4 ms·

I appreciate the attempt to bring another side to the debate but the point you are missing is that it is us black Africans who are being critical of Mugabe. We

I appreciate the attempt to bring another side to the debate but the point you are missing is that it is us black Africans who are being critical of Mugabe. We all experienced the oppression by the Rhodesian government. It his actions against fellow blacks after "liberation" that we are criticizing. He presided over the murder of 20 000 people[0]. A leader who presides over record inflation no matter the excuse has failed and should step down to give someone else a chance. He had to be removed through a coup as he was preparing to hand over the country to his wife. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi

rayiner 7y ago
Many Americans aren’t constitutionally capable of criticizing countries that aren’t America.
- chessturk 7y ago
  ? Iraq and Afghanistan seem pretty criticized to me.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    I think rayiner was speaking of the "many" Americans who complain about America constantly, but know nothing else well enough to really compare.
- tptacek 7y ago
  Which is probably sensible: for most people, criticism of their own country is the only kind of criticism that can be put into action. It's productive in a way that kibbitzing over Zimbabwe isn't.
scarmig 7y ago
It's tiring how any attempt to contextualize why some people like Mugabe (which I don't! I repeatedly criticize him in my comment!) needs to be represented as saying that he's not deserving of criticism or that the only people criticizing him are white imperialists. Yes, he did plenty of bad things, but someone who has only read a caricature of him will ultimately be flummoxed when they meet a fan of his. If you've had many encounters with Zimbabweans, you've run into people who do think he is a hero. This would be perplexing to the average HNer who has only read (accurate!) stories of authoritarianism, human rights violations, and hyperinflation.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Makes me want to compare and contrast Mugabe with Idi Amin.
- mmsimanga 7y ago
  I understand the point you are making in this comment. The fervent support for Mugabe can be confusing. TO expand on your answer and to inform HN crowd here are some I think people support Mugabe. 1. Once a hero, always a hero. Africans struggle to turn on liberation movement leaders. We feel we owe them our freedom. For some people, liberation movement leaders can never do anything wrong. This leads to my point two. 2. Some families have always associated themselves with liberation movements. It maybe the father joined the party or a son, sister, cousin joined the party a long time ago and family feels obligated to support the party 3. Mugabe was gifted speaker who tapped into the anti imperialist/colonialist sentiment in Africa. He is loved by many Africans because he dared publicly speak out against the West. He always loved Europe until they put sanctions on him and then he turned towards the East. 4. Mugabe ran on a tribal ticket. You will find more supporters in certain tribes than in others. The biggest reason he is still popular today is because of his anti West rhetoric. Which is a pity but to each their own. I hope this sheds some light to an HNer who encounters Africans who think the world of Mugabe.
  - yostrovs 7y ago
    The Westerners may well be aware of Mugabe's end of colonization. But, someone who has murdered is called a murderer. And should be treated as such. Stalin stopped Hitler and industrialized Russia, but he's a murderer. Lots of people in Russia adore him, and though I know full well why, I've never had anyone explain to me why that is. But we have here an African who killed Africans, so we are supposed to see the other side more clearly. Are the murdered Africans supposed to count less heavily on our conscience?
    - mmsimanga 7y ago
      I totally get where you are coming from and I agree with you. I also see the point the parent comment was trying to make. If you meet 10 Zimbabweans you likely to find a few who adore Mugabe. The comment was just to inform those not so familiar with Zimbabwean politics and history. He is still a murderer but sadly there are fellow Africans some very close to me who only see the liberation hero. I just think it is important to understand where the other side is coming from. I strongly disagree and think some of the opinions are based on willfully ignoring facts but it is the world we live in.
microcolonel 7y ago
Unfortunately people are very resistant to the concept that a better, freer Rhodesia would have been a better place than Zimbabwe. Similarly, people will tend to accuse you of liking apartheid if you criticize the ANC. Dead men don't raise crops, nor does cropland without productive farmers produce food.
- tptacek 7y ago
  This is a little like saying a better, freer Third Reich would have been a better place than Communist East Germany.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    Well, in the sense that it was a functioning country with a functioning economy, where despite the law people of all sorts had employment and improving standards of living. Fixing the undue separation of society without handing the place over to incompetents and backstabbers would be better, yes. As I've been led to understand it, Rhodesia's armed forces were majority black, and the majority of them did not support the new nationalists at the outset, but the state failed to liberalize, and so sealed their fate. > like saying a better, freer Third Reich would have been a better place than Communist East Germany Yes, if the Nazis reformed away from an attempted socialist German ethnostate into a liberal state rather than trying to take over the world, that would have been a good thing, and probably better than East Germany. In fact, West Germany was basically that reformed liberal state they could've been without quite so much bloodshed (though maybe without the technological innovations necessary for the war, you could argue it would not have been as great, in a twisted sort of way). Altogether it is better to have a reformed unpleasant past than a revolution that throws the baby out with the bathwater. The fault for this, in my opinion, rests squarely on the shoulders of those states who let these institutions run their course until revolution was inevitable, and until the backstabbers could stab everyone in the back thoroughly.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      Rhodesia was not merely a white ethnocracy, it was a state premised on white ethnocracy; that was its reason for existence. I mean this sincerely: I think you might want to make your point about different ways to handle decolonialization without invoking "Apartheid: The Good Parts".

