NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just reading about Rhodisia (I can read NOT spell) I about the current muggabe regime, and I was thinking the Zimbabweans (and certianly the white settlers) were better off under a segreationist republic than a mass murderer. Did we make a mistake in taking Ian Smith from power? (we put an embargo on them, and despite their FANOMINAL army they fell to a communist inssurgency because, well...they didn't have guns.)

your thoughts

Mugabe isn't a brutal dictator just because he's black.

One historian (John Keegan, IIRC) showed that all the ex-British African colonies, except Botswana, were basically worse off now by many measurements than they were under colonial rule.

Of course, people should have the right to self-determination, however without the proper education they fall pray to populists on all sides of the political spectrum, like Mugabe, who then turn out to be horrible dictators. So while I don't think Apartied or White rule in former colonies in Africa is good, its definately not bad either - the best combination would probably need to have a slow process of handing over power, where the ex-colonies can be built up.

One historian (John Keegan, IIRC) showed that all the ex-British African colonies, except Botswana, were basically worse off now by many measurements than they were under colonial rule.

Of course, people should have the right to self-determination, however without the proper education they fall pray to populists on all sides of the political spectrum, like Mugabe, who then turn out to be horrible dictators. So while I don't think Apartied or White rule in former colonies in Africa is good, its definately not bad either - the best combination would probably need to have a slow process of handing over power, where the ex-colonies can be built up.

The best bet would have been if the European powers stayed around and helped their former colonies establish themselves rather than just abandoning them after they achieved self-determination.

but remember, this colony declared it's own independance

but remember, this colony declared it's own independance

Yes, but Britain could have stuck around and helped the colony establish itself after all they'd done to rape the colony, rather than run away when the colony wanted independence.

Suppose two centuries ago Europe didn't meddle with African affairs. I hardly think the current situation would be as bad as now.

it might be, the Zulu regimes were far from the apitimy of civilization

it might be, the Zulu regimes were far from the apitimy of civilization

Who are you to define what belongs to "civilisation" and what doesn't? Every human settlement is essentially a civilisation. You may be totally against certain practices, such as the sacrificing of humans, but that doesn't degrade a civilisation into whatever may be.

tell that to the sacraficees

tell that to the sacraficees

Just because their culture doesn't conform to your limited ideas of 'normal', do not denigrate them and call them uncivilized. Do you think that if extraterrestials came to Earth they'd think we were civilized, with our abortions and death penalties and reality TV shows?

I wouldn't call them uncivilised.

However, I doubt that people would be any better off (by the standards of modern first world nations) under a regime growing from the Zulu or the Matabele. Such civilisations value human and individual rights differently. So, operating on the assumption that liberal democracies such as those found in Western Europe, N. America and India give people the best opportunity to have a better life, I'd say that the Zulu or the Matabele might not have been such good rulers.

I also reject the idea of an apartheid regime.

What would have been better would have been if the African colonies followed the path of India or the South East Asian colonies (namely Malaysia and Singapore) where demands for independence and nationalism built up over the years allowing a crop of local administrators and officials trained in the English style to take over. The trouble with independence in Africa is that it came too quickly.

tell that to the sacraficees

Just because their culture doesn't conform to your limited ideas of 'normal', do not denigrate them and call them uncivilized. Do you think that if extraterrestials came to Earth they'd think we were civilized, with our abortions and death penalties and reality TV shows?


yes lord knows who shouldn't look down on people for living short brutish lives in squalor and ignorance, just because of our science, literature and hygiene.

their life choices are just as valid as our own, and while they may live in mud huts and engage in subsistance agriculture and cut their daughters clits off, they have a rich oral history parables and homilies, so obviously they are our cultural equals.

Of course Rhodesia would have been better off had people who knew how to run a country actually stayed there. Europe's mistake was leaving before the job of civilizing the savages was finished, not in attempting to do so in the first place.

One historian (John Keegan, IIRC) showed that all the ex-British African colonies, except Botswana, were basically worse off now by many measurements than they were under colonial rule.

Of course, people should have the right to self-determination, however without the proper education they fall pray to populists on all sides of the political spectrum, like Mugabe, who then turn out to be horrible dictators. So while I don't think Apartied or White rule in former colonies in Africa is good, its definately not bad either - the best combination would probably need to have a slow process of handing over power, where the ex-colonies can be built up.

People Fall prey to populaist sin all countries. I wonder what that says about our education.

People Fall prey to populaist sin all countries. I wonder what that says about our education.

The thing is, the built up tradition of liberal democracy (especially in countries under the Anglo-Saxon system) generally prevents elected rulers in the First world from trying to sieze dictatorial power and impose brutal personal rule on the electorate.

This is not limited to countries in Europe- India for example, is a up-and-coming democratic power (now that they've ditched their protectionist economic policies).

