Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, as one of the vanishingly small number of americans* who actually know that Zimbabwe is a real place, and used to be known as (southern) Rhodesia, I've always been kind of curious what Brits thought about the whole deal - UDI, the bush war. and all that stuff. It was one of those things I picked up reading my dads collection of books, and isn't really a topic brought up much in america (maybe since I was born right around the time the actual fighting ended); and I am kind of curious how the whole thing is covered over there. From everything I've checked out it is a comprehensively F'd up situation and place that has made some steps in recent years to possibly recover ; but I am curious about opinions from the UK about the whole thing from the 'common man' about UDI and on.
Word.


*that i've met.

Citizens fought a war to end colonialism in their country, only to swap it for more racism and oppression.

They were better off under British rule.


*duck*

Wow, funny, I was studying the rhodesian bush war (on a whim) earlier today.

Albatross wrote:They were better off under British rule.

Surprisingly (or not), true about a lot of places.

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:They were better off under British rule.

Surprisingly (or not), true about a lot of places.

Yup. Sierra Leone made a formal request to re-join the British Empire in the early years of the last decade.

Albatross wrote:They were better off under British rule.


*duck*

True of many places. The empire was many things. Some of the good things was that it was stable, uncorrupt and treated the population fairly. Unlike many parts of Africa and the Indian sub continent today where corruption and tribal war (overt or otherwise) are the norm.

Albatross wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:They were better off under British rule.

Surprisingly (or not), true about a lot of places.

Yup. Sierra Leone made a formal request to re-join the British Empire in the early years of the last decade.

Sierra Leone however was asking this of New Labour, the irony.

British rule is the ultimate evil as we were/are all told. I can imagine the governments reaction.

IIRC There was also a major stir after a radio phone in one one of the Caribbean nations, cant remember which one, when a caller brought up that it was better under colonialism and the radio was shocked at the amount of affirmatory calls that followed.

The interesting point is that even if it did occur the first major or even minor crisis would lead to a 'freedom' movement. 'Freedom' isn't really for the people in the vast majority of cases, but for the leaders. You only need about 20% support for follow a revolution, the left-right divide will account for that easily.

Any expansion this way is doomed to failure even with good management.



Back to Zimbabwe, no way would we accept that fethstorm under any circumstances. Formal annexation by South Africa is possible perhaps preferable.

On Zimbabwe, most people in the UK know it was a formal colony and that Mugabi is a class a mentalist but that is about it.

Albatross wrote:They were better off under British rule.


*duck*

P'rhaps. make it the fifth 'Kingdom' under the birtish control. and do it before the Chinese knows what happens there.
and how will the Chinese Commissariat response to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYnL5oUePM8

These places were worse off before the empire, and are worse off after.

There are no obivious dominant tribes there. the concepts of 'kingdoms' like Nubia and Misrah aren't really exists there to the souths.
different computer strategy games expressed Zimbabwe populace differently, Civ3 expressed them as being Zulu tribes. in Civ5. folks of Zimbabwe are called Songhay, while in Rise of Nations. Zimbabwe is the home of a playable race called the Bantu.
Monarch of the Great Britain are the only legitible ruler of Zimbabwe. renamed it to Rhodesia.
And prepare for the second Rork Drifts. this time with Kalashinikov series instead of impis.

All I know is Andy Flower was a better keeper than Adam Gilchrist no matter how much Australians want to disagree.

My uncle lived in south africa in the eighties and he reckons Zimbabwe was the best place to live in africa before mugabe screwed the place up.

I heard Rhodesia was a great place to live, so long as you were white. Wasn't that bad for blacks either in hindsight.

Still we are talking Mugabe, someone ranking along people like Pol Pot for fething up their own country. Practically anyone would be preferable.

My Grandad had a property there, I visited when I was a toddler, I have no recollection, but some old photos and a commemorative plate of Victoria Falls with a cartoon Crocodile on it are in my Dads house.

The place was known as the bread basket of Africa, then we gave it back and it all went to gak.

My Grandad left quickly, and he was bitter about it, I will tell you his side of things without doing a google search about the place, and I will read up on it afterwards and see if he was giving me a correct version of events. He used to tell me some funny stories, but I don't doubt they will have been factually incorrect.

He said that the British always forced elections on places that aren't ready for it, and that it totally fethed them up, because they (Africans) vote based on tribal affiliation and nothing else. Mugabe was from the biggest tribe and beat the better man in the election (some priest bloke) and then the British politicians were "amazed!" he would spit scornfully. As if they were utter morons.

And then he would always go off on a tangent and rant about Idi Amin for a bit and say "Its our fault all those people got butchered as well.. sticking our noses in! We MAKE them have elections if they want aid money.. so if they are from a smaller tribe they commit genocide to win it!"

Anyway, my (now snuffed it) Grandad imparted this to me many times and as a result I have inherited his staunch imperial viewpoint.

Quite why we have such a hard-on for elections is beyond me. In Iraq it was the same, I had to secure "polling stations" when frankly It seemed to me we had much more important gak to worry about! Frankly I dont much care about democracy. I would prefer a monarch who makes all the rules, beheads people that thoroughly deserve it, and doesn't mind me getting leathered, playing video games and 40k, going to the gym and going walking in the hills occasionally.

The whole "Freedom" thing that the majority of the world seems to love so much is an illusion as far as I'm concerned. As long as I am "free" to do the 4 or 5 things I really enjoy personally, the Queen could rule with an ironfist and I would cheer if all the MPs got sacked and had to work in Macdonalds.

I mean, what else are they qualified for? I never met one who could make shelves, lay bricks or weld metal.

