Robert Mugabe - "Whites, go back to England!" - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of Africa.

Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14464322
pugsville wrote:Petty moral ism, anti racism has nothing to do with the Retreat of the British Empire. As the Britain got a bit more democratic and the costs of Empire went up the vast bulk of the British population were not willingly to fight/die or pay higher taxes to support the colonies. Simple self interest. There was also a factor in the US turning the screws but again it mostly US trade interests.


That really has nothing to do with Rei's point however. Rhodesia was effectively no longer a colony in the years of the aftermath of Ian Smith's unilateral declaration of independence. The discussion isn't about the costs of supporting Rhodesia or any other British colony or British former colony, nor the sustainability of British colonialism in Africa to begin with. The point is that both Britain and the U.S. went out of their way to place economic sanctions on Rhodesia and press the moralist crusade against it, which was really in the strategic interest of neither country. It reminds me of years later when we were told because of our disgusting government's about-face to shun and abandon NP-led South Africa. I promptly took on more krugerrands than you could count.

The other point, which I also heartily endorse, is that everyone knew - everyone on the state payroll in Washington D.C., and everyone in London - as well as all of us following events, that such a course of action would lead to the establishment of a ZANU-led state in Salisbury supported by black nationalists enamored with Robert Mugabe's cult of personality and backed by the Maoists and communist China. So you bring about the exact conditions in which only one outcome is possible and then in typical puerile Christian-martyr-complex left-liberal fashion, whine about that very result. I supported Smith's Rhodesia. Now I hope Mugabe does everything possible to exclude, call out and chastise, and punish the worms in the West.
#14465009
The Rhodesians brought it upon themselves. Instead of trying to convince Zimbabweans the positive aspects of Western civilisation, they tried to set a mini-apartheid regime when they little popular foreign support, especially from the United States, who were dismantling Jim Crow. If the Rhodesians had promoted racial integration, along with admitting healthy numbers of settlers, Western influence would have been dominant in Rhodesia, Zimbabweans would've supported the regime and not Mugabe. One brand of race extremism replaced another brand of race extremism, instead of an analogue of colours in society. Salisbury would have been a vibrant cosmopolitan city like Joburg, New York etc. instead of a dump called Harare.

Why should we lionise failures? I though the right loved strength, yet they can't hack losing to some ragtag rebels. Ian Smith and Robert Mugabe are both washed up losers and hopefully the latter joins the former in the loser hall of fame.
#14465020
Rich wrote:Sadly South Africa Whites failed to create a state that wasn't dependant on Bantu Labour.

England is failing to sustain a union because it's dependent on Pakistani labor, not Scottish or Irish labor. What morons.

Rei Murasame wrote:The reason that leftists fear former colonialists is because they usually have really down-to-earth ideas about how reality works, and aren't prone to holding self-destroying policy preferences. The best elements of the UK are the descendants of colonialists, in my view.

Yes, they exported their best and got the rest killed in WWI. By the end of WWII, the empire builders were too old or dead.

Africa Addio
The English version costs $1.99. Worth it in my view. Just what the liberals don't want shown to people anymore.
#14465027
KlassWar wrote:If they didn't want to be ruled by the Maoists their best best was to cut a deal with pro-Soviet revolutionaries. They chose not to do it and got the Maoists.

Actually Mugabe and ZANU ceased being "Maoist" at about the same time they achieved power.
They expanded their geopolitical ties to include the USSR and even to some extent the UK and the US.
In turn, ZAPU was abandoned and left to fend for themselves when they rebelled against ZANU shortly thereafter.

Also Mugabe was initially somewhat moderate in the beginning (although definitely still a dictator of course). Probably a reason why Thatcher and Reagan were relatively warm to him despite him supposedly being a "red". It wasn't until the '90s that he began to go off the deep end.
#14465032
Britain's colonial policies in the post-war era were subject to outside influences and it was the Canadian prime minister who forced Harold Wilson to adopt the untenable position called NIBMAR, or No Independence Before Majority African Rule. NIBMAR ultimately led to Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) in 1965 as Ian Smith rebelled against the mother country. But Rhodesia's independence was short-lived because South Africa, another white minority government in Africa, stopped providing economic and military support for Rhodesia by the late-1970s, fearing that the guerilla war in Rhodesia would spread into South Africa. Kissinger's personal intervention was not based on human rights concerns or political correctness and the transition to majority rule was imposed on Rhodesia to maintain regional stability of Southern Africa and neither John Vorster nor Henry Kissinger cared about blacks in Rhodesia. Moreover, the vast majority of white settlers arrived in the post-war era and the original size of the white community was less than 70,000 in the colonial era. As around 200,000 new immigrants from Europe settled in Rhodesia from the 1950s to the 1960s, 100,000 blacks were displaced to make way for new immigrants and Rhodesia's legitimacy as a British colony was as questionable as Imperial Japan's puppet government in Manchuria.

