Was there any difference between the apartheid systems in Rhodesia and South Africa? Or was there no such nothing as one in Rhodesia?
Because from what I understand, Rhodesia only suppressed African nationalist groups because they were considered violent.
While in South Africa, black weren't considered part of the nation at all, so they created homelands, or Bantustans (Ciskei, Transkei and Bophuthatswana) in order to put aside the Africans in South Africa.
The system in Rhodesia was rigged in such a way that blacks could never get a majority representation in the government.
The suppressed groups were mostly communists and thus rightly outlawed, if you ask me.
...
What did he mean by this
I don't get it.
Is this supposed to represent the Bush War?
Because reading into the war, Rhodesia won every battle and lost less men. Plus, more black civillians died than white ones.
that meme/reality pic is just racist trash
South Africa was pretty bad, all things considered it was almost nazi-tier, without the genocide of course. Meanwhile Rhodesia never really had an apartheid, the most outright racist thing they did was having a fixed number of white people in their parliament.
>white Rhodie soldiers killing women and children
Ironically it makes you a /pol/ tier retard if you genuinely believe that. Most of the military was, you guessed it, BLACK and it was the communist-funded rebels who indulged in organized rape orgies and massacres.
The main difference between the two was that Rhodesia was actively trying (slowly,) to move towards something approaching equal government, whereas as far as I know, SA had no long term solution to apartheid.
tl;dr, If the US and UN hadn't chimped out and worked with Rhodesia and given it time instead of imposing the Iran-tier sanctions that doomed it to be a failed state, things could have gone much better for both the whites and blacks there.
SA is a different story, and I honestly don't know enough about to give any objective input beyond memes other than it turned out badly for everyone.
>If the US and UN
Don't forget the main culprits, the UK, who got so assblasted after the secession they tried to undercut and blacklist Rhodesia whenever possible.
H-haha y-yeah, how could I have possibly forgotten about them? :^)
>majority of the Rhodesian army was black
>blacks chose to fight other blacks to protect the white government
>black man ruined the country after Rhodesia gave in
really makes you ponder, huh?
Because all things considered, black Rhodesians didn't have it so bad, yes they weren't completely equal legally but they had it much better than the US blacks during Jim Crow for example. And many people hated the communists because as history shows, African commies fucked up everything in places like Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola or Ethiopia. The only "good" ones commies often masturbate to are people like Lumumba and Sankara who got promptly killed before they had a chance to fuck shit up.
So, Rhodesia thread?
>Was there any difference between the apartheid systems in Rhodesia and South Africa? Or was there no such nothing as one in Rhodesia?
Rhodesia system was less formalised whilst in South Africa they had special "homelands" for black people in Rhodesia they simply instituted a system of permits which had wealth and property requirements that effectively segregated the black population.
However towards the end of the regime you started to see the petty aparthied SA had with schools and sports teams having segregation enforced.
>Because from what I understand, Rhodesia only suppressed African nationalist groups because they were considered violent.
That was a big part of that (along with anticommunism) however they genuinely saw blacks as inferior people and whilst their voting system allowed for black people to gain the vote via wealth and education it constitutionally barred them from *ever* having any majority.
Its not that simple, take a look at where the black numbers lay.
All officers were effectively white in the army and their best equpied and trained units were all white. Likewise the 40,000 reservists (bearing in mind the regular army was about 10K) were also predominantly white.
Where you see blacks in large numbers where the auxiliary guard units created to protect villages and farms.
Not sure about the composition of their intelligence forces. However when it came to the police force about 60% of it was black however they were barred from any role higher than sub inspector and to my knowledge were not allowed to police whites.
...
Bump
Does anyone have any good reading material on Rhodesia and the Bush War?
Why is a failed, white minority state so romanticized?
Because It shows what Africa could be without Cain's spawn ruining the continent
nothing gets me hard like FN FAL's colored baby shit green and puke yellow
This is one reason decolonization was such a disaster; the UK and France caved to demands for independence now and tried only to make sure the new government was pro-West, rather than taking the time to manage a stable independence process over several decades. The Congo Crisis is a particularly germane example; the country descended into a nearly 10 year civil war, and emerged with Mobutu as a West-friendly anticommunist strongman.
