When Lord Soames got all his medals for overseeing the hand over of Ian Smith"s Rhodesia, to the disaster that was to become Zimbabwe, I was thinking to myself; what are you doing? Robert Mugabe for leader! At the moment, Rhodesia is feeding Africa, they have one of the best standards of living in Africa, they are enjoying prosperity, and all it"s people were free from Robert Mugabe.

True, it wasn"t ideal for blacks. They did suffer discrimination in their own country, they got second rate services such as education, health care and housing - but at least they had these servicies, and food to eat.

What have they got now? The economy in ruins, a months salary to buy a tin of baked beans, living in fear of their lives from a madman, the cities and roads in need of reapair, and rebuilding, no proper education for the children, disorder widespread, and no real prospect of it ending, as most whites have left. In fact Ian Smith said: "it"s not the whites I fear for, it"s the BLACKS, without the white farmers providing the food, the economy will collapse, and the blacks will starve". By god! was he right.

All this was done to fast in 1979, and I am not surprised you have the situation of the currency being sidelined, equaling the destruction of a country, all this should have been done over time, so you had a decent leader, who knew what he was doing. This hardly applies to Robert Mugabe. It"s the white do-gooders who are real culprits.

Originally Posted by octopus

When Lord Soames got all his medals for overseeing the hand over of Ian Smith"s Rhodesia, to the disaster that was to become Zimbabwe, I was thinking to myself; what are you doing? Robert Mugabe for leader! At the moment, Rhodesia is feeding Africa, they have one of the best standards of living in Africa, they are enjoying prosperity, and all it"s people were free from Robert Mugabe.

True, it wasn"t ideal for blacks. They did suffer discrimination in their own country, they got second rate services such as education, health care and housing - but at least they had these servicies, and food to eat.

What have they got now? The economy in ruins, a months salary to buy a tin of baked beans, living in fear of their lives from a madman, the cities and roads in need of reapair, and rebuilding, no proper education for the children, disorder widespread, and no real prospect of it ending, as most whites have left. In fact Ian Smith said: "it"s not the whites I fear for, it"s the BLACKS, without the white farmers providing the food, the economy will collapse, and the blacks will starve". By god! was he right.

All this was done to fast in 1979, and I am not surprised you have the situation of the currency being sidelined, equaling the destruction of a country, all this should have been done over time, so you had a decent leader, who knew what he was doing. This hardly applies to robert Mugabe. It"s the white do-gooders who are real culprits.

To be fair, Mugabe was lauded when he began leading Zimbabwe. He was a hero to his people.

Then he suddenly lost it.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

To be fair, Mugabe was lauded when he began leading Zimbabwe. He was a hero to his people.

Then he suddenly lost it.

I disagree.

He didn't lose it... He destroyed it -_-

When Zimbabwe was under British control it ran effectively as a state.
Under Mugabe, it fell apart.

What we need is not a British colony, but a British mandate.
The country to be taken back into British hands, install a system of democracy the people want.

Manage the local resources, local people and charities/NFP [not for profits] and rebuild Zimbabwe.

The country to be taken back into British hands, install a system of democracy the people want.

Do i detect imperialism???Yes of course , it is our divine right to imperial rule as we are ,of course the number 1 race on earth , the more of the world brought under our imperial rule , the better it will be for humanity?!Did not a certain C.J Rhodes say this?
Yes , lets bring back ancient discriminatory colonial policies , lets deny the native africans the right to participate in government , and allow only whites the chance to vote and govern.
Throughout the whole of colonial rule , far from the paradise you hint at , there was much civil unrest , calling for equal access to jobs and the right to participate in their own government.
Yes , let`s return to the imperial policies of the past and create a new despot for the future.

Better still , let`s send cameron and osbourne over to preach on austerity to the impoverished zimbabweans as they sip from their champagne glassThey could teach mugabe a thing or two on stealing from the poor

Originally Posted by stewy

Do i detect imperialism???Yes of course , it is our divine right to imperial rule as we are ,of course the number 1 race on earth , the more of the world brought under our imperial rule , the better it will be for humanity?!Did not a certain C.J Rhodes say this?
Yes , lets bring back ancient discriminatory colonial policies , lets deny the native africans the right to participate in government , and allow only whites the chance to vote and govern.
Throughout the whole of colonial rule , far from the paradise you hint at , there was much civil unrest , calling for equal access to jobs and the right to participate in their own government.
Yes , let`s return to the imperial policies of the past and create a new despot for the future.

