quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
^^

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

No embargo is fine, it should have been obvious to anyone that the takeover by Mugabe would result as it did, maybe that's just 20th century hindsight.

But you'll have to introduce me to that American you may know that after 50k American dead in Vietnam would volunteer their finest and brightest to go fight in Rhodesia, especially during those times and under those circumstances and current events.

My father taught range management at Texas Tech University and then at Texas State Technical Institute in the very early 70’s. He got lots of young vets as students on their GI Bill program. Allan Savory, Rhodesian and father of the cell grazing system, was a frequent guest lecturer at TTU then. He and Dad got to be good friends. Many of those guys wanted to go over fight in the Rhodesian Military for that cause. I remember the discussions to this day. They all thought it wrong that we had been to Viet Nam where we weren’t really wanted and then turned our back on the good folks of Rhodesia. Not to mention that Rhodesia was an elite force similar to Israel.

I thought you were the poorest kid in Texas growing up, subsisted on nothing but the grasshoppers and armadillos you could catch? Pulled yourself up by the bootstraps on the moccasins you made from roadkill jackrabbits.

Your Father was a college professor?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Dr. Easter claims a majority of black Rhodesians supported Ian Smith’s regime.

Yet, he cannot explain why the photo that leads his Twitter article has no black Rhodesia s present.

I can answer that. Black Rhodesians were not permitted in those seats.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter

White Americans failed to integrate their society for 500 years.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter

White Americans failed to integrate their society for 500 years.

500 years, really?

And why in the world would they have? Across all ethnic lines there were concrete divisions.

Native Americans were hunter/ gatherers, no more. Strange, when you consider the early colonists took over farms with crops in the field, and Cahokia was a city 1,000 years before white settlers arrived, was likely larger than either London or Paris at its peak and remained the largest city ever built in North America until Philadelphia finally grew bigger in the 1780s. They had no evolutionary advancement. I guess they were just skilled hunters of corn, several variety of beans, tobacco, potatoes (both white and sweet), peanuts, etc. It's not like they had been farming since about 2,000 B.C. or anything... Domestic animals were introduced from Europe, iron too. There was no reason to integrate a society you could simply push aside. Blacks were slaves, property. Slavery was a world wide use dating back to the earliest civilization. Integrate? The blacks had slaves, the browns had slaves, the redskins even had slaves. Integrate?

In your ignorance you group "white Americans". Lesse, the Italians were against the Irish who didn't think much of Germans who resented the British and ain't nobody ever done fighting with the French. The Americans that hail from Spain are not only Catholic but also assumed Mexican and the only unity the above could find is in being against the Slavic.

My Grandfather was fresh off the boat from Norway and held a grudge against Germans til his dying day.

Saying white vs other just proves you clueless.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter

White Americans failed to integrate their society for 500 years.

500 years, really?

And why in the world would they have? Across all ethnic lines there were concrete divisions.

Native Americans were hunter/ gatherers, no more. Strange, when you consider the early colonists took over farms with crops in the field, and Cahokia was a city 1,000 years before white settlers arrived, was likely larger than either London or Paris at its peak and remained the largest city ever built in North America until Philadelphia finally grew bigger in the 1780s. They had no evolutionary advancement. I guess they were just skilled hunters of corn, several variety of beans, tobacco, potatoes (both white and sweet), peanuts, etc. It's not like they had been farming since about 2,000 B.C. or anything... Domestic animals were introduced from Europe, iron too. There was no reason to integrate a society you could simply push aside. Blacks were slaves, property. Slavery was a world wide use dating back to the earliest civilization. Integrate? The blacks had slaves, the browns had slaves, the redskins even had slaves. Integrate?

In your ignorance you group "white Americans". Lesse, the Italians were against the Irish who didn't think much of Germans who resented the British and ain't nobody ever done fighting with the French. The Americans that hail from Spain are not only Catholic but also assumed Mexican and the only unity the above could find is in being against the Slavic.

My Grandfather was fresh off the boat from Norway and held a grudge against Germans til his dying day.

Saying white vs other just proves you clueless.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter

White Americans failed to integrate their society for 500 years.

500 years, really?

And why in the world would they have? Across all ethnic lines there were concrete divisions.

