Was he a racist white-supremacist who ruthlessly suppressed the black African minority in Rhodesia, or was he a misunderstood genuinely good character who did hat he could for the country to succeed?
Neither, he was just doing his duty.
Ian Smith dared Mugabe to walk through downtown Salisbury with him in the afternoon, with no security.
Mugabe quickly declined, as he knew only Ian Smith would walk back alive, as Mugabe would be torn to bits by the local population.
South Rhodesia never had anything like moral high ground so the second option is impossible
>>412092
both.
suppressing the black population is a good first step in making your country successful. you can see what happens when you don't suppress them.
>>412571
go back to africa
>>412580
So should yo...
Oh wait, you can't.
>>412571
From what I understand, Rhodesia allowed the black population to vote so long as they were educated, and he pumped tons of money into programs that would help educate the black populace.
Compare Rhodesia to Zimbabwe.
Keep in mind that Ian Smith was democratically elected while Mugabe is a self imposed dictator.
>>412571
t. Alberto Barbosa
>>412092
He was an assbaby.
>>412571
look at South Africa though, it is incompetently run, blacks cannot hack leadership especially in malnourished and underdeveloped countries.
>>412589
I'm a blatant Rhodesia apologist and I kek'd heartily.
This is probably a good thread to ask this in, but why is everyone obsessed with Rhodesia (or at least /pol/)? It seems like everywhere I go Rhodesia is hailed as the best country ever yet I can never find a clear explanation. I understand that Mugabe is a douchbag and that Rhodesia was orderly under Ian Smith, but there has to be more to it, right?
>>412658
Now add in the usual /pol/ assumption about how race and the world in general act.
To them, RHodesia is a poster case about how things are better when Whites run things, especially over those dumb niggers.
To strengthen this "case", they play up Rhodesia under white rule as being some kind of utopia on earth.
>>412658
I think they hail it as an island of good governance in a sea of corruption and incompetence.
I don't know much about Rhodesia, I only began reading about it yesterday to a large extent. Ian Smith says that under his rule, he wants dot give black people the right to vote (and indeed, many did), but there was a process in which they must be integrated.
I don't know how true this is, that is why I made the thread.
>>412629
>Lapras
>>412628
>underdeveloped countries.
>incompetently run
I think you are blaming the wrong thing here. I don't think this problem of incompetence in malnourished and underdeveloped countries is exclusive to Africa. If you legitimately think so, please go back to /pol/,
>>413584
>I don't think this problem of incompetence in malnourished and underdeveloped countries is exclusive to Africa.
While it's not exclusive, here's the list of the least developed countries in the world. Notice any pattern?
>>412658
To /histpol/ it's another "lost noble cause", like the American Civil War, or World War II.
Rhodesia was racist, like South Africa. That there was some degree of paternalism from the whites who were lording it over the majority of negroes, or that there were negroes, mostly the tribal leaders who were afforded certain privileges from the government, who supported the regime, doesn't make it much better.
It turned out even worse after 1980, though.
>>412595
here
>>412595
This, but obviously communist retards view him as some kind of apartheid politician combined with Hitler.
>>413635
>like south Africa
McFucking kill yourself
>>413673
Amazing retort. Your eloquence merits an answer.
>>413727
>South Africa
>strict apartheid
>anti-miscegenation laws
>no citizenship, no healthcare, no nothing for the blacks
>Rhodesia
>voting rights based on education and wealth
>educated black men could vote
Yeah those two are CLEARLY equal.
>>412092
>Was he a racist white-supremacist who ruthlessly suppressed the black African minority in Rhodesia, or was he a misunderstood genuinely good character who did hat he could for the country to succeed?
Listen for yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBV3PyvK8Kw
>>413764
The Rhodesian Constitution created after the UDI literally had a clause that prohibited there being more black representatives than White Representatives. Not only that but Whites which were 1% of the Population received 99% of all education spending whilst black only got thier funding via missionaries.
Rhodesia prior to the UDI was actually far closer to what you were talking about
Let's also not forget that Rhodesia also (surely in the name of equality), prevented researchers from examining the native archaeological sites if they were going to promote crazy theories like, I dunno, the locals built them.
Only if you claimed they were built by Arabs, or Phoenicians, despite all evidence, could you check them out.
>>413843
>this faggot again
>The Rhodesian Constitution created after the UDI literally had a clause that prohibited there being more black representatives than White Representatives.
That's because there was a necessity for minority rule, they were the only available educated class, and didn't want to have a communist revolt within the government.
They garenteed that 8 seats went to tribal leaders, and 7 more went to African Rhodesians. This is what was plausible at the time for the mess that the British handed to them.
>Rhodesia prior to the UDI was actually far closer to what you were talking about
Absolute and total bullshit, prior to UDI there was de jure segregation, and no Africans were allowed in parliament at all. They were explicitly not allowed to vote based on the color of their skin, and were forcibly relocated by the British government.
Lying through your goddamn teeth, again.
>muh absolute democracy is the only valid form of government
>its okay to ruin an entire society for everyone for some little "injustice"
>communists dindu nuffin, they were ostracized
stop, we've done this twenty times.
>>413843
>cutting him short
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0S2NKlMW0vc
16:00
He doesn't believe in having to handle the government to uneducated people just because they are from a particular race.
>>412092
Rhodesia was far from perfect but it was leaps and bounds better than its neighbors. If the Britkeks had recognized the Internal Settlement then Zimbabwe would probably have been much better off
>>413867
>some piled rocks
>the Portuguese were the last ones there
>during a time where Africa was thought to be a total shithole with no development
>well we also have to make sure we don't radicalize more people
>lets just say the Portuguese built it.
