Doc

You are missing a lot of what I posted - Moral compass again.

1. I said that I got this first hand from a WHITE Zimbabwean (A Christan believer I met within the last 6 weeks. He grew up on a tobacco farm.)

2. You are completely avoiding my MAIN point - that Smith prevented any sort of power sharing for 40 years. The racists regime tortured any opponents. Chased into exile all the moderate democratic leaders. That left Mugabe and the bush wars of the 70s.

You fail to acknowledge that if Smith had followed Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi etc. and had a transfer of government in the 40s or even 60s, Zimbabwe would have been spared its misery. Smith had no policy or plan to give equal right to blacks.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
A white farmer in Rhodesia on 300 acres in the 60’s growing tobacco having a big house…
Well, relative to a black man working for him, sure. I’ve stayed on farms there. The houses are large compared to houses here at the time, but not very big compared to now.

Many servants… well if you mean folks working for him, albeit at very minimal wages, sure. Called farm hands. Compared to the US or NZ, yes lots. Compared to other developing nations where unskilled labor was plentiful and jobs relatively few, probably not so much so. Even now most people who own a house in Zimbabwe have 2-3 (or more) employees… especially the the black folks who own 300 acres.

With a swimming pool… back then it was probably a sand lined pond. Even so, there were crocodiles to worry about in rural areas.

A new Mercedes and a Land Rover? Kind of doubt it. The time frame you are discussing there were importation restrictions at the late end and lack of those goods on the early part. Did they have cars and farm trucks? Yes. Look at period photos. Not luxury cars. Back in the 50’s and 60’s a Land Rover was not a luxury vehicle. In fact, they were very utilitarian and capable of being maintained by their owners.

Profit of $500,000 a year? On 300 acres? I’d call BS on that. That’s the equivalent of $6 million (or more) now. Were there farmers making that kind of money? Not farming 300 acres in Zim they were not.

Tobacco is a cash crop, sure. But it was also a global commodity. Over $1600 profit an acre in 1960-70? (And let’s not forget that a portion of the land was fallow, and that they have nonproductive land) Sorry, no.

You don’t even think of what you are saying, do you? That claim doesn’t pass the smell test.

I am sure there were farmers with over 100,000 acres making that kind of money. I’m also sure there were businessmen dealing in ag products making that kind of money.

I also am certain that the white farmers were living a much higher standard of living than the black ones, even the few who owned some land.

The problem with Rhodesia was blacks had limited to no upward mobility available to them.

Now, the vast majority are in way worse physical poverty than they ever were under the Rhodesian government. They also have a vote in a system with severe corruption issues. So they have some political freedom, they have a minuscule amount more upward mobility, but the folks at the top are now the same color.

I get that the political access and the chance of upward mobility is worth something. Is it worth safety, food, and education? That’s for individuals to decide.

No, trust me dickhead, we know exactly what YOUR main point is and your ONLY point.

White= Baaaaaaad
Brown/Black= Gooooood

You are colour blind.

Who said you were White. You are part bushman, Zulu, Malay and Arab. Your skin colur is like diarrhea or vomiting.

quote:

Originally posted by Snav:
No, trust me dickhead, we know exactly what YOUR main point is and your ONLY point.

White= Baaaaaaad
Brown/Black= Gooooood

Smith was not in power for 40 years. He was actually a pretty young man at the time.

You brought in to whatever your acquaintance was trying to sell you. If you meet him regularly, ask him how did a guy make $500,000 in profit a year living on the income from a 300 acre tobacco farm. I would have probably said to him, really? How did they manage that?

You are using his statement as a statement of fact, which obviously it is not. Its physically impossible.

Your main point in the preceding post is also somewhat disingenuous.

