It Will Always Be Rhodesia To Me
Posting this from the Discovery Inn in Ukiah so that's why no post this morning. I figured I'd better post something so those of you that pitched in for this Dell laptop would feel your money wasn't wasted. Thanks again.
Not enough time to peruse all the newspapers today, but I did get the rare chance to read a hard copy of the S.F. Chronicle. Actually, it wasn't really a rare chance, it was more of needing something to do with over two hours between appointments at UCSF Medical Center.
Anyway, it's good to see the main stream media covering the situation in Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia. Rhodesia, used to be one of the few food exporting countries in Africa. As the article says, it was referred to as the Breadbasket of Africa, or some such.
But, being a politically incorrect symbol of apartheid, most of the world supported the communist insurgency that eventually overthrew white rule.
Now, with marxist president/ dictator, Robert Mugabe, in charge, the country is spiralling into disaster, if it's not there already.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 6:23 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I don't want to make assumptions - Fred are you really saying that the apartheid regime should not have been overthrown?
Well if you want to get techincal it was the British Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, with a short-lived white-dominated government declaring the Republic of Rhodesia in the 1970s overthrown by the present Republic of Zimbabwe.
There was also the British Crown colony of Northern Rhodesia which became the Republic of Zambia in the 1960s. These Northern Rhodesians fared quite a bit better than their neighbors.
I could care less about the country's name, but the majority were right to overthrow the British backed regime. I just wish they had replaced it with somebody besides Mugabe.
"Fred are you really saying that the apartheid regime should not have been overthrown?"
Oh, I don't know. I do think nearly all people in Rhodesia were better off under the apartheid government than they are now.
True enough Fred, but then, the same thing could have been said about the Carribean slave states soon after emancipation during the 19th century. Most people would agree that in the long run they were better off without slavery.
I'm not sure you can equate an apartheid state with literal slavery. It was more a two tiered state, if memory serves me correct. I don't believe blacks in old Rhodesia were forced to work for anyone.
That said, I've never been there and memory of what I read about it during the insurgency are faded.
No way to say what might have happened in the long run without the rise to power of Mugabe.
That would be a pointless exercise. It was bad enough that people took up arms and overthrew the government. What would happen if they hadn't done that is meaningless, because it would have required a different government to avoid that fate.
Back in March ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ posted a piece on this subject at: http://fightingintheshade.blogspot.com/2006/03/collectivist-dictator-at-work.html
The slavery/colonial comparison is not valid. Slavery was abolished by the colonial powers long before their independence was granted. ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ has spent time in virtually all of the former colonial states in the Caribbean including Haiti. Haiti is the only non communist basket case probably due to slavery lingering longer there than other places. About what one would expect from a former French territory
The point is, for decades after emanicipation wars, the Carribean states pretty much all experienced turmoil, bloodletting, extreme poverty, etc. And for years the slave owning lobby in this country pointed to them as examples of the bad things that happen when black people are freed and allowed to run things on their own. There's a great book on the topic entitled Nothing But Freedom. As Calhoun argued, up until the 19th century no great civilization was established without the institution of slavery, and with plenty of supporting evidence, argued that slavery was simply an inevitable aspect of human nature.
Haiti is one of the holdovers, not because of France but because we ourselves propped up a brutal dictator in Papa Doc and then his son.
Propped up Papa and Baby Doc? Get real. Ever hear of the Ton Ton Macoute? U.S involvement in Haiti ended in the 1920's long before Papa Doc came to power by "discovering" the cause of Yaws. Your zeal to blame every ill in the world on the U.S. only reveals your leftist mindset.
Well, I don't have to "reveal" my leftist mindset. My leftist mindset is apparent for all to see.
As for our involvement in Haiti, well, I'm certain a basic Google search will turn up all sorts of reading if you're interested. Marines were involved in putting down a rebellion in 1959. The Reagan administration sent riot equipment to Baby Doc during the 1980s. A US naval mission helped build the Haitian "military," mostly consisting of a brutal militia.
Not sure what planet you've been living on, but it's not like we're even talking about covert ops here.
Post a Comment
<< Home