Land Reform and Property Rights in Zimbabwe

Land Reform and Property Rights in Zimbabwe Introduction The purported discrimination against minority groups in terms of land entitlements and other rights is not a new concept in Africa, as well as other countries around the world. With the legacy of apartheid in South Africa still rife in various parts of the African continent, the rights of the minority population have never been more prominent in the media and the like. Zimbabwe has experienced a similar plight during recent times, with President Mugabe implementing radical land reform measures so as to â€Å"equalise† the land ownership demographic in Zimbabwe. Take for example the Abuja Agreement on Zimbabwe Land Reform, dated 6 September 2001 which states (in part): Zimbabwe has agreed†¦to end all illegal occupations of white-owned farmland and return the country to the rule of law, in return for financial assistance. The Agreement goes on to state that, as a result of the historical injustices, the Zimbabwe land situation endangers the stability of both southern Africa, and the whole continent, and that is why a land reform program in Zimbabwe must adhere to human rights, the rule of law, transparency and democratic principles.). The Zimbabwe delegation promised (1) that no more farms will be occupied; (2) to remove farms that do not meet set criteria from the lists and move squatters on those farms to lands acquired legally; (3) to speed up talks with the U.N. Development Programme; (4) to reinstate the rule of law; and (5) to invite the delegation to visit Zimbabwe and see the current situation. The United Kingdom also promised to contribute significantly to fund the land reform program, and encouraged other international organizations t o do the same.[1] It is the purpose of this brief to analyse the various methods with Zimbabwe have sought to implement, both pre- and post-independence, in order to ensure that land is not only distributed fairly among the population, but also in such a way that ensures the overall economic sustainability of Zimbabwean industry. Notwithstanding this, this paper will also explore the current precarious economic position of Zimbabwe as well as the somewhat selfish and unstable political administration, in order to determine whether this has any impact on the land reform policy and the Zimbabwean society at large. Pre independence Land Reform By 1898, Britain required the British South Africa Company (BSA) to create communal areas for the Africans. The Communal Areas were developed and despite the limitations the Communal Areas created there was still adequate land. The BSA realised that agriculture in Rhodesia could be highly profitable and embarked on a route of divesting Africans of lands and giving it to white colonists.[2] In 1925 the Morris-Carter Commission appointed to ensure white land domination determined that the best way to put the economy on a sound footing was landholding patterns.[3] The Land Appointment Act of 1930 broke land up along racial lines. Race groups were not allowed to own land in each other’s designated areas. In terms of this Act, 50.8% of land was reserved for white settlers and the African majority was allocated 30% of the land. The remaining 20% of the land was owned by commercial companies or the colonial government or was reserved as conservation areas.[4] The land reserved for the white settlers was situated in the arable central highlands and the land reserved for the Africans along the plateau sloping down into the Zambezi Valley and mountainous escarpment. This land was designated as African Reserve Areas. The colonial government adopted the following legislation that relegated Africans to infertile reserves known as communal lands: The 1913 Natives Land Act The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 The Native Land Husbandry Act of 1951 The Land Tenure Act of 1969 The result of these policies led to a highly skewed land ownership. One percent of the white farmers owned more than half of the available agricultural land and over seventy percent of all fertile lands. At the time of independence, the two racial groups each owned about 40% of the land in Zimbabwe. The population density was however vastly different with far greater number of people living on African land. The population density for white farm land was 1 per square mile and that of African farm land 46 per square mile. The white settlers further had the pick of the land and were also supported by massive state intervention in the development of a farming economy. The state provided extensive communication and marketing infrastructure in commercial farming areas, and made subsidies and loans available to white farmers. The inequality of land allocation and the support to white agriculture were continuous areas of conflict and contention. The first rebellion took place in 1896 but the African people were defeated by the superior military might of the colonial forces. The second rebellion (â€Å"Chimurenga†) began in the 1960s and was led by the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and the now defunct Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU). Both ZANU and ZAPU were committed to radical land reform on coming to power. The dispossession of Africans was still a living memory for many of the elders in Zimbabwe who had lived through the first Chimurenga. Both ZANU and ZAPU elicited a lot of support from the peasants. Most of the supporters lived in rural areas and the war was largely fought in rural areas. It was guerrilla fighters and peasants who fought against a modern army of the white regime. The Lancaster House agreement brought about a ceasefire and new elections. The colony reverted back under British rule. It further provided for a new constitution that implemented majority rule and at the same time protected the rights of the white minority. The parties agreed that the country will be named Zimbabwe. The subsequent elections in 1980 saw Robert Mugabe win and form the first government, post colonialism. Because the land issue was the main driving force for Prime Minister Mugabe’s campaign, he promised that his government would investigate for ways to reverse past discriminatory policies in land distribution, education, employment, and wages.[5] The fundamental aim of Zimbabwe’s land reform program today is to redress the inequalities within the existing tenure system that denies the African majority access to fertile lands.