Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Zimbabwe documentary mistitled

Zimbabwe documentary mistitled
Lloyd Whitefield BUTLER, Jr.
Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:31:00 +0000

THE London Film Festival 2009 is featuring a documentary called “Mugabe and the White Man: taking Zimbabwe’s plight to the world.” The film’s promotional article in the Guardian News (UK) Friday October 23, 2009 culture-film-blog section should be titled Landless Zimbabweans and the White Man.

If the article is any reflection of the contents of the film it is racist and anti-African. Why racist? Because the film directors’ above mentioned article propagates that a White person is not answerable for any humanitarian crime committed against an African today or yesterday.

To make a film using the only living Father and Statesman of African Liberation and Reconstruction, the Honorable President Robert Mugabe to perpetuate white supremacy borders on pathology that must be quarantined and abolished.

Reminder: Not one European country or corporation has faced a single day in a world court for the Rape of Africa nor for the European Slave Trade of African People as commodities, forced skilled labor, and intellectual properties.

The audacity of the Film to demand recognition and land rights for land seized through murder, rape, destruction, and slavery is beyond insanity. The film’s Facebook movie trailers are designed to make one sympathetic with an oppressor.

The social and economical effects of establishing a European Slave Trade in Africa; installing continental Colonialism and Apartheid; in conjunction with the notorious Peculiar Institutions throughout the Americas was and is a crime against Nature: acts perpetrated by state sponsored European and American corporate terrorism.

Whites supervised and installed these early Nazi-like institutions on African soil with very little effective armed resistance: spears, bows and arrows against guns and cannons. These economically motivated viruses resulted in massive deaths, forced relocation of the native populations to deserts for the sole purpose of land seizure and to control mineral resources & water thereby dismantling African family-hood.

Western world courts have not brought this plight to justice. The plight of African justice for the rape of Africa has yet to be documented with a demand for judicial justice, return of all lands, and economic compensation.

The question remains: How did Africans become homeless in their land is a real time plight that needs to be brought before the world court.

Film Director Andrew Thompson’s Guardian News article and editor pick says:

"Robert Mugabe began enforcing his controversial land seizure program, an initiative intended to reclaim white-owned land for redistribution to poor black Zimbabweans."

The government of Zimbabwe has every right to return stolen properties back to their owners under whatever terms it feel necessary; and, without considering the wishes and discomforts of land swindlers.

White colonist believes that institutional colonialism is a divine right therefore it is unimaginable to most Whites why Africans demand return of their own land and resources. This is the mark of a rabid racist. Zimbabwe freedom fighters did not establish European style tribunals to execute former colonist. Rhodesian President Ian Smith was not executed for his crimes against humanity, for the re-establishment of neo-colonialism and apartheid. He lived to see a civilized society of Zimbabweans offering him reconciliation, peace, and harmony to no avail.

"Our film, Mugabe and the White African, follows Campbell and his family's unprecedented attempt to take Mugabe to an international court on charges of racial discrimination and violation of their human rights, against the backdrop of the 2008 presidential elections."

This statement should be an insult to every African that perished under the European Slave Trade, Colonialism and Apartheid. And, a total disbelief to the 150 million homeless former enslaved Africans in North and South America who have yet to have their plight brought before an international court.

"Can you be white and African? Well can you be white and American, or black and American? Of course you can."

Answer: No you cannot, Director Andrew Thompson, be black and American. In America there are continuous racist debates in the US Senate on the Civil Rights Bill, Voting Rights Act, and Native American land rights indicating that former enslaved African descendants still lack reparations, justice, and equality.

‘Racism is a terrible thing, whether it's perpetrated by whites or blacks. ..This film is ultimately about human rights, the rule of law and democracy. These are universals we should all care about.”

If racism is such a terrible thing, and it is, why is it European and American media and courts sabotage every attempt by Africans to petition or suggest economic reparations for victims of Slavery, Colonialism and Apartheid?

Why has America and Europe not compensated Africans for the violations of THEIR human rights?

This film by recognizing Colonialism and Apartheid as a rule of law demonstrates its racist intent.

Will this film demand justice for white crimes committed against Africans?

Will the film recognize crimes committed against Africans or Zimbabweans’ as a punishable crime with financial and prime real estate compensation?

Those who are unfortunate enough to view this film will be awakened to the arrogance and non sensitivities of a Colonizer and racist sympathizers.

This film is designed, in my opinion, to invoke support and sympathy for Roy Bennett of the MDC-T Party in Zimbabwe.

If the United States and European governments were not emotionally disturbed about confronting African/Negroid leadership with land ownership authority and mineral resource entrepreneurship by Black Africans, there would be no need for an AFRICOM or insensitive African Policy nor sanctions against Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, or Sierra Leone. All of Africa would share in a U.S. “Favorite Nations” status with few exceptions.

