U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-25-2014, 02:59 PM
 
284 posts, read 352,652 times
Reputation: 519

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by scobby View Post
Btw,they never had democracy to start with,Zimbabwe use to be an apartheid state called Rhodesia.
Democracy doesn't guarantee peace nor prosperity.
This is completely untrue, Rhodesia never had apartheid, that was South Africa.
I know because I grew up there.

Grace Mugabe attracts enormous negative press in Zimbabwe for several reasons including her extravagant shopping trips to other countries, and most recently because she was awarded a doctorate by the University of Zimbabwe about two months after registering as a student. (My dad was a professor there in the 1950's and 1960's when it was affiliated with the University of London.) Although all theses submitted by other PhD. students are visible on the university website hers is not.

Joyce Banda of Malawi was another example of a woman president, though she lost the last election in May 2014.
Banda was quite well regarded overseas though apparently not popular enough in Malawi to extend her presidency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2014, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,662 posts, read 6,271,423 times
Reputation: 11477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
No this is not good news for Zimbabwe, nor for women. Grace Mugabe is not qualified, and will only run to continue Robert Mugabe's stranglehold over Zimbabwe. There has not been anything close to a democratic process in Zimbabwe for years, it's time for another revolution.
Agreed. Didn't "Dr." Grace bully a Zimbabwean university into giving her a PhD after only 2 months of "study?" (By the way, her husband, President Mugabe, graded her PhD assignments for her!) Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/world/sho...we-university; https://www.newsday.co.zw/2014/11/19...ed-graces-phd/. Indeed, she isn't good for Zimbabwe at all and is probably more corrupt than her husband.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,662 posts, read 6,271,423 times
Reputation: 11477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezerrunner View Post
This is completely untrue, Rhodesia never had apartheid, that was South Africa.
I know because I grew up there.

Grace Mugabe attracts enormous negative press in Zimbabwe for several reasons including her extravagant shopping trips to other countries, and most recently because she was awarded a doctorate by the University of Zimbabwe about two months after registering as a student. (My dad was a professor there in the 1950's and 1960's when it was affiliated with the University of London.) Although all theses submitted by other PhD. students are visible on the university website hers is not.

Joyce Banda of Malawi was another example of a woman president, though she lost the last election in May 2014.
Banda was quite well regarded overseas though apparently not popular enough in Malawi to extend her presidency.
Then you should know that the white Rhodesian government remained in power only because they disenfranchised the black majority. If that's not apartheid, I don't know what is. Say what you want to about the current corrupt black leadership of Zimbabwe, but don't create your own history of Rhodesia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 10:48 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,925,572 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezerrunner View Post
This is completely untrue, Rhodesia never had apartheid, that was South Africa.
I know because I grew up there.

.

You were so sheltered that you didn't notice. Rhodesia had a system based on white supremacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2014, 01:58 PM
 
284 posts, read 352,652 times
Reputation: 519
Apartheid was an official government policy of separation of the races started in 1948. In 1970 the legislation was extended to deny citizenship and voting rights to black South Africans, who had already been relocated to "Tribal Homelands".
Certainly Rhodesia was a racist society, but it was very different from South Africa in that inter-marriage, although rare, was not prohibited by law, and neither the 1924 nor the 1961 constitution mentioned race in voter qualifications. There were two voter's rolls based on educational and property requirements and the government usually included about 12-15 African Members of Parliament (out of 65). (Keep in mind that blacks did not have full voting rights in the US until 1965, after passage of the Voting Rights Act.)
It is undeniable that there was racism in Rhodesia, but I never saw a sign saying "whites only" as was common in South Africa, and there were African pupils at my high school, and black students and faculty at the university.
There was racism in many countries for that matter, but I think the media in the UK and the US presented a distorted picture of the country. Colonial governments in India, Australia, the United States, and throughout Africa, for example the Belgian Congo, generally have a pretty poor record in terms of their treatment of indigenous populations, and I am not convinced they progressed further in their first 75 years than Rhodesia did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 12:48 AM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,662 posts, read 6,271,423 times
Reputation: 11477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezerrunner View Post
Apartheid was an official government policy of separation of the races started in 1948. In 1970 the legislation was extended to deny citizenship and voting rights to black South Africans, who had already been relocated to "Tribal Homelands".
Certainly Rhodesia was a racist society, but it was very different from South Africa in that inter-marriage, although rare, was not prohibited by law, and neither the 1924 nor the 1961 constitution mentioned race in voter qualifications. There were two voter's rolls based on educational and property requirements and the government usually included about 12-15 African Members of Parliament (out of 65). (Keep in mind that blacks did not have full voting rights in the US until 1965, after passage of the Voting Rights Act.)
It is undeniable that there was racism in Rhodesia, but I never saw a sign saying "whites only" as was common in South Africa, and there were African pupils at my high school, and black students and faculty at the university.
There was racism in many countries for that matter, but I think the media in the UK and the US presented a distorted picture of the country. Colonial governments in India, Australia, the United States, and throughout Africa, for example the Belgian Congo, generally have a pretty poor record in terms of their treatment of indigenous populations, and I am not convinced they progressed further in their first 75 years than Rhodesia did.
I can appreciate your point, but I'll say that when people refer to "apartheid" today, that term can specifically be meant to refer to the system you mention or to broadly refer to any system that systematically disenfranchises/oppresses/separates people on account of race, etc. There was racial disenfranchisement that led to Rhodesia keeping the majority of the population from having a meaningful voice (Rhodesia, as you mentioned, at one point allocated a particular number of seats in the legislature, albeit never a majority despite the fact that blacks were the overwhelming majority in the country, to the blacks of the country). The government established the property/education requirements for the same reason racist Southern Democrats established literary tests: they were meant to disenfranchise black voters. Through disenfranchisement, there was necessarily separation in access to the voting booth based on racial classifications cloaked as property and education requirements. And as a result of this disenfranchisement, there was separation in society, even if one can say not directly attributed to the voting policies, as such policies ensured the entrenchment of the class of "have-not's" who were blacks and the "haves" who were white.

Note, I readily acknowledge the sad history of racism in this country. That said, while Jim Crow era disenfranchisement tactics were deplorable, one key difference between the Jim Crow politics and the apartheid policies of Rhodesia/South Africa is that blacks were nowhere close to being a majority of the population in the USA in 1965 and were not the majority in any one US state either (also, I believe that legal segregation was more regional in the US than in Rhodesia and South Africa). Another key difference here is that the courts were able to invalidate Jim Crow laws and the executive branch enforced desegregation during the Jim Crow period where such would not have happened in Rhodesia and South Africa. Now, don't get me wrong: I don't claim that life in Rhodesia was as bad as life in South Africa. But I still consider the system in place in Rhodesia that made blacks second class citizens was a form of apartheid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2014, 06:50 AM
 
284 posts, read 352,652 times
Reputation: 519
Then I am glad to say we agree!
It is a point many ex-Rhodies, including myself, are probably a bit sensitive about as many people from other parts of the world tend to have a very simplistic understanding of African politics.

My apologies to the OP for my role in taking this thread off topic...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2014, 09:37 AM
 
9 posts, read 10,805 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scobby View Post
3 First Ladies Suddenly Named for Presidency Zimbabwe, Zambia, South Africa | ZimEye

It is good news for African women ,it may not be an evidence of huge progress for African women but I think it is a significant step that gives women in Africa a real sense of hope

woo it is good news for africa women .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top