Africa Why the West Betrayed Rhodesia

[49ersfootball]

Rhodesian segregation was apparently a good deal more informal than what you’d have seen in South Africa, but it was there. Black Rhodesians were infantilised quite badly and seen as servants (as I understand, there were laws against them having sex with white people), with the voting system suspiciously weighting the vote in favour of whites. Blacks weren’t allowed to live in white areas, or go to white schools, and didn’t have as much in the way of “workers rights.” It must be emphasised that armed rebellions on that scale don’t come out of nowhere.


Funnily enough, a lot of modern Zimbwabeans agree with you. Yeah, can’t say they were happy about the political arrangement back then (for obvious reasons, let’s not mince words. I’ve heard tales of the police liberally using beatings) but they do believe things were far better run due to the absence of blood crazed Marxist lunatics in the halls of power. Many blacks in the Rhodesian Army certainly felt “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” and bugger me were they proven right.

My position on the matter is that Rhodesia had massive flaws it didn’t effectively address and that lead to its downfall, much like Royal France and Tsarist Russia. What replaced it however was hilariously worse, and perhaps things might have been better if the system hadn’t collapsed.

Considering that Mugabe was awful news once he took over the Presidency.

 

[IndyFront]

Commies don’t tend to get very far in systems that are vaguely functional. Via the Long March through the Institutions and the abject failures of Neoliberalism, they have gained some purchase in the West. It is not nearly the power they want though.

I believe some Righties are making a mistake in regards to this line of thinking. Rhodesia, like Royal France and Tsarist Russia, are not things to be lionised, they are cautionary tales of what happens when an elite does not attend to a society’s problems, and what sort of monster can be born from that inattentiveness.

Generally speaking, lionising any government is generally a bad idea. Governments are single handedly responsible for the most atrocities in the world. I'm not a capitalist, per se, but you really don't see private institutions carrying out the same level of barbarity as a government with an army of brainwashed lemmings does

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Generally speaking, lionising any government is generally a bad idea. Governments are single handedly responsible for the most atrocities in the world. I'm not a capitalist, per se, but you really don't see private institutions carrying out the same level of barbarity as a government with an army of brainwashed lemmings does

uh you do if they are in bed with said government which is exactly what most big corporations are. ESPECIALLY the likes of Disney, Facebook and Amazon, but I mean it's hard to see them as private when they are publicly using their power to influence society.

 

[King Arts]

That ignores the entire point of the originally linked video, I'm afraid. To some extent, it's unfair to Russia, too. France was about the most powerful state in Europe for a very long time, and squandered its lead through a succession of avoidable mistakes. This culminated in disaster.

Now look at Rhodesia. That's a pioneer state. A bunch of settlers building a new country out in the sticks, among natives who are functionally in a far more primitive state of development. And they succeed. Everyone living there is much, much better off thanks to their efforts. The reason it works is that they're practical realists. They grasp that treating largely pre-agricultural stone-age people as if they're somehow congenitally adapted to a developed society with a representative electoral system would be a disaster. (And indeed, all actual post-colonial attempts to do it just led to stone-age tribalism, but with modern weapons.)

So they take their time to... basically "uplift" the population. Begin teaching them. Not commie-style ("intellectualism first!"), which always goes wrong horribly, but practical-style ("useful skills first"). And it works. And, yes, it will be a long process. The natives aren't nearly ready for equal political status. But their descendants will be.

To some extent, Tsarist Russia was in the same boat. Or a similar boat. Vast regions of that country were still in the middle ages, developmentally speaking, when the Great War broke out. There were many cases of pro-peasant "reformers" getting burnt as witches by said peasants! Reforms were implemented, but took time. You can assign far more blame to the Muscovite Tsars than to the Rhodesians, because the Rhodesians basically did everything they could under the circumstances; whereas the Tsars were often unneccessarily oppressive assholes. But still-- their situation wasn't like that of monarchist France at all. They weren't "top dog" nations who foolishly squandered everything. Russia was underdeveloped, and struggling to develop in a sufficiently gradual, sustainable way.

The real lesson here, the real "cautionary tale", is that reforms take time. That trying to do it all at once is a utopian fiction and leads to horrors.

As such, I conclude that the Rhodesians were generally in the right, their approach was generally the correct one, and the lunatics who turned against Rhodesia doomed everyone who lived there to utopian disasters and their inevitable results. Said results also have a name: Zimbabwe.

I'll take Rhodesia over Zimbabwe any day of the week. And make no mistake: broadly speaking, those are your choices. If you reject Rhodesia, then you choose Zimbabwe for yourself and your descendants.

No shit you'd prefer Rhodesia, you are white and you would be part of the privileged elite you hypocrite. Bet you wouldn't be quite so supportive of unequal racism if YOUR people would be the 2nd class citizens. Maybe we'll see how it goes when the Muslims outbreed you over in Holland.

