do.

If I'm dissatisfied with my warlord can I quit and go be subjugated by a different one?  Doesn't sound like such a terrible system to be honest.

Dr. Acula's picture

> When the violent politicians left, the violent warlords took their place.

I wonder where you are getting your information from, or if you are just spouting off. Property rights in Somalia are enforced based on the rule of law:


"Law and, consequently crime, are defined in terms of property rights....Also, since the law and crime are defined in terms of property rights, the Xeer is unequivocal in its opposition to any form of taxation.[6]

See http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

"on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government"

"Under statelessness life expectancy in Somalia has grown, access to health facilities has increased, infant mortality has dropped, civil liberties have expanded, and extreme poverty (less than $1 PPP/day) has plummeted. In many parts of the country even security has improved. In these areas citizens are safer than they’ve been in three decades (UNDP 2001). Somalia is far from prosperous, but it has made considerable strides since its government collapsed 15 years ago."

moneymutt's picture

you have two choices, a reasonably strong govt that is responsive to the people, of the people, by the people or cede power to someone else, warlords, gang leaders, mafiaso's, dictators, oligarchy, cartels, one party rule or whatever you call what China is, royalty etc...rich elites banksters calling the shots can be just as tyrannical as a king, roving gangs can be just as dangerous as undemocratic govt....

either people band together in a union and enact laws democratically and enforce them uniformly, equally for the most common good and common wealth, or they let some one else take charge. Corrupt govt is a problem. That does not mean anarchy, no govt is not a problem. What is your alternative to a local police force beholden to the local people? Private security companies? What happens when the richest guy in town hires more security than everyone else and then murders his business competitor and walks away with his security guys at his side.

Two choices: strong govt responsive to people or someone else, other than the people, in charge. I would rather unite and reclaim power under the control of people than disband, let everyman fight alone and let some thugs take over.

Dr. Acula's picture

>What happens when the richest guy in town hires more security than everyone else and then murders his business competitor and walks away with his security guys at his side.

Then they will be viewed as gang of criminals, and they will be ostracized. If they are professional security companies, they will lose most of their customers to other eager providers. I certainly wouldn't do business with criminals and pay for their criminal acts.

But of course you're only talking about 1 measly death. Unfortunately, when the US causes 1 million innocent Iraqis to die, I can't just stop being a customer of their "protection" services.

In other words, your argument seems to be that anarchy must be bad, because bad people would do bad things under it. But somehow you completely overlook the bad things, like mass genocides, that governments orchestrate. You are so worried about the splinter in your neighbor's eye, that you don't perceive the log in your own.


moneymutt's picture

"Then they will be viewed as gang of criminals, and they will be ostracized. If they are professional security companies, they will lose most of their customers to other eager providers. I certainly wouldn't do business with criminals and pay for their criminal acts." The richest, most well armed guy couldn't take over? The richest guy can't bribe enough of the young strong men in town, or other private security companies to look other way when he is doing bad, or to work directly for him. Private companies and private parties are immune to corruption, only govt employees can be corrupted? And if all the other people, who don't like one rich guy calling all the shots, get fed up band together and hire a tough "private" security guy and they task the private "sheriff" to enforce laws equally, objectively for all as a way for the most of the peaceful, law-abiding types to agree to support this private sheriff guy...is that essentially a govt? Who decides what sheriff is doing? Everyone that pays his salary. What is the union of the majority of citizens hiring the sheriff but semi-democratic govt.

What happens in failed states like Afghanistan and Somalia, ungoverned territories of countries run by drug gangs etc? Often strong men and war lords, or drug kingpin takes over. And they do make excursions into other lands, cause trouble outside their own domains, while picking on their own people too. The only hope the people have, is to band together and create some sort of union to have strength to repel bad man. Now, is that to say, that govt itself can't become tyrannical, not at all, or is that saying the govt can't wreak havoc on others outside its borders, not at all.

I don't overlook the evil governments have caused, I'm well aware of it and frequently mention the genocide and slavery that founded the US in my blog commits, its just that I do not see democratically elected govts as the  ONLY source of all evil in the world.

Just like someone saying religion causes all wars, problems in the world. Some truth in that, religion is often used as way to foment masses to fight when they otherwise wouldn't bother. There are religious pinnings to many conflicts, Israel/Palestine,  No Ireland, Crusades, even US "manifest destiny" had some religion in it. But was US vietnam war about religion? Did W convince US to attack Saddam/Iraq because of religion...not really. Hitler did not get people to fight for religion. Was US civil war about religion.

