“The defence of Rhodesia and its inevitable defeat was an important historical marker for the commencement of the revolutionary downward spiral the Western World entered shortly after. “
Wow, Jon, my already existing respect for you just went up at notch or three! Thank you for taking on this important topic! And yes, the US is complicit in downfall of this productive and relatively free nation. The cooperation of the West in the downfall of Rhodesia is a stain and a blotch. How did the West AND the Communist East manage to agree to destroy this wonderful country? Makes you think the differences between the two powers was not as great as what we've been led to believe.
There is nothing "free" about that place.....Like how on Earth do you post that with a straight face? Like if 50 Koreans showed up to your town of 120 thousand people, declared it independent, and said that all of the white people could not vote, could not hold office, and were subject to the laws they passed anyway. And because the local shoe factory made such nice footwear, you should be happy because the city is "productive and free". You have no leg to stand on that some goofy creation like Rhodesia was anything but a farce.
Because they were mini dictators whose wealth and power were guaranteed with the Apartheid government. Lord knows why you are trying to push some BS that they "agreed" with it because it was a "good idea".
And Muhammad Ali and some members of the Nation of Islam advocated separate development of U.S. blacks snd whites. It is, logically, a distinct issue from who should be on top, who underneath.
Rhodesia is a super interesting topic and most people know very little, or at least just the leftist version of it, great to hear it from Will. As you mentioned, Peter Hammond grew up there and has some great resources on it as well at his website and sermonaudio. I totally agree that in the end, it was truly a battle of communism versus true liberty, and modernity against the western Christian tradition. Remember Rhodesia
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast bummer, it’s really neat! Would love to get my hands on something like that for my dad who loves horses. Thanks anyway! And thanks for your podcast. It’s become one of favorites! Love how many different, great topics you cover. I’ve learned a lot over the last few months listening! Keep up the great work!!
45% of the land - the best land - was taken by about 5,000 White commercial farmers. Another 45% - the least productive - was left to about 6 million African communal farmers. Is it any wonder that few Africans could pass the property threshold to vote but all Whites could? Mugabe had three degrees and yet couldn't vote, whereas few of Smith's cabinet had even been to university. Is it any wonder the likes of Mugabe were pissed? And then they were famously told by Smith that "never in a thousand years" would Black majority rule be allowed. Would you wait a thousand years? African nationalists in Rhodesia were left with little alternative to a resort to arms.
I will say that most row crop farms, cattle farms are family owned farms. A corporation may own the land like a company that Bill Gates is part of is largest owner of farm land in Arkansas. The family farms especially in row crops are incorporated for tax entity status but still family farms.
Britain does not support Christians as a outside client group. Britain picked Jews as a client group in the Middle East. France supports Christians as a client group.
Okay guys, so for this view of History to be taken seriously, you have to do a better job at telling the black history. The area was settled, there were organised states there, namely the Great Zimbabwe State, the Mutapa State, the Rozvi State, the Torwa state, and the Ndebele state. All the former 😅had declined by the time the latter colonized the region. The Ndebele is a split off from the Zulu state and subjugated the Shona. Which were in turn subjugated by the Rhodesian settlers who by the way were mainly wealthy Anglo South Africans and Afrikaaners as well as a smattering of wealth British. It is the Kenya that was the main destination for aristocratic migrants. Also although large parts of Zim appeared empty, land usage was very different in a pastoralist Civilization. If you investigate these facts your arguments become clearer and more balanced. Also please don't forget that Rhodes used the maxim machine gun on the natives. So there is that. I think many of your ideas are good but greater attention should be given to the agency, intelligence and attitudes of the non industrial bantu peoples who populated the region of what is now Zimbabwe. Also segregation was a thing in Rhodesia, it was just not as institutional as South Africa. Im from South Africa, and I have lost of family that live in both contries. Although I believe Rhodesia was by far a better state than the current Zimbabwe and would have probably been successful if it had not been for the cold war (which is something that could be said for many ex colonies) the greviences of the black population were serious and if you want to investigate someone interesting, look into the leadership of Prime Minister Todd of Southern Rhodesia.
the fatal conceit is believing that racism is the greatest sin..... and what is racism? it is the innate preference for one's own kind to the exclusion of others. a sentiment shared by every human who has ever lived. yet only one group is held to task for such beliefs and behaviors. why? because the very concept of favoritism towards one's own kind being a bad thing, was invented solely to break the ethnic solidarity of european peoples in their nations only the european mind could be made to feel guilty about what is a nearly universal practice because only european people have a sense of fair play born out the ideologies that have left their mark on europe for three or four millennia....
