Serious answer
Not great, but better than in most of sub Saharan Africa.
Whites didn’t want a white underclass, so there was a lot of hiring discrimination even for equally qualified candidates. There was instance where a milkman from Britain moved to Rhodesia and became a marketing director. Why, because whites received employment preference. This made the blacks who were skilled and educated resent the Rhodesian government and become the leading figure in the opposition to white minority rule. Ian smith framed it as a meritocracy, but when you have janitors and milkman from Britain getting jobs they wouldn’t have been qualified for in their home country, you have to ask if the game wasn’t rigged
>Not great, but better than in most of sub Saharan Africa
Heavily restricted in cities, had to use ID passes, massive land ownership and property restrictions, most if tge population was still rural and development was kneecapped with state policies which meant other Africans caught up or surpassed them. To say it was better is to set the var extremely low.
And they still had it worse/surpassed by others on top of other formerly colonized states in the world moving ahead like India or the Philippines.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Because India and Philippines are not inhabited by blacks. An African should compare to other Africans. It's good to aspire to become like Europe or East Asia but it does not happen overnight. Keep in mind that it's still Africans you're working with.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Because India and Philippines are not inhabited by blacks.
Both are developing states. >An African should compare to other Africans
And other peers globally because only comparing to juat one cohort isn't enough.
>Keep in mind that it's still Africans you're working with.
That doesn't mean you should treat them differently or apply a double standard. Double standards lead to policyvssues and strife down the line.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Like why should a white farm labourer get 10x more than an black or mixed one for the exact same labour? How does that entice anyone into wanting to work within a system like that?
1 month ago
Anonymous
White rule was objectively better than what followed. Ultimately it was untenable for international reasons, like what is happening in South Africa. It is more gradual, but the same trajectory. It may work out for the black majority but it won't be a quick and easy recovery, and China will probably suck the continent dry before Africans even realize that they just exchanged masters.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>White rule was objectively better than what followed.
But it wasn't because life for everyone in Rhodesia was extremely restricted and even heavily censored. Not even Whites were exempt from it.
>Ultimately it was untenable for international reasons, like what is happening in South Africa.
Anon, most of the white people weren't even born in Rhodesia. It's labour pool was abysmall because the "literally anyone" polciy the state had only brought in working class Anglos who could not fill up the states need for skilled or semi-skilled labour.
>China will probably suck the continent dry before Africans
China isn't even the largest FDI in many states nor one of the bigger mining entities. A frickton of their "presence" is either selling products in Africa like anyone else or doing infrastructure projects.
>even realize that they just exchanged masters
That was a shitty expression even when it was used during the Cold War. African states buying tractors from Belarus, phones from China, and books from America is NOT exchanging masters
1 month ago
Anonymous
Realpolitik is a hard pill to swallow. As much as everyone would like to see an independent Africa it is merely a pipe dream and a geopolitical impossibility. You will find out as others have already (Somalia etc) that Chinese involvement is deeper and less kind than you imagine. The West is kind of saddled with the burden of Africa for now, and it is a burden if you consider the aid that has flown in and migrants that are flowing out. However things are changing, and even France is disengaging slowly, leaving a power vacuum that only China is strong enough to fill. Power games are always zero sum. There must be winners and losers, and the Chinese certainly are not in it to lose.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>You will find out as others have already (Somalia etc) that Chinese involvement is deeper and less kind than you imagine
China isn't even the only investor at all. They aren't even the largest debt holder either and Somalia doesn't interact with China that much. It does actually interact with Turkey alongside other states.
>China isn't even the largest FDI in many states nor one of the bigger mining entities.
Most of the migration is internal within AFrica and the aid is jackshit considering how much times it has been cut back on top of how much said aid does not go into any development (like border aid lmao)and gets eaten up by NGOs administrative fees.
>However things are changing, and even France is disengaging slowly, leaving a power vacuum that only China is strong enough to fill
Why the frick are you so fixated on China? homie your reddit ass takes are straight from 2008.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>he believes in the multipolar kumbaya narrative
As I said, it's good to dream but civilizations aren't built on dreams. Power vacuums must be filled. The ride never ends.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Ignorant take. Countries like France still extract a lot of wealth from African countries, in the form of resources and by controlling their currency.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>We are so inept we let others steal our wealth
Not helping your case.
