Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

ZIMBABWE PRESIDENT SCHOOLS TUCKER CARLSON This exchange between right wing commentator Tucker Carlson and Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa at the World Governments Summit is revealing, not for what Carlson uncovers, but for how clearly he echoes a long standing Western distortion of African history. Carlson frames Zimbabwe’s land reform... as a racial injustice against white farmers, recycling a narrative that strips colonialism of context. Mnangagwa pushes back, calmly but firmly, reminding him of a basic historical truth: Zimbabwe was colonised, its land violently seized by settlers, and independence required reclaiming what was taken. Land was never “white” or “black”; it belonged to the native Africans who were systemically dispossessed. The liberation struggle, led by the late Robert Mugabe representing ZANU and the late Joshua Nkomo representing ZAPU, was not just about establishing a Western-style democratic system; it was first and foremost about reclaiming land. Hence, the Lancaster Agreement was signed in London and stipulated that the British state should compensate white farmers for land reclaimed by the newly independent state. But when the British reneged on their promises and veterans who had sacrificed their lives for independence became frustrated that they were still landless over 20 years after independence, they started pressuring the ZANU PF government, led by Mugabe, to push through the land reform Carlson references, without giving any historical context. What followed the land reform decades were economic sanctions designed to punish African self-determinationn. This is how colonialism survives: not only through force, but through narrative. By rewriting history, erasing context, and manufacturing moral outrage, Western media launders power into “concern” and calls it journalism. VoxUmmah Venezuelanalysis Qiao Collective Progressive International Kawsachun News Orinoco Tribune @blkagendareport Soberanía: The Mexican Politics Podcastshow more

Sovereign Media

30,487 subscribers

292,822 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

MUGABE: YOU DO NOT BECOME A CITIZEN VIA COLONISATION Pan-Africanist icon and Zimbabwe’s first post-independence leader, Robert Mugabe, was born on 21 February 1924. If he were still alive, he would have turned 102 on 21 February this year. The larger-than-life politician, who died in 2019 aged 95, was known for speaking bluntly against imperial powers and their allies. He was deeply committed to reclaiming land seized during colonial rule and insisted that it be returned to Zimbabwe’s indigenous population. In this 2009 clip, Mugabe challenges CNN host Christiane Amanpour’s framing of Zimbabwe’s land reform programme, pushing back against narratives often repeated in Western media. He argued that colonial settlers could not claim citizenship through conquest and then assert permanent rights to the land. It seems his successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa, is still facing similar claims. Earlier this month at the World Governments Summit, right-wing journalist Tucker Carlson repeated allegations about white farmers that echo narratives long circulated in Western media, similar to the arguments raised by Christiane Amanpour in the 2009 exchange. Mugabe’s position continues to resonate beyond Zimbabwe, especially in neighbouring South Africa, where land ownership remains highly unequal. More than three decades after the end of apartheid, white South Africans, who make up less than 8 per cent of the population, still own over 70 per cent of the country’s arable land Video credit: CNN VoxUmmah Venezuelanalysis Qiao Collective Progressive International Kawsachun News Orinoco Tribune @blkagendareport Soberanía: The Mexican Politics Podcast

MUGABE: YOU DO NOT BECOME A CITIZEN VIA COLONISATION Pan-Africanist icon and Zimbabwe’s first post-independence leader, Robert Mugabe, was born on 21 February 1924. If he were still alive, he would have turned 102 on 21 February this year. The larger-than-life politician, who died in 2019 aged 95, was known for speaking bluntly against imperial powers and their allies. He was deeply committed to reclaiming land seized during colonial rule and insisted that it be returned to Zimbabwe’s indigenous population. In this 2009 clip, Mugabe challenges CNN host Christiane Amanpour’s framing of Zimbabwe’s land reform programme, pushing back against narratives often repeated in Western media. He argued that colonial settlers could not claim citizenship through conquest and then assert permanent rights to the land. It seems his successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa, is still facing similar claims. Earlier this month at the World Governments Summit, right-wing journalist Tucker Carlson repeated allegations about white farmers that echo narratives long circulated in Western media, similar to the arguments raised by Christiane Amanpour in the 2009 exchange. Mugabe’s position continues to resonate beyond Zimbabwe, especially in neighbouring South Africa, where land ownership remains highly unequal. More than three decades after the end of apartheid, white South Africans, who make up less than 8 per cent of the population, still own over 70 per cent of the country’s arable land Video credit: CNN VoxUmmah Venezuelanalysis Qiao Collective Progressive International Kawsachun News Orinoco Tribune @blkagendareport Soberanía: The Mexican Politics Podcast

Sovereign Media

20,437 views • 5 months ago

The Empire Never Forgave Zimbabwe for Taking Back Land Zimbabwe is preparing to return 67 foreign-owned commercial farms seized during its land reform program, with the government saying the properties were protected under bilateral investment agreements. Before land reform, about 4,500 white farmers controlled most of the country’s most fertile land, a direct legacy of colonial dispossession. When Zimbabwe attempted to reverse that injustice, it was punished with sanctions, isolation, restricted access to finance, and years of Western hostility. Now, in the name of rebuilding relations with Western governments and international lenders, Zimbabwe is being pushed back into the old colonial bargain: return the land, compensate former settlers, reassure investors, and call it progress. This is not reconciliation. It is a land grab under the guise of economic blackmail. For Africa, the warning is clear: sovereignty means very little if a country cannot control its land, protect its resources, and make economic decisions without being punished by the same powers that benefited from colonial theft.

The Empire Never Forgave Zimbabwe for Taking Back Land Zimbabwe is preparing to return 67 foreign-owned commercial farms seized during its land reform program, with the government saying the properties were protected under bilateral investment agreements. Before land reform, about 4,500 white farmers controlled most of the country’s most fertile land, a direct legacy of colonial dispossession. When Zimbabwe attempted to reverse that injustice, it was punished with sanctions, isolation, restricted access to finance, and years of Western hostility. Now, in the name of rebuilding relations with Western governments and international lenders, Zimbabwe is being pushed back into the old colonial bargain: return the land, compensate former settlers, reassure investors, and call it progress. This is not reconciliation. It is a land grab under the guise of economic blackmail. For Africa, the warning is clear: sovereignty means very little if a country cannot control its land, protect its resources, and make economic decisions without being punished by the same powers that benefited from colonial theft.

