Rhodesia

[Hunt anything]

...But it IS ok to treat white people as second class citizens? Rhodesia/Zimbabwe under "black people" rule is justified?

Asking for a friend.

You beet me to it, a friend was curious as well.

 

[RLD]

...But it IS ok to treat white people as second class citizens? Rhodesia/Zimbabwe under "black people" rule is justified?

Asking for a friend.

God no. And I don't know anyone who has suggested that.

Mugabe's rule turned out to be a disaster. Top to bottom. It might take generations to undo the harm he has done.

To say that Rhodesia was unjust by denying people majority rule based on racist ideas is not to say what came after was just either. That is a kind of primitive straw man argument.

Does your "friend" think denying people the vote or legal rights based on their race is okay? It is unjust and undemocratic either way isn't it? Does your friend think the United States and the U.K. should have supported a racial minority authoritarian government? Even if they did it was a dead end in long term foreign policy terms. They might have pushed back the fall of Rhodesia for maybe a decade or two, but in the meantime it would have driven the rest of Africa into the arms of the USSR and China in a hurry.

 

[steve white]

I'm sure the people who fought against the white minority rule would totally agree lol. We've been here for thousands of years doing just fine and these Europeans come flooding in without asking permission, undermine our culture and traditions, kick us off of our land and make us grow cotton and ground nuts lol. This statement ignores the barbarism that undergirded the power of ethnic minority governments in colonial Africa and indeed the world 'round. And now that I've made myself the least popular guy on AH, let the opprobrium rain down.

You should re-read the OP's post--Rhodesia was sparsely inhabited at the time whites came. Same for many other portions of Africa. Bantu tribes came down from the north to Southern Africa--THEY were newcomers/invaders. I guess they get a pass because they are black. As long as it's any kind or stripe of black it's OK, eh? How would you like to be treated unfairly if you came to "OUR land" to visit, do business, or try to own anything?! Should Europeans take all assets of anyone not historically/ethnically European? According to YOU, that would be justified. The idea of ownership, property, commerce, and peaceful relations would be set back millennia if you had your way, apparently. It's called CIVILIZATION, friend.
NOT saying American Indians got a fair shake, but nature abhors any vacuum.
As we speak, millions are migrating to take advantage of the prosperity earned by others. Countries are being absolutely swamped. (why do you think all the millions came to Zimbabwe under white rule? They wanted in on the good times, then changed the rules that ushered in the good times) Do the new folks get to redefine what brought the prosperity in the first place? Are "whites" always bad and should be shamed? I call BS.
I was traveling to hunting camp in Zimbabwe when we stopped by a scant few huts and piddly crop fields--surrounded by hundreds of acres of fallow ground as far as the eye could see. Asked them why they didn't plant more. Replied, this is all we need. Asked, what about the people in the cities that used to get their wheat from these now empty fields? Reply, "THEY'RE NOT OUR TRIBE." THAT is Zimbabwe back under indigenous rule. An absolute failure. AND, a begging bowl.

And nothing personal--I already liked some of your other posts, fellow hunter.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

I hunted this Cape buffalo in Rhodesia in 1977.

During the Bush War years, Safari operators used to fit their Land Rovers with reinforcements so that they could withstand going over land mines.

There was an arms & ammunition embargo against Rhodesia since 1964. Only Czechoslovakia kept supplying the country with firearms & ammunition (which is why BRNO sporting firearms were extremely popular amongst Rhodesian resident hunters during this time). Other firearms & ammunition came from South Africa.

I know that my statement below will be viewed negatively by a lot of younger generation people, but I must express a certain degree of admiration for Ian Smith’s administration. I am not saying that his policies were just or even fair. They did (of course) incorporate racial grounds as reasoning for their policies. Which inherently classifies people as being unable to have a say in how their country is run simply because of their ethnicity. No matter how you slice it, that’s not right.

BUT

During his tenure, Rhodesia used to be the most developed country in all of Africa. This is coming from a non-Caucasian man who actually went to Rhodesia during that era. I saw it myself.

 

[RLD]

You should re-read the OP's post--Rhodesia was sparsely inhabited at the time whites came. Same for many other portions of Africa. Bantu tribes came down from the north to Southern Africa--THEY were newcomers/invaders. I guess they get a pass because they are black. As long as it's any kind or stripe of black it's OK, eh? How would you like to be treated unfairly if you came to "OUR land" to visit, do business, or try to own anything?! Should Europeans take all assets of anyone not historically/ethnically European? According to YOU, that would be justified. The idea of ownership, property, commerce, and peaceful relations would be set back millennia if you had your way, apparently. It's called CIVILIZATION, friend.
NOT saying American Indians got a fair shake, but nature abhors any vacuum.
As we speak, millions are migrating to take advantage of the prosperity earned by others. Countries are being absolutely swamped. (why do you think all the millions came to Zimbabwe under white rule? They wanted in on the good times, then changed the rules that ushered in the good times) Do the new folks get to redefine what brought the prosperity in the first place? Are "whites" always bad and should be shamed? I call BS.
I was traveling to hunting camp in Zimbabwe when we stopped by a scant few huts and piddly crop fields--surrounded by hundreds of acres of fallow ground as far as the eye could see. Asked them why they didn't plant more. Replied, this is all we need. Asked, what about the people in the cities that used to get their wheat from these now empty fields? Reply, "THEY'RE NOT OUR TRIBE." THAT is Zimbabwe back under indigenous rule. An absolute failure. AND, a begging bowl.

And nothing personal--I already liked some of your other posts, fellow hunter.

The pre-colonial history of this part of the world is complicated but I don't think it is fair to say that the area was sparsely populated when whites came, this kind of implies that the whites were a majority at some point. They were never close to being a majority there. There were always a minority. I bet they were never more than 20% of the population.

Thinking that way kind of ignores the archeology there (where the name Zimbabwe comes from - the City of Great Zimbabwe) and even the recorded history since europeans arrived.

Sir Cecil and his lads had to engage in wars of conquest to take the lands away from the Zulu and IIRC Shona empires that occupied it before they came and took it.

South Africa is a very different story. I think historigraphically Africaners are better understood as a local tribe than a colonial power, as opposed to their english counterparts. But Rhodesia was founded on a war of conquest by the British South Africa Company.

 

[Garciamarquez1918]

You should re-read the OP's post--Rhodesia was sparsely inhabited at the time whites came. Same for many other portions of Africa. Bantu tribes came down from the north to Southern Africa--THEY were newcomers/invaders. I guess they get a pass because they are black. As long as it's any kind or stripe of black it's OK, eh? How would you like to be treated unfairly if you came to "OUR land" to visit, do business, or try to own anything?! Should Europeans take all assets of anyone not historically/ethnically European? According to YOU, that would be justified. The idea of ownership, property, commerce, and peaceful relations would be set back millennia if you had your way, apparently. It's called CIVILIZATION, friend.
NOT saying American Indians got a fair shake, but nature abhors any vacuum.
As we speak, millions are migrating to take advantage of the prosperity earned by others. Countries are being absolutely swamped. (why do you think all the millions came to Zimbabwe under white rule? They wanted in on the good times, then changed the rules that ushered in the good times) Do the new folks get to redefine what brought the prosperity in the first place? Are "whites" always bad and should be shamed? I call BS.
I was traveling to hunting camp in Zimbabwe when we stopped by a scant few huts and piddly crop fields--surrounded by hundreds of acres of fallow ground as far as the eye could see. Asked them why they didn't plant more. Replied, this is all we need. Asked, what about the people in the cities that used to get their wheat from these now empty fields? Reply, "THEY'RE NOT OUR TRIBE." THAT is Zimbabwe back under indigenous rule. An absolute failure. AND, a begging bowl.

And nothing personal--I already liked some of your other posts, fellow hunter.

I appreciate the "nothing personal." Truly. I'd just say two wrongs don't make a right, leave it at that and let @RLD speak for me.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

I appreciate the "nothing personal." Truly. I'd just say two wrongs don't make a right, leave it at that and let @RLD speak for me.

My late mother in law was Zambian Bemba from a prominent family. She told me that the British did not treat the native Zambians very well.

Humans are aggressive. History shows people, tribes, and countries taking from each other from Cain and Able to the present day.

Many also fear those different so they claim superiority over them so they may feel good about themselves.

 

[Red Leg]

Sadly, it would take a fine combing of both the historical record and fairly radical assessment of current political/economic conditions to identify a nation or cultural group that is better off now than it was under colonial or minority rule. That does not make racially-based minority rule a valid construct, but blaming it or the generally accepted inherent evils of the "colonizers" for the failing states across sub-Saharan Africa is intellectual laziness at best. It parallels our own lack of seriousness in addressing current cultural catastrophes in our own country by simply shouting racism or embracing slavery as the root cause of all modern ills.

There are exceptions. The actual genocide practiced by the German Army in northern Southwest Africa (Namibia) was brutal by any standard subsequent to the middle ages. The Herero and Nama were cattle cultures and German colonial rule was determined to hand that role to German colonists. To be fair, Rhodesia, unlike South Africa, was also founded out of conquest of existing majority populations, though their behavior was far less barbarous than that of the Imperial German Army.

