Rhodesian update

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just because Mugabe is worse doesn't make Smith good or change the fact that exploitation was going on then.

[opebo]

Hmm.

The average black in Rhodesia was better off under the Smith government than under the Mugabe regime.

Yeah, I guess in leftist cant, that 'exploitation.'

Being a well-fed slave is in some sense inferior to starving with the blood of your oppressor on your machete.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Slave? Wtf? Do you have a clue what your talking abour or not?

[opebo]

Slave? Wtf? Do you have a clue what your talking abour or not?

Yes, yes, I know they weren't officially slaves.  But in a practical sense they were of course.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The statement you cited actually contained two components.

First, while it is true that noting that the Smith government was better for the average black in Rhodesia than the Mugabe regime does not make the Smith government a positive one, in much of the world the choices are not between good and bad, but between bad and worse.

Second, a lot of hyperbole has been employed on this thread about the Smith government.  Blacks in Rhodesia were neither slaves nor serfs.  Rhodesia under the Smith government had a net in migration of Blacks.  Blacks who did not want to work for a white employer were not compeled by law to do so.

[opebo]

The statement you cited actually contained two components.

First, while it is true that noting that the Smith government was better for the average black in Rhodesia than the Mugabe regime does not make the Smith government a positive one, in much of the world the choices are not between good and bad, but between bad and worse.

Second, a lot of hyperbole has been employed on this thread about the Smith government.  Blacks in Rhodesia were neither slaves nor serfs.  Rhodesia under the Smith government had a net in migration of Blacks.  Blacks who did not want to work for a white employer were not compeled by law to do so.

Ah, but only whites were allowed to be employers.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The thing is that the goal of those nations pushing to oust Smith's government was to set up a true representative democracy in place.   Unfortunately Mugabe took over and dismantled all democracy there. It's pretty silly to claim everyone should've just left Smith's regime alone because this was the outcome as it wasn't the intended outcome and a much better outcome is definately possible (just look at Botswana next door.). That doesn't mean the US, UK and all the Western powers shouldn't have done things differentely (the real problem was basically forgetting about Zimbabwe/Rhodesia once Smith out ousted and just letting Mugabe do whatever he wanted), but just leaving Smith's regime alone wasn't the best course of action either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, yes, I know they weren't officially slaves.  But in a practical sense they were of course.

No, they weren't slaves. Why do you assume that black=slave?
Racist

[AuH2O]

Actually Botswana is collapsing because of AIDS, which is occuring at a rate no country could cope with despite ostensibly enlightened government policy.

And, as a matter of fact, democracy was not a condition of overthrowing the legitimate government of Rhodesia-- US sanctions, for instance, made no real mention of it at all. Sure, you can claim people were so high on drugs that they thought a democracy would magically appear, but the odds of that were known to be zero.

Thus, whatever rhetoric is used to wash certain hands of responsibility for genocide and mass starvation, it is nonetheless their fault. The UN, US, etc. are all quite guilty.

Also note that the left is exposed for their hypocrisy on issues like this, because even though people died as a result of their policy, they say "freedom" is a higher cause (even though they didn't deliver it). However, in the case of Iraq they say working for democracy is not acceptable so long as deaths occur in the process.

Thus, obviously, they are morally bankrupt, and cannot criticize even Rhodesia's internal policy, let alone justify the international actions against it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The thing is that the goal of those nations pushing to oust Smith's government was to set up a true representative democracy in place.   Unfortunately Mugabe took over and dismantled all democracy there. It's pretty silly to claim everyone should've just left Smith's regime alone because this was the outcome as it wasn't the intended outcome and a much better outcome is definately possible (just look at Botswana next door.). That doesn't mean the US, UK and all the Western powers shouldn't have done things differentely (the real problem was basically forgetting about Zimbabwe/Rhodesia once Smith out ousted and just letting Mugabe do whatever he wanted), but just leaving Smith's regime alone wasn't the best course of action either.

This is another case of the left arguing that REALLY, their self-proclaimed INTENT was good, and just because (again) the RESULTS were bad, the results shouldn't count.

Look around subsaharan africa and you will see county after county with governments far worse than the Smith government.

[Richard]

The thing is that the goal of those nations pushing to oust Smith's government was to set up a true representative democracy in place.   Unfortunately Mugabe took over and dismantled all democracy there. It's pretty silly to claim everyone should've just left Smith's regime alone because this was the outcome as it wasn't the intended outcome and a much better outcome is definately possible (just look at Botswana next door.). That doesn't mean the US, UK and all the Western powers shouldn't have done things differentely (the real problem was basically forgetting about Zimbabwe/Rhodesia once Smith out ousted and just letting Mugabe do whatever he wanted), but just leaving Smith's regime alone wasn't the best course of action either.

