I don't see why AngloCrusader and jchibvoz are arguing, they basically agree that things went wrong in Zimbabwe, Smith was absolutely correct, black people were not ready to rule, it is true if you look at all the countries in Southern Africa that have a white population, those counties are fairly well developed and stable, the evidence is blatant.
pre 1980 Rhodesia was a great country for white racists.i was born in Rhodesia.there was inequality.There were two Rhodesias, one white (good) one black (opressed).1980 to most of us blacks, the opressors just changed colour.
well i would love to see the day of responsible black leadership in a african country,at least with a few white racists you had running water and hospitals
given more time and the blacks would have become a better educated people,there is no doubt in my mind there was racisism and on both sides,why should whites feel embarrased about being succesful, Black Africa needs to evolve,
look at Canada,Australia,and New Zealand first world countrys and that includes for the natives that were there before the British,that could have been Rhodesia/South Africa too,trible law doesnt work
ok so do you think it was too early for black people to run Zimbabwe ? i do not think so.The british handed over the country to guerillas, they were just good in fighting, not governing.Botswana is black ruled and doing fine.Smith was right when he said it was too early for majority rule in Zimbabwe.Pity he didn't plan for it, instead he fought against it and as a result we ended up with Mugarbage.
Actually, Smith's fore bears in government had begun the process of integrating blacks into the governmental system in the early 60s - go check your history? It was never fought against as you believe - simply that the useless handover to majority rule in one simple move was unworkable - history has proved this...
You are not the first to say this and quote the line out of context! The beginning of that speech went along the lines that he did not believe that (in 1000 years) black majority rule would work in the country... but then went on to qualify by saying that he 'believed in all people - black and white - working together' was his hope for the future. This is probably the MOST MISREPRESENTED quote in political history - please do your homework and look it up for yourself? nrt
Bro, I did my homework. I read the speech. I know that the welfare and political participation of blacks was rapidly increasing in Rhodesia. Also, Smith was no idiot and knew that power-sharing was inevitable.
Nonetheless... the '1000 years' were to appease his followers and an invitation to brand him racist and opposed to sensible development. In or out of context, to say this was plain stupid.
No, it wasn't. We have yet to see blacks actually "rule" a country...all they are doing is plummeting the country into the ground...that's not defined as "ruling".
Botswana is doing fine only compared to other Sub-Saharan Africa. On the absolute scale Botswana is nowhere: 25% HIV rate, 20% unemployment, 30% of population below poverty line. Botswana is #126 on Human Development Index. 64 positions below the least advanced EU country, 35 positions below the worst American country and only 7 positions above the poorest Asian country. And what exactly is Botswana "doing"? 30% of budget comes from De Beers, which pays to Botswana 50% of all profits.
I lived in Bulawayo (Llewellyn Barracks) between '77 and '81 (aged 7 - 11), so spent the most important 4 years of my life there. And I did have black friends, my school had black, white, Indian and Chinese kids. And I lived in a place where the black soldiers (RAR and Selous mainly) were some of the most respected people around. I ate Sadza and gravy from their plates, and they came to our braais. The situation now is not even comparible to the Rho days, it is far worse.
fair enough mate it wasnt like South Africa the blacks may not have had the right to vote but were at least treated with some respect and given a decent shot at life
Hence why so many blacks fought and died for Rhodesia
was the "decent shot at life " the same for people of all colour ? what was decent for blacks and for whites.i see your mentality, racial superiority.
i agree a real shame! i wish Rhodesia could have had the help of other commonwealth troops ie Canadians,brits,aussies or at least support and military aid,
Rhodesia was a great country - pity it was not afforded the chance to develop even further... the 'jewel of Africa' would have offered a better life to all in the region had the political pens not intervened.
@msasauk Rhodesia was a draconian state born on the segregation and enslavement of the masses. The most ridiculous and unsustainable ideologies are the reason it lasted a paltry 14 years. Give Smith time to reform and develop? I think Churchill should have given Hitler time to reform! not!
