quote:

Originally posted by Harris:
Aaron,
The statement that the current state of Zimbabwe is due to the fact that WRONG people are in control is not disputed at all. The fact that some on this board think that "WRONG" people and "BLACK" people are interchangeable in that statement is what I have a problem with.

As far as Nixon's cook telling you what he feels, I guess he has his opinion. However, you being an experienced hunter and traveler know very well that staff will say things that a client wants to hear. I have seen several videos of trackers shouting "good shot" after an elephant was put down after 10 bad shots, just saying

Kim in his excellent post above has mentioned several examples of good things accomplished by bad political systems. Bringing back apartheid because they provided clinics to the rural areas is shortsighted and racist at best.

Harris - I've asked guys on the street, in the airport, even a cab driver in Vic Falls, and they have ALL said the same thing. This has nothing to do with "staff", and I assure you - Nikon's cook was telling me what he felt, as he was the one that started the conversation, not I. He told me, "the problem is, OUR people have no compassion for others - but the white man does." That's what he said, believe it or not. At 50 plus yrs of age, I assume he's come to that conclusion based upon prior experience, just sayin

I for one have never suggested that apartheid be brought back. We all know that would never work. My suggestion, and what I find many of the local Zim folks are insinuating is, let those do what they are best at, and remove those that are the problem. I wish Condy Rice would run for President! I think should would do an awesome job, JMO. I don't give a damn about someone's race, I care about their charcter/actions. So far, Mugabe and his thugs haven't scored too many points in the good guy catagory. Nor have many of the other African regimes over the past 30 yrs.

Steve,

I understand the technicalities of apartheid and minority white rule and should not have used apartheid in relation to Rhodesia but thanks for pointing it out.

As to your question if I am able to name anything that is better today than it was 35 years ago in Africa, my answer is a resounding NO. I can say the same thing about the colonial past of many countries but then one must answer the age old question about the bird in the golden cage.

Here is how see it. The countries belong to the citizens. It's their decisions to make their country the best or the worst in the world. They are the only ones with the power to make the decision. It is their country to destroy if they chose to do so.

Harris,

The problem with that argument is they don't have that freedom do they?

Come to that, they don't have any freedoms whatsoever.

Aaron,

I am not saying that you supported apartheid or anything similar as a solution but there are quite a few on this board who never let the opportunity pass them by to make their case for white rule or to make racially charged comments about the blacks in Africa.

I must ask, do we really believe in words like equality, justice, democracy or do we just use them as a punchline?

Do we think they are universal or do they only apply on us "civilized" people?

This is really interesting.

There is little doubt that hate can cause one to make decisions that may not be the best. For example, I have 2 clients that absolutely HATE a company that they worked with for years. They hate them so much that they make decisions that make no sense whatsoever. The latest example is spending $7 million in legal fees on a $250,000 dispute. This will put them out of business. Hate has made them make bad judgments. Race has zero to do with this. They are all lily white.

If one takes the time to read the statements of ministers and others involved in this matter, race has been brought into the discussion over and over. It is clear that they hate the whites. They are making bad decisions that, in the long run, will have a detrimental effect on the country. It can potentially wreck them forever. Can anyone really argue that the people of Zim are doing well these days?

Why is it racist to question this?

When I first went to Zim in 1988, I did not come back making the negative statements I make today. I, in fact, made positive and supportive statements about the government. Things have changed. Only those who don't want to see the reality of what has happened can argue otherwise. That is not racist in my book. It is realist in my book.

The fact is that there is not one African country that has not been wrecked by people like Mugabe,Mbutu, Amin dada, etc. Not one.

Do I think Obama has run the country well? NO! Having said that, I would have voted for Herman Cain for one reason and one reason only. He ran a successful business.

I don't think it is racist to call a lousy, no good sorry so & so out just because he happens to be black. Truth hurts sometimes.

I am a republican but not hard core right wing. Some of the idiots in that party scare me. Some of the sheer stupidity that comes out of their mouths appalls me. However, when I consider the alternative (for example Nancy Pilosi), it is not a hard decision.

Check the campaign contribution records. I have given Allen West the maximum in the last 2 elections. He is very much Africa American.

My investment managers and bankers are all black. They are some of the finest people I know, smartest as well.

I don't see how questioning the activities of these jack asses in Zim is racist at all. Play the political correctness game all you want. That country is going to hell quickly. it is largely caused by racist thugs. They happen to be black.

I do agree with one thing. The " call a spade a spade" comment was out of line. The modified picture of Mugabe is also out of line.

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:
I must ask, do we really believe in words like equality, justice, democracy or do we just use them as a punchline?

Do we think they are universal or do they only apply on us "civilized" people?

What equality, justice, democracy is there in Zimbabwe or for that matter, any African country that has majority rule?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Harris,

The problem with that argument is they don't have that freedom do they?

Come to that, they don't have any freedoms whatsoever.

Again, only their decision if they want to force their government to give them basic rights or to change the government by elections, protests or an armed struggle. The answer is not to turn the clock back to an unjust and racist era.

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:
Here is how see it. The countries belong to the citizens. It's their decisions to make their country the best or the worst in the world. They are the only ones with the power to make the decision. It is their country to destroy if they chose to do so.

And in doing so, its OK with you that the hugely out-numbered "white Zimbos", were removed from their righgtfully owned lands - BY FORCE in many cases? Their businesses stolen, their lives turned up-side down. And since when were they NOT citizens of the country that ruined them?

