Zimbabwe 2.0 Inbound

If I was a "privileged" white farmer about to be forced off my land I would adopt a scorched earth policy and leave.

Destroy all the infrastructure, buildings and crops on my land and maybe even contaminate it as well.

A few years ago I met a chap who had lived in Zimbabwe. He said they had to work hard to cultivate the land and breed good livestock, which the confiscators slaughtered and ate as soon as they got their hands on the land...
 
I spent time consulting in Africa on a fair few Agricultural projects in the West. As noted the main problem with this behaviour is the lack of knowledge transfer coupled with biblical levels of corruption.

Commercial farming is highly specialised/speculative compared to the subsistence farming that generally takes place in Sub-Saharan. Africa generally lacks the depth and breath of knowledge to sustain over the medium to long term.

The Indian Green revolution would have been a copy paste to Africa with lessons learned about crop rotation and sustainability.
The Western world has pretty much given up investing in the agricultural game in Africa, and the Chinese lease out the land and ship over their own teams of workers further restricting the knowledge transfer.

It’s a huge shame since Africa has global bread basket capacity. Then again it’s a win for the Chinese since for a road built or say a hospital built ( Medical staff not included) they get to reap the benefits of cheap arable land.

Obviously the above is a best case scenario with every domino falling into place and the stars aligning. Too much has happened on the continent for anything to be easy, we can only hope.
 
oh i don't disagree, the reality is that human civilisation had the greatest head-start in africa in terms of time, but for whatever reason (i'm not going to go as far as to speculate why) it never developed.

it's just that it had all the right ingredients to be a really powerful nation, if it had followed the same path the rest of the industrial nations had.

I'm not an anthropologist but I have read a few articles about this very issue. Apparently the Levant (middle east-ish) as a cross roads was luckily placed for the key domesticable species of animal and plant. In particular, the horse, the dog, cattle, pigs, wheat. Africa is vast and the few likely domestication candidates are widely spaces and in particular they lacked access to pack/labour animals that could be domesticated. The Zebra for instance is apparently notoriously difficult to train and has never been domesticated.

Western Europeans are an offshoot of those earliest civilisations who were lucky in the availability of key natural resources. The later resources of iron and coal and copper are meaningless without the farming revolution that Africa never achieved. The Sahara was obviously a huge barrier to the introduction of those benefits into sub Saharan Africa.

There is a very good book on the subject I mean to read sometime, if I can find the name I'll add to the post.
 
China will fill the void like they are doing in the rest of Africa. They don't have the burden of human rights to adhere to.

It is astonishing how 'all over' Africa the Chinese are. I have spent a lot of time down there last 3 years, they are building all over the continent at major infrastructure levels and feeding the people at the top. China 2.0
 
imagine a world where africa as a continent could get it's act together and unite as a nation without all the tribal politics.

they could be a world superpower if they got their **** together.
100%

Great contient, fantastic people in the main and so much going for it. If they could get (they have some) leaders who put the people first, they could take on the world.
 
No point. They do it themselves through mismanagement.
I'm not an anthropologist but I have read a few articles about this very issue. Apparently the Levant (middle east-ish) as a cross roads was luckily placed for the key domesticable species of animal and plant. In particular, the horse, the dog, cattle, pigs, wheat. Africa is vast and the few likely domestication candidates are widely spaces and in particular they lacked access to pack/labour animals that could be domesticated. The Zebra for instance is apparently notoriously difficult to train and has never been domesticated.

Western Europeans are an offshoot of those earliest civilisations who were lucky in the availability of key natural resources. The later resources of iron and coal and copper are meaningless without the farming revolution that Africa never achieved. The Sahara was obviously a huge barrier to the introduction of those benefits into sub Saharan Africa.

There is a very good book on the subject I mean to read sometime, if I can find the name I'll add to the post.

interesting theory, although given how long humanity's been around i'm surprised that the likes of crops, animals and knowledge couldn't have transferred back over all that time.

i suspect the reason for africa's current state is a question with a lot of complex answers.
 
The concept isn't completely retarded but lets be honest

I would have to disagree with you.... it is completely retarded for a goverment to internally seize private property without compensation (especially when said property forms a productive part of the economy)

Its retarded when the socialists in Venzuela do it.... A country that's now the source of a massive migratation crisis

It was retarded when Socialist/Marxist Mugabe and his party of crooks did it in the 2000`s

And it was retarded when marxist/ socialist Corbyn suggested it for the UK last year
 
Zimbabwe is actually trying to attract the farmers they kicked out back in to start farming again, because they desperately need food and an actual economy. But if I was one of them I'd tell them to **** off tbh.
 
I'm not an anthropologist but I have read a few articles about this very issue. Apparently the Levant (middle east-ish) as a cross roads was luckily placed for the key domesticable species of animal and plant. In particular, the horse, the dog, cattle, pigs, wheat. Africa is vast and the few likely domestication candidates are widely spaces and in particular they lacked access to pack/labour animals that could be domesticated. The Zebra for instance is apparently notoriously difficult to train and has never been domesticated.

