What really went wrong? It seemed like it had so much promise

Rhodesia, South Afrika and Betschuanaland had similar racial structures and tensions at the time of idependence. The one that granted full equality is now the most prosperous country in continental Africa. I really wonder why the segregationist aproach led to such a clusterfuck.

jeez, it´s almost as if directing significant resources to actively supress, segregate and exclude +80% of the population based on their skin colour is somehow a recipe for disaster.

>It went better in some places than others.
And neither went as well as Rhodesia. Africa wasn't ready for full decolonization, not that Europeans intended for their former colonies in Africa to turn out decent anyway.
Rhodesia's greatest fault was being democratic enough for the west to be afraid the soviets could expand their influence there and not dictatorial enough to resist the west toppling them first.

In what way did anything go well in any way for Rhodesia? UDI was a total disaster that led to a hopless, senseless and brutal war in which the whites sealed their own doom and ultimately created the vacum of opression that enabled Mugabe to install his dictatorship.

Actually has a piont. Whites could have given up their colonial privileges and orderly transitoned to full equality. Instead they chose to go full retard, steped up repression and ended up destroying themselves.

>What really went wrong?
On their part changing the constitution to make black rule impossible (no matter their education or wealth), banning blacks from quality private schools and generally forcing them onto crappy land to open up the good parts for exclusive white use. What this effectively did was make Mugabe the only chance at ever have representation and access to a decent education system.

On the British part even when it became clear that Mugabe was employing mass voter intimidation they refused to use the legal mechanisms available to them as they feared it would cause Mugabe to chimp out.

On the UN, US and British part later on - Continuing to pour 10s o millions of dollars of aide into the country despite and remaning silent whilst Mugabe was turning the country into a dictatorship and killing black minority groups.

On South Africa's part - funding white terrorists that gave Mugabe an excuse to purge (not kill but just fire) whites from power.

Oh and finally the communists for suppling him with weapons.

>Rhodesia, South Afrika and Betschuanaland had similar racial structures and tensions at the time of idependence

I think thats a bit of an exaggeration especially when it comes to the comparison of South Africa. South Africa was vastly more complex with a much larger mix of ethnicities (including blacks who came to colonise the territory themselves) and a large Dutch colonist population (more that double the % of the other two) which had been settled in areas for close to 400 years. Add to that the complications of the British taking over.

Finally its worth noting that Botwsana was also tiny in comparison population wise from the 1990 figures

SA -36 million
Zim/Rho 10 million
Botswana: 1.4 million

Even in modern times Harare has more people than the entire country. Accordingly transition is a vastly easier prospect and dimond wealth has a far bigger impact

Non-sequitur.

Falacy falacy.

Everything you say is true, yet the point that the racist programmes of SA and Rhodesia where a recipee for disaster still stands. Especially since some of the properties of Namibia (scarecly populated, landlocked, largely infertile, overly dependant on the exportation of a single high value commodity) would lead one to assume that of the three territories it would have been the least likely to succeed.

wh*Te subhumans got fucked hard

GET OUT OF AFRICA BITCH.

The existence of black majority rule in other areas of Africa, good or no, does not negate the fact that the white minority did not breed resentment towards the rest of the population, you dumb fuck. It's a non-argument within this context. Hence, it is a non-sequitur. You only mentioned it because you felt the need to do some damage control instead of admitting the reality of the situation; that the black majority felt like it was stupid to be ruled by a white foreign minority.

I mean Botswana, not Namibia
of course.

Only if Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was accepted by the international community, it was pretty much the last chance it had

> yet the point that the racist programmes of SA and Rhodesia where a recipee for disaster still stands

Of course, however its incorrect to hold that these polices and their failures alone resulted in the situation we see today which is what people tend to do with these countries.

>Especially since some of the properties of Namibia

Im assuming you mean Botswana and not Namibia here.

>scarecly populated, landlocked, largely infertile, overly dependant on the exportation of a single high value commodity) would lead one to assume that of the three territories it would have been the least likely to succeed.

Aside from the scare population (which tends to be a good trait) you are right that those traits wouldnt make it the first pick initially. However when you look deeper to the internal conflicts of the other two it becomes clearer. Indeed I think its rather spectacular that a Malema figure didnt arise earlier.

>that the white minority did not breed resentment towards the rest of the population

**that the white minority bred resentment in the rest of the population

I think we are largely on the same page ragarding Namibiaaaeeeiii I meant Botswana of course :^)

My brake is almost over so I gotta leave soon, but would you care to elaborate why you think that extremely low population density, such as in Botswanas case, are beneficial to prosperity? I am no expert on the subject, but I am quite shure, that economic developement usually has been preceded by the concentration of populationa and I would even go so far to say as that a large, reasonably concentrated and connected population is an positive economic factor by itself.

/pol/ lets be honest. Would you want a minority of another race ruling over you in a continent where the minority of that other race barely exist

No worries hopefully this thread will still be up for you later.

