-
Sean Penn and Me
February 20, 2012 | 74 comments
-
Why We Should Give Thanks for the British Empire
November 23, 2011 | 84 comments
-
How Would Jefferson Davis Vote?
October 20, 2008 | 20 comments
-
The Cross Still Stands
July 30, 2007 | 0 comments
-
Robert E. Lee: Icon of the South — and American Hero
January 30, 2007 | 3 comments
Another Perspective
Hip, Hip, Hooray, It’s Rhodesia Independence Day!
Ian Smith lived to see all his worst predictions come true.
On 11 November 1965, Ian Smith, prime minister of the British colony of Rhodesia, signed his country’s unilateral declaration of independence, giving birth to a new nation that would, rather heroically, seek to maintain its way of life for the next fifteen years. That way of life was not — as critics will be quick to allege — based on racism, but on freedom, the freedom that was vouchsafed Rhodesia by the British Empire. It was the freedom that was lost by Rhodesia’s transformation into Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. It’s a transformation from which even we, as American, have something to learn.
The Rhodesians, in fact, based their declaration of independence on our own, though they charmingly reaffirmed their allegiance to the queen. Thinking themselves “more British than the British,” they announced their independence on Remembrance Day, marking the end of World War I (what we mark as Veterans’ Day), to remind Britain that when she fought at great cost to defend freedom, the rule of law, and the rights of small nations, Rhodesia had been at her side. In the Second World War, indeed, Ian Smith himself had flown Hawker Hurricanes and Spitfires for the RAF. A flight accident had smashed up his face (which required extensive plastic surgery) and left him with numerous serious injuries that took months to heal. He returned to duty, was shot down over Italy, and eventually made his escape back to Allied lines.
More than that, though, the Rhodesians had done what is the measure of a man — they had gone into the wilderness and been able to re-create their civilization. While they had a reputation as outdoorsy, beer-swilling hearties, the great Rhodesian writer (and liberal) Peter Godwin and Ian Hancock estimated in their classic study of Rhodesia, ‘Rhodesians Never Die,’ “that probably no other transplanted English-speakers had done more — with similar resources — to reproduce and practice the parent culture.”
It is a question worth asking ourselves: how many of us could hack our way into the jungle and re-create the United States? The more culturally pessimistic, or multiculturally inclined, might even wonder whether that would be a good thing anyway.
The Rhodesians had no doubts — or few. They were so confident in their civilization that they were willing to endure international ostracism. They were so certain they were on the right side of history, and certain of their martial valor, that they volunteered to send troops to Vietnam (an offer that the embarrassed Lyndon Johnson administration declined to accept). They were so certain that they stood athwart tyranny, that they sacrificed their sons and fortified their farms in an African bush war that thrilled the armchair adventurers among the readers of Soldier of Fortune magazine, which sold “Be A Man Among Men, Rhodesian Army” t-shirts, based on a Rhodesian recruiting poster.
Smith believed that one-man, one-vote in Africa meant free elections once. He was loath to submit his country to the chaos, socialism, violence, and dictatorship that he was certain would follow elections based on a universal franchise (which, as he pointed out, had difficulties that Western critics were not likely to consider: for instance, how to accurately register voters when most rural-born black Africans had no birth certificates). Smith was careful to gain the support of the country’s tribal chiefs, he stated that his goal was evolution not revolution on the way to expanding the franchise (which was tied to income and property qualifications), and he affirmed that he would not risk Rhodesia’s multi-party elections, free press, independent judiciary, and free economy with a mass electorate that might be inclined to do away with them.
In the end, of course, the British brokered a deal. Lord Carrington and almost all the other delegates to the so-called Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 were convinced that Robert Mugabe, regarded as the most radical of the Communist-backed insurgents, would be defeated in the elections arranged for 1980. Ian Smith thought otherwise. He was certain Mugabe would win because he belonged to the Shona tribe, which represented eighty percent of Rhodesia’s population, and because Mugabe would be the most effective at voter intimidation. Smith was proved right, as he usually was — though he got no credit for it.
Smith lived to see all his worst predictions come true; had he been able to read his obituaries he would have seen that liberal opinion blamed him for it. Smith’s solace in his declining years was the popularity he had among black Zimbabweans who saw him as a symbol of unbreakable resistance to Mugabe. If you want to see the Rhodesia Smith defended, you can watch a video or two on YouTube and see black soldiers (most of the Rhodesian army was black) marching on parade past mostly white civilians, including an official dressed like an 18th-century town crier; you can see the sons of productive farmers and businessmen, who made Rhodesia an economic success, shouldering rifles to defend their homes and their liberties.
And if you want to see the tribute that vice pays to virtue — or that Zimbabwe pays to Rhodesia and the British Empire — just note how Zimbabwe’s judges still wear white wigs, how Mugabe’s henchmen make a show of owning farms (taken from white farmers who once produced plenty, and whose fields now lie barren while Zimbabweans starve), and how Mugabe still goes thorough the formality of having elections (as long as his goons ensure that he wins). Zimbabweans think of British institutions as having legitimacy, even if they are deployed as part of Robert Mugabe’s charades.
