Unbelievable Zimbabwe

[FlyinRock]

So it's your fault Mugabe ascended to power and destroyed the country.

Yeh I should have shot the evil fuck and avoided all the heartache for millions. You think I have an attitude on this one you should talk to the people who have had to live with it!
Even at a low level, I'm still dumbfounded that I was that close to the top level of any government.
Cheers
Rocky

 

[MasterBates]

And if you really want to think about Rhodesia and what happened/went wrong, look to who was funding a good portion of the rebels during the civil war of the 1970s.

ZANU (led by Mugabe) was funded primarily by China and North Korea with Advisors/Equipment
ZAPU (led by Joshua Nkomo) was funded by the Soviet Union and East Germany with both providing advisors and equipment.

ZANU stayed more of a gurellia force, while ZAPU became more of a conventional force with Soviet Bloc equipment. ZAPU actually shot down a couple airliners with SA-7s.

Follow the money/materiel.

There was a lot more of a proxy war to this than "freedom fighters" simply wanting a better life.

 

[Flash]

I lived there in the early 70's during UDI. I quite agree with you that it was beautiful and a high standard of living for all its citizens. Those who fall back on the flawed info regarding "white Rule" simply don't know what they are talking about. In fact, at that time there was more racial discrimination in the US of A and thats a fact.

Semper Fi
Rocky

You were there as someone who was able to take full advantage of many of the benefits and rights denied to many of the Rhodesia's and South Africa's own citizens. The simple and undeniable fact is that the vast majority of the citizens were denied some of the most basic rights just because the color of their skin. Simple as that. There is no justifying it, no defending it and it was disgusting.

To say that it was better might be right, but Zimbabwe today is one of the most destitute and poverty stricken areas not because of the color of its rulers but the actions of them. South Africa has gotten along fine since the end of Apartheid, Jo'burg and Cape Town are gorgeous cities that I felt safer in than in parts of my own 'home town'.

I find it hard to believe that you can say that there was more discrimination in the US. For one thing, blacks had the right to vote here, backed by the full force of law by that time. They were not denied positions in the military and government (at least federal) just on the basis of their skin. While there were a few blacks who did achieve limited success in Rhodesia before 1980, it was very limited and both were still overwhelmingly dominated by whites.

And I am not certain you would be the best judge of that either, being part of the 'fortunate' minority in South Africa and Rhodesia at the time.

 

[MasterBates]

I forgot.. Unless you are of the "opressed" group, you can never fully understand the situation

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Flash: In that case, being a white oppressor yourself, how can you make a judgment as to how oppressed the black Rhodesians were?

"And I am not certain you would be the best judge of that either, being part of the 'fortunate' minority in South Africa and Rhodesia at the time."

I am obviously being intentionally obtuse here to make my point, but methinks you are too...
--
AFAIK the Brits colonized in order to "civilize these poor savages" which is why Brit former-colonies are mostly ok, the others colonized IOT loot & pillage all the resources for their own.
--
The troubled African countries "just needing more practice" (watching someone land a plane...? WTF...), how is that even a remotely acceptable metaphor? We aren't talking about a learned skill here...we are talking about powerful warlords taking control, by force, of a country in order to benefit themselves and their associates. No amount of practice at Democracy by some dirt farmer is going to "fix" having a guy like Mugabe running his country.

BTW, this isn't a race issue, because there are white countries that suck at Democracy. Check out Alexander Lukashenko, et al.

It is a growing pain issue - Western Europe went through the same crap 10,000 years ago to get to the point it is in now. You can't go from medieval to post-modern in half a century.

 

[armada1651]

I forgot.. Unless you are of the "opressed" group, you can never fully understand the situation

Not necessarily. But if a white person's account of the American South in the 1850s indicated they felt everything was just fine, would that be convincing proof that slavery wasn't so bad after all?

 

[Flash]

Tribal issues are real. We see it in the Middle east today. But it has become an excuse in Africa. Iraq is working hard to get beyond them and they have only had a few short years of democratic experience. Although not democratic, every other country in the Middle East has stable governments with functioning bureaucracies, relatively healthy citizens and stable economies. Too many African countries endure authoritarian governments, where there isn't anarchy, and don't even get a stable government or security in exchange for their freedom.

The tribal issues in Africa are much different than the ones in the Middle East, especially the Arab part. While there are varied distinctions, the Arab countries of the mid-east have a very similar culture and a largely common language from the Maghreb to Muscat. They are also unified, and in some cases divided, by a common religion. When taken together it makes for a much more homogenous region than Africa.

When you take a look at two countries in the region that do not have a common ethnic, linguistic and cultural makeup, you will find them not much more developed than their African brethren. Pakistan and Afghanistan are made up of various ethnic groups with different languages and cultures, where tribal politics are much more dominant than in other parts of the region. The only unifying force for them is often religion, to our detriment in some cases. Just look at the Taliban, they come almost exclusively from one ethnic group in Afghanistan. That is not by accident.

Contrast the Arab Middle East with Africa, where you have numerous tribes with different languages, ethnicity and culture all thrown in together by artificial boundaries, you are bound to have many more problems. Take a look at Nigeria, with a predominantly Muslim north and Christian south. Split between 3 major ethnic groups (and over 250 smaller ones) with different cultures and language, there are bound to be problems. The same with South Africa, where there are 11 different official languages.

By imposing those artificial boundaries onto sub-Saharan Africa the European powers stunted their own development and growth. It didn't help that they did little to encourage Africans to develop their own institutions and people, instead largely relying on whites to rule. The Congo had something like 10 university graduates among its native population at independence. And we wonder why it is trainwreck now. The 'white mans burden' may have done nothing but set Africans back in the long term.

