It's that time of day again.
Certainly better than in modern day Zimbabwe, that's for sure.
>>397017
Grandfather was around during Rhodesia, said it was shit if you weren't white and Mugabe was just a fuck up.
>>397025
>Certainly better than in modern day Zimbabwe, that's for sure.
Bullshit. Bullshit thinking. Bullshit evidence. Bullshit argument. Supply your moral or political perspective which says what "better" is for a person or people, and then supply evidence to support your claim.
Be bold, be right, actually make a fucking argument you horrible cunt.
>>397080
>he thinks this is an actual history discussion forum
top kek
>>397025
>What was life like for the average black person
>Certainly better than in modern day Zimbabwe
Have you ever gone so far down the Stormfront hole you just went full retard?
>>397025
Depends entirely on which side you were on. There's a Zimbabwean family at my church that's actually fairly pro-Mugabe. The dad lost a couple of brothers in the Bush War.
>>397093
That's very ironic of you. I see you've been emulating your peers very closely.
>>397093
I mean we could certainly try to make it one.
But I guess that would make sense, so we can't have that.
>>397133
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2013.784611
Here is an article that discusses the topic into a bit more detail.
I only talked to one old black guy when I was traveling in Zimbabwe (we shared a sleeper compartment on a train). He went on about how much better things were back in the day, how schools were decent and black areas were cleaner and maintained with more pride (although to my eye Zimbabwe is still very neat and tidy, most of Africa being awash in trash everywhere).
But he was in a privileged position, since he'd worked for the US embassy in his working days, and so got a pension in US dollars.
>>397133
Oh of course I know that. Mugabe got into power through voter intimidation, and held onto it by destroying the economy by confiscating farms and giving them to supporters and then diverting food away from groups he didn't favor. During the war there was also quite a bit of terrorism targeting not only whites but blacks as well. IIRC, they targeted black schools under the pretext of preventing indoctrination by the government, and the downing of the two Air Rhodesia airliners was terrible.
My point was that the whole Rhodesia/Zimbabwe situation isn't nearly as black and white as the Rhodies try to make it out to be. Mugabe was terrible, but the Rhodesian government was no saint either. It's dishonest to say that life for the black population in Rhodesia was good, but at the same time it did get worse for many once Mugabe got his hands on things. However, if you happened to be on Mugabe's side, things very much did get better, as was the case with the Zimbabwean family I've talked to.
>>397155
Thanks for clarifying.
>if you happened to be on Mugabe's side, things very much did get better
Thats the thing, all of the Marxist inspired nationalist groups claimed to be on the side of the black man. Once the war ended entire tribes were slaughtered by the Mugabe controlled government.
I agree that the Smith government wasn't the best. But compared to Mugabe he wasn't that bad.
>>397173
More specifically, "on his side" meant part of ZANU and not part of any rival ethnic groups.
I'd argue Smith's regime was worse because of what it caused. By effectively throwing a nationwide temper-tantrum for 15 years, they validated the causes of the terrorists and ultimately fed the animosity that would allow ZANU and ZANLA to grow and Mugabe into power in 1980. Of course Rhodesia-Zimbabwe showed promise, but it was too little, too late for the international community to accept.
From my perspective, the biggest tragedy of it all was that the Rhodesians never really made any serious effort to transition to majority rule. Had the UDI been followed by serious efforts to integrate society (because the international community was not going to accept anything else), then the Bush War could have ended without someone like Mugabe getting into power. Instead, they waited until the last possible minute to try to make amends, and they ended up effectively sacrificing their country as a warning to the rest of the decolonizing states.
>>397080
>Rhodesia under Smith
>uneducated poor people have no right to vote (which effectively disenfrachised most blacks)
>on the other hand, very high living standards relative to other sub-Saharan countries
>Zimbabwe under Mugabe
>entire industry and agriculture collapsing
>AIDS epidemic
>80% unemployment
>rampant poverty
>Stalin-tier dictatorship
Basically the only thing better about Zimbabwe for the average black man is that it's ruled by one of his own. Other than that, Rhodesia wins across the board.
>>397198
That brings us to the argument of benevolent dicatorship vs. corrupt democracy.
>>397207
i dont even think they are pretending its a democracy anymore
>>397212
Nah they still have elections where it's *technically* universal franchise. Problem is it's hard to vote when you're starving half to death.
>>397080
>Be bold, be right, actually make a fucking argument you horrible cunt.
And where is your argument?
