NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... of Harare, were stopped and taken from their cars One of the armed men said: You messed up when you voted. Next time you vote you must vote for Mugabe or you will die. (Mcgreal). It is very unlikely that Mugabe will ever cease to be the President of Zimbabwe, until the time when he dies. On April 6 of 2000, Zimbabwe's Parliament pushed through an amendment from a draft constitution, allowing the seizure of white-owned farmland without due reimbursement or payment. The article Mugabe In A Nutshell sums up the results of this artificially induced humanitarian disaster: In just over two decades, he (Mugabe) has driven an estimated three million Zimbabweans into exile and his land reforms have seen 4000 farmers evicted from their farms, leaving over 350000 farm workers unemployed.
Commercial agriculture, which produced 227726 tons of tobacco in 2000, has collapsed and the economy is crippled. Zimbabwe now depends on food programmers and support from outside to feed its population (The Times, 2008). The article tactfully avoids mentioning the fact that the evicted farmers were overwhelmingly White. Their crime consisted of having a wrong color of skin.
However, this is only a half of the story. In order for us to get a full picture of what really happened in Zimbabwe in 2000 - 2003, we need to resort to the sources of information that governmental officials in Western countries try hard to de legitimize, as such that contain hate speech. For example, Jan Lamprechts photo gallery Farm Murders in South Africa (from 1994 -present), which is available on the site of African Crisis, features a few hundred of post-mortem photographs of White farmers and the members of their families from South Africa and Zimbabwe, which were being murdered in the most gruesome manners imaginable: people sawn in half, babies set on fire, heads chopped off, women raped and smothered these are the practical consequences of celebration of diversity - African style. It would be wrong to only hold accountable Mugabe and his gangs of war veterans for the racial genocide against White people in Zimbabwe. After all, it is not too long ago that Mugabe's ancestors had descended down from the trees, which explains the fact why murders of White farmers in Africa can be best described as beastly, inhuman, barbaric or savage.
The government of Ian Smith was more than capable of dealing with gangs of Blacks, armed with AK- 47, who demanded equality, without understanding the essence of this concept. However, White people in Rhodesia have been betrayed by the political establishment in Western countries. In addition, White Rhodesian's themselves were beginning to believe that they might be better off under the Black rule. Their naivety cost them dearly. In his other article Zimbabwe: Liberal Consequences, William Pierce rightly suggest that: The reason Rhodesia is called Zimbabwe today is that in 1979 the Rhodesian's, under intense diplomatic and economic pressure brought to bear against them by liberals in America and Europe - and to be completely honest about it, showing some symptoms of the disease themselves - decided to let Blacks vote for the next government of Rhodesia. Since there were at that time six million Blacks living in Rhodesia and only 275, 000 White Rhodesian's, this was in effect a decision by the Rhodesian's to commit collective suicide (Pierce).
Nowadays, only countries like Ukraine and Poland grant political asylum for the White refugees from Zimbabwe and South Africa. In America and Britain, these people are still being referred to as racists and children in schools are being taught that White farmers just got what they deserved, when Blacks cut them in half with a chainsaw. Apparently, it is a price for the lack of tolerance, on the part of Whites. It appears that this is only the matter of time, before White people in America are going to be treated in similar manner and, just as Rhodesian's, they will have nobody to blame but themselves. (4) There are two reasons why Mugabe still maintains a political power in Zimbabwe internal and external.
Let us begin with describing the first one. It is not a secret that Prime Minister of Sweden, for example, often takes ride in public transportation to get to his office, without being guarded. He does it to increase his popularity among citizens and it works. On the other hand, if king of Saudi Arabia had done the same, he would probably be deposed by his own people on the next day, because he would lose their respect, as result. In order for Saudi King to enjoy the admiration of ordinary Saudis, he needs to keep building private palaces that cost hundreds of millions of dollars a piece, to buy the most exclusive cars in the world and to have thirty beautiful women following him everywhere he goes.