There is genetic evidence that it was not built by the natives of Zimbabwe, also logical ones. As it was abandoned and fell into total disrepair most likely due to invasions.
>>413873
Don't even bother, the guy always resorts to lies and manipulation every goddamn time.
He has a totalitarian ideology of democracy, and thinks its okay to let everything fall to shit and die for his delusions of equality.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Williams_(comedian)
>Rhodesians were racists
>let this and many other educated blacks into the country and positions
>>413963
Well we still have people saying the US is incredibly racist while we have a black president, so ...
>>413868
>That's because there was a necessity for minority rule,....communist revolt within the government.
Not true if that were the case it would have only been necessary to have racial barriers. Under the consitution even if Black reached educational parity they still wouldn't be able to form majority in government. Minority rule could have been mainted perfectly well with an educational limit however they did not go down this route.
>Absolute and total bullshit, prior to UDI there was de jure segregation, and no Africans were allowed in parliament at all.
Under the 1961 constitution, the Rhodesian Assembly had 65 elected members: 50 constituency members and 15 district members. The voter rolls had education, property and income qualifications. The main A roll was for citizens who satisfied high standards in these regards and 95% of its members were white and 5% were black or Asian. The B roll had lower qualification standards and 90% of its members were black and 10% were white or Asian. The B roll was about one-tenth of the size of the A roll. Both rolls voted in elections for constituencies and districts, but for elections in the constituencies, the B roll vote was capped at 20% of the total, and for elections in the districts, the A roll vote was capped at 20% of the total. This procedure was known as 'cross-voting'. In practice, the 50 constituency members would all be white and the 15 district members would mostly be black.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Rhodesia#1961_constitution
>stop, we've done this twenty times.
Ive never said that absolute democracy was the only valid form of government or that minority isnt justifed. I only poke holes in your highly idealized and in cases false view of Rhodesia
>>413873
If there was no entrenched Racism in the Constitution and there were actual efforts to uplift then those comments made there would be reason to believe that those words actually meant something
>>413887
>We should make the past illegal and manufacture an alternative timeline to secure the political legitimacy of the regime
>also, other people are totalitarian.
>>413887
>He has a totalitarian ideology of democracy, and thinks its okay to let everything fall to shit and die for his delusions of equality.
Theres not much point in arguing with words you have tried to put in my own mouth is there?
Ive posted numerous sources previously whilst you just post an info graphic.
>>413972
>If there was no entrenched Racism in the Constitution and there were actual efforts to uplift then those comments made there would be reason to believe that those words actually meant something
Show me the "racists" constitution, point me the articles
We have a video of a documentary where he said anyone educated black or white can partake in the government and vote
Did you thickhead even read this?
>>413642
>>413887
>some piled rocks
It was far more than just some piled rocks, they had towers and other constructs of associated with urban life.
>There is genetic evidence that it was not built by the natives of Zimbabwe, also logical ones. As it was abandoned and fell into total disrepair most likely due to invasions.
>I was the archaeologist stationed at Great Zimbabwe. I was told by the then-director of the Museums and Monuments organisation to be extremely careful about talking to the press about the origins of the [Great] Zimbabwe state. I was told that the museum service was in a difficult situation, that the government was pressurising them to withhold the correct information. Censorship of guidebooks, museum displays, school textbooks, radio programmes, newspapers and films was a daily occurrence. Once a member of the Museum Board of Trustees threatened me with losing my job if I said publicly that blacks had built Zimbabwe. He said it was okay to say the yellow people had built it, but I wasn't allowed to mention radio carbon dates... It was the first time since Germany in the thirties that archaeology has been so directly censored.
It wasnt about Zimbabweans building it, it was about dennying that any black people had anything to do with it because that would damage the political narrative
>>413972
>Under the consitution even if Black reached educational parity they still wouldn't be able to form majority in government.
Incorrect, there was a provision in the constitution itself to transfer majority rule when it became evident that they had reached a certain educational and economic standard.
>Minority rule ...
Except thats wrong, there was a route, its just hard to convince tribals to go and stay in school. 80% of African Rhodesians were rural. Many things regarding those educational statutes were outside of their control. Such clearly as Africans being occupied with farming, or being apart of tribes retaining their traditions and culture.
>I only poke holes ...
Its idealized because I enjoy its rich military and agricultural history. A story of struggle and success. Mainly because the values that I am based off are not of my time, or of any relevance today. This however does not justify you lying through your teeth or blatantly misrepresenting history.
>1961 constitution
Literally adopted that year. This doesn't even begin to represent the vast majority of pre-UDI history and its actual hateful practices under the British.
>If there was no entrenched Racism in the Constitution
Define "racism", because there was none. De jure and de facto "racism" are not the same thing.
>We should make the past illegal and manufacture an alternative timeline to secure the political legitimacy of the regime
>regime
>using sensationalist words and more misrepresentations
>lets try and make sure civilization doesn't collapse
>also, other people are totalitarian.
Democracy is horridly totalitarian.
>>414009
I already addressed this multiple times.
There are not "black" people in Africa. And its horridly misinformed to make that assertion. There is a multitude of people that could have built it and they took the quickest rout.
I can see the reasoning behind why they would deny information to predisposed groups and stick with statutes.
Quit referring to them as "blacks"
>>413970
What, like the stupid faggots at missou?
"A man in a passing pickup truck called me a nigger, therefore the whole society is racist"
Those guys?
You could mabye make the case about the police force
But that is not even %1 of the goddamn population.