In same way, you seem to see everything bad due to govt. While I see that people organized thru regimes can do great harm, I do not see formalized democratic govts as the only source of harm and not any source of good, just as I can see both bad and good in religion and can see religion not only source of all bad in the world even tho admittedly, religion has caused much bad.

If everyone is man for himself, or tribe for himself, strong man can most always do take power. Many of the best, most representative government/regimes this world has known have be created because loose, alone people got tired of getting run over by marauders or oppressed people threw off oppressor and replace with a strong union, that could stand against marauders or oppressor in a way that individuals, or un-united tribes could not. Early Islam created such a union that created peace within and had an army to protect from outsiders, and the success of the union expanded those that found it better to part of union than outside it. Iroquois nation that our constitution was partially based on had a similar evolution, unionize to stop brutal killing amongst people and to provide safety and security from the outside.

Genocide and slavery can and has been committed by all forms of people. War lords to democratic governments Did the mongols raid and imperialise because they had government, rather it seems the raided and imperialized that led to them forming a govt. Did the vandals and Visigoths attack Rome because they formed a government?

It is far more common in these days of corrupt and tyrannical government to see the evil of supposed democratic governments than to consider the problems of the flip side of not having a government, both are issues, and in my mind its a question of moderation...enough government to police, keep peace, ensure liberty of individuals from harm that others might wreak if unrestrained while not too much strength to govt that it becomes unresponsive to people, becomes tyrannical or corrupt. But no govt, IMO, is not a viable solution.

Ben Fleeced's picture

"Then they will be viewed as gang of criminals, and they will be SHOT".



"Fortunately, when the US saves 1 million innocent Iraqis..."

fixed again


2004 AP:

"Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies".

Reminded you.

Your welcome

Dreamwalker420's picture

What's most important to the Zimbabwe story is their insistance that the nation's currency cannot and should not be controlled by banks.

When their Supreme Court returned stolen property to the heirs of slaves, it set off a massive backlash from whites all over the globe "warning" of dire consequences should this type of power-shift catch on elsewhere.

To be clear, the land was stolen by white settlers, and the black farmers were taken hostage and sold into slavery.  400 years later, the court ruled that the land was illegally taken and the descendents of the slaves were the rightful owners of the land.

Imagine the United States Supreme Court ruling something similar?

Foreign capital fled Zimbabwe, and the Bank of International Settlements started a regime to break the government.  By resetting exchange rates to ridiculous pairings ... the Zimbabwe government became blackballed on the international economy.  Food prices soared leading to social unrest and the starvation of millions.  Whose at fault, Mugabe or the international bankers?

Mugabe survived the challenge to his rule by use of the military to protect the fragile new government he wanted for his country.  Much the same way the United States CIA executes American citizens that it considers to be an enemy of the state.  All governments seek to retain power.

Is Mugabe a thug?  Perhaps.  But he has demonstrated that a nation can survive the bloodbath of currency manipulation that paved the way for Iran to challenge the BIS and now China and Brazil look poised to end dollar hegemony within the next few years.

I live in America.  I love all the blessings that come from the victories of two world wars and two centuries of ingenuity and innovation.  The central bank and fractional reserve banking are at the heart of dollar hegemony ... it is the silver spoon I use to eat with.

Zimbabwe's story is one of tragedy and brilliance.  When history is written, many will forget the challenge to the international banks unless the dollar collapses and the people rise victorious from the last remnants of slavery's legacy on the world.

Debt equates to slavery.


Anarchist's picture

This is the real story of what happened to Zimbabwe. Not the fairy tales told by the corporate press and many posters on this forum. The story is also being played out in many countries where European immigrants refuse to yield back power to the indigenous populations. Mugabe may be a thug who keeps his clan in power but he is not responsible for all that ailes Zimbabwe. The West has done everything it can to cripple Zimbabwe's currency thus causing the hyperinflation.

The big fly in the ointment of the European and American plans to cripple Zimbabwe and retake control of it's vast resources is China. The Chinese have ruined the plans of the West to take control of Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, Myanmar ...etc. China uses it's soft power to cut commodity deals with these countries. As always the Western powers try to use military or banking/currency means to steal resources from the third world.

