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 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.
In 2011, Wikileaks published a cable written a decade earlier by the U.S. embassy in Harare that stated, "The full extent of Mugabe’s assets are unknown, but are rumored to exceed $1 billion in value, the majority of which are likely invested outside Zimbabwe.”
The overseas assets are "rumored to include everything from secret accounts in Switzerland, the Channel Islands, and the Bahamas to castles in Scotland."
Not convinced the former Rhodesian leader was a necessary racist in the true sense of the word. He was paternalistic in his approach and very old school in thought and practice.
I recall him stating that he never locked his door. No idea if true or false. I do recall a number of Zimbabweans living down in South Africa (African origin) claiming to miss the former times when felt safer and more secure.
Well, lets look at this for a moment. Under Ian Smith's Rhodesia, Blacks were limited in where they could live or where they could buy land. Blacks could only buy land in "Tribal Trust Areas" and they were often given the west land in the country. It wasn't much land either. Never mind that most of the Black population was too poor to buy land. And if Blacks wanted to live in the cities, they were often limited to living in the townships. There were many places Blacks weren't allowed to live. Whites got the best land, and got to choose from the majority of it. Blacks often got the worst land, and were apportioned a small part of it.
Not only that, but Ian Smith wanted a land where Whites could dominate over the Black population. He wanted to ensure that Blacks could never have any power in the government. That is why he did the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Black Zimbabweans were never part of that. It was Ian Smith and his henchmen who were part of that. He didn't want the Black majority having any kind of power. He knew that if Southern Rhodesia was given its independence by the UK, it would have to be through majority rule. It would have to be ensured that Blacks would have a say. The UK didn't want another South Africa. Ian Smith wasn't happy out this, so he declared independence in the same way that South Africa did over 5 decades earlier. Ian Smith was a racist, period. And furthermore, he put certain measures in place to make sure Blacks could never have any power. He made it hard for Blacks to get much land. Blacks got the worst of everything, and that was by design. Voting laws were set up to ensure that Blacks would find it impossible to get the vote. Paternalistic? More like racism designed to make sure Blacks would have no say in any political and economic affairs.
Well, lets look at this for a moment. Under Ian Smith's Rhodesia, Blacks were limited in where they could live or where they could buy land. Blacks could only buy land in "Tribal Trust Areas" and they were often given the west land in the country. It wasn't much land either. Never mind that most of the Black population was too poor to buy land. And if Blacks wanted to live in the cities, they were often limited to living in the townships. There were many places Blacks weren't allowed to live. Whites got the best land, and got to choose from the majority of it. Blacks often got the worst land, and were apportioned a small part of it.
Not only that, but Ian Smith wanted a land where Whites could dominate over the Black population. He wanted to ensure that Blacks could never have any power in the government. That is why he did the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Black Zimbabweans were never part of that. It was Ian Smith and his henchmen who were part of that. He didn't want the Black majority having any kind of power. He knew that if Southern Rhodesia was given its independence by the UK, it would have to be through majority rule. It would have to be ensured that Blacks would have a say. The UK didn't want another South Africa. Ian Smith wasn't happy out this, so he declared independence in the same way that South Africa did over 5 decades earlier. Ian Smith was a racist, period. And furthermore, he put certain measures in place to make sure Blacks could never have any power. He made it hard for Blacks to get much land. Blacks got the worst of everything, and that was by design. Voting laws were set up to ensure that Blacks would find it impossible to get the vote. Paternalistic? More like racism designed to make sure Blacks would have no say in any political and economic affairs.
There is truth in a lot of what you write and no denying a number of White Rhodesians were racist. I suppose Ian Smith would be classed as racist in todays terms, but I still see him as more paternalistic which at times may well have crossed the label to be seen as racist. Still no denying the education system was the best for the majority in the whole of Africa. That alone points to a desire to lift levels of education for all the population, but no doubt maintaining a white elite well into the future at the same time.
He had to consider maintaining the support of his white electorate as well. Not forgetting others within the 'white tribe' who may well have taken power on giving away too much. (the head of the military comes to mind, whose name escapes me at the moment (was it May?)
