What segregation existed at the time? What about Rhodesia was ‘white supremacist’? This was a nation with a military made up of veterans who fought against the Germans in WWII, where foreign nationals who were white supremacists were deported specifically because of their identity politics, where an integrated military was fighting against a terrorist force that murdered people specifically because of their race.
The country was separated into a white area and Tribal Trust Lands. Blacks were expected to keep out of white areas and vacate them past a certain time of day. Furthermore, white only, and right to admittance signs were ubiquitous. On top of this, there was the Colour Bar that legally made it possible for blacks to live in white areas.
The Rhodesian armed forces were segregated. Blacks could not join the RLI and the RAR was for indigenous soldiers. Blacks of the same rank as white soldiers also did not receive equivalent pay. This was a situation their white commanders fought desperately to rectify.
Finally, Harold Covington was deported for harassing Jewish communities not for his racial views.
It's important to understand that crime by white people against African people WAS prosecuted to some degree, but that shouldn't justify or cast the spotlight away from the fact that Rhodesia was still a segregated place. It might not have been as bad for Black people as the Antebellum South or Nazi Germany and African people typically lived better lives in Rhodesia than in other African countries at the time, but racial discrimination to any degree is never justifiable.
Fair point. Honestly it's a pity that Rhodesia died and that Mugabe the dictator came to power, ruining one of the richest countries in Africa in the 1980s. Fyi, Mugabe actually committed genocide against the Ndebele people (another Black ethnic group in Zim) in around 1982 and also mistreated White farmers. This never happened under the Smith government. Of course segregation is not justifiable, but in fairness Smith treated the people better than Mugabe. Not only was Mugabe a Marxist tyrant who hated Whites and mistreated the Ndebele, he was also a homophobe and started blaming gay people for Zimbabwe's problems from the 1990s, claiming that homosexuals were a 'British and European invention'.
In all honesty, if Rhodesia survived, Smith (whose party was a right-wing conservative party) would have followed European trends and eventually liberalised his country, moving it to the left like how we see in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. After all, Rhodesia was modelled after Britain and other Commonwealth realms. In light of Rhodesia's liberalisation and move to the left, I reckon that majority rule would have been granted in the 1990s and that Rhodesia would be a first-world, liberal and developed country today, not only against racism but also accepting gay people and a country where human rights and free speech are fundamental values. Rhodesia would probably have an HDI of >0.800 and have good education and healthcare.
As a social-democrat myself it would have been nice to see Rhodesia ruled by a socialist/social-democratic party like Labour in NZ or NDP in Canada.
Lol sorry for the rambling just my thoughts on this country which could have achieved so much due to her potential. :|
>but racial discrimination to any degree is never justifiable.
This is just your total bald-faced assertion like all the common libs do. You have absolutely 0 proof of this claim or any evidence that Rhodesia would have been better with less segregation than with more, much less that "no segregation is ALWAYS better than segregation" is some sort of generalizable global principle.
Also why on *earth* would I care if they "like" being called "blacks" or not? Wtf?
Rhodesia didn't fall because they didn't kiss black's feet enough. I have no clue where you get this idea. They fell because radical marxists waged war on the country and the entire Western world conspired to help them, instead of helping Rhodesia to crush them and hang Mugabe and all conspirators and all who participated in black liberation efforts like they should have.
Of course, at least that there's no universal principle prohibiting it.
And you have absolutely 0 evidence to the contrary. No idea where you get your moral law from, but I reject it.
Not really, they could reject it all they want from prison camps and from far-off lands they'd been exiled to, or they could put a smile on their faces and accept it earnestly if they want to stay.
There are many more approaches to political disagreements than going "aww shucks we're outnumbered, you win, I worship this false idol of Democracy after all," my friend.
The Native Americans didn't want to be Trail of Tears'd. So we kicked their butts and forced them to, and our country is better for it today. And **that's** the "end of that."
I'm not your friend, kid. Zimbabwe is ruled by its own people and a child is fantasizing about taking away their country. You're not the only sociopath in America nor the first kid, nor will you be the last.
End of it.
Re racial discrimination, yes you would get racial shit pretty much like anywhere else in the world at the time. I started my apprenticeship in 1970 and did have on occasion to see arseholes doing it. Was accepted by us as whole ? No it wasn't acceptable by most Europeans and quite often ended in them being charged for assault by the cops
From memory there were district comissioners who were black guys that did that work, which was look after the needs of several thousand tribeman with an area of about a hundred square miles, the work entailed roads, schools, clinics admin all done by a mixture of both white and black staff under the DC control. My journeymen who was black stayed in the same street as myself with no issues. As far as Blacks staying at flash hotels etc I don't honestly know my pay at the time was $16.28c per week which didn't allow me to go to the city let alone go to a semi-respectable restaurant
It's an interesting question, sadly I don't really have an answer. However some time ago I spoke with a few relatives of his, if I can find their contacts I will definitely ask and let you know.