Snidley Whipsnae's picture


" As always the Western powers try to use military or banking/currency means to steal resources from the third world."

Yes, and it is presented as 'free trade'. As Chevez said a while back "We want fair trade, not free trade". The IMF and world bankers plunder rescources and turn developing countries into debt slaves under the guise of 'free trade'.

moneymutt's picture

thank you, these things are always more complicated than the stories MSM reports. What is common knowledge about Weimar and Zim hyperinflation is very limited, the complete story is much more interesting, muddy.

The West is excellent at picking and choosing thugs. The treatment US media gave Saddam, after he invaded Kuwait, not before, could be given to almost every leader in the world...including the West..the way we think of Saddam gassing the Kurds is the way some Pakistani thinks of us using drones to assassinate suspects in their country, on very shaky at best evidence.

We could say China is a thug because of what they have done to ethnic minorities like Uyghars, Tibetans, and we would be right. We are thugs, we complain about Iran's leader attitude to Israel, trying to get nukes, stealing elections but when Iran had a good nationalistic, democratically elected popular leader, Mossadeq, who was doing exactly what he was elected to do, demanding much higher return on foreign oil companies taking their oil, the CIA among others took him out and installed the Shah. Where Iran be now if we had not done that.

A Televangelist close to W says Hugo Chavez should be assassinated. Why, because he is a thug, not really...are we really concerned their elections might not be totally fair, what, does China have fair elections, Russia, do we say their leaders should be assassinated? No, someone is told to sully Chavez to his followers because of his economic policies.

Its funny no matter how much of a thug you are no one cares until you fight Western bankers. But even if you are not a thug, you are called out for assassination if you make a challenge to Western economics.

So whenever someone in West says something is bad because a thug is doing it, I tend to look closer and see what real story is.

I want to know from this author who exactly had any wealth in the form of Zim dollars when they cancelled the currency... after Mugabe defaulted on foreign debt by hyper-inflating, how did anyone with cash have cash wealth left?. What, did some one buy Zim TIPS and was the only person that could accumulate Zim dollars as quickly as the inflated?

ZH itself posted an article about how Zim was doing okay now as it was a country without debt, private or public. Hyperinflation defaulted everything, it was painful jubilee. That is what we should be hearing about. What was the good and the bad of that. Was that better than 30 years of austerity paying off IMF? What does that do for future security?

People, lets think, not let Western elite and banksters tell us who to love and hate, what works and doesn't. Most countries, including US, have done thuggish and tyrannical things, that does not make these things right, all people, all over the world should be fighting tyranny, corruption, but we also have to be grown up and see the bad in all forms and not just selectively.

zaknick's picture

Brave soul, and the dirt goes much deeper.


"It is dangerous to right when the gov is wrong."

Sabremesh's picture

You are either very cynical or deeply stupid. Mugabe's confiscation of legally acquired property was a travesty of any modern concept of justice. The fact that these working farms were given to Mugabe's cronies ("the descendants of slaves" lol, you fucking idiot) who then ran them into the ground was not a glorious chapter in the emancipation of Africa, but a fundamental reason why Zimbabwe collapsed. Zimbabwe went from being a self-sufficient, food exporting nation to an economic basket case, and no amount of historical revisionism by the cynical or the ignorant will change that. 

moneymutt's picture

so outside treatment of Zim by banksters had nothing to do with the fate of its economy?

Should the descendants of thieves have anymore right to the country's wealth than descandents of slaves? Both their ancestors worked the land hard all their lives, both their ancestors have long been in the country.

Traditiaonl property rights were ignored and wiped out by military force when a group of foreign ethnic minorities took over the land from native people, then and only then, property rights become sacred? Why do we have to respect property rights established of 200-300 years ago when whites arrived and took land but not respect property rights from 400 years ago? Do we just respect the most recent theft, over the slightly older traditional assignment of land of native people. By that standard, Mugabe's taking is most recent. Mugabe took the land in no different way than Rhodes, so I guess we should respect Mugabes taking as much as Rhodes, no? If we shouldn't respect Mugabe's taking, why should we respect Rhodes' taking? If we should respects Rhodes taking because it is long established, why did Rhodes get to ignore naitve ownership long established before him. Or, if we are just respecting property rights of those that worked the land for generations, who worked harder, longer on the land, the white owners or the black slaves/servants?