I have a few bones to pick with this. Ill admit that i dont know the full psychology behind the formation of group-based identities, let alone where it pertains to the phenotypal similarities shared within a group. However, given that it is a personal passion of mine (as a black lad who grew up in fairly racist countries) to understand how it affects society at large, I offer you the opportunity of perspective from someone who personally suffered and continues to suffer the effects of racism. The big issue i have is when racism is institutionalised and race traits are universalised - basically "people who look like this are like this". This creates the opportunity for arbitrary segregation, and limits the possibilities for groups to climb the social ladder, relegating them to predefined positions in society which, over time, lock in particular ways of life by necessity. One example i recognise which applies to the American context is crime. Someone from the bottom of society thinks "I dont have food for my kids, the people who like like this on that side of town have an overflow of food, hence i must steal something to put food on the table", and then over generations of systematic marginalisation, intentional or not, these habits become cultures. That is how all cultures arise anyways. For example, German efficiency can trace its roots to the style of government excercised by states that recognised their strategic desperation. These states turned towards hypereffecient statecraft, intense planning and the maximisation of human resource potential. American optimism is similar, where for their whole history, they never ended a decade with the country worse of than they started it. This is the foundation behind the criticism of racism. Its like telling an alcoholic to stop drinking. They wonder what else you expect them to do and why you feel you understand their situation enough to give them this advice. Yet, when looking from the outside, and excercising the best of the available knowledge about the world, its easy to point out the problem of racism. Back where im from, some people would argue about cultural and genetic quality differences between races as a justification for racism and segregation. Given that i, having grown up around white people, can be pretty white, I'd often ask them "well, what about me?" to which theyd reply along the lines of "no, not you, youre like us". The fact that this flexibility in race theories and relationships could apply to me means that it should easily be extended towards any other black/non-white folk. That is something i recognise in pretty much all racially stratified societies, and it proves that most perceived differences result from socialisation. Its as arbitrary as hair colour and the size of ones shoes, and if one observes the way children interact with children and adults of other races, youll observe how the socialisation plays little role in their understanding and perception of race.
@@tiaelago-oretukaumunika7017 Thank you for taking the time to have a well thought out response instead of point and sputter. It's a long response so I'll try to address some, but not all of the issues in as concise a manner as possible. I'm sure the last thing you want is a novel length rambling of a fool on the internet The formation of groups from the psychological perspective usually in both humans and animals comes from concentric circles of kinship relationships. The family being the centerpiece of society (not as most would have, the individual or the nation). The nation forms itself out of alliance of loosely related kinship groups but always with some openness as out marriage needs to be feasible and alliances offer strategic advantages What you call institutionalized racism is the formalization of group cohesiveness. Without group cohesiveness group extinction is near certainty. This is why every society forms rituals that aren't based on logic and to outsiders appear silly. You partake in this BECAUSE this is what this group does. This is what this group IS. It is easy to pick apart this unfairness or that unfairness, but in order for group cohesion to work it must not be based on pure rationality. Deconstructing society in such a way and making infinite exceptions ends in nothing that holds society together. You've heard "diversity is our strength" yet few point out the "diversity" shares a root with "division" and "divisive" and "divide" and "divorce" The historical ways of managing diversity were separation, annihilation, or formalization As for the habits of theft, they do not arise merely out marginalization. The proof of this is that east