@DeathWarmedUp1000 So you have not read history then? Rhodesia BOUGHT its right to self-govern from Britain in 1923 and over the next 40yrs dragged its population from the stone age to a state of semi-civilisation - LONG before Smith ever walked onto the scene. The routes for introducing the black population into government were in place and active in 1960 - had they been left to develop as envisaged, the draconian state that is Zimbabwe (suffering worse segregation) could have been avoided.
@msasauk people's civil liberties are not "bought". Neither are they possessed by one group at the expense of another. A civilised state is a state that respects human rights, that does not discriminate on the basis of race or tribe or gender. Rhodesia was arguably the least civilised country ever. It flew in the face of acceptable world norms and got called out on it. Mugabe's regime is structured to benefit the "chosen" minority. This is EXACTLY as was Smith's.
HAHA!! Then you really don't know what civilized then, even if we choose to follow your logic. Zingbo, don't ever change, bru....lol!!!
If we followed your thought pattern to it's logical conclusion, wouldn't we then conclude that it was Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Hitler's Third Reich as the least civilized, since all of these dictators held sole power over the life and death over their respective peoples??
@suryavajra ...ahhhh! our little Indian from Madras who has never set foot in Africa returns to solve Zimbabwe's woes!
A civilised society is oney that respects and advances all its citizens basic human rights and norms. That would be countries like England and NOT your Rhodesia or for that matter your India!
There you go with your heavy breathing there...lol!!
countries like England are civilized, ehhh?? Well it's interesting that in your remarks you conveniently omit Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Looks like somebody ain't ''civilized'' here, as you don't even deem them worthy of mention in our little debate...hahaaha!!
But wasn't your England that went running into two, count 'em two world wars?? These were the largest wars that humanity ever waged, and y'all used (cont)
used weapons forged from your so-called glorious industrial revolution to kill millions of your fellow European Christians. And when they the Germans had your balls in a vice, you had to call the Rhodesians and the Indians among many others to come riding in, the very people you castigate as ''uncivilized societies''. Ya gotta love the sweet irony...lol!!!!
People will kill other people in their bids for power or survival. That has gone on since the beginning of recorded history. The distinction is in the degree of cooperation and how one lives when people aren't killing each other.
@suryavajra ...so, according to Sury, Rhodesia and India were responsible for the triumph over the Nazi regime. You ran away from India because it was so wretched and know nothing about Rhodesia......so why even go there? Now if you were to make pronouncements on baseball and chipatis.....I would have to sit up and listen!!!!
Mr Zingy it sure as hell wasn't Britain that triumphed over the Nazis.....Good heavens, no....lol!!!! Stick to making crumpets and supping tea with your little finger out...hahaha!
I think the UN are aiming for a Marxist run world.
JustUsIce 3 years ago 6
It is such a tragedy that a magnificent society like this had to be destroyed. I feel so ashamed that my country played a role in this madness.
Darwinist76 3 years ago 2
Thatcher and Carrington should be arressted and charged for detroying a country.
354sd 3 years ago 2
ZIM is Stufed up because coons can not run a country..................LOOK AT THE REST OF AFRICA.South Africa you are next.
AS that BABOON Mugabe once said Africa is for the africans the whites must go back to Europe
umfums 4 years ago 4
Why do you have to use such bigoted language, unfums?
You really are an uncultivated racist simpleton.
rowleybirkin 3 years ago
@umfums Except Europe is for everyone. Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians etc.. But Europe is for everyone.
wijse 1 year ago
I don't see why AngloCrusader and jchibvoz are arguing, they basically agree that things went wrong in Zimbabwe, Smith was absolutely correct, black people were not ready to rule, it is true if you look at all the countries in Southern Africa that have a white population, those counties are fairly well developed and stable, the evidence is blatant.
zimzim27 4 years ago
pre 1980 Rhodesia was a great country for white racists.i was born in Rhodesia.there was inequality.There were two Rhodesias, one white (good) one black (opressed).1980 to most of us blacks, the opressors just changed colour.
