Since Zimbabwe formally Rhodesia has been in the news of late for all the wrong reasons I am reading the late Ian Smith memories entitled The Great Betrayal .

Has anybody read the book and if so what did they think of Ian ideas of the Responsible Majority governing Rhodesia until the majority Black Population until they were educated enough to take place in the political process ?

So far I have found the book to be interesting reading although that does not necessary imply agreement . Smith ideas remind of the kind of Representative Republic that US constitutionalists preach so much rather then the Westminster System . Although at the end of the day if you want have a representative government the concept of majority rules cannot be avoided .

I haven't found the time to read the book but I'm interested in this whole dilemma. Do you think you could outline some of the basic theories proposed in the book? Is the author saying that the entire situation is a result of the failure of political transition between governments after the termination of the colonial government? I'm not quite familiar with the history either. Did the colonial government just pick up and leave or did it at least provide some degree of security in anticipation of political change? Is .

Mind raising a few of the points found in the book and arguing them? I might be able to provide some insight regardless of not reading the book if you at least provide a personal argument. Looking forward to a response...

[edit on 2-4-2009 by cognoscente]

Sure I will give a brief summary of Ian points in the book . Smith supports the colonization(SP?) of Africa . Post WW2 Rhodesia had the unique situation of being a dominion without having the cost of maintaining embassies overseas . Rhodesia was promised its independence if it was wanted . The first idea cooked up was to have Rhodesia as apart of Federation with a couple of its neighbors. The British then said that Rhodesia could only have its Independence if it gave up the idea of the federation .

So all the while Rhodesia neighbors were granted Independence and pretty much fell into the state they are in now Rhodesia was left to linger . The idea of the Black Rhodesia's gradually taking over has a governing majority after they had learned to govern responsible and Rhodesia independence were rejected by the British . The British wanted to retain Privy Council power over the government of Rhodesia or something like that . Ultimately diplomacy ran its course and Smith and his government declared Unilateral Independence.

The fact that Rhodesia gave the best health care , education e.t.c to its Black citizens was ignored by the US and Brits who imposed sanctions on the " illegal government." All the while Rhodesian security forces battled communist backed terrorists who targeted White Rhodesians and there Black supporters .
Eventually South Africa withdrew its support for Rhodesia thinking wrongly that in return the International community would support of its Apartheid policy's. This forced Smith government into a corner and accepting a greater role for Blacks in parliament straight away .

After the interim government came Mugabe and we all know what happened after that . Mugabe and his cronies would use terrorist tactics to drive away the White Population and Blacks who were eligible to vote were pressured not to do so . The African Nationalist propaganda would then spew out that Blacks were being denied the right to vote as a whole .

Since I made the opening post I have concluded that Smith was right about a gradual handover to a Black Majority with White Seats and other Constitutional safe guards in place . Now I am not defending colonization but things must still be taken in the context of that for better or worse that is what happened .

I thought that it would be prudent for me to point out that a alternative to Smith and Mugabe was really needed . Smith was the lesser of two evils but that really isnt a situation one would want to have . I hope the reader will forgive any connections I have made to some unsavory things they are rather difficult to avoid when you deal with a topic like this . Anyway this is my last post on this thread unless some members stop chasing the NWO tail and come and tackle a tricky topic .

One things for certain…
1. Firstly the ideas contained within this book (although probably corrupt) are far too right wing, controversial and “damn right offensive” to ever be taken seriously; at least not for another 20-30 years.
2. Despite harsh sanctions imposed on white ruled Rhodesia the average Zimbabwean was better of when they were Rhodesian. After all when your leader is senile tyrant who presides over the world’s highest inflation rate, it’s quite hard to understand how things could get much worse.
3. If the black majority of South Africa keep electing left wing socialist (some of whom are proudly communist) and if they keep using “positive discrimination” to make life difficult for the whites (i.e. by not letting the best man for the job be in that job); the reduction in the growth of living standards (since apartheids fall) will actually become a fall in living standards since the fall of apartheid.

4. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. One may believe removing an immoral regime that humiliates the majority of the population daily (e.g. by discriminating against e.g. what seats people sit on) would lead to an improvement in living standards. Sadly a corrupt, majority elected, government can do far worse than choose which seats you can sit on (even it decides you can all sit on them!).