>>414027
OK, so stating the rationale you've offered here on what's an acceptable approach to the past, it's sufficient then to say the Rhodesia was an Apartheid regime because justifications of minority rule strengthens the position of racists.
That, by your own argued position, is enough reason for you to practice self-censorship on this matter.
What possible justification do you have for presenting a pro-Rhodesian narrative?
>>414047
>Rhodesia was an Apartheid regime
There was no apartheid in Rhdoesia.
>justifications of minority rule strengthens the position of racists.
I am not a racist, I do not think Africans and Europeans are any more inferior or superior to eachother; those are the opinions of bickering children, nor do I hate any other race.
I have a "pro-Rhodesia" narrative because it was an extension of international interventionism, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
You should also see how fucking swayed their security council was when it came to deciding the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia vote. They literally allowed two openly terroist groups to run unopposed in the country,
>>414066
>There was no apartheid in Rhdoesia.
That's determined by present political needs.
>and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
How does making that claim strengthen the current regime?
>>413986
>Show me the "racists" constitution, point me the articles
Its based on pic related which is pages 517-18 in "Electoral Machinery and Voting Patterns in Rhodesia, 1962-1977" By Anthony Lemon
Published in African Affairs Vol. 77, No. 309 (Oct., 1978),
I looked for a bit but I couldnt actually find a source to the actual consitution, can you post it?
I wonder at what point post-colonialism can colonialism no longer be blamed for the failure of African nation building?
In cases like Rhodesia, the white racist might say, "Look what has happened since the blacks have taken control. It is a disaster! They cannot govern themselves!" or at the very least, they were not ready.
And a black nationalist might rejoin, "Our inability to stabilize and progress is a result of the wounds of colonialism, which have yet to heal!"
So when is that no longer a viable excuse? A hundred years? Two hundred?
It is the same with the issue of slavery in the United States. There are no more black slaves, and indeed there is no longer anyone left alive who owned a black slave, or was alive when black slaves were owned. And yet the demands for reparations, and the use of past slavery as a justification for present difficulty, persists. That was a century and a half ago. And half a century since the civil rights movement.
At some point one has to take responsibility for oneself.
>>414079
forgot my pic
>>414074
Becuase it was the sponsoring of torrorist cells to take ln the rhodesian government, and the subsuquent takeover of the nation by the leaders of one of those cells that led to zimbabwe today.
Not even that guy, but how do you not see that m8?
>>414079
I don't have it
i asked because if he is going to keep arguing over something he can't prove then the conversation is futile
>>414074
>That's determined by present political needs.
I don't know what you mean by this. 80% of African Rhodesians were rural, and many of those tribal.
>How does making that claim strengthen the current regime?
What is the current "regime", quit using buzzwords. Use the word government.
>>414079
>>414082
The man is not differentiating between dejure and defacto racism.
The 1961 "constitution" was an allusion of appeasement IMO.
>>414081
>I wonder at what point post-colonialism can colonialism no longer be blamed for the failure of African nation building?
You act like Africa hasn't produced successful nation building.
>>414027
>Incorrect, there was a provision in the constitution itself to transfer majority rule when it became evident that they had reached a certain educational and economic standard.
Can you post it? As I said in my other post I havent been able to find the post UDI document.
>Except thats wrong, there was a route, its just hard to convince tribals to go and stay in school. 80% of African Rhodesians were rural. Many things regarding those educational statutes were outside of their control. Such clearly as Africans being occupied with farming, or being apart of tribes retaining their traditions and culture.
Can you provide some evidence of them trying to educate them and provide them with decent oppertunities and them rejecting it?
>Its idealized because I enjoy its rich military and agricultural history. A story of struggle and success. Mainly because the values that I am based off are not of my time, or of any relevance today. This however does not justify you lying through your teeth or blatantly misrepresenting history.
Thats what I see you doing when you hand wave or ignore facts that disagree with your idealised version of the country which seems to be at odds with the academic literature ive come across.
>Literally adopted that year. This doesn't even begin to represent the vast majority of pre-UDI history and its actual hateful practices under the British.
It seemed to be going in the direction you claimed Smith wanted though.
>Define "racism", because there was none. De jure and de facto "racism" are not the same thing.
The constitutional bar I refer to in that article encompasses it.
>Democracy is horridly totalitarian.
Using the term regime is hardly totalitarain compared to literally suppressing historical fact.
>>414094
I never said that. You're right, there are success stories. However amongst the most dismal failures, there is always the excuse that it is ultimately the fault of the Europeans for what was done in the past.
>>414027
>There are not "black" people in Africa. And its horridly misinformed to make that assertion. There is a multitude of people that could have built it and they took the quickest rout.
I can see the reasoning behind why they would deny information to predisposed groups and stick with statutes.
>Quit referring to them as "blacks"
Im just using the words of Paul Sinclair who was an archaeologist who had to deal with this censorship and rewriting of history personally
>I was the archaeologist stationed at Great Zimbabwe. I was told by the then-director of the Museums and Monuments organisation to be extremely careful about talking to the press about the origins of the [Great] Zimbabwe state. I was told that the museum service was in a difficult situation, that the government was pressurising them to withhold the correct information. Censorship of guidebooks, museum displays, school textbooks, radio programmes, newspapers and films was a daily occurrence. Once a member of the Museum Board of Trustees threatened me with losing my job if I said publicly that blacks had built Zimbabwe. He said it was okay to say the yellow people had built it, but I wasn't allowed to mention radio carbon dates... It was the first time since Germany in the thirties that archaeology has been so directly censored.
>>414099
I hope someone else responds to this lunacy.
