There\’s just one final point in this article that I noticed. Steele talks about how \”white\” farms were invaded by \”Africans\”. Zimbabwe didn\’t permit dual nationality, meaning that the overwhelming majority of white farmers were Zimbabwean citizens. Many have family roots in Africa going back hundreds of years. At what point do they become African? And is Steele happy for the same test to be applied to African immigrants to Europe?
Mo Farah was Somali born and is now, in the eyes of the law, an Englishman in exactly the same manner that I am. And quite rightly so too. Citizenry is just citizenry and there\’s an end to it.
I think we\’d all agree that various at The Guardian would sign on to that concept too.
So why does this not apply to Zimbabweans? Why are those of pinkish hue not allowed to own land while those duskier may?
And I\’m sorry but we can\’t claim \”original inhabitants\” either. The Bantu are as much a novelty in that part of the world as the Normans are in the UK. Which gives us another comparator: we\’re told, repeatedly, that it\’s appalling that the descendants of the Norman invaders still own appreciable amounts of land in the UK. So why do we insist that Zimbabwean land must be given to Bantus instead of to Khoi San? After all, they got invaded, murdered and oppressed at about the same time the Anglo Saxons did.
I know what I think the correct solution is: the Me n\’ Mo one. I\’d just love to know what the possible justification for the Guardianista solution is.