 

[Marduk]

No shit you'd prefer Rhodesia, you are white and you would be part of the privileged elite you hypocrite. Bet you wouldn't be quite so supportive of unequal racism if YOUR people would be the 2nd class citizens. Maybe we'll see how it goes when the Muslims outbreed you over in Holland.

Why give a fuck? Would you prefer "equal racism"? Would that be better? I for one say no, don't care, i care about good treatment, not equal treatment, equality is a religious obsession of the left, piss be upon them. I will start obsessing about "unequal racism" when all the countries outside the west start obsessing about being nice to all foreigners.

 

[King Arts]

Why give a fuck? Would you prefer "equal racism"? Would that be better? I for one say no, don't care, i care about good treatment, not equal treatment, equality is a religious obsession of the left, piss be upon them. I will start obsessing about "unequal racism" when all the countries outside the west start obsessing about being nice to all foreigners.

Are you stupid or do you not understand?

Ok most people aren’t religiously tied to equality like the liberals in your head. They are ok with inequality as long as they are on top. However they don’t like others being above them equality is a fucking compromise unless you are ok with your people being the slaves and servants for another then sure they will be ok with inequality as long as you are the one under Jim Crow.

 

[Marduk]

Are you stupid or do you not understand?

Ok most people aren’t religiously tied to equality like the liberals in your head. They are ok with inequality as long as they are on top. However they don’t like others being above them equality is a fucking compromise unless you are ok with your people being the slaves and servants for another then sure they will be ok with inequality as long as you are the one under Jim Crow.

Of course not everyone has to like everything all the time.
But there are other factors to consider. More important factors. Equality is most important only in the insane minds of the commies.
Would you rather be a somewhat looked down upon gaijin in modern Japan, or a perfectly equal citizen of North Korea?
Sod off with your red herrings about slavery and shit, those extremes are irrelevant in this case.

 

[IndyFront]

uh you do if they are in bed with said government which is exactly what most big corporations are. ESPECIALLY the likes of Disney, Facebook and Amazon, but I mean it's hard to see them as private when they are publicly using their power to influence society.

Again the problem comes back to big government though. Big mega-corporations in bed with the government are still big government even if they claim to represent private interests or the interests of ma and pa middle class business owners it will not be the case.

 

[King Arts]

Of course not everyone has to like everything all the time.
But there are other factors to consider. More important factors. Equality is most important only in the insane minds of the commies.
Would you rather be a somewhat looked down upon gaijin in modern Japan, or a perfectly equal citizen of North Korea?
Sod off with your red herrings about slavery and shit, those extremes are irrelevant in this case.

It’s not an extreme I used Jim Crow as an example. If Muslims keep coming to Europe they will be the majority and dhimmihude is around the same level of shit as Jim Crow.

Skallgrim was saying something really stupid “Well I’d prefer apartheid Rhodesia.” No shit you are white it’s like someone from the Bourbon family or Romanovs saying “I’d rather have monarchy you know.”

No shit wonder if they would still think that if another dynasty took away their noble titles and made them peasants.

 

[Marduk]

It’s not an extreme I used Jim Crow as an example. If Muslims keep coming to Europe they will be the majority and dhimmihude is around the same level of shit as Jim Crow.

So?
The elephant in the room that you are avoiding is that during Jim Crow, there absolutely were non colonial African countries out there, and even the most racist proponents of Jim Crow would be ecstatic at the idea of people of African descent returning straight to their homelands.
Likewise, we don't see all that much complaining about Muslim rule of Algeria or Saudi Arabia.
But Europe itself, well, what excuse do Muslims have to try make themselves feel at home as legitimate rulers there?

Skallgrim was saying something really stupid “Well I’d prefer apartheid Rhodesia.” No shit you are white it’s like someone from the Bourbon family or Romanovs saying “I’d rather have monarchy you know.”

Well being a Swede he would not live there anyway.
How many Afghans do you think would prefer western ruled Afghanistan, and i mean directly, by a US governor-general, not with charade failed democracy and ultracorrupt Afghan government?
I think that would be a very much non-zero number.

No shit wonder if they would still think that if another dynasty took away their noble titles and made them peasants.

Well if there is one exception to that it's this very scenario - be second class citizens in what is nevertheless a fairly well functioning country sure beats being equal to everyone else where it just so happens to mean being equal to shit, like in the example of North Korea.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Like it or not, Black Rhodesians very much were second class citizens who were made to live under different laws from the whites and two tier (often savage) policing.

They also had no real means of political redress.

That sounds like a species of tyranny to my mind, no matter how it’s dressed up.

 

[Jormungandr]

Like it or not, Black Rhodesians very much were second class citizens who were made to live under different laws from the whites and two tier (often savage) policing.

They also had no real means of political redress.

