I hate to belabor this issue but it is very difficult to compare Rhodesia's
economic success to that of Zimbabwe.  This whole issue piqued my interest in
this topic and led me to do a bit of reading.  In the late 1800s, the British
South Africa Company raided the previously stable kingdoms of the Ndebele's,
who had escaped form the kingdom of Shaka Zulu, in search of gold.  The
conflict that resulted is partly responsible for the illegal occupation today
of what was then the ancestral lands of Northern Zimbabwe's ethnic community.
 In time, the same pattern would be repeated in other parts of the country.
Eventually, an agreement was reached that would allow these inhabitants of
Northern Zimbabwe to return to the confiscated lands as laborers.  They were
also taxed heavily to fund the mining activities of the colonialists.
Imagine the locals getting their lands confiscated, being laborers for the
colonialists and also paying for the mining of their own lands?  If this is
not exploitation, then I don't know what is?  With this information in hand,
it becomes obvious that the colonialists were in a win-win situation, while
the locals were reduced to being subsistence farmers.

After the country had been stripped of its natural resources, the
colonialists turned their attention to agriculture.  By using their modern
technological prowess, the plow, genetic engineering, etc., they managed to
be become an exporter of maize.  But they did this at the expense of black
farmers because of forced labor and the financial resources they had gained
previously from the mining of gold in the country at the expense of the
locals.  The whites even managed to produce their own genetically engineered
brand of maize.  However, all this success and research was focussed towards
the needs of the white land owners.  They did not have to worry about
empowering the local population or feeding them for that matter.  Instead
they could export their product as they saw fit.  Again, the whites benefited
at the expense of the locals.

This imbalance in farming lands and forced labor of the locals were some of
the factors that led to the civil war.  Anyway, this is all besides the
point.  Here is a country that was termed economically successful when they
had relied on systematic exploitation of the country at the expense of the
locals.  In addition, because of their British ancestry and close ties with
the US, they enjoyed favorable economic ties with the West.  Therefore, for
the whites and rich foreigners that lived in this area, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe was
heaven.  It contained all the amenities of a successful Western country. But
what about the local population?  Were they enjoying the successes of the
country too?

Mugabe inherited a newly independent country that had been ravaged by civil
war. Zimbabwe would not enjoy the favored economic status that it had once
enjoyed from the West.  And finally, everything unfair about the previous
regime, e.g., unfair land practices, still existed.  In fact, he has alleged
that white farmers have conspired towards his demise.  Basically Zimbabwe
faced the same issues that have haunted every sub-Saharan African country
after independence.  What is happening now is no exception to the norm.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------