I did not think much about Elon Musk before we got Starlink, only admiring his entrepreneurial ability while still remaining sceptical that the electric car would help resolve our climate crisis. At first, I thought SpaceX was a rich man’s dream, similar to Branson’s ego mission in trying to make space travel possible, be it only for the rich. Then last year, after years of frustration in our rural Portugal home being denied access to reliable internet, we invested in Starlink. What a change, easy to install, it sets itself, no shouts of slightly up or right from roof to lounge, it is reliable and, most importantly it provides internet at speeds we could only dream of compared to the alternate providers, cell phone operators, who fleeced us for their poor service.
Unfortunately, we are beyond the limits of fibre, too few of us to warrant its installation in our rural area like many such places in the world. Few people means fewer votes, therefore service provision is not a priority by governments in these areas. Just ask those in rural Africa or even in the Hebrides of Scotland. Much of the world’s rural populations find themselves in this position while others are denied access to the internet due to oppressive governments. These governments, because of being paranoid about their self-preservation, fear free speech and the tools to broadcast it most of all.
“The one benefit seen by undemocratic governments in suppressing free speech is that their corruption flourishes without the embarrassment of criticism internally. The denial to freely communicate and corruption are the symptoms of an undemocratic government, not the cause.” - Peter McSporran
Musk is the provider of the means for many to voice their opinions and importantly the truth. It is just becoming harder to discern the truth from the lies in this digital age. More importantly Musk has provided isolated rural areas with access to the world through Starlink while also enabling many educational and emergency services to operate effectively in what used to be communication void areas ignored by governments. A godsend to many people in remote areas of Brazil, yet the Government goes and bans it due to its tiff with Musk without considering its impact on its rural people. How many people in the developing world are relying on Starlink for their education or emergency services let alone their communications? It is said to be millions in Brazil. How many African countries will follow Brazil’s example, after all land based internet and mobiles are a great source of revenue?
“By criticising the Brazilian government, I do not condone the wealthy or celebrities having a greater influence through media exposure to impose their will on policies and laws. A singer or musician is just that, an IT boffin is just that, and an entrepreneur is just that with an added streak of determination (ruthlessness). Unfortunately we live in the age of digital influencers, many with limited knowledge of the real world let alone the subjects they preach.” - Peter McSporran
I am all for free speech and so events in Britain are so much scarier to me than those in Brazil. I always considered Britain a bastion of free speech, in recent months it has swiftly reversed my view. I am not including hate speech as free speech but it seems the new Labour government, in its efforts to ignore the will of the people, is happy to impose draconian punishment to shut their constituents' mouths, especially in their traditional strongholds. A sad time in what was once a democratic nation.
“For those of us who have lived under despotic rule disguised as democratic, we can recognise and identify the progress made toward the removal of individual rights. Britain is fast becoming one of those happy to please the few at the expense of the many.” - Peter McSporran
When I arrived in Rhodesia, I soon realised there was a definite north-south division, not just among the African tribes but also among the white population. I first visited Bulawayo when I was shipped to Llewellin Barracks to commence my National Service training in a wet and miserably cold June in 1973. I decided it was the most cold, damp place in Zimbabwe before being transferred to the School of Infantry in Gwelo, which I found was even colder and damper. The winter guti seemed to hang around for weeks that year, or maybe my mood in basic training dampened my spirits. In the National Service, our company, 4 Indep, was based at Hwange and Bulawayo became our preference stop on our deployments to and from the operational area at that time in the North East of the country, and despite many of us being from Mashonaland, in their wisdom, the army would give us our weekend passes in Bulawayo rather than in Salisbury. At most we would spend a night in the drill hall if we were lucky, but not our freedom to enjoy the ‘Bright Lights.’ I came to know Bulawayo as ‘Skies’ and Salisbury as ‘Bamba Zonke’ or ‘Bright Lights’ in the army. In our intake many of our troopies came from Bulawayo employed by the railways and other heavy engineering industries in that city, all with a dialect closer to that spoken by those of mixed race rather than English. Ask one of them where they were from and the answer was always “Skies, ek se.” It was only years later I learned that they were not representative of white Matebeles, especially the rural farming community. ‘Skies’ is a pleasant name, while ‘Bamba Zonke’, take all, is derogatory but probably pretty representative of the actual. Only later did I learn the name went back to Federation days when Salisbury, as the capital, collected all the mining royalties and taxes. I am well informed also about the profits from the mines in Northern Rhodesia on behalf of their colonial masters. Unlike the Northern Rhodesians, now Zambia, the Matabeles still believe the same applies, especially with a Shona led Government in power, and continue to refer to Harare as ‘Bamba Zonke.’ White or black people from Mashonaland are known as ‘Shifty Shonas’, people not to be trusted.
