beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

Oh yes I have read it... Poor hamlet is saddened by his mother's marriage to his uncle. And looks at this as a weakness which stems from her make as a woman. Meaning that a man cannot behave so recklessly and unfeeling if he was in the same position as her. Of course we know from the natural course of conduct of man in general that even the male species have not been spared of such weakness.....in their case its even worse....

Its very difficult to separate woman from wife as the two are basically the same. The only difference is that the latter is some-what tied to a man and is not free to live her life as she pleases. And thereof lies her frailty....which is brought about by man of course. However, we have a few success stories of women who have risen above the shackles of man(husband) and have achieved successful stories in their own right... Margaret Thatcher Of Great Britain-1979 to 1980
Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway-Prime Minister, 1981, 1986-1989, 1990-1996 are both good examples together with other women of course. But even for them, the road to success has not been easy. They have had to work twice as hard as their men folk for their achievements to be scored.

And when it come to woman and man....we have to use a different standard. The saying goes like this, "behind every successful man, there is a woman". This simply means that even though women may appear to be the weak species, this in reality is not the case. We are strong than we seem to be. If anything, the weaklings are our men folk. They fail to make decisions or be daring most of the time and have to hide behind their prejudices and undecisiveness. Look what happened in the garden of Eden. If Adam had been the stronger of the two, surely he would have refused to eat of the fruit.....frailty, thy name is man.....

A question in between, is there a system where equality can be guaranteed in society? If there is, which system is that?

Excused....the sentence was read within its context. So, the meaning was not distorted at all

>The historical case is widely clear. But what went wrong now? We face similar problems in Venezuela.< originally posted by dedx...

>The leaders were more preoccupied with the prospects of over-throwing foreign domination or the mechanisms of taking control of their country. As if to confirm this observation, a certain British official who was involved in independece talks did state that: 'they were amazed as to why the land reforms were not tabled at the talks'. Another criticism which is aimed at Mugabe is that the timing of the land reform was flawed because he should have implemented it immediately after independence than later. Furthermore, it was undertaken when Mugabe;s popularity was plunging downwards. Thus,he manipulated it to appease party cadres to resurrect his political fortunes.< originally posted by Spuds2.


I would approach the issue of what is happening in Zimbabwe from a broader perceipective as I believe the problems that Zimbabwe is facing are universal and not restrictive. Its trite knowledge that land plays an integral role to man's survival on planet earth. And as such, any reform that touches on land must be approached with caution and care as it can boomerang if not properly handled.

When one looks at the problems in Chile which have arisen from Land reforms, one can see almost immediately why the problems have arisen. Although the Reforms were aimed at restoring land that was unlawfully grabbed from the Mapuches, the government was met with instant hostilities from political elements that wanted to take advantage of the situation. They raised a red flag to these reforms not out of principle but out of selfishness and in the hope of furthering their political ambitions. And this reaction is common to the local opposition political force of each country. They protest not because they care a damn about the people they are purporting to represent, but that their primary goal is to make the government of the day look bad in the eyes of the people. The opposition naturally have an agenda to remove the government from power in order to take over. The former colononist on the other hand would want to protect its own people from being evicted from the land which it knows it wrongly grabbed from the indigenous populace. Its main problem is, If its nationals are displaced and they decide to return home,where is she going to accommodate them? Therefore, it will fight tooth and nail to frustrate these reforms. Like we have seen, Britain rallied its allies behind her to impose economical sanctions on Zimbabwe. This has instantly crippled the economy of Zimbabwe and forced the masses to go without the basic amenities.

On the other hand, the other problems that have arisen from this is the hurry with which these policies have been implemented without giving ample time to people to adjust to the changes through discussions. The tendence of man when met with a new idea is to resist it. But through continuous bombardment of the same, you find that slowly acceptance and implementation creeps in. Therefore, I would submit that if these reforms were introduced slowly by starting with campaigns to enlighten the population on the need for these reforms and allowing them to assimilate them one by one, the affected populace would have embraced them. But hurrying the program has instead yielded negative results. In Chile recently, the Minister of Agriculture was quoted as saying, "Agrarian Reforms are like surgical operations. You can't do them little by little for fear that the patient will die during the operation". This was said at the time that land was being expropriated in favor of the Mapuches. Now,this kind of attitude is retrogressive and a recipe for hostilities and unnecessary tensions. And as a result, we have tensions and resistence to these reforms and the opposition of that country taking advantage of the situation.

lastly but not the least, i would also like to add that the destroying of Zimbabwe's economy by the powers that may be has killed a lot of poor people than the well to do. Small children, as young as 9 years have been forced on the streets in search of food by selling their bodies to the highest bidders. Aids has therefore not spared them. And as a result, they are dying too soon even before they blossom....These are the killings that are resulting from denying Aid to Zimbabwe. And when they get infected, there is no medicine in hospitals. Question is, who is killing these youngsters?.....dying before their time....gone too soon.!!