Not saying Mugabe was right, not saying redistributing land recklessly was not distruptive but there is more to it than just that. There were distuptions from foreign influence, banksters etc.


zaknick's picture

It's true, war was declared on Zimbabwe's economy by the banksters and their brethren in England. Thank God for China. Imagine the Rhodesian masters reinstalled, colonialism put back in place, during our times?  Outrageous yet that is what some morons here are arguing for.

tmosley's picture

Your comments show the gulf of ignorance that is your mind.

Whites conquered Zimbabwe 120 years ago, not 400.  Slavery was NOT instituted, nor was land seizure.  The only seizure that took place was the seizure of Royal property, which was illegitimate anyways (no government should own such property).  Black farmers were left alone, and their land was bought up by whites.  They used their more advanced knowledge of horticulture to make Zimbabwe into the breadbasket of Africa.

Honestly, your dumb shit collectivism is what is destroying the world.  If you had your way, everyone would be dead because no-one has any right to any land, because everyone conquered and was driven from every speck of land on the planet at some point or another in their history.  But no, I guess when you have a nice, simple identifier like skin color, you can just use that and presume that their ancestors stole the land.  Likewise, I guess that I can just assume that any black person I see in America is a drug dealer, because that conforms to my prejudice.


moneymutt's picture

If you want to convince me of something, calling me ignorant would be better than dumb shit moron...there is much I am uneducated in, and if lacking in facts, more than happy to learn them but I don't think I'm dumb or a moron...I'd be eager to learn more...

So almost all land owned by whites in modern, say up to the 80s, in Zimbabwe was taken gradually by buying it fair market value from original owners, natives?

How were the borders of the country established? Was the land owned collectively, by families or was there established cultural rules regarding various rights to land (rules about who could hunt, farm, water rights etc...I know there was many traditional ways around the world to deal with property rights that differed greatly with Western methods, what was enforced in Zimbabwe?)

You are right on this, I know almost nothing about Zimbabwe, I was just questioning the logic of selectively enforcing property rights, and thru back some contradictions.

I do know in South African there was massive, straight taking of land fairly recently (within last 50 years) from traditional black homelands along, say nice coastal lands which was then transferred to white developers, and these people were re-settled in horrible inland camps/squatter cities with little amenities and no just compensation for land taken


Maybe what was done in Zimbabwe in terms of whites settling was way better than what whites settling everywhere else did, I'd be eager to learn about this.

But everywhere else I have read up on, including US, land was taken from natives in all sorts of unjust ways, and there was little to no compensation. Yes, people signed contracts at point of gun, or yes, treaty was signed by a chief who actually did not represent people that owned that land, etc...My great grandparents "homesteaded" land in North Dakota that is to this day, right along side an Indian reservation....which was "given" to to them simply by them settling it, of course it was not an option the Indians had to simply live on land and it automatically became theirs.My great grandparents had the only slip of land surrounding a lake that was not on Indian reservation, so their land was the only part around the lake that was not still in the hands of the native people of that area and I remember my grandmother and her siblings saying when they were kids on the homestead...they complained that the Indians acted like they owned the lake :).

And I am no collectivist, that you assume this is an interesting tell about you. I am simply questioning what seemed to be uneven, inconsistent respect of property rights and the over-simplification that all harm to Zimbabwe was all due to Mugabe.

Also, I'm not so sure a foreign army occupying a country and taking land is suddenly okay if the only land taken is royalty's land. Since royal people shouldn't have had land, foreigners should instead? If US took all of Saddam's palaces and gave the land to Americans settling in Iraq because "that land shouldn't have been Saddam's anyway" I don't think Iraqi's would think that was right. And if Russians cam and took British royalty's lands, and gave it to other Russians, don't think even the most ardent anti-royalists would agree that made it okay.

james_45's picture

I'm going to go with deeply stupid.....

zaknick's picture

Bullshit. The best farmland (that exporting powerhouse you so laud) were in the hands of white colonialists who had stolen it during the time of Rhodesia. Why shouldn't they throw them out and seize it?

Legally acquired property....righttttt.

tmosley's picture

Hey, your ancestors seized the house you live in.  Imma gonna seize it and give it back to the Indians--not the indians that used to live there, but indians that happen to be my friends, because all whites are the same, and all indians are the same.  If you resist, I'll shoot you.

What's that?  You legally have a right to live where you are?  Riiiight...