So what can America learn from gallant Rhodesia? For one thing, we can learn to judge nations by the values they uphold, not the electoral processes they observe. We can see why Western “colonialism” was oftentimes better than the alternative. And most of all, perhaps, we might learn not to take our own liberties for granted. In every generation, they are only a demagogue away from being taken from us.
About the Author
H. W. Crocker, III is a bestselling author. His most recent book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (109) | Leave a comment
More Articles by H. W. Crocker, III
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/11/hip-hip-hooray-its-rhodesia-in
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clinton| 11.11.11 @ 6:29AM
Until the Tea Party latched on to Herman Cain it looked like only the Democrats were eager to go the way of Rhondesia, but now you've got to wonder about the right too.
Doctor Right| 11.11.11 @ 7:32AM
That's one of the most idiotic posts I've ever see on this board.
Old Soldier| 11.11.11 @ 8:27AM
Any board.
ECM | 11.11.11 @ 2:55PM
Ditto.
Blackwatch| 11.11.11 @ 8:48PM
I can see that Obama would make a great Mugabe clone--being the son of an African commie--he can hardly restrain himself.
But Herman Cain wanting to be a dictator? Man alive Clinton that is beyond dumb.
That's Homer Simpson dumb.
You are jumping the shark with Fonzi on that one pal.
The Clintidote| 11.11.11 @ 9:42PM
Exactly the kind of lamebrain crap we all expect to be excreted from the mouth of a Clinton. Clintons are scum.
aware| 11.11.11 @ 6:44AM
Rhodesia, a perfect example of what meddling into the affairs of other countries gets you. From breadbasket to basket case in 1 easy move thanks to the "enlightened" moralists of multiculturalism. South Africa is right behind them on the road to serfdom.
And the same idealists run the world around you now, which explains why things are going so swimmingly today.
Richard Rogers| 11.11.11 @ 7:13AM
One of the greatest villians of the piece was the Australian Liberal (ie conservative) Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who brokered the sell-out on the worst possible terms. I believe he lost the following Australian election partly as a result.
gruff| 11.11.11 @ 7:32AM
Let's not forget that black majority rule was inevitable. The population ratio was something like 5m black/200k white, and the "wind of change" was blowing strong throughout Africa and Asia. Every single colonial regime fell. The Rhodesian Front never had a chance in the long run, blockade or no.
PaulyD| 11.11.11 @ 8:15AM
Yes, lest we forget Rudyard Kipling's warning:
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child
Take up the White Man’s burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit
And work another’s gain
Take up the White Man’s burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly) to the light:
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
“Our loved Egyptian night?”
Take up the White Man’s burden-
Have done with childish days-
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
GW| 11.11.11 @ 2:47PM
+1
Occam's Tool| 11.14.11 @ 11:48AM
You know, if you changed the word "White" to "Western," it is still accurate and very correct.
Doctor Right| 11.11.11 @ 7:39AM
For the sake of political correctness, the west sold-out a GREAT ally in Rhodesia.
The result is proof-positive that much of the uncivilized world is not ready for western democracy and philosophy. However, they can't be allowed to sit on vast reserves of minerals and other natural resources that are needed for civilization to advance.
The world was a far better place when much of Asia and Africa was controlled b y the European colonial powers. If that's politically incorrect to say, tough. It's true.
If the PC attitudes that permeate much of our discourse today had been present in the 19th century, this country wouldn't extend beyond the Mississippi river, if it still existed at all.
Ian Smith was correct, and the collapse of Rhodesia is a shameful moment in the history of the west.
If we're not careful, it could happen here.
John Navratil| 11.11.11 @ 8:15AM
Doctor Right,
Colonialism was always a better deal for the colonizer than the colonizee. That said, would one rather be colonized by the Portugese, the British or Robert Mugabe. The latter was foisted by an uncaring world onto a very caring Rhodesia - in the name of civilization, of course.
Doctor Right| 11.11.11 @ 10:59AM
The death-toll that resulted from the post-colonial era in Africa and Asia is staggering. Endless civil wars and religious strife in these regions could have been avoided if the British, for example, still controlled those colonies.
Sure, it was better to colonize than be colonized...But the civilizing influence that the European powers brought to the colonies would have been irreversible by now. Many of these places would be like Rhodesia was in 1965; instead, they're cesspools.
Steve| 11.12.11 @ 12:59PM
"Colonialism was always a better deal for the colonizer than the colonizee."
But in a great many cases including Rhodesia/Zimbabwe the colonizees were better off under the colonizers than they are now.
John Navratil| 11.12.11 @ 5:28PM
Steve,
My point, precisely!
skip| 11.12.11 @ 2:55PM
If that is true it means the colonizee America has had a better deal than the colonizer England?
John Navratil| 11.12.11 @ 5:28PM
skip,
I'm not sure what point you wish to make. Those who became American were the colonizers, as were the British and Dutch in Africa. The Americans were compelled to fight for independence while independence for African colonies, post WWII, was largely granted as part of deconstructing the empires.
If you mean the indigenous American colonizee, I would say no.
skip| 11.18.11 @ 12:27PM
Oops, sorry John, I left out the word 'not' in my sentence. Stupid.
My point was America was colonized by England, America benefited more from the colonialization than England did, at least arguably, therefore colonialism is not 'always' better for the colonizer than for the colonizee.
