sorry Brian, but how much are ZANU-PF paying you?
You've been on a sad, contemptible mission to propagandise for the Mugabe regime - on Indymedia, of all places! - for weeks now, but this really takes the biscuit.
Newsflash: opposing one tyranny does NOT bar you from opposing another!
Newsflash 2: It ain't convincing.....

I am black British. I have had a history of anti-racist activity and support for trade unions.I learned much when I travelled to Zimbabwe last year around the time when the Western press were alarmed about the attack on the MDC-T leader. Despite the fact, that most people in Harare and tourist areas were hostile to Mugabe, the group I went with were surprised about the gap between the Western media portrayals and the reality on the ground. Those hostile to Mugabe told us that MDC engage in attacks, human rights issues were exaggerated, there was no starvation.

Any so-called left-wing person can see how one-sided the media on Zimbabwe is. There is no difference in the reporting and the interests of the capitalist, Western elite.

The Voice did a survey of its readers in 2002 concerning Zimbabwe. Most concluded that Mugabe was a dictator, although one third said he was a strong leader and most thought the West's interest in white farmers was racist, ie. they wanted white farmers to control land. In 2004, the New African polled its readers on the 100 greatest African leaders. Robert Mugabe was voted third. Zimbabwe's land reform programme was backed at the global anti-racist conference in Barbados at around 2000 and in 2002 did the Southern African Development Community supported the programme. SADC has assessed elections in Zimbabwe since 2000 as expressing the will of the people. Zimbabwe has the highest number/proportion of opposition MPs in any African country.

Most black people who support white liberal racism on Zimbabwe is just that. They support a white liberal agenda. Usually they are quick to attack Mugabe and say nothing about the racist intentions of the Western elite.

You Daansaf are a tool of white supremacy. I don't care whether you are right-wing, left-wing, Marxist, Stalinist or whatever. You and people like you are racist. I can have a debate with blacks who are anti-Mugabe. People like you can keep your ignorant, racist nose out of Africa and black people's affairs.

3 years ago the state of Ethiopia began what would become a monumental struggle when they announced their intention to trademark their Coffee Bean. The Ethiopian highlands & the surrounding "horn of Africa" were the origin of the drink coffee as far back as the 9th century [common era]. Specifically the Ethiopian state wanted to assert internationally recognised intellectual copyright on a range of coffee beans which to this day are mostly cultivated in the east African state. Many welcomed the move as evidence that late 20th century capitalism which has seen ownership concepts extended to ideas, living organisms & even specific genecodes could be a game which the poorest states might play to their advantage as well. Then came the orchestrated response of the Seattle USA based multi-national corporation Starbucks. One year ago the company and state came to a settlement.

As Starbucks CEO Schulz met with the Ethiopian state over the period and blocked Ethiopian efforts to trademark the main Ethiopian Coffeebeans - Sidamo, Yirgacheffe, Harrar - Starbucks workers in the USA continued to be termed barristas and be employed on precarity contracts which fluctuated at whim between 11 and 35 hours a week paid on an hourly basis the sum of 6$ which rose with "managerial responsibilities" to a whopping 9$. Only 42% of Starbucks labour force in 2006 was afforded social security in comparison to 47% of Walmart workers. Considering those statistics it might not be surprising that the principle suppliers of the raw material were starving & without the most basic essentials of life.

What could a state where 80% of the workforce were engaged in agriculture and the mainstay of agriculture was the coffeebean do to get rich....to get by.....to feel good?

The answer was simple - they had to learn from their mistakes.

Twice they had put their hope in big music gigs organised by Irish people (Bono / Geldof) & failed. More than a few times they had put their hope in civil wars. But at last they realised they had to fight Starbucks as the largest & most aggressive coffee industry entity for a bit more of their absolute maximum 10% of average profits. & they did it the western anglo-saxon capitalist way playing the fixed casino tables of intellectual copyright & royalty claims. Of course at that table poverty, lack of medicines, lack of schools let alone WIFI don't really win points. The global market in Coffee had crashed in 2001 and the "international Coffee Organisation"  http://www.ico.org/ had responded by implementing it's 6th agreement. The new agenda set out in 2001 at quick glance reflected one of the key global consumer culture conditions which allowed Starbucks to grow into the giant it is today. The pre-crash agreement of 1994 had in post-cold war circumstances sought to harmonise production and toasting and create the first forum for "private producers" (meaning corporations) and tellingly to investigate the health aspects of coffee consumption. Many readers might not remember the links drawn in popular culture between coffee and heart disease or attention deficiency disorder, acne, mad cow disease and impotence by quality tabloid newspapers back then. But by the turn of the century and the bottoming of bean prices - Starbuck could suck hard on its straw from the new agenda of promoting coffee consumption .