The Spearhead

25,714 views • 2 months ago

MUGABE: YOU DO NOT BECOME A CITIZEN VIA COLONISATION Pan-Africanist icon and Zimbabwe's first post-independence leader, Robert Mugabe, was born on this day, 21 February, in 1924. The larger-than-life politician, who died of cancer at age 95 in 2019, was well-known for not holding back when calling out imperialists and their cronies. Mugabe was also passionate about ensuring that the British returned all land stolen during the colonial era to their rightful owners, Zimbabwe's indigenous people. In this 2009 clip, the straight-talking Mugabe corrected CNN host Christiane Amanpour about Zimbabwe's land reform programme, clearing misconceptions that form the talking points of those against it. Mugabe asserts that one cannot become a citizen through colonisation and then claim a right to land. This is a message we hope filters through to Zimbabwe's neighbour, South Africa, where, for decades, the government has hesitated to take steps to end glaring land-ownership inequalities between Black people and white settlers. More than 30 years after independence, white South Africans, who make up less than 8 per cent of the population, still own more than 70 per cent of South Africa’s arable land, according to a 2017 land audit conducted by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Video credit: CNN

MUGABE: YOU DO NOT BECOME A CITIZEN VIA COLONISATION Pan-Africanist icon and Zimbabwe's first post-independence leader, Robert Mugabe, was born on this day, 21 February, in 1924. The larger-than-life politician, who died of cancer at age 95 in 2019, was well-known for not holding back when calling out imperialists and their cronies. Mugabe was also passionate about ensuring that the British returned all land stolen during the colonial era to their rightful owners, Zimbabwe's indigenous people. In this 2009 clip, the straight-talking Mugabe corrected CNN host Christiane Amanpour about Zimbabwe's land reform programme, clearing misconceptions that form the talking points of those against it. Mugabe asserts that one cannot become a citizen through colonisation and then claim a right to land. This is a message we hope filters through to Zimbabwe's neighbour, South Africa, where, for decades, the government has hesitated to take steps to end glaring land-ownership inequalities between Black people and white settlers. More than 30 years after independence, white South Africans, who make up less than 8 per cent of the population, still own more than 70 per cent of South Africa’s arable land, according to a 2017 land audit conducted by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Video credit: CNN

African Stream

626,106 views • 1 year ago

AFRIXPLAINED: MUGABE’S LAND REFORM - GOOD OR BAD? With issues related to colonial-era land grabs by White settlers in South Africa making headlines, we are reminded of how the West condemned former Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe (1924-2019) for his land reforms. For Zimbabweans, it was a vital step towards reclaiming sovereignty and addressing historical injustices. These reforms led to a boost in agricultural production. However, the sanctions they triggered from the EU and the US led to considerable economic difficulties. Research conducted between 2000-2010 in Masvingo province, one of the areas where the land reform was implemented, has revealed that mainstream media narratives did not fully capture the complexities of the situation. In our in-depth look at the issue, we speak with Ian Scoones - the author of Zimbabwe Land Reform. He dispels several myths surrounding Mugabe’s policy. A more nuanced understanding invites a reevaluation of the reforms’ impact. Have a watch and let us know if you think they were ultimately worth it.

AFRIXPLAINED: MUGABE’S LAND REFORM - GOOD OR BAD? With issues related to colonial-era land grabs by White settlers in South Africa making headlines, we are reminded of how the West condemned former Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe (1924-2019) for his land reforms. For Zimbabweans, it was a vital step towards reclaiming sovereignty and addressing historical injustices. These reforms led to a boost in agricultural production. However, the sanctions they triggered from the EU and the US led to considerable economic difficulties. Research conducted between 2000-2010 in Masvingo province, one of the areas where the land reform was implemented, has revealed that mainstream media narratives did not fully capture the complexities of the situation. In our in-depth look at the issue, we speak with Ian Scoones - the author of Zimbabwe Land Reform. He dispels several myths surrounding Mugabe’s policy. A more nuanced understanding invites a reevaluation of the reforms’ impact. Have a watch and let us know if you think they were ultimately worth it.

African Stream

21,002 views • 1 year ago

SOUTH AFRICA, ZIMBABWE, AFRICA, APARTHEID, COLONIAL SEGREGATION, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LAND REFORM Very often, when people talk about Expropriation of Land Without Compensation, or Nationalisation, etc, some people rush to the now common threat: "you will starve like Zimbabwe". To be clear, Zimbabwe's land reform was never about really giving land to Africans. Mugabe, a European puppet of note, was only caught off guard by War Veterans who had run out of patience, and he acceded only because he was on the verge of losing power. So, Zimbabwe is a bad example. Now, Chris Kunzler here makes one of the most important cases for land reform, giving Alexandra as an example, where vast tracts of land lie unused (and owned by Europeans who inherited the land from previous thieves), but the land cannot be used to resettle the crowded people of Alex. A drive around Gauteng will show that there exists these vast tracts of land around the most overpopulated townships, but the government cannot use this land because it is obscenely priced for the willing buyer and willing seller BS.

SOUTH AFRICA, ZIMBABWE, AFRICA, APARTHEID, COLONIAL SEGREGATION, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LAND REFORM Very often, when people talk about Expropriation of Land Without Compensation, or Nationalisation, etc, some people rush to the now common threat: "you will starve like Zimbabwe". To be clear, Zimbabwe's land reform was never about really giving land to Africans. Mugabe, a European puppet of note, was only caught off guard by War Veterans who had run out of patience, and he acceded only because he was on the verge of losing power. So, Zimbabwe is a bad example. Now, Chris Kunzler here makes one of the most important cases for land reform, giving Alexandra as an example, where vast tracts of land lie unused (and owned by Europeans who inherited the land from previous thieves), but the land cannot be used to resettle the crowded people of Alex. A drive around Gauteng will show that there exists these vast tracts of land around the most overpopulated townships, but the government cannot use this land because it is obscenely priced for the willing buyer and willing seller BS.

Unathi Afrika

236,367 views • 3 years ago

Zimbabwe has never been led by politics; it has always been led by the gun from the rear. In fact, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) has always been led by the gun — only the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) was led by politics. The first leader of ZANU was Ndabaningi Sithole. He was removed by the Mgagao Declaration, which was signed by the military wing of ZANU, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA). The chairman of ZANU and its external leader was Herbert Chitepo. He was also killed by ZANLA in Zambia according to an international commission of inquiry set up by Zambian president, Dr Kenneth Kaunda. The next leader of ZANU was Robert Mugabe. He was installed by the military, although Samora Machel the president of Mozambique had advised them against the idea. Machel was proved right in the fullness of time, but it was the military that endorsed Mugabe through Rex Nhongo who became known as Solomon Mujuru. The Lancaster House talks in Britain were almost stalled by Mugabe’s intransigence, but it was General Josiah Tongogara, with the help of Samora Machel, who forced Mugabe to sign — after Machel sent his special aide, Fernando Honwana, to tell Mugabe to sign or come back to Maputo and write his memoirs on the beach. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it was the military, through its commanders, that influenced politics. In fact, any time Mugabe felt threatened, it was the military that sorted out party problems. General Solomon Mujuru was nicknamed the Kingmaker because of that, he was a powerful behind-the-scenes Politburo influencer when he was the overall commander of the army. Post-2000, it was the military that kept ZANUPF in power and actually ran its elections in tandem with the CIO. It was General Vitalis Zvinavashe who threatened citizens saying the military won’t accept a Morgan Tsvangirai victory. Though not a visible Politburo member in the 1980s, he was deeply embedded in both party and military affairs. General Constantino Chiwenga was effectively a military commissar for ZANUPF, executing the first bloodless coup in 2008 when the military stopped Morgan Tsvangirai from taking over after defeating Robert Mugabe. He was heavily involved in the 2013 elections with Air Marshal Muchena and eventually carried out a military coup that put Mnangagwa and the current regime in power. When the new crop of so called technocrats was appointed by Mugabe in 2000, it was General Chiwenga who was involved and when they hit a brick wall, they would return to him. The first time the military refused to be involved in politics — which is the real first aberration — was two weeks ago, when General Anselem Nhamo Sanyatwe refused to deploy soldiers against civilians and was fired for that. The ZANUPF spokesman Christopher Mutsvangwa called it disloyalty. If President Emmerson Mnangagwa manages to fire General Chiwenga tomorrow, as rumours suggest, without any blowback or deadly consequences, he would become the first ZANUPF leader to lead the gun — and not be removed by the military. So I disagree with the notion by my brother, Prof Jonathan Moyo, that the 2017 coup was an aberration. It wasn’t — it was the norm. What was an aberration was the amount of violence against the CIO and police officers who tried to resist. What has kept Emmerson Mnangagwa in power after his power struggle with his Vice President is his clansman, General Philip Valerio Sibanda who is the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. He is opposed to General Chiwenga taking over as president and has been a stumbling block for the Vice President. Mnangagwa has been strategic by removing the former ZANLA army commanders from the top of the military because they are loyal to Chiwenga, who was in ZANLA, and replacing them with ex-Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) commanders. General Sibanda and the Commander of the Army, General Emmanuel Matatu, are both ex-ZIPRA, and they are all from the Midlands, like Mnangagwa.

