quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
didnt last long

Neither did the instant gratification of independence from colonialism for Zimbabwe's masses.

Yet another case of be careful what you ask for.

From the bread-basket of Sub-Saharan Africa to a starving population & vendetta fueled genocide of
20,000 Matabele by North Korean trained murders.

Doesn't read like progress to me.

But I'm white...


.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
didnt last long

Neither did the instant gratification of independence from colonialism for Zimbabwe's masses.

Yet another case of be careful what you ask for.

From the bread-basket of Sub-Saharan Africa to a starving population & vendetta fueled genocide of
20,000 Matabele by North Korean trained murders.

Doesn't read like progress to me.

But I'm white...


.

Racist!

quote:

BTW, You and some others keep referring to my Indian origin. You fail to recognize that I am a New Zealander for over 30 years and have been an adult here for 3 times as long as in India. I find it offensive when you call it "adoptive country" , economic refugee etc. You use such labels to somehow diminish my standing as a Kiwi.

Like it or not, your roots are Indian and your NZ citizenship was acquired through naturalization so yes, you have the privilege of being a citizen of New Zealand but you cannot lay claim to be a Kiwi.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

BTW, You and some others keep referring to my Indian origin. You fail to recognize that I am a New Zealander for over 30 years and have been an adult here for 3 times as long as in India. I find it offensive when you call it "adoptive country" , economic refugee etc. You use such labels to somehow diminish my standing as a Kiwi.

Like it or not, your roots are Indian and your NZ citizenship was acquired through naturalization so yes, you have the privilege of being a citizen of New Zealand but you cannot lay claim to be a Kiwi.

He's a blow in. A refugee. And refuses to do anything to help India.

And purported to be an expurt(sic) on the USA on the basis of his long hours here as a tourist.

In short, a blow hard

Shankspony,


.

A great interview from someone who has studied this issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O9eS4UDP6U

This whole interview is highly worth watching.

Its what most of us know but struggle at times to express.

Okay, but who's full of shit on this issue: Ledvm or Nakihunter?

Or both?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Okay, but who's full of shit on this issue: Ledvm or Nakihunter?

Or both?

Both.

There was no way America could have done anything substantially different with Rhodesia. We were finishing in south east Asia, in the middle of the Civil Rights era, it was pre Internet/ 24hr news cycle. The idea that the average American knew anything about British colonial Africa, understood any of the politics involved, or could see any virtue in perpetuating minority white rule is ludicrous, pure fantasy. There we no mother's or fathers in any of the 50 states that having sent their son to die in Vietnam would have volunteered another to bleed and die in Africa.

As I said earlier, it would have made more sense to divert our moon mission to mars or Pluto than to extend our "Foreign Entanglements" to Rhodesia. We sacrificed 50k in Vietnam, how many more would America have willingly sacrificed for the "Breadbasket", ( farm,) of Africa? None. Zero. Nada, zip.

Naki has a long and extensive track record of expressing himself as a butt hurt brown skinned refugee. Nakis anger for all things Western is obvious.

In this particular case the experience he has as a former indigenous resident of the Indian British colony has no bearing on the indigenous cultures of Zimbabwe. India was and is highly sophisticated whereas Zimbabwe was largely primitive. India had Ghandi, Rhodesia had Mugabe.

It seems plain that Naki fills his head with what he wants to and already agrees with and then vomits it back at us here.

Okay, you've disposed of Naki, but what do you make of Ledvm? Given the chance to defend white racists in a variety of circumstances, he never passes it up.

hey, Naki - where do you fall on this racial spectrum?
https://youtube.com/shorts/Z4Q...?si=QREWzkWiT1qayp0_

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Okay, you've disposed of Naki, but what do you make of Ledvm? Given the chance to defend white racists in a variety of circumstances, he never passes it up.

Sort of perplexing but I think I understand.

I think we all react and interact based on previous experiences, past history, unconscious bias and notions. I know from my own experience that I can instinctively blurt out and act on ideals from my past that I find repugnant. Not to mention that news or trivia from today can have an influence in changing our mind or at least adjusting our opinion.