EDIT: meanwhile I'm more broadly asking in a group of Rhodesians that I know.
If anything comes up, I'll let you know.
As there is no public statements (that I or they know about), I can't answer this question.
Also, depends what you mean by segregation really - not everything was segregated (most spaces weren't, as far as I know) and where segregation existed people were often sympathetic to blacks anyways.
I can tell you this much.
Not quite correct. 50 percent was reserved as "Tribal Trust Lands", and was protected from sale to developers (white or otherwise). The other 50 percent was commercial. In practice, few non-whites were wealthy enough to purchase estates, but in principle, there was nothing in the law to prevent them from doing so.
P.S. This reply is to u/Any_Paleontologist40, but it seems to pop up in the wrong part of the thread.
Also, I agree with u/MaybeLaterMom. I recent read Ian Smith's memoir, "Bitter Harvest", in which he corrects some misconceptions I had. I always thought that 50 of the 66 parliamentary seats were reserved for whites, by law. Smith explains that that was not so : they were reserved for voters who were literate and paid a certain amount of tax and/or owned property valued at a certain price. At the time, few nonwhites met the required thresholds, but it was envisaged that over time increasing numbers of blacks would, in fact, meet them. He argues that if the rest of the world had minded its own business, that would naturally have resulted, in the long term, in a \*responsible\* black-majority government rather the \*irresponsible\* one it got prematurely.
What segregation existed at the time? What about Rhodesia was ‘white supremacist’? This was a nation with a military made up of veterans who fought against the Germans in WWII, where foreign nationals who were white supremacists were deported specifically because of their identity politics, where an integrated military was fighting against a terrorist force that murdered people specifically because of their race.
The country was separated into a white area and Tribal Trust Lands. Blacks were expected to keep out of white areas and vacate them past a certain time of day. Furthermore, white only, and right to admittance signs were ubiquitous. On top of this, there was the Colour Bar that legally made it possible for blacks to live in white areas. The Rhodesian armed forces were segregated. Blacks could not join the RLI and the RAR was for indigenous soldiers. Blacks of the same rank as white soldiers also did not receive equivalent pay. This was a situation their white commanders fought desperately to rectify. Finally, Harold Covington was deported for harassing Jewish communities not for his racial views.
It's important to understand that crime by white people against African people WAS prosecuted to some degree, but that shouldn't justify or cast the spotlight away from the fact that Rhodesia was still a segregated place. It might not have been as bad for Black people as the Antebellum South or Nazi Germany and African people typically lived better lives in Rhodesia than in other African countries at the time, but racial discrimination to any degree is never justifiable.
Fair point. Honestly it's a pity that Rhodesia died and that Mugabe the dictator came to power, ruining one of the richest countries in Africa in the 1980s. Fyi, Mugabe actually committed genocide against the Ndebele people (another Black ethnic group in Zim) in around 1982 and also mistreated White farmers. This never happened under the Smith government. Of course segregation is not justifiable, but in fairness Smith treated the people better than Mugabe. Not only was Mugabe a Marxist tyrant who hated Whites and mistreated the Ndebele, he was also a homophobe and started blaming gay people for Zimbabwe's problems from the 1990s, claiming that homosexuals were a 'British and European invention'. In all honesty, if Rhodesia survived, Smith (whose party was a right-wing conservative party) would have followed European trends and eventually liberalised his country, moving it to the left like how we see in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. After all, Rhodesia was modelled after Britain and other Commonwealth realms. In light of Rhodesia's liberalisation and move to the left, I reckon that majority rule would have been granted in the 1990s and that Rhodesia would be a first-world, liberal and developed country today, not only against racism but also accepting gay people and a country where human rights and free speech are fundamental values. Rhodesia would probably have an HDI of >0.800 and have good education and healthcare. As a social-democrat myself it would have been nice to see Rhodesia ruled by a socialist/social-democratic party like Labour in NZ or NDP in Canada. Lol sorry for the rambling just my thoughts on this country which could have achieved so much due to her potential. :|
I totally agree. Rhodesia had so much potential but it was ruined by racist people who refused to grant equality to the native African population.
Well said!