[6] Background to conflict Zimbabwe has approximately 12 million people and the land area is approximately 386669 square kilometres. The land tenure system in place today is the remains of the colonial system. The colonial system created the inequalities and that is what the current Zimbabwean government is trying to overcome with land reforms. The civil war lasted until the late 1970’s when a settlement was negotiated that led to the Lancaster House Agreement and independence for Zimbabwe. At that time the inequalities were very visible with the population density where the African people lived being three times those in the commercial farming area. The land was still divided along racial lines with about 6000 white farmers owning 42% of the country. The land reform experience in Kenya played an influential role in the search for a workable solution for the land crisis in Zimbabwe. The Kenyan problem was similar to that of Zimbabwe, they also had a guerrilla warfare and dispossessed peoples which fuelled the conflict. The British tried to defuse the crisis by buying out white farmers. The amount the British Government made available to buy white farms in Kenya was à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ¡500 million. The parties hoped that a similar solution would be available for Zimbabwe and during secret negotiations in the mid seventies the negotiating parties promoted an Anglo- American Development Fund for Zimbabwe. This idea received broad support and was even backed by the then ZANU/ZAPU Patriotic Front (ZANU/ZAPU PF). The British Government agreed to contribute $75 million and there were hints from the United States that it would contribute an extra $200 million. The money was going to be used to buy out the white owned farms. The Lancaster House negotiations started in 1979 with Ian Smith, Abel Muzorewa and the ZANU/ZAPU PF all took part in the negotiations. By the time the negotiations took place, Britain had a new government. During the Lancaster negotiations the so called Development Fund was used as bait to get the liberation movements to reach an agreement with the Rhodesian Government with Abel Muzorewa as the prime minister and Ian Smith representing the white minority. The offer of the fund was withdrawn and the British Government offered a compromise. They were very concerned about the white farmers and in exchange for a promise by the liberation organisations that they will not take away the land from the white farmers for a period of 10 years unless it was on the basis of a willing seller and willing buyer and to guarantee landholding the British Government will underwrite half of the costs of resettlement with the Zimbabwean Government required to provide the other half. In 1980 the British Go vernment put up an initial amount of à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ¡20 million. For the Zimbabwean Government resettlement was the key issue in the transfer of power to an independent Zimbabwean regime. The only way that land could therefore be redistributed was on the basis that white farmers will sell their land willingly. Those who wished to continue farming was free to do so and the government was not allowed to carry out mass expropriation of land from white farmers. Although the Zimbabwean Government retained the right to expropriate land for public resettlement purposes, the compensation it was required to pay had to be paid out in foreign currency. Article Sixteen of Zimbabwes Constitution allowed the Zimbabwean Government to expropriate land that was not being utilised. During the guerrilla ware many farmers abandoned their farms and these were taken by the new Government. The Zimbabwean Government thus was in a position to move forward with redistribution of the land by expropriating land for the public good. Today this is what President Mugabe is saying to justify this controversial land acquisition program. The frontline states in Southern Africa placed tremendous pressure on the liberation organisations to accept the proposed settlement and, in the end, they capitulated and an agreement was reached. The critical capitulation created the breeding ground for future unsatisfied expectations of the war veterans and the landless Africans. The hands of the Zimbabwean Government were tied. They could not carry out their goal of redressing the inequities of the colonialism and the vast majority of the farm land remained in the hands of the few white farmers. Following the war an urgent need for reconstruction existed and measures were required to address the mass displacement of the peasant people in Zimbabwe. Since the ware was mostly fought in the rural areas the peasant agriculture collapsed and because the government could not expropriate white owned land 90 percent of all marketed food in the country was produced by the white farm owners. This fact strengthened the white farmers position both economical and politically. The restrictions imposed through the Lancaster House agreement remained a constant theme in Zimbabwean land reform in the decades following independence.[7] By 1997 a high number of more fertile agricultural lands remained under the control of a few thousand white farmers. It was now 17 years since independence and although the Government changed the constitution in 1990 (after the 10 year period) to make it easier for ti to expropriate land the vast majority of displaced Africans and the war veterans who fought on the land for the land was still landless. The population of a lower class labourer in the so called tribal reserves increased. President Mugabe has on many occasions said that the British Government reneged on the agreement that was reached at the Lancaster House. Yet, Britain that reneged on the Lancaster House agreement to pay compensation to its indigenes in Zimbabwe on their lands to be redistributed, for equity, could brazenly cry foul and deploy its immense media power to demonise Mugabe.[8] Zimbabwe’s Political History Cecil John Rhodes became rich beyond anyone’s wildest dreams through his companies, De Beers Consolidated Mines and Goldfields of South Africa. The first company exploited the diamond fields in the Northern Cape and the second one the goldfields on the Reef. His biggest dream was to establish a continuous strip of British Empire from the Cape to the mouth of the Nile. The terms of incorporation of his mining companies included the right to invest in northern expansion. Rhodes formed the British South Africa Company (BSA) to expand into Africa beyond South Africa without involving the British government. BSA was also looking for gold fields and the first white settlers settled in what is now known as Harare in 1890. Gold was indeed discovered in the Zimbabwe highlands. In 1891 the area is declared a British protectorate and from 1895 the region up to the Zambezi is known as Rhodesia. The gold that was discovered in Zimbabwe was not as concentrated as on the gold reef in South Africa and nearly impossible to extract profitably. The company encouraged white settlement of Zimbabwe for farming purposes as an alternative means of generating an income for it. The direct result of this policy was a greater need to dispossess indigenous peoples of their land and force them into labour on the settler farms. Since the Zimbabwean highlands were not very fertile, the white settler farmers struggled to make a living. The result was that the BSA did not make any profits. Lobengula who was the king of the Ndebele people granted Rhodes the mining rights in part of his territory in return for 1000 rifles, an armed steamship for use on the Zambezi and a monthly rent of  £100. He tried to maintain good relations with the British but many of his tribe were eager to expel the white people. Leander Jameson who was administering the region for Rhodes started waging war against Lobengula and easily defeated Lobengula who had his headquarters at Bulawayo. There was a strong tribal uprising against the British in 1896 but thereafter Rhodess company brought the entire region up to the