India and other colonies

[Quackers]

Because the politics in Rhodesia didn't allow for the formation of one.

It was still being made Abel was a part of that. Mugabe was a part of that he was educated in the UK before being converted to a Marxist zealot.

 

[Dachs]

I just found out today that the Mughal Empire had about 60 times the GDP of Britain when it first entered India.

Sounds about right. Is there an associated point?

 

[Tee Kay]

It was still being made Abel was a part of that. Mugabe was a part of that he was educated in the UK before being converted to a Marxist zealot.

A "proficient native political class" cannot form if the natives did not have meaningful participation in the government of the country, which they were denied under Rhodesian rule.

 

[Quackers]

A "proficient native political class" cannot form if the natives did not have meaningful participation in the government of the country, which they were denied under Rhodesian rule.

Under "A" rol level voting their was 5% Black participation. In "B" roll voting 10% black partiicpation. This sytem was to be continued with further increasing participation till it were majority black. Their certainly was black particpation - time wasn't given for it to fully form and readily become good governors. Due to WW2 and our lack of funds "GET THE F OUT" policy ensured and we gave power to any terroist wh killed enough people - that was Mugabe. Now Zimbabwe are reaping the bitter harvest.

 

[Plotinus]

It was still being made Abel was a part of that. Mugabe was a part of that he was educated in the UK before being converted to a Marxist zealot.

So this process produced Mugabe. What does that say about it?

Due to WW2 and our lack of funds "GET THE F OUT" policy ensured and we gave power to any terroist wh killed enough people - that was Mugabe. Now Zimbabwe are reaping the bitter harvest.

The what policy? What are you talking about? The British didn't "get out" of Zimbabwe - it was Smith who made a "unilateral declaration of independence" and removed himself from British control. It was only after Smith's regime had become completely untenable, what with the long-running civil war and all, that the British had to come back to try to oversee some kind of solution. Mugabe wasn't "given" power on account of having "killed enough people" - his party won the election in 1980 with 63% of the vote.

 

[Quackers]

So this process produced Mugabe. What does that say about it?



The what policy? What are you talking about? The British didn't "get out" of Zimbabwe - it was Smith who made a "unilateral declaration of independence" and removed himself from British control. It was only after Smith's regime had become completely untenable, what with the long-running civil war and all, that the British had to come back to try to oversee some kind of solution. Mugabe wasn't "given" power on account of having "killed enough people" - his party won the election in 1980 with 63% of the vote.

Giving independence to the natives certainly is a "get out of Africa" policy - the British colonial population IE) Ian Smith would of lost their pre-eminence and Rhodedia would of descended into anarchy and a white-man genocide, which it basically has. The UDI was in opposition to the giving away of rule from competant Rhodesians and giving it too terroists like Mugabe - I think it was fine. Why should the UK have so much say in the politics of Rhodesia? Surely it is the soverigen parliament of SAILSBURY which should have the final say of how the country si run.

Mugabe only won because he was a part of the "Shona" tribe and as usual TIA (this is Africa) you vote for your tribe because you don't know better. Shona was a fat majority too thats the reason he won - of course the election wasn't fair and many Ndebele were intimidated into not voting and killed. This was the expected outcome too.

Lets be a bit more pragmatic to these matters. Instead of turning into a White Vs Black thing - think about it in competant people with a 1000 years of Western civilisation behind them and some tribes which haven't even invented the wheel yet. Lets civilise those tribes and than absorb them into the government, Instead of silly idealism and skin-deep moralising by giving power to incompetant cronies. The average Zimbabwean has the lowest life expectancy in the world and the country is descending into anarchy - it used to be a net-exporter now it is a net-importer of food. How can these devolopements justify the Lancater House agreement espercially when we knew who and what Mugabe and his gangstas were like?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't see how you can make the claim of Rodhesian Parliamentary Sovereignty, and the neccessity of a civilizing mission there. If the government should be run by "the most civilized" then surely Ian Smith should have no say in the running of things, and if people have a right to a say in their governance, then surely Ian Smith's government was entirely illegitimate.

