• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Robert Mugabe has snuffed it

dann said:
His belief that capitalist agriculture would improve the conditions for ordinary Zimbabweans started before that. That's why the West loved him and wasn't too concerned about the massacres.
Click to expand...

Apparently, western imperialists weren't the only ones willing to overlook Mugabe's savage brutality.
 
tanabear said:
Huh? It was colonialism that brought civilization to Africa. There had been people living in Africa for 10 of thousands of years. Are you saying that Africa would have just magically taken off in the last few centuries if Europeans didn't show up?? Africa took off because of European colonialism. As the best leader Rhodesia ever had, Ian Smith, stated,

"To those who say derogatory things about colonialism, I would say colonialism is a wonderful thing. It spread civilization to Africa. Before it they had no written language, no wheel as we know it, no schools, no hospitals, not even normal clothing."
Ian Smith
Click to expand...


Yes, that sounds like something that you and Ian Smith would say.

Spreading civilization in Africa - a couple of highlights:

In 1893 and 1894, with the help of their new Maxim guns, the BSAP would go on to defeat the Ndebele in the First Matabele War. Rhodes additionally sought permission to negotiate similar concessions covering all territory between the Limpopo River and Lake Tanganyika, then known as "Zambesia".
In accordance with the terms of aforementioned concessions and treaties, mass settlement was encouraged, with the British maintaining control over labour as well as precious metals and other mineral resources.

In 1895, the BSAC adopted the name "Rhodesia" for the territory, in honour of Rhodes. In 1898 "Southern Rhodesia" became the official name for the region south of the Zambezi, which later became Zimbabwe. The region to the north was administered separately and later termed Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Shortly after Rhodes' disastrous Jameson Raid on the South African Republic, the Ndebele rebelled against white rule, led by their charismatic religious leader, Mlimo. The Second Matabele War lasted in Matabeleland until 1896, when Mlimo was assassinated. Shona agitators staged unsuccessful revolts (known as Chimurenga) against company rule during 1896 and 1897.[citation needed]
Following these failed insurrections, the Ndebele and Shona groups were finally subdued by the Rhodes administration, which organised the land with a disproportionate bias favouring Europeans, thus displacing many indigenous peoples.
Zimbabwe: Colonial era and Rhodesia (1888–1964) (Wikipeda)
Click to expand...


Writing systems of Africa (Wikipedia)

Nubians from after about 400 BCE used wheels for spinning pottery and as water wheels.[19] It is thought that Nubian waterwheels may have been ox-driven. It is also known that Nubians used horse-drawn chariots imported from Egypt.
Wheel: History (Wikipedia)
Click to expand...


Indigenous education during the pre-colonial period in Southern Africa (Indilinga: African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems)

Ian Smith dressed in normal clothing:
 
Last edited:
I know it's nearly pedantic to remind of this, but Africa has a Mediterranean coast, and some might recall that Carthage and ancient Egypt and the like were once considered somewhat "civilized."
 
Yes, but it must have been because they were colonized by white people, mustn't it?!
Another thing that is worth considering: When did medicine become scientific? (Wikipedia)
And in this particular context: How did Rhodesia contribute to medical science? (Wikipedia)
Ian Smith, "the best leader Rhodesia ever had" (tanabear), "served as Prime Minister of Rhodesia (or Southern Rhodesia; today Zimbabwe) from 1964 to 1979." (Wikipedia)
What an utterly despicable *******!
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
I know it's nearly pedantic to remind of this, but Africa has a Mediterranean coast, and some might recall that Carthage and ancient Egypt and the like were once considered somewhat "civilized."
Click to expand...

If Northern Africa was called the Southern Mediterranean it would clear up a lot of needless wrangling when people discuss "Africa". Carthage was a colony of Phoenicians from the Levant, modern-day Lebanon. Sub-Saharan Africa is very different from Northern Africa.

Ian Smith is one of those people who is hated because he was right.