For example the Western media, including CNN and BBC, continuously and relentlessly demonized Zimbabweans and the Mugabe government as incompetent and corrupt due to its "poor land and farm management program" that the West claimed resulted in the destruction of the “Breadbasket of Africa.” This provided the pretext or excuse for the European Union, Britain, and the U.S. to install economic sanctions on Zimbabwe; further strangling its economic, agricultural, and farming development. Purpose: permanent infrastructural damage.

The sanctions began in 2002 which coincided with massive U.S. agricultural cutbacks to African farmers beginning in 2000.

Concerning the pros and cons, the successes and failures, of President Robert Mugabe’s Land Distribution and Land Ownership Projects for native born Zimbabweans, I state it was a blessing for all Zimbabwean citizens compared to the devastation of today’s American farmer.

US Farm Bill Debate Devastating

With a simple examination of the present day United States Farm Bill Debate one will conclude Robert Mugabe’s land reform plan a near genius.

Yet, the US billion dollar farm subsidy corporate rip offs and international violations does not put these agricultural swindlers nor America in a position to be sanctioned.

On the floor of the U.S. Senate Senator Richard G. Lugar introduced the FRESH Amendment with Senator Frank Lautenberg.

Excerpts of Senator Lugar’s statement follow:

"It is not an easy task to be Chairman or Ranking Member of the Agriculture Committee during a Farm Bill. Having served in both positions I know well the challenges you have both faced in putting together a bill. I am also pleased by the effort to provide interested farmers with a revenue based program that should be an improvement over the status quo.

"However, the Farm Bill we have before us does not provide meaningful reform. Our current farm policies, sold to the American public as a safety-net, actually hurt the family farmer. In the name of maintaining the family farm and preserving rural communities, today’s farm programs have benefited a select few while leaving the majority of farmers without support or a safety-net.

"The History

"The genesis of our current farm policies began during the Great Depression as an effort to help alleviate poverty among farmers and rural communities. At that time, one in four Americans lived on a farm and the rural economy’s vitality was largely dependent upon farmers. Farm programs were instituted that stifled agricultural productivity in order to raise commodity prices through a federally administered supply and demand program.

"Supply control programs cost U.S. taxpayers handsomely in higher food costs and job loss and now about half of the nation’s farmers are essentially prevented from growing other crops such as fruits and vegetables. To date, this same antiquated idea is promoted even though farm income is higher on average than other industries.

"Times have changed dramatically since then. Today, one in 75 Americans lives on a farm and only one in every 750 lives on a full-time commercial farm.

"Furthermore, nearly 90 percent of total farm household income comes from off-farm sources.

"In response to those ongoing changes, in 1996 Congress finally recognized that farmers, not the government, could best ascertain what crops are profitable, and granted roughly half of our farmers flexibility in planting choices and began to transition away from federally controlled agriculture programs.

"But in 2002, Congress and the Bush Administration reversed these reforms and created the so-called “three legged stool” which, in addition to other farm programs, has helped to place us in violation of our WTO [World Trade Organization] commitments. The Senate Agriculture Committee Farm Bill before us today perpetuates and even expands these defective policies without regard for the fact that the majority of farmers do not have a safety-net.

"The Three Legged Stool

"The first leg of the stool is direct payment subsidies to specific farmers who grow certain crops…Direct payment policies are particularly irresponsible because the taxpayer funded subsidies go out to farmers regardless of whether cash is flowing in or out of their farms or whether they farm at all…the Senate Farm Bill, as agreed to by the Senate Agriculture Committee, doles out up to $26 billion in direct payments from taxpayers, much of which will go to some of the largest and wealthiest farming operations in America. In fact, over 50 percent of these subsidies will continue to go to farmers in just seven states for a grand total of over $13.1 billion.

"Some may find these statistics surprising, but this is simply a continuation of business as usual when it comes to farm subsidies. Keep in mind that in the years 2000-2005, the farm sector received $112 billion in taxpayer subsidies, but only 43 percent of all farms received payments. This is because the majority of the payments go to just five row crops—corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice. The largest 8 percent of these farms received 58 percent of the payments. In fact, the top 1 percent of the highest earning farmers claimed 17 percent of the crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005.

"Smaller farms that qualify in the current system and that could benefit from additional support did not do as well. Two-thirds of recipient farms received less than $10,000, accounting for only 7 percent of their gross cash farm income. Minority (African American) farmers fared even worse with only 8 percent of minority farmers even receiving federal farm subsidies.

"Furthermore, half of the federal crop subsidies paid between 2003 and 2005 went to only 19 congressional districts (out of 435).
Each one of these statistics illustrates that our direct payment system is inequitable and in conflict with claims you will hear on the Senate Floor that our current farm policies are a safety-net for the family farmer.

"The second leg of the stool is “countercyclical payments,” or having the taxpayer pay farmers when prices fall below a congressionally set price. The third leg is a marketing loan program that allows farmers to put their crop up as collateral to receive operating capitol. However, provisions allow farmers to go ahead and sell the crop and re-pay the government at a lower rate, leaving taxpayers to make up the difference.