This is another case of the left arguing that REALLY, their self-proclaimed INTENT was good, and just because (again) the RESULTS were bad, the results shouldn't count.

Look around subsaharan africa and you will see county after county with governments far worse than the Smith government.

Isn't this always the case?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I am reminded of the 'physician' who bled Washington (to death).

I'll suppose that he 'meant well,' but the 'treatment' was ill advised, like so many of the policies of the left.

I think that polcies should be based on realistic understanding of what is the 'art of the possible,' rather than on 'pie in the sky.'

[opebo]

Yes, yes, I know they weren't officially slaves.  But in a practical sense they were of course.

No, they weren't slaves. Why do you assume that black=slave?
Racist

Obviously you are misrepresenting me.  The question is, are you aware you are, or are you just stupid?

The point is that they were people living as subjects of another race, without an political rights, and forced to work for the only employers available, who could only be white, or starve.  Sounds close enough to a slave to me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not misrepresenting you at all. You're trying to fit everything into your nasty racial stereotypes, you do it all the time.

Slavery implies that one human is "owned" by another, treated like a piece of property and so on. This didn't happen in Zimbabwe... look at a f***ing map please, the slave trade was based around the West African coast. Zimbabwe is very clearly not on the West African coast.

[opebo]

Slavery implies that one human is "owned" by another, treated like a piece of property and so on. This didn't happen in Zimbabwe... look at a f***ing map please, the slave trade was based around the West African coast. Zimbabwe is very clearly not on the West African coast.

You silly old fathead, the slave trade ended about 100 years before the nasty modern phenomenon 'Rhodesia' reared its ugly head.

[socaldem]

Wow, what a vicious thread on all sides.

Clearly, the situation in much of subsaharan Africa has been dreadful for some time.  I don't know much about the internal problems in Zimbabwe, but Al's analysis that Mugabe is using one ethnic group to brutalize others is apt.  I think its very interesting that Mugabe has taken a page from South Africa's apartheid rulers through his "slum clearance" policy of evicting those urban dwellers deemed undesirable.

That the material well being of the population in Zimbabwe is somewhat worse off than it was under hte Smith regime in 1980 (or whenever the regime was last in power) is likely true.  Some on this forum (AuH20 in particular) seem to believe that this brings some measure of vindication to the Smith regime, suggesting that Mugabe's abuses are the ineveitable result of allowing the "natives" to rule themselves.  Why, of course, the foolish Africans will choose "tribal" strong men... (its somewhat disturbing, but not unexpected, that these are the same folks that are so resistant to civil rights within the U.S.)

But, I think its important to tease out from our conservative Smith-regime and apartheid apologists...what type of governments would you like to see in sub-saharan Africa?

The answer appears to be regimes controlled by a small, wealthy minority of the population who are given power over...er, are entrusted to take care of... the broad mass of relatively impoverished people, who, because of their race are given little hope of any meaninful advancement in society.  While it is fitting that conservatives see such a regime type as ideal, most of us realize that such a government is inherantly immoral and, ultimately, unsustainable without overwhelming repression.

Mugabe's appalling behavior is not just the whim of a mad-man, though mad he may be.  He realizes that repression is required for the maintenance of his authority.  There is little reason to believe that the white kleptocracy could have possibly maintained power in Zimbabwe without becoming ever more thuggish and abusive.  In fact, a white-minority government in Zimbabwe today would have to be even more oppressive than Mugabe because its authority would be even more tenuous.  Mugabe's claim to authority, after all, is unfortunately still recognized by some groups for ethnic reasons and because of his success in bringing down the Smith regime.

Clearly, as the cases of Botswana, South Africa, and more recently, Mozambique are showing, democracy in South Africa has promise.  Mugabe has delayed that promise in Zimbabwe, but, ultimately, with international pressure and continued support from liberal forces around the world, democracy in the region will triumph. 

Mugabe's grip on power, however, is being aided by foreigners--those who contend that good government in the region is hopeless.  How fitting that Mugabe can find allies in the racist nihilism of apartheid apologists like AuH20.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, let me welcome you to the forum.

Second, while there has been some commentary on this thread which may be over the top, I suggest your categorization of "both sides" being "vicious," is unfounded.

Third, you engage in trying to read the thoughts of others.  Might I suggest that you stick with trying to read the specifics of the posts instead. 