One of the many infinite lists of grievances substantiating the validity of this name was the introduction of the Foot and Mouth Zones (FMD). There were five.
Wildlife
Vaccinating Zones (Red)
Buffer Zones (Green)
Foot and Mouth Free Zones (Non-Export)
Foot and Mouth Free Zones (Exporting)
I will try and put a map up but it will be seen the wildlife zones, where FMD was endemic in the wild buffalo, some eighty thousand of them, are self-explanatory; the next zone was where the cattle were vaccinated or could be vaccinated to stop the spread of the disease from the wildlife areas into the then buffer zones. This was an area which was sacrificed in regard to continuance of exports from the clear zones in the event the vaccination zone failed in curbing the spread of the disease. Then there were two clear zones which ran right through the country from the south-east border with Botswana right through to the Mozambican border in the northeast. However, this was further divided, and only the catchment area in the northeastern, being mainly Mashonaland, was beef exported from. In that area the export abattoirs were Chinhoyi and Marondera while Kadoma, which in theory was in a clear zone, was not used as an export abattoir. I hope I am in correct in this and would appreciate any corrections or any collaborations on this subject. Worse, in theory, with testing, cattle could be moved from the buffer zone to the clear zone, but this rarely ever happened. Interestingly, there were no red or buffer zones in the north adjacent to the wildlife areas along the Zambezi, yet another big bone of contention.
In the early nineties, exports stopped due to several factors, but mainly due to FMD and cattle movements brought about in combating the effects of the drought. Under the auspices and funding by the EU in this period and beyond, some fifteen hundred kilometres of game fence and some three thousand kilometres of cattle fencing was put in to allow exports to recommence, I think that was in 1995. Little matter, as the zones were now a historical factor and would be reinstated with the commencement of exports, which once again excluded most of the cattle ranching regions from obtaining the premium for cattle that qualified for export. I am sure there were many other valid reasons for the Matebeles and those in the Southeast of the country to complain but in agriculture, the FMD zones were the most contentious.
Some of the most lively Farmer Association meetings I attended were in those areas, and I attended at least three at the Lion and Elephant at Bubye, where Sam and Janet Cawood would be in full voice. They were very good cattle ranchers and deserved respect for being successful in a very remote and dry part of the country. Despite their isolation, their voices were well heard in the Agricultural House. The Chief Executive of the Commercial Cattle Producers Association (CCPA), Dr Phil Gilbert-Green, would often turn to me to advise him in placating ranchers, especially when he was expecting a call from the Cawoods. They had a point, the price through the Cold Storage Commission abattoirs
should have been one, but due to EU pressure and the fact the Zimbabwean government wanted cheap food for the people, the unfair practice remained, making our job in dealing with the disenfranchised very difficult. During my term as president of the CFU, Bob Swift was chairman of the CCPA and being from the Midlands was not deemed a 'shifty Shona' and while not making his job easier, it removed some of the nastier provincial accusations.
The argument that beef exports ensured better local prices may have been true but to what extent was never quantified.
“When one party carries a burden to the benefit of others or for the better good of all those that carry that burden should benefit equally with the benefiting. That did not happen in the cattle industry in Zimbabwe.” - Peter McSporran
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Comentarios