Rhodesia - An Apartheid State or not?

[Ajidica]

BTW - unlike in neighbouring South Africa, there was never apartheid in Rhodesia during the period of "white rules" there.

what is this i dont even....

You are aware that Rhodesia passed the Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the UK explicitly to preserve white minority rule in opposition to the UK government's desire for majority rule as in Kenya, Ghana, or Botswana.
Mugabe may be a violent nutter who encouraged/did nothing to prevent actions which deposed farmers of land (white and black, remember) in the name of 'redistribution' but in almost all cases was redistributed to ZANU-PF cronies.

 

[Domen]

what is this i dont even...

That was meant for another thread, but I see that it is temporarily closed:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=534678&page=11

You are aware that Rhodesia passed the Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the UK explicitly to preserve white minority rule in opposition to the UK government's desire for majority rule as in Kenya, Ghana, or Botswana.

How does this contradict my claim that there was no apartheid in Rhodesia ???

Minority rule alone is not apartheid. In Jordan you also have minority rule. In Saudi Arabia you also have minority rule.

In all countries where there is no democracy, there is minority rule.

And there is no such thing like "white" minority because race is a social construct, so you should not look at skin color.

 

[Ajidica]

Rhodesia explicitly passed the UDI to maintain a white minority rule with all the privileges that entailed. Trying to show Rhodesia didn't exist to maintain a position of white privilege (when even South Africa was telling them to tone it down) isn't really going to happen.

 

[useless]

I think it's honestly amazing that you genuinely believe Rhodesia to have not been a racist, apartheid state, despite the historical consensus being that it was exactly that.

 

[Domen]

White "privileges" in Rhodesia resulted mostly from fact that they entered that land with capital, while natives didn't have it since the start.

Wikipedia's article about white people in Zimbabwe says:

"A generous social welfare net (including both education and healthcare) that had supported white people in Rhodesia disappeared almost in an instant."

Yes it is true - but wikipedia forgot to add that the social werfare net that had supported black people in Rhodesia, also disappeared... Mugabe's rules in Zimbabwe - "great success", in 30 years life expectancy declined from 57 to 34 years, standards of living declined to 1/2 of the 1980 level, GDP declined from over 60% of world's average to one of the top 5 poorest nations on Earth. Whites also escaped from the country, and took their money with them (if they could).

 

[useless]

I'm sure Rhodesia's black majority population enjoyed being disenfranchised and living in an apartheid state

 

[Domen]

They did not live in an apartheid state. Position of whites in Rhodesia resulted from fact that they came there with money in pockets. As for being disenfranchised. In every non-democratic country you have this. Including Zimbabwe after the end of Rhodesia.

So nothing changed. Except for life expectancy which declined from 57 to 34 years, standards of living which declined to 1/2 of the 1980 level, and GDP per capita which declined from over 60% of world's average to one of the top 5 poorest nations on Earth.

Rhodesia was known as the "bread basket" of Africa. Whites were teaching native farmers modern farming techniques, which vastly increased crops. Public health service allowed natives to live longer. And now Zimbabwe has 0,15 physicians per 1000 inhabitants.

All of this just because they simply could not stand being told what to do by people of a distinct skin color, precisely due to that color.

Now they are happy people, being told what to do by dictator Mugabe, who has the same skin color as them but is unable to run a country.

Case is the same as in Detroit, where majority of inhabitants being black, elected as city mayor a former NBA player, because he was black too. Of course we know that NBA players tend to be excellent in governing large cities like Detroit, especially when they have black skin.

Unfortunately this mayor turned out to be highly inept and corrupted, just like majority of Detroit's city council (which is also 95% black).

 

[Ajidica]

Dude, I can't think of anybody who likes Robert Mugabe now. When he first entered office, Ian Smith of all people -the former PM of Rhodesia- mentioned how he was an example of a 'civilized black' or something along those lines.