Zimbabwe has never been led by politics; it has always been led by the gun from the rear. In fact, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) has always been led by the gun — only the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) was led by politics. The first leader of ZANU was Ndabaningi Sithole. He was removed by the Mgagao Declaration, which was signed by the military wing of ZANU, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA). The chairman of ZANU and its external leader was Herbert Chitepo. He was also killed by ZANLA in Zambia according to an international commission of inquiry set up by Zambian president, Dr Kenneth Kaunda. The next leader of ZANU was Robert Mugabe. He was installed by the military, although Samora Machel the president of Mozambique had advised them against the idea. Machel was proved right in the fullness of time, but it was the military that endorsed Mugabe through Rex Nhongo who became known as Solomon Mujuru. The Lancaster House talks in Britain were almost stalled by Mugabe’s intransigence, but it was General Josiah Tongogara, with the help of Samora Machel, who forced Mugabe to sign — after Machel sent his special aide, Fernando Honwana, to tell Mugabe to sign or come back to Maputo and write his memoirs on the beach. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it was the military, through its commanders, that influenced politics. In fact, any time Mugabe felt threatened, it was the military that sorted out party problems. General Solomon Mujuru was nicknamed the Kingmaker because of that, he was a powerful behind-the-scenes Politburo influencer when he was the overall commander of the army. Post-2000, it was the military that kept ZANUPF in power and actually ran its elections in tandem with the CIO. It was General Vitalis Zvinavashe who threatened citizens saying the military won’t accept a Morgan Tsvangirai victory. Though not a visible Politburo member in the 1980s, he was deeply embedded in both party and military affairs. General Constantino Chiwenga was effectively a military commissar for ZANUPF, executing the first bloodless coup in 2008 when the military stopped Morgan Tsvangirai from taking over after defeating Robert Mugabe. He was heavily involved in the 2013 elections with Air Marshal Muchena and eventually carried out a military coup that put Mnangagwa and the current regime in power. When the new crop of so called technocrats was appointed by Mugabe in 2000, it was General Chiwenga who was involved and when they hit a brick wall, they would return to him. The first time the military refused to be involved in politics — which is the real first aberration — was two weeks ago, when General Anselem Nhamo Sanyatwe refused to deploy soldiers against civilians and was fired for that. The ZANUPF spokesman Christopher Mutsvangwa called it disloyalty. If President Emmerson Mnangagwa manages to fire General Chiwenga tomorrow, as rumours suggest, without any blowback or deadly consequences, he would become the first ZANUPF leader to lead the gun — and not be removed by the military. So I disagree with the notion by my brother, Prof Jonathan Moyo, that the 2017 coup was an aberration. It wasn’t — it was the norm. What was an aberration was the amount of violence against the CIO and police officers who tried to resist. What has kept Emmerson Mnangagwa in power after his power struggle with his Vice President is his clansman, General Philip Valerio Sibanda who is the Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces. He is opposed to General Chiwenga taking over as president and has been a stumbling block for the Vice President. Mnangagwa has been strategic by removing the former ZANLA army commanders from the top of the military because they are loyal to Chiwenga, who was in ZANLA, and replacing them with ex-Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) commanders. General Sibanda and the Commander of the Army, General Emmanuel Matatu, are both ex-ZIPRA, and they are all from the Midlands, like Mnangagwa.

Hopewell Chin’ono

134,209 views • 1 year ago

From the POV of the left, this last scene was the return to wholeness. The children push over the gravestones, unaware. Playful, thoughtless. But the land remembers. The old ones appear, not Duttons, but the long marginalized Native elders, and they speak. Not in anger, but in a tone that cuts through time: They (Duttons) died protecting the land. Not from us. From the false colonial power center. This is not a political gesture. It is a mystical one. The Duttons, though flawed and often violent, were holding a space against something worse - the power center of gentrification and federal land ownership. They were a barrier against this desecration, a dam holding back the flood of gentrification as erasure, development as oblivion, the reduction of the land to market and square footage. But the Duttons were never whole. They were cracked. Their family was riddled with trauma, secrets, sacrifice that bled into nihilism. The land they guarded was never truly theirs, just as the divine cannot be truly held by broken vessels. They were vessels filled with too much light, burning from the inside. The role they played was not ownership but temporary containment, to be used by the revolution and then discarded. They were the containment field for the story of a land with memory, with blood, with sacred weight. The repair is not the Duttons winning. The Duttons were to be sublated by the long repressed margins. The repair is not the ranch enduring. The repair comes when the true memory is restored to the people who never forgot. When the center, which was never truly the center, steps aside. When the story ceases to be a struggle for possession and becomes again a story of care, of place, of knowing. In this final gesture, where the elders remind the children who these dead were; they were not conquerors, not martyrs, but stewards who suffered for the land. The land, long cracked and held by hands that shook, begins to breathe again. The husks have done their work. The spark lifts. The pieces draw inward. The land, once broken, is returned, not to a people, but to wholeness as it was intended. The falsely inverted now corrected.. That is the return. That is the whole.