1 month ago
Anonymous
its almost like the country was set up for resource extraction by the british israelites just like the american south.... hmmm you might be onto something here anon
An average white Briton now is vastly more intelligent and qualified than a modern average native Rhodesian. I can't imagine the disparity was more favorable to Rhodesians in the past.
I'm not arguing that discrimination didn't happen (I don't think discrimination is bad to begin with), but a person from a highly developed place outperforming uneducated and unintelligent locals isn't great evidence. Especially when the foreigner actually has a language advantage over the locals.
You obviously aren’t familiar with working class Britons. These aren’t your Faustian yeoman farmers. They are like the proles in 1984. As for language, even their thick accent needs subtitles sometimes.
>I'm not arguing that discrimination didn't happen (I don't think discrimination is bad to begin with), but a person from a highly developed place outperforming uneducated and unintelligent locals isn't great evidence
Because the states discrimination was self-reinforcing. It aas built on making sure that even when an African met or far surpassed the franchise requirements, they STILL were politically and socially isolated on top of still being seen as a threat to the Rhodesian system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3u5CxS3j5M
Watch this. Their teeth are as good or better as the British, they look healthy, they have access to British clothing, they are well fed, there was no issue.
[...]
Allowing blacks in the country at all was the wrong strategy. They should have been banned entirely and the British should have done all the work themselves, but they were too lazy and scared.
Works just fine, Germany was able to build rockets with like 30 people in bumfrick nowhere, Africa.
What makes you think a country of 10,000 brits would not be able to live there without relying on an african workforce?
Heaven on earth. Whites have a tendency to elevate the living standards of all living beings wherever they go, groids before whites were there would have been cannibalising, sacrificing and slaughtering the innocent. We are an angelic race who atleast try to teach all the other humanoids how to be human(white)
If White rule is so wonderful and Blacks are so awful, then why did they come to Africa to lord over the natives?
You could see more trees in a day in Africa than you could in the entirety of Britain. Also may have something to do with a giant yellow thing in the sky, may also explain why there are so many of them at the Costa del Sol actually. Baffling, I know.
1 month ago
Anonymous
That's because Europeans love destroying the environment.
I think it was the resources that africans couldn't figure out how to use
1 month ago
Anonymous
>resources that africans couldn't figure out how to use
That always sounded like a weird statement because a lot of iconic resource deposits were only discovered late or after colonialism.
Idk, seems mostly like a scheme to attract as many white immigrants as possible because they weren't having any children of their own + the black population was constantly rising.
Also like, how can you be an apartheid state but then give blacks positions of power? Wouldn't they just like... Immediately turn on you? Maybe I'm a bit slow in the brain, anon. Can you explain it to me?
True. Britains were given a lot of financial incentives to emigrate. Especially very generous low rate loans, with no payments for the 1st 10 years. As for positions of power. I believe 16 parliamentary seats out of 76 were reserved for blacks with only 9000 blacks in a country of 7 million blacks eligible to vote. Also, there was plenty of petty Jim Crow style apartheid. Businesses were allowed to refuse service to black patrons like in the Deep South. And blacks were banned from buying property in cities like Salisbury
>so there was a lot of hiring discrimination even for equally qualified candidates
>Not great, but better than in most of sub Saharan Africa
Heavily restricted in cities, had to use ID passes, massive land ownership and property restrictions, most if tge population was still rural and development was kneecapped with state policies which meant other Africans caught up or surpassed them. To say it was better is to set the var extremely low.
>Heavily restricted in cities, had to use ID passes
That was irrelevant to the vast majority of black Rhodesians, who were (and still are) living in the same villages their ancestors lived in 1,000 years before the first white guy set food in the territory. The only real difference is that they didn't have , unlike almost every other African other country at the time (and today) because Europeans were still managing their farms.
>massive land ownership and property restrictions
Blacks own the farms today, look how that worked out.
>Rhodesians, who were (and still are) living in the same villages their ancestors lived in 1,000 years before the first white guy set food in the territory.
Most are urbanized now lmao.
>The only real difference is that they didn't have , unlike almost every other African other country at the time (and today) because Europeans were still managing their farms.