jchibvoz 4 years ago
well i would love to see the day of responsible black leadership in a african country,at least with a few white racists you had running water and hospitals
AngloCrusader 4 years ago 3
did you share these hospitals with black people ? did you use the same schools, hospitals etc with the blacks.pleez give me a break.
jchibvoz 4 years ago
well i am sure it is much better now isnt it
AngloCrusader 4 years ago
as i said before, the white racists opressors were replaced by black power hungry opressors.
jchibvoz 4 years ago
given more time and the blacks would have become a better educated people,there is no doubt in my mind there was racisism and on both sides,why should whites feel embarrased about being succesful, Black Africa needs to evolve,
AngloCrusader 4 years ago
look at Canada,Australia,and New Zealand first world countrys and that includes for the natives that were there before the British,that could have been Rhodesia/South Africa too,trible law doesnt work
AngloCrusader 4 years ago
ok so do you think it was too early for black people to run Zimbabwe ? i do not think so.The british handed over the country to guerillas, they were just good in fighting, not governing.Botswana is black ruled and doing fine.Smith was right when he said it was too early for majority rule in Zimbabwe.Pity he didn't plan for it, instead he fought against it and as a result we ended up with Mugarbage.
jchibvoz 4 years ago
Actually, Smith's fore bears in government had begun the process of integrating blacks into the governmental system in the early 60s - go check your history? It was never fought against as you believe - simply that the useless handover to majority rule in one simple move was unworkable - history has proved this...
msasauk 3 years ago
"never in a 1000 years" was a big mistake, though
UBootFschJg 2 years ago
You are not the first to say this and quote the line out of context! The beginning of that speech went along the lines that he did not believe that (in 1000 years) black majority rule would work in the country... but then went on to qualify by saying that he 'believed in all people - black and white - working together' was his hope for the future. This is probably the MOST MISREPRESENTED quote in political history - please do your homework and look it up for yourself? nrt
msasauk 2 years ago
Bro, I did my homework. I read the speech. I know that the welfare and political participation of blacks was rapidly increasing in Rhodesia. Also, Smith was no idiot and knew that power-sharing was inevitable.
Nonetheless... the '1000 years' were to appease his followers and an invitation to brand him racist and opposed to sensible development. In or out of context, to say this was plain stupid.
UBootFschJg 2 years ago
Agreed... it was an unfortunate thing for a political leader to say - reckon he was hounded by the phrase to the end!
enartee 2 years ago
UBootFschJg,
No, it wasn't. We have yet to see blacks actually "rule" a country...all they are doing is plummeting the country into the ground...that's not defined as "ruling".
Alsbanana 2 years ago 2
The sad thing is, he was right: Not the black majority govers the country. Zimbabwe is rigned by a horde of fools and NOT by the people of Zimbabwe
youtoubename 2 years ago
Comment removed
youtoubename 2 years ago
Botswana is doing fine only compared to other Sub-Saharan Africa. On the absolute scale Botswana is nowhere: 25% HIV rate, 20% unemployment, 30% of population below poverty line. Botswana is #126 on Human Development Index. 64 positions below the least advanced EU country, 35 positions below the worst American country and only 7 positions above the poorest Asian country. And what exactly is Botswana "doing"? 30% of budget comes from De Beers, which pays to Botswana 50% of all profits.
Znaika1 3 years ago 2
Yes and if you were there you know it!
tprdfh51 3 years ago 2
I lived in Bulawayo (Llewellyn Barracks) between '77 and '81 (aged 7 - 11), so spent the most important 4 years of my life there. And I did have black friends, my school had black, white, Indian and Chinese kids. And I lived in a place where the black soldiers (RAR and Selous mainly) were some of the most respected people around. I ate Sadza and gravy from their plates, and they came to our braais. The situation now is not even comparible to the Rho days, it is far worse.