Of course Rhodesia would have been better off had people who knew how to run a country actually stayed there. Europe's mistake was leaving before the job of civilizing the savages was finished, not in attempting to do so in the first place.

Easy on the vemon and bile.

Of course Rhodesia would have been better off had people who knew how to run a country actually stayed there. Europe's mistake was leaving before the job of civilizing the savages was finished, not in attempting to do so in the first place.

Easy on the vemon and bile.

Yes, thats a bit extreme. I'd rephrase that as "inculcating the ideologies of Western democratic thought".

Of course Rhodesia would have been better off had people who knew how to run a country actually stayed there. Europe's mistake was leaving before the job of civilizing the savages was finished, not in attempting to do so in the first place.

Easy on the vemon and bile.
You consider THAT venom and bile? I certainly don't. If may be far from politically correct, but it's true. The Europeans simply did a better job of running Africa than the Africans. Granted, though, the Europeans screwed up by not sufficiently training the native population to maintain the infrastructure and economy, and did not eliminate the pervasive tribal mentality. That, however, could have been rectified with time. Africa is so screwed up now that nothing short of massive cultural change is going to save them from continuing their backward existences. Even South Africa, once one of the most successful African nations, is crumbling. Heck, the South African Army, once regarded as the best trained force on the planet, has an HIV prevalence rate of something like 50%, and cannot even field a single working armored personnel carrier. The place is a hell hole. The only reason most of these African countries don't collapse on themselves is because of the military juntas and brutal dictators such that control many of them. Collapse would probably be an improvement, as then maybe they'd force themselves to change.

Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe.

Yes, but it was called Rhodesia when it was under white control, and since the author of the thread is advocating a return to white control, it is understandable that he calls the nation Rhodesia.

Zimbabwe.
Rhodesia sounds so much better. Though I suppose that particular name reflects what it ought to have been, rather than what it is. I agree, Zimbabwe DOES have more of a primitive air to it.

You consider THAT venom and bile? I certainly don't.

Personally, I don't either, but NationStates does. I'm not here to enforce my views, or your views, but Max Barry's views.

Posts of that sort are not the kinds of things we want on this sight, we want to maintain a level of civility, which your post falls outside of. Like it or no, Mr. Barry pays for the site and thus creates the rules. There's nothing you, or I, can do about it.

I, however, enforce those rules. You've already had the rules enforced on you twice, let's not go for the hat-trick, okay?

You've already had the rules enforced on you twice

"Had the rules enforced on you."

That sounds so painful. Like a root canal or other unpleasant procedures.

I agree, Zimbabwe would be much better under white rule, at least white people would let the black people get on with there lives where as mugabe threw all the white people off there farms just becuase they were beter than the black peoples farms.

You consider THAT venom and bile? I certainly don't.

Personally, I don't either, but NationStates does. I'm not here to enforce my views, or your views, but Max Barry's views.

Posts of that sort are not the kinds of things we want on this sight, we want to maintain a level of civility, which your post falls outside of. Like it or no, Mr. Barry pays for the site and thus creates the rules. There's nothing you, or I, can do about it.

I, however, enforce those rules. You've already had the rules enforced on you twice, let's not go for the hat-trick, okay?
...I think it's a huge bunch of BS, but whatever, I'll use the politically correct term for 'savages'. As for being civil, well, Rhodesians don't have computers, so there really isn't anyone who ought to be offended. :)

I agree, Zimbabwe would be much better under white rule, at least white people would let the black people get on with there lives where as mugabe threw all the white people off there farms just becuase they were beter than the black peoples farms.

Zimbabwe would be better under someone elses rule white or not.

I agree, Zimbabwe would be much better under white rule, at least white people would let the black people get on with there lives where as mugabe threw all the white people off there farms just becuase they were beter than the black peoples farms.

Zimbabwe would be better under someone elses rule white or not.
Make that ANYONE else's rule. :)

I agree, Zimbabwe would be much better under white rule, at least white people would let the black people get on with there lives where as mugabe threw all the white people off there farms just becuase they were beter than the black peoples farms.

I would venture to say that the Africans would rather have a bad black African government then a good white European government....Didn't Gandhi say the same thing basically when confronted by the British that India was British?

You all make very good points, but i stick by what i say. Half of the African were much better under the old British Empire but as soon as they were given independance they needed help once again (hence all the charities)

Africa is a hell-hole, which I blame neither the Africans nor Europeans for. Europe originally colonised it, which the Africans didn't like. They rebelled against our rule, because it was harsh although in the long run would have paid off, so we left the job half finished. Instead of it returning to tribal rule and the way of its history, Africa became 'countries', which it never had before, and its culture and economy just plain didn't suit. So it went downhill, fell into dictatorship after dictatorship and now has many serious problems which seem unstoppable, like lack of food and water, lack of education, poverty and short lives, and AIDS, which is now so bad more people die of it each day than new people catch it.

