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 white farmers own in the land in a country of 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