Native Americans were hunter/ gatherers, no more. They had no evolutionary advancement. Domestic animals were introduced from Europe, iron too. There was no reason to integrate a society you could simply push aside. Blacks were slaves, property. Slavery was a world wide use dating back to the earliest civilization. Integrate? The blacks had slaves, the browns had slaves, the redskins even had slaves. Integrate?

In your ignorance you group "white Americans". Lesse, the Italians were against the Irish who didn't think much of Germans who resented the British and ain't nobody ever done fighting with the French. The Americans that hail from Spain are not only Catholic but also assumed Mexican and the only unity the above could find is in being against the Slavic.

My Grandfather was fresh off the boat from Norway and held a grudge against Germans til his dying day.

Saying white vs other just proves you clueless.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter

White Americans failed to integrate their society for 500 years.

500 years, really?

And why in the world would they have? Across all ethnic lines there were concrete divisions.

Native Americans were hunter/ gatherers, no more. They had no evolutionary advancement. Domestic animals were introduced from Europe, iron too. There was no reason to integrate a society you could simply push aside. Blacks were slaves, property. Slavery was a world wide use dating back to the earliest civilization. Integrate? The blacks had slaves, the browns had slaves, the redskins even had slaves. Integrate?

In your ignorance you group "white Americans". Lesse, the Italians were against the Irish who didn't think much of Germans who resented the British and ain't nobody ever done fighting with the French. The Americans that hail from Spain are not only Catholic but also assumed Mexican and the only unity the above could find is in being against the Slavic.

My Grandfather was fresh off the boat from Norway and held a grudge against Germans til his dying day.

Saying white vs other just proves you clueless.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter

White Americans failed to integrate their society for 500 years.

500 years, really?

And why in the world would they have? Across all ethnic lines there were concrete divisions.

Native Americans were hunter/ gatherers, no more. Strange, when you consider the early colonists took over farms with crops in the field, and Cahokia was a city 1,000 years before white settlers arrived, was likely larger than either London or Paris at its peak and remained the largest city ever built in North America until Philadelphia finally grew bigger in the 1780s. They had no evolutionary advancement. I guess they were just skilled hunters of corn, several variety of beans, tobacco, potatoes (both white and sweet), peanuts, etc. It's not like they had been farming since about 2,000 B.C. or anything... Domestic animals were introduced from Europe, iron too. There was no reason to integrate a society you could simply push aside. Blacks were slaves, property. Slavery was a world wide use dating back to the earliest civilization. Integrate? The blacks had slaves, the browns had slaves, the redskins even had slaves. Integrate?

In your ignorance you group "white Americans". Lesse, the Italians were against the Irish who didn't think much of Germans who resented the British and ain't nobody ever done fighting with the French. The Americans that hail from Spain are not only Catholic but also assumed Mexican and the only unity the above could find is in being against the Slavic.

My Grandfather was fresh off the boat from Norway and held a grudge against Germans til his dying day.

Saying white vs other just proves you clueless.

Grow up.

The huge majority of Native Americans at European contact were centuries behind in advancement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...ns,_Germs,_and_Steel

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:


My comments may have been over
The failure if blacks to integrate or the fact that other ethnic groups also had slaves does not somehow dignity European colonialism.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
And suddenly Naki is anti-majority rule?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:


My comments may have been over
The failure if blacks to integrate or the fact that other ethnic groups also had slaves does not somehow dignity European colonialism.

I don't see where or how dignity had anything to do with anything.

European colonialism was about personal advancement. King Leopold's quest for rubber, the Pilgrims religious freedom, the Irish escaping the Potato famine.

Sure there were thoughts and efforts made regarding the plight of the people that suffered because of European colonialism, but it sure didn't slow down colonial advancement and it shouldn't have. This world only survived because people migrated, emigrated, sought new land.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

How many centuries did the white colonials need to develop a stable middle class among the indigenous / local people?
How long did it take for the Europeans to develop a substantial middle class?

I’m not defending the origins of colonial empires. I am saying that as shown by African nations that going from a tribal culture to a socialist/communist state has not worked well. Kenya was a colony, and it developed a black middle class, and is now arguably the most successful African nation.

Did you know that Winston Chruchill and his fellow colonials estimated that India would be prepared for self-rule around 1984. I suspect that this was more an economic estimate of how long it would take Britain to strip all the wealth from India.
No, I did not. It also strikes me as odd that they would make that kind of prediction.

Dutch colonials failed miserably in South Africa for almost 500 years.
Dutch colonials didn’t do all that well themselves, either. It was an English colony state- the Boer wars settled that one. The Boer war may well have also adversely influenced development of a black middle class in South Africa.