So R, I think your history, the decisions you've made and the influences you've had shaped your conduct and opinions. You married who you did, had the kids you do and they have the grandkids they do and it's shaped you.

As for Doc Lane, id mention one thing specifically; he's a surgeon, he has to be right. Doc's knife is responsible for fortunes won and lost, lives improved or ended. Docs knife is the well-being that his family, friends and employees depend on, he has to be right. I don't know Doc any better than you do, we've never met, never talked, I've exchanged the very rare pm and have never bothered to look him up online, but that's the impression I get.

If Doc Lane has to be right professionally, has to be right personally for his family, how would he separate politically?

On the other hand, Naki doesn't have to be right about anything. Naki huffs and puffs endlessly about the USA and Rhodesia and none of it makes a difference to him or his in the slightest.

My suspicion is it’s more who you associate with.

Lots of us have hunted Zimbabwe. Most of the older PH’s are ex bush war fighters.

I’ve met a few camp staff that admit that they fought, but generally the successful black soldiers went into government.

I’ve heard way more stories of atrocities done by ZANU-PF guerrilas than of the other way around. Part of that is the way the war was fought, but it’s also selection bias.

By the way, the guy who said the Rhodesians did better by the people as a guy who fought against the Rhodesians… but not with ZANU-PF. He said he joined because he was young, idealistic, and believed that the black man would run the country fairer than the whites. He laughed and said “if we had won, I’d be ina palace. The guy on top always steals!”

I think letting the comblock forces be the power that had influence with the ruling government is much of what caused the poor outcomes.

I certainly agree there was no way in hell that the western powers and the US would have fought for Smith’s regime, even if it had been much more moderate than it was… but with the proper approach we might have been willing to give loans and sell equipment instead of full out embargo.

That might have made the end much more a negotiation instead. It probably would also still be an ongoing conflict.

Look at South Africa. That’s probably what would have ended up if we had bypassed an outright communist victory on the battlefield in Zimbabwe.

Scott

You claim to know everything and hide behind a keyboard insulting me and others.

You know nothing and I now see that you are as much a racist as some of the others here.

You know "jack shit" when you say that Rhodesia had Mugabe as an alternative to Ian Smith

Go and do some soul searching with the BS you post. Do some honest research about this

Ndabaningi Sithole (born July 31, 1920, Nyamandhlovu, Matabeleland, Rhodesia [now Zimbabwe]—died December 12, 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.) was a teacher, clergyman, and an intellectual leader of the black nationalist movement in Rhodesia, later Zimbabwe. Mission-educated, Sithole was a teacher before he studied theology in the United States (1955–58). On returning to Rhodesia, then a British colony, he was a Congregationalist minister, school principal, and president of the African Teachers’ Association (1959–60). His political career began in 1960, when he joined the new National Democratic Party, which was led by Joshua Nkomo, and became its treasurer. Sithole became an influential member of the party, and, after the NDP was banned in 1961, he helped form the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU). After that party also was outlawed, he travelled widely in search of support, making broadcasts into Rhodesia from Tanzania.

Why don't you really dig deep and find out the truth about how Ian Smith opposed ALL local opposition and was ONLy interested in subjugating the blacks.

How about researching how Ndabaningi Sithole and other moderate leaders were hounded out of the Political process and the vacuum was later filled by Mugabe and the Soviet bloc.

Before you start insulting me and claiming that you know all about my motivations and understanding, how about you actually learning some truth? Oh, I know you Right wing bigots do not want the truth that challenges your White supremacist grandeur.

You have just proven yourself to be another despicable bigoted racist with no human decency. You just post your white supremacist propaganda and fail to even attempt understanding the truth about historical events and paradigms.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Okay, you've disposed of Naki, but what do you make of Ledvm? Given the chance to defend white racists in a variety of circumstances, he never passes it up.

Sort of perplexing but I think I understand.