asians in the US were a highly marginalized group from their arrival in the 1850s on. Yet they never developed a culture of theft. On the other hand PT Bauer in his book Equality, The Third World, and Economic Delusion (i can't recommend this book enough) has a chapter discussing the cultural antecedents in lands as varied as India, Africa, and South America which lead over and over again to weakness of institutions and a crime culture that matches each lands people. Having met and worked with people from dozens of these nations, they themselves have admitted as much to me. For instance the lack of formal monogamy in large parts of africa leads to large cohorts of half siblings, half cousins, et cetera. When any one family matter becomes momentarily successful all the half sibling come looking for a handout or a job which to them the job is not the job, the job is just access to graft. It's often why within the continent individuals may find success in other parts of africa because distant from home they are spared the constant expectation to support everyone even remotely related to them. There is no institutions to recognize individual wealth. The old tribal sense of wealth rules the day and it is custom that should a relative shirk their duty to support family members, then theft from them becomes permissible. A lot of this is beside the point. My initial point was that the very concept that favoring one's own was a moral failing arose only in europe. For everyone else on earth favoring your own is the default by which all societies survive. My belief is that this arose largely due to one specific group within europe attempting to break the majority's cohesion. And was only possible due to a long history of universalism as a philosophical phenomena within europe. From the socratic method which seeks universal truth, to platonic ideals, to democracy, to the ease with which one becomes a christian, the the renaissance, and enlightenment. The strain of universalism runs through it all. To a malevolent minority the sense of fair play that universalism instills is a ripe target for subverting the society. Again I would note that no where else in the world did the concept of racism arise. And to this day almost nobody but white people adhere to the notion that racism is bad, and try to act otherwise. No other people on earth seeks to limit their own power to share it with others unlike themselves.
@acidgougewaltz Mugabe extolled these values of "preference for one's kind to the exclusion of others" as you put it. Do you vaunt him as an example worthy of emulation on this matter, in his struggle against the alien settlers?
No historical act made it more crystal clear to me that the US are every bit the "bad guys" in post-WWII history that the USSR were than what they did to Rhodesia. In so doing, the US lost every claim to moral high ground in world politics ever again. I laugh now when I hear American spokespeople talk about freedom, democracy, and the prosperity of capitalism and Western civilisation. The UK's reaction was somewhat more understandable simply because they were trying to keep a former colony from achieving independence, and thus while still reprehensible it's understandable from a position of national interest rather than what the US did.
Yeah, that makes sense.. better, the colony is destroyed than have independence.. More likely, you're a simp for the British Empire, so are hostile to the US in general and also offer the UK more grace.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 Leaving aside the "you" statement - a word that doesn't belong in any civilised discourse - you misunderstand me entirely in thinking I'm defending the British here. "More understandable" is meant from the perspective of self-interest as compared to the US and USSR which had no vested material interest (colonies) in the region and were acting on the basis of ideology. In both cases a sick, twisted, modernist ideology. Of course many in Parliament had come to share some of those ideological reasons with the US, so the last thing I'd want to do is try to absolve them of their share of the guilt. No question, Whitehall betrayed a great nation that would have been a strong friend and ally in Africa, the only one on the continent to ever offer fully (for its time) first-world living conditions, not to mention the effect destroying its agricultural industry had on the regional food shortages. Instead of a breadbasket we got a communist rubbish heap. The irony that even in the course of leaving the continent the British still refused a country independence on terms they didn't themselves dictate.