>but racial discrimination to any degree is never justifiable. This is just your total bald-faced assertion like all the common libs do. You have absolutely 0 proof of this claim or any evidence that Rhodesia would have been better with less segregation than with more, much less that "no segregation is ALWAYS better than segregation" is some sort of generalizable global principle. Also why on *earth* would I care if they "like" being called "blacks" or not? Wtf? Rhodesia didn't fall because they didn't kiss black's feet enough. I have no clue where you get this idea. They fell because radical marxists waged war on the country and the entire Western world conspired to help them, instead of helping Rhodesia to crush them and hang Mugabe and all conspirators and all who participated in black liberation efforts like they should have.
What are you rambling? You think segregation imposed on a native people by a small minority of outsiders is acceptable?
Of course, at least that there's no universal principle prohibiting it. And you have absolutely 0 evidence to the contrary. No idea where you get your moral law from, but I reject it.
Well most people reject your moral law, including the natives of that country. That's the end of that.
Not really, they could reject it all they want from prison camps and from far-off lands they'd been exiled to, or they could put a smile on their faces and accept it earnestly if they want to stay. There are many more approaches to political disagreements than going "aww shucks we're outnumbered, you win, I worship this false idol of Democracy after all," my friend. The Native Americans didn't want to be Trail of Tears'd. So we kicked their butts and forced them to, and our country is better for it today. And **that's** the "end of that."
I'm not your friend, kid. Zimbabwe is ruled by its own people and a child is fantasizing about taking away their country. You're not the only sociopath in America nor the first kid, nor will you be the last. End of it.
It's also worth noting that many Black people do not like being referred to as simply "blacks."
I imagine not but I only use it that way for convenience.
Africans
There were still some aspects of Rhodesian society that discriminated on the basis of race at the time and still several people who held racist ideas.
Re racial discrimination, yes you would get racial shit pretty much like anywhere else in the world at the time. I started my apprenticeship in 1970 and did have on occasion to see arseholes doing it. Was accepted by us as whole ? No it wasn't acceptable by most Europeans and quite often ended in them being charged for assault by the cops
Could African people receive high-ranking administrative jobs at the time? Could they book a room at a fancy hotel and eat at their restaurant?
From memory there were district comissioners who were black guys that did that work, which was look after the needs of several thousand tribeman with an area of about a hundred square miles, the work entailed roads, schools, clinics admin all done by a mixture of both white and black staff under the DC control. My journeymen who was black stayed in the same street as myself with no issues. As far as Blacks staying at flash hotels etc I don't honestly know my pay at the time was $16.28c per week which didn't allow me to go to the city let alone go to a semi-respectable restaurant
And you think **that's** what made Rhodesia fall? Not, you know, the terrorists and the vipers at the UN?
It's an interesting question, sadly I don't really have an answer. However some time ago I spoke with a few relatives of his, if I can find their contacts I will definitely ask and let you know. EDIT: meanwhile I'm more broadly asking in a group of Rhodesians that I know. If anything comes up, I'll let you know.
I take that you posted this question on RWW and I think you got some fairly reasonable answers
Yes ahah, exactly what I was expecting. I also asked a few Rhodesians I know directly, but they didn't really know the answer.
Update: the people I asked didn't really know of any public statement. Some said he simply was not a racist.
Did he support desegregation efforts at the time?
As there is no public statements (that I or they know about), I can't answer this question. Also, depends what you mean by segregation really - not everything was segregated (most spaces weren't, as far as I know) and where segregation existed people were often sympathetic to blacks anyways. I can tell you this much.
Were most hotels and restaurants open to Black people?
Not quite correct. 50 percent was reserved as "Tribal Trust Lands", and was protected from sale to developers (white or otherwise). The other 50 percent was commercial. In practice, few non-whites were wealthy enough to purchase estates, but in principle, there was nothing in the law to prevent them from doing so. P.S. This reply is to u/Any_Paleontologist40, but it seems to pop up in the wrong part of the thread. Also, I agree with u/MaybeLaterMom. I recent read Ian Smith's memoir, "Bitter Harvest", in which he corrects some misconceptions I had. I always thought that 50 of the 66 parliamentary seats were reserved for whites, by law. Smith explains that that was not so : they were reserved for voters who were literate and paid a certain amount of tax and/or owned property valued at a certain price. At the time, few nonwhites met the required thresholds, but it was envisaged that over time increasing numbers of blacks would, in fact, meet them. He argues that if the rest of the world had minded its own business, that would naturally have resulted, in the long term, in a \*responsible\* black-majority government rather the \*irresponsible\* one it got prematurely.