The advantage of low population numbers mean

-that its far easier to get consensus
-there is less pressure for conflict over resources (Botswana and dear Namibia have some of the lowest population densities around 3-4) compared to Rawanda's 440 per square km)
-The average worker has more influence and bargaining power (lower labour supplies)
-Which in turn can make for a more stable society which is great for investment.

That said this just makes for a more egalitarian and prosperous country with less conflicts on an individual level. At a national level you are correct Botswana will never have the GDP of countries like South Africa, Nigeria or the dreaded DRC

Does it mean the economy won't be totally fucked and famine a common issue while the rich asshole the same race as me stuffs his fucking fat face with cake every birthday?

Its better than giving voting rights yo niggers who'll inevitably vote to kill whitey an steal dey shiet as has happened in every country that was decolonized.

>peaceful transfer
>in africa
>anywhere

dailymotion.com/video/x2f3rig

giyf

you´ll be shocked.

>The one that granted full equality is now the most prosperous country in continental Africa.
Tunisia granted full equality?

afaik Tunisia did not have race-laws. I was referring to metrics broader than the HDI, which include dimensions like corruption, rule of law, environment, safety and democratic stability - like the GLI. If you insist on using the HDI Botswana is still first in subsaharan Africa.

Only because the white regimes fell

(citation needed)

It wasn't accepted because the system was still blatantly rigged as hell for whites.

Reminder that modern South Africa has a lower murder rate and a higher GDP than it did under apartheid.

Could you verify that? I am not doubting, just curious.

...

The fun thing is that if you google it, you find plenty of graphs without, sources, absolute numbers (meaning that they would not take into acount the population growth even if they where acurate) flashy colours and arrows and anotations all over the place.
/pol/ at it´s finest...

Everything in this post is bullshit. Starting with the notion that the brits wanted to force independence on Rhodesia in the first place. UDI stands for Unilateral Declaration of Independence, and it was not accepted by the Brits. The whole "black and white agreed to supress the blacks" is also bullshit: The 15% of delegates that the 95% black mayority was granted in the parliament consistently and continuously demanded raciall equality. The rhodesian bush war started even before the UDI, after years and years of cicil disobedience had failed to persuade the rulers in the slightest. However, the whole thing didn´t break out of a few rather isolated and remote backwaters and isolated assasinations and other terroristic acts until 1972. 8 years after the UDI and 2 years after they made the system even more racist with the constitution of 69.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Just look up GDP growth for South Africa and Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe still can't match the GDP per capita of sanction-stricken Rhodesia

google it you idiot. It´s neither true for South africa nor for Rhodesia/zimbabwe.

WE

To be fair, increasing GDP and lowering murder (or crime) rates are the norm worldwide.
That isn't to say apartheid wasn't very wrong and its a good thing it ended.

Do you always argue on your feels?

Plus the whole point of significant parts of the thread was that white majority rule fucked up Rhodesia so bad, that Mugabe became possible. At least read a 5 minute resumé (NOT based on /pol infographics) of a subject before you google.

>What is PPP?

*inhales deeply*

Imagine being born African

He's also wrong on crime rates, provide your source

This fairly closely plots the start of Chinese investment in these countries and the most recent commodities supercycle.

Im non a Cecil Rhodes dindu nuffin but quoting GDP figures showing an acceleration in the 21st century have very little bearing on whether the government of the first half the 20th century was succesful.

Mugabe followed a pattern thats happened in many African countries. Just sets up a corrupt elite and wins power through crude appeals to ethnicity

Braap.com/brrt

obviously GDP is a bullshit indicator for prosperity, but he asked for it, claiming that Rhodesia had a higher GDP than Zimbabwe. And yes, Mugabe is terrible, and if you look how he came to power, I am convinced, that he wouldn´t have had the oportunity to seize it, where it not for the UDI and all it´s consequences. Again, just look at Botswana: Neighboring state, similar size white mayority, also former british colony, also landlocked, unfertile as hell, even less developed, roughly same time period of independence, different black etnicitys....

>Using GDP instead of GDP per capita
data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD?locations=ZW

Do you always argue against arguments that nobody made?

>writing GDP instead of GDP per capita whilst meaning GDP per capita

It is also not true by the way. In the case of Zimbabwe barely, but still...

>similar size white mayority

Who were there for different reasons then in Rhodesia. Botswana was a procterate until the end

>data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD?locations=ZW

IN THE LINK I PROVIDED YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT 750 IS MORE THAN 960!!!!

So your point is, that if the whites had been less exploitative in the first place the transition to mayority rule would have been easier to archieve?

...

>>writing GDP instead of GDP per capita
Are you functionally illiterate?
>750
It's 1100, learn to read pleb

bump

Botswana having little of worth meant that it had more sovereignty as a protectorate also really small white population since it had nothing of worth so policies kowtowing to white settlers weren't implemented to th detriment of the natives.

lucky they didnt find diamonds early on

Tunisian here.
If we are indeed the most prosperous country in Africa then our continent is a shittier place than I thought.