Rhodesia was known as the "bread basket" of Africa. Whites were teaching native farmers modern farming techniques, which vastly increased crops. Public health service allowed natives to live longer. And now Zimbabwe has 0,15 physicians per 1000 inhabitants.

And were pursuing a policy that deliberately, systematically, and intentionally was geared at denying black inhabitants of Rhodesia the same rights enjoyed by the white minority.
By your logic the Poles should have shut up and accepted Soviet control over their internal affairs, on the grounds the Soviets were modernizing the country and improving the quality of life.

Now they are happy people, being told what to do by dictator Mugabe, who has the same skin color as them but is unable to run a country.

Outside of the ZANU-PF cronies and some elements of the urban youth, Mugabe has made himself royally unpopular. His 'land redistribution' plans have resulted in very little redistribution of land toward the small farmers and a lot of redistribution toward ZANU-PF cronies.

 

[Domen]

denying black inhabitants of Rhodesia the same rights enjoyed by the white minority.

What rights ??? Enumerate them please.

By your logic the Poles should have shut up and accepted Soviet control over their internal affairs, on the grounds the Soviets were modernizing the country and improving the quality of life.

It is laughable to claim that the Soviets contributed to modernizing Poland and improving the quality of life.

BTW which period do you mean, the occupation of 1939-1941 or the Communist rules in 1944-1989?

In 1944-1989 we were ruled by native, Polish, Communists, even though they were installed by the Soviets.

There were also many Poles among the actual Soviets, who ruled in Russia. Just to mention e.g. Feliks Dzierżyński or Wanda Wasilewska. Ethnic minorities - including Poles - were heavily overrepresented among the Soviet leadership. And Lenin was a German agent - they transported him to Russia.

 

[Ajidica]

Here:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000161/016163eo.pdf

I mean, if the concept is really so hard for you to grasp, I can always dig out some books from the library and start quoting relevant passages, but somehow I doubt that will have much effect on you.

One of the largest examples was how the Rhodesian government in '69 tried to show "we aren't racist" was when they announced they would give ~50% of the land to the white population and ~50% to the black population. Only problem was that the result was 5 million Africans would share 44.95 million acres at a rate of 67.9 people/sqr mile. Whites on the other hand numbered at around a quarter of a million with around 3.9 people/sqr mile. This was accompanied by an expansion of African Purchase Area Act which limited where a black person could purchase land (no corresponding law existed for white Rhodesians).
Furthermore, this policy represented a worsening of conditions from earlier times when in 1904 the land distribution saw the Africans having roughly ten times as much land as in '69.

 

[Domen]

Thanks for the link. On page 33 the book explains why whites by 1969 ended up owning more land than blacks - white farmers started to cultivate soils which had previously been wastelands because they could not be cultivated by natives due to lack of proper technology to cultivate such heavy soils:

(...) It is possible to argue that although land policies prior to 1969 were intended to protect European vested interests, the purpose was economic rather than racist. When the ‘native reserves’ were first established, the Africans practised subsistence agriculture and did not require access to markets. Especially in Mashonaland, they preferred light soils near their traditional hill refuges, to the heavy loams and clay soils that could be mechanically cultivated. The Native Commissioners who recommended that the reserves be created no doubt miscalculated the rapid increase in the African population, from around 200,000 in 1890 to over 4.5 million in 1969. (...)

BTW - as we can see, terrible white oppression resulted in native population decrease from 0,2 million to just 4,5 million during 79 years.

 

[Ajidica]

That is what you get out of the link?
Dear God, I've never seen a case of selective comprehension this bad.
I take it you didn't even bother to look at the sections regarding education and labor.

 

[Domen]

No - I will read more of course - but this is what I get out of it in response to your claim that whites owned much more land per capita than blacks.

One reason why whites owned more land is because they occupied soils previously unused, as blacks didn't know how to cultivate such soils.

Yet another reason why whites in 1969 owned more land per capita is because black population so rapidly increased during 79 years (from 0,2 million in 1890 to 4,5 million in 1969). Whites did not increase in numbers so rapidly, so each of them inherited more land per capita from ancestors.

