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.
Rhodesia was rich because of the whites. Once they left after the fall of Rhodesia, then things got bad. Mugabe was in reaction to the RACIST regime. Mugabe is also a racist. However, the Whites in tha nation are WAY richer than the average Black person in Zimbabwe.
.
Once again, I find myself both fascinated and intrigued by the convoluted meanderings of your thought processes. So you now maintain that
"'the Whites' (in Zimbabwe /ex- Rhodesia) are WAY richer than the average black"...well, that's very likely true, (or WAS, until most whites got 'ejected' from their lands recently). But you say this as if it was a fact hatched in a vacuum. Perhaps there's a REASON for the disparity, above and beyond the standard 'racism / colonialism/ conqueror' story.
How well off are the blacks in Zimbabwe NOW?....and how well off were they BEFORE colonialism? And how well off are they in comparison with their neighbors in the region?
It brings to mind a huge debate I recall during the Bosnian war some years ago. At the time the UN was setting up refugee camps for those displaced by the fighting in Yugoslavia, at the SAME TIME, provisions were being made for hundreds of thousands of internal refugees in Somalia, displaced by THEIR war. Inevitably, the familiar charge of 'racial disparity' raised its head.
It seems that the 'good liberal folks' running the UN had provided a 'level of comfort' for the Bosnians far exceeding the spartan quarters awarded the Somalis...and this was alluded to as evidence of 'racism'. Whereas the black Somalis were housed in tents, had pit latrines, got their water delivered by an occasional truck, and largely relied on family 'cooking fires' for food prep, the white Bosnians had the use of 'shower trailers' and mobile flush toilets; heated, hard-floored walled tents; community cooking facilities equipped with running water and gas ranges AND refrigeration, and even provisions for TV viewing in the 'rec' area.
"RACISM, plain and simple", cried some. "Not so at ALL", insisted others; they explained that SO abysmal were the NORMAL living conditions of the largely-nomadic Somalis, that in essence, their refugee quarters were actually an IMPROVEMENT, at least physically, over 'life at home'. At home, they drew water from distant water holes, and walked long distances in search of food.
The Bosnians, meanwhile, suffered a significant 'blow' in their new quarters, even with all those 'comforts'. Whereas they were largely a fairly well-educated lot, and most had TV's, electricity, and 'the works', they now had to get used to 'community living'...and the brutal cold of the Balkan winter made 'heating' a neccessity. They had 'running water', because the area was already equipped to provide it. They had electricity for the same reasons.
Intersting 'debate', and particularly so because it occurred among UN agencies, who normally BLANCH at the thought of ANYTHING suggesting 'racial disparity'. Yet here it was, right in the middle of the ultra-liberal UN system....an OBVIOUS case of racial disparity...and the only argument was over "why".
So, back to Zimbabwe..the Whites are (were) 'better off than the blacks'....OK, granted. But WHY? ONLY because of colonialism? Or partially because large, efficient, computerized, mechanized farming operations simply 'produce more' than primitive hand-operated, subsistence-level 'traditional' farming? In other words, if 'Whites' had NEVER ARRIVED in Zimbabwe, would it today enjoy an economy similar to that of Germany or Japan or France?...or NOT?
Once again, I find myself both fascinated and intrigued by the convoluted meanderings of your thought processes. So you now maintain that
"'the Whites' (in Zimbabwe /ex- Rhodesia) are WAY richer than the average black"...well, that's very likely true, (or WAS, until most whites got 'ejected' from their lands recently). But you say this as if it was a fact hatched in a vacuum. Perhaps there's a REASON for the disparity, above and beyond the standard 'racism / colonialism/ conqueror' story.
How well off are the blacks in Zimbabwe NOW?....and how well off were they BEFORE colonialism? And how well off are they in comparison with their neighbors in the region?
It brings to mind a huge debate I recall during the Bosnian war some years ago. At the time the UN was setting up refugee camps for those displaced by the fighting in Yugoslavia, at the SAME TIME, provisions were being made for hundreds of thousands of internal refugees in Somalia, displaced by THEIR war. Inevitably, the familiar charge of 'racial disparity' raised its head.
It seems that the 'good liberal folks' running the UN had provided a 'level of comfort' for the Bosnians far exceeding the spartan quarters awarded the Somalis...and this was alluded to as evidence of 'racism'. Whereas the black Somalis were housed in tents, had pit latrines, got their water delivered by an occasional truck, and largely relied on family 'cooking fires' for food prep, the white Bosnians had the use of 'shower trailers' and mobile flush toilets; heated, hard-floored walled tents; community cooking facilities equipped with running water and gas ranges AND refrigeration, and even provisions for TV viewing in the 'rec' area.