Rhoad Scholar| 11.11.11 @ 8:19AM
"...If we're not careful, it could happen here."
What do you think Mugabe, 'scuse me, Obama, is trying to do?
Dr. X| 11.11.11 @ 9:12AM
"Could" happen here? Whaddaya mean "could"? We've got micro-Zimbabwes all over this country: Detroit, Compton, South-Central L.A.... and the same forces of PC that undermined Rhodesia already have a stranglehold on this nation. We've had 40 years of virulent, government-sanctioned anti-white discrimination called "affirmative action"... and look who's running the country now.
How is Obama, who has two blood relatives in this country as illegal aliens and ignores the laws of Congress requiring him to deport illegals, or Eric Holder, who refers to blacks as "my people," refuses to prosecute black voting fraud, and sends guns to Mexican drug lords, any different than Mugabe except maybe as a matter of degree?
Seek| 11.11.11 @ 11:57AM
Couldn't have said it better. A black voting majority in America would make us into Zimbabwe West. Ian Smith was a realist and paid the price. Do we have race realists in this country -- at least those with the ability to make a difference?
GW| 11.11.11 @ 2:50PM
The #1 thing race realists can do is call for an end to all immigration today. It is impossible to remove the Zimbabweans we have--Lincoln would have tried had he not been assassinated--but by at least slowing the tide we may buy more time.
GW| 11.11.11 @ 2:50PM
The #1 thing race realists can do is call for an end to all immigration today. It is impossible to remove the Zimbabweans we have--Lincoln would have tried had he not been assassinated--but by at least slowing the tide we may buy more time.
GW| 11.11.11 @ 2:50PM
The #1 thing race realists can do is call for an end to all immigration today. It is impossible to remove the Zimbabweans we have--Lincoln would have tried had he not been assassinated--but by at least slowing the tide we may buy more time.
Bo| 11.11.11 @ 4:19PM
Whoa, dude... Whoa.
John Navratil| 11.12.11 @ 9:54AM
GW,
Then you wouldn't have the benefit of my insightful commentary!
Occam's Tool| 11.14.11 @ 11:50AM
Agreed, Dr R. It's not race, it is culture. It is not the color of one's skin, but the contents of the mind.
Without Christianity and the West, the world will degrade into scummitude.
Skippy| 11.14.11 @ 1:55PM
"Scummitude".
I love it!
Seek| 11.14.11 @ 6:56PM
What does that say about moribund black Christian countries and regions, such as the southern part of Nigeria? The very notion of race vs. culture, moreover, is a false dichotomy. Race IS an inescapable part of culture, like it or not.
Carol| 11.11.11 @ 8:17AM
No Americans would not be able to hack through the jungle and re-create the United States.
Ronald Reagan warned us 50 years ago that once you lose freedom you cannot get it back.
We have a large population of idiots. See the nearest Occu-Squatters site for proof and those supporting them who happen to have the keys to the kingdom who are destroying America right out in the open for all those with eyes and minds to see.
Republicans and conservatives are not one and the same (although ask any establishment RINO like John Bonehead and he would disagree).
We are a nation in disarray and I think we have passed the point of where we get back the United States that I knew growing up.
Doctor Right| 11.11.11 @ 11:00AM
"We have a large population of idiots."
You're right about that...like almost 50%.
But I don't think we're past the point of no-return.
We've faced more dire threats than this, before.
Quartermaster| 11.11.11 @ 11:17AM
Actually, we have not. Not even close.
Occam's Tool| 11.14.11 @ 11:52AM
Dunno. America on December 6, 1941 was pretty soft and Ron Paully on foreign matters....
79| 11.11.11 @ 11:29AM
Doc writes:
"We've faced more dire threats than this, before."
No. No we have not....at the very least, Doc, you cannot know that is the case for certain... History proves that we have successfully withstood the previous "dire threats"..Our 50 year cultural meltdown shows no signs of abating and National failure and collapse is on the horizon....Maybe we can stop it....I'm afraid we cannot
Occam's Tool| 11.14.11 @ 11:52AM
79:
Visit Cullman, AL and stop despairing.
ECM | 11.11.11 @ 3:01PM
I want to agree w/ you, Doc, but then I glance over at Ancient Greece, Rome and the shattered remnants of the British Empire...and I despair.
spoofproof| 11.11.11 @ 8:47PM
I believe people descended from Celtic tribes would be surprised at how well they were able to defend themselves if it ever came to that. Celts take heads and have an unsparing eye when the blood begins to flow. The multi-culti crowd may hope they can dumb-down the written history but the real culture is written in the blood. Never fear.
Old Soldier| 11.11.11 @ 8:45AM
Smith (like our Founding Fathers) knew that Democracy does not equal Freedom. Historically, they are opposites and Mugabe has proven it again.
Tiddly| 11.11.11 @ 12:59PM
Democracy is a disaster, as the Greeks learned. Our Founding Fathers wrote about the failures of democracy. That's why they gave us a republic, not a democracy.
Old Soldier| 11.11.11 @ 1:25PM
Too bad the Brits couldn't give the Rhodesians the same - or some other for of strictly limited government.
Derek Leaberry| 11.11.11 @ 8:54AM
Rhodesia was a prosperous place to live pre-Mugabe. But now Zimbabwe is an agricultural Detroit. Ther eis something to learn in that fact.
