Africa Why the West Betrayed Rhodesia

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?
There's a *lot* of Roman structures in France to this day, but a lot of it is partial and fragmentary because it continued to be maintained, added onto, modified, and merged with later construction. In particular, the city walls in the core 'old city' of just about every significant French town include Roman-era sections that were integrated into larger medieval-era walls, and sometimes further walls all the way to the Napoleonic era.

The stuff that's in *ruins* is typically that which was already abandoned *during the Roman period*, and had decayed to the point of not being useful enough to maintain or restore by post-Roman civilization. For example, the great Roman bathhouse in Paris was no longer functional by the 3rd century, long before Rome actually ceased to govern proto-France.
 
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?
05f2f543-936a-48b9-a7c1-0a80e8a788e6.jpg

I don't know if you live here in the US or not, but over here the larger conglomerates and mega-corporations and robber barons among the billionaire and globalist elite have all the power. The middle and lower classes are struggling and the income gap is getting wider every year. Both major parties by and large are owned and/or bought out by wealthy special interests. Like I said, I don't know if you live here or not, but if you don't I can almost guarantee you it's not as bad there as it is here (unless you live in the destitute Third World in which you have my apologies and sympathies)
 
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.
You are ignoring the eastern empire which adds another thousand years.

Also for kingdoms you don’t see how long the country remained a kingdom or dictatorship you see how long the same government remained. For monarchy that means the dynasty. Britain is not Japan with a 2000 year old imperial dynasty. The royal family has changed and been replaced a few times.
 
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.
Simply this, small businesses actually account for the majority of job growth across the US. When you crush the middle class, small businesses fail, and jobs go bye bye.

The only reason government is looking out for big business is because government is made of greedy people that get paid off by those big businesses. Government should instead, have nothing to do with big businesses, and they should be propping up the small business as the main drivers of the individual prosperity.

EDIT: In other words, Big Business has enough money to protect itself. Small businesses and the poor do not. The Government's role should be to step in when Big Business is attempting to stifle competition and ruin their small competitors.
 
And still, the overthrow proved to be a dreadful mistake because Mugabe’s Zimbabwe was many orders of magnitude worse. Ah, aren’t revolutions wonderful? So I view Rhodesia in much the same way I view Tsarist Russia or Royal France: very messy systems, capable of positive change, that were overthrown and replaced by far worse.
I mean, the thing about that analogy is that at the end of the day, the Tsar bears a great deal of blame for the Soviet Union. Because if he hadn't been such a worthless scumbag (The only thing that kept Nicholas from being a Stalin is that he was too pathetic to be one), Russia wouldn't have fallen to the state that it did.

Which means that if we take the same analogy for Rhodesia...
 
I mean, the thing about that analogy is that at the end of the day, the Tsar bears a great deal of blame for the Soviet Union. Because if he hadn't been such a worthless scumbag (The only thing that kept Nicholas from being a Stalin is that he was too pathetic to be one), Russia wouldn't have fallen to the state that it did.

Which means that if we take the same analogy for Rhodesia...
I'd disagree with the idea that Nikolai II was a worthless scum bag. He was a Russian Charles I, a man who probably shouldn't have been monarch but wasn't necessarily a terrible human being. Very much like Louis XVI as well.

I would both agree and disagree with your main point however. He didn't necessarily create the problem, but good God did he mishandle and make it immeasurably worse, compounding on the pretty grievous mistakes of his predecessors (aside from Alexander II, of course). Had he been tough but also had his finger on the country's pulse, then yes the Revolution would have been nipped in the bud and likely millions of lives would have been saved.

In which case, the analogy with Rhodesia is tragically accurate...
 
You are ignoring the eastern empire which adds another thousand years.

Also for kingdoms you don’t see how long the country remained a kingdom or dictatorship you see how long the same government remained. For monarchy that means the dynasty. Britain is not Japan with a 2000 year old imperial dynasty. The royal family has changed and been replaced a few times.

The last time the english people were truely happy was 1065
 
The last time the english people were truely happy was 1065

what's your definition of happy? As factious as that question may sound, this is part of the issue of philosophy. Everyone's definition of heaven is different. So we argue different philosophies when we don't even share the same definitions or end goals.
 
what's your definition of happy? As factious as that question may sound, this is part of the issue of philosophy. Everyone's definition of heaven is different. So we argue different philosophies when we don't even share the same definitions or end goals.

Well first of all it was a joke refferencing the invasion of willam the bastard in 1066.

Second that is complicated.

Is happiniess the absense of suffering? or is it moments of accomplishments or is it being in a place of love and comfort? This is actually a rather complicated question and I am afraid I lack the abilility to really hammer home a real defintion because as you said it changes so much from person to person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Well first of all it was a joke refferencing the invasion of willam the bastard in 1066.

Second that is complicated.

Is happiniess the absense of suffering? or is it moments of accomplishments or is it being in a place of love and comfort? This is actually a rather complicated question and I am afraid I lack the abilility to really hammer home a real defintion because as you said it changes so much from person to person.

Ah sorry missed the joke. There is enough people here whom unironically think that hummanity unironically peaked hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago that it's hard to tell somtimes.