Fourth, your assertion that "conservatives see such a regime..." as the Smith government as "ideal" is another assertion not only without foundation, but in direct contradiction of the explicit points made by prior possters on this thread!

Fifth, you try to dismiss Mugabes repression as just the work of a 'mad man,' even though you yourself noted earlier in you thread that "the situation in much of subsaharan Africa has been dreadful for some time."  Seems a bit of a contradiction to me.

Sixth, you assume that a white minority government "would have to be even more oppressive" even though you appear to admit the Smith (white minority government) was LESS repressive.  Please try dealing with facts rather than groundless theories.

Seventh, the Cases of Botswana, South Africa and Mozambique are far from clear.  Lets give them a little more time to see.

[socaldem]

First, let me welcome you to the forum.

Thank you...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One commenter in particular, AuH20 has made his feelings quite explicit.  He has suggested that the Smith regime
was the "legitimate government of Rhodesia" and started off the commentary by describing the halcyon days of white rule in Zimbabwe and noting:

"Surprising how quickly societies can collapse under such wonderful native "democratic" rule...its the West's fault Mugabe is even in power, and instead demands something be done now. Where was he in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s?"

This suggests that the U.S. should have never placed pressure on the oppressive "legitimate" white regimes of the period because Mugabe's rise was apparently the predictable result of allowing uncivilized heathens to rule themselves.  I encourage you to tell me exactly how I've misconstrued these claims... 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps "ideal" was a bad word choice....but its clear that some found the Smith regime and apartheid S.A., for that matter, acceptable enough to the U.S. that it did not deserve condemnation, sanctions, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, on the contrary, I said this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm suggesting that Mugabe's ourageous oppression is necessary to maintain the status quo of his rule.  If there were increased pressure for greater freedoms and democracy from within Zimbabwe and from without, he would find it rather more difficult to stay in power.  Of course, instead of calling for greater freedom and democracy in the region, some would rather sit on their hands and dream about the "glorious" days of white domination...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I apologize for not making the logic of my post entirely clear.  I admit the Smith regime may have been less repressive in 1980 than the current regime is today.  But we are talking about TODAY and can not make comparisons to regimes of the past.  It seems to me that the Smith regime could not have possibly survived to this day, so it is pointless for some on this forum to wax nostalgic about it.  If the regime did figure out how to survive, it would have required unprecedented levels of oppression to do that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, obviously the regimes in each of these states faces challenges.  In my opinion, South Africa, at the very least, proves the racist theories of AuH20 wrong re the capability of Africans to self-govern and the horrors that resulted from the U.S.'s pressure for freedom in the region.  Certainly, South Africa has work to do and I'm not entirely thrilled with Mbeki, but his feckleness is a definite improvement on the evil scum that were Botha and Verwoerd!

[CARLHAYDEN]

I apologize for not making the logic of my post entirely clear.  I admit the Smith regime may have been less repressive in 1980 than the current regime is today.  But we are talking about TODAY and can not make comparisons to regimes of the past.  It seems to me that the Smith regime could not have possibly survived to this day, so it is pointless for some on this forum to wax nostalgic about it.  If the regime did figure out how to survive, it would have required unprecedented levels of oppression to do that.

Let me suggest an alternative theory, founded in history.

I don't know if you have ever heard of Heydrich.  He was the SS 'Protector' of Bohemia.

One part of his policy of pacification was to improve the living standard (foodstuffs) of the populace.

The Czech government in exile ordered his assisanation because he was suceeding with his policy.

When people are reasonably well fed, they're considerable less disposed to revolt.

Also, remember, the situation in Rhodesia was considerably different from the situation in the Republic of South Africa.

[socaldem]

I apologize for not making the logic of my post entirely clear.  I admit the Smith regime may have been less repressive in 1980 than the current regime is today.  But we are talking about TODAY and can not make comparisons to regimes of the past.  It seems to me that the Smith regime could not have possibly survived to this day, so it is pointless for some on this forum to wax nostalgic about it.  If the regime did figure out how to survive, it would have required unprecedented levels of oppression to do that.

Let me suggest an alternative theory, founded in history.

I don't know if you have ever heard of Heydrich.  He was the SS 'Protector' of Bohemia.

One part of his policy of pacification was to improve the living standard (foodstuffs) of the populace.

The Czech government in exile ordered his assisanation because he was suceeding with his policy.

When people are reasonably well fed, they're considerable less disposed to revolt.