Per wikipedia:

Smith became deputy prime minister following the Front's December 1962 election victory, and he stepped up to the premiership after Field resigned in April 1964, two months before the first events that led to the Bush War took place. After repeated talks with British prime minister Harold Wilson broke down, Smith and his Cabinet unilaterally declared independence on 11 November 1965 in an effort to delay majority rule; shortly afterwards, the first phase of the war began in earnest. After further negotiations with the UK failed, Rhodesia cut all remaining British ties and reconstituted itself as a republic in 1970. Smith led the Front to four election victories over the course of his premiership; despite sporadic negotiations with moderate leader Abel Muzorawa over the course of the war, his support came exclusively from the white minority, with the black majority being widely disenfranchised under the country's electoral system. The country initially endured United Nations sanctions and international isolation with the assistance of South Africa and, until 1974, the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique. Following 15 years of protracted fighting, with economic sanctions, international pressure and the decline in South African support taking their toll, Smith conceded to the implementation of majority rule and signed the Internal Settlement in 1978 with moderate leaders, excluding ZANU and ZAPU; the country was renamed Zimbabwe Rhodesia the following year. The new order, however, failed to gain international recognition, and the war continued. After being succeeded as prime minister by Muzorawa, Smith took part in the trilateral peace negotiations at Lancaster House, which led to fully free elections and the recognition of an independent Zimbabwe.

So Smith was initially very anti majority rule, and gradually became more willing to share power... but tried to avoid the worse elements of ZANU and ZAPU. He was not moving rapidly enough. One could also say that in the absence of Combloc aid meant to destabilize the colonial powers, he might well have been more successful in a more gradual change to democratic rule... Of course, he might well have also stayed put on white rule without the treat of force.

I agree that an earlier recognition that majority rule was coming would have made the situation less bloody. However, Smith seemed somewhat prescient about what was likely to happen under a communist supported black majority government.

Colonialism didn't "fail" in the sense that it didn't improve the lot of people. It actually did improve the education and knowledge of the indigenous people to the point that they revolted once they realized that they were not being governed for their own good.

Did it work as quickly and well as it could have? No. The colonialists were more interested in their own economic advantage than in improving the lot of the common people. The home government should have recognized that and been much more proactive.

As to Smith transferring power in the 40's, he couldn't even if he had wanted to. They were not an independent state until the UDI. From what I read, smith was something of a moderating force in his party (which doesn't say much good about their hard line elements, I agree) Smith was a political power in Rhodesia from roughly the mid 50's, which would be 20 years, not 40, and realistically had a strong say in governance for more like 10 to 15.

Also, the change to majority rule in Kenya was hardly blood free. Tanzania was a mess until the government saw what a failure communism was. Zambia was a part of a fairly bloody revolution as well- remember it was northern Rhodesia. Most of its more intransigent white population moved south when the conditions got bad.

Smith was not the reason for the emergence of Robert Mugabe. The initial reason was the proxy wars between the east and west. Mr. Mugabe was the most able combination of military leader and politician that the combloc supported independence groups had. He learned from the KGB and folks who learned control under Stalin. His governance style was highly influenced by Stalinist-Leninist thought and subsequent events showed the problems with that.

It wasn't Smith that killed the black moderates, it was Mugabe. Smith was no saint, but he was not anywhere near as ruthless as Mugabe.

You are right that if the white rhodesians had negotiated in good faith much earlier, they might well have averted some of the evil that happened, but a lot of what happened was directly due to outside interference from the USSR and Cuba.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

You are missing a lot of what I posted - Moral compass again.

1. I said that I got this first hand from a WHITE Zimbabwean (A Christan believer I met within the last 6 weeks. He grew up on a tobacco farm.)

2. You are completely avoiding my MAIN point - that Smith prevented any sort of power sharing for 40 years. The racists regime tortured any opponents. Chased into exile all the moderate democratic leaders. That left Mugabe and the bush wars of the 70s.

You fail to acknowledge that if Smith had followed Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi etc. and had a transfer of government in the 40s or even 60s, Zimbabwe would have been spared its misery. Smith had no policy or plan to give equal right to blacks.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
A white farmer in Rhodesia on 300 acres in the 60’s growing tobacco having a big house…
Well, relative to a black man working for him, sure. I’ve stayed on farms there. The houses are large compared to houses here at the time, but not very big compared to now.

Many servants… well if you mean folks working for him, albeit at very minimal wages, sure. Called farm hands. Compared to the US or NZ, yes lots. Compared to other developing nations where unskilled labor was plentiful and jobs relatively few, probably not so much so. Even now most people who own a house in Zimbabwe have 2-3 (or more) employees… especially the the black folks who own 300 acres.

