quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
And then there's the Matebele genocide in the 80s of course.....

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
When you fail to regard fellow human beings as such and then start categorising them on the basis of race and levels of technological advancement etc., the debate is already on the slippery slope.

The fact remains that the British and Smith did not have the best interest of the local people in mind during their rule. That was the colonial paradigm & value base. You cannot expect the colonial value base to last for ever. You have to expect a backlash. The backlash worked well for them huh? They voted themselves right into the sewer where they have the right to be starved into voting the way they're told, the right to be tortured and murdered and the right to have their entire country flushed down the toilet and their entire national wealth stolen

Hence my comment that terrorists and despots will breed worse terrorists and despots.

The fact remains that the British and Smith together had more than 150 years of opportunity to build a great country and develop ALL its people but failed to do so. How did they fail? - They took a country that had absolutely nothing and turned it into one that was a gross exporter, built roads & infrastructure, schools, hospitals, railways, farming & industry. They created a currency where one of their dollars was worth more than one USD. It was only when the country was handed over that it went from that to the direct opposite!

When you take a pre-industrial tribal society and impose clonial rule on it, you cannot hand over independence without first equiping them to manage the new systems and environment. You need to check your history. They didn't hand it over, take everything from taps to light bulbs and walk away as happened in the Congo, they stayed behind, left the infrastructure in place, working and gave as much support as they could.

All the talk of leaving a wealthy nation with food crops, roads, schools etc is fine. You also have to include what else the colonials left behind - an indegenous people without the skills or capabilities to manage the colonial infrastructure and trying to sort out their own identity as a people. They also left behid a lot of discontent and humiliation of human dignity! Easy to brush that under the carpet. At the time of independence the black Zimbabweans were some of the best educated blacks anywhere in Africa and that generation is still evident now if you visit and talk to that older generation and there's considerably more humiliation of human dignity under Mugabe than there ever was under Smith

Many European communites are today rebelling against the influx of Eastern immigrants with education & skills! Immagine if they were colonised by the Eastern peopel and robbed of property & any social equality! That comment has absolutely no validity whatsoever because you're comparing apples to oranges

Edited: Also add the into the mix the cold war and how Zim was caught in the middle of the West and the Soviets struggling for influence & control in Africa! A no-win situation for the local people.

Yes, violence & genocide did & does happen. Oh well. That's alright then. There was me thinking it was a serious issue! But what happens to the 95%+ locals who have no part in the conflict except being victims? We've see what happens. They have their national wealth stolen by their leaders, tortured and murdered and..... oh no. I've already covered that haven't I. Silly old me!

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
People can spew hate and filth and thus exhibit their basic nature. Where the hell have I spewed hate and filth? - All I've done is put forward what most would see as a reasoned argument and stated my opinion that black African politicians couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and have stuffed up every country they got their hands on.

The fact remains that these are all Colonial perspectives and Western perspective - assuming that what is good for the west is good for tribal societies etc. I've repeatedly said that African problems can't be solved by western solutions.

Steve, to claim that Zim had nothing before the British came is very rich indeed. Why did the British go there if the country had nothing? What did the country have before the Brits arrived? - I wasn't there but don't remember reading anything about the place having schools, roads, hospitals, railways or anything else. To the best of my knowledge, it was just bush with a few locals running around...... (Locals incidentally, who had pushed the previous occupants out). As to why the Brits went there in the first place. That is very well recorded & I'd recommend you do the relevant research if you don't know.

If colonialism was so successful then why is the US and the UK struggling right now? I don't see what one has to do with the other. A far better question would be if independent rule was so desirable, why has it been such a failure throughout Africa?

The facts are pretty simple - conquering and invading countries have left behind a big mess many times in history. They have never succeeded in convincing others that the invasion was good for everyone concerned. I think that's a matter of perspective and the criteria one measures success by. It could equally be argued that colonisation benefited the colonised countries immensely and in many ways.

Alternatively, how successful would you say those countries that haven't had the benefit of European colonisation have been? I'd hardly call Liberia and Ethiopia a resounding success and am bloody sure most, if not all here would agree with that.

Perhaps you could name an African country that has been previously colonised and is better off with regard to infrastructure and what we now term civilisation after independence?

Edited:

Look at it another way. If Smith & the British had really cared about the locals, they would have shared power in the 30s and 40s and gone to full free domocracy in the 50s. Mugabe would have remained unknown and all the violent nationalist regimes would never have started in the first place. The opinion at that time was that if given independence, it wouldn't have succeeded and IMO, they were right. In fact, even when they were given it, history has proved they stuffed it up.

