#iammarwa #lusaka #zambia #africa for solar systems on credit kumoja.com Coupon code: KUNDAI FOLLOW us on Facebook Downtown Liqour Shop www.facebook.c... Contact: +263 7 79825767 Subscribe to Princess Sane here: @PrincessSane
Iwe, Cairo rd was built in 1929 and is named after Egypt Capital City. The low density areas in Lusaka : Are woodlands, Kabulango , Northmead , long acres . We don't have tale building because companies work in the low residential areas. Society park in not made of copper but has copper plated claddings . The building itself is made of concrete. lusaka - Harare must be around 500 plus km . people who smoke ganja includes politicians and preachers and don't beat people.
@@sirkund It's great to hear your thoughts, 'Shamwari.' It seems that your driver might not have an in-depth understanding of Lusaka's history. However, we can forgive him as he's just a driver. Harare, once the capital city of the federation and a refuge for British colonialists was well organised compared to Lusaka. When exploring Lusaka, you'll notice scattered developments throughout the city. As you where driving along great road near chaisa, there is ghetto near by called Mandevu this habited by Zambian of Zimbabwean origin including some relative of President Munagagwa. The growth of the Lusaka Central Business District (LCBD) slowed down during Dr. Kenneth Kaunda's rule. His decision to allow Indians to open trading shops led to an influx of street vending, prompting many corporate companies to relocate away from the LCBD."
Cairo Road was named from Cape to Cairo by the colonialists... and we don't want tall buildings in the CBD we have a lot of space...tall bldgs is not a sign of wealth..
Your cab driver is a good guy however, Most of the information he was giving you wasnt correct. Wrong data! In Lusaka/Zambia, the suburbs just like in Zim are Low Density Areas. Then, there are countless high grade malls in Lusaka - Levy Mall isnt the best at all. Wish you could have visited central and the eastern side of Lusaka; That could have given you a true impression of modern lusaka. Hope you can find time to do that.
Lusaka "dales" are not that good as compared to the Harare "dales". For example, Emasdale is a dump as compared to Borrowdale in Harare, nothing to write home about (FYI, I am from Zambia).
Here in central and southern Africa Zambia and Malawi are the only countries which are lagging behind in infrastructure, these other countries that have small economies like Lesotho, swatin etc. They are doing better like Madagascar and others, but to some extent Malawi are catching up slowly and yet they have small economy unlike us Zambians who are the second largest exporter of copper in the world after Chile, just imagine, this is shameful thing, do have people who can think big and change the face of Lusaka?
Lusaka is not developed because Zambian resources were taken to build Salisbury (now Harare) when Zambia & Zim were one country with Salisbury as the headquarters of the two countries
After our independence, Zambia was busy supporting the liberation struggle of Southern Africa, which includes Zimbabwe while Ian Smith & his government were still busy building Harare & other towns because they thought they were going to be there forever. Thus Harare can’t be compared to Lusaka. The only thing our Lusaka can boast of today is the mushrooming of shopping malls.
@@kingslj Let me quickly bust that myth that Zambians like to use to console themselves. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, now Zambia and Malawi, were never colonies but British protectorates. On the other hand Southern Rhodesia, Kenya, South Africa in Africa and Australia, Canada and New Zealand - were British crown colonies, meant for permanent British settler colonies. Therefore Zambia, Malawi and Botswana were never colonised, there were protectorates who asked the British government to protect them from rival tribal Kingdoms. In Zambia's case, King Lewanika asked for British protection in exchange for mineral exploration and mining rights. The British government extended those rights to their companies, American companies and South African companies that were linked to the British. Zambian minerals were shipped to mainly South Africa, UK and USA. The whites in Zimbabwe had chosen to settle and were granted self governing status and therefore had develop Zim for themselves, for their comfort. By the time the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland came into being in 1953, Zimbabwe was signficantly more developed than the two other territorires. Zambia and Malawi were then suppose to be developed to the levels of Zimbabwe at the time (Go and check when most of the buildings were built in Lusaka). The federation existed from 1953 and collapsed between 1963 to 1964, a period of only 10-11 years. It was loose federation where each territory had its own sovereign institutions including judiciary, executive and parliament/legislative systems and managed its own economy. There were serious disagreements between the whites and the federation never got to fully function and got to collapse eventually, mainly because of the disagreements and also because of the rise of nationalism in the two protectorates, Zambia and Malawi. The whites in Rhodesia also realised that it was becoming and expensive adventure to be carrying Zambia and Malawi. The idea of the federation was to create a continuous land mass between Zimbabwe and Katanga province in DRC, as minerals in DRC were the main target, not Zambaia and Malawi. Zambia and Malawi were just Bridges to Katanga province. The whites in Rhodesia had been making a deal with the likes of Moïse Tshombe to have Katanga province incorporated into a federation that was going to extended from South Africa to katanga province. If we are to go by your ascertion that Zambia's copper money, for 10 years of a disfunctional federation arrangement, developed Zimbabwe, then why did Zambia not develop itself, in ten year blocks that followed. After all tehy now had all their copper to develop themselves. You got your independence in 1965. So from 1965 to 1975, you would have caught up. Okay lets assume you were using all your copper money to support liberation movements from Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa, so you didn't have any money left for yourselves. 1980 Zimbabwe got independence, so lets now subtract Zim from the countries you support for liberation, that means you have a bit more money for yourselves. But you are still burdened with supporting Namibia and South Africa. Then 1990....... i mean....... Do you see how this all far fetched as excuses. Guys the real reason why Zambia did not develop as fast as it should, is that you guys adopted Russian and Chinese marxist policies that discouraged investment and economic development. How many mines collapsed from in 1975 to 2000 for example? Your government nationalized mines and companies and hence there was capital flight from your country. Eventually after post Kaunda era, you guys saw the light and started implementing investor friendly policies and you are now reaping the fruits of those policies, you are on the right path now. This nonsense that your copper money for 10 years was used to develop Zimbabwe, was peddled by Nationalist led by KK firstly to drum up support for nationalist movements and secondly to justify failures of their governments after your independence. Analyse why you have growth now vs why you did not grow then. Zimbabwe on the other hand pissed the world big powers who control the world with Mugabe's careless mouth, as he would insult the big boys of this world. SADC countries, Zambia included, would cheer him up, encouraging him to chess away the white farmers, then go on to give land to same the Zimbabwean white farmers.