rayiner 7y ago

Many Americans aren’t constitutionally capable of criticizing countries that aren’t America.

chessturk 7y ago
? Iraq and Afghanistan seem pretty criticized to me.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  I think rayiner was speaking of the "many" Americans who complain about America constantly, but know nothing else well enough to really compare.
tptacek 7y ago
Which is probably sensible: for most people, criticism of their own country is the only kind of criticism that can be put into action. It's productive in a way that kibbitzing over Zimbabwe isn't.

scarmig 7y ago

It's tiring how any attempt to contextualize why some people like Mugabe (which I don't! I repeatedly criticize him in my comment!) needs to be represented as saying that he's not deserving of criticism or that the only people criticizing him are white imperialists. Yes, he did plenty of bad things, but someone who has only read a caricature of him will ultimately be flummoxed when they meet a fan of his. If you've had many encounters with Zimbabweans, you've run into people who do think he is a hero. This would be perplexing to the average HNer who has only read (accurate!) stories of authoritarianism, human rights violations, and hyperinflation.

Gibbon1 7y ago
Makes me want to compare and contrast Mugabe with Idi Amin.
mmsimanga 7y ago
I understand the point you are making in this comment. The fervent support for Mugabe can be confusing. TO expand on your answer and to inform HN crowd here are some I think people support Mugabe. 1. Once a hero, always a hero. Africans struggle to turn on liberation movement leaders. We feel we owe them our freedom. For some people, liberation movement leaders can never do anything wrong. This leads to my point two. 2. Some families have always associated themselves with liberation movements. It maybe the father joined the party or a son, sister, cousin joined the party a long time ago and family feels obligated to support the party 3. Mugabe was gifted speaker who tapped into the anti imperialist/colonialist sentiment in Africa. He is loved by many Africans because he dared publicly speak out against the West. He always loved Europe until they put sanctions on him and then he turned towards the East. 4. Mugabe ran on a tribal ticket. You will find more supporters in certain tribes than in others. The biggest reason he is still popular today is because of his anti West rhetoric. Which is a pity but to each their own. I hope this sheds some light to an HNer who encounters Africans who think the world of Mugabe.
- yostrovs 7y ago
  The Westerners may well be aware of Mugabe's end of colonization. But, someone who has murdered is called a murderer. And should be treated as such. Stalin stopped Hitler and industrialized Russia, but he's a murderer. Lots of people in Russia adore him, and though I know full well why, I've never had anyone explain to me why that is. But we have here an African who killed Africans, so we are supposed to see the other side more clearly. Are the murdered Africans supposed to count less heavily on our conscience?
  - mmsimanga 7y ago
    I totally get where you are coming from and I agree with you. I also see the point the parent comment was trying to make. If you meet 10 Zimbabweans you likely to find a few who adore Mugabe. The comment was just to inform those not so familiar with Zimbabwean politics and history. He is still a murderer but sadly there are fellow Africans some very close to me who only see the liberation hero. I just think it is important to understand where the other side is coming from. I strongly disagree and think some of the opinions are based on willfully ignoring facts but it is the world we live in.

microcolonel 7y ago

Unfortunately people are very resistant to the concept that a better, freer Rhodesia would have been a better place than Zimbabwe. Similarly, people will tend to accuse you of liking apartheid if you criticize the ANC. Dead men don't raise crops, nor does cropland without productive farmers produce food.

tptacek 7y ago
This is a little like saying a better, freer Third Reich would have been a better place than Communist East Germany.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Well, in the sense that it was a functioning country with a functioning economy, where despite the law people of all sorts had employment and improving standards of living. Fixing the undue separation of society without handing the place over to incompetents and backstabbers would be better, yes. As I've been led to understand it, Rhodesia's armed forces were majority black, and the majority of them did not support the new nationalists at the outset, but the state failed to liberalize, and so sealed their fate. > like saying a better, freer Third Reich would have been a better place than Communist East Germany Yes, if the Nazis reformed away from an attempted socialist German ethnostate into a liberal state rather than trying to take over the world, that would have been a good thing, and probably better than East Germany. In fact, West Germany was basically that reformed liberal state they could've been without quite so much bloodshed (though maybe without the technological innovations necessary for the war, you could argue it would not have been as great, in a twisted sort of way). Altogether it is better to have a reformed unpleasant past than a revolution that throws the baby out with the bathwater. The fault for this, in my opinion, rests squarely on the shoulders of those states who let these institutions run their course until revolution was inevitable, and until the backstabbers could stab everyone in the back thoroughly.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    Rhodesia was not merely a white ethnocracy, it was a state premised on white ethnocracy; that was its reason for existence. I mean this sincerely: I think you might want to make your point about different ways to handle decolonialization without invoking "Apartheid: The Good Parts".