But something clearly is not working in post colonial and post apartheid Africa. These are issues which several political scientists and sociologists have struggled for a century. Samuel Huntington's 1968 landmark work "Political Order in Changing Societies" is still a remarkable study that is generally studiously ignored by everyone when it is so much easier to shout "racist." Talcott Parsons went to what I believe is the heart of the matter in his "The Social System" by addressing the deeply rooted cultural barriers to modernization in many non-western societies. He argued that cultural barriers like collectivism and fatalism hinder modernization, which generally require shifts toward individualism, meritocracy, and universalism. The result all too often failure of the nation state itself.

 

[jpr9954]

I might suggest reading another book on Rhodesia and the transition to Zimbabwe plus the aftermath.

Dr. Kevin Robertson's wife, Catherine Phillips-Robertson has written My African Sunrise: From Golden Memories to Dust which details growing up in Rhodesia as a child and then her adult life running a farm with Kevin until it was confiscated. Of note, she was more conversant in Shona than English until she was sent off to school as a child.

It touches on the Bush War but it is more a memoir of growing up in Africa on a farm.

 

[Aaron N]

Having just finished the Ballentyne series by Wilbur Smith, I find it fascinating that this whole fiasco is only 130 years old. I (optimistically) think that with a generation of youths who are somewhat connected to the outside world via the internet, that there will be hope for a more democratic government.

 

[steve white]

I appreciate the "nothing personal." Truly. I'd just say two wrongs don't make a right, leave it at that and let @RLD speak for me.

You are right, two wrongs DON'T make a right. I have a Yaqui Indian wife, and some Native American relatives, so I hear you! But how to put all the toys back in the box? It is as impossible as separating Spanish and Indian blood in a latino.

 

[gbflyer]

I believe Smith was aware of their system’s downfalls. They needed to be landowners to vote as an example wasn’t probably the best idea (however the small portion of Atilla the Hun in me agrees just a little with that). At any rate, they were working on it. It’s too bad they didn’t get any backup to make it better.

 

[Garciamarquez1918]

Ok I lied I'm diving back in lol.

The issue with poor governance in some African countries isn't race, it's corruption. There are numerous poorly-run kleptocracies that are run by pale skinned people. Belarus, Uzbekistan, Chechnya and the list goes on. In this case the people with power are black, but to turn this correlation into causation well that's what we call racism.

On a scale that's below the national level, it's interesting to consider the CAMPFIRE program. First of all, it's an enormously successful government conservation program that was put into place by a Black-run government. Admittedly, Mugabe before he went off the rails. Second it's administered by local black leaders. It benefits the wildlife, lots of people on this website and local communities. And, again, it was put into place by black people and is run by black people.

 

[RLD]

But something clearly is not working in post colonial and post apartheid Africa. These are issues which several political scientists and sociologists have struggled for a century. Samuel Huntington's 1968 landmark work "Political Order in Changing Societies" is still a remarkable study that is generally studiously ignored by everyone when it is so much easier to shout "racist." Talcott Parsons went to what I believe is the heart of the matter in his "The Social System" by addressing the deeply rooted cultural barriers to modernization in many non-western societies. He argued that cultural barriers like collectivism and fatalism hinder modernization, which generally require shifts toward individualism, meritocracy, and universalism. The result all too often failure of the nation state itself.

This is undoubtedly true, and there are a number of cultural factors that can interfere with the integration of a new country's economy with the wider world.

One of those issues, that doesn't get talked about enough is the lack of a professional middle class, and competency shortages. And this is part of the legacy of colonialism.

Many colonial administrations literally prohibited "natives" from joining certain professions and taking on certain kinds of positions (South Africa was a notable exception to this). So when de-colonialization happened there was no native middle class and often no native professional or civil service class.

I recall reading in one case that after the colonial power withdrew, one african nation with a population of around 30 million people had two lawyers and one accountant left in the whole country because the rest had left. Can you imagine trying to draft a constitution or run your first nation budget with two lawyers and an accountant? How about a functioning judiciary? Impossible.

The same thing happens outside the new government. Most of the engineers leave. Many mechanics and other skilled tradespeople leave. Farmers often stay because they are tied to the land, but when they leave their skills and knowledge (and capital) don't magically transfer to whatever people end up on their land.

So what is a new country to do without enough skilled people to run it? It turns to deals with China or the USSR/Russia or multinational corporations to provide those skill sets and end up getting suckered in those deals. It's a hard problem to escape from.