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 (Missing vowels intentional - TH-cam's automated censorship is triggered by the smallest things these days.) I can't even give a short answer since the question is flawed and displays a lack of understanding of history, both in the verb "supported" and in the use of "sgregated" without further explanation since that word draws a parallel to sgregation in the US. Rhodesia was not an aprtheid state in the vein of South Africa and was significantly less sgregated than America a mere decade prior to UDI, making America's sanctimony on the issue fall rather flat. America took a "right now" attitude toward forced desgregation of everything and it caused tons of instability at the time, but it survived because they were desgregating a fragmented minority and had no major enemies nearby waiting to take advantage of it. Africa had a very different reality on the ground both culturally and demographically. Rhodesia had seen the devastation this forced approach had wrought on its neighbouring countries, leading them to favour a gradual approach, but Smith was fully committed to getting the blck population the education required to take a more full part in the political process. It was an ongoing project, but sadly slowed by the war. In the 1970s he was also attempting to implement a House of Lords-esque Upper House with hereditary tribal chieftains to balance out the guaranteed European seats in the lower house, but like with so many things the ongoing war made it impractical to implement fully. Unfortunate, as that would have put the final nail in the coffin of the cmmunists' arguments. Rhodesia always respected the traditional tribal structures more highly than Mugabe did (who was not a chieftain in his tribe and had to go to great lengths to assert his authority over them). People sitting comfortably in their homes during peacetime like to judge and forget how much war truly limits a country. Further, the 50/50 land split (which was the main de jure source of sgregation) was an earlier policy from the British era intended to protect the land rights of blck tribespeople. It also gave both blck and whte Rhodesians the right to own land in Salisbury. Smith addressed this in an interview where it was stated that, for the moment, it still fulfilled its original purpose, but may have to be addressed by a future generation if that changed. The military was majority blck and even Mugabe's prpaganda monuments showing the great cmmunist struggle against Rhodesia depicts half of them as blck. This post is primarily about rce because that was your comment's angle, but it was not the primary focus of the Bush War. The second question is what you mean by "support". Insofar as America cared about fighting cmmunism, it absolutely should have supported Rhodesia and would have to this day a good friend in the middle of southern Africa had it done so rather than the hostile failed state that's there now. Plenty of famines could have been averted as well - Zimbabwe itself managed to avoid famine, but went from a major net exporter to a net importer of food, and was significantly poorer for it. Full "support" isn't even what would have been necessary though; simply leaving Rhodesia alone would have been more than enough. Unfortunately too many Americans believed the cmmunist prpaganda and thought of it as an aprtheid state - an error which a simple trip there would have corrected - and were caught up in a sanctimonious fervour surrounding what they associated with the term "sgregation" in their own country (despite it not applying to Rhodesia as they understood it), so they actively attempted to harm and isolate her. So the short answer is yes, support would have been appropriate, but failing that at least America could and should have done nothing at all. The real tragedy is that had Rhodesia held out for another couple of years they would have found a strong ally in the Reagan administration.
@Gaius_Claudius all nonsense. There were race curfews, black folk were barred from the capital past these curfews, most seats in parliament were reserved for Europeans on the basis of race, and the Pearce Commission showed most indigenes opposed Rhodesia.
Rhodesia was segregated de jure. Indigenous people were forced out of their homes to open up land for European settlers. Those indigenes could not live in European areas which included the capital. Furthermore sixteen out of sixty six in parliament were reserved for Europeans. Another thing you should keep in mind is most of the population was poor. Zimbabwe is wealthier than Southern Rhodesia ever was.
I had never heard any of this history. Absolutely fascinating conversation.
African history is usually pretty slept on tbf
It’s good that a lot of people don’t know that much about it. It helps to tell the truth
"Have you ever heard the tragedy of Rhodesia the Betrayed? I thought not. It's not a story the modern academy would tell you."
African land
Great podcast, Jon! More like this, please!!
“The defence of Rhodesia and its inevitable defeat was an important historical marker for the commencement of the revolutionary downward spiral the Western World entered shortly after. “
How?
I bought Ian Smith's book for $2 at a public library sale about 25 years ago, and it's well worth reading.
It's an interesting book but, sadly, biased against South Africa.
Thank you for a great discussion.
One of the last holdouts against political egalitarianism - crushed by (almost) everybody
Empire of Dust gave us one of the best memes ever "It's All so Tiresome"
Wow, Jon, my already existing respect for you just went up at notch or three! Thank you for taking on this important topic! And yes, the US is complicit in downfall of this productive and relatively free nation.
The cooperation of the West in the downfall of Rhodesia is a stain and a blotch. How did the West AND the Communist East manage to agree to destroy this wonderful country? Makes you think the differences between the two powers was not as great as what we've been led to believe.
There is nothing "free" about that place.....Like how on Earth do you post that with a straight face?
