Rhodesia was a stable, first-world country that carried a disproportionate share of the weight of the hot portion of the cold war, only to be betrayed by Britain, South Africa, and the US (Kissenger brokered the internal settlement for majority rule). The military was volunteer (conscription came very late, after everything was over but the crying) and 2/3 black. Why were all these Shona and other native Africans fighting for a "racist" regime against a "liberator"?
Of course Rhodesia wasn't perfect by any means in handling racial issues, but neither was any country. Rhodesia was moving forward, blacks were participating more and more as their prosperity grew and they met the income requirements for voting. But for some reason, the world deemed it better to immediately hand power over to a hardcore Communist faction that shot down multiple airliners and butchered the survivors at the crash site, among other atrocities too numerous to list.
Now whites (and blacks of certain tribes and occupations) are harassed, displaced, murdered, but does the world care? Rhodesia carried on and prospered despite crippling sanctions. Zimbabwe can't find it's ass with too hands and a map despite billions and billions in foreign aid.
It's vital to remind people that this isn't black vs. white. Many blacks of certain tribes are treated terribly in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Stupid, condescending, RACIST liberals see a black African face and feel good about themselves, without understanding any of the complex tribal tensions that exist.
I'm not endorsing Apartheid. But unlike Zimbabwe, Rhodesia at least had a roadmap for racial equality and national stability. Zimbabwe is built on hatred and Maoism.
“Zimbabwe can’t find it’s ass with two hands and a map”
Good one. Made me spit out my coffee.
Still laughing as I type.
It’s about trying to preserve an organized society when the average IQ of the population is 70 (functionally retarded), also known as Mission Impossible.
You are entirely correct, but the racial narrative ended up overshadowing what really happened due to clever propaganda that persists to this day. The Communists ruined the country in their ZANU/PU incarnation, and it wasn't about race, it was about party. The question for both black and white farmers wasn't race, it was whether you were ZANU/PF or not, and if you weren't, having a black skin didn't save you.
It's a classic case of Marxist mismanagement hidden under self-righteous moral rhetoric. The party expropriated nearly everything, used it to enrich party members, "redistributed" the land to people who weren't farmers (often quite against their will), and waited for magic to happen. It happened, all right, if starvation can be considered magical. Economically, the same, and hyper-inflation isn't magical either. It was a perfect kleptocracy run by party people at the expense of both black people and white who happened to be non-party. Take the racial patina off it and you have Venezuela.