Also, remember, the situation in Rhodesia was considerably different from the situation in the Republic of South Africa.

The thing is that looking from the perspective of the black underclass, there's no reason to make the assumption that a black-run government will do any worse of a job than the Smith regime on running the economy.  And there may have been a belief that the Mugabe regime would be less racist than the Smith regime.  While both premices have proven to be incorrect, it was not at all inevitable that things would turn out that way. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

I apologize for not making the logic of my post entirely clear.  I admit the Smith regime may have been less repressive in 1980 than the current regime is today.  But we are talking about TODAY and can not make comparisons to regimes of the past.  It seems to me that the Smith regime could not have possibly survived to this day, so it is pointless for some on this forum to wax nostalgic about it.  If the regime did figure out how to survive, it would have required unprecedented levels of oppression to do that.

Let me suggest an alternative theory, founded in history.

I don't know if you have ever heard of Heydrich.  He was the SS 'Protector' of Bohemia.

One part of his policy of pacification was to improve the living standard (foodstuffs) of the populace.

The Czech government in exile ordered his assisanation because he was suceeding with his policy.

When people are reasonably well fed, they're considerable less disposed to revolt.

Also, remember, the situation in Rhodesia was considerably different from the situation in the Republic of South Africa.

The thing is that looking from the perspective of the black underclass, there's no reason to make the assumption that a black-run government will do any worse of a job than the Smith regime on running the economy.  And there may have been a belief that the Mugabe regime would be less racist than the Smith regime.  While both premices have proven to be incorrect, it was not at all inevitable that things would turn out that way. 

Inevitable, no.

Probable, yes.

The overwhelming majority of black run African countries are economic disasters despite having (in may cases) valuable natural resources.

Many of the countries have been pillaged by their rulers, while others were destroyed by adhering to collectivist economic nostrums.

There are recent reports of the massive theft by the rulers of Nigeria (who, BTW, eterminated approximately one million Ibos about thirty five years ago).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Mugabe's grip on power, however, is being aided by foreigners--those who contend that good government in the region is hopeless.  How fitting that Mugabe can find allies in the racist nihilism of apartheid apologists like AuH20.

Gee, I never new AuH2O controlled the following:

Robert Mugabe

The brutal dictator has received honorary degrees from the University of Massachusetts and from Michigan State University

[socaldem]

Mugabe's grip on power, however, is being aided by foreigners--those who contend that good government in the region is hopeless.  How fitting that Mugabe can find allies in the racist nihilism of apartheid apologists like AuH20.

Gee, I never new AuH2O controlled the following:

Robert Mugabe

I'm not saying that.  Mugabe's grip on power depends on his ability to overpower viable (i.e. non-white) democratic opposition.  Those in America who deem sensible African self-rule impossible and refuse to align themselves with liberal African democrats in the mould of Nelson Mandela, are, perhaps inadvertantly, perpetuating the reign of abusive dictators in the region.

Instead of taking a constructive approach to the problems facing Africa, there seems to be a tendency among some to long for the days of white domination in the region and throw their hands in the air screaming "i told you so" when confronted with the fact that African self-rule is the only option for Africa's future. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lets review.

First, those who honor Mugabe (I cited a couple of specific examples), aren't even 'inadvertantly' perpetuating the rule of abusive dictators, but those who are critical of Mugabe do 'inadvertantly' perpetuate such rule if they don't agree with your approach?

Second, you seem rather hung up on the racial composition of the government.  I am reminded of liberals who screamed a few years ago because the constituents of a black majority district (in the United States) nominated and elected a white man as their legislator in an open seat,

 

[socaldem]

I think that those who honor Mugabe are in the wrong.  I think that there is definitely a need for any on the left in America (who have not already done so) to condemn Mugabe and renounce any support given to him in the past.  I think that it would be wise for African rulers (I'm looking at you Tbao Mbeki) to do so as well.  And they should be pressured to take the proper course of action. 

That Mugabe received any support in the first place is problematic, but understandable given the horrors of the Smith regime.  It was not at all clear that Mugabe would be the ruler that he has turned out to be and would show little regard for the values that many of those who initially supported his efforts believed that he was fighting for in the battle against the Smith government.  Since it has been crystal clear for some time that he is intent on driving the country into the ground and has little regard for the people of Zimbabwe, it is inexcusable for people to continue to lend him support.

The horrors that have marked Mugabe's rule, however, do not at all absolve the sins of the apartheid apologists among us.  I stand by my critique of those who have strengthened Mugabe by lumping the bright lights of the African liberation movement together with that evil man.