Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
the Dzimbanhete article isn't worth a review.

What I was trying to put across is that the article (exemplified by its coinage of the term "freedom violence") comes from the same well (manure pile, whatever) as the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, in their carving out exceptions for the "freedom fighter", the "transitory guerrilla", the "occasional IED layer", etc., etc.

It reminded me of the agitprop of the 60s and 70s, which I also said in the post. As I use the term "agitprop" here (agitation of a mass audience by propagation of the written word), the material can be true, false or mixed (white, black or varying grays) and can be acceptable, unacceptable or "so what" (depending on the reader's viewpoint). The author Dzimbanhete uses a more limited definition:
One man's freedom fighter is another man's ...

Apart from attempting a great deception Dzimbanhete seems to have missed the history of the last 30 years that questions the definition of 'freedom' that was delivered to the 'toiling masses' of Zimbabwe upon liberation. Some might say they were delivered from the frying pan into the fire.

I guess I am surprised that there has been such a limited reaction to this deliberate attempt to deceive and sanitize depraved killers. This is the great tragedy.

That kind of agitprop is definitely black (or a deep shade of gray) in content. One might well ask whether Dzimbanhete's article itself is "propaganda" as Sturges defines it. Sturges, BTW, is in Pretoria (faculty bio). Here are abstracts of his 2004 and 2005 articles.

The "literary genre" of Dzimbanhete's article is similar to that of our USAian Nick Turse (born in 1975; Wiki), who has made himself a career from the time of his 2005 Columbia University Ph.D dissertation, "Kill Anything That Moves: United States War Crimes and Atrocities in Vietnam, 1965-1973", to the present - his 2013 Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam. Whether Turse's agitprop about Vietnam is black, white or gray is not going to be an issue for me here. Turse does resemble Dzimbanhete (re: that author's talk of "freedom violence") in Turse's 2000 article, New Morning, Changing Weather: Radical Youth of the Millennial Age:
I don't know this character but let us agree that there were atrocities committed in Vietnam... by both sides. Just as this Turse person tried to make a name for himself (and get a Ph.D at the same time) so is this Dzimbanhete person. Shameful behaviour that should have been recognised by the Journal Editorial Board.

In this early Turse piece, we have another example of the "freedom violence genre". Is it "propaganda" in the Sturges sense: material "to confuse and deceive those that receive it ?"
Well he certainly confused the editorial board of the Journal into publishing it.

I can't see how they can do anything but resign in disgrace.

Finally, to your question (asked before about the Dutch article): how do these things get past editorial boards. The secret is to footnote the hell out of everything - in Dzimbanhete's article, 31 footnotes preceded by a bibliography of over a dozen books, articles and oral interviews. To completely vet these (to determine how black, white or gray), one would have to check the substance of each cite; and also determine its credibility.
Yes, shocking indeed. In this case Dzimbanhete interviewed three people. Like the Dutch boy he seems to have had a preconceived idea/position/belief and went about trying support it by searching out random cites to support that position. One wonders if the institution matters. Are first rate institutions as slovenly as the second rate institutions of this one and that of the Dutch boy?

As to the first cite, did Parker say that; and, if so, is Parker a credible witness ? I don't know; but would find out if this were a litigated case. It isn't, however. The second cite (the Ministry of Information, Tourism and Immigration) doesn't, on its face, prove the "probability" asserted.
Mike what Parker reports is probably true. Unlike Dzimbanhete there is no point in attempting to deny which I can't state with absolute certainty did not happen.

What I am attempting to understand is why at this late stage Dzimbanhete is seeking to decriminalize the atrocities carried out by the insurgents.

I would offer two guesses, one, that as the Mugabe regime nears collapse the killers who are now old men would be concerned that with the fall of the regime their protection would fall away and they would be vulnerable to both or either legal or vigilante action from family of their victims. Two, that in the spiritual context of Zimbabwe these aging killers are attempting to appease any angry spirits -ngozi or evil spirits - by convincing themselves that their acts were not murder but rather acts of justice therefore would not upset the spirits.

For good or bad, editorial boards do not do that kind of vetting - that process is left to the reader or independent reviewer.
This is clearly for bad (or worse as you like). So why have an editorial board then?