I think it's a novel concept for sure, at least the idea of limiting self rule until the majority of the population reaches a certain educational threshold.

We sure could use that in the United States, that some people are allowed to vote and why they cast their vote can be frightening to say the least.

The problem becomes though who sets the educational standards and cirriculum? Does it become a means then to actually thwart the educational process because the government in power controls the cirriculum and grading curve? Or worse does it become a regimented form of political intocdrination not based on any real knowledge or wisdom but the belief in peculiar ideas held near and dear by those who set the educational standards with a desired political outcome?

Truly representative governments would have a great challenge in making this process honest and fair and empowering and enriching.

In my humble oppinion America's educational system has gone way down hill in my life time and most of the cause does seem to be political in nature.

People might be better served by keeping government out of education.

First of all I just want to Liberal 1984 and ProtoplasmicTraveler for having the guts to tackle this topic . I reckon that a lot of members wouldn't touch a topic like this with a ten foot pole .

The only notion I couldn't stomach was Smith not even questioning the merits of colonization . A flaw that I did find in Smith reasoning was that by his own admission the resources weren't available to educate every body in Rhodesia and UDI stopped the flow of skilled migrants which would have included teachers and other skilled personal .

So without the resources available a Black majority would have become better black representation. Although things shouldn't have gone so far the British should have just supported the Federation . On sanctions it is interesting to note that they had little effect on the ultimate outcome something that perphaps should be noted in terms of North Korea and Fiji . Apartheid may have prevented the signs of poverty from being seen all together . Yeah large scale affirmative action programs in South Africa or anywhere else will cause harm in the long run .

I do wonder what White Rhodesia's make of the US current War on Terror . The US stood idle by while Britain and the rest of the world supported the terrorist actions against the White population and Smith government . Britain was so desperate to see Mugabe in power that they were only to happy to ignore voter intimation and such like .

In the US if finding Iraq on a World Map and in New Zealand naming the leader of the opposition correctly were tests people had to pass before they could vote then a substance fewer number of Americans and Kiwis would be eligible to vote . A part of the problem in Rhodesia was that sending there kids to school just wasn't a part of the native population culture . Now I am just putting forward ideas for discussion in terms of educational bench marks . Possible benchmarks for majority black rule or just bringing in more Blacks into running the government could have been or be the ability to run the civil service or the judicial system . Increasing the literacy rate by say five percent every generation would help along with a sort of voter eligibility test .

Such a test could have been varied in terms of its questions and used to discover someone understanding of the electoral system . While there is always the risk that any government run education system could be corrupted like happened under Nazi rule in Germany it is necessary that an education is available to everyone up to the high school level . Admittedly Russia is a extreme example but that country did show what happens when the ruling class fails to reform little alone give political representation.

I am going to ask a relative question in order to try and revive this thread .

Does the recent election in South Africa disprove Smith ideas ?

For any flaws the elected government of South Africa has they do appear to be committed to democracy a lot then Mugabe ever was .

Does anybody think that South Africa will eventually go the way of Zimbabwe ?

Hmm I will soon see if anybody else has the balls to tackle this topic .

I'd love to tackle this topic unfortunately I am rather ignorant of recent events in South Africa. With everything running around in the US it's rather hard to keep track of the rest of the world's problems when the house is burning down around us. With that said, I will try to tackle what I think I understand relating to the elections and the arguments posted in the thread. After reading through the thread I find that the greatest error associated with the elections and transfer of power has more to do with the form of government created than the people or education system. A constitutional republic lays out rules limiting the scope of the Governments interests and powers. As such regardless of what a majority wants or doesn't want if the Constitution says it's illegal, then it's illegal. In the US, perhaps the decline in education has a great deal to do with the loss of our Republic, however much more blame I feel can be laid at the feet of the media as it's job as watchdog has been neglected in favor of lapdog. I feel little needs to be done to qualify voting aside from assuring citizenship, because as stated before it doesn't matter what you want if the constitution says it's illegal. If I'm missing the point please illuminate me as I'm always happy to learn.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by gaborn415]

[edit on 28-8-2009 by gaborn415]