The Paratrooper| 11.11.11 @ 10:09AM
Rhodesia was a paradise in the 60's when I was there. Inexpensive and lush, heavily populated by well fed, happy people. Then came The Beast. Now the entire country lies in waste. Terror grips the minds of the populace. People starve. There are no jobs. Sounds just like the US of A under democrats. Great work Obamalamadingdong!
Doctor Right| 11.11.11 @ 11:00AM
But at least everyone is equal!
Old Soldier| 11.11.11 @ 11:31AM
They got exactly the government they voted for.
Blackwatch| 11.11.11 @ 8:55PM
Thank God for the Second Amendment and inexpensive 223/5.56 ammo.
Skippy| 11.14.11 @ 1:57PM
Inexpensive? Where?
Please link to an affordable source of ammo.
Since the coronation of Prince Bambo the price has skyrocketed.
Todd S| 11.11.11 @ 5:30PM
I have recently read Peter Godwin's great books about Rhodesia/Zimbabwe Mukiwa and When the Crocodile Eats the Sun, utterly heartbreaking what has happened and the evil that is Mugabe and his thugs. The liberal Western world forced this disastrous outcome and washed their hands of it with no remorse. There is no shame or sense of responsibility for their actions on the left and we see the same with Obama and his followers.
spoofproof| 11.11.11 @ 8:56PM
Evil always wins a few on its way to final destruction. Democrats should enjoy their false confidence while they may. The entire Democrat Labor Union paradigm is aught but the dying gasp of morally bankrupted Marxism that ravaged the entire 20th century. Furthermore, Marxist Democrats and everything they stand for are antithetical to American Liberty and virtue. Obama himself is a Marxist ideologue; Obama is the mongrel pet of men and women more evil and mutinous than himself. All of them are traitors to the blood-bought Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness that inspired the Founding of the United States. The Obama-cohort is a shameful group of shameless people who, in their evil glee, take advantage of the ignorance and self-indulgence that they and their fellow-travelers have, through the corrupt & degenerate policies of their ideology, engendered within the Body Politic. The lowest Hell is not low enough for these craven monsters. God rot their Souls.
cicero| 11.11.11 @ 12:07PM
Democracies are always one election away from tyranny. That is why the Founders wanted a Republic instead. As Ben Franklin said, a demacracy is where two wolves and one lanb vote on what to have for lunch. They looked to Athens for direction, and saw that direct democracies can't work for long. That is also why we had a property qualification for the franchise when first founded. That is also what the Rhodesians had.
Not all colonial powers were equal. The Brits were the best of the lot, andd tried to export their philosophy (Christian) along with their economics and surplus sons. It seems that the longer they stayed in power in any place, the better chance that place had of surviving as a place of freedom. (I am not sure that is the right word, but can't think of a better one just now.)
We in the West seem to have lost confidence in our own guiding philosophy. This bodes ill for us and all around us.
RightNow| 11.11.11 @ 12:10PM
I suppose this is one of those "post-at-your-peril" moments because any musings will be construed by some as the rants of a racist, but here goes: I've often thought the best thing that ever happened to most American blacks was that their ancestors were kidnapped and brought to this country centuries ago. Of course, it sucked to be the slave, but their offspring are so much better off in this country than they would ever be back in Africa. If that was not the case, and there was an African paradise available for immigrants, I suppose many would have left here at the first opportunity, but you don't see our wealthy athletes pining for some long lost Shangri-la. For them, Africa is a nice place to visit, but who would want to live there? I'm just sayin'
GW| 11.11.11 @ 2:55PM
Your observations are astute and their is no reason to apologize for or qualify them. The differences in cultures are quite obvious.
darcy| 11.11.11 @ 3:13PM
I could care less if I were called a racist; after all, the people slinging such mud intend it only to silence those who oppose them.
I have had the same thoughts myself, about how much better off the blacks of America are than those who remain in Africa: famine and slaughter American blacks do not have to fret about. Well, famine anyway. Blacks are being slaughtered by the millions inside the womb.
However, now that liberal whites have had 50+ years to re-engineer the black family and destroy a culture of self-respect among them, I would say that many black Americans are creating their own little Africas here. One need only look at the decaying inner cities where do-gooder liberal measures have decimated the black family, ended incentives to work and to take care of ones own, and you see what the black population is reverting back to -- the same kind of violence and mayhem their distant cousins wreak upon the African continent.
So now I ask myself, was it really such a good thing for blacks to be brought to America now that liberals have erected structures to once again enslave them. Oh yes, and always in the name of rights and freedom.
The proof is in the pudding. The real racists are the liberals who use blacks and other minorities as pawns in their utopian schemes.
Seek| 11.11.11 @ 7:16PM
Like so many Red State culture warriors, you entirely miss the point. Blacks are not victims of white liberals; they are victimizers of whites generally, regardless of political belief.
"Liberal racism" is a red herring. I could care less whether liberals are or aren't "the real racists." What I care about is that myself, my family and my property are safe from black marauders.
Tiddly| 11.11.11 @ 1:06PM
Abe Lincoln knew that blacks would not fit well in America, and wanted to send them back to Africa after the Civil War, but it was impossible by then.
