 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:21
|
|
well damn... I can't believe I posted in here then didnt return for so long... anyway, I can't really say **** cause I'm late but i'd just like to note that here in Philly, vast numbers of children don't have/know their fathers (me myself I only see my father a week every year and he won't be visiting this year). There are still plenty of people (black and white) who seem to care and try to keep their families together, but for the most part, **** is bad. However, I see no large disparity between blacks and whites. Plenty of white children don't know their fathers either, probably in the same numbers as black children. Generally, the united families have to do with religious/community reasons which tend to be stronger among older blacks than older whites, going back to church or black nationalism over the years favouring united families and communities. The problem is that spirit is dying and we got 12 year olds have kids now.
thanks
Last edited by Albert Speer on 16-08-2002 at 13:21
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David James
|
 |
Kingston, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Jan 1970 time: 00:21
|
|
Sometimes, when reading Che's comments, I get the distinct impression that he thinks that the world would be oh-so much better off if neither whites nor capitalism existed.
But back to Zimbabwe. What really is the point of trying to establish a system of subsistence farming across the country? Even if Mugabe, with or without British aid, did actually compensate white farmers (thereby doing it "properly") and redistribute the land, what benefit would come of it? He's either got to subdivide it into ridiculously small holdings, which would end up being subsistence in nature, or else give/sell them to a few blacks (which would appear to be what he is doing) - but if he does that then most blacks aren't benefitting anyway. Promoting subsistence agriculture is hardly the way of the future.
Then there are other issues too; what of farms that have been "carved out of the bush" or land that had been made arable as a result of improvements made by whites or under their oversight. After all, I can't imagine that the entirety of sparsely inhabited Zimbabwe of Rhodes' time was all nice plains already under cultivation - later white settlers must have cleared and made arable a fairly significant chunk of the country's land.
Other than that, someone else mentioned that the problems began with Boers settling in South Africa, stealing the land. I'm afraid not. At the time of the first Boer settlers there were few blacks living in South Africa; only the Bushmen who were already on the verge of extinction at the hands of their Zulu neighbours to the north. The truth for all you white-haters out there is that the Boers stepped into largely unoccupied lands that may have formerly "belonged" to the Bushmen. The Zulus destroyed the Bushmen; they just couldn't capitalize on it as the Boers stepped in at just the right moment. Even if the Boers did have a hand in finishing off the Bushmen that is hardly grounds for their land to be handed over to the descendents of the other group that participated in their destruction (except maybe in Che's world, but I digress). All of this ignores of course the fact that the Bushmen were hunter gatherers who would not have been negatively affected by Dutch farmers settling in coastal areas suitable for farming in any event.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:21
|
|
History repeats itself, endlessly....
quote: Gracchi , two Roman statesmen and social reformers, sons of the consul Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and of Cornelia, the daughter of Scipio Africanus. The brothers were brought up with great care by their mother. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus,. d.133 B.C., the elder of the Gracchi, fought at Carthage (146 B.C.) and in Spain (137). Alarmed at the state of Italy and the provinces, where the middle class was being totally eliminated by concentration of wealth and lands in the hands of a few, Tiberius stood for the tribunate of the people in 133 B.C. as an avowed reformer. On his election he immediately proposed and succeeded in passing the Sempronian Law (Lex Sempronia Agraria), a modification of the Licinian Rogations (see agrarian laws), which sought to redistribute the public lands that the rich had taken over. Tiberius' colleague Octavius vetoed the law, and Tiberius, by immediately holding an unconstitutional referendum, deposed Octavius. Later in the year Attalus III, king of Pergamum, died and bequeathed his property to Rome; Tiberius proposed to use the bequest to provide capital for the paupers who were to settle the lands allotted under the Sempronian Law. It was now election time, and Tiberius renominated himself; the senate declared this action illegal and had the election postponed. In a great riot on the following day Tiberius was killed. His brother, Caius Sempronius Gracchus,. d.121 B.C., became the organizer of the reform movement begun by Tiberius. After serving (126) as quaestor in Sardinia, he returned to Rome and was elected (123) tribune of the people. Setting out to complete his brother's work, he immediately initiated a series of remarkable social reforms. The chief aim of these reforms was to unite the plebs and the equites, thus undermining the authority of the senate. The Lex Frumentaria benefited the small landholders by reappropriating the proceeds of the tax on allotted lands. The senate, which had formerly used this money for the aggrandizement of the aristocracy, was now required to use it for the good of the poor. In the Lex Judiciaria, Caius won over the equites by granting them control over the judgeships that had heretofore belonged to the senate. Caius was reelected (122) tribune, but the counterproposals of Marcus Livius Drusus began to gain popularity, and the following year Caius was defeated for reelection. Repeal of his measures was proposed, and in the ensuing riots Caius was killed. Within 10 years the reaction had annulled every Gracchan reform, and the social and political war began again, this time to culminate in the fatal and bloody struggle of Marius and Sulla |
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:21
|
|
I have some questions...
what is the nature of many of these farms? Are they generally large? Are commercial crops grown on them? Do blacks work them as fieldhands?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000 time: 05:21
|
|
Well MrFun the people of Zimbabwe were a heck of a lot richer when the whites owned the farms..because large commercial farms are the backbone of the economy and they need workers, these workers get paid..with this money they buy things..ya know food, clothes and other goods. These farms also produce food, lots of it in fact, this is sold often to other countries..this is known as 'exports'. Now these big farms also need seed, feed, machinery, vehicles etc. A lot of this stuff comes from outside the country this is called 'imports'..in fact a whole lot of that other cool stuff those workers buy is from other countries too.
Now what do you think will happen when the backbone of the economy is broken and all those workers are thrown out of work and no food is produced for 'export' and so no one has a job or the money to buy anything..
a) it will solve the problem of poverty
b) everything will go to ratshit
That's a real toughie..take your time..
As for what TO do..well maybe they should have got some more commercial farms..or perhaps use all that (now non-existent) money those farms created to build up other industries..improve education that sort of thing..jobs and education to get out of poverty..I know opposed to stealing land and destroying the most productive sector of the economy it sounds crazy..but you never know..
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Carver
|
 |
reprocessing plutonium, Yongbyon, NK
Jan 2002 time: 23:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Clearly, what has been going on hasn't worked, since the situation in S.A. now is pretty miserable, especially for the whites who are now disenfranchised from the S.A. government. |
What are you talking about Boris? Whites vote, have positions in the national cabinent, whites control the entire Western Cape Provincial government...
If the ANC has done anything wrong its listening to the IMF and World Bank too much and adopting their super "liberal" capitalist policies.
Last edited by Carver on 18-08-2002 at 04:03
|
|
|  |
 |
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000 time: 05:21
|
|
Except Mugabe prevents food aid getting to those places where people didn't vote the 'right' way..but hey as long as they can vote right Carver..
|
|
|  |
 |
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000 time: 05:21
|
|
Well SA isn't too clever either...
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|