No independence before majority rule (abbreviated NIBMAR) was a policy adopted by the United Kingdom requiring the implementation of majority rule in a colony, rather than rule by the white colonial minority, before the empire granted its colony independence. It was sometimes reinterpreted as no independence before majority African rule.[1] In particular, this position was advocated with respect to the future status of Rhodesia as a sovereign nation. British Prime Minister Harold Wilson was pressured into adopting the approach during a conference in London. Wilson was not initially inclined to do so, fearing it would slow down the rate at which Rhodesia could be granted independence, but Lester Pearson, the Prime Minister of Canada, formulated a draft resolution committing Wilson to NIBMAR. Wilson defended the policy when it was attacked as disastrous by opposition Conservatives.[2] The accomplishment was short-lived, however, as Wilson continued to extend offers to Ian Smith, which Smith ultimately rejected.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_independence_before_majority_rule
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 16 Sep 2014 01:04, edited 1 time in total.
#14465093
I was always under the impression that race relations in Zimbabwe were much less polarized compared to those in South Africa (the authoritarian nature of the Zimbabwean government notwithstanding). I have also come across quite a few commentaries from white Zimbabweans suggesting that Zimbabwe is relatively safe for whites (and the country as a whole has a much lower murder rate than South Africa, if we are to trust the UNODC statistics).

http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Af ... G-C-1.html

However, the tendency in some circles to make comparisons between Zimbabwe and South Africa in favor of the former may have obscured the bigger picture. Zimbabwe has a long way to go in order to reach anything like the Botswana level of tranquility and social harmony.

In any case, Mugabe's statements are unacceptable and I hope that he will be willing to withdraw them and reassure the white community in the country that its members have nothing to fear. Western governments should be following the developments on the ground and be prepared to lend a helping hand to any vulnerable minorities in Zimbabwe.
#14465103
I agree with the sentiment, but Zimbabwe needs foreign investment and economic stability. This comes from one of two places - the West or China. I think, in this case, the former is preferable. Call it liberalism, or cultural Marxism, or white guilt - but racial attitudes toward black Africans is miles ahead in Europe compared to East Asia
#14492477
ThirdTerm wrote:Britain's colonial policies in the post-war era were subject to outside influences and it was the Canadian prime minister who forced Harold Wilson to adopt the untenable position called NIBMAR, or No Independence Before Majority African Rule.
And what interest did Canada have in this??
#14492485
I'm sceptical about politicians having feelings at all. But perhaps not everyone is doing Realpolitik... he must have had a material reason for his actions.
#14492490
Lester Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for resolving the Suez Crisis in 1957 by deploying the United Nations Emergency Force, which forced the withdrawal of the British forces from Egypt. Pearson believed that European colonialism had no place in the post-war world and he also refused to send Canadian troops to Vietnam, which angered President Johnson. It's unusual for a Canadian prime minister but Pearson was a world statesman who was highly influential in the 1960s. Pearson exerted his personal influence to end white rule in Africa and he was criticised for betraying the mother country to further his political agenda.

Image
Lester Pearson on the cover of TIME, 1963.
#14593853
Why shouldn't whites be expelled? After all, for more than two hundred years whites have been chanting for black Americans to go back to Africa. this is also the mantra of Americans that obama was born in Kenya and therefore should just go back to Kenya.

But with the centrc superiority/inferiority comp0lex that all whites have, they will perceive this as a threat, and start meddling in some way to put Mugabe down.

After all, all whites view themselves as superior to everybody else and feel that nobody can deny them or criticize them in any way.
#14593860
Why shouldn't whites be expelled? After all, for more than two hundred years whites have been chanting for black Americans to go back to Africa. this is also the mantra of Americans that obama was born in Kenya and therefore should just go back to Kenya.