I tend to think that the basic and original idea of appropriating land to the indigenous Africans was founded on a right premise. However, what has gone wrong is not the idea itself but with the way the reforms have been carried out.

The whole farmLand reform in Zimbabwe officially began in 1979 with the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement. This was an effort to more equitably distribute land between the historically disenfranchised blacks and the minority-whites who ruled Zimbabwe from 1890 to 1979.[BBC NEWS-Thursday, 8 August, 2002, 14:19 GMT 15:19 UK][edit]198 contested political issue surrounding Zimbabwe today].

A look at history would establish that the implementation of the land reform policy was long overdue and inevitable. There is no denying of the fact that the indegenous Africans were highly marginalised during the colonial period as much of the white-owned land lay in more fertile areas with better rainfall, while the black farming areas lay in drought-prone regions.

It is also interesting to note that before the granting of independence to Zimbabwe, the British government had actually agreed to fund the reforms(44 million pounds was made available by the British government to help and facilitate and implement the Lancaster Agreement on a willing buyer, willing seller principle, where farmers who were unwilling to stay in Zimbabwe would be bought out by funds provided by the British through the Zimbabwean government. Under the agreement, the new Zimbabwean government could not seize European-owned land for the first ten years of independence.

Now, having touched on both the need to implement the reforms and the agreement by both parties to correct the injustice, one wonders what has gone wrong since then. Why has Britain turned around and distanced itself from the reforms?

The problem to me still lies in the way the Mugabe Government tried to implement the reforms. They politicised the whole issue. What must be understood is that the land that was suppposed to be appropriated to the peasant farmers was only going to be a very small percentage. The rest of it was going to remain in the hands of the white minority. Therefore, the issue of large scale farming was not even going to be threatened. But as is the case now, the wholw thing was mishandled and it is difficult to see how it will be corrected.

As history reveals, implementation of such an important and sensitive matter was left to the illiterate cadres who had no understanding at all of the gymnatics involved in land issues. Naturally, they easily turned it into a political tool.

And then justice keeps quiet in the wake of injustice

Problem in africa is that those with an ability to speak out for others do not always do so because their thinking capacity has become overshadowed with politics of bread and butter. This is a poverty mentality which is also sanctioned by our laws. Just as an example, the president appoints and disappoints the chiefs to the three arms of the govt. And in most cases, these are his puppets. They must do the masters bidding and dance to his tune. What is the result of this? the three arms of govt merge into one bundle of abuse and injustice. Integrity and independence of thought suffers the pain of sanctions. Free press is muzzled up(jailing of fred mmenbe-owner of a private newspaper which is the only one critical of the govt is one example). The opposition party leadership is discredited and threatened with prosecution for alleged offences. In this scenario, justice has no place at the table and she suffers silently. The masses are brainwashed with false propaganda by the govt controlled media...the situation is helpless

The people themselves who should stand up against any injustice have long given up and resigned themselves to a life of injustice. The road to a better and free future is obscure. And now, standing up for the masses who have resigned themselves to their lot is a risky affair. Your efforts will all be in vain. Real change can only come about when the people themselves arise and say enough is enough...it would require a revolution....but how to rekindle that spirit is the real problem. How do you awaken the sleeping giant which intentionally finds safety in pretending to sleep while the aggressor strips it of its powers?

)Themselves( are a poor ignorant lot. The problem at hand is that the elite and working class make up only a quarter of the total population. Obviously, not enough numbers to make any meaningful change. Moreover, -themselves- are more concerned in fighting for their own personal stability. The rest are so poor that their (will) or voice is marketable and worthy very little. Right now, we have a bye-election going on in one of the dilapidated areas. No water and the roads are really bad. Because of the impending election, the govt has moved in to repair roads and fix up the water. And all they need now to seal up the victory are a few coins placed in the pockets of a few well placed outspoken individuals. Thats all it takes. So, where is the will of the people?. And is it their fault that they can be bought and influenced like this or is it just foolishness?. Why is africa so damned?hmm... Strong word indeed...

Yes....the picture is incomplete. It is difficult at this stage to give a full picture. But i will not hesitate to point out by saying that most of the problems which are there have to do with the people's attitude. They are docile.