I, and I think most reasonable people posting here, have absolutely no problem saying that the developed (white) nations have exploited most of the
developing world in outrageous ways, and have set up governments designed to perpetuate that situation.
The Islamic superstates of a previous era did exactly the same thing.
They would certainly have like to have done more, but were stifled in part by the constraints of their trade networks, and, beginning in the 16th
century, the encroach of the very European empires focused on in this thread.
Are modern states more
efficient that medieval arab empires at exploitation? Of course.
Were the arab slavers abusive, exploitative, and revelling in their carnage? Certainly.
Now considering the present state of things. . . .
White exploiters actually owned the state as a corporation, the "South African Company," which was eventually taken over by the british crown as
South Rhodesia. At one point, I think the white minority declared an independent government from the UK, in a bid to stay in power over the Black
In 1979, though, a guerilla uprising resulting in a revolution, and the instution of the Black-controlled state of Zimbabwe. One would think that
from that point, things might begin to improve for the peple of that land. However, the new president, Robert Mugabe, has dominated all aspects of
the government, and maintained power ever since. His "land reforms" forced almost all rural farming whites to flee the nation, plunging it into
chaos and land was redistributed according to Mugabe's whim. Many of the technicians and engineers maintaining the nations infrastructure fled as
well. Mugabe's security forces have become increasingly violent and have stifled all dissent.
I know from talking to currency traders there that the state set an artificially high value for the Zimbabwe Dollar (ZWD) versus the US Dollar. When
local shop-owners began profiting from the government's "fantasy" exchange rate, security forces broke up illegal currency auctions with machetes,
killing scores of people, and all for the crime of admitting that the ZWD is worthless paper.
My point here is this. Developed nations (especially the UK) bear responsibility for the enequalities and atmosphere of violence that Zimbabwe
inherited at the moment of its birth as a nation. But at what point do its leader (Mugabe) and its people become responsible for their fate.
Once the black majority gained independence, it is an indigenous tyrant and indigenous "security forces" wielding the machetes, how does this
continue to remain the fault of whites?
If the developed nations have done anything to heighten the misery of Zimbabwe, it has been to loan the nation money, which Mugabe stole, and which
continues to add to the economic depression. But if they hadn't loaned any money, they'd be accused of "impoverishing" the state.
I was originally going to use Congo as an example. But as I read, I saw that most of the troops in Congo recently have not been European forces,
french or US or UK; they have been "african peacekeeping troops" ---from Zimbabwe!
The continent's woes originated with Europeans (and Americans). But at some point, independent governments are responsible for their OWN
shortcoings, regardless of their wealth, and regardless of the colors of their skins. After 20 year's of independence, surely some of Zimbabwe's
problems lie with its own government.
Here's an article from Today's
about Mugabe's completion of the siezure of white farms, and about how he's now moving on the remaining urban whites.
At what point can Zimbabwean woes no longer be blamed on the white oppressor, or will Robert Mugabe (a black oppressor if there ever was one) always
have a free pass because whites once set foot on the soil of his homeland? At what point is HE responsible for his own atrocities?