You make such assertions without your own sources and then ask me for them?
I doubt I would feed such a viscous dog.
>>414079
>>414082
This is more of what I was referring too, I don't know exactly how parliamentary constitutions work, as they are all vastly different, but I was referring to it as an amendment.
>>414086
Back the conversation up a few steps.
This started with him saying that it's totally reasonable to alter history to suit the needs of a standing regime.
Given that position, I'm asking him to justify his narrative of Rhodesia, given that he himself has said that historical facts should not be allowed to be employed freely.
>I don't know what you mean by this. 80% of African Rhodesians were rural, and many of those tribal.
I mean, whether or not anyone died because of the Mugabe regime is, like the construction of Great Zimbabwe, subject to political considerations. There's perfectly valid reasons to deny information to predisposed groups.
>What is the current "regime", quit using buzzwords. Use the word government.
Well, I actually know the difference between those two. So, since the servers are hosted in America, fine. How does your claim that Rhodesia was not an apartheid state aid Barack Obama's political stability, or his policy?
>>414094
>You act like Africa hasn't produced successful nation building.
Botswana and Namibia. What else is there?
>>414100
That's sort of what you get when you turn a country into a total shithole for a hundred years.
The answer is "when it stops being the primary factor".
Sherman still has to deal with Georgia lagging behind other states economically.
The U.S. and Russia still have to deal with being responsible for the division of Korea.
The Israelis still have to take responsibility for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. These things don't just go away. And all of them are older then colonialism. You're talking about something that is still within living memory.
>>414092
>I don't have it
>i asked because if he is going to keep arguing over something he can't prove then the conversation is futile
Is the information ive provided sufficient for you?
>>414093
And? he states the the Constution of the UDI government had provisions in it that prevented majority rule irrespective of the education levels of Black Zimbabweans. Can you actually refute this ?
>>414106
>I can see the reasoning behind why they would deny information to predisposed groups and stick with statutes.
There are Africans in Africa, and many racial and ethnic groups. Not just one "blacks". I'm saying the terminology asserted is incorrect by both standards.
I also laugh at his evoking of godwins law.
Very biased source you keep repeating.
>>414110
You have no coherency, what so ever.
And I'm not an American.
the actions of the international governments were directly responsible for the result of Rhodesia and the faults of the current government.
Mugabe doesn't face a tidal wave of
>Black
>African
>Nationalism
that could destroy him at any minute.
>>414120
>Sherman and Georgia
Is this sarcasm? Georgia is the economical capital of the south, displacing New Orleans over 80 years ago. And if anything Georgia is better off than the rest of the south, excluding North Carolina.
>>414123
It's not irrespective?
Its dealing with the transfer of majority rule, not participation.
Anyone could participate based on educational provisions, thats not what majority rule is.
>>414108
Those posters are all me, when you ask me for sources I actually provide them - and with page numbers. I think its unreasonable to demand a high standard yet only respond with book titles in respose via that screen cap.
>This is more of what I was referring too, I don't know exactly how parliamentary constitutions work, as they are all vastly different, but I was referring to it as an amendment.
What do you mean by this?
>>414125
>There are Africans in Africa, and many racial and ethnic groups. Not just one "blacks". I'm saying the terminology asserted is incorrect by both standards. I also laugh at his evoking of godwins law. Very biased source you keep repeating.
What makes my sources more baised than your own?
>>414132
can you explain to me the interworkings of a parliamentary government and its constitution? I cannot, I was referring for the instrument for the transfer of power between minority and majority rule were there, while not available to pre UDI conditions at nothing but a last ditch effort.
>>414113
Kenya is now a solid middle income country.
Rwanda has increased it's GDP per capita by 1000% since the 90s.
Ethiopia has also seen solid stability and growth since the 90s.
South Africa seems to be set to be the first proper "Regional Power" in Africa, and Nigeria was looking good to join them until this terrorism thing kicked up. If they can stamp that out or at least keep that on the ass end, they might still achieve that.
>>414144
>former colonized countries are the most successful
>namely SA being the regional power
>Ethiopia isn't an outliar for the reasons both you and I know
but SA is also the rape capital of the world :< pretty sad desu.
>>414130
>Its dealing with the transfer of majority rule, not participation.
You wanted an article that demonstrated constitutional racism and I provided it. The new Constitution irrespective of the form of any previous documents barred people from participation in government and as a result majority rule based upon skin colour / ethinic background alone. Black Zimbaweans could all be Harvard graduates with millions of dollars and still be ineligible to have majority rule.
>>414144
>South Africa seems to be set to be the first proper "Regional Power" in Africa
Yeah, during apartheid. Now it's the rape capital of the world.
Not that I'm advocating apartheid or anything, but those are facts.
>>414158
>The new Constitution irrespective of the form of any previous documents barred people from participation in government and as a result majority rule based upon skin colour / ethinic background alone
Regardless of you know, the clear and outlined economic requirements. but sure, feed your delusions.
>Black Zimbaweans could all be Harvard graduates with millions of dollars and still be ineligible to have majority rule.
simply untrue.
You always take them to the extremes don't you?
>>414158
>blacks can't be majority
>They can
>Something different than what i claimed before
If they became majority they could just change the constitution. I imagine the 1969 const came to be because of what says in this picture
>>413642
They started to get pressured and attacked by all its neighbors and there was the threat of Mugabe fucking everything up
>>414125
>And I'm not an American.
Doesn't matter. You're posting on an American image board. You have stated before that the needs of the politicians determines what is Historical Fact.
Justify your stance politically. Until then, you can't deny Rhodesia was an apartheid state.
