Tfw there is no African white ruled nation with a GDP per capita of 60k $

...

>tfw when you hear this beautiful song

youtu.be/mmwEnfyFTtY

I wonder if Boko Haram will spread beyond center-west Africa.

Reposting this from other Rhodesia threads because it always needs to be said.

It wasn't the KKK white supremacists neo nazi state, and it wasn't the peace loving racialist unitarians.
Most views are pretty skewed, but Rhodesia was comparably better than any other post-colonial state that made a real attempt at having a mixed country and had plans for equal rule(not majority).
Note that the vast majority of the country was rural, and a large portion of that tribal, so they were unaffected by attempts at schooling or legislation and its participation.
There was an attempt to meet demands of the international community, but was rejected because they left Mugabe off the ballot.(oh wow left a terrorist and a mass murderer off the ballot).
Mugabe used the cease fire and his name on the ballot to terrorize the rural towns and get votes.

...

youtu.be/MZbILmXs3B0

youtube.com/watch?v=J5PMmagpho8

>Ulster
>CSA

Dropped

edgy t.b.h.

For God and Ulster

IMPERIALISTS BTFO
RACISTS BTFO
CAPITALISTS BTFO

POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

...

Not by me

Why is Rhodesian music so great?
youtu.be/MZbILmXs3B0

Rhodie lies. Glorious Zimbabwe is the greatest threat to imperialists ever known.

Zimbabwe is so sucessful that literally ever Zimbabwean is a billionaire.

>Negrification intensifies

I can't believe you are still falling for it
Poe's law is weird

...

not really nobody cares about africa. It was just that place that was always shit

>muh white nationalism

Rhodesia fell apart because at the time blacks weren't given enough of a say in the government, so rebels were able to easily spread their influence and force concessions since the country wasn't able to unite (compare it to Iran or North Korea).

Of course said rebels/blacks ruined everything because they were communists that did wealth redistribution, but at the time everything was good so they didn't think it would cause a problem. Now that Zimbabwe is falling apart, this is becoming more obvious.

For caparison, down south the whites made more concessions more quickly so that peaceful revolution didn't spill over into violence. This has proven to be a good thing, for as corrupt at the ANC is, their network keeps the communists out of power.

Which brings us back to an important theme of the 20th century: communism doesn't work.

Good post. Although I'm against all of the rasvist stuff I still love Rhodesia. I dunno how I can hold the two beliefs .

stormfags OUUUTT

>Everyone leaves for South Africa
>White Genocide

Get out of here fucking /pol/ack.

Stop bumping it

>Rhodesian conflict was about "whites" against "blacks"

I bet you also believe the Vietnam war was just "Americans" against the "Vietnamese". I don't understand why some of you retards feel the need to simplify historical conflicts to the point of absurdity.

Fuck off white guilt faggot

We get it, you hate your own race

This is literally copy and pasted from /int/. So now that you have a new thread care to respond to the facts I posted in the last one regarding the constitution and education system?

It was never good enough to last. Otherwise it would still exist. Don't kid yourself.

any reputable scholar will make the distinctions about both the good and bad of both sides in the conflict. SJWs are boogeymen.

>SJWs are boogeymen.
Opinion discarded, fuck off back to leftypol

>mfw rhodesia would have made anime real and i would have gf

Because Rhodesia wasn't racist.

I would love to see proof of this. Then I could happily love Rhodesia.

Would you love your grandfather less if you found out he didn't like Asians?

>Who need sources when i have feelings!

>Rhodesia wasn't racist.

>leftypol likes SJWs

You need to prove they were racist
This is not at all based on race and you know it, friend.
It wasn't

It might as well have been. The blacks were locked out of many jobs, glass ceilings or not. Many rural districts got nothing out of white rule.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if Mugabe had majority support or not. He probably never did. But, the key takeaway was that he was able to get enough blacks on his side to force the whites to give him a share of power. He also proved effective in manipulating the international media as well. This worked good enough until the mid 00s, when the older whites began retiring in SA (where their children had already moved) and the remaining farms fell into total disrepair due to a lack of skilled professionals.

All in all, race doesn't really have anything to do with it insomuch the "working class" wanting a larger share of the pie the "elites" had. Like most communist policies it failed. The white/black cultural divide just made it more clearer.

>POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

But no food. :(

>"the number of African members may never exceed the number of European members"
>This is not at all based on race.

Wew lad.