In doing so, hundreds of thousands have been dis-placed, left hungry in the streets, and left wanting a return to previous days. Because those that once led this prosperous country, tried to make things better for ALL Zim folk. Those that have "chose to do so", as you put it, are so few - that to claim the citizens as a whole have ruined Zim, is completely wrong! They've been forced, via the threat of violence/intimidation to do as they are told, and STFU, period!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:
I must ask, do we really believe in words like equality, justice, democracy or do we just use them as a punchline?

Do we think they are universal or do they only apply on us "civilized" people?

What equality, justice, democracy is there in Zimbabwe or for that matter, any African country that has majority rule?

Again, I agree... None of those countries are even close to a well functioning society.

What do you think is the solution?

Certainly no-one else will do it for them...... but if you want an example of how little freedom & democracy exists in Zim, have you noticed how little comment we've had on this from Zim itself?

My crystal ball tells me things are going from bad to worse over there..........

As for the solution?....... I don't have an answer for that but I do know that political correctness plays no part in it........ I wii say though that the first do gooder that asks me to donate to the poor of Africa is going to get his collection tin shoved up his arse.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:
Here is how see it. The countries belong to the citizens. It's their decisions to make their country the best or the worst in the world. They are the only ones with the power to make the decision. It is their country to destroy if they chose to do so.

And in doing so, its OK with you that the hugely out-numbered "white Zimbos", were removed from their righgtfully owned lands - BY FORCE in many cases? Their businesses stolen, their lives turned up-side down. And since when were they NOT citizens of the country that ruined them?

In doing so, hundreds of thousands have been dis-placed, left hungry in the streets, and left wanting a return to previous days. Because those that once led this prosperous country, tried to make things better for ALL Zim folk. Those that have "chose to do so", as you put it, are so few - that to claim the citizens as a whole have ruined Zim, is completely wrong! They've been forced, via the threat of violence/intimidation to do as they are told, and STFU, period!

Aaron,
We are talking about bad policies, made by bad people. This goes into the column of things you can do to destroy your country.

If Africans want to support such policies or just stand there as quiet bystanders then they will see the results soon enough.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

As for the solution?....... I don't have an answer for that but I do know that political correctness plays no part in it........ I wii say though that the first do gooder that asks me to donate to the poor of Africa is going to get his collection tin shoved up his arse.

Thank you for your answer. If a person of your experience who has spent years living in Africa does not know what the right solution is, what chance do the visiting hunters have? Yet, some of them proclaim to know the answer and insist that turning back the clock will get things done. That is what I have a problem with.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I do agree with one thing. The " call a spade a spade" comment was out of line. The modified picture of Mugabe is also out of line.

Hey Larry, perhaps you and others have WAY mis-understood my "spade a spade" comment. I'm referring to call the "truth the truth", call an "apple and apple", etc, etc. Frankly, I'm not sure how else that would be interpreted? I did not realize "spade" was a bad word????? If you're un-sure of someone's meaning/insinuation, simply ask for clarification, before condemning their words!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:

Thank you for your answer. If a person of your experience who has spent years living in Africa does not know what the right solution is, what chance do the visiting hunters have? Yet, some of them proclaim to know the answer and insist that turning back the clock will get things done. That is what I have a problem with.

Turning the clock back isn't an option & although a lot of people think it'll improve when Mugabe croaks, they're wrong because his henchmen are equally evil & won't give up power voluntarily...... nor will the west ever develop the backbone to step in.

I don't have the answer but do know that calling a spade an earth inverting horticultural implement won't cure shit.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Harris:
calling a spade an earth inverting horticultural implement.

Well, that's what I thought a "spade" was, but apparently I am WAY wrong??????

I better stay the hell out of this less I insult the uninformed.How rare for me!!

PC-ness always covers for the "facts"

I don't care who will "rule" zimbabwe or any other country as long as it is not a corrupt, racist, totalitarian regime. Is that too much to ask?

Why all the cover up and excuses?

Good day, Gentlemen:
A friend (but illegal Mexican alien) suggested I view these posts and chime in my two cents of the current situation in Africa. I've been fortunate to take 13 trips to several countries there and will state Zimbabwe is my favorite. In fact, if I didn't have a black Lab that I love more than life itself I would be living in Zimbabwe's bush right now.

It seems the world of PC distorts the simple and basic facts. Ali said it when he returned from defeating George Foreman in the "Rumble in the Jungle." "Thank God my grand daddy got on that boat" was his reply when asked about Africa.

As a school teacher for my career I had to tread lightly on any issues dealing with race. Being a hunter and NRA member already had the administration looking down at me and I had my share of, "You gave me a bad grade because I'm black" crap from students and their parents. Oh, hey, I'm retired so let me rephrase, " and their ass hole parents."

I worked the truth into my Africa lessons thusly: I asked the students to come up with a list of identifiers of civilization and write them on the board. They would write things such as: education, health care, life expectancy, infrastructure, use of natural resources, civil rights, laws, courts, economy, and many more. Then I would make three columns on the board which where headed as: Before Colonialism--Colonial Period--Majority Rule or Post Colonial Period.