But with the centrc superiority/inferiority comp0lex that all whites have, they will perceive this as a threat, and start meddling in some way to put Mugabe down.

After all, all whites view themselves as superior to everybody else and feel that nobody can deny them or criticize them in any way.


Preach brother!

Image
#14593985
What am I supposed to make of these statements, which are quoted without context? Was Mugabe speaking literally, figuratively or hyperbolically? Was he enjoying a quiet moment of contemplation during a one-on-one interview or was he addressing a rowdy crowd of thousands?

Surely there are more informative articles about Mugabe available than the one posted in the OP.
#14593986
Iron Ant wrote:Why shouldn't whites be expelled? After all, for more than two hundred years whites have been chanting for black Americans to go back to Africa. this is also the mantra of Americans that obama was born in Kenya and therefore should just go back to Kenya.

But with the centrc superiority/inferiority comp0lex that all whites have, they will perceive this as a threat, and start meddling in some way to put Mugabe down.

After all, all whites view themselves as superior to everybody else and feel that nobody can deny them or criticize them in any way.


Mugabe is a moron, but it makes sense to me that land belonging to wealthy whites in the middle of a country like Zimbabwe might inevitably be redistributed back to local farmers and communities. But what you're saying is that people should carry on in the best traditions of a racist Thomas Jefferson who called for the same thing, and engage in xenophobia, anti-immigration, racism, etc. It's nice to know that all whites are the same, think alike, are awful people, and that it's OK to be racist if you hate white people.
#14593989
Robert Mugabe was a rebel leader representing black nationalists prior to Zimbabwe's independence and his political stance is similar to Pauline Hanson's One Nation political party in Australia, which was active until the late 2000s. There is no excuse for their political platforms designed to deport particular ethnic groups and the British government clearly picked a wrong leader to govern an independent Zimbabwe, whose land redistribution programme is comparable to that of Mao Zedong, who qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history. Perhaps Britain should have retained some political powers to rein in extremist elements in Zimbabwe before granting full independence and an Australian prime minister could be dismissed, if he is deemed unfit to rule.

[youtube]RsElIGuKP0U[/youtube]

Pauline Hanson was the infamous fish and chip shop owner from Ipswich, elected as an independent local council member and endorsed by the Liberal Party in 1996 to run as their candidate in the seat of Oxley. Disendorsed by the Liberal Party during the election campaign after writing a letter to the Queensland Times commenting on what she saw as reverse racism governing Aboriginal entitlements, Hanson then won the seat of Oxley but sat in it as an independent. Her appeal has been largely attributed to her willingness to speak out on behalf of a so-called 'silent majority' whose views on immigration, Aboriginal welfare and multiculturalism had been on the nose in the preceding era of 'political correctness'. In April 1997 Pauline Hanson officially formed the One Nation Party with David Oldfield and David Ettridge. In the 1998 Queensland state election, One Nation won 22.7% of the vote and 11 out of the 89 seats, but after an electoral redistribution split Oxley, Hanson lost her seat in Parliament. For a short time the One Nation Party had a major impact on mainstream Australian politics but by the 2009 Queensland state election, when the last seat was lost, it was all over. John Howard was initially silent about Hanson's views, and was criticised for thereby appearing to endorse them, but seven months after her maiden speech, Howard started speaking out against her.
http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/s ... 412081.htm
#14594041
the British government clearly picked a wrong leader to govern an independent Zimbabwe

Then who do you think the British should have chosen, if not Mugabe? Who else was there? Nkomo? He was worse than Mugabe.
#14594248
The British didn't choose Mugabe, any more than America chose Iraq's current leadership. Mugabe was a shona nationalist. He was no more of an African nationalist than Hitler was a European nationalist. (Although some of his latter day fans seem to want to portray Hitler as a principled anti Communist European nationalist) I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but there's a thing called democracy. Zimbabwe became a universal suffrage democracy, the Shona were going to win in any half "fair" election. Blame the Shona militants, Blame the Mozambiquans, Blame Mao and the Chinese Communist Party, ZANU's backers. Hell blame Brezhnev and the Soviets for stupidly backing ZAPU from the demographic minority leaving ZANU to the Chinese. I'm no fan Ho Chi Ming but he was an angel compared to Pol Pot another of Mao's spawn. Don't blame the British.

Note it didn't help that ZAPU were a bit gun shy.

This is a lie. You're not that stupid or ignorant[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]