>>414143
>can you explain to me the interworkings of a parliamentary government and its constitution?
The bare basics is that the constitution sets the limits and scope of parliament - the rules. If the government acts outside of this scope it can be overruled by the judiciary - who are tasked with interpreting it. When it comes to changing its its either done via referendum or by Parliament (which generally requires super majorities ie 80%).
Accordingly transfering the power of the Rhodesian government under its existing provisions as of 1969 to black Zimbabweans was literally impossible unless the European Majority decided to amend the constitution.
Given the foundational role consitutions play this seems to demonstrate that whilst there was intention to increase represenation of black Zimbabweans, majority rule was not the goal of the goverment that affirmed the constitution
>>414182
>You have stated before that the needs of the politicians determines what is Historical Fact.
Where did I proclaim that it was historical fact? Were talking about some minute archaeological site, in comparison to all of world history, being called "equivalent to Nazi Germany", which causes the argument to lose credibility.
>Rhodesia was an apartheid state.
Rhodesia was not an apartheid state, you cannot prove that it was.
>>414191
>under its existing provisions as of 1969 to black Zimbabweans was literally impossible unless the European Majority decided to amend the constitution.
How? the provisions were quite clearly outlined.
>>414197
Yes ignore the rest of the post, they are all apart of formerly colonized countries and still plauged with issues that most of the other European and American countries have solved quite easily for a very long time now.
>>414172
>Regardless of you know, the clear and outlined economic requirements. but sure, feed your delusions.
Youve yet to provide a source that demonstrates that the point I demonstrated in my own is false and that yours is correct/
>simply untrue. You always take them to the extremes don't you?
Not according to the sources I have posted. look at the last line of the image i posted. Demonstrate where I have diverged from the truth.
Well, according to the IMF Zimbabwe's economy has been growing since 2008 and will keep growing until 2020: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=89&pr.y=14&sy=1998&ey=2020&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=698&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=
But surely the IMF is run by Jews who want to annihilate the white race with false information like this.
>>414202
>How? the provisions were quite clearly outlined.
This is what Im waiting to see, if you can post a link to the actual document or a source that nullifies the one I posted then I will agree with your point.
>>414205
>defending Robet Mugabe
>implying these growth numbers are actually good
>GDP is the perfect way to measure countries
m8......
>>414205
Oh, a recovery, finally? 40 fucking years after the fact?
Only makes me wonder what state rhodesia would have been in now if the superpower sponsored terrorists didint win.
>>414202
>Were talking about some minute archaeological site, in comparison to all of world history, being called "equivalent to Nazi Germany", which causes the argument to lose credibility.
We're talking about an obscure government, that lasted for a few years, before being consigned to the dustbin of history. In the grand scheme of things, the reputation of Rhodesia matters less than nothing.
>Rhodesia was not an apartheid state, you cannot prove that it was.
I don't have to. You yourself threw out 'proof' and 'evidence' as a reasonable basis to practice history on.
You cannot justify the strength of your position, so you have no right to take it.
>>414215
Here, ill step in for him.
>The Assembly constituencies were reformed so that there were 50 A roll, and 8 B roll seats. It was provided that the number of B roll seats would rise over time in line with the proportion of total personal income tax paid by blacks until a total of 50 black seats was reached. In addition to the B roll seats, the African tribal chiefs were able to elect another 8 members.
58 seats is a majority, you still have to find a way to protect the minority when they are outnumbered 6 gorillian to 300,000.
>>414203
Oh and Ive just found another source that seems to support the conclusion ive been drawing + it actually lists the section of the constitution which adds this prohibition
Rhodesia by Hunnings, N. March
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1970, Vol.19(3), pp.518-520
Pic related
>>414238
>I get to determine what positions you take and your "rights" however I please
Pure, ideology.
I can't believe that you think you form any sort of rational coherence.
>>414205
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/11737095/Zimbabwe-to-hand-back-land-to-some-white-farmers.html
>>414205
I steal a million dollars from you. Then I will give you three bucks per year.
In your universe this makes you a winner.
>>414252
Arent those 8 Seats a a subset of the seats that 50 not an addition?
>Selous Scouts motto was literally
>forward together
>>414282
Read the last line.
>in addition
>>414258
I'm only extrapolating from your earlier position, stated on the matter of Greater Zimbabwe:
Historical Facts are dependent on the needs of the political power structure. Historical inquiry should rightly serve the needs of that power structure.
This is your position. You've staked that out. That's YOUR ideology. I'm just asking for some rational self-consistency in your ideology.
>>414297
Where did he state any of what you are asserting?
SSA archeology wasn't relevant to the time period because of the other occupations (such as war), if they did one measly "supression" to prevent a few hundred rural Africans going haywaire suicidal communists, then it seems to be pretty okay.
This does not validate any comparisons to Nazi Germany, nor does it render some kind of imposed ideology that you says he retains.
You're really not being very clear in what you're asserting m8.
It's just history, what are you applying here.
And no, Rhdoesia was not apartheid state no matter what happens.
>>414221
I'm not defending Robert Mugabe, I'm only saying Zimbabwe's economy is growing. Why is growth bad? Of course it all depends on the extent to which inequality also increases, but of course GDP increases usually mean decreases in poverty.
>>414230
No, nineteen years later it is a better country. So it took many years to recover, why does that matter? Many African countries went through a hard period of readjustment during the 90s, Tanzania didn't reconver until 2007, but now it's growing at a 7% rate.
>>414260
Of course, that's a bad action. Not everything that Mugabe does is right or justifiable.