Like if 50 Koreans showed up to your town of 120 thousand people, declared it independent, and said that all of the white people could not vote, could not hold office, and were subject to the laws they passed anyway. And because the local shoe factory made such nice footwear, you should be happy because the city is "productive and free".
You have no leg to stand on that some goofy creation like Rhodesia was anything but a farce.
Thanks for this great convo
Thing is, even in SA many traditional Bantu leaders actually agreed with apartheid. True story.
Because they were mini dictators whose wealth and power were guaranteed with the Apartheid government.
Lord knows why you are trying to push some BS that they "agreed" with it because it was a "good idea".
And Muhammad Ali and some members of the Nation of Islam advocated separate development of U.S. blacks snd whites. It is, logically, a distinct issue from who should be on top, who underneath.
And some Jews worked with the Nazis. How is this relevant to anything?
@amo757 would you consider doing another video about Rhodesian history? Rhodesia is a topic i'm am trying to learn as much as i can.
We knew missionaries who lived there when it was Rhodesia.
For a comical look at Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Britannica went there. It was interesting and entertaining.
Rhodesia is a super interesting topic and most people know very little, or at least just the leftist version of it, great to hear it from Will. As you mentioned, Peter Hammond grew up there and has some great resources on it as well at his website and sermonaudio. I totally agree that in the end, it was truly a battle of communism versus true liberty, and modernity against the western Christian tradition. Remember Rhodesia
@@samuelbevins4969 the segregation was okay? The relocations were okay? How can you pretend it was a war against communism?
I love Rhodesian Brushstroke.
I lived in Rhodesia from 1975 - 79, I could walk around the african areas of Salisbury without any fear
A great Pod cast... Please can you do a Pod cast on the Land Reform year 2000 in Zimbabwe 🇿🇼 and no compensation to Disposed farmers 2024
51:03 "cloisters" my guy
Jon, sorry to be unrelated here, but where did you get that horse shoe with a cross on your wall??
Guy at a church in AZ gave it to me
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast bummer, it’s really neat! Would love to get my hands on something like that for my dad who loves horses. Thanks anyway!
And thanks for your podcast. It’s become one of favorites! Love how many different, great topics you cover. I’ve learned a lot over the last few months listening! Keep up the great work!!
"Fighting men of Rhodesia " y t channel
45% of the land - the best land - was taken by about 5,000 White commercial farmers. Another 45% - the least productive - was left to about 6 million African communal farmers. Is it any wonder that few Africans could pass the property threshold to vote but all Whites could?
Mugabe had three degrees and yet couldn't vote, whereas few of Smith's cabinet had even been to university. Is it any wonder the likes of Mugabe were pissed?
And then they were famously told by Smith that "never in a thousand years" would Black majority rule be allowed. Would you wait a thousand years?
African nationalists in Rhodesia were left with little alternative to a resort to arms.
@@markaxworthy2508 almost two weeks later, and our dear supposedly meritocratic conservative and all his followers have not responded.
Everyone fought the bad guys and lost in the end. Huh.
I will say that most row crop farms, cattle farms are family owned farms. A corporation may own the land like a company that Bill Gates is part of is largest owner of farm land in Arkansas. The family farms especially in row crops are incorporated for tax entity status but still family farms.
That shirt looks like it came from Rhodesia.
Hahaha. Yes it does. Love it
S. Africa
Britain does not support Christians as a outside client group. Britain picked Jews as a client group in the Middle East. France supports Christians as a client group.