White Americans failed to integrate their society for 500 years.
Depends on how you define integrate. A very strong effort was made to integrate the native peoples relatively early on… but it was by assimilation, not by multiculturalism. For some it worked, for others not so well; and there were numerous abuses in these programs. It was not an abscence of trying to integrate, it was the goals and methods were not either well studied or very humane.

Ask Scott about how it works in Alaska versus the reservation system in the lower 48..

I have been raising the subject for about 12 years here on ARPF. The US will be a society of less than 50% white voters by 2032. How are the whites going to cope? Are they going to continue their bigoted and divisive ways to destroy the minorities and the country?
Yes, you continue to bring your take on it up, and the folks who live here keep pointing out the errors yet you don’t seem to change your position that was academically obtained and not practically tested. How are the whites going to deal with a nonwhite majority? Well, in lots of places in the US, whites are not the majority, and things go on. The idea of the rule of law as opposed to edict seems to be something that is valued when you are educated.

I suspect that the GOP is definitely inclined in that direction.

I am pleasantly surprised to see the number of people with a perspective very similar to mine regarding Zimbabwe.
So when did you spend time in Zimbabwe? I doubt I am high on the time spent there, but I’ve been there for several months over the years. It’s a bit different than the indoctrination I got in school lead me to think… and that’s what my feeling on the current academic situation is- indoctrination.

Smith had to keep the European Rhodesians happy, and also had to realize that from a western political perspective perpetual racial monopoly of power wasn’t going to work.

Near as I can tell, the biggest reason that Rhodesia fell was the combloc was financing a guerrila war against them and spending more money than the Rhodesians could spend against it. Having continual terror bombing and civilian atrocities degraded the willingness of the Europeans to fight, and reduced the compliance with authorities by the blacks.

The war was lost by making the white minority decide that they could not continue as it was going.

Remember that a lot of the bush war was communist groups based in communist areas as safe havens conducting asymmetrical warfare.

______________________________________
Doc butler said - "I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better."

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Temper temper, little naki

I get it, you are jealous you weren't born an American - which seems to be a reason of your never-ending diatribes against US.

hmm, i've never said a word, one way or the other, on Ian Smith -

Why is it with you and name calling when you are questioned?

Such a fragile ego can't take questions. That's a sure sign of an imposter

All of south America was colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese.. it's cute how you dodge the issue

The brits settle roughly 1/4 of the livable area of north America. Remember that some 90% of Canadians live with 75-100 miles of the US

The SPANISH brought the devastating plagues to the Americas.. it a simple fact

The telling part is your utter disregard for the centuries of colonization with your country of origin.

You can't have it both ways, little naki... l either you are fine with majority rule or you arent.... if it's fine in Zim then it's fine in the us.. though neither is a democracy.

Man, the deep experience of your hours of visitation in the US is telling.

You should try some yoga and meditation for your deranged temper. I hear it works pretty good

And NOTHING, not even accepting it as a problem, about slavery in india. Poor thing

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
You smelly tw*t!

you stop the personal attacks and bullying. My country of birth has nothing to do with any discussion and you hatefully keep insulting me with your RACIST barbs. Now you are claiming moral high ground.

You have no human decency.

You are a very small minded person with absolutely no courage or intellect to have a civil debate.

You go on IGNORE!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Temper temper, little naki

I get it, you are jealous you weren't born an American - which seems to be a reason of your never-ending diatribes against US.

hmm, i've never said a word, one way or the other, on Ian Smith -

Why is it with you and name calling when you are questioned?

Such a fragile ego can't take questions. That's a sure sign of an imposter

All of south America was colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese.. it's cute how you dodge the issue

The brits settle roughly 1/4 of the livable area of north America. Remember that some 90% of Canadians live with 75-100 miles of the US

The SPANISH brought the devastating plagues to the Americas.. it a simple fact

The telling part is your utter disregard for the centuries of colonization with your country of origin.

You can't have it both ways, little naki... l either you are fine with majority rule or you arent.... if it's fine in Zim then it's fine in the us.. though neither is a democracy.

Man, the deep experience of your hours of visitation in the US is telling.

You should try some yoga and meditation for your deranged temper. I hear it works pretty good

And NOTHING, not even accepting it as a problem, about slavery in india. Poor thing

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

How many centuries did the white colonials need to develop a stable middle class among the indigenous / local people?
How long did it take for the Europeans to develop a substantial middle class?