Of course, the Before column was zero--basically a stone age continent. A little research and some assistance from my several trips there filled in the colonial column. Then the kids (black, white, Asian, Hispanic and most from liberal back grounds) researched and completed the post colonial column. In the words of Gomer Pile, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise" the truth about tribalism and the failure of majority rule manifested itself. I did get a few complaints, yes. Parents angered I would disrespect the "motherland" by teaching such matters. I correctly pointed out I didn't teach anything--no outcomes--it was the students who taught themselves via their own research.

The problems in today's Africa (in my opinion) is the inability to plan for the future and thereby taking everything within grasp today as there are no guarantees of a tomorrow. Secondly is the tribal mentality of ruling over those who are weaker (such as the Shona and Matabele in today's Zim--and how it was the reverse 100 years or more ago).

Education is the only solution but that is a PC impossibility. White western Europe of America can't tell or suggest to the Africans much these days. We can only give money and food, watch it go to waste, and give more.

This is why we in the US don't live in a democracy where 50% + 1 rule over 50% - 1. We have a Republic which is ruled by laws even though our officials are democratically elected. We don't (or not supposed to) rule over the less powerful or less numerous.

Will Africa straighten out? Not in this lifetime in my opinion. As long as one individual can profit from the last rhino horn, etc., it will continue as it is now. So sad really, the continent has so much of everything-people, land, energy, resources, animals, space, scenery, etc.. the list goes on. I hope I am wrong on this one but I don't see a turnaround. I was not wrong, however, on my lessons in colonialism.

I hope I didn't bore you with my rant. Jose' asked me to write my experiences with the colonial period and I wanted to do so before he is deported.

Cheers, all.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:
Bringing back apartheid because they provided clinics to the rural areas is shortsighted and racist at best.

Is now a good time to point out that it was South Africa that had apartheid not Rhodesia/Zimbabwe?

Rhodesia had white rule but that's entirely different.

That said, perhaps you could name a single thing that's better for any Zimbabwean (whether black, white, pink or purple) under Mugabe than it was under Smith?

I also sometimes find myself wondering why it's racist to speak the truth.......

Exactly!!! On all accounts. Ian Smith's government had a plan for integration as well.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

And isn't it natural that those suffering that regime's depravities - blacks most especially - would recognize that returning to a white-run apartheid-like government is the only solution, as Lane points out with his heart-rending tale? After all, can any of us possibly conceive of a black man running a democracy? That'll be the day!

Kim,
I would urge you to research Ian Smith's political philosophy and plan for Rhodesia's future before spewing your sarcastic rhetoric. He actaully had a built-in plan for slow integration of parliment...nothing apartheid-like about it.

And...as to your last comment in the quote above...I have not seen any evidence to the contraire...have you?

Your post illustrates the fundamental difference between yours and my own philosophies. You are willing to tolerate decay for your fundemental belief...however flawed they may be. I am not. If the plan is not working...I am for changing it back what was...or at least to something different. Rhodesia WAS WORKING before Mugabe...you cannot argue different.

In my opinion...the democratic party (which I am certain you are a member) is the party of mediocracy...bring the highly successful people down to everyone else's level...hence their mantra this fall..."build America from the middle out".

The USA was not bulit by people with mediocre standards. It was built by the elite...the Henry Fords of America...people much like Mitt Romney and Ian Smith.

Lane, you're right about one thing: There are fundamental differences in our philosophies.

At least we found soommmee common ground Kim.

I believe that prejudice and racism are the product of ignorance, fear, and insecurity, and have no place in decent society. You wear them like a badge of honor. The nature of your bigotry reveals itself when you use a thug like Mugabe as a pretext for trumpeting white rule, and then with a wink and a nod include President Obama as a further exemplar of black incompetence. For you, no black person is suitable as a political leader.

I find Obama and Mugabe in his younger days to have many similarities and tendencies myself.

Was the economy better under Ian Smith? - sure. And was England the most powerful country in the world under George III? - yes. Was there full employment under Stalin? - undoubtedly. Did Hitler oversee the fastest economic recovery ever seen in Europe? - absolutely. Did the trains run on time under Mussolini? - always. Was segregated Alabama tranquil under leaders like George Wallace? - yep. Halcyon days for your 'elite', but were the governments under these leaders just and moral and democratic? - not at all. And each saw its inevitable demise as a result of institutionalized injustice.

As will Obama's regime.

And by the way, when you use transparent code words like America's "elite", we know whom you're talking about. In your eyes, no black person will ever possess anything but "mediocre standards" or rise to the level of equality with the white man. Obama is just another failed black leader like Mugabe and proof of that race’s inability to lead a country. What's so confounding - and frightening - is that you're a smart guy, Lane.

You’re also wrong in your conviction that I'm a Democrat. I served in three presidential administrations - all of them Republican - including tenure on the White House staff of Bush '41'. I'm a Republican. I have been all my life. I joined the GOP because I was proud of its legacy as the Party of Lincoln, standing up for the rights of those with the least voice in society. Sadly, the party that once cherished individual rights, small government, low taxation, and a strong national defense has been subsumed by folks not unlike yourself whose new priorities are instituting theologically-based laws that would have the police governing our private behavior and who find comfort in being anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-woman, and anti-intellectual. These goals are antithetical to the historical Republican principles of defending the disenfranchised and minimizing government intrusion into our lives.