Lets be a bit more pragmatic to these matters. Instead of turning into a White Vs Black thing - think about it in competant people with a 1000 years of Western civilisation behind them and some tribes which haven't even invented the wheel yet.

Ah, I see, rather then a white versus black thing you propose this should be a white versus crude cliche of black type of thing.

 

[Plotinus]

...the British colonial population IE) Ian Smith would of lost their pre-eminence...

Ian Smith wasn't British. You seem to be confusing white Rhodesians/Zimbabweans with the British. Rather like Mugabe seems to do, actually.

Mugabe only won because he was a part of the "Shona" tribe and as usual TIA (this is Africa) you vote for your tribe because you don't know better.

Erm, wow. Perhaps those Africans voted for their tribe because they just wanted to. Saying they did so because they "don't know better" is rather presumptive, don't you think?

think about it in competant people with a 1000 years of Western civilisation behind them and some tribes which haven't even invented the wheel yet. Lets civilise those tribes and than absorb them into the government, Instead of silly idealism and skin-deep moralising by giving power to incompetant cronies.

Now you're just descending into barely veiled racism. Why inventing the wheel should be necessary for good government escapes me, as does the notion that people with centuries of western civilisation must be better at governing Africans than Africans themselves.

Smith was wrong. End of story. If he or his successors had been able to continue with his policies for longer, it wouldn't have made things better - it would have made them even wronger than they've turned out. That may not fit your ideological presumptions, but there you go.

 

[vogtmurr]

Just a small note, those 20th century famines were largely the result of government action or inaction - it's not a coincidence that India hasn't had a famine since independence. The Bengal famine in 1943 can be directly attributed to the war and to British policies doing nothing to prevent export, stop speculation, redistribute to the hungry, or give them financial assistance to buy rice.

The Bengali famines were the direct result of the loss of rice imports from Burma and other parts of SE Asia under Japanese occupation. That is well known. It is hard to see how an island country half a world away barely able to maintain its own lifeline at the time and support the war effort, was going to prevent a famine in a subcontinent of 500 million people. I am aware that this point is a cause for lasting blame in some circles; the British administration didn't do absolutely everything in the realm of possibility to prevent or mitigate it. But I have to ask; in 1943 who would they buy rice from, with what financial resources, and who would transport it ?

It is coincidental that famines became a thing (hopefully) of the past. The 'Green Revolution' (fertilizers, not environmentalism) took place in the post independence years which greatly raised the yields of crops worldwide.

Smith was wrong. End of story. If he or his successors had been able to continue with his policies for longer, it wouldn't have made things better - it would have made them even wronger than they've turned out. That may not fit your ideological presumptions, but there you go.

You're probably right about this, no one can defend Smith on purely ethical grounds. But as an observation, just as you claim Mugabe was a product of Smith; Smith was a product of radical African nationalism. Not every African independence movement was the right one just because it was led by Africans. Do you think the MauMau would have led Kenya on a better path than the one they eventually took ? The late 70s was not a good time to be a white 'colonist' anywhere in Africa. There's no double standard here - I don't sanction Smith's policies, but beside Mugabe's administration it looks positively enlightened. Don't take my word for it, I'm sure you've talked to some of the people who came from ex-Rhodesia, including disenfranchised black Africans.

 

[Arwon]

Nah, the imports weren't that big a component of the rice supply. There was enough rice in Bengal, in fact supplies were slightly higher than in 1941 according to Amartya Sen, but people couldn't afford it. That's the problem with most famines. High prices result from contracting supply and the rumours of shortages. It didn't need to be transported anywhere, people just needed help buying it and overcoming the collective action problem that led to hoarding.

The famine had a variety of interrelated social causes, not just British policies of military acquisition and disinterest in export restrictions etc... but the point is that an imperial power half a world away is going to be extractive and externally focused, and not likely to be either interested in or capable of solving those complex interrelated factors well enough to avoid famine. Whereas an indigenous and responsive government is more likely to do so.