The government is now pleading for whites to come back, there is no moral perspective its an objective factual one
>>397133
>Not the fist poster, but ZANU isn't without its sins. Mugabe isn't the holy liberator of the poor blacks of Southern Africa. The insurgents torched villages, "stoned the dog," and committed other crimes to coerce support for ZANU.
This isn't evidence, a moral or political perspective, and argument.
>Not the fist poster.
Hopefully not ;).
SOURCES. INTERPRETATION. EVIDENCE. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE. ARGUMENT. CONCLUSION.
BRING IT OR FUCK OFF TO >>>/int/ WHERE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR QUALITY DISCOURSE.
This is where I invite you to notice I haven't called your fascist shit "necessarily" wrong but have merely invited you to demonstrate.
>>397186
Why is that your perspective? I'm genially curious.
It can be argued that the Rhodesians saw the British policy of giving former colonial territories as detrimental. They were trying to preserve what they had build in Southern Africa. Not to make too much of an emotional appeal, but if you were in the same situation as a Rhodesian wouldn't you fight? That would be a good cause of 'a nation wide temper-tantrum'. From the onset the nation was sanctioned and managed to find creative ways of COIN. It may not have been right in the standards of anti-colonial opinions, but the Mixed raced RSF fought to the end. The Selous scouts were even mixed race. Rhodesia developed methods the South Africans would adapt in their Border War. It's easy for an insurgency to take root when they are supported by the Soviets and Chinese and create bases in Mozambique.
I personally don't agree with the policy. But it is hard to completely damn it when you look at the current state of Zimbabwe. Its a travesty. From the onset Rhodesia was fighting an uphill battle and they did the best they could.
>>397198
This isn't a moral or political perspective allowing you to make those evaluative claims. Up your fucking game cunt.
>>397219
>And where is your argument?
My argument appears to be a particularly basic one in favour of historiography instead of >>>/pol/ posting. I have no horse in this race. I don't give a shit about it. I do give a shit about whether you Rhodesia posters are going to actually belong on /his/ or not, and from my encouragement for you to contribute historiographically you can see that I want you to belong, that I want you to abandon >>>/pol/ and >>>/int/. Can't you tell that I would rather this be /k/, where we value knowledge and experience?
>>397254
Get lost retard. You have yet to present an argument.
>>397258
>Can't you tell that i would rather this be /k/, where we value knowledge and experience.
No, because you sound like a dick. You've attacked the people who've posted without adding to the discussion other than your discontent.
>historiography
You've added none
>perspective
I can talk about Ronald Reid Daly and his book if you want
>evidence
I've posted mine. Post yours.
Fuck off.
Rhodesia pre-colonialism
>no infrastructure
>no education
Rhodesia during colonialism
>infrastructure
>education
>most blacks can't vote
Rhodesia post-colonialism
>horrible infrastructure
>horrible education
>nobody can vote
>>397263
>You have yet to present an argument.
I have presented a consistent argument in favour of historiography. Your insinuation that I support one or otherside is a distasteful tendentiousness that you really need to have checked out.
>>397288
You didn't present shit. Put a tripcode up so I can filter you.
Honestly, if Rhodesia hadn't been allowed to scission from UK control and declare its UDI, but instead earn the status of British Overseas Territory (like Gibraltar), it would've fared much better than under the Smith and Mugabe governments. For one, it would've kept growing at an steady rate under supervision of the UK government, as well as been able to keep attracting foreign investement given its status.
>>397254
Such intellectual dishonesty.
>>397272
>No, because you sound like a dick. You've attacked the people who've posted without adding to the discussion other than your discontent.
That's called "methodology." It is a sign of high quality posting. I don't care about your content, I care about your method.
>I can talk about Ronald Reid Daly and his book if you want
If Daly is really the perspective you evaluate from then you ought to be able to classify his moral or political position in argument.
>I've posted mine. Post yours.
Daly is the first citation you've made in this thread. I'd appreciate if you would talk about Daly's book more than what normally goes on in these threads. As far as evidence for historiography, you could try Ranke, EH Carr, Thompson versus Perry Anderson (Poverty of Theory / Arguments in English Marxism).
>Fuck off.
Currently /int/ is waiting for you, a forum where nationalist lust and lack of method aren't just encouraged, they're expected. Here a "high level of discourse" is expected, and the Rhodesian threads have failed to get even as close as /k/'s Rhodesian threads managed.
By the way, /k/ knows how a gun operates. You have no awareness of how historiography operates.
>>397280
You need to argue why infrastructure, education and voting are worthy.
>>397296
The UK would have given it independence under majority rule way way before white Rhodesia ended.
>>397304
>You need to argue why infrastructure, education and voting are worthy.
I'm not going to debate with an obnoxious, semantic fag like you. You've done nothing ITT but bicker & complain.
>>397304
>Poverty of Theory / Arguments in English Marxism
Christ, why does EVERY SINGLE MARXIST on the internet have to be dumb, smug, pretentious faggot?
>>397304
Again, you sound like a dick. Not contributing to the discussion and ignoring the content of a post is no way of contribution to a study.
But to humor you.
I have posted my evidence >>397135 If you have access to JSTOR than you can easily find it.
Stop being a faggot and make an actual argument other than your discontent.
>>397307
Not really. If they would have been able to be effectively under direct economic and political control of the crown, as well as allow for the majority of the population (that is to say, the black Rhodesians) which was until then effectively excluded to access political and economic power, as well as endeavoured in the reform of the educational system, I doubt the black Rhodesians would've had any qualms in being a Crown dependency rather than an independent country.
Rhodesia was the breadbasket of post colonial Africa. Zimbabwe has risked famine a couple times.
Rhodesia had a decent economy despite the sanctions. Zimbabwe's money became so worthless that they don't have their own currency. The Euro and US Dollar are the legal currencies in Zimbabwe now.
Rhodesia had native africans elected to a representative government. Zimbabwe has a dictator that engages in ethnic cleansing of political rivals' tribes.
>>397331
As soon as there was widespread demand (let alone an insurgency) among the black population for complete independence, the UK would have given it up. It wasn't their fight.
The only colonies the UK maintained and maintains are those where support for independence is negligible. That wouldn't have been the case in Rhodesia under any scenario.
>>397304
Infrastructure and agriculture is needed to produce food. Food is needed to continue existing. Thus, having a better infrastructure and agriculture is a biological imperative.
>>397324
>I have posted my evidence >>397135
Thanks. Generally if you're going to spread your argumentation and evidence over multiple posts you should use a somewhat more (temporary) identification than back links.
I assumed that the tandf poster was a blow in posting an interesting but disconnected article.
>Stop being a faggot
Go ask my wife permission
>and make an actual argument
Posters whose posts do not conform to historiographical standards should be executed. This is as the perspective of analysis for /his/ is embodied in the stickied post expecting a high level of discourse. The level of a "high discourse" in historical studies is established by disciplinary historiography. A worthy model of the state is that of the absolutist jacobean state. On this basis they ought properly be executed.
Go fuck yourself mate. You've got the capacity to be an interesting young conservative historian, but you're selling yourself short by acting like a white bootlaced skinhead.
>>397313
>citations are pretentious
God you're a useless cunt.
Thompson's argument isn't particularly marxist. It is disciplinary and in favour of what conservative and liberal traditional historiographers argue for in the interpretation of texts.
Read cunt. You'll find that historiographical alliances cross "political" lines, and are to do with the possibilities of reading texts. Not who needs to be liquidated in modernism.
>>397343
>agriculture is needed to produce food
>what are hunter-gathering societies
>>397135
>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2013.784611
The main thing I'm seeing in the abstract is
>Political support should not be mistaken with mobilization.
which is interesting, but it isn't a sufficient political perspective for arguing for or against Rhodesia. (Probably because as a scholarly article Henkin was aware of just how distasteful taking a political position is in historiography).
Let's give you that from a liberal perspective that the guerilla who eventually became Zimbabwe killed more persons under their sovereign control, allowed less formal control over the selection of one from another parliamentarian, and that their economic management resulted in slower GDP growth expressed in USD. (I'm quite willing to stipulate).
You've still not given a political perspective from which this is insufficient. From an anarcho-primitivist perspective, Zimbabwe is succeeding. If you want to make political value judgements you really need to produce a perspective. Even the upthread poster who suggested that Rhodesia was abhorrent in that it ENCOURAGED the guerilla didn't make explicit their political perspective.
>>397349
Dude, go away. You're a pretentious twat who's not contributing.
>>397349
>Posters whose posts do not conform to historiographical standards should be executed.
I honestly think being a marxist somehow has to be connected to autism. It just does.
>>397349
I'm also slightly drunk and just completed an annotated bibliography on COIN in Southern Africa. It's been a long week. Forgive me for being a humble undergrad.
>Go ask my wife permission
She sounds like a nice lady.
>Selling yourself short by acting like a white bootlaced skinhead
When did I do that? I have admitted that the Smith wasn't the best. See >>397249. You sound like less of a dick, but a lesser one. Trilkop.
>>397371
Find and read the article before you discuss it. Like your history professor told you to :^) I posted it as a read for anyone interested. The article was written by an Israeli officer studying COIN in Southern Africa.