I’m not defending the origins of colonial empires. I am saying that as shown by African nations that going from a tribal culture to a socialist/communist state has not worked well. Kenya was a colony, and it developed a black middle class, and is now arguably the most successful African nation.

Did you know that Winston Chruchill and his fellow colonials estimated that India would be prepared for self-rule around 1984. I suspect that this was more an economic estimate of how long it would take Britain to strip all the wealth from India.
No, I did not. It also strikes me as odd that they would make that kind of prediction.

Dutch colonials failed miserably in South Africa for almost 500 years.
Dutch colonials didn’t do all that well themselves, either. It was an English colony state- the Boer wars settled that one. The Boer war may well have also adversely influenced development of a black middle class in South Africa.

White Americans failed to integrate their society for 500 years.
Depends on how you define integrate. A very strong effort was made to integrate the native peoples relatively early on… but it was by assimilation, not by multiculturalism. For some it worked, for others not so well; and there were numerous abuses in these programs. It was not an abscence of trying to integrate, it was the goals and methods were not either well studied or very humane.

Ask Scott about how it works in Alaska versus the reservation system in the lower 48..

I have been raising the subject for about 12 years here on ARPF. The US will be a society of less than 50% white voters by 2032. How are the whites going to cope? Are they going to continue their bigoted and divisive ways to destroy the minorities and the country?
Yes, you continue to bring your take on it up, and the folks who live here keep pointing out the errors yet you don’t seem to change your position that was academically obtained and not practically tested. How are the whites going to deal with a nonwhite majority? Well, in lots of places in the US, whites are not the majority, and things go on. The idea of the rule of law as opposed to edict seems to be something that is valued when you are educated.

I suspect that the GOP is definitely inclined in that direction.

I am pleasantly surprised to see the number of people with a perspective very similar to mine regarding Zimbabwe.
So when did you spend time in Zimbabwe? I doubt I am high on the time spent there, but I’ve been there for several months over the years. It’s a bit different than the indoctrination I got in school lead me to think… and that’s what my feeling on the current academic situation is- indoctrination.

Smith had to keep the European Rhodesians happy, and also had to realize that from a western political perspective perpetual racial monopoly of power wasn’t going to work.

Near as I can tell, the biggest reason that Rhodesia fell was the combloc was financing a guerrila war against them and spending more money than the Rhodesians could spend against it. Having continual terror bombing and civilian atrocities degraded the willingness of the Europeans to fight, and reduced the compliance with authorities by the blacks.

The war was lost by making the white minority decide that they could not continue as it was going.

Remember that a lot of the bush war was communist groups based in communist areas as safe havens conducting asymmetrical warfare.

______________________________________
Doc butler said - "I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better."

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
...my visit was for a few days. That does not make you an expert.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I do not know about that one. That one being colonialism created the Middle Class.

Yes, colonialism created markets. In England, those markets took the forum of material to be brought to England for production into goods for sale.

Yet, the middle class preexists 19th century colonialism. The Industrial Revolution along w Liberalism created the middle class.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I'd argue that the plague created the middle class in Europe .. a few historaions would agree and have published works with that as the fulcrum

Perhaps I should have said that the other way around, I was taught by a prof that believed that and had I read several supporting sources. I haven't found a reason to disagree with her

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

No embargo is fine, it should have been obvious to anyone that the takeover by Mugabe would result as it did, maybe that's just 20th century hindsight.

But you'll have to introduce me to that American you may know that after 50k American dead in Vietnam would volunteer their finest and brightest to go fight in Rhodesia, especially during those times and under those circumstances and current events.

My father taught range management at Texas Tech University and then at Texas State Technical Institute in the very early 70’s. He got lots of young vets as students on their GI Bill program. Allan Savory, Rhodesian and father of the cell grazing system, was a frequent guest lecturer at TTU then. He and Dad got to be good friends. Many of those guys wanted to go over fight in the Rhodesian Military for that cause. I remember the discussions to this day. They all thought it wrong that we had been to Viet Nam where we weren’t really wanted and then turned our back on the good folks of Rhodesia. Not to mention that Rhodesia was an elite force similar to Israel.

I thought you were the poorest kid in Texas growing up, subsisted on nothing but the grasshoppers and armadillos you could catch? Pulled yourself up by the bootstraps on the moccasins you made from roadkill jackrabbits.