Okay guys, so for this view of History to be taken seriously, you have to do a better job at telling the black history. The area was settled, there were organised states there, namely the Great Zimbabwe State, the Mutapa State, the Rozvi State, the Torwa state, and the Ndebele state. All the former 😅had declined by the time the latter colonized the region. The Ndebele is a split off from the Zulu state and subjugated the Shona. Which were in turn subjugated by the Rhodesian settlers who by the way were mainly wealthy Anglo South Africans and Afrikaaners as well as a smattering of wealth British. It is the Kenya that was the main destination for aristocratic migrants. Also although large parts of Zim appeared empty, land usage was very different in a pastoralist Civilization. If you investigate these facts your arguments become clearer and more balanced. Also please don't forget that Rhodes used the maxim machine gun on the natives. So there is that. I think many of your ideas are good but greater attention should be given to the agency, intelligence and attitudes of the non industrial bantu peoples who populated the region of what is now Zimbabwe. Also segregation was a thing in Rhodesia, it was just not as institutional as South Africa. Im from South Africa, and I have lost of family that live in both contries. Although I believe Rhodesia was by far a better state than the current Zimbabwe and would have probably been successful if it had not been for the cold war (which is something that could be said for many ex colonies) the greviences of the black population were serious and if you want to investigate someone interesting, look into the leadership of Prime Minister Todd of Southern Rhodesia.
the fatal conceit is believing that racism is the greatest sin.....
and what is racism? it is the innate preference for one's own kind to the exclusion of others.
a sentiment shared by every human who has ever lived. yet only one group is held to task for
such beliefs and behaviors.
why?
because the very concept of favoritism towards one's own kind being a bad thing,
was invented solely to break the ethnic solidarity of european peoples in their nations
only the european mind could be made to feel guilty about what is a nearly universal practice
because only european people have a sense of fair play born out the ideologies that
have left their mark on europe for three or four millennia....
I have a few bones to pick with this. Ill admit that i dont know the full psychology behind the formation of group-based identities, let alone where it pertains to the phenotypal similarities shared within a group. However, given that it is a personal passion of mine (as a black lad who grew up in fairly racist countries) to understand how it affects society at large, I offer you the opportunity of perspective from someone who personally suffered and continues to suffer the effects of racism.
The big issue i have is when racism is institutionalised and race traits are universalised - basically "people who look like this are like this". This creates the opportunity for arbitrary segregation, and limits the possibilities for groups to climb the social ladder, relegating them to predefined positions in society which, over time, lock in particular ways of life by necessity. One example i recognise which applies to the American context is crime. Someone from the bottom of society thinks "I dont have food for my kids, the people who like like this on that side of town have an overflow of food, hence i must steal something to put food on the table", and then over generations of systematic marginalisation, intentional or not, these habits become cultures. That is how all cultures arise anyways. For example, German efficiency can trace its roots to the style of government excercised by states that recognised their strategic desperation. These states turned towards hypereffecient statecraft, intense planning and the maximisation of human resource potential. American optimism is similar, where for their whole history, they never ended a decade with the country worse of than they started it.
This is the foundation behind the criticism of racism. Its like telling an alcoholic to stop drinking. They wonder what else you expect them to do and why you feel you understand their situation enough to give them this advice. Yet, when looking from the outside, and excercising the best of the available knowledge about the world, its easy to point out the problem of racism.
Back where im from, some people would argue about cultural and genetic quality differences between races as a justification for racism and segregation. Given that i, having grown up around white people, can be pretty white, I'd often ask them "well, what about me?" to which theyd reply along the lines of "no, not you, youre like us". The fact that this flexibility in race theories and relationships could apply to me means that it should easily be extended towards any other black/non-white folk. That is something i recognise in pretty much all racially stratified societies, and it proves that most perceived differences result from socialisation. Its as arbitrary as hair colour and the size of ones shoes, and if one observes the way children interact with children and adults of other races, youll observe how the socialisation plays little role in their understanding and perception of race.
@@tiaelago-oretukaumunika7017 Thank you for taking the time to have a well thought out response instead of point and sputter.
It's a long response so I'll try to address some, but not all of the issues in as concise a manner as possible.
I'm sure the last thing you want is a novel length rambling of a fool on the internet
The formation of groups from the psychological perspective usually in both humans and animals comes from concentric
circles of kinship relationships. The family being the centerpiece of society (not as most would have, the individual or the
nation). The nation forms itself out of alliance of loosely related kinship groups but always with some openness as
out marriage needs to be feasible and alliances offer strategic advantages
What you call institutionalized racism is the formalization of group cohesiveness. Without group cohesiveness group
extinction is near certainty. This is why every society forms rituals that aren't based on logic and to outsiders appear silly.
