Let me respond again I usually get a l lot of negative reaction when I introduce something with which lay readers are not familiar I don t have a pro dictator bias It just seems like that because I m correcting articles that were already one sided History s not a pros and cons analysis anyway Historians want to know why and how Also I don t use one explanatory model like Marxism World Systems Theory Dependency Theory Modernization Theory etc solely I don t keep my mind closed to one interpretation If an article chronicles any facts I leave them if they re accurate But they must be explained in a context Statements like he s an authoritarian dictator bent on staying in power at all cost rejected by the international community will go in favor of statements like because of his controversial policies he s been ejected from the Commonwealth at Britain s behest If an article mentions that Mugabe has been seizing white owned farms it must also mention that 4 500 white farmers own 70 in the land in a country of 13 million The article must also explain why land reform is a touted goal in the Third World To many that unacceptable because that s pro Mugabe POVing But quoting anti Mugabe insults by as many famous people as possible is possible because it s a fact that they said those things Some can t tolerate that To them Mugabe persecutes homosexuals he s a racist he subverts democracy he cracks down against NGOs he rigs elections he s unmitigated evil and he does that because he s evil There are not that many social historians who would accept such simplistic sweeping conclusions based on superficialities