Europeans seized the land and basically had the entire population work for them for pennies whike the syate refused to support and subsiduze African farmer. The entire Rhodesian system hinged on theft as a way to shore up margins because the state NEVER had to pay for the land and it depressed wages so low that no one could make gains in economic attainment or leveraging the income outside of substinence living so worse because at least they had land before.
Even during chattel slavery, a class system between slaves emerged and the smart blacks became doctors and tradesmen, bought their freedom, and became upper middle class. Are you really telling me that Rhodesia and South Africa were harsher than literal chattel slavers?
Why are people so slow and begrudging to admit that the inherent IQ differences between blacks and whites better explains the coffee cup stratified society you seen at the time?
>the smart blacks became doctors and tradesmen, bought their freedom
This isn't true in the fricking slightest. Buying ones freedom was literally banned in multiple states and in the states it wasn't banned onerous burdens were placed upon obtaining freedom (such as leaving the state within a certain amount of days on pain of being reenslaved) and it was always at the whim of the owner(s).
lost causers are so funny, never got an answer to why states righters banned states rights to abolish slavery
1 month ago
Anonymous
>lost causers are so funny, never got an answer to why states righters banned states rights to abolish slavery
Yea, just say "states rights to what?" and they combust. It's pretty sad how moronic they are.
>smart blacks became doctors and tradesmen
And didn't get employed either due to employers refusing to or them getting threatened by other workers.
>bought their freedom
Family still enslaved and several states had freeman get re-enslaved and faced restrictions.
>became upper middle class.
If you are explicitly barred from enjoying the privileges and status of middle class and above luce you aren't really middle class.
maybe for blacks who still lived in the "tribal context" many of whom never saw a white person. For them, ignorance was bliss.
For the blacks who were around white people, they probably wondered "why those white people have nice things, but we don't?"
Watch this. Their teeth are as good or better as the British, they look healthy, they have access to British clothing, they are well fed, there was no issue.
It doesn't matter how good black have it. They will always complain and want more free stuff when they see someone richer than them.
Allowing blacks in the country at all was the wrong strategy. They should have been banned entirely and the British should have done all the work themselves, but they were too lazy and scared.
look at this guy. based on his manner of speech, we was obviously a prole back in Britain. He's obviously not high society in any way. but in Rhodesia he bosses around black servants and has a nice house with a pool. I wonder what his job is and how he got it.
>Allowing blacks in the country at all was the wrong strategy.
They always were in the country.
>Their teeth are as good or better as the British, they look healthy, they have access to British clothing, they are well fed, there was no issue.
On every metric the locals were explicitly disadvantaged compared to the white minority class. One set if teeth doesn't mean jackshitm especially when the act of merely not eating excessive sugar and bread is like 50% of the work for dental maintenance
1 month ago
Anonymous
And israelites were always allowed until they were expelled, moron.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Try expelling 93% of your population and your workforce and see how that works little troggie.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Works just fine, Germany was able to build rockets with like 30 people in bumfrick nowhere, Africa.
What makes you think a country of 10,000 brits would not be able to live there without relying on an african workforce?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>What makes you think a country of 10,000 brits would not be able to live there without relying on an african workforce?
Because no working class British man worth his hair on his chest/beard will migrate to Rhodesia just to end up living in worse conditions and working for pennies like a damn serf
1 month ago
Anonymous
Have you looked at Britain outside of central London these days?
It certainly wasn't better in those times, people were working in coal mines, it wasn't much better than slavery if at all
1 month ago
Anonymous
Why would they come to Rhodesia to become a percentage underclass serf? Why not literally any other Anglo settler state. Even with the infinite handouts Rhidesua offered most of the people moving in eventually emmigrate later on. Like they had no way to force people in so one could just move in, bleed the state dry while they climb to a better social status, then bail to South Africa or back home. That's actually the most rational thing to do in that position and I don't blame a Nigel or Thomas for doing so.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Why would they be a serf or some kind of underclass and not be starting farm, small business or otherwise employed? Again, Germans moved to Africa to build rockets on their own volition, what makes you think Britons could not survive there?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Why would they be a serf or some kind of underclass and not be starting farm, small business or otherwise employed?
Because a population of "10,000" is tiny as frick and farming has a huge amount of start up costs.
>Again, Germans moved to Africa to build rockets on their own volition.