>>414291
I get you now, are you able to get the source that wikipedia quotes up because its giving me a dead link.
Looking at >>414253 (particulary the paragraph above the highlighted section) it seems that the wiki article was incorrect in them being separate. It seems that it was the case that of the original 16, 8 were chief picks not that these were an addtional source of seats.
>>414323
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Rhodesia
I just perused the edits and someone tried to "correct" it but it was denied as an invalid source.
You also have to note the ten chiefs in the Senate
>>414321
>Of course, that's a bad action. Not everything that Mugabe does is right or justifiable.
Yeah right
>“I think the farms we gave to people are too large. They can’t manage them,” Mugabe said in an interview with the state-owned Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation late Thursday to mark his 91st birthday on February 21.
>“You find that most of them are just using one third of the land,” he said, a surprisingly candid admission of charges that the reforms were poorly executed.
>In the past, Mugabe has blamed a drastic drop in agricultural production on erratic rains due to climate change and western sanctions, which he said hampered his government’s efforts to procure equipment for the farmers.
>The reforms, launched in 2000 and accompanied by violent evictions of white farmers, aimed to resettle blacks on 4,000 commercial farms.
>The land seizures have reduced Zimbabwe from being the regional breadbasket to having to import grain from neighbouring Zambia and other countries, as most of the beneficiaries lacked both farming equipment and expertise.
>The rural population now often relies on food aid and at the worst times families are forced to skip meals to preserve their seed stocks and feed on wild fruits and edible leaves.
http://mgafrica.com/article/2015-02-27-mugabe-admits-land-reform-blunder-regrets-giving-ill-equipped-black-farmers-big-fields
>>414321
>Zimbabwies economy is growing
At a horribly slow rate.
And no, GDP doesn't represent everything. Especially not poverty correlations.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-consider-GDP-growth-when-most-of-the-high-GDP-countries-have-a-huge-below-poverty-line-population
>>414349
>I just perused the edits and someone tried to "correct" it but it was denied as an invalid source.
Did it say what thier proposed source was?
>You also have to note the ten chiefs in the Senate
As you must also do with the presidents tie breaking 3 picks.
But looking at both the sources particularly with the section that bars there being more black than European members Im inclined to believe that those chiefs were a subsection rather than an addition. It wouldnt make sense otherwise
>>414370
Well we've seem to have reached a technical impass.
Goodnight old friend.
Maybe we will walk by eachother an laugh or something again.
>>414321
Becuase the entire period of de-stableization was fucking un-necessary
Thousnads died becuase change was not expedient or apparent enough for powers at be.
How is this fucking acceptable in your mind?
>>414378
Well if you ever see a contraian posting sources which are mspaint screenshots youll know its me
>>412658
/k/ loves them because FALs and short shorts.
>>414498
Well, yeah.
>Implying FALs and operator short shorts aren't great.
>>414498
Not to mention
>those hats
>being a white nationalist makes you a "bad" person
>being a black nationalist makes you a "good" person
Smith himself was a racist cunt, the general direction Rhodesia was going in was good. Given a few more years without Western involvement, and it would have been an African run state that would have been at least a regional power, if not the most powerful African state.
>>412658
It's an interesting country that did some interesting things for a short time despite some odds.
Please stop this "you must be pol to be interested in rhosesia" meme.
Is there a good book about South Rhodesia? One that doesn't paint it purely as evil or purely as saviors of the white race?
this >>414977
he was apparently enough of a racist cunt to alienate potential black supporters among tribes opposed to Mugabe like the Ndebele, as well urbanized blacks, the US and UK
he did eventually form an alliance, forming zimbabwe-rhodesia, but it was too little too late
>>414432
Not only this^
>>414321
But holy hell man. Without these troubles rhodesia would be a fucking regional power right now, likely able to compete with south africa.
Instead, in your delusion, you cant see that 10 years of war, and the installation of a dictator that has little to no value for human life, would have a massive negative affect on the stability and prosperity of a nation.
No fucking civil war was necessary, change is easialy sponsored in a democratic fucking government.
But no, fuck all that, becuase "I" think its racist.
20 years of hyperinflation, violence, and poverty.
In a state, that when stable, had free healthcare and education, and a working democratic system.
He was sort of both, he probably genuinely thought that everything he did would benefit everyone in his country, it's just he was completely naive and somewhat stupid.
He was very much the product of his privileged background and didn't really understand poverty, he thought only letting blacks vote if they earnt a certain amount was fair despite the economic and social context at the time, he lacked the ability to understand that context. His way of thinking was incredibly concrete and remained as such until he died
His refusal to compromise with ZANU PF probably had more to do with the fact he lacked the intelligence to work out a compromise that would benefit both sides, the only thing he could think to do was continnue trying to force dissent out of existance. He probably had no idea what was really going on most of the time.
>>416160
this, and then when he failed he spent the rest of his life blaming everyone else
>>416160
You are kind of omitting everything that the ZANU PF had done violence and atrattion wise.
I just realized the A roll and B roll end up functioning a lot like the house of lords and commons in British parliament.
Essentally an aristocrat house and a common peoples house, both with voting power.
>>416895
And just like with the house of lords, A roll is larger.
But funnily enough, the house of lords is appointed, A roll is elected, so the rhodesians took the british parlementary syste, and made it even MORE democratic.
>>414205
Thanks Mugabe, truly the economic genius of our time
>>416160
>he thought only letting blacks vote if they earnt a certain amount was fair despite the economic and social context at the time
I think there was more at stake than 'fairness'. for democracy to serve the cause of good governance, the electorate must be reasonably competent; and so limited franchise was a wise policy.