I think the history of the last 50 years would suggest the European rulers are better at goverment, than the native population - espeacialy in Zimbabwe; 231 million percent inflation, some success story. Gordon Brown can look round and see someone worse off than himself.

I think the history of the last 50 years would suggest the European rulers are better at goverment, than the native population - espeacialy in Zimbabwe; 231 million percent inflation, some success story. Gordon Brown can look round and see someone worse off than himself.

They need to get rid of mugabe clearly , they don`t need a return to an abhorrent apartheid state that left the majority of blacks destitute and landless.80 % of arable land given to white settlers!

Originally Posted by stewy

They need to get rid of mugabe clearly , they don`t need a return to an abhorrent apartheid state that left the majority of blacks destitute and landless.80 % of arable land given to white settlers!

Well I for one, would not want a return to white rule, because, as you say it"s not right, and we in the UK, would end up paying far more than we are at present. It"s their Country, so let them do it! On their own two feet, without any help, from Europe, or the USA; I think it"s about time these third world countries made the effort, everybody else has too.

Originally Posted by stewy

Do i detect imperialism???Yes of course , it is our divine right to imperial rule as we are ,of course the number 1 race on earth , the more of the world brought under our imperial rule , the better it will be for humanity?!Did not a certain C.J Rhodes say this?
Yes , lets bring back ancient discriminatory colonial policies , lets deny the native africans the right to participate in government , and allow only whites the chance to vote and govern.
Throughout the whole of colonial rule , far from the paradise you hint at , there was much civil unrest , calling for equal access to jobs and the right to participate in their own government.
Yes , let`s return to the imperial policies of the past and create a new despot for the future.

Can you read?

Because it is either that or you are just stupid...

I said mandate. That means we work for the people. We build the country for the people. Give the people a democracy. Give the people everything they need to survive.

This is not imperialism. In fact this is the opposite of imperialism!

=

Liberal Authoritarian;84291]Can you read?

Because it is either that or you are just stupid...

I said mandate. That means we work for the people. We build the country for the people. Give the people a democracy. Give the people everything they need to survive.

This is not imperialism. In fact this is the opposite of imperialism!

Ohhh , you mean like the british mandate of palestine ,silly me!Remind me how that ended ??

I said mandate. That means we work for the people. We build the country for the people. Give the people a democracy. Give the people everything they need to survive.

Yes very sensible .I am sure the people of zimbabwe are gullible enough to believe that one. Get mugabe out and bring back the british , how we long for those good ol colonial days!!

Originally Posted by stewy

=
Ohhh , you mean like the british mandate of palestine ,silly me!Remind me how that ended ??

Two things

1. Went able to finish the job
2. Israel is a successful state and survives well

To compare an event like that during such circumstances to the now, is just foolish.

[QUOTE=Liberal Authoritarian;84305]Two things

1. Went able to finish the job
2. Israel is a successful state and survives well

To compare an event like that during such circumstances to the now, is just foolish.

(yawn) yes ...........it would be,wouldn`t it.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I disagree.

He didn't lose it... He destroyed it -_-

When Zimbabwe was under British control it ran effectively as a state.
Under Mugabe, it fell apart.

What we need is not a British colony, but a British mandate.
The country to be taken back into British hands, install a system of democracy the people want.

Manage the local resources, local people and charities/NFP [not for profits] and rebuild Zimbabwe.

Firstly, do you have friends from Zimbabwe? I do, my comments are based on what I have heard from people who used to live there.

Secondly, the people of Zimbabwe are able to successfully rule their nation, the problem is that the current head of state is a nutter. The opposition party would be perfect at leading the nation.