"RACISM, plain and simple", cried some. "Not so at ALL", insisted others; they explained that SO abysmal were the NORMAL living conditions of the largely-nomadic Somalis, that in essence, their refugee quarters were actually an IMPROVEMENT, at least physically, over 'life at home'. At home, they drew water from distant water holes, and walked long distances in search of food.
The Bosnians, meanwhile, suffered a significant 'blow' in their new quarters, even with all those 'comforts'. Whereas they were largely a fairly well-educated lot, and most had TV's, electricity, and 'the works', they now had to get used to 'community living'...and the brutal cold of the Balkan winter made 'heating' a neccessity. They had 'running water', because the area was already equipped to provide it. They had electricity for the same reasons.
Intersting 'debate', and particularly so because it occurred among UN agencies, who normally BLANCH at the thought of ANYTHING suggesting 'racial disparity'. Yet here it was, right in the middle of the ultra-liberal UN system....an OBVIOUS case of racial disparity...and the only argument was over "why".
So, back to Zimbabwe..the Whites are (were) 'better off than the blacks'....OK, granted. But WHY? ONLY because of colonialism? Or partially because large, efficient, computerized, mechanized farming operations simply 'produce more' than primitive hand-operated, subsistence-level 'traditional' farming? In other words, if 'Whites' had NEVER ARRIVED in Zimbabwe, would it today enjoy an economy similar to that of Germany or Japan or France?...or NOT?
Interesting discussion.
And; since that scumball Mugabe took the land away from the White (and some Black) Zimbabweans-----------his nation has truly gone to hell for the Black majority.
Especially considering that Zim used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa and now needs food imports..........perhaps tossing the 'racist' White folks out was a mistake, no?
In SoCal at least: the 'Hi-Desert' (Yucca valley, etc) is probably still OK........I was there three years ago and it still felt like America----------English spoken, etc. There were some Mestizo Latinos there but they were obviously American as well
In SoCal at least: the 'Hi-Desert' (Yucca valley, etc) is probably still OK........I was there three years ago and it still felt like America----------English spoken, etc. There were some Mestizo Latinos there but they were obviously American as well
I'm with my wonderful hubby in the midwest now. It's brrrrrrr....ccccccooooold in the winters here. But it's almost Spring.
Once again, I find myself both fascinated and intrigued by the convoluted meanderings of your thought processes. So you now maintain that
"'the Whites' (in Zimbabwe /ex- Rhodesia) are WAY richer than the average black"...well, that's very likely true, (or WAS, until most whites got 'ejected' from their lands recently). But you say this as if it was a fact hatched in a vacuum. Perhaps there's a REASON for the disparity, above and beyond the standard 'racism / colonialism/ conqueror' story.
How well off are the blacks in Zimbabwe NOW?....and how well off were they BEFORE colonialism? And how well off are they in comparison with their neighbors in the region?
It brings to mind a huge debate I recall during the Bosnian war some years ago. At the time the UN was setting up refugee camps for those displaced by the fighting in Yugoslavia, at the SAME TIME, provisions were being made for hundreds of thousands of internal refugees in Somalia, displaced by THEIR war. Inevitably, the familiar charge of 'racial disparity' raised its head.
It seems that the 'good liberal folks' running the UN had provided a 'level of comfort' for the Bosnians far exceeding the spartan quarters awarded the Somalis...and this was alluded to as evidence of 'racism'. Whereas the black Somalis were housed in tents, had pit latrines, got their water delivered by an occasional truck, and largely relied on family 'cooking fires' for food prep, the white Bosnians had the use of 'shower trailers' and mobile flush toilets; heated, hard-floored walled tents; community cooking facilities equipped with running water and gas ranges AND refrigeration, and even provisions for TV viewing in the 'rec' area.
"RACISM, plain and simple", cried some. "Not so at ALL", insisted others; they explained that SO abysmal were the NORMAL living conditions of the largely-nomadic Somalis, that in essence, their refugee quarters were actually an IMPROVEMENT, at least physically, over 'life at home'. At home, they drew water from distant water holes, and walked long distances in search of food.