Zambezi under full control. Because BSA was not making any profits it wanted to get out of the territory and the white settlers were asked to vote on three choices. On 12 September 1923 Rhodesia becomes a self-governing c rown colony. The colony is prosperous and successful with the white population growing to 222,000 thirty years after the referendum. By 1953 Rhodesia has been a self governing colony for thirty years and the African people remained disenfranchised. In 1957 a tiny B roll is established providing for a small number of African voters. Between 1953 and 1963, Rhodesia was part of a colonial federation with two other colonies namely Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. During the early 1960’s African politicians in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland won more power in the legislative councils and pressure grows on the British government to break up the federation. All three colonies were also demanding independence and the federation is formally dissolved on 31 December 1963. During the years of federation the parties are formed which will subsequently fight the bitter struggle for the future of an independent Rhodesia. Joshua Nkomo, the first African leader in the new era, is elected as president of the local branch of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1957. The ANC is banned and he is the founder member of the National Democratic Party in 1960 which in turn is banned. In 1961he replaces it with ZAPU (the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union). Robert Mugabe and the reverend Ndabaningi Sithole are both members of this ZAPU. In 1963 Mugabe and Sithole split from ZAPU and form the rival ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union). The United Nations supported the African majority in their quest for political suffrage and this support combined with the political pressure from the African majority forces the federal government to introduce a new constitution in 1961 allowing for African representation in parliament. A direct result of this move is the establishment of a new political party by Ian Smith known as the Rhodesian Front. The Rhodesian Front was committed to white supremacist policies and offered an independent Rhodesia governed by the white minority. The new party is the surprise winner in the elections in 1962. The party in power at the time was the more moderate United Federal Party. The new prime minister is Winston Field and the founder of the party, Ian Smith becomes his deputy. Ian Smith replaced Field as prime minister in April 1964and becomes prime minister of Rhodesia. At this stage Rhodesia is once again separate self-governing colony. Ian Smith ordered the arrest of Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe as his first act in office. They remained in detention until 1974. Reverend Sithole joined them in November 1965. Pursuant to Smith’s promise of independence he now tries to persuade the British government to grant independence on the basis of white minority rule. The British government refused the request and Smith decides to take matters into his own hands and on 11 November 1965 he publishes a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Harold Wilson embarked on quiet diplomacy and there followed meetings between Smith and Wilson. Two of the meetings took place on warships (the Fearless and the Tiger) off Gibraltar in 1966 and 1968. Smith is unmoved by the quiet diplomacy of the British government. In 1968 the United Nations imposes economic sanctions against Rhodesia with the approval of the British government. The sanctions do not work immediately and takes a long time to become effective. Guerrilla warfare by ZAPU and ZANU is more effective. They attack Rhodesia from across its borders. Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo also buried the hatchet and in 1976 they formed a united front namely the Patriotic Front (PF). By 1978 Smith realises that the white minority will have to grant concessions to the African majority and he comes to an agreement with a moderate African leader bishop Abel Muzorewa, leader of the UANC (United African National Council). Multi racial elections are held in 1979 but the Patriotic Front is banned from the elections. Bishop Muzorewa emerges as the prime minister. The agreement between Smith and Bishop Muzorewa entails guarantees securing white political and economic interests Smith underestimated the tenacity of the Patriotic Front and it continues its guerrilla campaign against Rhodesia. The fact that the PF was banned meant that there were no real democratic elections and the UANC was shackled to the agreement it reached with Smith in exchange for the right to participate in the elections. In December 1979 all three African leaders attend a meeting in London. UDI is overturned and Rhodesia reverts briefly to the status of a British colony. The parties reached an agreement which is now commonly known as the Lancaster House Agreement. When Kenya became independent the British government promised  £500 million to assist Kenya with its land reforms. The PF negotiated with the British government for a similar concession. At the time of the Lancaster House Agreement the British government agreed to provide funds to the Zimbabwean government to assist it in redistributing the land on the basis of ‘willing seller, willing buyer’. Post-Colonial Land Reforms Following the independence of Zimbabwe in 1980 the government and administration has sought to implement various measures in an attempt to reform the land conflict and address the fact that the most viable and valuable land in Zimbabwe is owned by white farmers, which forms a very significant minority of the Zimbabwean population. As one author puts it: The land division in Zimbabwe now is horribly inequitable. Of the countrys 11.4 million people, the white minority, comprising one percent of the total population, owns over one-third of the farmland. The British fully realized the need for some measure of land reform when they granted Zimbabwe its independence. But, during the first two decades of autonomy, the Zimbabwean government has moved slowly to address the land scarcity issue. The situation is aggravated now because a minuscule white minority owns most all of the large commercial farms that support Zimbabwes agriculture-dependent economy.[9] Furthermore: The unfortunate irony is that the very land the Zimbabwean government wants to expropriate belongs to white farmers whose land provides employment for many Africans, whose products are vital to the countrys financial health, and whose crops feed not only Zimbabwe, but also its neighbors. Nevertheless, Mugabe has marked around 4,900 white-owned, commercial farms (about ninety-five percent of the total number of white-owned farms) for appropriation as part of his â€Å"fast track,† land redistribution plan.