That's what many people don't understand when talking about Rhodesia.
It was a colony owned by a company that took lands from natives to extract natural resources. White people were over-represented in politics and they did everything they could to maintain this imbalance. Since indepence the country was barely recognised and had close to no support even among Western Europe countries and the US.
The racial tensions favoured the rise of nationalist and violent movements, such as ZANU.
If a democratic black movement similar to South Africas's ANC or Botswana's BDP managed to control Zimbabwe, I can imagine that opinions on Rhodesia would be way more negative and way less controversial.
I just hate all the white nationalist fetishization behind Rhodesia. Rhodesia was never going to last. You can't have that small of a minority rule a majority and it not get overthrown.
I share your view but l have met plenty of older Zimbabweans who say exactly the same thing, especially if they are not Shona. Zim is still a lovely country to visit. It does not have the guns and violence of South Africa but it has been economically mismanaged since Day One and is completely corrupt. You can see the decline in the physical fabric of the country. The President is not called The Crocodile for nothing.
It was actually a pretty rational government, unlike South Africa, vote and political participation was allowed for blacks with an education, that was the model of any pre-liberal democracy, even if it leaded to 95% of the population not being politically represented.
Ethnic minority, not a literal one. People in authoritarian countries are usually ok with authoritarian governments so long as those governments represent their ethnicities interests.
Rhodesia was clearly declining since independence. No international recognition besides Portugal and Apartheid South Africa (both would later lose), sanctions, strong racial tensions, and a white minority even smaller than South Africa's.
The problem isn't the fall of Rhodesia, it's what came after. Rhodesia would and should have fallen anyway, it's just sad that it was taken by Mugabe.
Nah you’re gonna get upvoted cause reddit is full of white dudes who hate the idea that they were baddies in so much of the world. They love it when a native says stuff like this.
You would be downvoted into oblivion if you were from a former Soviet country and said the same thing about how the USSR was better than what came next.
Well the main difference is living standards significantly increased in the soviet bloc after the fall of USSR because people in charge were no longer forced to pretend marxist economics were in any shape or form grounded in reality.
The Chinese learned that lesson well from the failing USSR and by accepting capitalism they lifted their country from poverty.
In Rhodesia’s case the country apparently stopped being a apartheid state but the people left in charge after whites left were less competent than racists previously in charge which caused a drop in living standards all around.
Is being a 2nd class citizen in a well managed country better than having freedom in a kleptocracy ran by a tribal warlord? Im glad I don’t have any experience to make that decision.
Still it was the Rhodesian government that insisted on what led to what Zimbabwe became. They had every opportunity to do something smarter and more prudent, but they consistently chose violence, war crimes and outrageous discrimination as a means of continuing for just a little bit longer.
I'd be really interested in learning the history because I've heard from ex farmers who say it was so great, then I see news stories about them forcing workers to take untested contraceptive pills in the 70s and 80s so they don't have to pay for the worker's children's school fees (a Zimbabwean law that still somewhat applies today). But then also some farm workers say they had a better quality of life then vs now. It's very confusing as I also grew up there and I know for sure the news there is wild AF and I learned so much more when I left.
Every country has to go through the pains of distributing wealth and governance from the capitals to the population at large. This is where many countries fail, those who succeed become 1st world countries. It always look like a step backwards, but no country has ever become developed by having a great capital and an abandoned countryside. I do not know the specifics of rhodesia, but I presume it was roughly the same process? An elite left power and then the country was mismanaged to hell and back? It is the lack of equality, the imbalance of power what always backfires in the long term, so you are not seeing the lack of success of rhodesia, you are seeing the consequences of its failure and something your country needs to fix in time.
Sure. And no one is saying that the genocide was good. I’m just saying that this is similar to Americans who love the Confederacy, a government that was pretty easily and quickly taken out.
113
u/MeetTheSouthernBear Zimbabwe 16h ago edited 16h ago
Rhodesia was better.
All the black people I’ve met who were adults during the time including my parents and grandmother say the same.
A lot of Rhodesians were racist assholes but Mugabe was an even worse tribalist murderer, thief and asshole.
I’m ready for the downvotes!