How was Rhodesia different from Apartheid South Africa?

How was Rhodesia different from Apartheid South Africa?

>inb4 "muh black rhodesian soldiers"

Rhodesia almost mimicked the Apartheid. If they didn't have such a small population of whites then they would pretty much be exactly like Apartheid South Africa.

>those fucking shorts
Rhodesia deserved to lose the war

>Hating shorts
Fight me fgt

Can I have a non-/pol/ explanation of Rhodesia?

I only recently found out about it, but every thing i've seen about it seems to be biased.
Were they just white people acting like they were kings and forcing blacks to be third class citizens?

That's the impression i've always gotten?

Basically like any apartheid state. A minority white population wanted to rule a majorly black population.

/pol/ laments about it because it went through a civil war in which the black population went against the white-ruled government.

>forcing blacks

They had restriction on lower uneducated classes and since pre-contact africans aren't known for their educational prowess it was de facto "anti-black" but it wasn't built on racial ideas. If Rhodesians had had their way they would have brought up the locals eventually. Instead the Brits wanted to give independence and power right away which resulted in a mess.

It was less Apartheid and more a combination of Jim Crow South and the same era Northeast US. They generally seemed to lack the explicitly racist institutionalized segregation you see in Apartheid or even the Jim Crow South, but they set up their government and electoral process in such a way that it ensured the majority black population would be disenfranchised. They made enfranchisement based off of education and wealth, but then hamstrung the black population by devoting the vast majority of the education budget and similar resources to the white population.

The Rhodesian constitution was also set up in such a way that representatives were allocated partly based on race. Representatives in the Parliament for blacks were supposed to be be dependent on how many voting-eligible blacks there were. When the new constitution was enacted, that meant that White representatives massively outnumbered Black representatives. But even if the Black population magically managed to all meet the voting requirements, the constitution was still set up in such a way that the Blacks could never get more representatives than the White population could.

>Instead the Brits wanted to give independence and power right away which resulted in a mess.

Neighboring Botswana went that route and it's doing just fine.

they were little bit more self-aware than SA and realized that majority rule was inevitable. their endgame was mostly civil society with whites keeping their priviliges (they owned more than 50% of land and of course the rest wasn't well suited for agriculture). Give up too early and it's going to get land reformed, give up too late and you are going to get overrun by militia. It probably wasn't feasible anyway.

>hating short shorts
Are you gay?

It was a former British colony that was ran by a white minority. The government didn't like how the British were decolonizing and handing off power to the black majority in all its colonies, so they declared independence to preserve their system. As much as apologists try to defend it, it was very much a racist system and through their own words, the leaders of the Rhodesian government had no intention of ever allowing Black majority rule. A civil war ensued in which the Rhodesians did do incredibly well considering their position - they're really interesting from a military perspective, even if you hate their politics - but ultimately it ended up deepening the divide and animosity between the races, prevent any possibility of an effective transition to majority rule, and ultimately lead to the very thing the white minority was afraid of.

The British decolonization process spent more effort than any other colonizing nation at setting up their colonies for effective transition - their colonies were generally the best in Africa until the oil crisis in the '70s fucked them. The systems the Rhodesians set up after the UDI had no real chance of bringing equality between the races considering the ridiculous disparity in resources allocated to whites compared to blacks, and the leaders of the Rhodesian government like Smith made it very clear they never had any intention of allowing black rule.

Their complaint wasn't that they felt the British were moving too fast with the transition to majority rule. Their issue was that the British were going to hand power over to the blacks at all.

>I have never faced anything above 25C: the post

SA: >purpose built government to fuck over natives

RH: >rigged government to fuck over natives
you decide.

>two soldiers wearing pants in the pic
was it a white thing?

I remember some /pol/tard told me that Botswana was 50% white.

I unironically laughed out when I saw him say that.

I am Portuguese, it has been over 25C since April

Those shorts are fucking gay. Glad footballers stopped wwaring that shit

You sound like a faggot

nah those pants were designed to be able to be removed as quickly as possible as to prevent interference with the entry of a penis

> If Rhodesians had had their way they would have brought up the locals eventually.
Didn't they remove one of their prime ministers precisely because he wanted to increase funding towards educate blacks?

Yup. He literally got sacked by his party. Rhodesia was committed to having.g whites reign supreme.

Getting Forms that list Mr./Mrs. Fir africans was a challenge

By an estimate by unesco only by 2050 would blacks have majority rule. I'd be 57 (my dad's age) by then.

It was Anglo not Boer

>Celsius
fuck off retards

>33 years old

What the fuck

user you are garbage at math. He's 24 years old.

The whites there were too few in number and didn’t have the a distinct settler culture like the Boers. Instead most of the whites were limies who came over after ww2 to work in the service industry. When communists began their reign of terror they indulged in power sharing which turned into majority rule.
Tl;dr SA and Rhodesia were both evil racist governments, the latter’s whites weren’t as influential and numerous were ousted when at the mercy of the natives

I guess this is the history board and not math but c'mon user, try harder than that.

>The whites there were too few in number and didn’t have the a distinct settler culture like the Boers


Rhodesia gad a old settled blood vs the new migrant blood social dynamic. Not massive but something but big enough to note.