[10] The above passages demonstrate the difficulties which post-colonial land reforms face in the Zimbabwean context, particularly in an economic sense. The white-owned farms which are being marked for appropriation under the new â€Å"fast track† land reforms implemented by Mugabe contributes significantly to the economic sustainability of Zimbabwe, given the fact that it provides employment for many of the black Africans, as well as providing an export market for Zimbabwe to other countries. The theory, according to Nading, is that if this land is taken away from the white farmers, it places Zimbabwe in an even more precarious economic position than what it is currently experiencing. Contrary to this argument, is important to note the current economic situation in Zimbabwe is not good. Zimbabwes inflation is astronomical, and the government is quite clearly broke. The government also continues to fund what is described as an â€Å"ill-informed troop deployment in the Democratic Republic of Congo†.[11] In October 2001 the Zimbabwean government sought US$360 million in international aid from the United Nations Development Program.[12] These factors tend to demonstrate that Zimbabwean government has a history of not being particularly responsible with its funds, often directing funds to places where they should ordinarily not be directed. Therefore questions need to be asked in relation to the proposed fast track land reforms and whether they actually make sound economic sense in the Zimbabwean context. While, in a social sense, the proposed scheme is to succeed in theory in equalising land ownership in Zimbabwe and negating the concentration of land ownership among the minority white population, the statistics show that the land owned by white farmers under the previous schemes (and, in turn, in current times) comprises much of the economic integrity of Zimbabwe. However, conversely, Zimbabwean government does not have a history of sound political inte grity and raises questions over this policy in an economic sense. It is a well-known fact that much of Zimbabwean Pres Mugabes support comes from the black Zimbabwean population. In this regard, it is clear that one of the political justifications of the Fast Track reforms is to look after Mugabes own political self interests, and not necessarily to advance the social welfare status of Mugabe supporters. However it would also appear that the Fast Track reforms are veiled in such a way so as to create the impression that Mugabe is looking after the black population of Zimbabwe, however the facts indicate that this is not the case. As one author puts it: Mugabe began his fast track campaign in earnest against the minority, white farm-owners and the opposition group, the MDC, following voters rejection of Mugabes proposal for a new constitution on February 15, 2000. Through this constitutional referendum, Mugabe sought to extend his office of the presidency for another six years.[13] This essentially demonstrates Mugabes selfish political nature, with Mugabe firstly seeking to extend his office of the presidency by another six years and, after this was rejected by the people in a referendum, he then sought to implement a land reform scheme which purported to favour the black majority so he could, in theory, propose his constitutional amendment again and have it passed at a second referendum. It also demonstrates the flaws in the Zimbabwean political system, in the sense that it does not operate to promote true democracy and representation of all Zimbabwean citizens, but rather to preserve the political self-interest of the ruling class and taking the vote of the less educated, but majority, black Zimbabwean voters for granted. It will be difficult to submit to there is an ultimate social welfare aim behind these proposed land reform measures, as the facts indicate that Mugabe has a history of being self-centered and power hungry in his political ideologies and vi ews. Therefore the overall integrity on both an economic and social front, as well as the political motivation of same, is questionable at best. In summary the post-Colonial approach to land reform in Zimbabwe does not present substantial merit in its aims and objectives so as to justify disenfranchising white landowners in favour of the disadvantaged black Zimbabwean population on a number of fronts. As one author puts it: Moreover, these [land reforms] reinforce a state-centric view of rural Zimbabwe that leads to a naive faith in the governments current ability or future possibility to (re)order rural life for the betterment of all. Given the checkered history of state policies toward land in colonial and post-colonial Zimbabwe, such faith inspires more concern than relief.[14] The above passage perhaps summarises this chapter perfectly, in the sense that this policy inspires false hope in the Zimbabwean government to deliver a policy which is beneficial for all Zimbabweans. The facts appear to indicate that this policy only serves to benefit the ruling class, and not the majority black population as it purports to. Are the Land Reform Provisions Justifiable? There is little ability to dispute the fact that the land reform provisions which have been put in place since the independence of Zimbabwe provide for a significantly increased rate of land reform and the measures that were previously put in place. However the real question that this paper must answer is whether or not the most recent provisions are a positive step for the people of Zimbabwe, particularly the black minority population, or whether they serve as more of a burden upon the Zimbabwean population as a whole. This paper has analysed both the pre-and post-independence land reform provisions in the context of the social, political and economic merits thereof. The fact of the matter is that post-independence land reform provisions in Zimbabwe have not appropriately addressed the challenges which Zimbabwe faces in these areas. As one author puts it: Zimbabwe has found the redistribution of land to peasant farmers particularly difficult to achieve: in ten years the government has been able to relocate fewer than 60,000 farmers, in spite of earlier promises to resettle 162,000 by 1985. Following passage of the Land Acquisition Act in March 1992, the countrys commercial farmers face compulsory acquisition of their land by the government, including those farms located in lucrative tobacco growing areas. Although the government will pay compensation, farmers will be unable to appeal established compensation levels.[15] In other words, the currently land reform provisions severely prejudice those who already own land in such a way that grants an unfair advantage to those who do not, such as the majority black population. More importantly, compensation which white farmers will receive as a result of the Zimbabwean governments compulsory land acquisition is inadequate and is not subject to any formal review. This means that farmers do not have any ability to challenge him out of compensation they receive, leaving them significantly out of pocket as a result of the governments land reform proposals and with a limited ability to make income from the skills which are probably all they have in terms of plying their trade. Zimbabwe is a very spotted political history, particularly in relation to looking after the best interests of its people. President Mugabe also has a proven track record of looking after his own self interests before looking after the interests of his electors. In this regard one must question the political motivation of the Zimbabwean land reform policies and whether in fact it sets out to achieve what