Rhodesia, what happened really (crime, country, living, people)
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 set up to benefit a small minority of the population. And it wasn't Blacks who were intended to benefit. There are films to try and portray Rhodesia in a positive light. Most of the population was poor. Blacks living in Rhodesia had to deal with policies similar to apartheid-era South Africa. Blacks were limited to living in the "Tribal Trust Areas". If they wanted to live in the cities, they were limited to living in the townships. White people could buy land where they wanted to or live wherever they wanted to. Blacks were limited to buying in the townships. And Blacks weren't getting much land. And being able to vote was based on land ownership and income. With most Blacks being poor and not having much land, this effectively kept Blacks from voting. Blacks were the poorest of the poor in Rhodesia.
Consider all of the discrimination that took place in the military. Non-Whites could enter the Rhodesian military, but were often discriminated against. Non-Whites, and especially Blacks, were subjected to stricter entry standards. They were also kept out of the leadership roles. Up to the 1970s, the military was segregated the way the U.S. military was segregated before 1948. And Blacks serving in Black units often couldn't rise up in rank. When units did start integrating "Coloured" (mixed race persons) troops could not serve in units with Black soldiers. Why? There was a fear that the Black and Mixed Race soldiers would rise up against Whites.
Sports. Technically, there wasn't legal segregation in sports teams. However, the way of getting around this was through private clubs. Private clubs basically prevented any Blacks from having membership.
Mugabe shouldn't have stolen land from the farmers. He shouldn't have done that situation at all. Make no mistake, what Mugabe did to Zimbabwe was tragic. At the same time, I can't respect the whole "bring Rhodesia back" nonsense. It is basically another way of saying "Blacks are inferior and shouldn't have any say in the government or economics". I've noticed that alot of people in America clamoring for Rhodesia to come back view Black people with scorn and arrogance. Basically, said persons like Rhodesia because it was a time when the White minority had absolute and un-compromised rule over the Black majority. It goes back to the mindset of "Blacks are inferior and savages, and they need to be tamed and controlled by someone else". Under Rhodesia, Blacks were the poorest of the poor and basically disenfranchised and oppressed. Under Zimbabwe, things were also quite bad.
As bad as things are under modern day Zimbabwe, Rhodesia was basically Apartheid-era South Africa with some differences. Not as segregated as Apartheid-era South Africa, but segregated and oppressive nonetheless.
Something I've thought about, and few people think about. Zimbabwe borders Botswana. Botswana is in far better shape than Zimbabwe. Botswana is one of the more prosperous nations in Africa. It has far lower levels of corruption than neighboring Zimbabwe or South Africa. I think we need to look at what Botswana did right vs Zimbabwe.
Something I've thought about, and few people think about. Zimbabwe borders Botswana. Botswana is in far better shape than Zimbabwe. Botswana is one of the more prosperous nations in Africa. It has far lower levels of corruption than neighboring Zimbabwe or South Africa. I think we need to look at what Botswana did right vs Zimbabwe.
Yes, you may recall that Bill Clinton drew our attention to Botswana, and suggested exactly that. I think he named 4 countries in the area or in Africa that he considered success stories or at least--well-managed, and good role models.
This is an odd write-off of all the people who were full of hope for their country, when they went to the "West" and east to prepare for liberation. Perhaps it was a mistake for an earlier poster to refer to them as an "elite". They were just people getting college degrees of various sorts, so they could take over the operation of the mines, the banking, the management of the agricultural sector, the university, and other institutions and public and private sectors. Do we call our college grads members of an "elite"? I think the terms has a negative connotation that can give a mistaken impression of what was really going on.
Why mistake? From knowing African students abroad from other countries outside and including Zimbabwe, they fully had expectations of being part of an elite on return.
Obviously just having degrees does not mean necessarily possessing the ability to take over the reigns of government. For example Mugabe had numerous degrees issued from various universities. Probably by means off on line. He hardly was an intellectual unlike some of his earlier African compatriots in other countries that displayed the will at least, to attempt at creating a better, fairer society. Even if not successful.
But a lot of those students, expressed full anticipation of becoming part of the elite due to educational attainments from UK universities , and I dare say similar in other countries as well.
I suppose the fact that many, if not most, already came from privileged backgrounds, probably termed elite played a large part.
One may assume Rhodesia, not really having much of a black elite may have been in a slightly different position? (in that a ruling elite was not yet in place) But as I recalled earlier, Rhodesia was said to have the best educated black African population in the Continent. That must surely say something positive with regards to the minority white government policies, even if that education was two tiered in comparison with the white student cohort.
Yes, you may recall that Bill Clinton drew our attention to Botswana, and suggested exactly that. I think he named 4 countries in the area or in Africa that he considered success stories or at least--well-managed, and good role models.
Botswana has long been held out as an example to other African countries. Of course it had it's feet in both camps during apartheid rule in Soutern Africa.
While officially supporting moves to bring about change in South Africa, it was very pragmatic in dealings of an economic nature with the South Africans. Hence their economy was not as impacted as were some countries .
They have maintained a very pragmatic approach. A very expensive country to visit from what I hear. I wonder how the disparity in wealth fares?
Yes, you may recall that Bill Clinton drew our attention to Botswana, and suggested exactly that. I think he named 4 countries in the area or in Africa that he considered success stories or at least--well-managed, and good role models.
Bill Clinton was also the U.S. President during the 1990s. One thing he would need to know is diplomacy, and about other countries. The average person rarely even hears the word "Botswana".
Meanwhile, I think about this thread, and other threads. I think about some people who have said "bring back Rhodesia". They're going to blatantly ignore the success that Botswana is. It's not really about "things were better when Rhodesia existed". It's really about some people harboring racist views.
Ian smith and the white rhodesians built the best society in Africa. The bread basket of Africa. They wanted a slow transformation to majority rule but they knew that the people were not ready for that. Zimbabwe is working out well though so I guess it didn’t matter
They built it to benefit the White minority. They didn't build it to benefit everyone. It might have been the Breadbasket of Africa, but consider this. The best land, and the majority of the land, was reserved for Whites. Blacks were mostly excluded from owning most of the good land. Blacks who wanted to farm were limited to the Tribal Trust Lands. Blacks were often too poor to buy land anyway. The Black population had far higher poverty rates than the White population. Whites who entered the Rhodesian military were treated much better than Blacks in the military.
I don't care if who wanted a "slow transition". You can't treat people like trash and expect people to just take it. Zimbabwe was a basket case under Mugabe. However, Blacks weren't doing much better under Ian Smith/Rhodesia.
Bill Clinton was also the U.S. President during the 1990s. One thing he would need to know is diplomacy, and about other countries. The average person rarely even hears the word "Botswana".
Meanwhile, I think about this thread, and other threads. I think about some people who have said "bring back Rhodesia". They're going to blatantly ignore the success that Botswana is. It's not really about "things were better when Rhodesia existed". It's really about some people harboring racist views.
Where are you hearing/reading this "bring back Rhodesia" meme? It's new to me. I could guess, I suppose, but I'd like to find out more from you.
Rhodesia was great -- for white people. It wasn't great for the majority black population who were left perpetually poor and destitute. The real reason for the poverty is the sanctions from the west -- NOT Mugabe's rule.
Mugabe did alot of bad things to Zimbabwe. On the other hand, Rhodesia was not good for Black people at all. Rhodesia was set up to work for White people and only White people. Blacks were mostly poor and frequently discriminated against/segregated when it was Rhodesia.
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.