Britain attempting to take control of Zimbabwe would be a terrible option, look at what has happened in the past.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Firstly, do you have friends from Zimbabwe? I do, my comments are based on what I have heard from people who used to live there.

Secondly, the people of Zimbabwe are able to successfully rule their nation, the problem is that the current head of state is a nutter. The opposition party would be perfect at leading the nation.

Britain attempting to take control of Zimbabwe would be a terrible option, look at what has happened in the past.

The past had different circumstances attached.

Remove Mugabe and some other nutter will take over.

Originally Posted by stewy

They need to get rid of mugabe clearly , they don`t need a return to an abhorrent apartheid state that left the majority of blacks destitute and landless.80 % of arable land given to white settlers!

I'm not saying that apartheid was either good or bad - clearly there were significant points both for and against it both in Rhodesia and in South Africa. However no-one can deny that under white rule, both countries were the most prosperous and productive in sub-Saharan Africa, and that in many respects, although denied the vote in their own land, the indigenous Africans at least had rulers who knew how to run a country and, in relative terms, were themselves better off in both financially and socially than they are today.

I have several friends in South Africa and know people who used to live in Zimbabwe until the writing was clearly on the wall for them in the early 1990s, when they sold up and left, and all of them are absolutely clear that pressure from the black African population, encouraged by white liberals, many of whom hadn't even been to the countries concerned, has been the downfall of both places. South Africa has fared significantly better than Zimbabwe because of the substantial white population remaining there who still retain significant economic power in the country, however I do have major concerns that many black Africans are still trying to gain further power and control in SA, again lead on by white liberals who cannot see the obvious - that the black Africans just cannot manage their own affairs without very significant and ongoing help.

Pigs might fly, but until the black Africans accept that they need people from the first world to run their countries for them, and until they cease to resent what they see as outside interference by the white man, the vast majority of sub-Saharan Africa will stay third world, perhaps increasingly so as climate change and the associated water and agricultural problems begin to hit them.

This is what I love about Midas turning up.

On many occasions he backs up my points with a very well written statement.

It is a good post Midas - As usual!

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm not saying that apartheid was either good or bad - clearly there were significant points both for and against it both in Rhodesia and in South Africa.

Why not? How can the often brutal subjugation of the majority by the minority based on race (in this case) ever be morally right? I fail to see how morally you can sit on the fence like that.

However no-one can deny that under white rule, both countries were the most prosperous and productive in sub-Saharan Africa, and that in many respects,

OK but at this price:

...denied the vote in their own land, the indigenous Africans at least had rulers who knew how to run a country and, in relative terms, were themselves better off in both financially and socially than they are today.

Would you be happy with that if you were the one denied the same rights? Or would you use whatever method at hand to fight against it?

Pigs might fly, but until the black Africans accept that they need people from the first world to run their countries for them, and until they cease to resent what they see as outside interference by the white man, the vast majority of sub-Saharan Africa will stay third world, perhaps increasingly so as climate change and the associated water and agricultural problems begin to hit them.

Why does it have to be one "side " or the other in sole charge? surely the best case scenario (yes flying pig time again I know) would be for both black and white Africans to run things together?

Originally Posted by LA

This is what I love about Midas turning up.
On many occasions he backs up my points with a very well written statement.
It is a good post Midas - As usual!

Oh for God's sake Spooky don't encourage him!

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Why not? How can the often brutal subjugation of the majority by the minority based on race (in this case) ever be morally right? I fail to see how morally you can sit on the fence like that.

Brutal subjugation?? That's not how I remember it at the time, nor is it how the fair number of people I know who lived in both Zimbabwe and South Africa at the time remember it! OK, as I said before it did have its negative aspects, but those were grossly sensationalised in the western media. For instance one photo I clearly remember as having been on the front pages of several leading newspapers showed a group of dishevelled and sad looking black African kids with their faces pressed up against a high chain link fence with a ramshackled township behind them. This had a caption along the lines of 'chained in misery' or something similar, and the media had a field day about it and the repression it implied. Only later did it emerge that the fence wasn't to keep anyone in anywhere, it was simply at the side of a motorway to prevent the people from crossing at that point, and the photo had been staged by bleeding heart liberals to give a totally false impression. I mention it because it's typical of the way that the whole apartheid situation was viewed in the west, from our perspective, whereas from an African development perspective, most of it made perfect sense.