Folks, I apologize for having intruded philosophy and politics into a post that is supposed to be about African Hunting. And pardon my over-the-top sarcasm in my earlier post. My excuse is that the wrong-headed and sometimes ugly remarks regarding black Africans on this thread compelled a response. As Thomas Paine said, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Kim,

I am held accountable by my peers and the public for my professional actions. I hold those in governmental power accountable the same.

I watched Obama get elected with everybody biting there tongue...I am not anymore. My personal choice. No matter how many times you call me a bigot...I am still going to speak the truth as I see it.

Before I leave this topic...as Kim or Harris neither took up the subject...anyone interested should research Ian Smith.

He was a remarkable man. Just what he accomplished as a WWII soldier should mark him as a hero in history. He knew that Rhodesia must integrate it's government...and he had made plan to do so...just slowly over time. He was a very forward thinker. He had just watched Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and learned from their mistakes. The Native African of the time needed to evolve into democracy. It was just foreign to them...not fault of their own. And as history has born out...they have failed when put in power without the learning curve they needed.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
(P)erhaps you could name a single thing that's better for any Zimbabwean (whether black, white, pink or purple) under Mugabe than it was under Smith?

I also sometimes find myself wondering why it's racist to speak the truth.......

Apparently, Steve, you're not so bewildered that you can't cobble together a good 'straw man' argument to make your case.

You understand full well that the discussion at hand is whether forced white rule is both moral and the only salvation for the beleaguered Zimbabwean people. But you don't ask if there is a better alternative to Mugabe absent disenfranchising the majority black population; no, instead you ask whether things were better under Smith - as if that is the only other choice.

Josef Stalin was responsible for the murder of over 20 million of his fellow Russians, yet upon his death many mourned his passing. Why? Because there was no culture of democracy or freedom to serve as a reference point for people who had been held asunder by their government for generations. Broken African states are no different, and the despots that rule them ensure that education, freedom of the press, and political parties are kept in check. Are the blacks in these countries stupid? No; like the Russians (who still have a difficult time adjusting to a government sans a strongman dictator), neither the culture nor the political climate has fostered a passion for freedom or the democracy it needs to flourish.

Your approach - and that of many on this thread - is to presume blacks in Africa as inferiors, intellectually incapable of solving their own problems. That is what some people see as racist. While there are few post-colonial success stories, all is not tragedy on the continent. Ghana, Botswana, and Tanzania are more stable and less corrupt than many East European countries. While not perfect, Botswana is absent civil wars, attempted coups, political violence, and actually enjoys a democratic government with corruption so low it is on par with South Korea. In fact, before it gained independence from the UK 45 years ago, Botswana was one of the poorest countries in Africa. Since then it has become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, with per capita income rising from $70 to almost $14,000.

Why the contrast between Botswana and Zimbabwe? Their political leaders are just as black as those found in Zimbabwe. The answer is a failure of character found in those that have forcefully retained power in Zim, not the color of their skin. There are no easy or fast solutions, as you rightly point out; however, a return to UDI-style white rule is neither a solution nor a moral choice.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Exactly!!! On all accounts. Ian Smith's had a plan for integration as well.

Yes, in a perverted sort of way, he did.

Smith offered what he generously called "equal partnership between black and white" as an alternative to majority rule. Here's how he said it would work: The number of assembly members elected to parliament would depend on the total amount of income tax paid by each community being represented, black and white. Poor black communities would obviously be less represented under this scheme given how little they paid in taxes relative to white communities.

The Smith Plan also mandated that whites be guaranteed in perpetuity 50 parliamentarians, irrespective of their relative size demographically to blacks; blacks would receive 16 to begin with. Later, Smith said, the number of black members would increase as their constituent's tax receipts increased, eventually (presumed to be many decades later) reaching a maximum of 50 - on par with the stipulated number set aside for the white minority. Presumably, this would achieve what Smith characterized as "equal partnership". That said, Smith himself never really believed the plan would work and future events would see him desperately do what he could to ensure white control over the government.

You may note the resemblance of the Smith Plan to some of the racially-inspired post-antibellum poll laws of the American South. These 'Jim Crow' taxes were engineered as mechanisms to blunt the intent of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution and prolong the disenfranchisement of blacks within their own communities. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and similar impediments to fair representation reduced the number of blacks voting in Louisiana, for example, to less than 0.5% of the eligible black males. The argument was that blacks were not intelligent enough to vote, and their numbers would imperil good governance were they given proportionate representation. Sound familiar?

Like you said in an earlier post, Lane, there were people like Smith who helped build this country. Thankfully, we are almost free of their repulsive legacies.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I find Obama and Mugabe in his younger days to have many similarities and tendencies myself.

For you to make a comparison between a monster like Robert Mugabe - a brutal and racist dictator responsible for untold atrocities, war crimes, and human rights violations - and the President of the United States who also happens to be black, speaks more about you as a person than all the invectives I could possible conjure. Have you no decency, Lane?

Many years ago in Chiredzi,Zimbabwe, a friend game me a copy of Ian Smiths book, The Great Betrayal. An absolutely stunning book on pre-Zim. It is good that Mugabe let Smith live out his years on his ranch in peace. I recommend the book to anyone here who is interested in Zim and how the current state of affairs came to be.
Cal

quote:

Like you said in an earlier post, Lane, there were people like Smith who helped build this country. Thankfully, we are almost free of their repulsive legacies.