Gendibal00 4 years ago 4
fair enough mate it wasnt like South Africa the blacks may not have had the right to vote but were at least treated with some respect and given a decent shot at life
Hence why so many blacks fought and died for Rhodesia
sparkvark1 4 years ago 4
was the "decent shot at life " the same for people of all colour ? what was decent for blacks and for whites.i see your mentality, racial superiority.
jchibvoz 4 years ago
i agree a real shame! i wish Rhodesia could have had the help of other commonwealth troops ie Canadians,brits,aussies or at least support and military aid,
AngloCrusader 4 years ago 4
what a great country rhodesia could have been
AngloCrusader 4 years ago 4
Rhodesia was a great country - pity it was not afforded the chance to develop even further... the 'jewel of Africa' would have offered a better life to all in the region had the political pens not intervened.
msasauk 4 years ago
@msasauk Rhodesia was a draconian state born on the segregation and enslavement of the masses. The most ridiculous and unsustainable ideologies are the reason it lasted a paltry 14 years. Give Smith time to reform and develop? I think Churchill should have given Hitler time to reform! not!
DeathWarmedUp1000 1 year ago
@DeathWarmedUp1000 So you have not read history then? Rhodesia BOUGHT its right to self-govern from Britain in 1923 and over the next 40yrs dragged its population from the stone age to a state of semi-civilisation - LONG before Smith ever walked onto the scene. The routes for introducing the black population into government were in place and active in 1960 - had they been left to develop as envisaged, the draconian state that is Zimbabwe (suffering worse segregation) could have been avoided.
msasauk 1 year ago
@msasauk people's civil liberties are not "bought". Neither are they possessed by one group at the expense of another. A civilised state is a state that respects human rights, that does not discriminate on the basis of race or tribe or gender. Rhodesia was arguably the least civilised country ever. It flew in the face of acceptable world norms and got called out on it. Mugabe's regime is structured to benefit the "chosen" minority. This is EXACTLY as was Smith's.
DeathWarmedUp1000 1 year ago
@DeathWarmedUp1000
HAHA!! Then you really don't know what civilized then, even if we choose to follow your logic. Zingbo, don't ever change, bru....lol!!!
If we followed your thought pattern to it's logical conclusion, wouldn't we then conclude that it was Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Hitler's Third Reich as the least civilized, since all of these dictators held sole power over the life and death over their respective peoples??
suryavajra 1 year ago
@suryavajra ...ahhhh! our little Indian from Madras who has never set foot in Africa returns to solve Zimbabwe's woes!
A civilised society is oney that respects and advances all its citizens basic human rights and norms. That would be countries like England and NOT your Rhodesia or for that matter your India!
MrZingy 1 year ago
@MrZingy
There you go with your heavy breathing there...lol!!
countries like England are civilized, ehhh?? Well it's interesting that in your remarks you conveniently omit Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Looks like somebody ain't ''civilized'' here, as you don't even deem them worthy of mention in our little debate...hahaaha!!
But wasn't your England that went running into two, count 'em two world wars?? These were the largest wars that humanity ever waged, and y'all used (cont)
suryavajra 1 year ago
@suryavajra
used weapons forged from your so-called glorious industrial revolution to kill millions of your fellow European Christians. And when they the Germans had your balls in a vice, you had to call the Rhodesians and the Indians among many others to come riding in, the very people you castigate as ''uncivilized societies''. Ya gotta love the sweet irony...lol!!!!
suryavajra 1 year ago
@suryavajra
People will kill other people in their bids for power or survival. That has gone on since the beginning of recorded history. The distinction is in the degree of cooperation and how one lives when people aren't killing each other.
lipovan87 1 year ago
@lipovan87
That is a deep and profound statement. I guess it is something that does require a lot of reflection on.
suryavajra 1 year ago
@suryavajra ...so, according to Sury, Rhodesia and India were responsible for the triumph over the Nazi regime. You ran away from India because it was so wretched and know nothing about Rhodesia......so why even go there? Now if you were to make pronouncements on baseball and chipatis.....I would have to sit up and listen!!!!
MrZingy 1 year ago
@MrZingy
Mr Zingy it sure as hell wasn't Britain that triumphed over the Nazis.....Good heavens, no....lol!!!! Stick to making crumpets and supping tea with your little finger out...hahaha!
suryavajra 1 year ago