Question of the Day

this isn't even worthy of debate. Ian Smith's stubborness aside, had the UK implemented his power sharing plan instead of steadfastly charging down the moronic path of NIBMAR, half of Africa wouldn't be starving right now. To say nothing of the 4&5 generation white farmers who were tortured and thrown off their farms so that mugabe's cronies could enjoy "black land."

the historical wrong of racist policies will eventually right itself. Mugabe was not ideal but at least there was justice for the long discriminated against blacks.

And now its blacks discriminating against blacks, along with starving them, slaughtering them, tribal warfare. and anarchy.

This is an improvement?

I haven't done much research on that country. However, but black or white, when communists/socialists win (which I think you are implicitly saying is what happened there), then everyone loses.

Without a doubt, the country would have been much better off had the Crown sided with the Smith government. If memory serves right, there were black members of Parliament, and the voting laws extended to some blacks while excluding some whites. With a functional parliamentary system in place, backed by a sound economy and the guiding hand of the mother country, it is not difficult to project that Rhodesia would have had a good chance of evolving into a prosperous, stable, multi-racial state.

Instead, they got what they got. And look at them now.

Actually, the degeneration is spreading. South Africa herself is having massive problems with a very shakey government and the massive rise in crime. I dont mean a little, I mean enough that many white families have had at least one break in, car jacking or attack - even in your lace of business. Some famies have been sruck in the area of 4 or more times in different geographical areas. The drain of white, higher educated brain power is running fast. Business, local and national investment as well as FDI are following. This threatens to take SA back in time if it is not already there. This does not support any hopes for the entire region. But, "thats life in Africa".

the fall of this wonderful nation was one of the great travesties of our time. Was Rhody perfect? NO! Of course it wasn't. But it sure to hell was the lesser of two evils. In my wildest fantasies the Crown realizes its grevious error, deposes Mugabe, and brings back the colony. But that's all it is, a dream. God Save Rhodesia.

The intriguing question might be where Rhodesia would have been now, in 2008, if the old property based electoral roll had been continued with. I suspect by now the african participation in the parliament would have been very high, and the economy would be a lot larger.

Alternatively, the crown could, and should, have supported the internal settlement in the late 70's that saw Muzorewa become the 1st african prime minister. That settlement would have left the military, public service, and farming economy dominated by the old colonial class for another generation or two. I think it might havw worked.

As for books on the era.... just got my copy of "The Saints" in the post from Amazon- it's a good read, but how on earth did those guys get away with fighting in their P.T. gear? Hmmmm

Sorry, but this is one of those "push button" things that sets me off...

The Rhodesian situation was only part of a larger development in the period of anti-establishmentarianism which allowed emotional nonsense to triumph over common sense. Most of Africa was NOT prepared to face independence in the 1950s-1960s and we continue to live with and pay for that legacy. While Rhodesia may have had its problems, it was a victim of its time - an Edwardian colonial anachronism in the midst of the world's immediate post-colonial period where Idi Amin's Uganda, Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea, Castro's Cuba, Qadaffi's Libya and other third world basket cases, not to mention the USSR and China were held up as icons of freedom or simply ignored while Rhodesia, Portugal, South Africa and Israel were denounced as the single greatest threats to international peace by the UN. If you don't believe me, go look at the UN records for the 1960s to 1980s and you will discover that over 2/3 of all UN's work revolved around these last four states, all while the world pretended the threat of WW III and banana republic genocide didn't exist.

So, was Rhodesia less bad than Zimbabwe? Of course it was - Ian's Smith's country functioned well, people could still travel around, even at the height of the war, and even the Prime Minister regularly walked around downtown Salisbury without his security detail (a constant headache for the security details). Up until he was forced to leave Harare a couple of years ago to seek medical attention in South Africa (from where he never returned), Ian Smith would and could still regularly walk unprotected down the streets of the capital, do his shopping and go to the post office without problem from the common man on the street and was always greeted with great respect by nearly all Zimbabweans. Those who lived both under the times of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and then the through the period of UDI can only look back and ponder what grave error was made. When we reflect on the genocide committed against the Ndebele in the early 1980s (which the UN failed to even mention), the destruction of the economy, particularly the agricultural sector all in the name of "liberation", and the recently discovered training camps which produce the modern day equivalent of Mugabe's "Hitler Youth" from which the government's "election monitors" were drawn (and we saw how free those were), there is no doubt the country was better off before.

What probably appalls me most in a discussion of this sort is how often people come out to defend the "leaders of the people" for their supposed courageous work to liberate "the masses" while usually overlooking the far worse situations in which the people usually found themselves in, particularly in Africa. Yes, I will raise the bu!!$#!+ flag and call out most of the first post-independence leaders for the gross failings and the atrocities perpetrated by them in the name of liberation - the only thing their people were usually from liberated was their liberties and their futures. Don't believe? Look at Africa today and tell me they are better off now - economically and in the worth of the rule of law - than they were before "liberation."

In retrospect, let us reflect on the words of President Samora Machel of Mozambique and President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania to Robert Mugabe, at the moment of independence, in 1980:

"You have the jewel of Africa in your hands," said "Now look after it."

Three decades later, the "jewel" is possibly irreparably damaged, in financial ruin, and disgraced. The only thing preserved to this day is Mugabe's continued raping of the country for his own person gratification.

You're right about the late Ian Smith being able to walk the streets regularly. Mugabe, in contrast, only moves with a massive security detail, and in constant fear of assasination.

A friend was in Zimbabwe in the late '90's, and was impressed and surprised at how much everyday africans seemed to like Smith. The fact that he was approachable on the street was widely talked about.

Sans one starry-eyed commentator, I think the meeting of minds here is unanimous.

Here's what Townie sent me in an email.

John:

You raised a very interesting point regarding whether it was better to support Ian Smith's Government or whether it was better to support the Black Nationalist government.

I would suggest that this must be put into historical context. Britain approached its colonial mastery of Africa in a much different manner than it did its colonial mastery of India. For one, in Africa, colonialism was enforced by the Government and the military; in India it was enforced by the East India Company, which was guided by a profit motive, vice expansion and power. In India, the Indians were brought into the colonial government early on and so by the time of Independence they had established a functioning bureaucracy--whilst not perfect, nevertheless effective. Colonialism in Africa took a much different track, where colonial government was almost exclusively in the hands of white British civil servants, who looked down on Black Africans as incapable of governance. This attitude is best reflected in Kipling's poem the White Man Burden. Moreover, it is clear, that white Europeans, were kow tow into freeing their African colonies before they were ready, and in the case of Rhodesia, causing Ian Smith and his followers, to commit treason against the Crown! Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc are tragic in what is happening when governed by corrupt officials. My guess is it will get worse before it gets better, and it is tragic that someone has not ended Zimbabwe nightmare of Mugabe!

btw, great post RL. I loved the quote.

It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.

Thank you very much!

Great post! Hope to be better. Better means more features.
good post,I think so!