From the POV of the left, this last scene was the return to wholeness. The children push over the gravestones, unaware. Playful, thoughtless. But the land remembers. The old ones appear, not Duttons, but the long marginalized Native elders, and they speak. Not in anger, but in a tone that cuts through time: They (Duttons) died protecting the land. Not from us. From the false colonial power center. This is not a political gesture. It is a mystical one. The Duttons, though flawed and often violent, were holding a space against something worse - the power center of gentrification and federal land ownership. They were a barrier against this desecration, a dam holding back the flood of gentrification as erasure, development as oblivion, the reduction of the land to market and square footage. But the Duttons were never whole. They were cracked. Their family was riddled with trauma, secrets, sacrifice that bled into nihilism. The land they guarded was never truly theirs, just as the divine cannot be truly held by broken vessels. They were vessels filled with too much light, burning from the inside. The role they played was not ownership but temporary containment, to be used by the revolution and then discarded. They were the containment field for the story of a land with memory, with blood, with sacred weight. The repair is not the Duttons winning. The Duttons were to be sublated by the long repressed margins. The repair is not the ranch enduring. The repair comes when the true memory is restored to the people who never forgot. When the center, which was never truly the center, steps aside. When the story ceases to be a struggle for possession and becomes again a story of care, of place, of knowing. In this final gesture, where the elders remind the children who these dead were; they were not conquerors, not martyrs, but stewards who suffered for the land. The land, long cracked and held by hands that shook, begins to breathe again. The husks have done their work. The spark lifts. The pieces draw inward. The land, once broken, is returned, not to a people, but to wholeness as it was intended. The falsely inverted now corrected.. That is the return. That is the whole.

Yuri Bezmenov's Ghost

32,847 views • 1 year ago

This speech by Pan Africanist scholar, Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba shows how ZANUPF propaganda has now fell flat on its face. No sensible Zimbabwean or African was ever opposed to Land Reform, they were just opposed to violent grabs when you could simply legislate in parliament. Sensible people were opposed to land being given on partisan basis instead of giving land to those with the ability to use it. They were opposed to one family owning 21 farms and that being replicated as it has been across the ZANUPF leadership. This speech by Prof P.L.O. Lumumba shows that the world now gets it, and that grabbing land violently and dishing it to your cronies and family is not land reform. Land reform is yet to be done, when it is done properly on merit, Zimbabwe will rise again because only a competent Government can do that! A competent Government leads to a successful country!

This speech by Pan Africanist scholar, Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba shows how ZANUPF propaganda has now fell flat on its face. No sensible Zimbabwean or African was ever opposed to Land Reform, they were just opposed to violent grabs when you could simply legislate in parliament. Sensible people were opposed to land being given on partisan basis instead of giving land to those with the ability to use it. They were opposed to one family owning 21 farms and that being replicated as it has been across the ZANUPF leadership. This speech by Prof P.L.O. Lumumba shows that the world now gets it, and that grabbing land violently and dishing it to your cronies and family is not land reform. Land reform is yet to be done, when it is done properly on merit, Zimbabwe will rise again because only a competent Government can do that! A competent Government leads to a successful country!

Hopewell Chin’ono

126,578 views • 3 years ago

LAWYER DISPELS LAND EXPROPRIATION MYTHS South Africa's Land Expropriation Act, which was signed into law in early 2025 as part of efforts to provide redress for the country's historical land injustices, has generated considerable debate in recent months. The act allows the government to expropriate privately owned land for public purposes or in the public interest, with nil compensation in rare cases. Some, such as the Donald Trump-led United States governments and right-wing organisations inside South Africa, claim the law is part of what they allege to be 'persecution' of the country's white settlers. However, a closer look at the act shows that this is far from the truth. For instance, in this interview with Newzroom Afrika (@newzroomafrika5914 on YouTube), renowned South African lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi (Ngcukaitobi1 on X) highlights that the act will most likely not result in any active settler-owned land taken away by the state without compensation. Ngcukaitobi explains that, despite right-wing elements portraying the act as radical, it is actually mild, as the nil compensation part will only apply to idle and abandoned land, implying that most settler farmers whose land is in active use will not be affected. This explanation aligns with arguments that have been put forward by progressive organisations such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), who say the law does not go far enough to address the land dispossession that Black South Africans were subjected to during centuries of European settler colonialism, which ramped up into apartheid between 1948 and 1994. They argue that the act will not alter the country's current land ownership structure, where white settlers own more than 72 per cent of the land according to a 2017 government land audit, despite making up only about 7 per cent of the population as per the 2022 national census. Credit: Newzroom Afrika/YouTube

LAWYER DISPELS LAND EXPROPRIATION MYTHS South Africa's Land Expropriation Act, which was signed into law in early 2025 as part of efforts to provide redress for the country's historical land injustices, has generated considerable debate in recent months. The act allows the government to expropriate privately owned land for public purposes or in the public interest, with nil compensation in rare cases. Some, such as the Donald Trump-led United States governments and right-wing organisations inside South Africa, claim the law is part of what they allege to be 'persecution' of the country's white settlers. However, a closer look at the act shows that this is far from the truth. For instance, in this interview with Newzroom Afrika (@newzroomafrika5914 on YouTube), renowned South African lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi (Ngcukaitobi1 on X) highlights that the act will most likely not result in any active settler-owned land taken away by the state without compensation. Ngcukaitobi explains that, despite right-wing elements portraying the act as radical, it is actually mild, as the nil compensation part will only apply to idle and abandoned land, implying that most settler farmers whose land is in active use will not be affected. This explanation aligns with arguments that have been put forward by progressive organisations such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), who say the law does not go far enough to address the land dispossession that Black South Africans were subjected to during centuries of European settler colonialism, which ramped up into apartheid between 1948 and 1994. They argue that the act will not alter the country's current land ownership structure, where white settlers own more than 72 per cent of the land according to a 2017 government land audit, despite making up only about 7 per cent of the population as per the 2022 national census. Credit: Newzroom Afrika/YouTube

African Stream

12,776 views • 1 year ago

Here’s a problem. When a Black political leader whose entire career is built upon the slogan of “land expropriation” stands in front of White landowners and reassures them that only unused land will be taken, while “productive” land will be spared, he’s not fighting dispossession. He’s managing it. He’s saying: It’s okay for you to keep the land, as long as you’re extracting value from it. In that exact moment, land stops being a site of justice or historical redress. It becomes a productive asset, judged only by its economic output, not by how it was acquired or who was dispossessed to make it “productive” in the first place. That’s not radical. It’s violent capitalism. And in a country like South Africa, where the entire architecture of land ownership was violently constructed around White supremacy, “productive land” just means White-owned land. So protecting “productive land” is functionally indistinguishable from protecting the status quo. With this line of argument, the dispossessed aren’t being offered land. They’re being offered food security. They’re told to wait a little longer, for “growth”, for “partnerships”, for jobs, for benevolence from their “bosses”. In fact, this logic says: if you’re a current landowner, all you need to do to avoid expropriation is start farming harder. That’s it. Just produce and there will be no land redress. This is not land reform. It’s land perform. It’s a theatrical gesture of justice that leaves the underlying power structure untouched. Worse, it launders morality: White landowners are cast as generous “partners”, while the dispossessed are still left begging, just more politely. This isn’t revolution. It’s reconciliation with capital. And it’s very unserious.