Steve - that is how they failed! They did not care about the long term future of the locals when they imposed their Western and colonial system on the locals.

I said in an earlier post that "I should start by saying that perhaps I'm the wrong person to comment because I'm British by birth & English by the grace of God & perhaps this subject would/should be better addressed by a white Rhodesian who lived through the experience"

The reason I said that is because I'm not sure I'm qualified to offer an educated and fully informed opinion on the whole thing but I am bloody sure, that you're not.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
... if you choose to comment, please indicate if you have actually been there or live there.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
When you fail to regard fellow human beings as such and then start categorising them on the basis of race and levels of technological advancement etc., the debate is already on the slippery slope.

The fact remains that the British and Smith did not have the best interest of the local people in mind during their rule. That was the colonial paradigm & value base. You cannot expect the colonial value base to last for ever. You have to expect a backlash.

Hence my comment that terrorists and despots will breed worse terrorists and despots.

The fact remains that the British and Smith together had more than 150 years of opportunity to build a great country and develop ALL its people but failed to do so.

When you take a pre-industrial tribal society and impose clonial rule on it, you cannot hand over independence without first equiping them to manage the new systems and environment.

All the talk of leaving a wealthy nation with food crops, roads, schools etc is fine. You also have to include what else the colonials left behind - an indegenous people without the skills or capabilities to manage the colonial infrastructure and trying to sort out their own identity as a people. They also left behid a lot of discontent and humiliation of human dignity! Easy to brush that under the carpet.

Many European communites are today rebelling against the influx of Eastern immigrants with education & skills! Immagine if they were colonised by the Eastern peopel and robbed of property & any social equality!

Edited: Also add the into the mix the cold war and how Zim was caught in the middle of the West and the Soviets struggling for influence & control in Africa! A no-win situation for the local people.

Yes, violence & genocide did & does happen. But what happens to the 95%+ locals who have no part in the conflict except being victims?

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
simple poll- please consider standard of living, job opportunities, health care, education- if you choose to comment, please indicate if you have actually been there or live there.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Steve

Your post ios full of contradictions.

When you say [Qote]
"Where have I said that colonial rule was all sweetness & light? - I haven't...... but I have said that when Africa was under colonial/white rule, things worked and that's true." ..there are many contradictioons there.

That statement is purely a colonial perspective which assumes that what is good for the European is good for the African tribals. This fails to respect the tribal cultures and people for their heritage, values and right to grow and develop in the way they want to, without being forced to conform by the colonials.

I do not need to set foot on any specific country to discuss and debate about the colonial mondset and its impact on history. I do not need to visit any specific country to debate about basic human rights and values.

Steve, while you condemn African tribalism, you yourself practive Eurpean / colonial triablism. As I said you do not consider yourself Arican and equal to all Africans. You identify yourself with the European tribe and claim that your tribe's ways are better and the right way. THAT is the problem.

If you have not understood the paradigms involved, then you never will.

Enough said.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
i think you may as well give up Steve- some people are just to blind to see that most African counties have made a big mess of freedom from colonial rule- THEY ARE TRULY WORSE OFF THAN BEFORE "INDEPENDENCE" AND CERTAIN POSTERS WILL NEVER ADMIT IT. best example i can think of is the DRC- simply an absolute shithole 30 years after the Belgians left with no end in sight. Zim wallows under a dictatorship and quite likely will until well into the future. you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
Wow!!!!

Are you going to liberate the Maoris from the colonial yoke as well?

Damned if we know why you left India in the first place - place is full of capitalists taking advantage of the poor downtrodden masses!

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:

I am amazed that people cannot debate these issue without bringing in the race card. That's exactly what you're doing when you blame the white man for everything when he's been out of power for DECADES!

All we're doing is blaming those who are responsible for the decline of ALL countries in Africa SINCE THEY WERE GIVEN INDEPENDENCE who all happen to be black politicians........But by your standards it's racist to blame a (black) ethnic group for the mistakes they make when they're in power but not racist to blame a (white) ethnic group for the mistakes made when they're NOT IN POWER! HTF does that work & HTF is it me/us and not you that's playing the race card?

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Steve

When you have both have learned to read and understand simple English without misrtepresnting the facts or distoring the issues, we might have a more polite debate.

I think what you meant to say was "when you have learned to both read and understand simple English" etc. Your error suggests that my understanding and indeed mastery of the English language is somewhat better than yours but it's not me that's misrepresented (note the spelling) the facts or distorted the issues, it's you that's consistently done that and where have we (as you and I) had an impolite debate?