Kim,
I view Ian Smith as person to look up to. A good and decent person who had compassion for people. Your comments further illustrate our fundamental differences.

I think his plan was good. Now look our country...we have gone the other so far...that we don't even have to show ID to vote...how stupid is that???

Sigh...I am reminded of what my Grandmother always told me..."it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round".

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
I find Obama and Mugabe in his younger days to have many similarities and tendencies myself.

For you to make a comparison between a monster like Robert Mugabe - a brutal dictator responsible for untold atrocities, war crimes, and human rights violations - and the President of the United States, speaks more about you as a person than all the invectives I could possible conjure. Have you no decency, Lane?

Kim,

I remind you that Mugabe in his early years was not regarded as a monster. There are many pics of him in the US shaking hands with our government officials. Our government policies of the time favored him gaining power. The US is largely responsible for him being in power...or certainly we could have prevented it merely by supplying the Rhodesians at the time rather than aiding in cutting off their supplies.

I stand by my words.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

Apparently, Steve, you're not so bewildered that you can't cobble together a good 'straw man' argument to make your case.

You understand full well that the discussion at hand is whether forced white rule is both moral and the only salvation for the beleaguered Zimbabwean people. But you don't ask if there is a better alternative to Mugabe absent disenfranchising the majority black population; no, instead you ask whether things were better under Smith - as if that is the only other choice.

Josef Stalin was responsible for the murder of over 20 million of his fellow Russians, yet upon his death many mourned his passing. Why? Because there was no culture of democracy or freedom to serve as a reference point for people who had been held asunder by their government for generations. Broken African states are no different, and the despots that rule them ensure that education, freedom of the press, and political parties are kept in check. Are the blacks in these countries stupid? No; like the Russians (who still have a difficult time adjusting to a government sans a strongman dictator), neither the culture nor the political climate has fostered a passion for freedom or the democracy it needs to flourish.

Your approach - and that of many on this thread - is to presume blacks in Africa as inferiors, intellectually incapable of solving their own problems. That is what some people see as racist. While there are few post-colonial success stories, all is not tragedy on the continent. Ghana, Botswana, and Tanzania are more stable and less corrupt than many East European countries. While not perfect, Botswana is absent civil wars, attempted coups, political violence, and actually enjoys a democratic government with corruption so low it is on par with South Korea. In fact, before it gained independence from the UK 45 years ago, Botswana was one of the poorest countries in Africa. Since then it has become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, with per capita income rising from $70 to almost $14,000.

Why the contrast between Botswana and Zimbabwe? Their political leaders are just as black as those found in Zimbabwe. The answer is a failure of character found in those that have forcefully retained power in Zim, not the color of their skin. There are no easy or fast solutions, as you rightly point out; however, a return to UDI-style white rule is neither a solution nor a moral choice.

Kim

The discussion at hand isn't if "forced white rule is both moral and the only salvation for the beleaguered Zimbabwean people" at all. It started out about the Save and evolved into the present political situation in Africa in general & Zimbabwe in particular & is continuing to evolve now.

Your post proves that you have absolutely no idea about the real Africa & how it works in real life.

I pointed out that turning back the clock isn't an option & have on many occasions said that Africa's problems will never be cured with western solutions but the truth is Africa, esp Zimbabwe wanted independent, majority rule & when they got it, they proved (as per Smithy had predicted) they weren't ready for it & they fucked it up which in turn destroyed their respective countries & peoples........ & that same process of decline is STILL evident in what's going on in RSA right now. The decline of that country will accelerate like a runaway train when (not if) Malema comes to Power.

As I've previously posted in this thread, I don't have the answer to the problems but I do know that political correctness won't play a part in it & therefore a spade isn't an earth inverting horticultural implement, it's a spade or perhaps a fucking shovel.

Your view of Botswana is especially twisted. The country couldn't spell free & fair elections, let alone conduct one, is as corrupt as the average African country, has one of the highest AIDS rates on the continent & has the foresight of a house brick. The only thing that keeps it afloat is it's mineral wealth & foreign aid. They haven't even got the common sense not to ban hunting when the country is awash with bloody elephants. How's that for good governance!

I've never said it's simply about black & white & it's not but it is about brains & no brains, corruption & no corruption, humanity & no humanity, democracy & no democracy, good governance & bad governance, honour & no honour, foresight & no foresight, corruption & no corruption etc etc etc. (I put corruption in there twice in case someone stole the first one )

If you think the average Motswanan gets anything approaching that quoted per capita income, you're truly deluded. The average local probably wouldn't see that sort of money in a decade, let alone a year. All it proves is that a very small minority are getting hold of large amounts of money..... The same happens in RSA where you see ANC top rankers all whizzing about in brand new Mercs...... often convoys of the buggers!

Whilst there are some black Africans/politicians that score well in those regards (Mandela & Tutu for example) there ain't many of them & the cold hard truth is that history has proven that most/all African leaders don't score well in those regards....... the fact that they're all black is a common factor & every individual must make up his/her own mind about how important a factor they consider it to be........ I personally don't think it is because they're black at all......... IMO, it's because they're Africans who happen to be black & most (but not all) Africans (who happen to be black) couldn't even spell the word consequences let alone understand the word.