"Because these two programs do not appropriately correspond with market forces, they have the effect of creating artificial markets for crops, even when markets do not exist. Yet neither program provides any help to farmers when they arguably need it most, during disasters such as drought. Of greater concern, these programs have been ruled to violate our trade agreements, but this new Farm Bill actually increases target prices for at least five crops, loan rates for seven crops, and adds a number of new subsidized crops.

"Trade

"Some Senators may wonder why we should be concerned that we are in violation of our World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments. They might think that this situation is simply limited to agriculture or specific crops with little impact on our overall economy. Others might even suggest that we are better off building up more barriers to trade; that this Farm Bill is about American farmers not farmers in Brazil or elsewhere. However, if Senators look further down the line they will see that our WTO violations could cost the United States billions in revenue, intellectual property, and lost trade opportunities. Failure to move toward compliance will invite retaliatory tariffs that legally can be directed at any U.S. industry.

"In fact, this is happening now. Brazil will soon have the authority to retaliate in kind against U.S. products, whether they be agricultural products or intellectual property, due to our unwillingness to fix our farm policies… but what is clear is that the WTO has repeatedly found the U.S. Cotton Program to be in violation of our commitments. As a result, a host of challenges to other agricultural commodities have ensued including a case brought forth by Brazil and Canada in November that targets all of our commodity programs.

"In fact, this Farm Bill significantly increases the likelihood that other programs will be further challenged by the WTO. Specifically, the WTO found that countercyclical payments and marketing loans are trade distorting and that direct payments, argued to be trade neutral, are a trade violation as long as planting restrictions are retained. Astonishingly, the Farm Bill increases payments made under these trade distorting programs almost across the board, further exacerbating our trade situation.

"Should the WTO determine that other U.S. farm subsidy programs, as challenged by Brazil and Canada, do not comply with WTO rules, the potential for retaliation by other countries is immeasurable.

"Farm Consolidation

"If you are now a farm landowner in America, it is highly probable that your land will increase in value. Why? Because a landowning farmer or agriculture business can count upon receiving substantially more money through subsidies. As a result, you are able to leverage your land and crops to expand.
If you are one of hundreds of thousands of farmers in this country who rent land as opposed to owning land, you face a very tough set of circumstances. Your rents are likely to go up each year as the value of the land goes up. Worse still, if you are a young farmer who hopes someday to own land, then your prospects diminish year by year.

"As a result, there are young members of farm families who are hopeful that with the reduction or repeal of Federal estate taxes, that they might inherit the land.
Furthermore, elderly farmers who may be land rich but cash poor will be more inclined to sell their farms as their retirement “nest egg.” The most likely buyer of that farm is an owner of a larger farm who is in a position to expand thanks to government subsidies.

"Rural Development

"Despite this fundamental shift, the 2002 Farm Bill committed 69 percent of total spending to commodity payments, plus another 13 percent to conservation payments. In all, four-fifths of total funding went to a select few farmers, while only 0.7 percent went to rural development initiatives aimed at boosting rural economies.

"We now have evidence which suggests that direct payments to farmers have little positive impact on rural economies. A recent study revealed that most payment-dependent counties did not even match the national average in terms of job growth from 1992 to 2002. In fact, many experienced losses during that time.
Furthermore, most of these payment-dependent counties experienced population losses during that same ten year period. Such job and population loss figures suggest that our current system of support for rural communities, which relies on subsidies like direct payments, does not work.

"Choices and Priorities

"Keep in mind that the median household income for Americans for 2006 was $48,200 and the average income of a Food Stamp recipient is less than $10,000.
There is also an ongoing reluctance to consider change. Members will say, “Farming is conservative by nature. You can’t demand too much change.” In 2002, I offered a similar type of reform proposal and opponents argued that the proposal was “too new, too radical, and required too much change.”

You will hear that same baseless argument today. When is the time for reform? When will we fix this broken system? When will we act on the clear evidence before us?

"As Senators, we clearly must understand our responsibility. Whether we understand all the complexities of our current farm programs, we know where the money goes. The bulk of the money in the underlying Farm Bill goes to a very few farmers--a very few. That has been clear throughout. This is not a great humanitarian effort. This does not save the family farmer, the low-income farmer, or even the middle-income farmer.

"This bill is about making choices. And it is incredible to me that with all of the budgetary pressures that we are facing to fund critical needs such as providing better health insurance coverage for Americans, protecting Social Security and pension savings, improving education, increasing border security, and providing our men and women in the Armed Forces with appropriate pay and equipment that we would consider a bill which enriches so few individuals.

Long live the African and Zimbabwean farmers who secured their land by any means necessary.

Labels: FARM SUBSIDIES, LAND REFORM

posted by MrK @ 8:35 PM