Your Father was a college professor?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Total bullshit. Ian was honored by the majority of the black population right up until he died.

Educate yourself, dumbass.

https://www.the-independent.co...mbabwe-a8754971.html

Educate myself!? That is the trouble you idiot liberals…Reagan had it right: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

I am well educated in subject matter.

Well, then properly respond to the statements/facts in the article. Smith was an avowed racist who was intent on perpetuating white rule over an overwhelming black majority as long as he possibly could. He wasn't somebody that the US should have backed. He was a terrible person with awful, hateful, backward ideas.

Based on the statements you've made about him so far, I would say that it appears you are completely uneducated about him, his politics and his administration.

Either that....or you agree with all of it.

Which?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Dr. Easter claims a majority of black Rhodesians supported Ian Smith’s regime.

Lie^^^never said that.
I said many black soldiers fought with the Rhodesian military and Smith remained well respected by the black community until his death.

Yet, he cannot explain why the photo that leads his Twitter article has no black Rhodesia s present.

I can answer that. Black Rhodesians were not permitted in those seats.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Dr. Easter claims a majority of black Rhodesians supported Ian Smith’s regime.

Yet, he cannot explain why the photo that leads his Twitter article has no black Rhodesia s present.

I can answer that. Black Rhodesians were not permitted in those seats.

Dr. Easter thinks there was no racial disparity in this Country was history until Obama invented resurrected it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Dr. Easter claims a majority of black Rhodesians supported Ian Smith’s regime.

Lie^^^never said that.
I said many black soldiers fought with the Rhodesian military and Smith remained well respected by the black community until his death.

Yet, he cannot explain why the photo that leads his Twitter article has no black Rhodesia s present.

I can answer that. Black Rhodesians were not permitted in those seats.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I'd argue that the plague created the middle class in Europe .. a few historaions would agree and have published works with that as the fulcrum

Perhaps I should have said that the other way around, I was taught by a prof that believed that and had I read several supporting sources. I haven't found a reason to disagree with her

A shortage of Trained labour meaning those that were available could charge more and put some of the excess into education etc for thier children?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Dr. Easter claims a majority of black Rhodesians supported Ian Smith’s regime.

Lie^^^never said that.
I said many black soldiers fought with the Rhodesian military and Smith remained well respected by the black community until his death.

Yet, he cannot explain why the photo that leads his Twitter article has no black Rhodesia s present.

I can answer that. Black Rhodesians were not permitted in those seats.

You are in this thread telling us a majority of blacks supported Smith.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Total bullshit. Ian was honored by the majority of the black population right up until he died.

Educate yourself, dumbass.

https://www.the-independent.co...mbabwe-a8754971.html

Educate myself!? That is the trouble you idiot liberals…Reagan had it right: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

I am well educated in subject matter.

Well, then properly respond to the statements/facts in the article. Smith was an avowed racist who was intent on perpetuating white rule over an overwhelming black majority as long as he possibly could. He wasn't somebody that the US should have backed. He was a terrible person with awful, hateful, backward ideas.

Based on the statements you've made about him so far, I would say that it appears you are completely uneducated about him, his politics and his administration.

Either that....or you agree with all of it.

Which?

He was a very pleasant gentleman who was respected by the black community. He had a workable plan for slow integration.

Educate yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Total bullshit. Ian was honored by the majority of the black population right up until he died.

Educate yourself, dumbass.

https://www.the-independent.co...mbabwe-a8754971.html

Educate myself!? That is the trouble you idiot liberals…Reagan had it right: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

I am well educated in subject matter.

Well, then properly respond to the statements/facts in the article. Smith was an avowed racist who was intent on perpetuating white rule over an overwhelming black majority as long as he possibly could. He wasn't somebody that the US should have backed. He was a terrible person with awful, hateful, backward ideas.

Based on the statements you've made about him so far, I would say that it appears you are completely uneducated about him, his politics and his administration.

Either that....or you agree with all of it.

Which?

He was a very pleasant gentleman who was respected by the black community. He had a workable plan for slow integration.

Educate yourself.

He was a racist and a white supremacist who intended to slow-walk integration and maintain white rule of a majority black country for as long as he possibly could.

These are undeniable facts. The more you say black is white and up is down, the dumber you look.

Go scroll X so you can spout more stupid shit.