>>414977
See
>>414253
Blacks were constitutionally barred from ruling the country outright.
>>>417060
>>416895
Compare like with like the Rhodeisian upper house consisted of 10 white senators chosen by the lower house. 10 African Cheifs elected by a special association and three people appointed by the president.
What you are doing is comparing how a lower house in Rhodesia is elected to how the upper house in the UK is.
>>417285
>I think there was more at stake than 'fairness'. for democracy to serve the cause of good governance, the electorate must be reasonably competent; and so limited franchise was a wise policy.
Then why make it necessary to bar people consitutionally on the basis of race alone?
>>417431
That did not happen though, there could not exede the number of black senators as whites, that was the constitutional provision.
There were still black senators, they werent barred becuase of race, this was not south africa.
>>417285
but anon
the government wasn't competant
Smith was a retard
I saw this thread yesterday, how long has this been around?!
>>417712
>That did not happen though, there could not exede the number of black senators as whites, that was the constitutional provision.
Can you reword that sentance?
>There were still black senators, they werent barred becuase of race, this was not south africa.
There was a racial cap on the number of blacks that could be senators. Half of all senate seats were to go to whites who only constituted 1% of the population. I dont understand how you cannot view this as a racial barrier.
>>418056
>Then why make it necessary to bar people consitutionally on the basis of race alone?
They had black senators and voters
Thats all that is required to make this statement (which is yours) untrue.
There was a cap on the number of black senators so it could not exceede the number of white senators in the normal rolls, you also have the appointed seats by the tribal council, which dont count toward that number (as far as everything i have read has indicated)
The intention was that when economic equality was achieved (over a period of time) more black africans would enter government
and how that all breaks down depends on what time in rhodesia you are talking about, as there was a governmental restricturing in 1961 ( the first rhodesian constitution) and 1969(the second) the one in 69 changed much of the structuring and how seats were awarded, i personally am not a fan of the 69 constitution
The 69 constitution basically made a roll white only, and b roll black only, awarding numbers of seats based on income taxes paid by the groups.
Black africans were awarded somthing like 8 seats at first (less than they had under the 61 constution) the a roll had 50 seats, and the b roll could acquire up to 51 seats when the income tax requirements were met, the elected tribal council representatives stack ontop of the b rolls 51, meaning that under this system it was in fact possible for majority rule to be attained.
>>418537
>Thats all that is required to make this statement (which is yours) untrue.
I think you misunderstand what is meant by barrier. It doesnt mean a total prohibition but something that impedes or makes access difficult. Likewise in the Rhodesian system no one could actually vote for sentors as they were either appointed or selected by Parliament and the chief council.
For instance raising taxs on liquor and limiting serving hours is an example of a barrier even though it doesnt actually stop the sale and consumption of it.
>There was a cap on the number of black senators so it could not exceede the number of white senators in the normal rolls, you also have the appointed seats by the tribal council, which dont count toward that number (as far as everything i have read has indicated)
Actually from the source Ive provided in this thread that is incorrect >>414253 can you provide your source.
>The intention was that when economic equality was achieved (over a period of time) more black africans would enter government
Yes but you neglect to mention that majority goverment by blacks no matter how educated or wealththy they were was not only not an acceptable outcome or desire but *specifically* banned by the consitution which is discussed in the highlighted part of the source I posted.
>and how that all breaks down depends on what time in rhodesia you are talking about, as there was a governmental restricturing in 1961 ( the first rhodesian constitution) and 1969(the second) the one in 69 changed much of the structuring and how seats were awarded, i personally am not a fan of the 69 constitution
Your personal feelings on the quality of either of them has no bearing on thier content. The information I have been posting relates to the 69 one which is the document that defined the government of Rhodesia as an independent state.
>>418537
>The 69 constitution basically made a roll white only, and b roll black only, awarding numbers of seats based on income taxes paid by the groups.
Black africans were awarded somthing like 8 seats at first (less than they had under the 61 constution) the a roll had 50 seats, and the b roll could acquire up to 51 seats when the income tax requirements were met, the elected tribal council representatives stack ontop of the b rolls 51, meaning that under this system it was in fact possible for majority rule to be attained.
You will have to provide a source for this because both the sources I have provided in >>414253 and >>414082 + >>414079 state otherwise and that the situation you talk of was not legally possible.
Sometimes you need oppression in order to have success. Look at those creatures in the middle east. They need a firm hand or else they'll go crazy. Same way with blacks. It's why we never should have given them any freedom. They've thrown it back in our face and wasted it. Fucking yankees.
>>418693
The source of that section is a broken link to a newspaper article whilst Ive provided 2 schollary and peer reviewed sources, one that actually refers to specific sections of the constitution.
>>418702
You have posted screen caps with no real identification of where it's from.
>>418712
Not true in both cases I listed the author and publication details next to them. Which the newspaper source literally has none.
>>418712
At this point do you think its reasonable to reject my sources in favour of your one?
>>418797
Go and try and correct the wiki desu.
>>418973
wait does that mean you actually think that uncited source on wikipedia is more valid than the ones ive provided?
>>419135
I'm the friend from the other night desu.
I'm just asking you to update the wiki if you can :3
>>419395
Dont have the motivation to learn the proper processes, besides I get the feeling that the Rhodesia-boos will just cry about subversion of the truth and the like. Honestly even if I could drag up the consitution itself theyd still deny it.
I doubt they would be willing to abandon their narrative
>>419518
Still flustering them into scilence is an alright compromise
>>413584
Yet in the apartheid south africa was very nice with relatively low crime, now it's one of the biggest shitholes with the worst crime in the world.