The other issue is that when you start appointing people to all of these posts, they don't have the benefit of having worked in a professional/ethical environment and learned those standards then you build a kleptocracy. Organizational ethics don't spring into existence they need to be evolved and grown over generations.

A friend of mine got a contract a number of years back to teach basic judicial ethics to judges in Russia. He (and I) were stunned with their complete lack of understanding of what we consider basic ethics, but never having been exposed to it, how were they to know about it. Similar problem in many African civil services.

Compare that with the way the British governed India, allowing the build up of significant political classes and you have part of the reason that India has integrated so much better into the world economy than most African nations have.

 

[jpr9954]

Sadly, it would take a fine combing of both the historical record and fairly radical assessment of current political/economic conditions to identify a nation or cultural group that is better off now than it was under colonial or minority rule. That does not make racially-based minority rule a valid construct, but blaming it or the generally accepted inherent evils of the "colonizers" for the failing states across sub-Saharan Africa is intellectual laziness at best. It parallels our own lack of seriousness in addressing current cultural catastrophes in our own country by simply shouting racism or embracing slavery as the root cause of all modern ills.

There are exceptions. The actual genocide practiced by the German Army in northern Southwest Africa (Namibia) was brutal by any standard subsequent to the middle ages. The Herero and Nama were cattle cultures and German colonial rule was determined to hand that role to German colonists. To be fair, Rhodesia, unlike South Africa, was also founded out of conquest of existing majority populations, though their behavior was far less barbarous than that of the Imperial German Army.

But something clearly is not working in post colonial and post apartheid Africa. These are issues which several political scientists and sociologists have struggled for a century. Samuel Huntington's 1968 landmark work "Political Order in Changing Societies" is still a remarkable study that is generally studiously ignored by everyone when it is so much easier to shout "racist." Talcott Parsons went to what I believe is the heart of the matter in his "The Social System" by addressing the deeply rooted cultural barriers to modernization in many non-western societies. He argued that cultural barriers like collectivism and fatalism hinder modernization, which generally require shifts toward individualism, meritocracy, and universalism. The result all too often failure of the nation state itself.

Since RedLeg brought up pre and post-colonialism, I would also recommend two more recent books by Prof. Bruce Gilley of Portland State University. Both of these books examine colonialism and its positive aspects. Of course, this has made him a persona non grata in academic circles as they consider any work making the case for colonialism anathema.

First, The Case for Colonialism is an expansion of his 2017 article by the same name that was published and then withdrawn by the publishers of Third World Quarterly.

Second, In Defense of German Colonialism which looks at German colonialism in SW Africa and East Africa.

In terms of condemning conquest, I find it a bit hypocritical as much of the world as we know it was formed by conquest. It is what it is and there is no going back.

 

[Garciamarquez1918]

Since RedLeg brought up pre and post-colonialism, I would also recommend two more recent books by Prof. Bruce Gilley of Portland State University. Both of these books examine colonialism and its positive aspects. Of course, this has made him a persona non grata in academic circles as they consider any work making the case for colonialism anathema.

First, The Case for Colonialism is an expansion of his 2017 article by the same name that was published and then withdrawn by the publishers of Third World Quarterly.

Second, In Defense of German Colonialism which looks at German colonialism in SW Africa and East Africa.

In terms of condemning conquest, I find it a bit hypocritical as much of the world as we know it was formed by conquest. It is what it is and there is no going back.

Remembering the Forgotten Genocide of the Herero and Nama - JFCS Holocaust Center

The genocide of the Herero and Nama people has been called “The 1st genocide of the 20th century.”

holocaustcenter.jfcs.org

 

[Red Leg]

Since RedLeg brought up pre and post-colonialism, I would also recommend two more recent books by Prof. Bruce Gilley of Portland State University. Both of these books examine colonialism and its positive aspects. Of course, this has made him a persona non grata in academic circles as they consider any work making the case for colonialism anathema.

First, The Case for Colonialism is an expansion of his 2017 article by the same name that was published and then withdrawn by the publishers of Third World Quarterly.

Second, In Defense of German Colonialism which looks at German colonialism in SW Africa and East Africa.

In terms of condemning conquest, I find it a bit hypocritical as much of the world as we know it was formed by conquest. It is what it is and there is no going back.