Their original way of life was far better, living from day to day in tribes. They were born, they were happy, they raised their kids, and then they died. That was how it was and how it would always have stayed until the Europeans came. We tried to mould them in our own shape, but they rejected it and forced us out. Rather than returning to their previous way of life, they tried to copy us, and now they are paying the price.

Zimbabwe or Rhodesia, as well as most of Africa would be better under European rule, but I think the African mentality is such that they'd rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

Africa is a hell-hole, which I blame neither the Africans nor Europeans for. Europe originally colonised it, which the Africans didn't like. They rebelled against our rule, because it was harsh although in the long run would have paid off, so we left the job half finished. Instead of it returning to tribal rule and the way of its history, Africa became 'countries', which it never had before, and its culture and economy just plain didn't suit. So it went downhill, fell into dictatorship after dictatorship and now has many serious problems which seem unstoppable, like lack of food and water, lack of education, poverty and short lives, and AIDS, which is now so bad more people die of it each day than new people catch it.

Their original way of life was far better, living from day to day in tribes. They were born, they were happy, they raised their kids, and then they died. That was how it was and how it would always have stayed until the Europeans came. We tried to mould them in our own shape, but they rejected it and forced us out. Rather than returning to their previous way of life, they tried to copy us, and now they are paying the price.

Zimbabwe or Rhodesia, as well as most of Africa would be better under European rule, but I think the African mentality is such that they'd rather die on their feet than live on their knees.
Very well said, and very true. These dictatorships and such can't keep springing up forever, eventually, something has to give. It'll probably be these countries themselves, after which time it'll be necessary to finish the job of bringing them into the 21st century (hell, they need to be brought up even to 19th century standards of 1st-world countries). These problems tend to solve themselves, though the means through which this occurs won't be the most pleasant for Africans.

I would venture to say that the Africans would rather have a bad black African government then a good white European government....Didn't Gandhi say the same thing basically when confronted by the British that India was British?

I don't think you can apply Gandhi's statement to Africa. India had already been "westernised" to the extent that most people's regional sympathies had been overruled by nationalistic ones. In Africa, once the Imperial system was removed, everyone collapsed back into tribal infighting- the idea of the "nation" had not been instilled. India before colonisation had been organised into sophisticated states. A hundred years of Western rule and influence (a hundred years of the brightest Indian scholars going to Oxford and cambridge) had served to inculcate the concept of "nationhood" into the people. In Africa, the concept of statehood wasn't nearly as prevalent pre-colonisation. Thus, after independence, the ideas of nationhood lost spirit and merely served as a guise for internal political struggles based on tribal lines.

With regards to the topic's title, it depends how you define 'better', what measurements you use.

Zimbabwe.
Rhodesia sounds so much better. Though I suppose that particular name reflects what it ought to have been, rather than what it is. I agree, Zimbabwe DOES have more of a primitive air to it.

Do you mean the personal dominion of Cecil Rhodes and his company? I won't mention the history of how Rhodes acquired Rhodesia as you seem like you are already an expert.

I agree, Zimbabwe would be much better under white rule, at least white people would let the black people get on with there lives where as mugabe threw all the white people off there farms just becuase they were beter than the black peoples farms.

The history of how the whites got those farms has more to do with it than whether they were better or not. And a pretty big reason why they're better is because they took all the best land. I'm all in favour of land redistribution (largely because I'm against inheritance of any kind), but the way it's been done in Zimbabwe has been nothing but a move to stir up tensions.

What's not reported much is that the whites in Zimbabwe aren't the most persecuted group, or the only cause of racial tension. There are two major ethnic groups in Zimbabwe - the Shona and the Matabele - as well as a lot of smaller groups. Nobody pays much attention to the conflict between these - the Matabele are a Zulu offshoot and historically waged a lot of war on the majority Shona, and the Shona have more recently returned the compliment - because, well, they're not white.

Mugabe wasn't always the psychotic dictator he is today; he's become a lot more brutal in the last few years. When I was living in Botswana, Zimbabwe wasn't a bad place at all; there were a few rumblings of Mugabe's future bastardliness, but it was still a very open, welcoming, successful nation.

In most places, the collapse of African states is the fault of the colonists: for ruling brutally in the French, Belgian and Dutch colonies; for selling them the arms that now infest the continent, making swathes of it impossible to rule; for giving dictators the impression that civilisation is all about an impressive army and a chestful of medals; for exploitative trade practises that keep the poorest nations poor.

HIV would have spread under any government, black or white.

Apartheid was an inhumane and evil system that RSA is much better without.

Cecil Rhodes was a bad, bad individual. Frankly, I hope Zimbabwe roots him out of his grave and chucks him into the sea.

Rehochipe, every so often there's grumblings from Mugabe that he is going to repatriate Rhodes's body back to Britain, but I doubt he gets many visitors to his grave anyway.

Hell, I don't want the bastard back!