If you read the rest of the article, you may find that the argument discussed Maoist theories and how ZANU coerced support from the population, which would counter the popular opinion that ZANU just had popular support.
Stop being an ass.
>>397343
Shitty biologism is shitty mate. Work harder.
>>397370
Again. Voluntary Human Extinction would lionise Zimbabwe then.
>>397370
>Don't care lol.
>>>/int/ awaits you where a high level of discourse is not expected.
>>397375
I honestly think you can't differentiate your own distaste and your need to claim that things are autistic.
>>397413
>KILL EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T CONFORM TO MY STANDARDS, REEEEEEE
That's indeed pretty autistic. Fuck off back to /lit/ where you can circlejerk with fellow "quality posters".
>>397425
/lit/ doesn't have an expectation of quality in its rules or sticky interestingly enough.
Wake up to the pretty easy standards of historiography. I don't have to agree with you, I just have to agree that you've used valid evidence, valid argument, and a sufficiently clear political position for interpretation.
>>397413
If anything biologism is more of an axiomatic imperative than your shitty made up historiographic standards.
>>397432
>historiography
Thats great, but unless you can contribute to the study with content it is useless.
>>397218
Its quite easy to have your vote registered for Mugabe if you're dead though.
>>397186
>as a warning to the rest of the decolonizing states.
Too late for that. All the others had decolonised already. They actually served as a warning for Rhodesia, which is why the local conservatives were so hardline with the franchise. South Africa doesn't count, the Boers are effectively another African tribe, doing what they do in other multiethnic African states.
>>397296
If that was the case, Mugabe probably wouldn't lead the country. It'd be Muzorewa, maybe Nkomo in a pinch.
>>397413
>Again. Voluntary Human Extinction would lionise Zimbabwe then.
No, we wouldn't. We only want people to not have children.
Some of us even want to create robot guardians for the Earth before we go extinct, which would be impossible if we become hunter gatherers again before fading out.
>>397249
Well it seems like the thread's devolved into shitposting while I was asleep, but I'll at least reply to you.
From what I see, it seems like the argument that they saw other colonies go to shit when they decolonized was a crutch more than anything else. Had they really been concerned about that, they would have made serious efforts to prepare the black population for majority rule. My point with the "nationwide temper-tantrum" was that they saw how things were going in the world, knew they had no way to fix it, and instead of doing what they could to make the best of their situation they turned themselves into a pariah state.
Granted, their defense forces were amazing. You're overblowing just how mixed it was (the reserves that they heavily relied upon were almost entirely white), but they did have black soldiers who were fighting for Rhodesia. Given the resources they had, they were tremendously successful (IIRC their first operational failure of the entire war only happened in 1979). But they ran into the same problem the South African Defense Force had in the Border War. You can't win these conflicts by force alone, and if all you're going to do is hand the entire problem to the military without addressing the issues causing the conflict, then all you're doing is extending it without bringing it closer to peace.
>>397025
Really?
>The practise of dropping prisoners’ bodies from aircraft, according to evidence presented at the trial of Brigadier Basson, was developed in the late 1970s during joint operations between Rhodesian and South African special forces. One witness, a former French Foreign Legionnaire and member of the Rhodesian counter-insurgency unit known as the Selous Scouts, also described how Basson allegedly injected captured freedom fighters with poison during a flight over Mozambique territory. He said these captives were then thrown alive from an airplane in 1979. The victims were five guerrillas believed to have been from the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA). According to the witness, who could not be named for reasons of personal safety, said that before the poisoned, unconscious men were thrown from the plane, they were dressed in camouflage uniforms and supplied with guns and false papers. They were then sprinkled with an unknown powdery substance, which he believed was poison or some kind of lethal chemical agent. He believed the powdery agent was meant to contaminate other freedom fighters or sympathisers who might happen upon the bodies.
>>398772
Or perhaps we're wondering why would you poison a man before throwing him out of a plane.
>>397713
>the Boers are effectively another African tribe
ahaha - this horseshit was only invented by the rocks to justify their anti-british stance and their claim to their expropriated farms in the ZAR and the OVS.
it's like saying british-americans are another "native american" tribe.
what astounds me is not that they came up with this tenuous schlock, but that people actually repeat it as if it's fact.
the only people with even a shred of such a claim are the griquas and coloured trekboers, but they're klonkies and were as hated by the rcoks as any other nonwhites or non-afrikaner whites. also, they were pastoralists who wandered the veld with their herds. basically, dutch reformed kyrgyz with oxwagons to carry the wimmens.