Here’s a problem. When a Black political leader whose entire career is built upon the slogan of “land expropriation” stands in front of White landowners and reassures them that only unused land will be taken, while “productive” land will be spared, he’s not fighting dispossession. He’s managing it. He’s saying: It’s okay for you to keep the land, as long as you’re extracting value from it. In that exact moment, land stops being a site of justice or historical redress. It becomes a productive asset, judged only by its economic output, not by how it was acquired or who was dispossessed to make it “productive” in the first place. That’s not radical. It’s violent capitalism. And in a country like South Africa, where the entire architecture of land ownership was violently constructed around White supremacy, “productive land” just means White-owned land. So protecting “productive land” is functionally indistinguishable from protecting the status quo. With this line of argument, the dispossessed aren’t being offered land. They’re being offered food security. They’re told to wait a little longer, for “growth”, for “partnerships”, for jobs, for benevolence from their “bosses”. In fact, this logic says: if you’re a current landowner, all you need to do to avoid expropriation is start farming harder. That’s it. Just produce and there will be no land redress. This is not land reform. It’s land perform. It’s a theatrical gesture of justice that leaves the underlying power structure untouched. Worse, it launders morality: White landowners are cast as generous “partners”, while the dispossessed are still left begging, just more politely. This isn’t revolution. It’s reconciliation with capital. And it’s very unserious.

Sizwe SikaMusi

24,319 views • 1 year ago

"If you don’t know history, you won’t understand your future. When I look at the Partition, I always feel that I should tell children - this happened. What happened was wrong and should not be repeated. I felt very sorry for the people who emigrated from what is today called Pakistan and Bangladesh. Just because a person who knew nothing about India -- its culture or its languages -- took a pencil and drew a line, and said that from that moment onwards this land no longer belonged to them and had become a foreign land. How heartbreaking that is. Rishi Sunak’s grandparents were originally from regions that are now in Pakistan and were forced to leave everything behind during Partition. After rebuilding their lives in Nairobi, they were uprooted again and eventually migrated to London when Sunak’s father was 10 years old. I wanted to tell my grand daughter that land and freedom are not easily earned. Our ancestors worked very hard, losing their homes more than once, and still rebuilt their lives with resilience. At least in Punjab, after the division, Punjabis were able to find another land called Punjab, where their language was spoken. Same is the case for Bengal. But for Sindhis, the loss was far deeper. They not only lost their land, they did not get any land of their own." - Rajya Sabha MP Sudha Murty

"If you don’t know history, you won’t understand your future. When I look at the Partition, I always feel that I should tell children - this happened. What happened was wrong and should not be repeated. I felt very sorry for the people who emigrated from what is today called Pakistan and Bangladesh. Just because a person who knew nothing about India -- its culture or its languages -- took a pencil and drew a line, and said that from that moment onwards this land no longer belonged to them and had become a foreign land. How heartbreaking that is. Rishi Sunak’s grandparents were originally from regions that are now in Pakistan and were forced to leave everything behind during Partition. After rebuilding their lives in Nairobi, they were uprooted again and eventually migrated to London when Sunak’s father was 10 years old. I wanted to tell my grand daughter that land and freedom are not easily earned. Our ancestors worked very hard, losing their homes more than once, and still rebuilt their lives with resilience. At least in Punjab, after the division, Punjabis were able to find another land called Punjab, where their language was spoken. Same is the case for Bengal. But for Sindhis, the loss was far deeper. They not only lost their land, they did not get any land of their own." - Rajya Sabha MP Sudha Murty

News Arena India

70,863 views • 6 months ago

KHAMENEI ON THE EXPLOITATION OF BLACK LABOUR IN THE US In this video, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, who was assassinated by US-Israeli forces on 28 February 2026, speaks about the exploitation of Black labour in the history of the United States. Rather than the typical narrative, which claims that Northerners fought a Civil War in the US to free enslaved Africans for moral and humanitarian reasons, Khamenei reveals that the Northerners were actually seeking a cheap labour source of their own. He argues that this is the true reflection of Western values. Eric Williams, the first Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, makes this exact argument in Capitalism and Slavery. Britain didn’t abolish slavery out of morality or philanthropy, but because it no longer made economic sense. As industrial capitalism emerged, a more profitable system took over: wage labour. Workers were technically free, but still didn’t own land, factories, or production, earning wages only to spend them within a system controlled by the same ruling class. Venezuelanalysis VoxUmmah Qiao Collective Progressive International Black Agenda Report Orinoco Tribune Kawsachun News

KHAMENEI ON THE EXPLOITATION OF BLACK LABOUR IN THE US In this video, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, who was assassinated by US-Israeli forces on 28 February 2026, speaks about the exploitation of Black labour in the history of the United States. Rather than the typical narrative, which claims that Northerners fought a Civil War in the US to free enslaved Africans for moral and humanitarian reasons, Khamenei reveals that the Northerners were actually seeking a cheap labour source of their own. He argues that this is the true reflection of Western values. Eric Williams, the first Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, makes this exact argument in Capitalism and Slavery. Britain didn’t abolish slavery out of morality or philanthropy, but because it no longer made economic sense. As industrial capitalism emerged, a more profitable system took over: wage labour. Workers were technically free, but still didn’t own land, factories, or production, earning wages only to spend them within a system controlled by the same ruling class. Venezuelanalysis VoxUmmah Qiao Collective Progressive International Black Agenda Report Orinoco Tribune Kawsachun News

Sovereign Media

35,427 views • 4 months ago

History has no blank pages, Ched Matsvina. Joshua Nkomo never became president, but he accomplished more for Zimbabwe than most of the traditional ZANU figures, including stopping the Ndebele genocide initiated by Robert Mugabe and Emmerson Mnangagwa. Without Joshua Nkomo, Strive Masiyiwa would not have started Econet Wireless. Mugabe and his thugs had blocked him, yet today, Econet is one of Zimbabwe’s biggest companies and will outlive its founder. When students were being harassed and beaten by Mugabe’s thugs, it was Nkomo who intervened to stop it. Nkomo was a unifier. He consistently advocated for national unity, even when it was politically costly. His vision for Zimbabwe was inclusive, recognising that the country’s diverse ethnic and political groups needed to work together. Mugabe, on the other hand, was authoritarian. He consolidated power by crushing dissent, eliminating rivals, and using violence to maintain control. His leadership prioritised ZANU dominance over national cohesion like we are seeing today with Mnangagwa. Nkomo believed in democracy, economic empowerment, and development. Had he been in power, his policies would likely have focused on broad-based growth rather than patronage and cronyism. Mugabe’s governance was characterised by corruption, economic mismanagement, and a ruthless approach to maintaining power. While Nkomo never had the chance to implement his economic policies fully, his track record shows that he would have prioritised industrialisation and equitable development. When they came back after the war, Nkomo’s ZAPU bought farms and ran businesses, on the other hand Mugabe and his goons took people’s businesses including those of ZAPU that haven’t been returned to this very day. I suggest you read your history!