This is because, despotism, as form of government, appeals to Saudis. In its turn, it reveals them as people with atrophied sense of freedom slaves by calling. Throughout the history, there was not even a single example of slaves freeing themselves from oppression. There is only one thing that slave by calling admires material riches. It is only because Saudi king indulges in luxurious lifestyle on continuous basis that allows him to maintain a political authority, because without his palaces, his cars and his fashion models, he would be nothing he would be just another slave of its own anomalistic urges. It is not the coincidence that only White people were able to come up with the concept of democracy it was a part of their biological destiny.
The reason why democracy does not work in countries such as Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea or Zimbabwe, for that matter, is because citizens in these countries despise democratic principles on subconscious level. This example explains why Mugabe is not likely to be overthrown. The reason is simple he does exactly what Blacks in Zimbabwe expect him to do: steals money, kills his political opponents and appoints members of his family to hold governments offices. He is nothing but the embodiment of political tribalism, to which majority of Black Africans relate psychologically. The article Mugabe's Hold on Africans, which can be found on the web site of BBC, proves the validity of earlier statement: Despite an economy in turmoil, four-figure inflation and the exodus of millions to neighboring countries, Zimbabwe's president can rely on the support of his African peers He may be a pariah in the capital cities of the European Union but here in the heart of southern Africa he knows he can count on a fair degree of undying loyalty (BBC, 2007).
Slave by calling continues to act as slave, even when he gets to be elevated to the position of President. By doing this, he wins the support of other slaves, because they refer to him as one of us. This is where the secret of Mugabe's popularity is buried. Therefore, only very naive people can seriously believe that situation in Zimbabwe might change for better, if one of Mugabe's personal guards shoots him in his bed. If this happens, he will be replaced with Mugabe- 2. If Mugabe- 2 begins to play in democracy, he will be deposed very soon and the country will once again, become the arena of tribal warfare.
The second reason that allows Mugabe to stay in the office is external and it is related to the fact that White nations gradually loose their existential might. Let us illustrate it with concrete example. When Jean-Bedel Bokassa had proclaimed himself a President for Life in Central African Republic in 1972, France was the first country to officially congratulate him, as former colonial power, to which this African country used to be subjected. When Bokassa appointed himself an Emperor in 1975, France also swallowed it. However, when it was being revealed that Bokassa is cannibal and that he brings cans with human meat along, during his visits to foreign countries, French President decided to act. It only took twenty minutes for fifty paratroopers from French Foreign Legion, to overthrow Bokassa.
Back in 1979, when it happened, French government did not care much about the fact that sending soldiers from French Foreign Legion to Central African Republic, for the purpose of intervening in countrys internal affairs, constitutes the act of international aggression. The interests of French businessmen in CAR and the reputation of French President were endangered and that was all that mattered. The bloody dictator, who had a hobby of eating his own people, was being squashed like a bug, in political sense of this word. He was lucky to escape with his life and no country in the world had ever declared a protest to France, as result. The same could have happened to Mugabe in 2000, if politicians in London were not just a bunch of whiners, burdened with the complex of historical guilt, but responsible statesmen. The fact is - the majority of murdered White farmers in Zimbabwe held British citizenship.
Britain, however, preferred not to notice that its own citizens were being killed on Mugabe's orders. This was just after British fighter planes had participated in the attack on Yugoslavia, even though Britain did not have any geopolitical interests in the region. Peter Osborn's article Betrayal of Zimbabwe provides us with understanding why Britain did not even move a finger to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Zimbabwe: The White farmers left in Zimbabwe are, in statistical terms, not much more than an irrelevance. But they enable Mugabe to propagate the notion that he is the victim of a racist, colonial conspiracy.
Mugabe's fantasy has carried great weight, above all, with the British government. The Zimbabwean Presidents constant emphasis on Britains colonial past has had an astonishing effect. It has almost completely emasculated Tony Blair and his ministers. The consequence has been a feeble and useless foreign policy. As the storm clouds have gathered, ministers have been timid and inert, and at times have shown a bewildering readiness to believe protestations and assurances from Mugabe himself (Osborn).
