On Jan 25, 2:23*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*Bill C wrote:





On Jan 24, 2:06*am, Howard Kveck wrote:


* *People here had seen how bad the white led governments of Rhodesia were and were
supportive of the black's drive to get out from under that oppressive rule.. Does that
seem like a bad cause to be in favor of? I don't think so. As I said below, Mugabe
didn't really come to the fore until almost the end of Smith's rule. So I don't
remember any rallies that were outright and directly supportive of Mugabe. I was
around then - in college, in SF and Berkeley around political people. I don't recall
Mugabe's name being used then, Bill.

I distinctly do recall his name being used as an icon of the People
here. Those People were being supplied their weapons by the Soviet
Union and assisted by Cuban troops and advisors on the ground. It was
pretty obvious what was in store for the Country after they took
power.
The regime WAS oppressive, no debating that. They also, inclusive of
the native population had the lowest infant mortality, highest
literacy rate, highest gdp, longest life expectancy, and fed the rest
of sub-saharan Africa.
How's that worked out?

Media attention on Zimbabwen vaporized.



*Yep. They sure as hell weren't going to give a lot of coverage to a
marxist HERO doing what they almost all inevitably do after the
support for him as a "freedom fighter" had been so strong..

* *Bill, please. Media has a short attention span, particularly on issues like this.
They move on. It really isn't because the media is (or was) all happy because a
Marxist was gaining power. "The Liberal Media" is a myth.

Howard that's your opinion. I think it's totally wrong, but it depends
on your position as an observer what you consider "liberal". I'd say
that you are far enough out that way that what most people would
consider either moderate, or slightly liberal you see as right wing.
There've been numerous examples of this.

* *I don't think the average person here knew who Mugabe is until Zimbabwe
started getting attention for having huge inflation and seizing farms. They just
haven't been on the radar screen, Bill. it's not all that uncommon, especially in
Africa. For example, what do you think is the deadliest conflict since WW II? At
least 3.8 million people have died in only six years in the area around the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. How much of that do we hear about in the news?

*I see a fair amount, but that's because of the Euro sources. Agreed
here in the US it's not an issue, but it doesn't have a huge "freedom
fighter" to exploit, as Zimbabwe did.

* *I think they don't cover it because they aren't interested, not because they don't
see a "freedom fighter" angle. There are plenty of those kinds of fights going on in
Africa right now that are getting even less coverage than the DRC war is, such as
Western Sahara and Sahrawi.

*We're gonna agree to disagree. Neither of us can demonstrate the level of coverage
and support where we were back then, at least reasonably easily.

* *I was thinking about this earlier today and that's exactly what I realized. All I
can do is describe my experiences (coming from a highly politicized family and
spending a lot of time around other politicized people and situations), I just didn't
see what you're desccribing (active support for Mugabe) - it was all aimed at the
cause, not the personalitiies.


Howard, here it was both the situation, and the Cult of Personality.
The Heroes of The Revolution! Folks here still have their posters of
Marx, Castro, Gueverra, Ortega, etc...up. They are STILL perfect
heroes to lots of people here.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * *Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
* * * * * * * * * * *But I've already got a pitchfork...

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill C