Masimba, all this time you deh pon the board and you are calling Ras Marcus a 'yank'? Talking about 'you americans' in reference to him? You have not yet gathered that he was born in Jamaica and has been active in the Rastafari movemant since the 1950s? If you're referring to the fact that he currently lives in the U.S. temporarily, well aren't you currently living in Britain temporarily, does this make you a 'limey'?
All this 'more african than you' is a set of garbage. I could reverse that statement and say Black people in Guyana are 'more African than you' because we have preserved many elements of our African cultures even in the face of the most brutal form of downpression ever visited on human beings, which tried to entirely wipe out those cultures, but we preserved them, so I could say that make us 'more African than you' because we held on to our cultures in the face of such brutality, whereas y'all were just born into those cultures and didn't have to struggle to maintain them (or not as much as we did- Southern Africa was not under white control for as long, or as completely, as we were who were kidnapped to the west).
But I'm not gonna say anything like that. It is divide and conquer tactics. Who is more African, Marcus Mosiah Garvey or Mobutu? I'm sure Mobutu had old women crowing over him as a child and was told of his illustrious ancestry etc.
Really what I have realized is that when you are talking about being 'more African' you are really talking about being 'more royal'. As a descendant of the 'great Buja clan' you feel you are superior to those 'peasants' who were unlucky enough to be sold into the west, just as you feel you are superior to the 'peasants' who toil on the land of big farmers (white or black) in your country. When I first started reading your posts I was quite sympathetic because from my experience talking with Zimbabweans it did seem to me that the issue of Mugabe was not as cut and dry as it was being presented by some pan african folks in the west. Having grown up under Forbes Burnham in Guyana, I can overstand how a leader can implement certain radical, progressive policies while at the same time being a corrupt tyrant. In such a case what one needs to do is to expose the corruption and tyranny, while at the same time taking care not to play into the hands of those foreign powers whose only intention is to get rid of the radical, progressive policies (cos they could care less about corruption and tyranny, being corrupt tyrants themselves.) My impression from your posts is that you are in fact playing into the hands of these foreigners because:
(A) All your posts concerning Zimbabwe are from 'indpendent media' which in reality, in my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) in many cases have financial backing from wealthy whites.
(B) If you truly wanted to present the complexity of the situation, you would be pointing out that the opposition MDC has given every indication that they are quite ready to sell out the country to multinational interests as per the general M.O. of 'third world' countries who don't want to buck the system like a cuba or venezuela. As it is, you only point out the supposed corruption and tyranny of Mugabe, which may well be true, but is the other side any better? Is the distinguishing characteristic between Mugabe and the MDC "corruption and tyranny" or is it "take back the land" vs. "accomodate white capitalist power"? Do you think that if the MDC were in power, their tactics against those who opposed them would be much different to Mugabe's?
(C) You made it clear to me in some posts that you do not support the land invasions even in principle. I could overstand if you think they are not being carried out in the correct way, if the land is going to Mugabe's cronies instead of who needs it most, etc etc., none of that would surprise me if it turned out to be true. But you seem to feel that it's just straight up OK for a wealthy white minority to own the majority of arable land in your country cos they are 'good businessmen' who will bring in foreign currency or whatever typical excuse people who don't want to 'buck the system' give for 'being realistic' and kow-towing to the neoliberal agenda.
(D) You have an elitist attitude that makes all your statements untrustworthy as far as I'm concerned. You make it clear that you are superior to 'peasants' since you're from the Buja royal clan. Ages ago, I made a post about how slavery was commonplace in Brazil, in the form of people taking in domestic servants and only giving them (minimal) food and shelter and paying them nothing; you indicated that the same practice was commonplace among large landowners in your country (white and black) but your comments were more critical of the 'peasants' (something like 'yeah they work hard, but they cannot really contribute to the economy, such people will be a burden on any modern economy', something like that) than of the people enslaving them! That to me speaks volumes about your attitude. I didn't say anything at the time cos I thought perhaps I might have misinterpreted your words, but with more and more posts where you talk about your superiority to the 'peasants', I see that is right in line with your general attitude.

Can I repeat a question I asked you before, what did your illustrious ancestors of the Buja clan do that was so great, that makes them so superior to the average 'peasant'?