It tickles me when I hear they wanted equality.I have never seen that.White rule was unequal and black rule is the opposite unequal. that is true in SA,Zim and the US.sometimes I wonder where they find their definition of equal. All it would take is being equal and Zim could be prosperous again and so could we. Giving people will never work and taking from one and giving to another will never work.I agree with Lane mr. Mugabe and Mr. Obama have had many similarities of course exclude brutality that is not what Lane meant.

quote:

Smith offered what he generously called "equal partnership between black and white" as an alternative to majority rule. Here's how he said it would work: The number of assembly members elected to parliament would depend on the total amount of income tax paid by each community being represented, black and white. Poor black communities would obviously be less represented under this scheme given how little they paid in taxes relative to white communities.

The above sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I am in the USA and we have lots of people who pay no taxes, but still get to vote. They vote to keep getting free stuff at somebody elses expense. It has lead to a disaster in Zim and it is leading to a disaster here.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Your view of Botswana is especially twisted. The country couldn't spell free & fair elections, let alone conduct one, is as corrupt as the average African country, has one of the highest AIDS rates on the continent & has the foresight of a house brick. The only thing that keeps it afloat is it's mineral wealth & foreign aid. They haven't even got the common sense not to ban hunting when the country is awash with bloody elephants. How's that for good governance!

Steve:

Perhaps from your European vantage point you have insights that surpass the CIA's economic reporting bureau:

"Botswana has maintained one of the world's highest economic growth rates since independence in 1966. GDP growth in 2010 at 7.2% and estimated GDP growth in 2011 of 6.2%. Through fiscal discipline and sound management, Botswana transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country with a per capita GDP of $16,300 in 2011." [CIA: Botswana World Factbook; Updated September 4, 2012]

As for your canard about foreign aid, Botswana in comparison to other African countries receives very little aid even from major development donors, according to the United Nations and the African Department of Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). In JICA's 2007 financial report, Botswana received foreign aid valued at US$4.5 million of which US$2.47 million was in the form of grants while US$2.02 million was in the form of technical assistance. Botswana's relatively small aid package is in stark contrast with the massive aid pumped into other African countries, such as Tanzania (US$687.70 million), Zambia (US$1.1 billion), and Malawi (US$221.82 million). The US has also provided emergency aid through the 'President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief' for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care interventions, amounting to a total of $84.4 million in FY 2011.

Insofar as corruption and free elections is concerned, Botswana is the least corrupt country in Africa, and is ranked less corrupt than Puerto Rico, Taiwan, and South Korea - your opinion notwithstanding. In fact, Portugal was rated the 32nd least corrupt nation in the world and Botswana a close 36th. By way of comparison, South Africa is ranked 54th and Zimbabwe 166th. US State Department views Botswana as having a "strong commitment to democracy, good governance, and human rights" in strong contrast to countries like Zimbabwe. [Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index; Updated 2007 (most recent) & US State Department, Bureau of African Affairs; Updated 2012]

I've never lived in Africa as you have, Steve, but I've been visiting and working there for the better part of 30 years. Perhaps what's twisted is your blinding resentment of African government that don't want or need a minority white led government. Just because Botswana has misplaced views on hunting - like most European countries - doesn't mean that their government is corrupt. And throwing in red herrings like the AIDs rate is hardly an indicator of corruption. How else would you explain away the fact that Iceland has an STD infection rate of 8.0% of the general population for chlamydia, 25% higher than Tanzania and Botswana? (By your logic, perhaps Iceland needs a black led parliament.)

I suspect that in your jaded eyes, black leadership equates to bad government irrespective of the facts. Botswana didn't stumble into experiencing the fastest growth in the world during the period from 1965 to 1995. According to the Cato Institute, during that 30-year stretch (starting with its independence from the UK), Botswana’s average annual rate of growth was 7.7 percent, and Botswana moved from being the third poorest nation in the world to being an “upper middle income” nation. In 2001, Botswana’s real per capita income was $7,820, nearly twice as high as the average East Asian tiger’s per capita income of $3,854, and more than four times the $1,826 average per capita income of an individual living in sub-Saharan Africa (reference: World Bank 2002). Of course, that doesn't mean that every Bushman or camp worker makes a living wage, anymore than the per capita income of the US means every person makes US$44,000. It is, however, a sound indicator of general prosperity.

How can this impressive growth be explained? The Cato Institute's report found that Botswana’s success was the result of good post-colonial policy choices. Under Botswana's first post-independence leader, President Seretse Khama’s market-friendly polices led to high growth, and high growth produced better policies that led to more growth. Thus, "Khama’s policies were the exogenous shock that helped Botswana get on a sustainable high-growth path". This conclusion has far-reaching implications for the way we approach struggling nations in sub-Saharan Africa.

One of the key findings of that report holds great significance for Zimbabwe and other troubled African states: "If the wealth and poverty of most sub-Saharan African nations is largely the result of colonial and historical factors, then countries might be trapped by their past — even if they adopt good policies, their history and culture will not allow them to escape the poverty trap. If, instead, the story of sub-Saharan Africa is one in which anti-market policy decisions were made by Marxist leaders at the end of colonialism, then there is far more hope for struggling nations. One good leader, like Khama, is all it would take for an African nation to escape poverty. Policy choice — not historical determinism — is the real story of Botswana’s development in particular and sub-Saharan Africa’s stagnation in general."