it purports to be its aims and objectives. It cannot be disputed that the policy does seek to empower black Zimbabwean population; however this paper suggests that it does not have adequate regard the economic consequences of disenfranchising white farmers, who own most of the profitable land in Zimbabwe. It is this factor that cast doubt over the policy as a whole, however regard need to be had for the current economic situation in any case. Inflation is through the roof, and one needs to consider whether hurting the already crippled Zimbabwean financial sector is a sensible approach in the long run. Conclusion In summary, and in consideration of the above points, it is clear that the land reform policy Zimbabwe post-independence is not one which the government should be proud of. This paper has presented evidence which suggests that British colonisation of Zimbabwe had a view of equal land distribution, but also a view of economic prosperity, in the sense that the most prosperous land was distributed to those who have the skills and knowledge to appropriately deal with and generate profit from that land. Even when Zimbabwe became independent in 1979-1980, the British government continued to allocate funds to Zimbabwe in an attempt to redistribute land, however this distribution occurred on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. This demonstrates the fact that, when the British government had a role in policy forming in Zimbabwe, it always had Zimbabwe’s interests at heart. Since Zimbabwe gained independence, the administration of its affairs has been tainted by greed, fraud and dece ption and the people of Zimbabwe are the ones who have suffered in this regard. To sum up the current land reform policy in Zimbabwe: Since 1890 up to today, the land question has singularly had the most significant impact on Zimbabwes political and economic history. Most recently, the Land Resettlement Program, developed after Zimbabwes independence in 1980, has had mixed reviews. One position is that the program has resulted in one of Africas most successful examples of land redistribution. The other position is that the land reform program in Zimbabwe has been disastrous to the country and its economy. According to some sources, a total of over 3.5 million hectares of land have been resettled. But, [t]here is considerable controversy on the number of people who have [actually] been allocated land.[16]

Residential Schools in Canada

Residential Schools in Canada The Canadian government and the Christian churches formerly introduced residential schools with the purpose of assimilating Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. This research report will provide a brief background on the origination of residential schools in Canada. The report will examine the consequences of residential schools, the parties involved in negotiations, the outcomes of the negotiations and its impact on independent parties. Canadas first residential school- The Mohawk Institute located in Brantford, Ontario, opened in 1831. In residential schools, enrollment of girls started in the year 1834. In the eyes of the Bagot Commision, Mohawk Institute made the perfect model for all other schools. The commission also recommended separating Indigenous children from their families in order to accomplish an effective assimilation. In 1884, various modifications to the Indian Act of 1876 permitted the formation of residential schools across Canada. Simultaneously, traditional Indigenous ceremonies were prohibited by the Canadian government. By the year 1896, in totality, 45 residential schools were operating across the country. Such detrimental enforcements caused conflicts between the parties involved- the Canadian government, churches, and the Indigenous communities. Issues were to be discovered and negotiations were to take place between the parties. The Canadian Government The Christian Churches The Canadian government and the Christian churches are the parties that ignited the conflict with Indigenous people. Government funded the residential schools as it felt the need to civilize Indigenous peoples and controlling education served as the prime approach. In 1857, under the Gradual Civilization Act, Indigenous men who were 21 years of age, had to be literate in either English or French. Churches and key leaders like Sir John A. MacDonald (Canadas first Prime Minister) were set to end the cultural differences faced with the Indigenous communities. Just over 130 residential schools were active across the country from 1831 to 1996. Indigenous Communities Indigenous communities include Metis, First Nations (also known as Indians), and Inuit. The children of these communities were being converted to Christianity against their will. Not attending residential schools put the future of Indigenous families at stake. Next, the issues caused by the residential schools and issues faced by the Indigenous children and their families will be examined. Residential school system was responsible for cultural genocide. Historisca Canada, defines the term cultural genocide as, the intentional eradication and destruction of cultural artifacts and structures, the banning of cultural activities, and the obliteration of social structures rooted in unique cultures. Likewise, the prime goal of residential school system was to segregate Indigenous children from their families and communities in order to conform them into Euro-Canadian culture. The attempt of forceful assimilation caused Indigenous people to terminate their distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. This was made possible by compulsorily isolating Indigenous children from their communities and enrolling them in residential schools. Students were banned to speak in their mother tongue and perform their traditional art forms, such as dance and music. As residential schools were underfunded, the living conditions were very poor. The residential sc hools were getting overcrowded as The Gradual Civilization Act started awarding 50 acres of land to any Indigenous male who were willing to under the pressure of running a family, give up tribal membership. Residential students were facing starvation, and students suffered through abuse in terms of physical, emotional, and sexual, on a daily basis. The immeasurable damage caused by the residential schools resulted in intergenerational trauma that continues to affect Indigenous people even today. It is evident that there is a severe conflict between the parties; so did anyone try to initiate a negotiation? Or even bring forth the conflict publicly and speak up? The next section covers key people who publicized the conflict and initiated a negotiation. Key Influential People Dr. P. H. Bryce In 1907, Dr. P. H. Bryce was the first to officially without any bias examine the conditions of residential schools. In Canadas Department of the Interior and Indian Affairs, Dr. Bryce was the chief medical officer in the years 1904 to 1921. After having examined the conditions at residential schools, he announced that the Indigenous childrens mortality rate was approximately 42%. It was the first time in the history of residential schools that, the government was exposed of its suppression of statistics on Indigenous peoples health. It was extremely brave of Dr. Bryce to expose the government in his 1922 publication- The Story of a National Crime. Chanie Charlie Wenjack Chanies death had raised questions on the Indian education and its philosophy at the time. On November 17, 1966, a jury declared their verdict of holding an autopsy for Chanie Charlie Wenjacks death. Throughout 1960-1980s, residential schools had started to close down. In the year 1969, the agreement between the Canadian government and churches had officially ended. As a result, the Department of Indian Affairs was in charge for the remainder of schools running. With the immense responsibility in the hands of the Department of Indian Affairs, in 1979, the remaining 12 residential schools were evaluated. An initiation was in place by making school administration more culturally aware, keeping in mind the requirements of Indigenous children. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was instigated by the respective Prime Minister Brain Mulroney, in the year 1991. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples consisted of seven commissioners who would generate a report regarding the effects of residential schools on generations. The final report was concluded in 1996. The report made 440 recommendations as to how the relationships between Indigenous people, non-Indigenous people and Canadas government could be resolved. As far as negotiation was concerned, the Royal Commission had proposed to take on the accommodative approach in order to keep peace and encourage mutuality in the future. During the 1980 and 1990s, previous students of residential schools held campaigns to get the churches and the government to acknowledge the schools exploitations and to receive some form of compensation. In the year 1998, a Statement of Reconciliation was finally issued by the Canadian government. The statement recognized the cruelties suffered by former Indigenous students by establishing the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. In an attempt of using the negotiation tactic of Give Something to Get Something, in 2003, the Alternative Dispute Resolution process was put in place. This process allowed for an out-of-court mechanism in providing compensation and psychological support. The Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) In terms of negotiation, the residential school conflict deals greatly with the cultural context. When it comes to culture in negotiation, there are three main rules. First is to learn the other sides culture. Second, never to stereotype. Third is finding ways to bridge the culture gap. The third rule is exactly what the Canadian government was offering by establishing the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement in 2007. Under the IRSSA, survivors of residential schools are offered compensation. Part of the IRSSA is the Common Experience Payment, which is paid out on the basis of how many years the victim has attended residential school. Not to forget the Independent Assessment Process through which every statement of sexual, psychological or physical abuse, was resolved on case-by-case basis. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) June 1, 2008, marked the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). Reportedly, $60 million had been put aside for TRC. The TRC has been put in effect for a span of five years to manuscript the truth regarding the conditions of residential schools and rightly inform all Canadians. The TRC is a great platform for victims and their families to vocalize their experiences. Through national events held in different parts of the country such as Winnipeg, it becoming easier to raise public awareness of the truth. TRC is an effective tool in order to create a comprehensive historical record on the residential schools. It is the least to say that residential schools produced immeasurable damage by disrupting healthy Indigenous communities and causing long-term intergenerational problems. However, with the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in effect both parties have come to peace with each other. Not to forget, the apology made by the former Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008, on behalf of the Canadian government to the former students of residential schools. It would be correct to say that Indigenous people no longer would feel like outsiders after seeing the recent progress made by the TRC. In 2015, in the final report of TRC Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future, is officially the documentation consisting the awful experiences of the past residential school students. Keeping in mind the ultimate goal of resolving conflicts with the Indigenous communities, the final report states 94 Calls of Action. Having said that, their is great hope for the success of the Indian Residential School Settlement. References CBC News (2016, March 21). A history of residential schools in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-history-of-residential-schools-in-canada-1.702280 Historica Canada. (2015, December 31). Residential Schools in Canada: Education Guide. Retrieved from http://education.historicacanada.ca/files/103/ResidentialSchools_Printable_Pages.pdf Kennedy, Mark. (2015, December 14). Residential schools to blame for problems plaguing aboriginals: Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/residential-schools-to-blame-for-problems-plaguing-aboriginals-truth-and-reconciliation-commission Marshall, Tabitha (2016, September 29). Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-residential-schools-settlement-agreement/ Rice, Joanna. (2011, March). Indian Residential School Truth and Reconciliation Commision of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/indian-residential-school-truth-and-reconciliation Taylor, Adam. (2015, June 5). Did Canada commit a cultural genocide?. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/05/did-canada-commit-a-cultural-genocide/?utm_term=.90bc697961bf The Critical Thinking Consortium (2015, December 31). Background to residential schools. Retrieved from https://tc2.ca/uploads/backgroundbriefs/BBResSchools.pdf

Essay --

Cigarette smoking during childhood and adolescence produces significant health problems, including an unfavorable lipid profile, cough and phlegm production, and decreased physical fitness. One may also develop an increase in the number and severity of respiratory illnesses, and be susceptible to potential retardation in the rate of lung growth and the level of maximum lung function. Once advanced beyond their teenage years, almost all individuals try to quit smoking, but most fail. Therefore, a solution to the problem of smoking among children and adolescents must be to prevent young people from being lured into the destructive habit. In order to effectively prevent, or at least decrease the likelihood of, smoking among young people, one needs to understand the reasons why children and teens start to smoke. A few are: peer and societal pressures, internal struggles, and the obligation to succeed in academics. Peer pressure is one of the primary reasons young people smoke. It may be placed on the subject in the form of outright, verbal persuasion, or it may manifest itself as one's...