 

[armada1651]

It didn't help that they did little to encourage Africans to develop their own institutions and people, instead largely relying on whites to rule.

I think that's perhaps the most important factor in the bizarre acceptance of corruption as a rule in Africa. In "The Fate of Africa," Martin Meredith discusses how the exclusion of Africans from government during colonial times led to people thinking of the government as an outside entity. So stealing from the government wasn't really stealing from their own country but from the imperialists. When white rule ended, this view of government didn't, and on an unbelievable scale, people still tend to accept corruption as normal and think that if you find yourself in a position to steal from the governing authority, you should.

 

[Flash]

I forgot.. Unless you are of the "opressed" group, you can never fully understand the situation

In a country where white foreigners could be officers in the military and almost 95% of the population couldn't, except in a handful of units. Where the only people who could vote were white. The only people in charge were white. Every advantage was given to the whites, a tiny minority. Yes, in this case, that would be correct.

Flash: In that case, being a white oppressor yourself, how can you make a judgment as to how oppressed the black Rhodesians were?

I am obviously being intentionally obtuse here to make my point, but methinks you are too...

They didn't even have the right to vote. They were almost 95% of the population and they had no say in government. It is a simple fact. They weren't even good enough to vote or participate in government. How is that not racist? How is that right? Why the hell would I have to be black to see it was wrong?

And a helicopter pilot in a region and a time there were few, FlyinRock certainly had advantages and rights that many in that region of the world did not. The black citizens of Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa did not have the opportunity to do what he did. How is that right? How can is that justified?

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Yeah you are right Flash, now that they kicked the white people out, got rid of that whole "breadbasket of Africa" crap, and got a good African born President in, they are much better off.

Oh wait...they still don't have the right to vote and they still have no say in government.

(Please don't bother to point out that an "election" happened last year...that did nothing to give the people of Zimbabwe any input into their elected government.)

So before when they couldn't participate in the government, it was racist, but now that a black asshole is in charge, vice a white asshole, it is much better...

Also, my point was that you are claiming he can't have an un-biased point of view because he isn't oppressed, so under that logic how can you? Is it only because he disagrees with you? Could I discredit your opinion on working in DC based on the fact that you are "too close" and then provide my own inexperienced opinion instead?

 

[Flash]

Yeah you are right Flash, now that they kicked the white people out, got rid of that whole "breadbasket of Africa" crap, and got a good African born President in, they are much better off.

Oh wait...they still don't have the right to vote and they still have no say in government.

So before when they couldn't participate in the government, it was racist, but now that a black asshole is in charge, vice a white asshole, it is much better...

I am not saying it is better there now, but the previous white rule is pretty indefensible when you take into account that people were excluded because they were black. And I never said it was better, quit putting words in my mouth. I am just arguing that the previous government was fundamentally unjust and wrong. Period. Just because the government now is craptastic doesn't make the previous one justifiable by any means.

And just because things may have been better for many back then does not make it right. It is kind of like saying that the Czarist system of government was good because the Soviet Union was bad. No, they were both horrible, in their own special way.

People here are arguing that things were better just because the whites were in charge. At least that is what I getting from the posts. And yet less than 15 years later a peaceful handover took place in South Africa and 15 years after apartheid and the place has yet to fall apart. So where did white rule help out Rhodesia? Oh wait, according to two guys on this board it was all hunky dory. I would argue the prolonged conflict allowed only the most extreme and dictatorial opponents to survive.

Also, my point was that you are claiming he can't have an un-biased point of view because he isn't oppressed, so under that logic how can you? Is it only because he disagrees with you? Could I discredit your opinion on working in DC based on the fact that you are "too close" and then provide my own inexperienced opinion instead?

By law he was the beneficiary of rights and benefits that were not accorded to the vast majority of citizens in that region, simply because of the color of their skin. What laws give me a special advantage over anyone other citizen on this board? With very minor exceptions, everyone on this board has a level playing field. The black people in South Africa and Rhodesia in the 70's did not. In a profession that blacks could not occupy, with rights they did not have, how can he say they were better off? Apples and oranges.

 

[wink]

People here are arguing that things were better just because the whites were in charge.

I don't read it that way.

 

[exhelodrvr]

That is a blanket statement. A lot of those countries got their independence between the 1940's and 1960's. Yes, we are light years ahead of them but.....

The problem is that for the most part, the blacks were not prepared from to take over the leadership from the colonial governments, and once the transitions started, they went to quickly to get them prepared. Combine that with the unnatural borders in many areas, and the opportunity for some groups to get revenge on historical enemies, and this is the result.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Tribal issues among many other things makes it impossible to compare any post colonial African country to the US. Because a new pilot watched all the older pilots around him land a plane does not mean he can immediately land a plane as graceful as they do. It definitely takes lots of practice. Africa just has to learn through growing pains. They have to find their identity.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's too late for much of the continent.

 

[Clux4]

The problem is that for the most part, the blacks were not prepared from to take over the leadership from the colonial governments, and once the transitions started, they went to quickly to get them prepared. Combine that with the unnatural borders in many areas, and the opportunity for some groups to get revenge on historical enemies, and this is the result.

The settlers came in and created unnatural borders and destabilized what government they had. Ofcourse they were not ready to step in; the colonial government was not their idea. Unless we plan to re-structure Africa today, the past 50 -60years has done little to bring the warring tribes together. It is going to take many more years to make them homogenous. That is why you have to give them time to work out those issues.
I mean, you have tribes that are enclosed in the same country who have no business being together. But like I said, they will need to fight things out. Eventually the tribes will see the benefit of coming to a consensus and if they don’t then things will remain the way they are. For most of these countries, it is an average of 60 years post colonialism.