04-04-2008, 21:10
|
#31
|
God Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SF/ Bay Area California
Posts: 4,002
Liked: 0 times
Rep Power: 1337
|
Re: Mugabi
Rhodesia as was under Smith was a violently racist country. Under Mugabe it began to show some flower of democracy then power corrupted him and we have the evil b*st*rd we see now. If Nkomo had taken over things might have been different.
Nkomo was no different than Mugabe, just another tribal thug, Mugabi belonging to the Shona tribe and Nkomo being Matabele , and the two opposition parties ZANU and ZAPU were similarly tribal
The majority of the populace under Smith were disenfranchised and fought for freedom. Yes they made the wrong choice with Mugabe but hindsight is 100% perfect.
It was Smiths policy to give the vote to educated Rhodesians , those educated enough to see further than what they were told by their tribal chiefs
But reading the post above post I assume steeljack would rather Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and South Africa retained their Apartheid regimes.
No, I'm not saying that , what I am saying is ...you cannot go from a stone-age tribal society overnight, it takes time to build an infrastructure, when Zambia got Independance in 64 , thousands of people went to the railway station to await the arrival of the train from South Africa ...the thinking being that "independance" was a physical tangible thing and it would arrive like all other imports in a wooden crate.
Mugabe has to go, he makes Amin look like a benevolent uncle, and the MDC under Tzangari has to win for the future of the country, it will take an immense amount of strictly controlled funding to get the country back to any semblance of it's history as the "Bread basket of Africa" but it has to happen or there will be a disaster on the scale of Biafra
Strictly controlled funding by who , by the donors ? is that not the same as fiscal colonialism , saying to the Zimbabweans that they haven't got the skills to look after their own affairs
|
|
|