One of the earliest advanced civilisations was from Africa. Egypt. They had access to wheat and camels, fish and poultry and a variety of vegetables. I think the main problem today is that Africa in technological and epistemology terms is way behind the West, and we in the West make things worse by exploiting Africa's natural resources in deals that give Africa little back in return.
 
Its retarded when the socialists in Venzuela do it.... It was retarded when Socialist/Marxist Mugabe and his party...
And it was retarded when marxist/ socialist Corbyn suggested it
Apart from me, do you know anyone who isn't a socialist Marxist retard? :D

A few years ago I met a chap who had lived in Zimbabwe.
Was he a 'Wenwe'?
Every sentence started with "When we were Rhodesia..."?
 
I'm not an anthropologist but I have read a few articles about this very issue. Apparently the Levant (middle east-ish) as a cross roads was luckily placed for the key domesticable species of animal and plant. In particular, the horse, the dog, cattle, pigs, wheat. Africa is vast and the few likely domestication candidates are widely spaces and in particular they lacked access to pack/labour animals that could be domesticated. The Zebra for instance is apparently notoriously difficult to train and has never been domesticated.

Western Europeans are an offshoot of those earliest civilisations who were lucky in the availability of key natural resources. The later resources of iron and coal and copper are meaningless without the farming revolution that Africa never achieved. The Sahara was obviously a huge barrier to the introduction of those benefits into sub Saharan Africa.

There is a very good book on the subject I mean to read sometime, if I can find the name I'll add to the post.

I am not doubting that geographical factors may be rather relevant to a civilisations development but they can't be the whole answer to explain the relative lack of more complicated civilisations in sub saharan africa prior to colonisation and the very poor development since European colonisation ended there.....

The problem is the south American continent.....

Which had an even greater lack of native animals suitable for domestication but yet which still produced some very advanced civilisations pre european colonisation....

Ironically it was the lack of exposure to domesticated animals which was the natives main downfall when the Europeans arrived as they had no resistance to the diseases Europeans had, largely caught from close contact with domesticated animals!

Native sub saharan Africans did not face this problem to the same degree as they themselves had more exposure.

South america and africa are also similiarly isolated from other continents with similiar internal barriers to quick knowledge transfer

(jungles and mountain ranges vs deserts)
 
Last edited:
Good for SA, it is about time, that South Africa was returned to it's rightful owners. The British and Dutch have done more damage to Africa than a little. South Africa, has never been a white nation, it is an African nation.
 
Good for SA, it is about time, that South Africa was returned to it's rightful owners. The British and Dutch have done more damage to Africa than a little. South Africa, has never been a white nation, it is an African nation.
Time for the Boers to have scotched earth policy. Let them try to function as a country, we can watch on and laugh
 
Good for SA, it is about time, that South Africa was returned to it's rightful owners. The British and Dutch have done more damage to Africa than a little. South Africa, has never been a white nation, it is an African nation.
I agree.

No food or money in, no refugees out. They need to find their own way.
 
Good for SA, it is about time, that South Africa was returned to it's rightful owners. The British and Dutch have done more damage to Africa than a little. South Africa, has never been a white nation, it is an African nation.

I take it that the Zulu peoples should also leave South Africa for logical consistency?
 
Arent the Zulu's from SA?

The Zulu's are a Bantu group with the Bantu's having migrated from a more central African location southward with the Zulu's displacing other groups of people including other bantu groups (often violently) as they did so....



At the same time as the Europeans were starting to expand eastward from the cape the zulu's were launching a violent territorial expansion 'the mfecane' (the 'crushing')


So if the descendents of white colonialists should be violently removed logic dictate that same should apply to the descendents of violent black colonialists...

Zulu' s /other Bantu groups need to hand back the land they steal from the whites to groups like the San people who the Bantu groups stole it from in the first place by this retarded line of thought...

 
Last edited:
It's clear they should never have done that. It's bang out of order. Simply wrong. But I listened to an interview with someone who knew the people who did this. According to him they were frustrated that the Police ignore farmers when they report a theft or being violently attacked. So when this guy tried to steal from them they took matters into their own hands.

That type of vigilante "justice" happens a lot and isn't limited to some sort of white vs black scenario (As the poster is trying to make out). It's a big problem currently because the police are so ineffective. A lot of private security firms take the law into their own hands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0uJkr-PBuk
 
Last edited:
The Zulu's are a Bantu group with the Bantu's having migrated from a more central African location southward with the Zulu's displacing other groups of people including other bantu groups (often violently) as they did so....

At the same time as the Europeans were starting to expand eastward from the cape the zulu's were launching a violent territorial expansion 'the mfecane' (the 'crushing')

So if the descendents of white colonialists should be violently removed logic dictate that same should apply to the descendents of violent black colonialists...

Zulu' s /other Bantu groups need to hand back the land they steal from the whites to groups like the San people who the Bantu groups stole it from in the first place by this retarded line of thought...

Wiki seems to suggest they've been there for at least 300 years which is fair enough. Wiki also seems to suggest that a lot of the San people's land was given away in 1970 to white settlers as well as other larger groups.

While I don't agree with the method of redistributing the land, I don't really have any sympathy for the farmers even if they do a superior job of running the land.
 
Back
Top Bottom