It would be naive to expect Britain being able to protect its citizens abroad, because this nation cannot even safeguard its own national integrity, while being invaded by the hordes of illegal immigrants from Third World countries. (5) To conclude this paper, we need to say that Zimbabwe's and African politics cannot be discussed outside of the context of global socio-political trends. In its turn, these trends are defined by racial dynamics. It is common knowledge that peoples birth rate in Africa is the highest in the world. For example, the population in Ethiopia has tripled within a matter of last 25 years, while being subjected to never ending civil wars and famine. In Zimbabwe, it is a widespread practice to have as many as 12 - 15 children in Black families.
However, not many folks are aware of the fact that the staggering population boom in Africa has began after the end of colonial era. Once Black Africans were granted a political freedom, they began to multiply with amazing speed. Therefore, the worsening of economical situation in Zimbabwe cannot be referred to as the solemn result of Mugabe's policies. Whereas Whites try to insure the survival of their race (unsuccessfully) by investing in cultural and scientific progress, Blacks accomplish it (successfully) with the mean of engaging in sex. It does not really matter that the half of Zimbabweans starve and that inflation in this country reaches 3000 % a year the geopolitical potential of Zimbabwe continues to rise, because Mugabe's social policies root out those unfit for survival. Zimbabwe's population average age is 20 years, which means that this nation is among the youngest in Africa and in the whole world, which it its turn, corresponds to nations biological competitiveness.
In Western countries, on the other hand, the half of young peoples income is being taken away from them in taxes, in order to support aging White folks in assisted living facilities, who are burdened with their own existence and who have absolutely no social value. Thus, we can say yes, it is a truth that Mugabe is a dictator, it is a truth that he is guilty of racial genocides and it is a truth that he does not know what the concept of economy stands for; nevertheless, he was able to benefit Black Zimbabweans by increasing their biological vitality. Who said that Blacks need to know how to farm or how to build computers? For as long as they are physically healthy and not burdened with chimeras of White morality, they will be able to make a good living in Western countries, because White people are being slowly deprived of their biological vitality, which makes them overall inferior to Blacks.
Why live in godforsaken Zimbabwe, when it is so much more fun to sneak to France, for example, apply for welfare, and to start setting cars on fire, as a part of celebrating diversity? It is a mistake to judge Mugabe, by applying White concepts of morality to his case. He simply made practical applications of Black mentality possible, which can hardly be held against him. If there are people who could be blamed for Mugabe's reign of terror, it would be Liberal politicians in Western countries, because it is their propaganda of spiritual degeneracy that resulted in plunging Africa into a social chaos and now is about to do the same to Europe and North America.
Bibliography: Boynton, G. Ian Smith has Sadly Been Proved Right. December 22, 2007. Telegraph. Co. Uk.
Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Lamprecht, J. Farm Murders in South Africa (from 1994 -present). 2002. African Crisis. Org. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Pierce, W.
Horror in Rhodesia. 2000. The National Alliance. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Pierce, W. Zimbabwe: Liberal Consequences. 2000. The National Alliance. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Mugabe in a Nutshell.
April 6, 2008. The Times. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Mcgreal, C. Vote Mugabe or You Die.
Inside Zimbabwe, the Backlash Begins. April 10, 2008. Guardian. Co. Uk. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Mugabe's Hold on Africans.
August 25, 2007. BBC News. UK Version. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Jean-Bedel Bokassa. 2008. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Osborn, P.
Betrayal of Zimbabwe. August 31, 2002. Rhodesian. Net. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Zimbabwe President Mugabe, Militants Target White Farmers. April 7, 2008.
Fox News. Com. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from web Abstract: This paper provides a historical retrospective on situation in former Rhodesia, discusses the present state of affairs in the country and explains the reasons why Robert Mugabe maintains a political power in Zimbabwe. Outline: Introduction Historical retrospective Two reasons why Mugabe maintains political power Conclusion
Free research essays on topics related to: western countries, black africans, political power, white farmers, south africa
Research essay sample on Western Countries White Farmers