History has no blank pages, Ched Matsvina. Joshua Nkomo never became president, but he accomplished more for Zimbabwe than most of the traditional ZANU figures, including stopping the Ndebele genocide initiated by Robert Mugabe and Emmerson Mnangagwa. Without Joshua Nkomo, Strive Masiyiwa would not have started Econet Wireless. Mugabe and his thugs had blocked him, yet today, Econet is one of Zimbabwe’s biggest companies and will outlive its founder. When students were being harassed and beaten by Mugabe’s thugs, it was Nkomo who intervened to stop it. Nkomo was a unifier. He consistently advocated for national unity, even when it was politically costly. His vision for Zimbabwe was inclusive, recognising that the country’s diverse ethnic and political groups needed to work together. Mugabe, on the other hand, was authoritarian. He consolidated power by crushing dissent, eliminating rivals, and using violence to maintain control. His leadership prioritised ZANU dominance over national cohesion like we are seeing today with Mnangagwa. Nkomo believed in democracy, economic empowerment, and development. Had he been in power, his policies would likely have focused on broad-based growth rather than patronage and cronyism. Mugabe’s governance was characterised by corruption, economic mismanagement, and a ruthless approach to maintaining power. While Nkomo never had the chance to implement his economic policies fully, his track record shows that he would have prioritised industrialisation and equitable development. When they came back after the war, Nkomo’s ZAPU bought farms and ran businesses, on the other hand Mugabe and his goons took people’s businesses including those of ZAPU that haven’t been returned to this very day. I suggest you read your history!

Hopewell Chin’ono

94,209 views • 1 year ago

EXPOSED: BRITAIN’S MILITARY GRIP ON KENYA A must-watch documentary exposing the British military base in Kenya known as BATUK is dropping on June 2, 2026. Sovereign Media’s first-ever documentary investigates allegations of abuse, sexual violence and ecological damage linked to Britain’s military presence in Kenya. The film explores how Britain established a military base in Kenya, the very same year the country supposedly gained independence from colonial rule. Through interviews, historical context and on-the-ground reporting, the documentary looks at the lasting impact of colonialism in Kenya and how both the colonial government in London and the post-colonial administration of Jomo Kenyatta feared that the Mau Mau liberation struggle would not end until the land was returned to its rightful owners. The documentary explores the argument that Britain was allowed to maintain a military presence in Kenya in 1963 to help crush revolutionary movements and ensure the new neo-colonial government continued serving British interests after so-called independence. You don’t want to miss this one. NAAM Media Ahmed Kaballo VoxUmmah Venezuelanalysis Qiao Collective Progressive International Kawsachun News Orinoco Tribune Black Agenda Report Soberanía: The Mexican Politics Podcast

EXPOSED: BRITAIN’S MILITARY GRIP ON KENYA A must-watch documentary exposing the British military base in Kenya known as BATUK is dropping on June 2, 2026. Sovereign Media’s first-ever documentary investigates allegations of abuse, sexual violence and ecological damage linked to Britain’s military presence in Kenya. The film explores how Britain established a military base in Kenya, the very same year the country supposedly gained independence from colonial rule. Through interviews, historical context and on-the-ground reporting, the documentary looks at the lasting impact of colonialism in Kenya and how both the colonial government in London and the post-colonial administration of Jomo Kenyatta feared that the Mau Mau liberation struggle would not end until the land was returned to its rightful owners. The documentary explores the argument that Britain was allowed to maintain a military presence in Kenya in 1963 to help crush revolutionary movements and ensure the new neo-colonial government continued serving British interests after so-called independence. You don’t want to miss this one. NAAM Media Ahmed Kaballo VoxUmmah Venezuelanalysis Qiao Collective Progressive International Kawsachun News Orinoco Tribune Black Agenda Report Soberanía: The Mexican Politics Podcast

Sovereign Media

14,735 views • 2 months ago

🇸🇴Down the Money Lane🇸🇴 In the 19th and early 20th centuries (as recently as the 1950s), Ethiopia, with the help of European colonizers, took control of a vast somali land known as Western #Somalia, or #Ogaden, now referred to as the Somali Region of #Ethiopia. In 1977-78, #Somalis from that region rose in revolt, and the government of Somalia came to their aid. Together, they liberated their land. At that time, Ethiopia was led by a Marxist-Leninist military regime. Somalis captured nearly all of their territory, and as the map shows, they were close to reaching Addis Ababa. The Warsaw Pact, led by the Soviet Union, then entered the war to support their client state and ally in the Horn of Africa. Against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact forces, which included troops from Cuba and South Yemen, Somalia could not hold its ground and ultimately had to retreat. Yet, Somalis everywhere, including those who lived and still live under leaders like Abiy and other colonial figures, have never forgotten how their land was taken through treachery, and how, in reality, they remain colonized. Today, when Somalis hear external powers pushing Ethiopia’s agendas or offering “whataboutism” in response to Ethiopia’s annexation and dismemberment schemes, they are reminded of past treachery and injustices. And when Abiy now speaks of seizing Somalia’s sea, Somalis conclude that conceding Western Somalia only whetted the colonial appetite. The song “Galbeed waa la xoreeyey” (The West is Liberated) stands as one of the most powerful informal Somali anthems, declaring that the land is Somali land, and the struggle continues. It is sung by the revered band Waberi, led by the legendary Somali singer Hassan Adan Samatar. Lyrics: West, we have liberated, West, we have liberated, West, we have liberated. Warsaw has interfered, But the occupier will not sleep easy. The struggle continues, This is Somali land. The land! This is Somali land. We have won victory, We have won victory, We have won victory. Warsaw has interfered, But the occupier will not sleep easy. The struggle continues, This is Somali land. The land! This is Somali land. 1/2 (See below — next post — as event occur then in real time!)

🇸🇴Down the Money Lane🇸🇴 In the 19th and early 20th centuries (as recently as the 1950s), Ethiopia, with the help of European colonizers, took control of a vast somali land known as Western #Somalia, or #Ogaden, now referred to as the Somali Region of #Ethiopia. In 1977-78, #Somalis from that region rose in revolt, and the government of Somalia came to their aid. Together, they liberated their land. At that time, Ethiopia was led by a Marxist-Leninist military regime. Somalis captured nearly all of their territory, and as the map shows, they were close to reaching Addis Ababa. The Warsaw Pact, led by the Soviet Union, then entered the war to support their client state and ally in the Horn of Africa. Against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact forces, which included troops from Cuba and South Yemen, Somalia could not hold its ground and ultimately had to retreat. Yet, Somalis everywhere, including those who lived and still live under leaders like Abiy and other colonial figures, have never forgotten how their land was taken through treachery, and how, in reality, they remain colonized. Today, when Somalis hear external powers pushing Ethiopia’s agendas or offering “whataboutism” in response to Ethiopia’s annexation and dismemberment schemes, they are reminded of past treachery and injustices. And when Abiy now speaks of seizing Somalia’s sea, Somalis conclude that conceding Western Somalia only whetted the colonial appetite. The song “Galbeed waa la xoreeyey” (The West is Liberated) stands as one of the most powerful informal Somali anthems, declaring that the land is Somali land, and the struggle continues. It is sung by the revered band Waberi, led by the legendary Somali singer Hassan Adan Samatar. Lyrics: West, we have liberated, West, we have liberated, West, we have liberated. Warsaw has interfered, But the occupier will not sleep easy. The struggle continues, This is Somali land. The land! This is Somali land. We have won victory, We have won victory, We have won victory. Warsaw has interfered, But the occupier will not sleep easy. The struggle continues, This is Somali land. The land! This is Somali land. 1/2 (See below — next post — as event occur then in real time!)