Unfortunately, the loss of stability within the nation since majority rule has only benefited a small number of people and decimated the nation. (both in the economic sense and the 'ethnic' rivalries that witnessed many of the opposition ethnic group slaughtered in the early years)
There is truth in a lot of what you write and no denying a number of White Rhodesians were racist. I suppose Ian Smith would be classed as racist in todays terms, but I still see him as more paternalistic which at times may well have crossed the label to be seen as racist. Still no denying the education system was the best for the majority in the whole of Africa. That alone points to a desire to lift levels of education for all the population, but no doubt maintaining a white elite well into the future at the same time.
He had to consider maintaining the support of his white electorate as well. Not forgetting others within the 'white tribe' who may well have taken power on giving away too much. (the head of the military comes to mind, whose name escapes me at the moment (was it May?)
Unfortunately, the loss of stability within the nation since majority rule has only benefited a small number of people and decimated the nation. (both in the economic sense and the 'ethnic' rivalries that witnessed many of the opposition ethnic group slaughtered in the early years)
Ian Smith was a racist, period, He didn't want most of the Black population voting or holding office. His policies, I don't see anything paternalistic. All I see is someone who wanted to make sure only Whites could be in charge and Blacks had to live with not having a voice in the government. Rhodesia having the best educational system is Africa doesn't mean much if Blacks get relegated to the worst schools. The educational system didn't elevate everyone. And neither did the way things were done in Rhodesia.
What matters to me is how Blacks were treated within Rhodesia vis a vis the White minority in Rhodesia. Nothing else.
This is what happened to Rhodesia, in a nutshell. Rhodesia tried to pull what South Africa was doing. The Black population didn't like being subjugated and oppressed. The White minority did not want a country ruled majority by Blacks. A war started as a result. In the end, the ZANU-PF took over, with Robert Mugabe as the leader. He ruled Zimbabwe for decades. At first it started out alright. And then the longer he remained in office, the crazier and more corrupt he got. He started doing things like encouraging Blacks to violently take land from White farmers. He also sped up inflation by printing out a bunch of money all the time. One oppressive government replaced another oppressive government.
The truth is, Rhodesia was not good for Blacks. And Zimbabwe has not been any better. Things were very bad and oppressive for Blacks under Rhodesia, as it functioned similar to Apartheid-era South Africa. Zimbabwe under Mugabe got very bad and oppressive as well.
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 does deserve some blame for what he has done while ruler of Zimbabwe. On the flip side, you are right about Rhodesia. Rhodesia was great if you were White. It was not good for Black people. Most Blacks were poor under Rhodesia. Rhodesia was built to keep Black people subjugated and poor.
This is what happened to Rhodesia, in a nutshell. Rhodesia tried to pull what South Africa was doing. The Black population didn't like being subjugated and oppressed. The White minority did not want a country ruled majority by Blacks. A war started as a result. In the end, the ZANU-PF took over, with Robert Mugabe as the leader. He ruled Zimbabwe for decades. At first it started out alright. And then the longer he remained in office, the crazier and more corrupt he got. He started doing things like encouraging Blacks to violently take land from White farmers. He also sped up inflation by printing out a bunch of money all the time. One oppressive government replaced another oppressive government.
The truth is, Rhodesia was not good for Blacks. And Zimbabwe has not been any better. Things were very bad and oppressive for Blacks under Rhodesia, as it functioned similar to Apartheid-era South Africa. Zimbabwe under Mugabe got very bad and oppressive as well.
There have two or three African countries that have progressed reasonably well since their independence. You have already mentioned Botswana. Kenya would be another example. In west Africa, I would also name Ghana as a country that is doing reasonably well. What these three countries all had in common was a willingness on the part of their black leadership to look towards the future rather than focus on the past. Instead of wanting revenge or retribution against some group of whites for exploiting them they instead chose to look at things in terms of: What resources do we have? How can we make the best of the situation that we are in? How can we get the help from white educated people to build a modern country?
It led to various policies. In Kenya, the government chose to buy out many of the farms of many British colonialists. The land they bought out was gradually redistributed to poor black farmers. A few white people were given positions within the Kenyan government as an act of reconciliation. Today, most white people will say they feel safe in Kenya and the country is developing.