Would you be happy with that if you were the one denied the same rights? Or would you use whatever method at hand to fight against it?

I'd have either left or more likely had the common sense to realise that black Africans weren't capable of running their own country and that if any social and economic progress was to be made, keeping those who could manage, i.e., the white settlers, in charge would be the best way forward for all. If it hadn't been stopped so abruptly, I'm pretty sure that slowly apartheid would have encompassed those black Africans who were capable of managing matters.

Why does it have to be one "side " or the other in sole charge? surely the best case scenario (yes flying pig time again I know) would be for both black and white Africans to run things together?

As you also point out, pigs might fly! Name me one sub-Saharan black African country which has succeeded on any level without first having had its infrastructure and government put in place by white settlers, and has then gone on to be as equally successful when they've all left?

Oh for God's sake Spooky don't encourage him!

Why's that, because you don't want to hear facts you don't like being confirmed by someone else?

Originally Posted by Midas

Brutal subjugation?? That's not how I remember it at the time, nor is it how the fair number of people I know who lived in both Zimbabwe and South Africa at the time remember it! OK, as I said before it did have its negative aspects, but those were grossly sensationalised in the western media. For instance one photo I clearly remember as having been on the front pages of several leading newspapers showed a group of dishevelled and sad looking black African kids with their faces pressed up against a high chain link fence with a ramshackled township behind them. This had a caption along the lines of 'chained in misery' or something similar, and the media had a field day about it and the repression it implied. Only later did it emerge that the fence wasn't to keep anyone in anywhere, it was simply at the side of a motorway to prevent the people from crossing at that point, and the photo had been staged by bleeding heart liberals to give a totally false impression. I mention it because it's typical of the way that the whole apartheid situation was viewed in the west, from our perspective, whereas from an African development perspective, most of it made perfect sense.

So tempted to say "whatever", but you really don't think the white police were brutal in clearing the townships the way they did in the 80s? You are seriously telling me there weren't hundreds (possibly more) travesties of justice and the imprisonment of innocent men as political prisoners during that time, in the name of fighting terrorism?

I'd have either left or more likely had the common sense to realise that black Africans weren't capable of running their own country and that if any social and economic progress was to be made, keeping those who could manage, i.e., the white settlers, in charge would be the best way forward for all. If it hadn't been stopped so abruptly, I'm pretty sure that slowly apartheid would have encompassed those black Africans who were capable of managing matters.

You misunderstand me, quite possibly purposefully, put yourself in the shoes of the black man denied the right to vote, kept in poverty, denied equal protection of the law and generally treated as a second class non-citizen! Now tell me you would accept that it was for the best!

As you also point out, pigs might fly! Name me one sub-Saharan black African country which has succeeded on any level without first having had its infrastructure and government put in place by white settlers, and has then gone on to be as equally successful when they've all left?

Well obviously I can't; just for once, please be open minded enough to consider what could be, not just what is or isn't.

Why's that, because you don't want to hear facts you don't like being confirmed by someone else?

yes that's why exactly! No because I was getting frustrated (to put it mildly) at your apparent lack of empathy and thought I'd try and lighten the mood of the thread a bit and avoid the aneurysm I've just developed struggling with this reply!! Even putting aside your socio-economic position for a moment, as a white male you have always been part of the priveleged class, obviously you can't change that (nor would I want you to) but can you really not empathise with the misery caused to the rest of us mere chattel and inconvenient lesser beings throughout history?

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm not saying that apartheid was either good or bad - clearly there were significant points both for and against it both in Rhodesia and in South Africa. .

Please stop linking Rhodesia with South Africa as being an Apartheid regime.

Originally Posted by Midas

South Africa has fared significantly better than Zimbabwe because of the substantial white population remaining there who still retain significant economic power in the country

Many white civil servants are unable to leave South Africa but as they are replaced (Africanisation) so the degradation and corruption will increase exponentially. There have already been calls for land redistribution and a labour leader advised criminals not to steal from blacks but from whites as they deserved it. The SA GDP is dropping annually plus the brain drain is becomming a flood. Jacob Zuma looks as if he will be another Mugabe.