Stan Redmond| 11.11.11 @ 2:17PM
Can you source this please?
Bo| 11.11.11 @ 4:21PM
I think Lincoln wanted to send them all to the same place where the moon landing was staged.
Todd S| 11.11.11 @ 5:33PM
That is a factual statement, all you have to do is google it.
John Navratil| 11.12.11 @ 9:57AM
Check out Liberia, Africa. It was colonized by freed American slaves.
skip| 11.12.11 @ 1:46PM
James Monroe was president, when those freed American slaves landed there and attempted to survive, as the native population aggressively sought to eradicate them. Some actually managed somehow to survive, and those Liberians with the blood of these survivors in them have been the ruling elite ever since, the '1%' if you will. This nation, where it is against the law for white people to own property, had long been held as the epitome of the model African nation through the successful manipulations of Western foreign policies, and as a melting pot of indigenous ethnic demographics, the '99%' if you will. An excellent read about the halcyon days of this era is "The Zinzin Road" by Fletcher Knebel, a novel about the benefits of the compassionate progressive foreign policy of Kennedy's Peace Corps in a fictional country actually based on Liberia. An unfortunate setback occurred recently when the three major tribal groups descended into civil war, each major tribe severing the four limbs off as many of the women and children in addition to the men of the other two major tribes as possible, as well as the heads and male organs of the men, leaving the women and children and men scattered where ever they were macheted, but displaying the heads of the men in the middle of the nearest road or path with their male organs inserted into their mouths. If you will, the primary '33%' against both the secondary '33%' and the tertiary '33%', the secondary '33%' against both the primary '33%' and the tertiary '33%', and the tertiary '33%' against both the primary '33%' and the secondary '33%', simultaneously, each hacking the others, literally, to pieces. The epitome of the African nation indeed.
John Navratil| 11.12.11 @ 5:24PM
skip,
Indeed! I'll make three comments.
(1) It does demonstrate a willingness, if not a policy, to send freed black slaves back to Africa. (Which was the original point of my post).
(2) The freed slave, as you point out, were hardly benevolent despots - just despots. A comparison with other colonialists is interesting.
(3) Civilization requires a fealty to the civilization, itself. We are seeing, in microcosm, the benificences of civilizational deconstruction in the Occupy Wall Street movement. It was ever thus. Rhodesia was a conflict between civilization and tribalism. The "civilized" world sided with the tribalists. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. was a conflict to rid the civilization of the vestiges of slavery. It was an effort of the marginalized to be full participants in that civilization and was necessary for the nation. That the antagonists were separated by race made race the easy identifier for all conflicts of society. Janeane Garofalo, that buffoon, cannot differentiate between a conflict of vision and racism. She shares that affliction with many of her follow travellers.
Lev Tolstoy| 11.14.11 @ 10:15AM
It's in Lincoln's papers published by the Library of America. I've read about it myself in that volume. Its a true fact.
Derek Leaberry| 11.11.11 @ 2:18PM
Obama's benign neglect of Zimbabwe shows the depth of his inner soul. For the good of 99 % of Zimbabweans, black or white, Robert Mugabe and his party should be eased out of office. Yet Barack Obama does nothing although his voice could be a powerful voice for change. If Barack Obama wanted to bear down on Mugabe and ultimately dethrone that tyrant, he assuredly could. Yet Obama remains mute. Why? First, Mugabe, like Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was anti-colonialist and anti-British. And second, Mugabe, like both Obamas and Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro, is anti-white at their cores. So Zimbabwe suffers and President Obama looks the other way.
GW| 11.11.11 @ 2:53PM
Well Obama has his own problems but it was under even conservative presidents like Reagan that white Africans lost their freedoms. Once you go black, you never go back. Ask any Rhodesian or Boer farmer about the violence perpetrated on them by racist African blacks.
JRC| 11.11.11 @ 6:14PM
Your comment ignores, of course, the utter stupidity of militant white separatists settling in sub-Saharan Africa in the first place. Colonialism engenders its own demise.
Frekki| 11.11.11 @ 7:34PM
How about the "utter stupidity" of thinking Rhodesia is in "sub-Saharan Africa"? It borders South Africa. And how about Canada, the USA, the Spanish Colonies in South America and the Caribbean, Sicily, Corsica, New Zealand, Australia, Europe, Russia, etc etc etc. We came from Africa to colonize the whole world. I guess it didn't work out though.
gruff| 11.11.11 @ 11:51PM
Er...Rhodesia is in sub-Saharan Africa. Look at a map.
Baked Potato | 11.11.11 @ 8:51PM
I think British colonialism was the best thing that every happened in Africa. The whole continent was worse off before and after.
Jacob R| 11.12.11 @ 4:23PM
How do you explain that the richest country in Africa is one of those "militant white separatist" colonial outposts?
John II| 11.11.11 @ 3:59PM
This whole discussion puts me in mind of a Jack Paar show I happened to be watching some 50 years ago or so, in which a very young Bill Buckley was a guest. And if you're too young to remember Jack Paar, think Chris Matthews without the damp pant-leg.
Anyhow, a rather pointed exchange went something like this:
Paar: Mr. Buckley, you have written lately about the struggle of colonial Africa for indepedence. Don't you believe that the Africans have a right to such independence?