The Character of Uncle Ben in Death of a Salesman Essay -- Death Sales

The Character of Uncle Ben in Death of a Salesman The character of Ben in Arthur Miller's Death of A Salesman serves a complex dramatic function.   He is Willy Loman's real brother, the idealized memory of that brother, and an aspect of Willy's own personality, and these distinct functions are sometimes simultaneous.   Through his aggressive actions and vibrant speech, the audience is given a strong contrast to Willy's self-doubt and self-contradiction.   In addition, the encounters between Ben and Willy serve as an extended examination of professional and familial morality.   Finally, Ben personifies the burden of Willy's expectations in regards to both material success and the proper role of a father. The most fundamental of Ben's characteristics evident in his language is his haste.   Appearing in the middle of Willy and Charley's card game, Ben's first words are, "I only have a few minutes"   (45).   He makes his departure shortly after announcing, "I'll be late for my train"   (52).   During his second appearance, he declares, "I haven't much time" and "I've got to go"   (85-6).   These lines are emblematic.   In the two scenes with his brother that are based on Willy's memories, Ben comes and goes when he chooses, despite sometimes desperate pleas that he stay.   This is in direct contrast to Willy, whose life has been structured around appointments and whose livelihood depends on the forbearance of near strangers. Because of his position as a traveling salesman, Willy never controls the parameters of his interaction with other people.   He calls upon customers and must depend upon their willingness to see him in order to make a living.   Willy's affair with The Woman is only partially motivated by a need for sexual fulfillme... ...l Ben.   The briefness of these meetings also serves to convince Willy of his own inferiority by concealing any difficulties that might have existed in Ben's life.   Ben has exactly the wrong degree of interaction with Willy.   If he were entirely absent, he would not haunt his younger brother so.   If he were more fully present, he would either have been of more comfort to Willy, or have been revealed as a more fully human, less mythic character.   As it is, Ben serves only to remind him of his past loss, emphasize his current failure, and provide the means of his final destruction. Works Cited Centola, Steven R.   "Family Values in Death of A Salesman."   CLA Journal.   37.1 (1993):   29-41. Jacobsen, Irving F.   "Family Dreams in Death of A Salesman."   American Literature.   47 (1975):   247-58. Miller, Arthur.   Death of A Salesman.   New York:   Penguin, 1976.

Discount Stores Limited

Accounting measures and treatments have been used to properly determine the profitability and financial position of a business entity. In the case of Discount Stores Limited, they have suffered significant losses especially in the first few years of operations. After hiring Harry Highpaid as the chief executive officer, though still suffering from a small loss, Discount has made significant improvements in its business operations.Now for the owners Ruth and Irving Bogan, employing various methods to account for advertising costs, inventory and company receivables, which have been used by Highpaid, is still subject to either approval or modification. These three aspects and how it contributes to the net profit or net loss of Discount would be the primary accounts and methods under inquiry. Case Study: Discount Stores Limited Discount Stores Limited is a chain of retail stores located in Ontario, Canada selling clothing and household items.The owners Ruth and Ivan Bogan use the income they get from Discount to provide for their personal living. However, the Bogans are worried because of they may possibly lose their primary source of income due to the business’ unprofitable years. It is nothing but normal for a new business establishment to suffer losses during its first few years of operation. However, these annual losses must, of course, be regained by increasing income for the years thereafter. For the owners, hiring an excellent manager, Harry Highpaid, became a venue for Discount to recover from the significant losses that they have incurred.Improvements have been flowing to Discount, and the owners are confident of the potential success of their business. Having been presented with the current year financial statements, the owners are concerned of some accounting treatments that Highpaid had employed in terms of advertising costs, slow-moving inventory and credit to customers. With regards to advertising costs, Highpaid has utilized extensive advertis ing campaigns to make their products known to the public, to attract new customers and to gain a bigger market share.This marketing strategy, according to Highpaid, has been a success and significantly contributed to increase in interested customers and eventually, increase in their gross profit. Highpaid had capitalized Discount’s advertising cost, believing that these will benefit the store for more than a year, and amortizing them over a period of five years. This is contradictory to Discount’s previous treatment of advertising costs, which is to expense them as incurred. Advertising costs are generally expensed in the period it is incurred.Proponents of this concept argue that future benefits that may be derived from advertising expenditures are uncertain (cited in Flesher, 1991). However, others believe these advertising costs must be capitalized for future economic benefits from these are identifiable and measurable. Plus, capitalization of this kind of cost coul d maximize long-term profits, not just short-term. Discount’s capitalization of 50% of its advertising costs would indeed contribute to bigger profits since the expenses it would incur will be lesser.Also, this gives rise to an intangible asset. Proof that capitalization of this cost would benefit future periods is that customers’ advertising impressions may build up overtime and it would be instrumental in introducing Discount’s product to customers who may possibly develop brand loyalty. Expensing the other half of it would be the proper treatment for those advertising costs, which do not necessarily benefit future periods, or benefit the current period alone. Moreover, this would serve as an immediate tax shelter, decreasing the potential taxable income.Determination which of these costs must be capitalized and which must be expensed actually depends on several factors such as the industry Discount is in and the extensiveness of advertising that they are empl oying. Advice is to maintain capitalizing the identifiable and measurable costs which would benefit future periods and expense those which would not, having already proven its considerable contribution to Discount’s increase in income. Every shop selling furniture or household items runs into the problem of having slow-moving inventory.This unsalable merchandise may be the bane of businesses no matter what the products are. Therefore, it is no longer extraordinary for Discount to have a low turnover of its inventory. Discount used to write off slack inventory, which has been on hand for six months or more, at the end of each fiscal year. These products with sporadic sales were discontinued and liquidated. But Highpaid has employed a slightly different term of writing off these inventories. He now writes off only inventories, which he thinks could no longer be sold. What discount must first do is to set up a system of managing its inventories.It must be able to know and identi fy which items are moving, and which are dragging sales down so that it can make better buying decisions, diminish slack inventories, and eventually increase profit margins. It must consistently track these inventories, which are selling more and which are not. Purchase bigger quantities of those products highly demanded by the customers. This is to avoid or lessen slow-moving inventory at the end of the operating period. Highpaid’s new inventory write-off strategy is better than Discount’s previous treatment of completely liquidating all sporadic products.This is due to the fact that Discount must â€Å"maintain a stock of some slow-moving products, and even products that have never been sold, in order to maintain a high level of customer service and enhance their corporate profitability† (Screibfeder, p. 1). Concentrate on ensuring you have the optimal quantities of those items that have the most dollars flowing through the shop. Offering credit to customers i s a very helpful and widely used business tool. Making sales on credit generally allows the store to increase its sales.The downside is that it brings with it the risk of late payments, or worse, uncollectible payments or the so-called bad debts. To appropriately comply with the accepted accounting principles, Discount must record the portion of its receivables that can no longer be collected. These bad debts must be recorded in the period it is incurred. Since there is an inherent risk that clients might default or incur delay on payment, Discount’s receivables must then be recorded at its net realizable value, or its gross accounts receivable less the allowance for doubtful accounts or the portion of the credit estimated to be doubtful of collection.The actual amount of Discount’s uncollectible receivable is written off as an expense from Allowance from Doubtful Accounts to the income statement account known as the Bad Debts Expense. This way, Discount would be able to fully account for the customers’ collectible credit and correctly diminish its income with the portion of the receivable, which will be uncollectible.To protect Discount’s cash flow, it is essential to credit check new customers before giving credit and continue monitor their payment practices throughout the business relationship. It may also be advantageous to provide for cash discounts to credit customers to encourage faster payment of debt. Proper and close monitoring of Discount Stores Limited’s accounting policies would greatly contribute to the profitability and to the stability of its financial condition.