As far as this meme goes regarding X under subjugation vs X under independence. One thing we all need to keep in mind is that some people value abstract concepts over economic prosperity. I'll take myself for example. I'm sure if I embraced the leftist narrative and flaunted my disability I could charge thousands and make bank, but it'd cost me things like my honor, my sense of self respect and independence. Sure none of those things make bread but they give me as a sense of spiritual fufilment that money cannot buy.

Why would people reject wealth and embrace squalor? for the same reason a whore leaves their handler, why a white collar would move out of silicon valley and move to a small town in Texas, Kansas or Missouri, sure on every economic metric, they are fools that are objectively worse off by those metrics but they gain personal value of things money cannot buy.

There is also the fact that what the Devil gives the Devil can take away. The Egyptians were great for the Jews...until they weren't, and the servitude and the forced abortions started happening. There is always the decent likelihood that the same thing could have happened with Rhodesia (Especially with the West nasty habit of making bad bed fellows) So yeah while hindsight is 20/20 and anything can look good when it died too soon to make a mistake that can't be whitewashed (See JFK's presidency) I can see WHY the native population would want and fight to stay independent.
 
Last edited:
what's your definition of happy? As factious as that question may sound, this is part of the issue of philosophy. Everyone's definition of heaven is different. So we argue different philosophies when we don't even share the same definitions or end goals.

They were basically Rohan without horses before the French Vikings invaded. :cry:
 
They were basically Rohan without horses before the French Vikings invaded. :cry:

Very literally, since -- although I suspect you know this ;) -- Tolkien unironically agreed with @Cherico's assessment and considered 1066 one of the worst tragedies in history And he was convinced that the Anglo-Saxons lost because they didn't have the proper cavalry to beat the Normans, even though their Saxon ancestors had been famous for their excellent horses, and had carried the banner of the horse as their emblem (to the point that the Saxon warlords who began settling Britain were named Hengest[*] and Horsa).

He invented Rohan to be "Anglo-Saxons, but they're 100% a horse-rider culture". They were completely, directly and literally his answer to 1066.

-----------------------------

[*] In case that one's unclear in modern English: it means 'stallion'. (The modern word for that in Dutch, for instance, is still 'hengst'.)
 
You are ignoring the eastern empire which adds another thousand years.

Also for kingdoms you don’t see how long the country remained a kingdom or dictatorship you see how long the same government remained. For monarchy that means the dynasty. Britain is not Japan with a 2000 year old imperial dynasty. The royal family has changed and been replaced a few times.

If you're claiming that the UK should count as a 'reset' every time the royal family changes, then certainly the Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire are both separate polities from the Original Roman Empire.

Continuity of government is admittedly often weirdly legalistic, but we should at least be generally consistent and apply roughly the same standards. England-Great Britain-United Kingdom I count as one because England was *gaining realms by conquest* and only nominally shifting its government; Rome certainly conquered many subsidiary realms, and if you're going to count those administrative changes as national resets as well, well, then Rome gets a lot more broken up into periods.
 
Well first of all it was a joke refferencing the invasion of willam the bastard in 1066.

You can continue to be salty about William the Conquerer; having been to Normandy, I'm not sure why he bothered conquering England when it's so much nicer on this side of the Channel.

*sniffs disdainfully in French*
 
You are ignoring the eastern empire which adds another thousand years.

Also for kingdoms you don’t see how long the country remained a kingdom or dictatorship you see how long the same government remained. For monarchy that means the dynasty. Britain is not Japan with a 2000 year old imperial dynasty. The royal family has changed and been replaced a few times.
And how many times did the Imperial Dynasty change in either the Western or Eastern Roman Empires?

(Hint: The first Roman Emperor was NOT succeeded by anyone he was actually related to by blood.)
 
Very literally, since -- although I suspect you know this ;) -- Tolkien unironically agreed with @Cherico's assessment and considered 1066 one of the worst tragedies in history And he was convinced that the Anglo-Saxons lost because they didn't have the proper cavalry to beat the Normans, even though their Saxon ancestors had been famous for their excellent horses, and had carried the banner of the horse as their emblem (to the point that the Saxon warlords who began settling Britain were named Hengest[*] and Horsa).

He invented Rohan to be "Anglo-Saxons, but they're 100% a horse-rider culture". They were completely, directly and literally his answer to 1066.

-----------------------------

[*] In case that one's unclear in modern English: it means 'stallion'. (The modern word for that in Dutch, for instance, is still 'hengst'.)
I love Tolkien, but I wouldn't quite call 1066 the worst tragedy in England's history (I'd lend that to the Black Death). After his coronation, Big Bad Bill left the local administration (minus slavery) intact for the most part...until it rebelled.

Multiple times.

Trying Big Bad Bill's patience was not advisable.
 
If the non-Rhodesian Front Party won would that of been possible for a less miserly outcome for the country then?
 
If the non-Rhodesian Front Party won would that of been possible for a less miserly outcome for the country then?
Rhodesia was simply not sustainable. The white minority was too small to maintain control once the black majority had the means to rebel. They didn't exactly help themselves by alienating all possible allies either.

But the path Smith decided to take was of a total victor's peace where the Blacks had no choice but to kneel before him and take whatever scraps he deigned to throw them. So naturally, it turned into an All Or Nothing conflict where neither side was willing to be generous or conciliatory, and the White Minority was doomed to be on the losing side.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top