Pannonius
Reconquistador
Well, it was certainly better for the black people...
Mugabe Finally Goes Insane
- Thread starter CCA
- Start date
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Yes, exploitation and oppression were a wonderful experiences for all black people involved.
Pannonius
Reconquistador
Yes, exploitation and oppression were a wonderful experiences for all black people involved.
They lived better then under Mugabe.
Blagojevich has nothing on Mugabe.
If by pre-Mugabe era you mean the 6 months before Zimbabwe became Zimbabwe, sure.
Except maybe the first 18 years or so under Mugabe.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Uh, well maybe, maybe not. The economy during those times was based on the explotation of black people as cheap labour, as slaves. The economy wasn't really run for the welfare of black people, because much of the economy was oriented to the production of luxury goods for the privileged white minority. The black people weren't consumers, they lived as servants for the whites, as commodities for the consumers.
This was also why the white minority governments could seperate from the rest of the world politically and economically with overbearing protectionism. They had nothing to lose, because the black slaves produced the goods the luxury needed.
Now it's pretty much Mugabe's pals who are the privileged elites at the top.
It is especially disgusting to see people like Amadeus and Pannonious adoring Ian Smith and the white supremacist regimes just because Mugabe is worse or as bad.
But anyway, Mugabe is not a socialist or anything. He's a delusional and dangerous ideologue, a nationalist, who has, in fact, allied with the neoliberal western international institutions in the past. IIRC, he didn't do anything about the debt and implemented structural adjustment programs. His land-reforms were his own failure, of course.
Pannonius
Reconquistador
Unlike Ian Smith, Mugabe is a crazy, racist, terrorist dictator.
Just because one is bad, doesn't mean the other is good.
Pannonius
Reconquistador
Well, Smith is way better than Mugabe.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Well Ian Smith was all of those things too.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,087
amadeus
Serenity now
Actually, because of the embargo, Rhodesia's industry produced a lot of basic goods like clothes, kitchen tools, etc., not to mention that a lot of Rhodesia's economic production was in agriculture. So, you really couldn't be any more wrong.
Yeah, stable economic growth and political stability? Who the hell would want that?
thescaryworker
Builder
I find it interesting that 99.9% of the world is content to discuss this rather than actually do something about it... (that is, of course, until someone screams "OIL")
Humans don't have long enough attention spans. That's why we have governments.
Humans don't have long enough attention spans. That's why we have governments.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Yes, however, the main consumers were white people. and since the elite could not import its luxury goods, they produced them locally with slaves.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Holy crap, hes emo!
amadeus
Serenity now
Well, Rhodesia also did a great deal of sanction-busting, primarily thanks to Portugal and South Africa. Rhodesia had actually established an unofficial consul in Lisbon, one of the few places to receive one. (The others were New York, London, Pretoria, and Tokyo.)
Some angry Britons tried to get the Rhodesian consul shut down, but thankfully the British did not because it was not an officially recognized diplomatic building, but rather an office just owned by some private holders.
Also, interestingly enough, even nationalist Zambia continued to ship their copper through Rhodesian railways and import their fuel through Rhodesia. Kaunda, however, continued to pester the Chinese into building a railway to Tanzania or (later) through Angola so he wouldn't have to be held hostage by the Rhodesians and South Africans.
And I won't dignify you calling black Rhodesians "slaves." That's just nonsense.
Pannonius
Reconquistador
Can you explain that? Prove it?
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,087
Political stability? Smith's Rhodesia was viable only so long as the territories bordering it remained colonial regimes. The regime itself was not viable, it depended on repressing the vast majority of the population and lacked the means to do so once that population got some outside help - in depended on others policing its borders. In fact that was the secret behind the quick european conquest of Africa: with the continent split after the Berlin Conference and each european power (the only industrial powers) agreeing not to hinder the others, the lack of local industry and modern weapons made the whole continent an easy prey. The tho other industrial powers outside this arrangement were busy playing with their own empires, one in the Caribbean and Pacific (killing filipinos, etc.), another across Asia and eying China.
Once that short imperial age ended, after WW2, the domino of independence and war started in Africa and could not be contained - the new world powers were interested in making changes and didn't care about the means. It was fitting: live by the sword, die by the sword - a new imperialism ended the old.
Smith was a racist, he used terrorism against the black population that dared rebel, and he was crazy to believe his petty state could endure independent in what was being used as an arena for the fight between the two world superpowers (plus the chinese and a few others). Well, sane enough in the end to step down, do at least there he was better that Mugabe, I'll grant that. I don't see any scenario where unstable regimes, regimes which oppressed most of the population, could endure in Africa. There were too many outside parties interested in destroying them, fighting to the last african if necessary. So even if your argument that "all things considered the black population would be better off" was not false (and I believe it is) - power grabs by white minorities inevitably led to wars which those white minorities could not win - and leave a legacy millions of dead and displaced and new civil wars. So most of Africa was and is screwed, barring a near miracle. I won't just put the blame on people like Ian Smith, or like Mugabe. Most of the blame rests closer to some major world capitals. Africans still lack the unity and the material conditions to resist foreign manipulation of their affairs, and so they'll continue to be used as pawns. Ian Smith was just a mediocre puppeteer who retired when he understood he was too weak to keep playing that game. Rhodesia was actually lucky in that it was so isolated and unimportant that it escaped being turned into a battleground during the 1970s and 1980s.
Similar threads