The former colonial powers virtually gave up on the people of European descent who had settled in Africa (and elsewhere), as the governments were self-interested and no longer saw benefit in their former colonies. Given what happened to the pied noirs in the Algerian Civil War, I can see why the white Rhodesians would have been anxious about an immediate transition to home rule: land expropriations, nationalization of industries, purge of whites from government, etc., plus the specter of violent mob attacks.
It only failed because the UK and the US didn't want to help. South Africa would've had the same fate earlier than 1994 if the US didn't protect them.
>failed
Still better than zimbabwe lmao
OP here. I recommend "Bush War in Rhodesia" by Dennis Croukamp. He fought in the war from the late 60s to 1979.
Thanks, will check it out.
Because it presents a fascinating what-if scenario.
>This is one reason decolonization was such a disaster; the UK and France caved to demands for independence now and tried only to make sure the new government was pro-West, rather than taking the time to manage a stable independence process over several decades. The Congo Crisis is a particularly germane example; the country descended into a nearly 10 year civil war, and emerged with Mobutu as a West-friendly anticommunist strongman.
I think it was less their hands being forced (although that did happen in Egypt) and more of it no longer being economically desirable to maintain home rule. Not only did Africa now have the infrastructure but the rise of the Eurozone and globalism ended any benefits that came from protectionism.
>The former colonial powers virtually gave up on the people of European descent who had settled in Africa (and elsewhere), as the governments were self-interested and no longer saw benefit in their former colonies. Given what happened to the pied noirs in the Algerian Civil War, I can see why the white Rhodesians would have been anxious about an immediate transition to home rule: land expropriations, nationalization of industries, purge of whites from government, etc., plus the specter of violent mob attacks.
I think its more accurate to say that decolonisation was not designed to cater to colonies with settler populations which were the overwhelming minority of the colonies in Africa - one of the reasons why the experiance in Algeria and Rhodesia+SA is so unique compared to the rest of the continent.
>It only failed because the UK and the US didn't want to help.
I think the bigger factor for rhodesia not collapsing later on was the fall of the Estado Novo in Portugal. The Portuguese dictatorship ignored the embargos and were the key provides or raw materials like oil.
>I think it was less their hands being forced (although that did happen in Egypt) and more of it no longer being economically desirable to maintain home rule. Not only did Africa now have the infrastructure but the rise of the Eurozone and globalism ended any benefits that came from protectionism.
This is actually what I'm saying; they caved to immediate demands in large part because of economic self-interest. It just wasn't viable to maintain the colonies anymore, so why resist anticolonial movements? My main issue with the decolonization process is that so many countries were tossed to the wind, and the Cold War mentality of the time wanted to make sure they just remained anticommunist and continued to allow resource extraction. The decolonization process needed to be managed more carefully to create stable governments, because these countries were drawn with arbitrary borders, but Europe basically just up and left. Then all that infrastructure got torn up in civil wars.
1/2
2/2
>I think its more accurate to say that decolonisation was not designed to cater to colonies with settler populations which were the overwhelming minority of the colonies in Africa
I agree with this, but this relates back to my point about decolonization being rushed.
Rhodesia, SA and Algeria were unique for their large European population, which had lived there for several generations at that point. South Africa was obviously already independent in 1910, but leaving those other two countries, when the presence of a settler population whose presence was symbolic of imperialism, whose culture was alien and who were generally of better means than natives of the former colonies, obviously left the European peoples vulnerable.
Their property and even safety had previously been guaranteed by the colonial governments, and with that gone, it was difficult to say what would happen. Obviously the Ian Smith government didn't do the right thing either, as they didn't seem to have a real goal of majority African rule in the future, but they also didn't get much help from the UK or UN in formulating a plan that would consider this unique situation.
I do think this uniqueness should have been taken into account as part of a managed, multi-decade decolonization plan to promote a harmonious society; it would have taken more time, probably at least a generation, but things probably would have been better than the Bush War and the sorry state of modern Zimbabwe.
I'd like to clarify that by "large European population", I mean something like the 10-15% range, which was significantly more than other colonies. At the time of the Congo Crisis, for example, I think roughly 6000 Belgians lived there, and almost all were involved in colonial administration or missionary work; very few permanent settlers as in Rhodesia or Algeria.
/pol/kiddie Rhodesiaboos quick on the scene to defend their precious "white" haven.
>not spitting on the image of dead people?
>how fucking dare they