Yeah, uhhh, my computer's been snatched up by someone who for some reason takes precedence. He likes to drool over the keyboard and do very little in a large amount of time, so I'm not sure how long he'll be ;/ Seems this appointment is another dud; I'm really sorry.

Thanks for the watch.

Alright I haven't responded in quite a while due to many things happening. As for Rhodesia we can objectively argue what the west did to them was wrong. Ian Smith didn't allow black majority rule because they simply were not ready.

[link]

hree days after becoming Prime Minister, Smith announced there would be no plans to bring Rhodesia under "black majority rule" in his lifetime;[15] later, in his memoirs, Smith maintained that he was referring to black rule as it was in other African countries such as Ghana, Uganda and Tanzania, which after independence and the implementation of black control had become dictatorships.

White minority rule originated in property and education qualifications for voting that were in place when the British government introduced self-government in 1923. Such qualifications were unexceptional by the standards of the 1920s, and, although slightly modified over the years, they ensured a situation up to 1979 in which whites had 95% of the votes in national elections, while they were never more than 5.5% of the population. Despite this imbalance in the Rhodesian electoral system, Smith and other white politicians argued there was nothing fundamentally racist about it: They stated that improvements in black education and wealth would, over time, ensure a gradual move to majority rule. The Rhodesian government retained the African community's traditional tribal structure, and regularly consulted the tribal chiefs – seen by the government as the legitimate voice of the country's black people – to gain an insight into the feelings of those parts of the population that were difficult to reach by other political means. This was often done by the calling of an "indaba", a large scale conference of tribal leaders to air opinions and concerns.

[link]

[link]

"Reporters who visit the white-rule states think they know better than the people who live there. At one time this would have been called “prejudice”. Such people know all the facts except the obvious ones, and constantly pretend that if Africans were treated as something which they are not, African would be as democratic as Switzerland. The truth is that Africans will not share power with each other, much less with you, and such theorists are seldom willing to invest their own lives and property in the experiment."

“It’s meaningless to talk about prejudice”, said an English immigrant to South Africa. “Prejudice means pre-judging, it means forming an opinion in the absence of facts… expressing an opinion when you don’t know what you are talking about.” He shrugged. “If a Zulu girl wanted to marry a Xhosa man or vice versa, their parents would kill them, they’d kill both of them. But… that’s not prejudice, that’s just a fact of life. If you’re a Zulu and she’s a Xhosa, you just bloody well don’t get married!”

"Rhodesia has segregated schools. Whites are fee-paying, black schools are free; the whites pay twice, tuition and tax as well. Blacks are educated separately from each other. Why not? Every time you put them together, they kill each other. "

"It is also because the Africans have no mutually intelligible language, apart form English, which they have to learn. It is impossible to imagine how basic their education must be. Many of them have never seen a table, a chair, a stairway, a handkerchief, a toilet. They must be taught to think in an entirely different way: for instance, there is a tribe in Angola who use a compound word for “seven” which means, literally, “six plus two”. They do not need intellectuals. They need basic skills. An intellectual cannot make a living in rural America. How many can Black Africa absorb?"


The blacks in Rhodesia were not naturalized blacks living in the USA; these were tribalist blacks EXTREMELY behind the modern world with NO concept of modern governments. It is not entirely a racial issue; the Rhodesian government was giving them free education and the plan in the long term was to gradually ease them into responsible government.

The western countries that put sanctions on them did so in principle; they were thinking like sick intellectuals who segregate themselves from reality. "in principle, I hate white minority rule, so it is bad regardless of the context and I do not need to consider the situation any further".

The fact they elected an authoritarian Stalinist who gave up on most or all of his promises and is blatantly genocidal, outwardly opposes homosexuals, is simply proof that everything the Rhodesian government did was perfectly sensible and a realistic assessment of the situation. The current situation is in EVERY WAY WORSE even if you still think Smith's government was bad; which I just proved it wasn't by any huge extant. It was them considering the realities of ruling and doing what they had to do to maintain a stable, strong, modern government.

I don't even see it as an economic thing; I am in fact a Syndicalist, and what happened to Rhodesia to me was still one of the worst crimes in the 20th century since World War II and there are people who need to pay for it. Knowing that the blacks were NOT ready to run a government for multiple reasons yet still deciding that it is morally wrong to keep them from ruling out of "principle" is inherently a neurosis.