Rhodesia was not a model of a good country. On the other hand, Kenya, Botswana, and Ghana arguably are decent models of developing nations. I used to feel the same way about South Africa under Mandela. I'm growing concerned though that the leadership since Mandela has not been as good. Time will tell.
There have two or three African countries that have progressed reasonably well since their independence. You have already mentioned Botswana. Kenya would be another example. In west Africa, I would also name Ghana as a country that is doing reasonably well. What these three countries all had in common was a willingness on the part of their black leadership to look towards the future rather than focus on the past. Instead of wanting revenge or retribution against some group of whites for exploiting them they instead chose to look at things in terms of: What resources do we have? How can we make the best of the situation that we are in? How can we get the help from white educated people to build a modern country?
It led to various policies. In Kenya, the government chose to buy out many of the farms of many British colonialists. The land they bought out was gradually redistributed to poor black farmers. A few white people were given positions within the Kenyan government as an act of reconciliation. Today, most white people will say they feel safe in Kenya and the country is developing.
Rhodesia was not a model of a good country. On the other hand, Kenya, Botswana, and Ghana arguably are decent models of developing nations. I used to feel the same way about South Africa under Mandela. I'm growing concerned though that the leadership since Mandela has not been as good. Time will tell.
Rhodesia was not a model of a good country. On the other hand, Kenya, Botswana, and Ghana arguably are decent models of developing nations. I used to feel the same way about South Africa under Mandela. I'm growing concerned though that the leadership since Mandela has not been as good. Time will tell.[/quote]
Countries like Botswana, Kenya, and Ghana get ignored in this conversation. Those countries are certainly in better shape than Zimbabwe.
Those countries also have something else in common. None of those countries had what Rhodesia had. The UK required that any country becoming independent had to have majority rule first. Botswana, Kenya, and Ghana got their independence under that rule.
I will agree that having a Black leadership intent on looking to the future helps. Not having people bent on revenge helps. It also helps when there wasn't this attempt to have minority rule while keeping the majority impoverished and subjugated. In the other countries, there was a willingness to let got of the minority rule. In Rhodesia, there was no such willingness.
When Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, there were attempts to buy some of the White-owned land. And then Mugabe started telling people to violently steal the land from Whites. The longer Mugabe stayed in power, the more he became drunk with power. The more revenge-happy he became. At first he called for reconciliation, and then he drifted away from that.
Rhodesia was never a good model on how to run a country. Actually colonialism in general wasn't the best model. However, Rhodesia in particular was a very bad example. Ian Smith's government was trying to mimic Apartheid-era South Africa's example.
There have two or three African countries that have progressed reasonably well since their independence. You have already mentioned Botswana. Kenya would be another example. In west Africa, I would also name Ghana as a country that is doing reasonably well. What these three countries all had in common was a willingness on the part of their black leadership to look towards the future rather than focus on the past. Instead of wanting revenge or retribution against some group of whites for exploiting them they instead chose to look at things in terms of: What resources do we have? How can we make the best of the situation that we are in? How can we get the help from white educated people to build a modern country?
It led to various policies. In Kenya, the government chose to buy out many of the farms of many British colonialists. The land they bought out was gradually redistributed to poor black farmers. A few white people were given positions within the Kenyan government as an act of reconciliation. Today, most white people will say they feel safe in Kenya and the country is developing.
Rhodesia was not a model of a good country. On the other hand, Kenya, Botswana, and Ghana arguably are decent models of developing nations. I used to feel the same way about South Africa under Mandela. I'm growing concerned though that the leadership since Mandela has not been as good. Time will tell.
2nd reply.
I think some people ignore places like Kenya, Ghana, and Botswana for a reason. Some people really do believe that Blacks are inferior. Some people believe that Blacks should be ruled over with an iron fist by anyone who isn't Black. Some people see Rhodesia as an example of White minority rule over a Black majority. Some people see it as "the White minority knew how to keep the Blacks in line". Deep down, I think some of the love affair with Rhodesia is due to racist attitudes towards Black people.
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.