Planning – Sandwich Blitz

– Strategic Planning: According to Bateman & Snell â€Å"Typical strategic goals include growing, increasing market share, improving profitability† (2010, Page 77), which means that Dalman and Lei need to set a long term goals and achieve them for example if they would like to expand they need to set their expansion based on meeting a certain percent of their profit after 4 years of achieving this profit or higher.Implement annual training for their middle management to improve their managerial performances and productivity that includes but not limited to budgeting, decision making, profits, staff turnover†¦ etc. Introduce and implement a key performance indicator in the company to review the performance of the middle management, and the rest of the staff to know the strength and weaknesses and work on it. Tactical Planning: â€Å"Tactical plans focus on the major actions a unit must take to fulfill its part of the strategic plan† (Bateman and Snell, 2010, Page, 78) Location managers need to develop a sales and marketing plan that can help the business for the next 3 years and pitch it to top management for approval to help increase the profits based on their locations, targeting audience. Also they need to implement training for their team supervisors that includes customer service and up selling their products and promoting them, location managers can also set bonuses for their team supervisors if they achieve their sales target.Location managers need to deal with their budgets and meet them by developing an annual budget. – Operational Planning: Team supervisors need to introduce new products and new methods of selling these products but at the same time maintaining the food consistency in their shops, keep track of daily issues such as refunds and replacements any other issues with customer care to help them improve. Also hire more staff or cut down the overhead when needed, train the staff on dealing with customer service.

Death of Hector Summary Essay

Except for Hector, the Trojans are inside the walls of Troy. Apollo turns to Achilles to tell him he is wasting his time pursing a god since he can’t kill him. Achilles is angry, but turns around to return to Troy where Priam is the first to spot him. He tells Hector he will be killed since Achilles is much stronger. If not killed he will be sold into slavery as has already happened to others of Priam’s sons. Priam can’t dissuade Hector, even when his wife Hecuba joins the effort. Hector gives some thought to going inside but fears the ridicule of Polydamas, who had given sage advice the day before. Since Hector wants to die in glory, he has a better chance facing Achilles. He thinks about giving Achilles Helen and the treasure and adding to it an even split of the treasure of Troy, but Hector rejects these ideas realizing Achilles will just cut him down, and there would be no glory in that. As Achilles bears down on Hector, Hector begins to lose his nerve. Hecto r runs towards the Scamander River (Xanthus). The two warriors race three times around Troy. Zeus looks down and feels sorry for Hector, but tells Athena to go down and do what she wants without restraint. Achilles is chasing Hector with no chance of reprieve unless Apollo steps in (which he does not do). Athena tells Achilles to stop running and face Hector. She adds that she will persuade Hector to do the same. Athena disguises herself as Deiphobus and tells Hector the two of them should go fight Achilles together. Hector is thrilled to see his brother has dared to come out of Troy to help him. Athena uses the cunning of disguise until Hector addresses Achilles to say it’s time to end the chase. Hector requests a pact that they will return each other’s body whoever dies. Achilles says there are no binding oaths between lions and men. He adds that Athena will kill Hector in just a moment. Achilles hurls his spear, but Hector ducks and it flies past. Hector does not see Athena retrieve the spear and return it to Achilles. Hector taunts Achilles that he didn’t know the future after all. Then Hector says it’s his turn. He throws his spear, which hits, but glances off the shield. He calls to Deiphobus to bring his lance, but, of course, there is no Deiphobus. Hector realizes he has been tricked by Athena and that his end is near. Hector wants a glorious death, so he draws his sword and swoops down on Achilles, who charges with his spear. Achilles knows the armor Hector is wearing and puts that knowledge to use, finding the weak point at the collarbone. He pierces Hector’s neck, but not his windpipe. Hector falls down while Achilles taunts him with the fact that his body will be mutilated by dogs and birds. Hector begs him not to, but to let Priam ransom him. Achilles tells him to stop begging, that if he could, he would eat the corpse himself, but since he can’t, he’ll let the dogs do it, instead. Hector curses him, telling him Paris will kill him at the Scaean Gates with the help of Apollo. Then Hector dies. Achilles pokes holes in Hector’s ankles, ties a strap through them and attaches them to the chariot so he can drag the body in the dust. Hecuba and Priam cry while Andromache is asking her attendants to draw a bath for her husband. Then she hears a piercing wail from Hecuba, suspects what has happened, emerges, looks down from the rampart where she witnesses her husband’s corpse being dragged, and faints. She laments that her son Astyanax will have neither land nor family and so will be despised. She has the women burn the store of Hector’s clothing in his honor.