Abdirashid Hashi

47,141 views • 1 year ago

Hate him or love him, President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa is undeniably one of Zimbabwe’s sharpest political minds,a man who understands timing, silence, and strategy better than most. I might not be a fan of his leadership style or governance, but politically speaking, the way he outmaneuvered Robert Mugabe, the man who ruled Zimbabwe for nearly four decades, was nothing short of legendary. While it’s true that Mugabe was aging and perhaps losing his political edge, Mnangagwa’s patience and discipline stood out. Even when subjected to repeated humiliation by the former First Lady, Grace Mugabe, he maintained composure and restraint. His calmness was not weakness, it was calculated patience. He played the loyal servant while quietly studying the battlefield, waiting for the right moment to strike. What makes his strategy even more remarkable is that Mnangagwa understood the importance of timing in Zimbabwean politics. He knew when not to move. For instance, he deliberately distanced himself from earlier succession plots such as the Tsholotsho Declaration and even meetings allegedly held at Philip Chiyangwa’s offices, which were meant to position him for the presidency. Mnangagwa avoided attending these gatherings because he understood the political temperature of the time,that Zimbabwe was not yet ready for such a takeover and that any premature move would destroy him. Those who remember his interactions with Grace Mugabe will recall how he played the part of a humble subordinate, even flattering her publicly, making it seem as though she was the real power behind Mugabe. It was pure political theatre , an act designed to protect his position until the moment was right. When the inevitable showdown came in late 2017, Mnangagwa appeared to be finished,fired as Vice President, in exile, and seemingly defeated. But true to his “Ngwena” (Crocodile) nickname, he had simply submerged, waiting for the current to shift. And when it did, he struck. Within weeks, Mugabe was out, and Mnangagwa returned as President the architect of one of Zimbabwe’s most dramatic political transitions. Today, whether one admires or despises him, one fact remains undisputed, Emmerson Mnangagwa is a master of the long game. He waited, he calculated, and when the time was right he took everything.

Hate him or love him, President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa is undeniably one of Zimbabwe’s sharpest political minds,a man who understands timing, silence, and strategy better than most. I might not be a fan of his leadership style or governance, but politically speaking, the way he outmaneuvered Robert Mugabe, the man who ruled Zimbabwe for nearly four decades, was nothing short of legendary. While it’s true that Mugabe was aging and perhaps losing his political edge, Mnangagwa’s patience and discipline stood out. Even when subjected to repeated humiliation by the former First Lady, Grace Mugabe, he maintained composure and restraint. His calmness was not weakness, it was calculated patience. He played the loyal servant while quietly studying the battlefield, waiting for the right moment to strike. What makes his strategy even more remarkable is that Mnangagwa understood the importance of timing in Zimbabwean politics. He knew when not to move. For instance, he deliberately distanced himself from earlier succession plots such as the Tsholotsho Declaration and even meetings allegedly held at Philip Chiyangwa’s offices, which were meant to position him for the presidency. Mnangagwa avoided attending these gatherings because he understood the political temperature of the time,that Zimbabwe was not yet ready for such a takeover and that any premature move would destroy him. Those who remember his interactions with Grace Mugabe will recall how he played the part of a humble subordinate, even flattering her publicly, making it seem as though she was the real power behind Mugabe. It was pure political theatre , an act designed to protect his position until the moment was right. When the inevitable showdown came in late 2017, Mnangagwa appeared to be finished,fired as Vice President, in exile, and seemingly defeated. But true to his “Ngwena” (Crocodile) nickname, he had simply submerged, waiting for the current to shift. And when it did, he struck. Within weeks, Mugabe was out, and Mnangagwa returned as President the architect of one of Zimbabwe’s most dramatic political transitions. Today, whether one admires or despises him, one fact remains undisputed, Emmerson Mnangagwa is a master of the long game. He waited, he calculated, and when the time was right he took everything.

Setfree Nherera Mafukidze 🇿🇼

39,463 views • 9 months ago

This Is How Africans Peacefully Coexist With Wild Animals - Until Muzungu “CONservation” Turned It Into a Business This video captures the raw, unfiltered reality of how Africans have always coexisted with wild animals - not through fences, armed rangers, or expensive lodges, but through natural balance and mutual respect shaped by centuries of living on the same land. Then came muzungu pieces of shit with their so-called “CONservation.” They grabbed vast tracts of African land, declared it “wildlife reserves,” kicked out the local communities, and turned our own animals into a tourist attraction for wealthy foreigners. Now Africans are expected to pay gate fees, buy expensive permits, and play the role of grateful natives just to see animals that have always lived on their ancestral land. This wasn’t about protecting wildlife. It was about stealing land, creating exclusive playgrounds for white tourists, and turning African heritage into a revenue stream for Western conservation NGOs and luxury safari companies. “CONservation” in Africa has always been a sophisticated land grab dressed up in green language. They criminalise local communities for hunting or grazing while allowing rich foreigners to pay thousands of dollars to shoot or photograph the same animals. The hypocrisy is nauseating. Africans don’t need white saviours to teach them how to live with wildlife. We did it for millennia before they arrived with their guns, their fences, and their fake environmentalism. The real threat to African wildlife has never been the African people. It has always been the same people who came, stole the land, renamed it, and now charge us to visit what was once ours. Conservation = Land Theft with better PR.

This Is How Africans Peacefully Coexist With Wild Animals - Until Muzungu “CONservation” Turned It Into a Business This video captures the raw, unfiltered reality of how Africans have always coexisted with wild animals - not through fences, armed rangers, or expensive lodges, but through natural balance and mutual respect shaped by centuries of living on the same land. Then came muzungu pieces of shit with their so-called “CONservation.” They grabbed vast tracts of African land, declared it “wildlife reserves,” kicked out the local communities, and turned our own animals into a tourist attraction for wealthy foreigners. Now Africans are expected to pay gate fees, buy expensive permits, and play the role of grateful natives just to see animals that have always lived on their ancestral land. This wasn’t about protecting wildlife. It was about stealing land, creating exclusive playgrounds for white tourists, and turning African heritage into a revenue stream for Western conservation NGOs and luxury safari companies. “CONservation” in Africa has always been a sophisticated land grab dressed up in green language. They criminalise local communities for hunting or grazing while allowing rich foreigners to pay thousands of dollars to shoot or photograph the same animals. The hypocrisy is nauseating. Africans don’t need white saviours to teach them how to live with wildlife. We did it for millennia before they arrived with their guns, their fences, and their fake environmentalism. The real threat to African wildlife has never been the African people. It has always been the same people who came, stole the land, renamed it, and now charge us to visit what was once ours. Conservation = Land Theft with better PR.