It is what I find so ridiculous about the "reparations" grift. Take the UK for instance. Where lies the original sin to be sued by the unfortunate oppressed? After all, following the Younger Dryas the original inhabitants were hunter gatherers from what is today continental Europe. We'll characterize them as the first victims. Next came the farming cultures from Southwestern Europe between 4000 and 2000 BC which thoroughly mixed the gene pool. Therefore some victimized Britain should sue Spain. But wait, these agriculturists were then subsumed by the Beaker Culture arriving from modern day Germany and the Netherlands around 2000 BC. OK, then let's sue the Dutch and the Germans. Except, they were in turn largely overrun by the Celtic people. I guess that legal document should be addressed to France. Except both the Celts and much of the remnant populations (excluding parts of Whales and Scotland) were conquered and colonized by Rome beginning in 55BC and lasting over 450 years until 410AD. Well, that is pretty clear, sue Italy! Except, the Roman withdrawal was in the face of Saxon and soon thereafter, Norse invasions. This is getting complicated. The final conquest was by the Norman French beginning in 1066. Perhaps the surviving aggrieved Pict should send their complaint to Paris after all?

 

[steve white]

It is also hard to impossible to be tribal and national at the same time. Tribalism doesn't fit well with modernity. Especially if you have 285 languages in the one country of Zaire, or whatever derivation of Congo is presently in vogue--I have lost track. Imagine having 285 salesmen of differing languages to sell one widget. Swahili is lingua franca, of course in east Africa as is English world wide.

Africa's problems have stymied the best thinkers, businessmen and charities for a hundred years. Don't even get started on radically divergent politics added to the mix. But a world view will win eventually. If it is a socialist one, expect unimaginable bloodshed, if history is to be believed. Socialism has killed more than all colonialism combined as it has occurred during the highest world population.

TOXIC liberalism is heading us in that direction, which is what liberalism has become, and why I vehemently oppose it. Having been raised a Democrat early on, to depart from toxic liberalism today means I am more sensitive to it--sort of like an ex-smoker disliking second hand smoke. In fact, I consider toxic liberalism to be treasonous to the entirety of western civilization. I am not ashamed of western civilization, and it has been a gift to formerly dark places on this planet, especially the USA, a truly exceptional country. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[steve white]

Remembering the Forgotten Genocide of the Herero and Nama - JFCS Holocaust Center

The genocide of the Herero and Nama people has been called “The 1st genocide of the 20th century.”

holocaustcenter.jfcs.org

It is pictured today on Namibian currency notes.

 

[Red Leg]

This is undoubtedly true, and there are a number of cultural factors that can interfere with the integration of a new country's economy with the wider world.

One of those issues, that doesn't get talked about enough is the lack of a professional middle class, and competency shortages. And this is part of the legacy of colonialism.

Many colonial administrations literally prohibited "natives" from joining certain professions and taking on certain kinds of positions (South Africa was a notable exception to this). So when de-colonialization happened there was no native middle class and often no native professional or civil service class.

I recall reading in one case that after the colonial power withdrew, one african nation with a population of around 30 million people had two lawyers and one accountant left in the whole country because the rest had left. Can you imagine trying to draft a constitution or run your first nation budget with two lawyers and an accountant? How about a functioning judiciary? Impossible.

The same thing happens outside the new government. Most of the engineers leave. Many mechanics and other skilled tradespeople leave. Farmers often stay because they are tied to the land, but when they leave their skills and knowledge (and capital) don't magically transfer to whatever people end up on their land.

So what is a new country to do without enough skilled people to run it? It turns to deals with China or the USSR/Russia or multinational corporations to provide those skill sets and end up getting suckered in those deals. It's a hard problem to escape from.

The other issue is that when you start appointing people to all of these posts, they don't have the benefit of having worked in a professional/ethical environment and learned those standards then you build a kleptocracy. Organizational ethics don't spring into existence they need to be evolved and grown over generations.

A friend of mine got a contract a number of years back to teach basic judicial ethics to judges in Russia. He (and I) were stunned with their complete lack of understanding of what we consider basic ethics, but never having been exposed to it, how were they to know about it. Similar problem in many African civil services.

Compare that with the way the British governed India, allowing the build up of significant political classes and you have part of the reason that India has integrated so much better into the world economy than most African nations have.

Yes, but. India had its own traditions of successful, literate governance and culture, however fragmented, long before the arrival of Europeans. Alexander found sophisticated, by any period standard, Kingdoms to challenge on the battlefield. The Mogul Empire was one of Islam's most developed. Post Britannic Indian culture started from a much higher floor than did the vast majority of tribal Africa. It is difficult to point a finger at the Imperialists for that developmental gap.

Yes totalitarianism, particular when yoked to the necks of serfdom, exhibits cultural barriers to enlightened development not dissimilar to those face by tribal communities. But that is actually the point I am trying to make. These cultures are not failing to develop because of the legacy of Imperial or apartheid institutions, but because of the cultural gaps that make such development almost impossible.