Most rural Rhodesians were tribal, and completely unaffected by policy, ruled by their own cheifs.

the whites considered their culture superior to the blacks and openly shit all over their culture. Of course this was done to protect grazing lands and farmlands, but there was still an immense culture clash which one could easily describe as "racism" even if said racism was justified:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_Southern_Rhodesia#Grievances_of_the_black_majority

>Black discontent had been growing in the rural areas largely because of the disruptive impact of the 1951 Land Husbandry Act. It was designed to enforce private ownership of land and improve the rural economy in the African reserves, which experienced the pressure of a growing population within fixed areas. However, its provisions violated traditional practices. Rather than expand the size of the reserves, the act limited cattle grazing in specified areas and provided for the de-stocking of African herds; it allowed officials to dictate patterns of cultivation and crop growing and to fix dwelling sites on farm land; it prohibited cultivating or grazing without a permit and imposed compulsory labour on unemployed rural Africans. Implementation of the act meant the depletion of highly valued herds, reduction of the land under cultivation, and the forced uprooting of families and entire villages.

>Discontent with socioeconomic conditions was growing among urban Africans as well. A recession in 1957–1958 hit blacks hard; rising unemployment and inadequate township housing contributed to their sense of deprivation and provided ready-made issues for ANC organizers.[3]

Africans are not a race, Europeans are not one unified race either.
Race is mostly unimportant in Rhodesia, it was mainly class.

no they weren't, they were subject to in order to prevent overgrazing

That is all pre-UDI.
the British are racist fucks, we know that.
See above.

>Southern Rhodesia
>UDI Rhodesia
WEW LAD

Also, here we have how Rhodesia fell:

>Disturbances in what was Northern Rhodesia in 1959 and the violence against whites in the Belgian Congo and French Congo in early 1959 created a climate of fear amongst the white population. As a consequence, a security crackdown in Rhodesia occurred, which was largely a preemptive strike against further nationalist organising of blacks and against potential African unrest.

>The emergency episode proved counterproductive in several respects. It ruined the prospects for genuine racial partnership, made heroes out of the detainees, and alienated moderate Africans from the Government. Indeed, black opposition at this point started to become violent. Repression of the black majority by the white minority had helped to engender the terrorism that would haunt the country for decades. To deflate the crisis atmosphere of the state of emergency and yet preserve its sweeping powers as insurance against the future, the regime sought to normalise the exceptional measures, by incorporating them in statute law. Thus institutionalised, the official emergency came to an end.

>Intended to paralyse black opposition and prevent political violence, the state of emergency proved a self-fulfilling prophecy. State repression deepened black alienation from the regime and suggested to some that peaceful political organising was a dead end. With the black leadership in detention, the political vacuum was filled by the more militantly inclined. In July and October 1960 large-scale demonstrations and rioting broke out in black townships.[6]

Basically Rhodesia ended their own democracy, thereby alienating most blacks from the government. Once this happened, blacks then went from "disruptive" activities to openly violent ones. Israel (another country which did similar things with Palestinians) could only get away with it due to increasing US involvement in the middle east.

Whiteness is originally an American concept, culture superiority isn't racism.

>It might as well have been. The blacks were locked out of many jobs, glass ceilings or not. Many rural districts got nothing out of white rule.

Except for schools and assistance with animal husbandry. Things which ZIPRA and ZANLA burned down whenever they could.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if Mugabe had majority support or not. He probably never did. But, the key takeaway was that he was able to get enough blacks on his side to force the whites to give him a share of power.

It was Britain, America, Russia, China and the Organization of African Unity that made that happen. Not Mugabe and Nkomo. They compelled Rhodesia to implement universal suffrage and then let Nkomo and Mugabe back in to have another election. Nkomo and Mugabe then used violence and voter intimidation to compel the Ndebele and Shona, respectively, to vote for them. Mugabe won because the Shona were the majority.

It's like you don't even understand history.

It might as well be the same country given that by the time Ian Smith got into power everything was totally fucked and unfixable. Bridges were burned and the end was determined three decades before Zimbabwe came into existence. The political capital he needed to repair the country was gone by then.

>might as well be the same country
Except that, it fucking isn't.
They even later drafted a new constitution.
Try harder.

>>"the number of African members may never exceed the number of European members"
>>This is not at all based on race.
>Wew lad.

The point was that eventually the number of black members would grow until it was equal to the number of white members. Then the black and white communities would have an equal number of MPs and thus have equal say in governance.

>This is not at all based on race and you know it, friend.

I legitimatley cannot understand how you can come to that conclusion as they literally modified their constitution to ensure that even if blacks had equal or even higher wealth than europeans/whites they would still at best only be allowed to have 50% of the lower house despite being 86ish percent of the population.