Why is the end of apartheid viewed as good if South Africa turned into a shitty country after? Geniunely interested.
>>420460
muh oppression
muh feelings
muh all men born equal
>>420460
You have to understand that ideology supersedes pragmatism in the mind of the leftist.
>>420460
Like those other posters correctly said they value ideological success more than material success. Kind of like the whole rather die on my feet than live on my knees as a slave. Who cares if poverty doubles as long as a smiling black men represents you at international summits and tax you
Likewise the fall of the Afrikaner regime led to a massive privatization effort (extreemly funny considering the gommie history and connections of the ANC) that dismantled semi national socialism that existed previously (although that had a lot to do with the sanctions more so than ideology).
>>422138
Just like the Rhodesia boos in this thread who cant handle the fact the Constitution outlawed a black majority because it would destroy thier idealized view of the racism in Rhodesia only being linked to the white mans burden/ a necessary evil rather than a desired one.
>>420460
Because apartheid means separatedness, not good governance by a white minority. Use the liberal bogeyman all you want but I doubt most people would say in every factor SA is better off
>>422836
Tbh, it was better overall.
Smith was pretty racist, yeah.
>>423402
Define racist.
>>423423
He wasn't a fan of the blacks.
>>423467
Thats not what I asked, he 2as perfectly fine with educated blacks; just not uneducated tribals ruling a country.
Now. Define racist.
>>423547
Wasn't a fan of the blacks, really.
>>423547
Well then he must have been a huge fan of Mugabe with his countless law and science degrees from universities in South Africa and Europe, then.
>>414159
Rape capital is a meme term because each country has different definitions moron.
Also SA now and back then had flawed data gathering.
>>423547
>Thats not what I asked, he 2as perfectly fine with educated blacks; just not uneducated tribals ruling a country.
Not that poster but the fact that there was a constitutional ban on Blacks ever holding a majority (despite being 99% of the population) irrespective of their wealth or education indicates otherwise.
>>412092
>sjws assmad about white superiority
>thinking that any black ruled govt. has had any benifit on society
>lol
When will pol finally leave?
>>423794
>when can I have a perfect echo chamber
>let me accuse a non-existant entity
>>423622
>some changes and classifications causes a percentage to skyrocket
The blacks in Rhodesia had
>education opportunities
>employment opportunities
>healthcare
Now they have
>jack shit
>>423855
>education opportunities
Actually education is the only thing Magabee has not fucked up. Literacy and access to education improved by an obscene amount. Under Smith only 4% of blacks went to secondary school whilst under Magabee it went close to 50%.
>>424020
Smith also had a war on his hands, and a completely neglected population from British rule no?
What % of Zimbabwe today is tribal/rural
>>424182
So then he still continues to ignore that population?
Also Southern Rhodesia was self-governed so it had a lot of control over it's own affairs.
>>424182
>Smith also had a war on his hands, and a completely neglected population from British rule no?
The bush war wasnt such a great conflict when it cames to demands on personal and resources that it necessitated spending 99% of education spending on White Rhodesians and only funding black Rhodesians via missionary schools.
With the second point can you provide a good source on it being completely neglected? Likewise from what Ive read there didnt seem to be any real push or even an attempt to improve education amoungst blacks at all or significantly deviate from colonial pratices.
>What % of Zimbabwe today is tribal/rural
According to the CIA world fact book Zimbabwe its only 32.4% as of 2015. I cant find any sources on what it was during White rule.
WE
>>424287
>White rule I know for a fact was 80% rural. :/
Lets assume that your opinions with no source are correct. Roughly 67% of Zimbabwe is still rural. How does that justify your position on the education reforms under African Hitler compared to Smiths lack thereof?
>And your source for the first one is really just a quote, rather than an offical citation.
Pic realated
Edward Shizha and Michael T. Kariwo (2011). Education and Development in Zimbabwe. Boston: Sense Publishers. pp. 20–30. ISBN 978-94-6091-606-9 p.17.
Can you provide a better source that contradicts this?
>>424341
I don't find that to be very accurate, as he is being quoted more than 30 years later, and doesn't have a government source to back it.
What the fuck happened to all the government records?
A.Hitler has them?
>>424377
>I don't find that to be very accurate, as he is being quoted more than 30 years later, and doesn't have a government source to back it.
The paper was published in 2011 and the source he cites isnt even 20 years old. Given that you *literally* have no information to suggest anything different this is the best source on the matter.
>What the fuck happened to all the government records?A.Hitler has them?
Why have you literally provided no sources for your claims outside of one picture which merely lists some book titles? There's the real question.
>The jew can be in the Middle-East
>The white man can't be in Africa
Still waiting on those sources.
>>424791
It's their religious homeland.
>>424791
Oy vey are you are antisemite?
>>413635
>Like South Africa
Into the trash it goes
>>414887
/thread
>>427674
More like
>If you are a white nationalist you dont have to provide sources for your cliams!
>>412092
Is nobody going to mention that this guy looks exactly like Alex Trebek?
>>427847
don't see it honestly.
>>427849
give him glasses.
>>414159
it still is a regional power. the SANDF is one of the best militaries in the region and SA's economic power is undeniable, especially in the southern africa region.
>>414321
If Mugabe hadn't run the most prosperous nation in Africa into the dirt to begin with, committing acts of genocide against the Ndbele population, order murders and terrorism left and right on the way, Rhodesia-Zimbabwe would be a flourishing country today. Post-colonial white guilt brought down Rhodesia and ruined Zimbabwe.
>>412092
he was a hero