I think we all react and interact based on previous experiences, past history, unconscious bias and notions. I know from my own experience that I can instinctively blurt out and act on ideals from my past that I find repugnant. Not to mention that news or trivia from today can have an influence in changing our mind or at least adjusting our opinion.

So R, I think your history, the decisions you've made and the influences you've had shaped your conduct and opinions. You married who you did, had the kids you do and they have the grandkids they do and it's shaped you.

As for Doc Lane, id mention one thing specifically; he's a surgeon, he has to be right. Doc's knife is responsible for fortunes won and lost, lives improved or ended. Docs knife is the well-being that his family, friends and employees depend on, he has to be right. I don't know Doc any better than you do, we've never met, never talked, I've exchanged the very rare pm and have never bothered to look him up online, but that's the impression I get.

If Doc Lane has to be right professionally, has to be right personally for his family, how would he separate politically?

On the other hand, Naki doesn't have to be right about anything. Naki huffs and puffs endlessly about the USA and Rhodesia and none of it makes a difference to him or his in the slightest.

Outbid all said, this should not be dismissed.

Ndabaningi Sithole (born July 31, 1920, Nyamandhlovu, Matabeleland, Rhodesia [now Zimbabwe]—died December 12, 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.) was a teacher, clergyman, and an intellectual leader of the black nationalist movement in Rhodesia, later Zimbabwe. Mission-educated, Sithole was a teacher before he studied theology in the United States (1955–58). On returning to Rhodesia, then a British colony, he was a Congregationalist minister, school principal, and president of the African Teachers’ Association (1959–60). His political career began in 1960, when he joined the new National Democratic Party, which was led by Joshua Nkomo, and became its treasurer. Sithole became an influential member of the party, and, after the NDP was banned in 1961, he helped form the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU). After that party also was outlawed, he travelled widely in search of support, making broadcasts into Rhodesia from Tanzania.

The key to such history is the failure of Colonists to treat the locals as equals and establish local governance in a collaborative manner.

Intransigent white supremism lead to armed struggles, guerilla wars, rape, murder and more. The only language the colonials feared was violence and that is what they got from the opposition backed by the Soviet Bloc.

Much of Africa could have been like Botswana with no civil war and no armed struggle if the local leaders were involved in self governance from the outset.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Outbid all said, this should not be dismissed.

Ndabaningi Sithole (born July 31, 1920, Nyamandhlovu, Matabeleland, Rhodesia [now Zimbabwe]—died December 12, 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.) was a teacher, clergyman, and an intellectual leader of the black nationalist movement in Rhodesia, later Zimbabwe. Mission-educated, Sithole was a teacher before he studied theology in the United States (1955–58). On returning to Rhodesia, then a British colony, he was a Congregationalist minister, school principal, and president of the African Teachers’ Association (1959–60). His political career began in 1960, when he joined the new National Democratic Party, which was led by Joshua Nkomo, and became its treasurer. Sithole became an influential member of the party, and, after the NDP was banned in 1961, he helped form the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU). After that party also was outlawed, he travelled widely in search of support, making broadcasts into Rhodesia from Tanzania.

quote:

Given the chance to defend white racists in a variety of circumstances, he never passes it up.

I do not share white guilt. Yes, people of European dissent made mistakes, but the overall good overrides. This is the point I never pass up making.

And of our mistakes, they include embargoing Rhodesia. It is well documented that Reagan and Thatcher discussed righting this wrong but decided it was politically incorrect.

quote:

It is well documented that Reagan and Thatcher discussed righting this wrong but decided it was politically incorrect.

So the lauded Saint Reagan worried about political correctness?

But then, he wasn't really much of a president, even before he became senile in office and had his wife run the show.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

It is well documented that Reagan and Thatcher discussed righting this wrong but decided it was politically incorrect.

So the lauded Saint Reagan worried about political correctness?

But then, he wasn't really much of a president, even before he became senile in office and had his wife run the show.

Apparently he did in this instance.

Lane

I am not surprised by your defending racist autocracy.

What is a bit of a surprise is the total lack of conscience and objectivity when you dismiss blatant genocide as "mistakes" and then claim that it was still good for the subjugated people.