Is pic related also non racial in your view?

>Except for schools and assistance with animal husbandry. Things which ZIPRA and ZANLA burned down whenever they could.

not enough to matter

>It was Britain, America, Russia, China and the Organization of African Unity that made that happen. Not Mugabe and Nkomo. They compelled Rhodesia to implement universal suffrage and then let Nkomo and Mugabe back in to have another election. Nkomo and Mugabe then used violence and voter intimidation to compel the Ndebele and Shona, respectively, to vote for them.

And things only got to that stage because concessions weren't made sooner. By the time they did, a bona fide thug was able to easily move into power by promising blacks wealth redistribution (and using voter intimidation). Mugabe clearly isn't a good person, but he was able to get into power through anti-white sentiment created decades earlier. Similar things occurred in most other societies where wealth, for whatever reason, was concentrated into a small part of the population.

Entirely non-racial.
More of a "Europeans and Africans are on two totally different planes of development", and your source has some very clear and obvious bias from the get go.
Allowing majority rule in this situation would be, and WAS disastrous.

You and I have been arguing for a long time, and I don't know why you demand that it be majority rule.

>The point was that eventually the number of black members would grow until it was equal to the number of white members. Then the black and white communities would have an equal number of MPs and thus have equal say in governance.

This is not true, having 5% of the population being guaranteed 50% of the lower house vote is not equal say, likewise you ignore the fact that blacks were barred from electing members to the upper house unlike white people.

Even under the best outcome it would be impossible for blacks to gain control of the lower house and only possible in the upperhouse if the Prime Minister chose to voluntarily appoint them

By the time the UDI occurred, it was too late. The white-run state, whatever it called itself, was discredited. The average idiot doesn't care about a constitution, they only care if they are employed and working productively. In Rhodesia, both before and after the UDI, this was not the case. Sanctions played into this obviously, but wasn't the final nail.

>Allowing majority rule in this situation would be, and WAS disastrous.

yes, but why would it be disastrous? Because blacks aren't able to run things because they're uneducated and stupid. That's racism, even if the desired outcome is good.

You're entirely defeatist attitude on history is very displeasing.
UDI Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia were entirely separate, and it was not "fucked beyond repair", this is your way of moving the goalposts for you to frame your argument in.

>an area without western education and civilization for hundreds of years can't run a western government
>This is racism
I'm done with you.

>Entirely non-racial.More of a "Europeans and Africans are on two totally different planes of development", and your source has some very clear and obvious bias from the get go.

Then why have racial prohibitions then that ignore education and economic development?

>You and I have been arguing for a long time, and I don't know why you demand that it be majority rule.

Not once in *any* of my posts in this thread or anyother have I ever demanded or supported demands for majority rule.

I argue with you because you make sourceless claims and literally falsify history. Its fine to say majority rule is bad its wrong to say that Rhodesias laws were not racial and that they had a goal of moving towards this eventually.

In all our conversations you have *never* posted a source outside of an copypasted image macro which itself is not sourced.

This kind of ideological revisionism which is normally reserved for lefties is just as disgusting when right wingers do it

Africans and Europeans are not a race.
You can not prove that they were racist on anything above assumptions, or usage of PRE-UDI legislation.
I have never pasted that image macro myself, and have always heavily criticized it.

>And things only got to that stage because concessions weren't made sooner.

Considering how most of the other African countries turned out after handing them over to the blacks, those concessions were a shit idea. All those countries; Zambia, Tanzania, Ghana, Uganda, etc became controlled by bloody, Marxist oriented dictators. That's what the Rhodesian Front was trying to avoid.

Even Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was rejected, as even attempting to succumb to international pressure.
Still was rejected.

I'm not being "defeatist" at all. Politics requires compromise and this was not a thing that Rhodesia, before or after UDI, was willing to sufficiently do. They were not in a position where they could leverage their strategic location to a larger power, which put them at the mercy of said larger powers.

Ian Smith was right about how majority rule wouldn't have worked but ultimately there should had been a better transition plan put into place. Hard police crackdowns did not help anyone and ultimately gave a casus belli to a communist revolution/rise of Mugabe. Also bumping themselves out of the UK didn't help them either, instead of trying to position themselves as a satellite colony (like French Guinea is) they tried to jettison themselves from a free source of money and international political support (even if said money and support came at a compromise).

They couldn't afford to go it alone, and alienating sources of support (re: the UK) was disastrous.

yes it is racism. Racism is not always bad.

It wasn't racism, you're a moron.