You partake in this BECAUSE this is what this group does. This is what this group IS. It is easy to pick apart this unfairness
or that unfairness, but in order for group cohesion to work it must not be based on pure rationality. Deconstructing
society in such a way and making infinite exceptions ends in nothing that holds society together. You've heard "diversity is
our strength" yet few point out the "diversity" shares a root with "division" and "divisive" and "divide" and "divorce"
The historical ways of managing diversity were separation, annihilation, or formalization
As for the habits of theft, they do not arise merely out marginalization. The proof of this is that east asians in the US
were a highly marginalized group from their arrival in the 1850s on. Yet they never developed a culture of theft. On the
other hand PT Bauer in his book Equality, The Third World, and Economic Delusion (i can't recommend this book enough)
has a chapter discussing the cultural antecedents in lands as varied as India, Africa, and South America which lead
over and over again to weakness of institutions and a crime culture that matches each lands people. Having met and
worked with people from dozens of these nations, they themselves have admitted as much to me. For instance the
lack of formal monogamy in large parts of africa leads to large cohorts of half siblings, half cousins, et cetera. When
any one family matter becomes momentarily successful all the half sibling come looking for a handout or a job which
to them the job is not the job, the job is just access to graft. It's often why within the continent individuals may find
success in other parts of africa because distant from home they are spared the constant expectation to support everyone
even remotely related to them. There is no institutions to recognize individual wealth. The old tribal sense of wealth
rules the day and it is custom that should a relative shirk their duty to support family members, then theft from them
becomes permissible.
A lot of this is beside the point. My initial point was that the very concept that favoring one's own was a moral failing
arose only in europe. For everyone else on earth favoring your own is the default by which all societies survive. My belief
is that this arose largely due to one specific group within europe attempting to break the majority's cohesion. And
was only possible due to a long history of universalism as a philosophical phenomena within europe. From the socratic
method which seeks universal truth, to platonic ideals, to democracy, to the ease with which one becomes a christian,
the the renaissance, and enlightenment. The strain of universalism runs through it all. To a malevolent minority the
sense of fair play that universalism instills is a ripe target for subverting the society. Again I would note that no where
else in the world did the concept of racism arise. And to this day almost nobody but white people adhere to the notion
that racism is bad, and try to act otherwise. No other people on earth seeks to limit their own power to share it with
others unlike themselves.
@@acidgougewaltzso you support Mugabe then?
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 not sure how you draw that conclusion from anything i've written. care to elaborate?
@acidgougewaltz Mugabe extolled these values of "preference for one's kind to the exclusion of others" as you put it. Do you vaunt him as an example worthy of emulation on this matter, in his struggle against the alien settlers?
No historical act made it more crystal clear to me that the US are every bit the "bad guys" in post-WWII history that the USSR were than what they did to Rhodesia. In so doing, the US lost every claim to moral high ground in world politics ever again. I laugh now when I hear American spokespeople talk about freedom, democracy, and the prosperity of capitalism and Western civilisation.
The UK's reaction was somewhat more understandable simply because they were trying to keep a former colony from achieving independence, and thus while still reprehensible it's understandable from a position of national interest rather than what the US did.
Yeah, that makes sense.. better, the colony is destroyed than have independence.. More likely, you're a simp for the British Empire, so are hostile to the US in general and also offer the UK more grace.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 Leaving aside the "you" statement - a word that doesn't belong in any civilised discourse - you misunderstand me entirely in thinking I'm defending the British here.
"More understandable" is meant from the perspective of self-interest as compared to the US and USSR which had no vested material interest (colonies) in the region and were acting on the basis of ideology. In both cases a sick, twisted, modernist ideology. Of course many in Parliament had come to share some of those ideological reasons with the US, so the last thing I'd want to do is try to absolve them of their share of the guilt.
No question, Whitehall betrayed a great nation that would have been a strong friend and ally in Africa, the only one on the continent to ever offer fully (for its time) first-world living conditions, not to mention the effect destroying its agricultural industry had on the regional food shortages. Instead of a breadbasket we got a communist rubbish heap.