The Bosnians, meanwhile, suffered a significant 'blow' in their new quarters, even with all those 'comforts'. Whereas they were largely a fairly well-educated lot, and most had TV's, electricity, and 'the works', they now had to get used to 'community living'...and the brutal cold of the Balkan winter made 'heating' a neccessity. They had 'running water', because the area was already equipped to provide it. They had electricity for the same reasons.
Intersting 'debate', and particularly so because it occurred among UN agencies, who normally BLANCH at the thought of ANYTHING suggesting 'racial disparity'. Yet here it was, right in the middle of the ultra-liberal UN system....an OBVIOUS case of racial disparity...and the only argument was over "why".
So, back to Zimbabwe..the Whites are (were) 'better off than the blacks'....OK, granted. But WHY? ONLY because of colonialism? Or partially because large, efficient, computerized, mechanized farming operations simply 'produce more' than primitive hand-operated, subsistence-level 'traditional' farming? In other words, if 'Whites' had NEVER ARRIVED in Zimbabwe, would it today enjoy an economy similar to that of Germany or Japan or France?...or NOT?
Interesting discussion.
Dang, Mac.
Nothing seems to get you more riled up than people bringing up the widely accepted consequences of colonialism.
Its weird how its always with a defensive tone, too.
Why do you get so defensive about it? You're an American, not a European.
Dang, Mac.
Nothing seems to get you more riled up than people bringing up the widely accepted consequences of colonialism.
Its weird how its always with a defensive tone, too.
Why do you get so defensive about it? You're an American, not a European.
"Defensive about colonialism"?...no, not really. I've just always had a 'thing' for objectivity. We ALL agree that colonialism had its bad points...and by today's standards, would be totally unacceptable. But in the past? When life was brutal, 95% of the world was illiterate, and the basic human being had few, or no. 'rights'? Sure, I suppose colonialism was "bad" for those colonized...even infuriating, unfair, and humiliating...but on its WORST DAY, colonialism must have been INFINITELY preferable to being hacked to pieces by an angry neighboring tribesman...or having your 10-year old daughter 'spirited away' by a 30-year old 'gentleman admirer'....or ending up in your neighbor's stew-pot. Yet these 'bad things' about the past are NEVER discussed, while the 'bad parts' of colonialism are gone over...(and over and over and over) with a 'fine-tooth comb'.
Balance and objectivity...that's all I've ever asked. So the blacks in Zimbabwe were unhappy because White Zimbabweans '(some of them 4th-generation 'natives.) dominated the agricultural industry?
(which, by the way, FED not only ALL of Zimbabwe, but MOST of the whole southern end of the African continent as well)? OK, fine...now the Whites are GONE...and now there (basically) IS no more agricultural industry for ANYONE to dominate...and I imagine people are STILL unhappy, but now they're STARVING, as well.
"Defensive about colonialism"?...no, not really. I've just always had a 'thing' for objectivity. We ALL agree that colonialism had its bad points...and by today's standards, would be totally unacceptable. But in the past? When life was brutal, 95% of the world was illiterate, and the basic human being had few, or no. 'rights'? Sure, I suppose colonialism was "bad" for those colonized...even infuriating, unfair, and humiliating...but on its WORST DAY, colonialism must have been INFINITELY preferable to being hacked to pieces by an angry neighboring tribesman...or having your 10-year old daughter 'spirited away' by a 30-year old 'gentleman admirer'....or ending up in your neighbor's stew-pot. Yet these 'bad things' about the past are NEVER discussed, while the 'bad parts' of colonialism are gone over...(and over and over and over) with a 'fine-tooth comb'.
Balance and objectivity...that's all I've ever asked.
Some cultures developed a need to conquer early on. It was part of their culture to think they were God's chosen people,and they were entitled to take over the world.
A lot of nations and peoples weren't allowed to develop their own governments, their own modern societies before being conquered to become part of someone else's empire.
When imperial powers were no longer able to hold on to their conquered lands, they just up and left, leaving a vacuum of power. When there's a sudden vacuum of power after centuries of imperial rule, there's going to be chaos. It becomes easier for bad people to come to power.
But even when imperial powers no longer rule those lands, they still have a lot of influence, especially if that land has important resources.
Lots of terrible regimes have gotten their start from our own government.
Maybe I'm not going anywhere with this, but I don't buy your views about the savages needing the righteous white man.
And that's how I feel you see the unconquered indigenous person..as a savage.