It's time for you and others to step out of the past, recognize that white rule in Africa is neither just nor essential, and work to find solutions that ensure the rights and freedoms of all Africans - black and white alike. Botswana is hardly perfect (I don't know many nation states that are), but it's a damn sight better than most, and evidence that black-led countries with a white minority population can succeed.

Kim,

Trust me. As I said in my previous post:

"Your post proves that you have absolutely no idea about the real Africa & how it works in real life"..... and your post above, proves that yet again in spades.

All you've done is trawled the net to find comments that fit your argument. Nothing more & nothing less.

I could point you to many examples & people's personal experiences (including my own) that disprove the rosy view of Africa that you hold.

I've said repeatedly that Africa's problems can't be cured by western solutions and (IMO) the truth is one of the biggest problems that occurs throughout the continent is their reluctance to accept that no country in the world can succeed without the contributions of all parts of it's societies...... and what's more, the previous regimes made the same mistake.

Even now, countries such as RSA & Botswana etc are pursuing deliberate policies of Africa for Africans & although they want the white man's skills & money etc, they don't want the white man and slowly take part or all of his business by way of black empowerment policies etc & then make it as uncomfortable for him to stay as they possibly can.

My point about the AIDS problem in Botswana was an example of how their health & education systems have declined since independence......

I never suggested that white rule in Africa is just & essential at all but I will say there's not a single African country that hasn't stuffed up it's independence when they got it & that all of those countries were better run, in better financial condition & with less crime & corruption in the days of white rule.......

Just before I close & as a matter of interest, how much time have you spent in Botswana?

Quite honestly but without meaning to insult you, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by BigBoreCore:

quote:

Smith offered what he generously called "equal partnership between black and white" as an alternative to majority rule. Here's how he said it would work: The number of assembly members elected to parliament would depend on the total amount of income tax paid by each community being represented, black and white. Poor black communities would obviously be less represented under this scheme given how little they paid in taxes relative to white communities.

The above sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I am in the USA and we have lots of people who pay no taxes, but still get to vote. They vote to keep getting free stuff at somebody elses expense. It has lead to a disaster in Zim and it is leading to a disaster here.

Then you would have loved 14th century England!

At that time, a feudal system was enacted by the crown which decreed that land tenure, if not outright ownership, was the basis for human society and local governance. Of course, if you weren't fortunate enough to be made a vassal by the local Lord, the life of a serf could be pretty bleak. But then, if you don't own property or pay taxes, what rights do you really deserve, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Kim,

Trust me. As I said in my previous post:

"Your post proves that you have absolutely no idea about the real Africa & how it works in real life"..... and your post above, proves that yet again in spades.

All you've done is trawled the net to find comments that fit your argument. Nothing more & nothing less.

I could point you to many examples & people's personal experiences (including my own) that disprove the rosy view of Africa that you hold.

I've said repeatedly that Africa's problems can't be cured by western solutions and (IMO) the truth is one of the biggest problems that occurs throughout the continent is their reluctance to accept that no country in the world can succeed without the contributions of all parts of it's societies...... and what's more, the previous regimes made the same mistake.

Even now, countries such as RSA & Botswana etc are pursuing deliberate policies of Africa for Africans & although they want the white man's skills & money etc, they don't want the white man and slowly take part or all of his business by way of black empowerment policies etc & then make it as uncomfortable for him to stay as they possibly can.

My point about the AIDS problem in Botswana was an example of how their health & education systems have declined since independence......

I never suggested that "white rule in Africa is just nor essential" at all but I will say there's not a single African country that hasn't stuffed up it's independence when they got it & that all of those countries were better run, in better financial condition & with less crime & corruption in the days of white rule.......

Just before I close & as a matter of interest, how much time have you spent in Botswana?

Quite honestly but without meaning to insult you, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.

Wow, Steve, I seem to have struck a nerve. Not like you to sound so defensive and sputtery.

You'll have to forgive me for relating facts and figures and actual references to my claims, rather than simply relying upon your "many examples & peoples personal experiences". How silly of me to rely upon lame statistics or reports provided by western government agencies, financial reporting bureaus, or think tanks when they are clearly trumped by your unvarnished and objective perspective. In future, perhaps CIA and State Department should just call you for the inside scoop on all things Africa, inasmuch as you claim to know more than they do.

Admittedly, my visits to Botswana - and Africa in general - are insufficient to make me an expert. That's why in my work I rely upon people who are experts on issues like national security, economics, corruption, suffrage, and governance, and who often live and work there. It appears, however, that anyone with the temerity to challenge your expert views on Africa is viewed by you as an uniformed fool. Ad hominem attacks and that kind of conceit are hardly conducive to a rational and robust discussion.

Well, I know this has moved on a bit - but I still wanted to go back an offer up an apology.

One of the other AR members informed me that the word "spade" can also be a deragatory word for blacks, something I was NOT aware of. In my call a "spade a spade" comment, I was referring to calling the "truth the truth", and nothing more.

So I have removed the comment, and I apologize if it was offensive. It was not meant as such, and I had never heard of the word "spade" used in that context before, so my apologies to all.

Aaron

No need for an apology. Any fool with half a brain knew what you meant.
Even though I grew up in the South and knew it could have another meaning, it was clear what you meant.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Well, I know this has moved on a bit - but I still wanted to go back an offer up an apology.

One of the other AR members informed me that the word "spade" can also be a deragatory word for blacks, something I was NOT aware of. In my call a "spade a spade" comment, I was referring to calling the "truth the truth", and nothing more.