Buckley: No. Not until they're ready to form governments.
Paar (indignantly): Well, just WHEN do you suppose THAT will be?
Buckley (nonchalantly): When they stop eating each other.
Now, this was back in the days when liberals could still muster a pose of dignity. In his next show, when Buckley was safely gone, Paar recollected the conversation with an air of deep concern. Conservatives, he alleged, seem generally to be lacking in compassion.
And now back to "The Naked Prey" (1966), in which Cornel Wilde plays a safari leader captured by Zulu left-wingers who, after torturing the rest of the group to death, set him free into the wilds without clothing or arms so that he can be hunted down by the tribe's best warriors. A tribal custom which the Professor's anthropologist mother would doubtless have found interesting to study.
Seek| 11.11.11 @ 7:18PM
Ah, Bill Buckley in his prime!
PetePatriot| 11.14.11 @ 8:51PM
Bravo
Flee| 11.11.11 @ 6:07PM
South Africa is another example of the supposed good idea of black majority rule. What once was a prosperous and successful country has struggled to maintain it.
will| 11.11.11 @ 8:42PM
It was a prosperous and successful country for white Seth Efricans, nobody else. Are you seriously arguing that SA now is worse than 20 yrs ago?
emo| 11.12.11 @ 8:09AM
Some ways yes. Crime is much much worse. The economy overall is better. AIDS is worse. ZA has about 4-5m whites, Rhodesia had only 200k. There is much more human capital in ZA than ever existed in Rhodesia. But ZA is only one election away from tyranny.
Will| 11.13.11 @ 6:25PM
The crime rate is actually lower now than it was under apartheid. But back in the day, nobody in SA cared about blacks being the victims of crime, whereas now they do. Of course, now whites are more likely to be victims, so people care much more about crime.
JA| 11.11.11 @ 7:02PM
Rhodesia is just another example of the incompatibility of tribal cultures and representative democracy. It is not a black thing, it is a cultural thing.
The Arab nations - all tribal cultures - do not have representative democracies, and aside from oil, produce absolutely nothing (except terrorists).
Most of Africa is a basket case as well.
The next Zimbabwe WILL BE S.Africa. As soon as a tribe gains power - by whatever means - they will begin the extermination (socially, economically and existentially) of all those not members of the ruling tribe, blacks and whites.
The whites will flee of course and take with them the intellectual horsepower to run the economy.
It is not a question of if, just when (my guess within 5 years).
will| 11.11.11 @ 8:41PM
What a load of old shit. Rhodesia was based on rascism, only about 1% of the black population had the vote. 300,000 whites (at most) ruled over 10 million black africans. No attempt was made to provide decent education or healthcare to the native population, and segregation was enthusiastically practiced. It was like the Deep South pre-Civil Rights, but even worse. Had UDI never happened, moderate black leaders would have taken power, and Zimbabwe would probably be an economic success. As it was Mugabe gained power not just because he was Shona, but also because he had gained legitimacy as the leader of the resistance to white rule. In the early years he did enjoy genuine popularity, before evolving into a monster and wrecking his country.
John Navratil| 11.12.11 @ 10:21AM
will,
It was racist, it was colonized and the standard of living for everyone was better that it is today. I don't suppose it was racism on the part of the black when they hacked farmers to death (no, of course it was justice). Nevermind that those farmers used their energies to create those farms and employ black Africans; those farms which have fallen to ruin in their absence.
Mugabe enjoyed popularity just as a new President of the U.S. enjoys popularity. It lasts until his programs are shown to fail. He gained legitimacy just as Obama gained legitimacy - as the opposition (which is to day, a hoped for legitimacy).
Now he and his thugs betray the people who brought him to power.
So, go back to your black-and-white view of the world and don't concern yourself about the real human tragedy which white guilt has wrought.
Gwen| 11.12.11 @ 10:52AM
To Will
You obviously have absolutely know knowledge of Rhodesia.
The black population paid no taxes but enjoyed free health care and education.
Also Mugabe was NOT the terrs leader, but he assasinated the guy who was.
Get your facts straight before making stupid comments!
Richard Baker| 11.11.11 @ 10:13PM
Clinton:
It's Rhodesia, not Rhondesia. Are you some sort of surf music fanatic? I'd imagine you are delighted at what Zimbabwe has become. Pol Pot made Cambodia better as well as the Moslems having so improved Sudan, right? Murderous dictators are such an improvement, aren't they?
POST American| 11.11.11 @ 11:02PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
WE, by now, are well aware of the
inner agenda to DESTROY British
culture, and cultures generally
worldwide, thru MASSIVE immigration
and 'multi culturalism'.
This has been underway since THATCHER
--and before.
In our travels, we've encountered
South Africans in search of work,
ANY work, abroad.
When asked WHY don't they head
to Britain --they inform us -they are
excluded.
Marc Jeric| 11.12.11 @ 12:42AM
Our "Occupy Wall Street" bottom-feeders are trying to transform the USA into another Zimbabwe under the leadership of Mulah Obama.
Dunadan| 11.12.11 @ 2:03AM
Way to go Crocker!
WPWW
Gwen| 11.12.11 @ 10:55AM
The one mistake Britain made in Rhodesia was to protect the Shone from the Ndebele.
Should have done there what The Americans, Spanish and Aussies did - kill off as many natives as possible when they first arrived!
Delores Smith| 11.12.11 @ 2:20PM
All fine and dandy except for one critical flaw. What was the British empire and then Ian Smith doing setting up shop in someone else's country? Two wrongs don't make a right
John Navratil| 11.12.11 @ 11:42PM
Delores Smith,
Does the concept of nation-states mean anything to you? Hegemony? Irredentism? Did God draw the map of the world?
gruff| 11.13.11 @ 3:54AM
To all those pining for the days of colonial rule, answer me this: if a demonstrably superior civilization showed up in your home territory, declared ownership "for your own good", took the lion's share of resources, and met all native dissent with force, lethal if necessary - how would you respond?
That's right, you'd fight. To the death. For freedom. No matter how superior the interlopers were.
Or is freedom only for whites?
John Navratil| 11.13.11 @ 9:46AM
gruff,
It's freedom for those who can take it. It's not free. It's not guaranteed. It's actually not the norm. You will find the history of the world replete with superior civilizations taking over those less so. And color is not the deciding factor.
Steve| 11.13.11 @ 5:50PM
gruff,
But the fight was only to replace the colonizers with homegrown thugs. The people had more freedom under the colonials than they did under the supposed liberators also known as thugs. Would you rather be ruled by the Ian Smith British rule or Mugabe?
Kenn Paul| 11.13.11 @ 9:25AM
The big but unspoken elephant in this story is the race of the parties. All of black Africa is pretty backward and violent, and where there is not the leavening of white culture, whereever the black culture is most free, the violence is at its worst. Somehow, while whites raised up the level of their societies, blacks remained and still remain stuck in relatively tribal and impoverished societies.
albert constantine jr.| 11.13.11 @ 11:38AM
Actually, the things left out of this brief article exceed that which is in. What about Cecil Rhodes, for whom the Rhodes Scholar program is named, and his role as founding father. In the Where Are They Now program, what ever became of Joshua Nkomo. What happened to the members of the Selous Scouts? And the land reform that bequeathed parcels of the once white owned farms to the "veterans" of the armed struggle who were not yet born at the time that Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. However, Ian Smith at least gets to say "I hate being right all the time".
wedding dresses | 11.14.11 @ 3:04AM
When asked WHY don't they head
to Britain --they inform us -they are
excluded.
Richard Baker| 11.14.11 @ 8:16AM
Imperialism has been the norm throughout history more often than not. I would remind one and all, as an example, that Idi Amin, when he wasn't feeding the crocodiles with his slain enemies, threw out the Asians/Indians who were the shopkeepers and businessmen in Uganda. Africa was better off when the Europeans and Indians/Chinese ran the countries. Berate Imperialism if you must but the present alternative is better? Under the present management, Africa is a disaster. I guess if it's Africans killing Africans then that eases the liberal mind, I suppose.
Ron| 11.14.11 @ 12:34PM
Honestly, the roll-call of F*&^� up African countries that have gone down hill since they each gained or were granted independence is staggering...
gruff| 11.14.11 @ 8:45PM
Interesting points. In turn:
John Navratil says "It's freedom for those who can take it....You will find the history of the world replete with superior civilizations taking over those less so"
Point taken. However this obviates all complaints about the loss of Rhodesia. By this view, the Rhodesians were simply too weak to deserve their independence, and we should not shed a tear for them. The black were stronger than the whites in this case.
Steve says "But the fight was only to replace the colonizers with homegrown thugs. The people had more freedom under the colonials than they did under the supposed liberators also known as thugs. Would you rather be ruled by the Ian Smith British rule or Mugabe?"
The fight was not to replace colonizers with thugs - the blacks weren't fighting to install Mugabe. The fight was for freedom. What happened afterwards is a different issue.
Kenn Paul, Richard Baker and Ron all draw attention to the sorry state of much of Africa. I would remind you that Europe went through a lengthy Dark Age, replete with witchcraft hysteria, tribal persecutions, plagues, famines, irrational internecine warfare, and general chaos. As late as the 30 Years War large parts of central Europe were essentially tribal territories. What we think of as the normal civilized world is a very recent invention. Therefore I think it's fair to assume that Africa needs to go through a similar period of struggle before modern nations are built. Would you deny them this opportunity?
Finally, modern Africa is in fact being drawn into the Chinese sphere of influence through a large scale program of investment and infrastructure building. The Chinese are stepping in where the whites withdrew.
John Navratil| 11.15.11 @ 8:52AM
gruff,
The Rhodesians were pressured from without. One cannot tell the outcome if Ian Smith had not been made an international pariah. The cake was baked before independence as Whitehall insisted on majority rule before it would grant independence. A most interesting position to take, don't you think? The British colonized the country installing their government but insisted, before granting independence (which they did not do), on uninstalling the government!
gruff| 11.15.11 @ 11:41PM
But in the model you describe above, in which people deserve only what they can take, there is no "without". If the Rhodesians weren't clever enough to line up foreign support before UDI, then, according to your view, they did not have what it took to win freedom, and no tears should be shed.
No question that British behaviour in the matter was unusual, and of course there was massive Soviet and Chinese support of the insurgents, which I'm surprised hardly anyone has brought up here yet. But as you said, freedom is for those who can take it. The Rhodesians couldn't take it.
alan| 11.14.11 @ 10:39PM
This is the most sensible article I have read in a long time. Finally someone has written the truth.
Thank you
I remain a proud Rhodesian
Tony Carter | 11.15.11 @ 2:24AM
Thank for a well written and concise explanation of the Rhodesian debacle bought upon Rhodesia by Harold (Bloody) Wilson Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1965.
Wilson who cancelled the TSR 2 program (that the Americans snatched up with glee and turned in to the F111 .
Wilson who sent his country to the dogs.
Africa today bears testament to Ian Smith's predictions - that self rule is still 100o years away.
Let all Rhodesians rejoice and be proud of the small part that they played out in Africa's history.
The greatest shame of all is that so many black and white Rhodesians fought , died and were wounded in what was a horrific terrorist war. As it turns out all for nothing - but to subjugate the masses in to poverty.
What not many people realise is that, in fighting for their "Freedom" Mugabe, Nkomo and their cronies killed far more of their own people in retribution than were evr killed by Rhodesian troops during the war.
I must end by adding that AIOD not "AIDS" has destroyede Africa. Until such time as the world ceases to provide aid to Africa, Africa will continue to sink in to even greater depths of the muck mire.
Cheers
Tony Carter
Rhodesia 45/63
Now in Australia 71/12
fascistthug| 11.15.11 @ 11:47AM
I believe this article exemplifies what the Americans describe as "saying it like it is".It is a poor consolation and cold comfort for those under this regime,as brutal as it is primitive,to say "I told you so"!Smithy always contended that the struggle was to maintain civilisation in the best sense and that race/colour was of secondary importance.We salute his memory.
Don| 11.15.11 @ 12:02PM
Can anyone name a single country that was given back to the blacks and has become a successful prosperous place to live? Any one, any one????
Drikus| 11.16.11 @ 12:14AM
It pains me how the world had all the answers for Africa (for the Africans), in spite of its European orphans and western civilisation. Now, here I stand watching these very ideas erode a once thriving society, in the wake of its "only once" of one-man-one-vote democratic election. And the world, which set us on this route? Deadly, silently, carrying on their business of being right! No bother about what ever happened to civility, economic freedom and the wellbeing of the third world. It’s conveniently in their back yard, out of sight and out of mind. Yet here I stand.
Val Ansley| 11.16.11 @ 3:19AM
Thank you for remembering us - The men who sacrificed their lives to protect us - Black and White - The women and children in the farming areas who faced highly trained communist insurgents day and night - The Surgeons Doctors and Nurses who patched us up in bush operating theatres - The thousands of UNSUNG innocent black men women and children caught in an insane crossfire - Tortured and murdered from BOTH sides AND now you have MUGABE
Neville Abrams| 11.20.11 @ 8:05PM
Remember that it was an American that was part of the MUGABE takeover, your own Henry Kissinger
Neville Abrams| 11.20.11 @ 8:05PM
Remember that it was an American that was part of the MUGABE takeover, your own Henry Kissinger
Anesu | 12.19.11 @ 1:54PM
An oppressive white man vs. an oppressive back man...mmmhhhhh??? Difficult choice. HOW ABOUT NO OPPRESSION AT ALL!
Dave | 3.28.12 @ 11:10AM
I am someone who is very aware and proud that I am white. I see MOST africans as being inferior. If that makes me a racist, so be it. However I am also an african - was born in S Rhodesia. I fought in the Rhodesian bush was and would do the same again.
What I would have stayed behind and fought for, was the black population to enjoy the same standard of living and rights as the whites. If you got rid of Mugabe and his elk, and someone came into power who was genuinely interested in upraising the standards in that country, I'd pack my bags tomorrow and go back to build a nation. I don't give a damn who rules (black/white/ asian, whatever) - just do the right things!
Rightly, or not, every coloniser has tried to bring the 'backward' colonized up to the standards and values of the colonizer. Few, if any, have succeeded. The unfortunate fact is that you cannot bring forward, in 90 years, a people that were early iron-age, had no concept of fairness, rules, compassion, deomcracy or any of the concepts that took Europe close on a 1000 years to develop. It is not RIGHT that we, the white man, tried to impose those values.
When the white man set foot in Africa his intentions were not exactly benign. It was about power and resources, and religion was an excuse.
Nothing has changed.
The chiefs were not elected, they were absolute rulers. The strongest tribe ruled, the rest were subjucated.
Nothing has changed, they just wear suits and use AK-47s instead of spears.
The white man just altered the balance for a while. It was the Ndebele/Matabele that ruled, and we tipped the scales so the Shona now rule. Anyone that stepped out of line (still the case), was crushed.
However, remember that as a CONDITION of the LEASE-LEND AGREEMENT, BRITAIN had to shed itself o the EMPIRE. Those who disagree, GO AND READ IT!
Britain was bancrupt and desperate and had little choice. The Americans planned to replace the empire with on dominated by the almighty dollar. They just did not reralize that the Russians and Chinese would outsmart them.
The morale of the story - stay out of something that you don't understand! ALL AID to Africa should cease - military, financial, commercial, even humanitarian. Make Africa stand on it's own two feet.