Yep. Sirree lady barrista - all of a sudden coffee could help you work, rest, play, orgasm, do well at the leaving certificate & get a good spot on Youtube even if you were thought of as being "difficult to employ" (cf
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y8v7kkpQm4&search=x%20m...n%203 )

77 member states & an industry dominated by a handful of companies and dynasties & increasingly commercial-ideologically led by Starbucks are now engaged in the negotions for a 2007 international coffee agreement.

NGO groups such as OXfam who joined the fight on the Ethiopian side in 2005 declared the agreement signed by Starbucks and Ethiopia on the 20th of June 2007 as a "win-win" :- Starbucks and Ethiopia signed a distribution, marketing and licensing agreement [20/vi/07] that ended their trademark dispute and brought them together in partnership to help Ethiopian coffee farmers. International relief and development agency Oxfam welcomes the agreement that has the potential to give farmers a fairer share of the profits for their world-renowned coffee brands, Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe....said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America:- “This agreement represents a business approach in step with 21st-century standards in its concern for rights rather than charity and for greater equity in supply chains rather than short term profits.”...“Harnessing market forces and allowing poor countries to benefit from intellectual property rights are keys to creating fairer and more equitable trade,” continued Offenheiser. “In a modern economy, companies must bring their business models in line with the demands of good corporate citizenship, which goes beyond traditional philanthropic approaches to dealing with poverty.” Nearly three years ago, Ethiopia’s coffee sector launched a plan to take better advantage of its intellectual property. The country applied for the trademark registrations of its specialty coffee brands in the United States, Canada, and other countries. At the same time, Ethiopia began negotiating with coffee roasters to sign agreements acknowledging the right of Ethiopians to control these brands. “With this agreement, Ethiopians can build the value of their coffees and farmers can capture a greater share of the retail price,” Offenheiser concluded. “This should help improve the lives of millions of poor farmers, allowing them to send their children to school and access health care.” According to a press release issued by Ethiopia and Starbucks today, the agreement allows Starbucks to use and promote these coffee brands in markets both where trademarks exist for the brands as well as where they may not, in accordance with agreed terms and conditions negotiated with Ethiopia. Currently Ethiopia has successfully registered trademarks in Canada, the European Union, the United States and Japan.
 http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/press_releases/press_release.2007-06-20.7121433540

So - next time you walk past Starbucks - don't think of the poor worker - or the poor vapid handing over the cash - think of "fair trade".... of "Geldofism" .....of how many farmers' kids didn't get medicines or schools or WIFI or even latte or chocolate sprinkling for three years whilst Starbucks hammered the Ethiopians down to give that half of the "win-win". For in short - at the fixed casino of free-market anglo-saxon globalised hell there is no win-win - only froth for losers. & we know where the losers get jobs or farm.

But at least poor people goto heaven.

 http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/campaigns/coffee/starbucks
This is the IWW affiliate trade union for US precarious workers whose only hope as losers is a job as a barrista. It's been a long time since I first wrote as part of our campaign against the most prominent lloser in Ireland's 2007 Michael Mc Dowell - "we are on the side of the barrista not the barrister".
 http://www.starbucksunion.org/

Interesting timing of that agreement came with the release of the black gold movie.
 http://www.blackgoldmovie.com/

simon, I'm going to give you 3 things of which you can be certain:
1) I have forgotten far more about Zimbabwe than you will ever know
2) I have a record of anti-racist activism which comfortably outstrips yours by several miles
3) You are light years away from being anything other than a braindead, confused ignoramus! (nothing to do with your skin colour or nationality - you just are!)
Let's see if you can get yo' po' li'l head round the following
1) a pollin a niche mag is rthe easiest thing on earth to cook. Was the poll independentlty monitored? like hell it was
2)The SADC have NEVER criticised ANy african govt (other than the apartheid one, quite rightly): as a gut reaction to the horrors of the colonial era, they ALWAYS circle the wagons
3) I am a supporter of the land confiscations, as it happens! I am also aware of Britain's ratting on it's promises, and the role that played. That STILL doesn't justify mugabe's tyranny
4) i am opposed to Mugabe for 100% SOCIALIST reasons; he has NOT put power in the workers hands, he has merely impoverished them as he reduces zim to a ruined land.
5) just cos the MDC are no angels, that doesn't give the pass to Mugabe or ZANU, an organisation once of the highest standing and now simply corruption incarnate
6) just because people we don't like are anti-Mugabe, that does not make him any less of a tyrant
And your thcweaming 'wacist! wacist!' at anybody who criticises this brutal, anti-humanitarian regime, is every bit as contemptible as your argument that we are tools of the western elite. who dyou think I've spent my whole damn life fighting?
And does that make the likes of Amnesty, HRW, not to mention the thousands of black zimbabweans who've precipitated a reefugee crisis in SA by fleeing zim - does that make them all racists? Or the SA dockers who refused to unload?
You, sir, are the ignorant fool to have bought that rubbish, and precisely the sort of witless puppet mugabe relies on.
You're also a complete disgrace