I'm not clear how elections are a worse method of forming a government than shooting it out.

I dont' think its the fault of elections, but rather elections in States that aren't also nations.

Imagine telling Scotland and Texas that they are now a Soveriegn State, and a plebescite would be held to determine who was their new president.

How happy would the Scots be about that result?

I mean, neither Scotland nor Texas are happy with the result of national elections now!

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not clear how elections are a worse method of forming a government than shooting it out.

My point is, we only have the illusion of "freedom" and no true freedom really exists. There are literally hundreds of rules and laws and decisions made each year by politicians that piss us all off, and you just have to suck it up and deal with it. Disagree with that parking ticket? feth you pay me, Council tax? feth you pay me. Income tax unfair? feth you pay me. Your bin lid was an inch too far up and your local council fine you £75? feth you pay me. Disagree with the war in Iraq? Tough gak, were going. Student fees? Tough gak your paying. The list is endless, and you cant please everyone.

When I was in Iraq, we had to guard election centres that the AIF were desperate to blow up. Why risk peoples lives for gakky elections? Put some bloke in charge, would the common men really give that much of a gak?

As far as I can see, the average Joe is more interested in having a full belly, a functioning local hospital, electricity for more than 1 hour a day, no sewage in the street, things like that.

Being warm, safe, well fed and comfortable is far more important than a god damn election. Its all the Afghans bloody complained about as well. Why not worry more about fixing the power outages than worrying about some Mickey mouse elections. The masses care less about elections than people seem to think, especially when their electricity doesn't turn on, their bins don't get emptied and there is raw sewage in the street.

mattyrm wrote:

Quite why we have such a hard-on for elections is beyond me. In Iraq it was the same, I had to secure "polling stations" when frankly It seemed to me we had much more important gak to worry about! Frankly I dont much care about democracy. I would prefer a monarch who makes all the rules, beheads people that thoroughly deserve it, and doesn't mind me getting leathered, playing video games and 40k, going to the gym and going walking in the hills occasionally.

The whole "Freedom" thing that the majority of the world seems to love so much is an illusion as far as I'm concerned. As long as I am "free" to do the 4 or 5 things I really enjoy personally, the Queen could rule with an ironfist and I would cheer if all the MPs got sacked and had to work in Macdonalds.

I mean, what else are they qualified for? I never met one who could make shelves, lay bricks or weld metal.

Stop sweet talking me you fox.

Elections without rule of law and a social contract that values human rights are a classic Hobson's Choice.

Particularly in States with tribal/ethnic divides, each side will basically try to opress the other as much as possible, absent strong rule of law.

I was chased out of Zimbabwe by war veterans sponsored by Mugabe that would have killed me and my family had they caught us. I literally remembering my family grabbing what they could at one point and getting out the house in one ten minutes flat once because we heard they were coming.

So I'd probably better not give an opinion on the whole affair, as it might be somewhat biased. Living in fear of your own life knowing the state will do nothing to protect you does that to you.

Polonius wrote:I dont' think its the fault of elections, but rather elections in States that aren't also nations.

Imagine telling Scotland and Texas that they are now a Soveriegn State, and a plebescite would be held to determine who was their new president.

How happy would the Scots be about that result?

I mean, neither Scotland nor Texas are happy with the result of national elections now!

Texas would love it. WE were a separate country and there was a small dispute a while back when we had second thoughts.
Actually the US should let texas secede for 12 years and then re-annex. After Texas has conquered Central America, the Caribbean, and of course, France, they can merge back with the US. We could also conquer Canada and sell it back to the Canadians for a nice profit to pay down soe of that national debt.

That might be frowned upon Frazz...

purplefood wrote:That might be frowned upon Frazz...

I know but that never stopped Texans before.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:That might be frowned upon Frazz...

I know but that never stopped Texans before.

The American Civil War may say otherwise...
As far as i know you were on the side that lost no?

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:That might be frowned upon Frazz...

I know but that never stopped Texans before.

The American Civil War may say otherwise...
As far as i know you were on the side that lost no?

Pff minor detail. As I said, the US lets Texas secede, do its dirty work, and then allows it to come home.
If needed we could even get some rednecks in bass boats together and go deal with the Argentinian Navy for the Brits. See, everyone wins. Well, maybe not France.

All I know about Zimbabwe is that Mugabe has a Hitler 'stache and blames white people for all his country's ills, and I am in possession of an older ZWD$100,000,000,000 bill that is literally, literally not worth the paper it's printed on. At the time this bill would've been enough for something like ten oranges or a couple boxes of cereal.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:That might be frowned upon Frazz...

I know but that never stopped Texans before.

The American Civil War may say otherwise...
As far as i know you were on the side that lost no?

Pff minor detail. As I said, the US lets Texas secede, do its dirty work, and then allows it to come home.
If needed we could even get some rednecks in bass boats together and go deal with the Argentinian Navy for the Brits. See, everyone wins. Well, maybe not France.

So long as you concentrate on heading south and leave Canada alone I am all for your new Texan expansion plan. Tell us when you get round to invading France. I want to be at Dover with binoculars and popcorn.

Saying that the Canadians have a perfect defence. They need to place signposts at the south border of Montana saying 'Welcome to Canada'. Then another at the Canadian border saying 'North Pole'.
When the Texans have cleared the band of territory in between there will be something for the Canadians to bid for. Texas gets some exercise, the US gets a cash injection and Canada moves out of the arctic circle. Seems a win-win-win to me.

Orlanth wrote:

Saying that the Canadians have a perfect defence. They need to place signposts at the south border of Montana saying 'Welcome to Canada'. Then another at the Canadian border saying 'North Pole'.

It's brilliant...