The book is interesting, I will read more, thanks - even though it clearly has an agenda because already on first page it describes pre-colonial societies in what later became Rhodesia as "thriving" and "wealthy", which is not really so much confirmed by available evidence.

 

[jackelgull]

It seems you can bring a man to a book but you can't make him think.

I don't have much knowledge on the topic, but does it matter if it was apartheid? It was still unfair and racist. You can argue that whites had the capital all you want, but that just makes it seem even more unfair and racist.

I mean Russia and the communist party had the money and the military, so Poland should submit to them for their own good and self improvement? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[classical_hero]

Unfair and racist? look at the country now. I am sure the blacks of the country would love to be under the rule of whites rather than Mugabe and his terrible rule. Once the breadbasket of Africa is now the basket case of Africa. So much progress has been made in the time he has been in office.

 

[jackelgull]

At least this guy doesn't have the force of a "civilized" government backing him. The white minority were protected by the west. Mugabe has no support and will be at least a little easier to overthrow. Of curse, there could be a Mobuto like deal struck with the powers that be, but I don't think that is likely.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Racist? Absolutely. Founded on a principle of maintaining white minority rule? Absolutely. As the actual definition of apartheid is slowly lost and it becomes just another word for racist will people apply it to Rhodesia and any other state with racial issues? No doubt.

But as far as the actual defining characteristics of the apartheid system as practiced in South Africa, no, Rhodesia never managed anything like it. The systematic and absolutely pervasive nature of racial discrimination in South Africa could not be successfully recreated in Rhodesia, no matter how much the white minority might have wished for it.

 

[luiz]

Like Tim said, Rhodesia was a racist state based on white minority rule, but that doesn't mean it had apartheid. Apartheid, the state-enforced system of racial segregation which wished to make the races live completely separated (officially for their mutual benefit), was practiced in South Africa and in Namibia. Not in Rhodesia.

 

[JollyRoger]

It is laughable to claim that the Soviets contributed to modernizing Poland and improving the quality of life.

Yeah, why should the Soviets take the blame for Poland's deficiencies?

 

[Domen]

Yeah, why should the Soviets take the blame for Poland's deficiencies?

They should not, who says they should?

But the only way how Stalin contributed to modernization of Poland was taking our backward eastern lands and giving us in exchange some lands with better infrastructure (albeit heavily damaged by war and partially stolen by the Soviets who transported most of captured industrial facilities to Russia). But Poland lost its cultural centres of Lwów & Wilno and many historical monuments, as well as some natural resources (e.g. oil fields in East Galicia). As for lands acquired from Germany, Silesia was valuable but the rest of it was pretty much also a backwater, just not as much of a backwater as, say, Polesia or Volhynia.

Coming back to Rhodesia, I agree with CH, Luiz and T2N.

As for land redistribution in Rhodesia - it was still pretty generous compared to what was taking place in much of Europe in the 1900s, where aristocratic landlords were very reluctant to give away their land to peasants. Remember that whites in Rhodesia were essentially that, landlords who owned so much because they had created that country (and they thought that they deserved being privileged because of their essential contribution to the creation of Rhodesia).

I've read the chapter about education, and what can I say? - it was unjust, but things were gradually improving for everyone, not just for whites.

Authors even admitted that Rhodesia's education for Blacks was still better than education for Blacks in other African countries:

(...) Operated on a non-racial basis, such a policy might well win the approval of many concerned with education in developing countries; indeed, looked at outside its political context, the present programme could offer a great deal. (...)

However, authors immediately point out the lack of equality (e.g. "so what that X have good situation, if Y have even better"):

(...) But it cannot be so divorced from its context. The fact is that Africans are offered an inferior system, while Europeans receive educational advantages which few developed countries can boast. (...)

OK... Mugabe has fixed that inequality - today education in Zimbabwe doesn't work, so everybody is equal[ly uneducated].