Francis Gaitho

11,083 views • 1 month ago

Arabs rejected partition because Jews only owned 6% of the land- one of the most repeated slogans and lies online. Here is what it leaves out. Yes, Jews privately owned roughly 6 to 8% of the land by 1947. But Arabs did not own the other 92%. That's the part that activists conveniently skip. Was the largest category of land was: state land. Not “Palestinian owned land”, Actual British mandate breakdown ( 1945- 1947 ): Arab private ownership approximately 47% Jewish ownership approximately 6 to 8% state slash crown land approximately 40 to 45% Mostly: · Negev desert · Uncultivated land next slide government land The map spammed on Instagram pretending green equals privately Palestinian owned land is historically false. Now here's the part that breaks the slogan completely: next slide the proposed Jewish state received approximately 56% of the territory. Sounds shocking... ... Until you realize most of it was empty desert. The Negev alone made-up a huge chunk of the allocation: · Sparsely populated · Underdeveloped · Mostly state owned land People talk about it like Tel Aviv was handed millions of acres of Arab farmland It wasn't. Even inside the proposed Jewish state, most of the land was: · State land · Desert · Or land already legally purchased by jews Privately owned Arab land inside the proposed Jewish state is estimated at roughly 15 to 20% of that territory. Not “they stole 94% of Palestinian land that” That's propaganda Not history And here's the uncomfortable question nobody wants to answer, if the issue really was “fairness”... Why reject: · Two states? · International borders? · UN recognition? · Negotiation? · Why launch a war instead? Because many Arab leaders openly said the real issue was not borders. It was the existence of any Jewish state at all. Ownership slogan survives because most people never look past the meme. But history is stubborn. The partition plan did not hand Jews: · Most privately owned Arab farmland · 92% of Palestinian land · A fully developed Arab country The partition plan mostly allocated: · State land · Desert · And territory for a second state alongside an Arab one The tragedy is not that partition existed tragedy is that it was rejected. #StopTheLies #Antisemitism #Israel #FactsMatter #StandWithIsrael #DoubleStandards #Hypocrisy

Arabs rejected partition because Jews only owned 6% of the land- one of the most repeated slogans and lies online. Here is what it leaves out. Yes, Jews privately owned roughly 6 to 8% of the land by 1947. But Arabs did not own the other 92%. That's the part that activists conveniently skip. Was the largest category of land was: state land. Not “Palestinian owned land”, Actual British mandate breakdown ( 1945- 1947 ): Arab private ownership approximately 47% Jewish ownership approximately 6 to 8% state slash crown land approximately 40 to 45% Mostly: · Negev desert · Uncultivated land next slide government land The map spammed on Instagram pretending green equals privately Palestinian owned land is historically false. Now here's the part that breaks the slogan completely: next slide the proposed Jewish state received approximately 56% of the territory. Sounds shocking... ... Until you realize most of it was empty desert. The Negev alone made-up a huge chunk of the allocation: · Sparsely populated · Underdeveloped · Mostly state owned land People talk about it like Tel Aviv was handed millions of acres of Arab farmland It wasn't. Even inside the proposed Jewish state, most of the land was: · State land · Desert · Or land already legally purchased by jews Privately owned Arab land inside the proposed Jewish state is estimated at roughly 15 to 20% of that territory. Not “they stole 94% of Palestinian land that” That's propaganda Not history And here's the uncomfortable question nobody wants to answer, if the issue really was “fairness”... Why reject: · Two states? · International borders? · UN recognition? · Negotiation? · Why launch a war instead? Because many Arab leaders openly said the real issue was not borders. It was the existence of any Jewish state at all. Ownership slogan survives because most people never look past the meme. But history is stubborn. The partition plan did not hand Jews: · Most privately owned Arab farmland · 92% of Palestinian land · A fully developed Arab country The partition plan mostly allocated: · State land · Desert · And territory for a second state alongside an Arab one The tragedy is not that partition existed tragedy is that it was rejected. #StopTheLies #Antisemitism #Israel #FactsMatter #StandWithIsrael #DoubleStandards #Hypocrisy

MOT

14,452 views • 2 months ago

For over 20 years, the narrative was set in stone: Zimbabwe's land reform had "failed." International media painted Black Zimbabwean farmers as incompetent, claiming they'd destroyed the nation's food security and agricultural capacity. What these stories conveniently omitted was the crippling economic sanctions that made it nearly impossible for farmers to access credit, purchase modern equipment, or enter international markets. The deck was stacked against them from the start. But in 2024, something remarkable happened. Zimbabwe didn't just meet its domestic wheat needs- it shattered harvest records, producing a surplus that positions the country to become Southern Africa's new wheat supplier. The same farmers once dismissed as incapable are now poised to feed neighboring countries, dismantling the racist myth that Africans need European expertise to make their own land productive.

For over 20 years, the narrative was set in stone: Zimbabwe's land reform had "failed." International media painted Black Zimbabwean farmers as incompetent, claiming they'd destroyed the nation's food security and agricultural capacity. What these stories conveniently omitted was the crippling economic sanctions that made it nearly impossible for farmers to access credit, purchase modern equipment, or enter international markets. The deck was stacked against them from the start. But in 2024, something remarkable happened. Zimbabwe didn't just meet its domestic wheat needs- it shattered harvest records, producing a surplus that positions the country to become Southern Africa's new wheat supplier. The same farmers once dismissed as incapable are now poised to feed neighboring countries, dismantling the racist myth that Africans need European expertise to make their own land productive.

The Spearhead

38,395 views • 8 months ago

This is not a highly educated middle-class professional, this is a man from a village in Zimbabwe, yet the clarity of his views is sharp, driven by thought and empowered by social media, which has allowed people to bypass traditional state propaganda institutions when accessing information. He reminds us that the liberation struggle’s clarion call was for a better life for all. He asks if life has truly improved for the majority of Zimbabweans. He discusses how ZANUPF and Mnangagwa have left the economy in ruins, and he draws a comparison between the children of the ZANUPF political elite, who study in Western countries, and the children in Zimbabwe, who remain in a broken system. He asserts that this is not about colonialism, pointing out that other formerly colonised countries have succeeded with strong leadership. He revisits the history of slavery and discusses how it would not have occurred without the connivance of African leaders at the time. He points out that it was the African political elite who captured their fellow Africans and sold them, often for trivial goods such as a bottle of whisky, as he remarks.

This is not a highly educated middle-class professional, this is a man from a village in Zimbabwe, yet the clarity of his views is sharp, driven by thought and empowered by social media, which has allowed people to bypass traditional state propaganda institutions when accessing information. He reminds us that the liberation struggle’s clarion call was for a better life for all. He asks if life has truly improved for the majority of Zimbabweans. He discusses how ZANUPF and Mnangagwa have left the economy in ruins, and he draws a comparison between the children of the ZANUPF political elite, who study in Western countries, and the children in Zimbabwe, who remain in a broken system. He asserts that this is not about colonialism, pointing out that other formerly colonised countries have succeeded with strong leadership. He revisits the history of slavery and discusses how it would not have occurred without the connivance of African leaders at the time. He points out that it was the African political elite who captured their fellow Africans and sold them, often for trivial goods such as a bottle of whisky, as he remarks.

Hopewell Chin’ono

106,897 views • 1 year ago