"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."
Ian Smith
 
tanabear said:
Ian Smith is one of those people who is hated because he was right.
Click to expand...


Yes, when you have access to a lot of predictions, you can always pick the ones that seemed be right and ignore the ones that were obviously wrong:

"I don’t believe in majority rule ever in Rhodesia… not in 1,000 years."
Ian Smith

But he's as dead as Mugabe now and only missed by white supremacists.
 
dann said:
Yes, when you have access to a lot of predictions, you can always pick the ones that seemed be right and ignore the ones that were obviously wrong:

"I don’t believe in majority rule ever in Rhodesia… not in 1,000 years."
Ian Smith

But he's as dead as Mugabe now and only missed by white supremacists.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a prediction. It was just a statement that he didn't think black rule was a good idea. I'm sure he had the same belief when Mugabe was President.

I'm sure he is missed by more than "white supremacists". The blacks of Rhodesia were probably better off than in any other African nation. Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, was once one of the cleanest cities on the continent. Now it is a garbage dump. As they say now, "We used to drive on the left side of the road, now we drive on what's left of the road."
 
tanabear said:
Huh? It was colonialism that brought civilization to Africa. There had been people living in Africa for 10 of thousands of years. Are you saying that Africa would have just magically taken off in the last few centuries if Europeans didn't show up?? Africa took off because of European colonialism. As the best leader Rhodesia ever had, Ian Smith, stated,

"To those who say derogatory things about colonialism, I would say colonialism is a wonderful thing. It spread civilization to Africa. Before it they had no written language, no wheel as we know it, no schools, no hospitals, not even normal clothing."
Ian Smith
Click to expand...


Someone's White SUpremacy is showing....
 
tanabear said:
That wasn't a prediction. It was just a statement that he didn't think black rule was a good idea. I'm sure he had the same belief when Mugabe was President.

I'm sure he is missed by more than "white supremacists". The blacks of Rhodesia were probably better off than in any other African nation. Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, was once one of the cleanest cities on the continent. Now it is a garbage dump. As they say now, "We used to drive on the left side of the road, now we drive on what's left of the road."
Click to expand...

Next you will be telling us what a wonderful thing Aparthied in Southe Africa was, or how much better Black American were under Jim Crow.
 
bruto said:
I know it's nearly pedantic to remind of this, but Africa has a Mediterranean coast, and some might recall that Carthage and ancient Egypt and the like were once considered somewhat "civilized."
Click to expand...


And it was the civilized western world who gave us such great humanitarian figures as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin....
Muguabe was bad, yes, he was a rank amateur compared to those two....
 
tanabear said:
That wasn't a prediction. It was just a statement that he didn't think black rule was a good idea. I'm sure he had the same belief when Mugabe was President.

I'm sure he is missed by more than "white supremacists". The blacks of Rhodesia were probably better off than in any other African nation. Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, was once one of the cleanest cities on the continent. Now it is a garbage dump. As they say now, "We used to drive on the left side of the road, now we drive on what's left of the road."
Click to expand...
Have a little read about Ian Smith, unreconstructed white supremacist.
 
And, surprise, another Right winger outs himself as a bigot who thinks not whites are an infeiror race. What a big surprise.
 
dudalb said:
Someone's White SUpremacy is showing....
Click to expand...

Or to be more precise, my knowledge and understanding of history is showing. The fate of Rhodesia was a prime example of what happens when foreign nations and leaders virtue signal their supposedly high-minded moral principles onto other nations without having to bear any cost themselves. Britain and America were demanding that Rhodesia accept majority rule. As whites were only about 5% of the population it simply meant accepting black rule. The blacks of Rhodesia had their own tribal life and politics that differed wildly from the white Rhodesians. If the white Rhodesians had tried to join and participate in African tribal politics and customs it would have been as strange and incomprehensible to them as democratic society was to blacks.

Today the white Rhodesians and others who were against majority rule are derided with the standard monikers of "racist", "bigot", "intolerant", "white supremacist" etc when all they really wanted to do was to prevent a national disaster.