I guess your argument is that it was "infinitely better" to be hacked to pieces and tortured by outsiders in the name of Christianity and civilization and have your women and children raped by invaders from Europe, rather than all the "savagery" of their countrymen.
You always bring up female circumcision, and here you talk about cannibalism, pedophilia, and hacking to pieces.
I can bring up some messed up things about "civilization" too. A few genocides come to mind.
But who knows what "savage" people would have come up with had they been allowed a chance to fully develop?
Speaking on just the natives of the Americas, they were pretty civilized themselves. They had come up with complex mathematics, astronomy, languages, architecture, SOCIETY. They weren't just hopping up and down holding spears.
But we'll never know how they could've developed.
We won't even know how far they really got, because the "infinitely better" colonists destroyed any accounts of their history they had kept.
Last edited by antialphabet; 04-04-2009 at 09:35 PM..
Some cultures developed a need to conquer early on. It was part of their culture to think they were God's chosen people,and they were entitled to take over the world.
A lot of nations and peoples weren't allowed to develop their own governments, their own modern societies before being conquered to become part of someone else's empire.
When imperial powers were no longer able to hold on to their conquered lands, they just up and left, leaving a vacuum of power. When there's a sudden vacuum of power after centuries of imperial rule, there's going to be chaos. It becomes easier for bad people to come to power.
But even when imperial powers no longer rule those lands, they still have a lot of influence, especially if that land has important resources.
Lots of terrible regimes have gotten their start from our own government.
Maybe I'm not going anywhere with this, but I don't buy your views about the savages needing the righteous white man.
And that's how I feel you see the unconquered indigenous person..as a savage.
I guess your argument is that it was "infinitely better" to be hacked to pieces and tortured by outsiders in the name of Christianity and civilization and have your women and children raped by invaders from Europe, rather than all the "savagery" of their countrymen.
You always bring up female circumcision, and here you talk about cannibalism, pedophilia, and hacking to pieces.
I can bring up some messed up things about "civilization" too. A few genocides come to mind.
But who knows what "savage" people would have come up with had they been allowed a chance to fully develop?
Speaking on just the natives of the Americas, they were pretty civilized themselves. They had come up with complex mathematics, astronomy, languages, architecture, SOCIETY. They weren't just hopping up and down holding spears.
But we'll never know how they could've developed.
We won't even know how far they really got, because the "infinitely better" colonists destroyed any accounts of their history they had kept.
Welcome to history.
Let what happened to the Aztecs and other defeated cultures serve as a warning that the USA needs to be strong and 'kick ass' if needed.
And the irony is that the descendants of the raped/impregnated indigenous pre Mexican woman not only accepted Hispanic culture------------they are very defensive when called out on it.
Maybe I'm not going anywhere with this, but I don't buy your views about the savages needing the righteous white man.
And that's how I feel you see the unconquered indigenous person..as a savage.
.
Sorry...my opinions have evolved over several decades....they may continue to evolve in the future. But for now, my life as the spouse of an 'indigenous person' (what you refer to as a 'savage') I will admit, has influenced my outlook. We've talked at length over the years, and HER position is (surprisingly, maybe) somewhat to the 'right' of mine. She has less of the 'guilt' than I do, and basically, her view (which I've incorporated into my OWN) is that while today, life as a 'conquered savage' may just plain SUCK...at LEAST it sucks for a few more decades than it 'sucked' back then; and that the past, and its 'noble savages', might SEEM idyllic in a Disney movie, in actual point of fact, life back then was pretty dismal....and no, salvation wasn't dependant on the 'righteous white man' at all.it was dependant on modern technology, modern culture, forward thinking, and a casting off of the old superstitions, tribal hatreds, and general 'backward thinking' of the past. Call that an 'illusion' if you will....but that's my position...(and apparently a few of the 'savages' agree with me).
Ever meet an Eskimo (Inuit)? I had the privilege of meeting a few once...and they ALL owned...(or 'aspired' to own) BRAND NEW SHINY 'Ski-Doos' (i.e. 'Snow Machines') Why would they adopt such technology, rather than cling to th old 'tried-and-true' home-made dog sled? Maybe because they "need" the approval of the 'white guy' who builds and sells the machines...but I very much doubt that. I think it's probably because these machines make their lives about 200% easier, and they WANT them, and they couldn't care LESS who invented them or built them....white man, Japanese, or even GAY guy....no one cares, except that this technology makes life better, and takes away some of the burden of living.
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.
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.
