Rhodesia - An Apartheid State or not?

[jackelgull]

I am far from one of the people who buy into the myth of "the white devil" and I think that European/African relations should have happened, just not in the way they did. You are right that there was an exchange going on Rhodesia- Europeans took the lion's share and then gave little to the Africans. I just would rather there have been an exchange of reciprocity going on. You know, the Europeans got something from contact with Africa, Africa got an equal amount from contact with Europeans. I believe both cultures truly did have something to learn from one another.

 

[Senethro]

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.

And some people claimed that the negro was better off under slavery than freedom in America.

Of course, what does a white guy in a completely colonised land know of these issues?

 

[Borachio]

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..

Yeah, but...

Zimbabwe is an undoubted basket case. But that's not because white farmers weren't responsible for upholding an odious apartheid regime when it was Rhodesia.

And Zimbabweans aren't a happy people at all. (Beyond ZANU-PF members; who honestly do seem content enough.)

They seem to have a real struggle to live under hyper-inflation conditions and devote a lot of effort to earning a living outside the country.

Then there's Morgan Tsvangirai.

 

[Cutlass]

Not to mention that Rhodesia was stolen from the locals at gunpoint...

 

[Lord of Elves]

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).

I think this is what we should take away from this thread.

About time to pack up and head home, everyone

 

[useless]

Correlation is not causation

this is basic stuff

 

[Domen]

Correlation is not always causation, but often it is.

They seem to have a real struggle to live under hyper-inflation conditions and devote a lot of effort to earning a living outside the country.

http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee381/phongluusg/zarabotat-na-foreks-1000-3273_zps5992fec6.jpg

 

[useless]

Correlation is not always causation, but often it is.

[Citation Needed]

Also:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

 

[luiz]

Not to mention that Rhodesia was stolen from the locals at gunpoint...

Locals who also stole it from other locals at spearpoint.

The problem with Rhodesia, just like South Africa, was the instutional racism and minority rule. Not "stolen land". All land was stolen at some point.

 

[Borachio]

Correlation is not always causation, but often it is.



http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee381/phongluusg/zarabotat-na-foreks-1000-3273_zps5992fec6.jpg

Who can deny that Zimbabwe has inflation?

But how you can deduce that its inflation is in any related to the alleged absence of an apartheid regime in Rhodesia under Ian Smith, or the removal of an apartheid regime, defeats me completely.

Maybe I've misunderstood your drift.

 

[Domen]

Not sure why do you think that my response to useless about correlation & causation was related to that image showing inflation.

Just this funny correlation that both things happened to be in the same post #27 does not imply causation.

 

[Hygro]

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

I often judge people's arguments by their ability to correctly describe the arguments of those who they are arguing against.

This right here does not pass the test.

 

[Domen]

It was meant to be a bit ironic, you know.

But I also wanted you to ask yourselves why in some situations race matters, and in others not.

 

[Borachio]

In what situations does race matter? Isn't it just one of those peripheral characteristics that don't matter?

 

[Domen]

In what situations does race matter?

Some claim that it is better under Mugabe's regime than under Smith's regime just because of Smith's different race.

Here is a situation when race matters.

Objectively both regimes are unjust, but it was better under Smith's regime - for everybody, not just for white people.

So it seems that it is OK when a totalitarian regime rules a country, as long as they have the same skin color as majority?

 

[Borachio]

Well, in purely economic terms, I suppose that might be true. I'm fairly sure that economic well-being isn't any excuse for injustice, though.

Why can't we have both justice and prosperity?

 

[Domen]

In all terms, not just purely economic. Remember, in this country average lifetime decreased from 57 to 34 years.

Blacks had more rights in Rhodesia than they have in Zimbabwe. Just skin color of the tiny ruling elite changed.

Why can't we have both justice and prosperity?

Rhodesia was eventually going to transform into a more just society. Concessions were going to be made sooner or later.

However, Mugabe started a violent revolution and ended "white rules" immediately. That was not a good way of transformation.

We can't have both justice and prosperity because we are not patient enough. Or rather they were, not we.

===========================================

As for education:

Ajidica's source says that 160 $ were spent in 1970 on each white student while only 17 $ on each black student. OK, but before Rhodesia was established, there were 160 $ spent on each white future Rhodesian student and 0 $ on each black student, because nothing resembling schools existed there...

 

[Hygro]

It was meant to be a bit ironic, you know.

But I also wanted you to ask yourselves why in some situations race matters, and in others not.

I don't think you're in a position to ask that question, man. Your attempt at irony was clear. Do you understand why race being a social construct doesn't preclude a socially constructed minority from still being a meaningful distinctive category?

Hint: Government is a social construct. Money is a social construct. Debt is a social construct. Business is a social construct. Fashion is a social construct. Extended family is arguably a social construct. Power is a social construct.

 

[Domen]

First of all I don't believe that race is a social construct, but a construct of biology - which doesn't mean that I gradate races and consider some of them as inferior to others. But it doesn't really matter if race is a construct of biology or of something else - in both cases it is realistic, just like other man-made concepts (law, money, etc.). What I mean is that it should not matter what color of skin or what race is the ruling elite, but only how oppressive it is.

Biological classification of animals and in general all living things is also a construct of man-made science of biology.

Extended family is arguably a social construct.

Actually extended family is relatively less important in modern societies compared to its much greater importance in prehistory and early history.

Extended family is something which has been important for us humans already in our very remote past, when we all lived as hunter gatherers.

And we all lived as hunter gatherers during most of our existence as a species. Some 95% of our time on this planet we all - regardless of race and continent of origin - spent as hunters or gatherers. This fact is important to bear in mind when you consider why some societies did not advance as much as others. The simple truth is that we all did not advance that much during 95% of our existence. Only the most recent 5% was revolutionary for some groups of humanity.

So if anything, not advancing is a more typical condition for our species than advancing. Australia was the norm, not China or Mesopotamia.

Hint: Government is a social construct. Money is a social construct. Debt is a social construct. Business is a social construct. Fashion is a social construct. Extended family is arguably a social construct. Power is a social construct.

But what I mean is that it should not matter what skin color or race is your government as long as it is competent.

Rhodesian regime was very far from being perfect but current regime in Zimbabwe is even more oppressive.

 

[Hygro]

First of all I don't believe that race is a social construct, but a construct of biology - which doesn't mean that I gradate races and consider some of them as inferior to others. But it doesn't really matter if race is a construct of biology or a construct of sociology - in both cases it is realistic, just like other man-made concepts (law, money, etc.). What I mean is that it should not matter what color of skin or what race is the ruling elite, but only how oppressive it is.

I know you often look at race from a different lens, one that is more biologically tied. But race as it is used (white, black, asian, etc) is hilariously non-biological except with a few visual cues. So it is awkward when you bridge your study of race with society's application of race.

It does not just matter how oppressive a ruling class is. It also matters how they got power, how they maintain power, the stories they tell, and the means they use. Oppression is oppression, but we shouldn't disregard the type of oppression used.

Actually extended family is relatively less important in modern societies compared to its much greater importance in prehistory and early history.

Extended family is something which has been important for us humans already in our very remote past, when we all lived as hunter gatherers.

And yet interesting how who is an uncle, a cousin, a niece, is totally different in different cultures. It's interesting how the meaning of extended changes so much: sex between cousins here in California is largely considered deplorably disgusting thanks to social pressure– in other places it is encouraged.

Its importance doesn't change if its a social construct or not. But yes, over all, extended family does seem largely a biological construct.