Apartheid was among the most oppressive regimes in human history. Freedom was suppressed at all levels. Segregation of residential areas, resettlement of entire villages and tribes, segregation of toilets and other public facilities, segregation of recreational facilities, instant arrest of students from exam halls with no due process, incarceration without charge or evidence, torture & murder (Steve Biko and many others), Acid attack on children of WHITE Journalists who reported the truth and far more.

How do you reconcile that with your "Christian" values? Were they just "mistakes"? Were they still better than co governance and independence for all people?

By the way - American conservatives defended and supported Apartheid until the white South African business community appealed to the GOP to support and help with the transition.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Given the chance to defend white racists in a variety of circumstances, he never passes it up.

I do not share white guilt. Yes, people of European dissent made mistakes, but the overall good overrides. This is the point I never pass up making.

And of our mistakes, they include embargoing Rhodesia. It is well documented that Reagan and Thatcher discussed righting this wrong but decided it was politically incorrect.

The good of the photo that leads your Twitter post to begin this conversation does not override anything.

These regimes were not net positive, they were not net good. They set the stage for the black African nationalistic movements that brought us to where we are today.

Again, make fun of him if you want. The last post by Niki is most correct.

I don't see why Naki can't claim to be a Kiwi after living in NZ for years.

I wasn't born in Alaska, but after living there for decades I called myself an Alaskan.

I guess I'm not an Alaskan anymore, since I moved out of state.

Thanks mate.

That is the typical bullying and dehumanising tactics of the Right wing bigots.

They have no substance to debate and only resort to personal insults.

Fortunately the Kiwis I interact with are the genuine people who accept me and my family as fellow Kiwis. I do not need any Trumpkin from the US or here to endorse me.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I don't see why Naki can't claim to be a Kiwi after living in NZ for years.

I wasn't born in Alaska, but after living there for decades I called myself an Alaskan.

I guess I'm not an Alaskan anymore, since I moved out of state.

I dont think anyone said he couldn't claim to be a kiwi.

What I saw was people reacting to the hypocrisy of his stance.

quote:

Like it or not, your roots are Indian and your NZ citizenship was acquired through naturalization so yes, you have the privilege of being a citizen of New Zealand but you cannot lay claim to be a Kiwi.

That's what Fulvio posted in post 2046.

My wife is a naturalized US citizen, who is an AMERICAN now. Or you could call her a Yankee.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Like it or not, your roots are Indian and your NZ citizenship was acquired through naturalization so yes, you have the privilege of being a citizen of New Zealand but you cannot lay claim to be a Kiwi.

That's what Fulvio posted in post 2046.

My wife is a naturalized US citizen, who is an AMERICAN now. Or you could call her a Yankee.

Yeah my partner is german - not yet a NZ citizen. We have alot of immigration here and its down to the individual on how they describe themselves. And how much they wish to fit in.

2046--I thought that was his post number, but have since realized that is his number of posts. LOL at myself.

I guess we don't have post numbers here.

I thought I was missing something. Why cant I see the post numbers?

Ended up scrolling back to find it.

Its an unfortunate post that allows focus away from legitimate criticism in my view.

Is it hypocritical for him to criticize the US and avoid legitimate criticism of his own country?

From what I can tell, people do it all over the world. As the biggest and strongest, the US is naturally going to attract criticism. Much of it legitimate.

Look at Saeed. When have you ever heard him criticize his own country? When have you not heard him criticize the US?

Who cares what Naki identifies as? I don't.

Naki considers himself immune from questions and criticism of his place of birth and current citizenship, all the while blathering ad nauseum over topics half a world away he insists on remaining ignorant of.

Naki is the picture in the dictionary of forked tongue.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Is it hypocritical for him to criticize the US and avoid legitimate criticism of his own country?

From what I can tell, people do it all over the world. As the biggest and strongest, the US is naturally going to attract criticism. Much of it legitimate.

Look at Saeed. When have you ever heard him criticize his own country? When have you not heard him criticize the US?