So I have removed the comment, and I apologize if it was offensive. It was not meant as such, and I had never heard of the word "spade" used in that context before, so my apologies to all.

No apology required. I regret calling attention to your comment in my earlier post, Aaron, as it honestly didn't sound like something you would mean to say; a cheap shot on my part. This is an emotional topic for many of us, with very strong feelings on both sides. Whatever our convictions, it's important for us to maintain a standard of civility in our posts to one another. You have always done that.

Kim,

You haven't struck a nerve with me at all but all one has to do to realise that giving the various African countries their independence has been an abject failure is take a look at the conditions on a before & after basis.

It doesn't matter if you look at roads, public transport, education, health, wealth (amongst ordinary people rather than political leaders), freedom, safety, security, democracy or which independent African country you look at........ ALL have declined.

As I repeatedly said, you can't turn the clock back and in fact, it wouldn't be right to either but that doesn't alter the fact that every African country has declined in every way since independence. Some, such as Botswana have declined slower than others but only because they've had things like mineral wealth to buffer and slow the decline.

South Africa is another example...... they've had damn near two decades of black rule and during that time, every conceivable standard has dropped immensely and yet the Govt etc are still blaming the white man for their woes and that's totally ridiculous.......... it's waaaay past time African govts took responsibility for their own failures.

If they want to kick the white man out and run things their own way, then I personally no longer have a problem with that but they should realise that when all the money has been salted away by their leaders and all the crops gone because they won't or can't farm the land & they're all starving, when there's no fuel, no hospitals and large numbers are dying from preventable diseases then they can't expect help from the west....... or at least, not from me.

They need to take responsibility for their own actions just like we all do.

All that said, nothing will change and I'll bet a pound to a pinch of the brown stuff that the next basket case will be RSA. Malema will (sooner or later) become President (probably for life) & what was the finest and most successful country in Africa and what could & should have been one of the finest and most successful countries in the world will shortly after become a clone of Zimbabwe and my guess is that bastard will make mugabe look like a saint!

When they come calling on my door with their begging bowl, I hope you won't mind me referring them to you and telling them that you'll give my share as well?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
(A)ll one has to do to realise that giving the various African countries their independence has been an abject failure is take a look at the conditions on a before & after basis.

It doesn't matter if you look at roads, public transport, education, health, wealth (amongst ordinary people rather than political leaders), freedom, safety, security, democracy or which independent African country you look at........ ALL have declined.

Facts notwithstanding, Steve?

Let's go back to Botswana, which achieved independence in 1966 from the UK. At that time, it was one of the poorest countries in Africa, with a paltry GDP (purchasing power parity) of about US$70 per person. Since that time, and under successive black governments, Botswana has been one of the fastest growing economies in the world with a current GDP per capita of about $14,000. It was the fastest growing economy in the world for 31 years - faster than South Korea or China. Hardly an abject failure in most people's eyes.

Just because you wish it so, doesn't make it so.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:
Let's go back to Botswana, which achieved independence in 1966 from the UK. At that time, it was one of the poorest countries in Africa, with a paltry GDP (purchasing power parity) of about US$70 per person. Since that time, and under successive black governments, Botswana has been one of the fastest growing economies in the world with a current GDP per capita of about $14,000. It was the fastest growing economy in the world for 31 years - faster than South Korea or China. Hardly an abject failure in most people's eyes.

Just because you wish it so, doesn't make it so.

I've never denied that but the reason is that shortly after independence it was found to be on top of mountains of copper etc....... and they've been able to use that to slow the decline immensely......

You seem to think that a current GDP per capita of about $14,000 has some kind of relationship with actual income of the average Motswanan & that like most of your opinions on this subject is plain wrong.

The vast majority of that money evaporates into Swiss bank accounts like it does in other African countries & that's why you see all the common folk walking or driving donkey carts & the politicians in convoys of brand new Mercs!

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Well, I know this has moved on a bit - but I still wanted to go back an offer up an apology.

One of the other AR members informed me that the word "spade" can also be a deragatory word for blacks, something I was NOT aware of. In my call a "spade a spade" comment, I was referring to calling the "truth the truth", and nothing more.

So I have removed the comment, and I apologize if it was offensive. It was not meant as such, and I had never heard of the word "spade" used in that context before, so my apologies to all.

No apology required. I regret calling attention to your comment in my earlier post, Aaron, as it honestly didn't sound like something you would mean to say; a cheap shot on my part. This is an emotional topic for many of us, with very strong feelings on both sides. Whatever our convictions, it's important for us to maintain a standard of civility in our posts to one another. You have always done that.

Ok guys, thanks! We definitely all have our own feelings on the topic, be they right/wrong. But I certainly did NOT want to seem or sound like an out-right A-Hole!

The reason Botswana went from low to high GDP so quickly is that when it was a Protectorate most of it couldn't produce much. Water was short in most of the country, soil was more sand than anything else & there was relatively little interest in tourism or anything else.

Then came independence and as many whites as possible were kicked out and soon after, umpteen treasures from copper to diamonds was found in a variety of places.

And that's why GDP went from virtually bugger all to quite reasonable in such a short time. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the new Government managing the country better but it has allowed them to use the additional income to act as a buffer to their own inefficiency & collapse of even the most basic infrastructures.