The revolution which saw the seizure of White ‘owned’ land by the landless Black Zimbabweans has generated unparalleled debates both in and outside Zimbabwe. Neo-colonialists, neo-conservatives and neo- liberals alike have labeled the...
moreThe revolution which saw the seizure of White ‘owned’ land by the landless Black Zimbabweans has generated unparalleled debates both in and outside Zimbabwe. Neo-colonialists, neo-conservatives and neo- liberals alike have labeled the land revolution as barbaric, destructive, violent and racial. These images, though misleading have been popularised by pro-Western media and have managed to attract sympathy for the former White farmers and at the same time it has managed to demonise the land revolution. This article advances the thesis that these half-baked, ahistorical, propagandistic and racist images have been crafted deliberately to trivialise an agenda which sought to redress the past socio-economic injustices. Secondly, the article argues that White farmers were not innocent bystanders as portrayed by the images, but were in complicit in the whole conflict. Finally, the article concludes that the violence which characterised the revolution was not because Blacks are violent by n...