DaanSaaf

2)The SADC have NEVER criticised ANy african govt (other than the apartheid one, quite rightly): as a gut reaction to the horrors of the colonial era, they ALWAYS circle the wagons
3) I am a supporter of the land confiscations, as it happens! I am also aware of Britain's ratting on it's promises, and the role that played. That STILL doesn't justify mugabe's tyranny
4) i am opposed to Mugabe for 100% SOCIALIST reasons; he has NOT put power in the workers hands, he has merely impoverished them as he reduces zim to a ruined land.

I thought I made this clear. The anti-Zanu-PF forces are backed, supported and led by the Western elite. The pro-Zanu PF forces are black. Don't come screaming SOCIALIST and WACIST, WACIST to me and pretend you somehow transcend that issue.

Perhaps, I was a bit too emotional in calling a racist, white supremacist is far more accurate. The Zanu-PF project was about black self-determination, that's why so many black people in Zimbabwe, Africa and the rest of the continent support him. But being a white supremacist, you wouldn't understand that. No, you're response is 'see black self-determination, give it a good socialist kicking'.

Of course, you saying that SADC was lying when they have clearly said Zimbabwe's elections expressed the will of the people and then believing the capitalists in the UK and US who cry fraud every time their bought and paid for baby doesn't win an election, doesn't, of course, make you racist at all, does it?

Mugabe's tyranny? What part of Zimbabwe has the biggest number of opposition MPs in Africa don't you understand?

And what has Amnesty International said about the brutal Mugabe? The first sentence in their 2007 Zimbabwe report states: 'The human rights situation continues to deteriorate, in a context of escalating poverty.' Continues to deteriorate? Mugabe is a brutal dictator and human rights deteriorate in context of escalating poverty?

What does their report say about the preceding country - 'There was a marked increase in the number of civilian deaths as a result of police shootings.'

And the country before that: 'Dozens of people arrested in previous years in the context of "the war on terror" remained in indefinite detention without trial.'

Proof that Mugabe is a tyrant.

And what of the US State Department:
 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78765.htm
ZIMBABWE, COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES - 2006
‘a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
Unlike in the previous year, there were no reports of politically motivated killings by the government or ruling party supporters…
b. Disappearance
There were no reports of disappearances during the year…

And, of course, when black critics of Mugabe in Zimbabwe tell me that the human rights issue is exaggerated, you say: 'they're blacks who don't echo what white people say, what the hell are they talking about.' But, that's not racist, that's anti-racist!!!

'And does that make the likes of Amnesty, HRW, not to mention the thousands of black zimbabweans who've precipitated a reefugee crisis in SA by fleeing zim - does that make them all racists?'

Human Rights Watch, oh yes, that paragon of anti-capitalist virtue, funded by George Soros, who just happens to be one of the people financing the opposition to Mugabe. But that's socialism for you. (If you think these NGOs are independent of Western governments and the elite, you must be naive.)

And isn't it great to have white people lecture you that they have a better anti-racist record than you even though they don't know anything about you're anti-racist record. Black activists and organisations know who I am, who the f*** are you?

And the biggest idiocy - Mugabe has ruined the economy. Well, what can I say? You see, I remember Michael Manley in Jamaica during the 1970s. He was going in a socia democrat path and making links with Cuba. So, what happened. Kissinger tried to destabilise the country and destroy the ecomony. Up to 700 people were murdered by death squads on both sides during the elections. Do I need to say more?

I tell you that Mugabe has widespread support among black people. You just spit on that. You can stick your white supremacist socialism.

Let's see what attitudes the great socialist, Karl Marx, had about black people:

'Was Marx a self-hating Jew? Although he never denied his Jewish origins, he never drew attention to them either - unlike his daughter Eleanor, who proudly informed a group of workers form the East End of London that she was 'a Jewess'. In his later correspondence with Engels, he sprayed anti-Semitic insults at his enemies with savage glee: the German socialist Ferdinand Lasselle, a frequent victim, was described variously as the Yid, Wily Ephraim, Izzy and the Jewish Nigger. “It is now quite plain to me - as the shape of this head and the way his hair grows also testify - that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses' flight from Egypt, unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger,” Marx wrote in 1862, discussing the ever-fascinating subject of Laselle's ancestry.'
p55, 'Karl Marx', by writer, broadcaster and journalist, Francis Wheen.

Of course, you can't thcweaming 'wacist! wacist! about Marx.

I couldn't help but notice another recent article by the same author:

In South Africa, Zimbabwean Refugees Find Sanctuary and Contempt
By Michael Deibert
Inter Press Service
 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42225

Doesn't sound like Zim is fairing too well, either.

...how does nobbling an election aid "black self-determination"?

MC

What a totally idiotic, trivialising statement. Is this supposed to be a Left-wing statement?

MDC has been totally financed by the West. (This is why Tsvangaria ran into the Dutch embassy rather than an African one.) The West deliberately attack the Zimbabwe economy and former Chester Crocker, US State Secretary for Africa says to the US Senate that to split the people from Zanu-PF they will have to make their economy scream. The West are now arm twisting SADC to get them to condem Mugabe.

The question that black people have to ask is whether they are happier with a nation under white tutelage or not. Given the top postions in MDC are taken by whites, and they, clearly have the best interest of the black masses at heart, the other question is: is the MDC racist on insisting its leader should be black?

What is going on in Zimbabwe is vital for balck people in Africa and elsewhere. If this is the most intelligent comment you can make, why don't you just keep it to yourself?

I ask a question, you refuse to answer it and you insult me. Who's trivialising the issue?

"What is going on in Zimbabwe is vital for balck people in Africa and elsewhere"
I agree with you there, but I think for different reasons.

CH,

go ask any black person (not necessarily a politically-minded black person) whether they think the victory of a Western financed party led by white people with a black leader in a country economically strangled by the West, is black self-determination and see if black people don't look at you as if you are some sort of idiot.

This is not to say that the majority of UK black people are sympathetic to Mugabe or Zanu-PF, but a far greater number of black people than white would express sceptism about the media reports about Zimbabwe (after all ordinary black people hostile to Mugabe in Zimbabwe do). It may very well be that black people think that Mugabe's resistance to the West was simply foolish because he'd bring too much suffering. Politically minded black people's attitude would be far more supportive of Mugabe.

But white socialists...! They are happy to swallow any incoherent, nonsensical, gobbledygook coming from the capitalist media about Zimbabwe. Mugabe is a brutal dictator but holds elections. Mugabe massacred thousands in the 1980s but the leaders of the rebels rejoin the government after the truce (former Minister Jonathon Moyo comes from the Nkomo-Zapu tradition). Ordinary soliders and police support the MDC, yet carry out atrocities against the MDC. The vast majority Zimbabwean want Mugabe out and are prepared to vote for the MDC, yet are totally helpless against Mugabe thugs and certainly don't violently rebel. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. What part of nonsense do you lot not understand?

 http://www.zimdaily.com/rights211207.html

Human rights report condemns MDC violence
By SPIWE NCUBE in Harare
Published: 21-12-07
HARARE - A fresh human rights violations report issued Thursday blames the MDC for fuelling pre-election violence, urging the opposition party to refrain from violence as a means of solving their differences..
The November report by the Human Rights NGO Forum says the month was characterised by demonstrations by WOZA and NCA as well as intra- party violence within the MDC.
The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, a coalition of 17 NGOs, documents the violence that engulfed the MDC during the chaotic election of new MDC Women’s Assembly boss, Theresa Makone.

 http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/senate177.14066.html
Coltart: 'Tsvangirai failed to deal with MDC violence'

By Lebo Nkatazo
Last updated: 05/24/2008 07:51:03
BULAWAYO South MP David Coltart has implicitly blamed Morgan Tsvangirai for the split that has ripped apart Zimbabwe's main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party...
...It appears the MDC's former legal secretary has had it, and puts the blame for the split on Tsvangirai's failure to deal with violence directed at party officials by youths who were suspended but later hired by Tsvangirai.

In an interview with South Africa's SA FM radio station, Coltart said: ''If I were Mr Tsvangirai, I would have averted the split by dealing decisively with the violence.''...

...In the radio interview picked up by Sunday papers, Coltart cited several incidents of brutal attacks orchestrated by party youths against fellow party members, presumably at the behest of their feuding masters within the MDC before the split.

...In an astonishing revelation, Coltart said that in 2004 rowdy party youths attacked officials at the MDC's then-headquarters at Harvest House. He said the violent youths tried to throw the officials down the 6th floor windows of the Harare building...

If I can paraphrase your argument:

* Black people think X
* If they don't think X, it's because they are dupes of the capitalist media / paid off by whites
* White people think Y
* This is because they hate black people who think X
* or because they are duped by the capitalist media.

Can we get back to reality, please?

You claim to be in favour of "black self-determination", yet your only contribution here is to praise a regime that has delayed and/or fixed the results of one presidential election (which presumably included the votes of black people?) then bullied and murdered its way to providing the only candidate. At which point we'll hear that your version of "black self-determination" has provided Mugabe with a unanimous re-election.

You justify this by calling the opposition party "white". (What next, "cockroaches"?)

I note that this is basically the Zimabawean government's line of propaganda.