 

[eoc]

but isn't the Indian subcontinent pretty diverse in its peoples too?

India has its own local religions, while Africa desn't.
Also, in my unprofessional view, before colonized by English, in the long history, India only be united one time by Ashoka. Most of the time, India was not a real country, it is more like huge tribes lived out the same/familiar culture. Once India really be a country, diversity was well merged together under the democracy.

 

[Plotinus]

You're probably right about this, no one can defend Smith on purely ethical grounds. But as an observation, just as you claim Mugabe was a product of Smith; Smith was a product of radical African nationalism. Not every African independence movement was the right one just because it was led by Africans. Do you think the MauMau would have led Kenya on a better path than the one they eventually took ? The late 70s was not a good time to be a white 'colonist' anywhere in Africa.

Of course. I didn't seek to play the "blame game" - I was merely pointing out that the notion that continuing Smith's policies would have somehow resulted in better conditions in that country was mistaken. Certainly Smith was the product of his setting just as Mugabe or indeed everyone is.

India has its own local religions, while Africa desn't.

I'm a bit puzzled by that. There are lots of local religions in Africa, as well as highly "localised" versions of global religions (such as the AICs, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Kimbanguism, and so on).

 

[eoc]

Of course. I didn't seek to play the "blame game" - I was merely pointing out that the notion that continuing Smith's policies would have somehow resulted in better conditions in that country was mistaken. Certainly Smith was the product of his setting just as Mugabe or indeed everyone is.



I'm a bit puzzled by that. There are lots of local religions in Africa, as well as highly "localised" versions of global religions (such as the AICs, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Kimbanguism, and so on).

I am not professional on religions, but I'd rather call those fetish.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't see why "fetish" religions don't count as religions. "Fetish" is just a rather pejorative name given them by westerners.

 

[eoc]

I have said, I don't know much about religions, probably I was wrong. In my view, if something can be call religion, it should have some traits like
1) A god/gods to be worshiped
2) A perfect theory/doctrine to hold to gods
3) There are orgnizations/specialists serving the religion
4) numerous believers (not only zealots)
5) Widely spreaded
6) influence on the society's/people's minds in a very long time

 

[Maimonides]

Why does a religion have to be widely spread?

 

[eoc]

Why does a religion have to be widely spread?

That's why I use the pejorative name----fetish.

 

[aelf]

Basically we taught the Indians how to run local and central government with Prussian-effieiciency in about the 1860s/70s. This enabled a higly educated Indian middle class with Faustian values of civic service drilled into them to start forming political movements like the Indian national congress.

Oh god, Spengler? You really are nuts.

 

[Plotinus]

I have said, I don't know much about religions, probably I was wrong. In my view, if something can be call religion, it should have some traits like
1) A god/gods to be worshiped
2) A perfect theory/doctrine to hold to gods
3) There are orgnizations/specialists serving the religion
4) numerous believers (not only zealots)
5) Widely spreaded
6) influence on the society's/people's minds in a very long time

There are many different traits that we normally think of as religious, but I don't believe it's possible to put together a definitive list all of which a social phenomenon must have to count as a religion. There are religions which don't worship gods but which are generally counted as religions (such as Theravada Buddhism). The idea of "doctrine" is a very western one which doesn't really apply to non-western religions (or indeed to western pagan religions). And I don't see why a religion has to be widely spread or have long-term influence to count as a religion. You might as well say that a political party has to have lots and lots of members or last for a long time to count as a political party. So I don't see any reason to dismiss the "fetish" religions as religions. Historically, westerners have treated indigenous African religions with far less respect that they have the indigenous religions of India, east Asia, and the Pacific; I'm not sure why this is, other than sheer prejudice.

 

[eoc]

Oh, Plotinus, it is really a tough job for me to answer your questions. Seriously, I am agnostic, maybe more like an atheist, but I lack of knowledges on religions. I just intuitionally feel a religion should be like that. And I am not a westerner, I really don't know how westerners think about religions.