That sounds like a species of tyranny to my mind, no matter how it’s dressed up.

And, like it or not, as soon as the Black nationalists came to power under Mugabe, the "Breadbasket of Africa" quickly became the broken down, starving crap heap that it is now.

Things weren't ideal there obviously, but the way it was handeled was an utter disaster for everyone involved.

Turns out giving farmland to people who knew nothing about farming, maintaining farmland and equipment, and planting/harvesting crops because of their tribal affiliations was a bad idea. Who'd've thunk it?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

And, like it or not, as soon as the Black nationalists came to power under Mugabe, the "Breadbasket of Africa" quickly became the broken down, starving crap heap that it is now.

Things weren't ideal there obviously, but the way it was handeled was an utter disaster for everyone involved.

Turns out giving farmland to people who knew nothing about farming, maintaining farmland and equipment, and planting/harvesting crops because of their tribal affiliations was a bad idea. Who'd've thunk it?

True.

Mugabe was hilariously worse than Smith, it was a terrible trade, but a lot of people back then couldn’t have known that. Some suspected of course, hence the Blacks who fought in the Rhodesian Army (in which they were locked out of the officer corps), but the rest? “Equality” is a nebulous and vague term but it would be appealing to aforementioned “second class citizen with no political redress.” People have kicked off over much less in history.

Rhodesia was strangled by an outside world that didn’t grasp the issue on the ground. But it shot itself in the foot first.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Honestly, decolonization in general was a massive mistake that has led to the abject impoverishment and starvation of untold millions and god knows how many dead from the various civil wars and ethnic conflicts.

The European administrations may not have been nice and could certainly have done with massive reform, but the slapdash abandonment of their various holdings has been a massive disaster.

That's because decolonization in most cases had very little to do with any sort of moral position, and more that the European colonial powers were economically and military depleted from World War II and were not even trying to have a peaceful or stable transition of power. You're absolutely correct in calling it a slapdash abandonment; but that's how they wanted it to go down.

In India, for example, the British pretty literally set a policy goal of kicking the can down the road just long enough to withdraw their troops and administrators, and pretty much actively guaranteed a civil war in their wake by making completely incompatible promises of support and recognition to every single significant political faction in India in order to buy that time.

 

[Cherico]

No shit you'd prefer Rhodesia, you are white and you would be part of the privileged elite you hypocrite. Bet you wouldn't be quite so supportive of unequal racism if YOUR people would be the 2nd class citizens. Maybe we'll see how it goes when the Muslims outbreed you over in Holland.

All right lets deracialize the argument so its more understandable.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Again the problem comes back to big government though. Big mega-corporations in bed with the government are still big government even if they claim to represent private interests or the interests of ma and pa middle class business owners it will not be the case.

Why shouldn't the government serve economically important mega-corporations over middle class business owners, though? Surely it is for the greater good to recognize that corporations have literally earned their place at the head of the table; indeed, to o do otherwise is effectively stealing from the successful to help the unworthy. To the extent that this benefits the overall economic prosperity of the country some degree of charity is beneficial; but at the end of the day, why should Ma and Pa McDonald be subsidized and incentivized to make $50 when the government can instead empower Monsanto to make $50,000?

If anything, America should consider rejecting equality entirely and seeking to develop a system of merit-nobility with rights, responsibilities, and privileges being systematically tied to contribution.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

All right lets deracialize the argument so its more understandable.

And yet Rome fell, and fell badly. I would argue that the test of civilizations is longevity and stability, not 'nice monuments'.

 

[Blasterbot]

And yet Rome fell, and fell badly. I would argue that the test of civilizations is longevity and stability, not 'nice monuments'.

How long was rome around again? it had a good run before it ossified and degenerated.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

By the time Saxons really rocked up in force, most of Roman Britain had crumbled to the point that the local Britons themselves couldn’t repair it. It’s not that any of them were stupid. They knew it was good building material which was why they scavenged a lot of it, but they did not have the means to maintain it.

I remember going around the ruins of a Roman villa near where I live, and when asked about something like this the guide said “alright, you could move into it for a while. But you’ve got no way to repair it, and a lot of it is empty space with water leaking through the roof.” Not of very much use to a Saxon ring giver, is it?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

How long was rome around again? it had a good run before it ossified and degenerated.

The Kingdom of Rome lasted for just under 250 years (753 B.C. to 509 B.C.); the Republic of Rome lasted for nearly 500 years (509 B.C. to 27 B.C.), and the Empire of Rome lasted from 27 B.C. to 395 A.D. as a unified polity before splitting in two.

The Kingdom of England formally lasted from 886 A.D. to 1707 A.D., but as it "ended" by the conquest of Scotland into Great Britain and then the further conquest of Ireland into the United Kingdom, it really has lasted from 886 AD to the present day, far eclipsing Rome.