Give South Africa 5 years and we will be paying through the nose to support the starving little kiddies.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

So tempted to say "whatever", but you really don't think the white police were brutal in clearing the townships the way they did in the 80s? You are seriously telling me there weren't hundreds (possibly more) travesties of justice and the imprisonment of innocent men as political prisoners during that time, in the name of fighting terrorism?

I'd agree that the police were heavy-handed at times in clearing some of the illegal settlements which had sprung up in South Africa, however when they were being met with significant violence in carrying out their lawful duty (regardless of what you personally might think about that duty), what do you expect them to do, just turn around and go away or use whatever force was necessary to do their job given the circumstances? I think I'm on pretty safe grounds to say that much of what was reported in the press here at the time was only half the story though, the black African half, as told through bleeding heart liberal eyes that is.

You misunderstand me, quite possibly purposefully, put yourself in the shoes of the black man denied the right to vote, kept in poverty, denied equal protection of the law and generally treated as a second class non-citizen! Now tell me you would accept that it was for the best!

Obviously I can't put myself in someone else's shoes, I'm me in my situation, nothing else; I can only surmise what I would have done if I'd been there. You say 'second class citizen' though; don't you think that compared to the conditions they found themselves in before apartheid, the significant majority of black Africans were better off under it? But please Op, don't just say 'no' based on what you've seen in the media, look at the situation objectively from their point of view not from your own liberal one, and actually talk to people who were there at the time and know the real situation, don't just rely on biased second hand versions.

Well obviously I can't; just for once, please be open minded enough to consider what could be, not just what is or isn't.

What could be - if only we could all consider that! But it's not realistic to do so unless it's something that's feasible, and virtually every indicator there is shows that black Africans are not capable of running their own countries without very significant external help. It's not being closed-minded to be realistic.

yes that's why exactly! No because I was getting frustrated (to put it mildly) at your apparent lack of empathy and thought I'd try and lighten the mood of the thread a bit and avoid the aneurysm I've just developed struggling with this reply!! Even putting aside your socio-economic position for a moment, as a white male you have always been part of the priveleged class, obviously you can't change that (nor would I want you to) but can you really not empathise with the misery caused to the rest of us mere chattel and inconvenient lesser beings throughout history?

I don't lack empathy, however I can see the much wider situation and how the black African nations, each and every one of them, have destroyed themselves once power was devolved to them. With that in mind I don't think it unrealistic, my socio-economic status notwithstanding, to point out that it's better for the majority of those people to lead a relatively free life under better conditions than they had prior to apartheid, even through they mightn't have a vote, than to live it in abject poverty in a nation which has crumbled about their ears, which is what will inevitably happen if the remaining westerners are removed from power. Apartheid was, and the remaining westerners in South Africa are, simply trying to prevent that from happening in the face of the determination of hordes of unintelligent people who couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery, let alone run the multi-billion dollar international companies which are the mainstay of the South African economy, to say nothing of running the country itself. You, or anyone else, who supports black African domination in South Africa, are condeming that country to be another Zimbabwe, guaranteed! Is that what you want?

Originally Posted by Afrivision

Please stop linking Rhodesia with South Africa as being an Apartheid regime.

Sorry, my loose wording; I'm well aware that apartheid was present in South Africa alone.

Many white civil servants are unable to leave South Africa but as they are replaced (Africanisation) so the degradation and corruption will increase exponentially. There have already been calls for land redistribution and a labour leader advised criminals not to steal from blacks but from whites as they deserved it. The SA GDP is dropping annually plus the brain drain is becomming a flood. Jacob Zuma looks as if he will be another Mugabe.

Give South Africa 5 years and we will be paying through the nose to support the starving little kiddies.

I quite agree with you as I've pointed out in the last paragraph of my reply to Opinionated, below. All a damn shame, SA is a lovely country which still has a huge potential given the right people in both economic and political power.