Sure, everyone does it but that add no credibility.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Is it hypocritical for him to criticize the US and avoid legitimate criticism of his own country?

From what I can tell, people do it all over the world. As the biggest and strongest, the US is naturally going to attract criticism. Much of it legitimate.

Look at Saeed. When have you ever heard him criticize his own country? When have you not heard him criticize the US?

Saeed tends to criticise the system, and doesn't then turn around and make personnel accusations when any of us reply.

I don't know who started the personal attacks, but I'd rather not see it done.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:

That is the typical bullying and dehumanising tactics of the Right wing bigots.

They have no substance to debate and only resort to personal insults.

The irony of this post ....

Read this. https://www.theguardian.com/us...re-doj-investigation

Some of you deny this. You support hiding it, not teaching it in schools and Lane even claims it was still better for the blacks.

It has nothing to do with me, my country of origin etc.

Scott, I challenge you to point one falsehood I have posted. Just one. Point out one personal attach I INITIATED.

Moral bankruptcy is the very essence of the Right wing value system.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
[QUOTE]Given the chance to defend white racists in a variety of circumstances, he never passes it up.

"I do not share white guilt. Yes, people of European dissent made mistakes, but the overall good overrides. This is the point I never pass up making."

Yeah, there was that whole Nazi thing.....60 million dead and all....

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Is it hypocritical for him to criticize the US and avoid legitimate criticism of his own country?

From what I can tell, people do it all over the world. As the biggest and strongest, the US is naturally going to attract criticism. Much of it legitimate.

Look at Saeed. When have you ever heard him criticize his own country? When have you not heard him criticize the US?

Saeed tends to criticise the system, and doesn't then turn around and make personnel accusations when any of us reply.

Ha! Most of his posts make the point that American citizens and voters are stupid. I daresay most of the Americans here are voters, so he's talking about us when he slanders our group.

To his credit, he allows us to give him shit back.

But that's beside the point. Nakihunter attacks the conservative side of America, while Saeed attacks both sides of our political spectrum with equal gusto.

I have a screen shot of a post from Saeed in this very subforum in which he states in no uncertain terms that:
he loves the United States but deplores it's politics.
Loves, he said.

If I am not mistaken he has lived in both Washington State and Texas and has expressed very complimentary feelings about it's citizens.

I don't believe for one moment that he created this subforum to be his own whipping post as much as it was created to keep the utter pollution in this crater from infecting the rest of this wonderfully beneficial website.

Thanks Saeed and Don!

Bless you both for putting up with us knuckleheads.


.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Is it hypocritical for him to criticize the US and avoid legitimate criticism of his own country?

From what I can tell, people do it all over the world. As the biggest and strongest, the US is naturally going to attract criticism. Much of it legitimate.

Look at Saeed. When have you ever heard him criticize his own country? When have you not heard him criticize the US?

Saeed tends to criticise the system, and doesn't then turn around and make personnel accusations when any of us reply.

Ha! Most of his posts make the point that American citizens and voters are stupid. I daresay most of the Americans here are voters, so he's talking about us when he slanders our group.

To his credit, he allows us to give him shit back.

But that's beside the point. Nakihunter attacks the conservative side of America, while Saeed attacks both sides of our political spectrum with equal gusto.

There are other factors of course. When I was helping to run a forum, the people we had the most difficulties with and who caused the most opprobrium were those who skilfully walked the line of passive aggressive attack and then cried foul at openly hostile replies.

Having been the target of it from Naki, I feel no sympathy for what he gets in return, and there is a reason why for the sake of argument, I can get into a strong debate with someone and yet not majorly feel there is huge outstanding resentment.
I would describe it as honest intent.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Just one. Point out one personal attach I INITIATED.

Assume you meant ATTACK not attach

Here you go, sweetheart.. you turned to name calling. There are more

https://forums.accuratereloadi...471067872#4471067872

Its at this point he will label you a racist and bigot. because its easier to blame another person than realise the flaw is in ones own character.