The irony that even in the course of leaving the continent the British still refused a country independence on terms they didn't themselves dictate.
America should have supported a segregated state?
@@ayodejiolowokere1076 (Missing vowels intentional - TH-cam's automated censorship is triggered by the smallest things these days.) I can't even give a short answer since the question is flawed and displays a lack of understanding of history, both in the verb "supported" and in the use of "sgregated" without further explanation since that word draws a parallel to sgregation in the US.
Rhodesia was not an aprtheid state in the vein of South Africa and was significantly less sgregated than America a mere decade prior to UDI, making America's sanctimony on the issue fall rather flat. America took a "right now" attitude toward forced desgregation of everything and it caused tons of instability at the time, but it survived because they were desgregating a fragmented minority and had no major enemies nearby waiting to take advantage of it. Africa had a very different reality on the ground both culturally and demographically. Rhodesia had seen the devastation this forced approach had wrought on its neighbouring countries, leading them to favour a gradual approach, but Smith was fully committed to getting the blck population the education required to take a more full part in the political process. It was an ongoing project, but sadly slowed by the war.
In the 1970s he was also attempting to implement a House of Lords-esque Upper House with hereditary tribal chieftains to balance out the guaranteed European seats in the lower house, but like with so many things the ongoing war made it impractical to implement fully. Unfortunate, as that would have put the final nail in the coffin of the cmmunists' arguments. Rhodesia always respected the traditional tribal structures more highly than Mugabe did (who was not a chieftain in his tribe and had to go to great lengths to assert his authority over them). People sitting comfortably in their homes during peacetime like to judge and forget how much war truly limits a country.
Further, the 50/50 land split (which was the main de jure source of sgregation) was an earlier policy from the British era intended to protect the land rights of blck tribespeople. It also gave both blck and whte Rhodesians the right to own land in Salisbury. Smith addressed this in an interview where it was stated that, for the moment, it still fulfilled its original purpose, but may have to be addressed by a future generation if that changed.
The military was majority blck and even Mugabe's prpaganda monuments showing the great cmmunist struggle against Rhodesia depicts half of them as blck. This post is primarily about rce because that was your comment's angle, but it was not the primary focus of the Bush War.
The second question is what you mean by "support". Insofar as America cared about fighting cmmunism, it absolutely should have supported Rhodesia and would have to this day a good friend in the middle of southern Africa had it done so rather than the hostile failed state that's there now. Plenty of famines could have been averted as well - Zimbabwe itself managed to avoid famine, but went from a major net exporter to a net importer of food, and was significantly poorer for it.
Full "support" isn't even what would have been necessary though; simply leaving Rhodesia alone would have been more than enough. Unfortunately too many Americans believed the cmmunist prpaganda and thought of it as an aprtheid state - an error which a simple trip there would have corrected - and were caught up in a sanctimonious fervour surrounding what they associated with the term "sgregation" in their own country (despite it not applying to Rhodesia as they understood it), so they actively attempted to harm and isolate her.
So the short answer is yes, support would have been appropriate, but failing that at least America could and should have done nothing at all. The real tragedy is that had Rhodesia held out for another couple of years they would have found a strong ally in the Reagan administration.
@Gaius_Claudius all nonsense. There were race curfews, black folk were barred from the capital past these curfews, most seats in parliament were reserved for Europeans on the basis of race, and the Pearce Commission showed most indigenes opposed Rhodesia.
God made different peoples…different. IQ differences are real and it’s an uncomfortable truth to some.
And sadly folks like you are on the lower end of that scale, and love to demo it openly.
@@xandercruz900Look up James Watson. He’s really stupid!
and you belong to low IQ People.
"tragic"
Rhodesia was segregated de jure. Indigenous people were forced out of their homes to open up land for European settlers. Those indigenes could not live in European areas which included the capital. Furthermore sixteen out of sixty six in parliament were reserved for Europeans.
Another thing you should keep in mind is most of the population was poor. Zimbabwe is wealthier than Southern Rhodesia ever was.