They didn't necessarily have to hand over power, but they did have to give africans a reason to vote for them. In SA, the ANC gets by through sheer bribery. Ultimately they didn't give enough meanwhile they took away certain things (such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of protest) which turned moderates and fencesitters away.

Where the white government didn't give people reasons to support them, they looked elsewhere. Mugabe offered them a gun and a cause. Similar things happened up north where mining strikes were settled harshly.

Discrimination based on race is racism you nut.

Why does it matter if it was racist? If it benefits the whites who cares?

Compromising was something that was possible, but required the assistance of the international community.
UDI Rhodesia wanted to cooperate, but had a war and a mess of a country handed to them. Your view is absolutely defeatist, your seeking whatever frame you can to make your argument look stronger (by claiming that UDI was Racist because of pre UDI policies like that reddit post did )
Europeans and Africans are not a race, and it was not racially based.

I didn't say it was bad. If you're going to be truthful, call it for what it is. It's racism plain and simple.

Independent Rhodesia was a failed state from the start, you don't govern a state through racism when the ones doing the governance are the racial minority. I liked Ian Smith and his principle, but he should have organized a switch over to Black Majority rule earlier, before Nkomo and Mugabe had too much influence.

...

Racism implies that the perpetrators believe that race exists and therefore discriminate because of it.

Rhodesians believed race existed and discriminated along those lines.

It literally added a ban based on skin colour that did not exist in the 61 constitution and there were bans on interracial sport or are you actually going to argue that the African ban included white people who were born in Rhodesia ?

And whilst it's good to hear you don't agree with that image macro can you actually post a source that supports your claims?

Theres literally no reason not to if you care about the issue and have any intellectual integrity

It's not racism.
You cannot effectively prove this. As non-african blacks were treated just fine.
It was not a ban based on skin color, and the children of Europeans are Europeans.

>you can't prove that Rhodesians are racist, even though they administered a system that privileged an overwhelmingly white population over an overwhelmingly black population, just because the words "white" and "black" weren't explicitly used in the formations of the laws
>furthermore, any evidence you use to prove that Rhodesia was a racist administration will be dismissed because it doesn't meet my specific definition of racist, which I will never state because if I do you will be able to see exactly how far my goalposts have moved even since the start of the conversation

That's some next-level semantics you're getting into family.

You are doing it again, why do you hide your sources? If you have none can you just come out and say it ?

...

>UDI Rhodesia wanted to cooperate, but had a war and a mess of a country handed to them.

And the whole idea of the UDI was a bad gamble. Rhodesia needed closer relations to the UK, not full Independence. Left on their own they had succeeded in turning the blacks totally against them, and it was totally unsurprising that the country fell apart and had to allow for majority rule.

A house divided cannot stand. Put bluntly, Independence is only for stable countries with lots of unity. Rhodesia did not have this. So, once the UDI was created, majority rule was inevitable. Instead of trying to make Rhodesia into an Independent country, the whites there should have pressed harder for greater integration into the UK. This would have (among other things) allowed for British tax money to subsidize schools and hospitals, alleviating the burden of governing it. Likewise giving Rhodesia seats in Westminster, and allowing blacks to vote on them, would have helped quell black nationalism.

Of course it's another question entirely if the UK would have opted for it (since they didn't keep the rest of their empire around), but what is clear is that Independence was the worst possible solution since it guaranteed majority rule.

The larger problem here isn't so much the black/white relations, insomuch as it was the death of colonialism. Rhodesia's entire existence was subsidized by Britain and without the UK wanting them majority rule was the only possible route. Same goes for Zambia. The whites there should have realized that Independence was never going to work, especially as the Cold War deflated.

Decolonization was inevitable, something Macmillan had said in his 1957 "Winds of Change" speech. Rhodesians had two options: push for integration, or go it alone. The latter meant majority rule. Beyond that they could have opted to split the country sooner and have a piece of it remain in the UK under British rule. Again see French Guinea.

>they were racist under my inexplicably broad term of racism to fit everything in the world between Europeans and Africans
No.

generally speaking considering one culture superior to another is racist, or has it's roots in racist things like niggers being subhuman

>culture is now race
No.

Once again can you post some of your sources or at least tell us why you wont?

Secondly can you define your understanding of racism and give us an example of a racist law?

I am using nothing but the sources we both have access to (albeit the most heavily biased you can find), which are unfortunately mostly not primary, and rarely governmental because of how much information was lost.
You cannot effectively prove they were racist.
Expressing that European culture is more successful isn't racist, and is not something they actively did.