Do we let anyone fly airplanes?
Do we let anyone work in nuclear power plants?
Do we let children drive cars?

No. We restrict these things because we know that if we let anyone do these things they would harm themselves and others. Democracy is like nuclear power. It can be a very good thing but only with a highly responsible people, otherwise it can be a disaster.

Ian Smith made the point on Firing Line with William Buckley that if the rest of the world would just leave Rhodesia alone the whites and blacks could come to an amicable understanding that could be to everyone's benefit. The Rhodesians have to go on living with the decisions that are made. People who live 6,000 miles away do not. They can virtue signal about how "anti-racist" they are, but they do not have to live with the consequences of what they helped to bring about. Never listen to people who don't have a stake in society or skin in the game.

p.s Water cut off for 2 million residents of Zimbabwe's capital Harare

The grisly gods of democracy have been satisfied!
 
tanabear said:
As whites were only about 5% of the population it simply meant accepting black rule. The blacks of Rhodesia had their own tribal life and politics that differed wildly from the white Rhodesians. If the white Rhodesians had tried to join and participate in African tribal politics and customs it would have been as strange and incomprehensible to them as democratic society was to blacks.
Click to expand...


Democratic society was "strange and incomprehensible" to blacks. I guess they just weren't made for it. They didn't have the necessary requirements, right?!
I heard the same argument used in Europe in the 1970s against ... Greeks!

Do we let anyone fly airplanes?
Do we let anyone work in nuclear power plants?
Do we let children drive cars?
Click to expand...


Who exactly are "we"? The white race?!
But to answer the first two questions: 'We' don't let just anyone work anywhere. Even flipping burgers requires some kind of education. Which, by the way, is also the reason why 'we' don't let just any adult drive a car.
So the implied argument of your first two questions is that black Africans were just too uneducated for anything other than white minority rule to work for them, a very specious argument for some people. However, white rule had existed for a couple of generations in what became Zimbabwe:
British South Africa Company
Southern Rhodesia
Rhodesia
- so the white 5% didn't seem to have used much time and effort on educating black Africans - which, of course, also wasn't what they were there to do.

But it would also have been in vain to even attempt to educate black Africans anyway since they are like children (third question), immature and unsuited for education. And unlike (white!) children they never grow up and thus remain unteachable. Better let them be ruled by the master race whose burden it is to serve them as such.

By the way, do you know that there are black pilots today? And black people working at nuclear plants? Some of them are even allowed to drive cars as soon as they've got a driver's license:


The grisly gods of white supremacy are spinning in their graves.
 
dann said:
Democratic society was "strange and incomprehensible" to blacks. I guess they just weren't made for it. They didn't have the necessary requirements, right?!
I heard the same argument used in Europe in the 1970s against ... Greeks!
Click to expand...

It wasn't part of their cultural traditions. The practice of democratic self-rule developed over hundreds of years in Britain. It is unlikely that one group can perpetuate the cultural traditions of another. One man, one vote became "one man, one vote, one time" in Africa.

But black rule in Zimbabwe could have worked if it developed along the same lines as it did in other western European countries. First, you would allow only black men with a certain amount of property to vote. Then you would lower the property requirement for black men and eventually you could have had universal black male franchise in Zimbabwe. Next, you could move along to allowing married women of black men to vote and so on and so forth. This gradual development of a democratic society would have prevented the disaster we saw in Zimbabwe.


dann said:
- so the white 5% didn't seem to have used much time and effort on educating black Africans - which, of course, also wasn't what they were there to do.
Click to expand...

The blacks of Rhodesia were some of the best educated blacks in all of Africa. They were probably among the most prosperous too.

dann said:
By the way, do you know that there are black pilots today? And black people working at nuclear plants? Some of them are even allowed to drive cars as soon as they've got a driver's license.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is because they are qualified, but we simply don't let everyone engage in these activities. Plus there is a difference when we discuss individuals vs. societies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom