23:23  |  16 September 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate

ZIMBABWE NOW, RHODESIA THEN

Are there superior races?

Or are there only inferior cultures?
Vote: Should we come to any racial conclusions that arise from the consensus that life for the average Black African was better under Ian Smith’s Rhodesia than it is in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 69% No 31%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 0% No 100%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

WelshPatriot 28-Jul-2008 20:32
The truth is that Britain by not backing Ian Smith is responsible for the current horrid situation in Zimbabwe.
KScott 15-Jan-2008 1:39
It is a fact that black Africans were 'better off' under Smith's regime. It is also a fact that black leaders in post-colonial Africa have proved themselves overwhelmingly corrupt, cruel and self-aggrandising. A third historical fact, is that African tribal culture has a strong patriarchal history - the Big Man who must be 'seen' to be all-powerful. Once it was cows and wives, now it is stretch limos and palaces! Not too different in context to recent Eastern European dictatorships, North Korea, Stalinist Russia etc.

Race is not, I think, the most relevant factor, rather human greed, indigenous culture, history and the bestowal of absolute power are the over-riding common features.
pam3 14-Jan-2008 14:0
while it is almost certainly true that zimbabwe would have been better off under smith than mugabe, to infer conclusions from just these 2 gentlemen about 2 entire races would be so stupid as to (almost) defy belief! for starters mugabe was a military leader who would never have gained power if britain had left a democratic structure in place instead of allowing a situation to develop that produced mugage as a leader for the blacks. since when has any military dictator been good for the people? britain itself has had a series of mini-revolutions to get to state where we can now elect our dictators (magna carta, the english civil war, the chartists/tolpuddle martyrs, the suffragettes etc). and we still ain't a democracy! (in fact we're getting less democratic).
barrymx5 14-Jan-2008 13:16
Sorry I will not be able to attend the meeting. Black Africans (and remember there are many white Africans in sub Saharan Africa) have generally not shown a capability to govern. Tribalism is too recent and one man one vote premature. The lesson for the present is liberal guilt kills - probably more than separate development
Hally40 14-Jan-2008 11:12
The problem with Mugabe, as with many other African and 3rd world leaders, is that they never know when to give up power. If they could bring themselves to adhere to a democratic constitution it would be more likely that inward investments would aid devlopment and expansion of their economies, thus leading to a happier more porsperous population. The colour of the skin is irrelevant. There are plenty of 'white' nations which have a similar problem with power hungry 'leaders'.

However, to directly answer the question it is highly likely that Rhodesia/Zimbabwe would have been much better off under a Smith form or rule, as undoubtedly Smith would have been replaced many times over by now with some other truly elected leader, and not necessarily a white one.
Comment:
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
Correspondents
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
Community
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award
       
    Home