With a swimming pool… back then it was probably a sand lined pond. Even so, there were crocodiles to worry about in rural areas.

A new Mercedes and a Land Rover? Kind of doubt it. The time frame you are discussing there were importation restrictions at the late end and lack of those goods on the early part. Did they have cars and farm trucks? Yes. Look at period photos. Not luxury cars. Back in the 50’s and 60’s a Land Rover was not a luxury vehicle. In fact, they were very utilitarian and capable of being maintained by their owners.

Profit of $500,000 a year? On 300 acres? I’d call BS on that. That’s the equivalent of $6 million (or more) now. Were there farmers making that kind of money? Not farming 300 acres in Zim they were not.

Tobacco is a cash crop, sure. But it was also a global commodity. Over $1600 profit an acre in 1960-70? (And let’s not forget that a portion of the land was fallow, and that they have nonproductive land) Sorry, no.

You don’t even think of what you are saying, do you? That claim doesn’t pass the smell test.

I am sure there were farmers with over 100,000 acres making that kind of money. I’m also sure there were businessmen dealing in ag products making that kind of money.

I also am certain that the white farmers were living a much higher standard of living than the black ones, even the few who owned some land.

The problem with Rhodesia was blacks had limited to no upward mobility available to them.

Now, the vast majority are in way worse physical poverty than they ever were under the Rhodesian government. They also have a vote in a system with severe corruption issues. So they have some political freedom, they have a minuscule amount more upward mobility, but the folks at the top are now the same color.

I get that the political access and the chance of upward mobility is worth something. Is it worth safety, food, and education? That’s for individuals to decide.

Very nice to read some sense.

Doc

You are cherry picking.

* Who were the freedom champions and local leaders in Rhodesia before ZANUPF / Mugabe etc. Who were the globally recognised leaders from the 50s & 60s that the White regime refused to recognise or negotiate on equal terms?

* When Britain wanted to move out of Rhodesia (like it moved out of Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, current Zambia, Nyasaland, Nigeria etc.) why did the white regime in Rhodesia secede?

The issue is not if Mugabe was good or bad for Zimbabwe (it is a no brainer that he was bad). The issue is that the White minority rule (largely perpetuated by Smith) was terrible for Zimbabwe and the main cause of Mugabe gaining power.

You say "but a lot of what happened was directly due to outside interference from the USSR and Cuba" and fail to acknowledge that these interferences were a result of the failure of the West to support the African countries. The only reason the Soviets and the Communist got any impetus in global influence was because the West was reluctant to grant freedom and human rights on an equal footing to the former colonies.

Was there no "outside interference" from the West?

This is equally true of Vietnam & SE Asian countries, Angola, Mozambique, Congo etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:

You are cherry picking.

As usual, your posts contain the answer. You always cherry pick, little naki

Naki, what was UDI caused by?

It was caused by the UK having a large number of demands that the local whites were unwilling to stomach. So, the west was attempting to make demands on the colonials, which may or may not have been reasonable.

Given what Kenya had with the Mau mau the locals were not interested in that.

You seem to think that one could wave a wand and a reasonable new government would have happened.

The combloc was doing everything they could to cause a war and have a disruptive outcome.

As communism fell, it’s obvious it has fundamental problems.

Hindsight is 20/20. I’m sure Smith would have done some things differently had he knew the outcome of what he did.

Regardless, the combloc would have kept funding the militants, as their goal was to find someone with no connection to the prior order in order to both get the resources away from the west, and gain them themselves.

The west’s outside interference was principally to stop funding and place embargoes … against the whites. The only help the rhodesians (and subsequently Zimbabwe Rhodesia) got was from South Africa and Angola/Mozambique.

Kenya and Tanzania were fortunate in that there was not a leader quite as charismatic and ruthless as Robert Mugabe. You are minimizing that he was actually quite good at running an African dictatorship. He was ruthless at home, yet knew to some extent how to play the west vs the east enough to keep either side from formenting rebellion.

Ian’s plan of slow integration into government WAS the correct plan. The “unreasonable demands” made by the West were exactly that — unreasonable. Had the UK simply backed Smith and his plan formulated from experience from actually living and governing where the plan must take place…southern Africa would be much better off today.