Masimba Musodza wrote: "The reason why the government was not keen to push for the land grabbing was that however painful this might be to African pride, the white farmers were doing a better job on the farms than many Blacks. It is true that even on the semi-arid zones that Blacks were pushed in to they were roducing more and more food than ever before, more food in fact than the white farmers, it is the white farmers that brought in the badly needed foreign currency. So, although a sore thorn in the side of nationalist goals, the white farmers were the goose that laid the golden egg. In return for this position, they have stayed out of politics and stuck to business."

Masimba Musodza wrote: "A little more clarification; when I said that it hurts the African pride that the White farmers are doing a better job I meant that on the one hand all this talk about getting our land back is good for politics, but in the real world, replacing a modern farm run by machinery and sound business principles with little plots run by peasant families with hoes and plenty of time on their hands or by absentee Black noveau riche types will only lead to disaster. This is why although a number of African States have expressed solidarity with Zimbabwe on the land issue, they have been courting these same displaced white farmers to their countries. I think the reason they support Zimbabwe with their mouths is that they too resent Western interests in the matter. If the West was allowed to play judge, jury and executioner on Mugabe, then they would be no stopping them from doing the same to the other African States."

#

These two paragraphs show that one of us has a distorted perception of reality, so I would leave that for the readers to decide.

In the first paragraph you also said, "It is true that even on the semi-arid zones that Blacks were pushed in to they were roducing more and more food than ever before, more food in fact than the white farmers". [sic] This clearly shows that if the situation was fair, then these Black farmers could have done more with the better land. This fact is a great source of pride, and if someone does not understand the morality in reclaiming the land, then even from a basic understanding of what makes better economic sense, supporting the farmers who do more with less is the way to go.

The issues surrounding why the more productive Black farmers may not be able to bring in the "badly needed foreign currency" could shed light on the extent of racism in business dealings. It is all too common for people to feel that 'foreign currency' is that of the US and UK, and they fail to examine other trading partners. Certainly whites would have considered getting to 'profit' from stolen land and cheap Black labour as their golden egg, and in my view the golden egg for Blacks still resides in their personal abilities even when under tremendous pressure as was demonstrated in your first paragraph.

In the second paragraph that I have placed here, even more surprising comments are made. You wrote, "but in the real world, replacing a modern farm run by machinery and sound business principles with little plots run by peasant families with hoes and plenty of time on their hands or by absentee Black noveau riche types will only lead to disaster."

Here you seem to demonstrate a classic case of colonized misplaced loyalties, as you feel that the White farmers were operating on 'sound business principles". What are the "sound business principles" in stealing the best lands from Blacks and reducing them to cheap labour? Sound business principles from whose point of view? Where is the ethics in how they fight to maintain control of what is not legitimately theirs? Where are the sound principles that White farmers have after initially gaining their capital base from murder and theft, and maintaining it from White unfair privileges? It is the dishonest and brutal conduct of these very Whites that is responsible for Blacks in Africa being just subsistence farmers. There are historical and international reasons for this unfair situation which does not imply that Blacks lack the ability or "sound business principles" to do better. So where is the "sound business principles" in not compensating the Blacks for the history of denying them the right to utilize the land in the way they thought was best for them? I do not see any "sound business principles" being practiced by the occupiers of other people's land and resources. As a matter of fact I do not see "sound business principles" being applied by White business people in general.

You are also giving the distorted impression that Mugabe's land reform exercise was to get rid of all White farmers. That is one of the reasons I have asked you to state if any of the information in the article I linked was false. From other reports, the move was not to get rid white farmers. They leaving could be a consequence of not liking the fact that they will now have to lease land from the state to operate. If other African states misguidedly or otherwise invite them to come and farm, that says nothing.

You further stated, "I think the reason they support Zimbabwe with their mouths is that they too resent Western interests in the matter. If the West was allowed to play judge, jury and executioner on Mugabe, then they would be no stopping them from doing the same to the other African States." Is this not a very valid reason not to give into the demands of the West, even if they may dislike aspects of Mugabe? Why should they allow the West to dictate their political moves, and decide for them whom to align with?

You have still failed to tell me if the article that I am circulating is inaccurate from your 'Zimbabwean with the direct experiences' point of view.

Mugabe is Right and these are the Facts
http://www.africasia.com/newafrican/may00/nacs0501.htm