You skimmed the vid/info about it. They onky were ket in through Mobutu, had to leave after a while due to the whole "dictatir access to ricjets", thing abd then went to Libya before Gaddafi seized it all. The Gernans also had to hustle for start up capital in Europe and in the end the rocket company went bust.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Why do you think the Britons would not have investors?
Orania functioned as a community of 800 people with no blacks, it's simple as frick for white people to survive in Africa and run their own community
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Orania functioned as a community of 800 people with no blacks
By using a labour underclass if White Afrikaners to prop it up. Compared to other white areas in SA it's actually shit.
>it's simple as frick for white people to survive in Africa and run their own community
It really isn't. The idea of full on total isolation today is never taken seriously by white communities or thise of settler descent in places like Kenya
>there was no issue.
The man was living in a country outnumbered by natives 34-1 and insisted on calling them "affies" and seemingly felt affronted by Africans learning how to drive cars and aspiring to own houses. If that isn't emblematic of the issue with Rhodesia then idk what is.
These are from the time period of the Bush War, they go in depth:
https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1976/01/Southern-Rhodesia-Racial-discrimination-and-repression-report-1976-eng.pdf
https://archive.org/details/zimbabwe-the-facts-about-rhodesia
I'd say a pretty major way life sucked for blacks would be the being herded into one of about 200 plus concentration camps (protected villages) and subject to curfew which left you liable to be immediately shot with no recourse. There's a plethora of reasons why Rhodesia sucked for blacks ranging from systemic discrimination as explicit government policy to petty segregation all the way to the use of biological and chemical weapons which killed many black civilians.
Also the use of whipping , plundering tribes and deliberately inducing hunger through the destruction of food and grinding mills would also be an issue.
having your children seized by the state with force and not being told where they are, if they're alive or how they're doing would be an issue for most parents, i would think
The country is named after Cecil Rhodes who is a Rothschild asset. "X" named in Rhodes' will is Rothschild. So what was life like for blacks? Exploitation, being controlled by the israeli international money power.
https://info.publicintelligence.net/RhodesLastWill.pdf
You're the idiot here. The British government was fine with Rhodesian independence, but it was on the condition they would allow black majority rule. When Ian Smith refused, they boycotted Rhodesia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_independence_before_majority_rule
It suxjed ass back then. Not saying current Ximbabwe is "good" either. Rhodesia back then was a joke if we are to compare it to the other Anglo settler states.
Rhodesian state killed itself to maintain control. 7% of the population cannot provide the skilled labour force of an entire country when most of those in the 7% don't pursue higher skilled education/training in any sufficient amount.
>A paradise compared to what it is now
Not really. Poverty is widespread in both bit Zimbabwe actually has a middle class. That and a lot of government services and amenities were expanded by the state. Something Rhodesia did not do.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I told you to shut the frick up
1 month ago
Anonymous
On top of what I said Rhodesia also had the problem if not being up to par with other states like Australia or Canada. Within the realm of education, the first university in Rhodesia was only established in 1952. Until then their only university was going to SA or flying all the way to Britain.
1 month ago
Anonymous
What you mean to say is that Black folk and Black person ghettos in Rhodesia weren't on par with Canadian & Australian whites, what a surprise!
>A paradise compared to what it is now
Not really. Poverty is widespread in both bit Zimbabwe actually has a middle class. That and a lot of government services and amenities were expanded by the state. Something Rhodesia did not do.
1 month ago
Anonymous
And Rhodesia wasn't colonized until 1888. Australia was colonized starting 1790 thereabouts & Canada even earlier, you know all this you disingenuous piece of shit. Of course Rhodesia was behind, there is no reason to think had the white Rhodesians maintained majority rule they wouldn't of caught up to the rest of the Anglo-sphere.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>And Rhodesia wasn't colonized until 1888. Australia was colonized starting 1790 thereabouts & Canada even earlier, you know all this you disingenuous piece of shit
And yet it took almost 70 years to get one university.
>there is no reason to think had the white Rhodesians maintained majority rule they wouldn't of caught up to the rest of the Anglo-sphere.
Not with those tiny numbers, low educational output, and mass immigration out
What you mean to say is that Black folk and Black person ghettos in Rhodesia weren't on par with Canadian & Australian whites, what a surprise![...]
Nope Rhodesia as a whole couldn't hold up a candle to the other settler state background states. Why do there when other better options existed.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Not with those tiny numbers, low educational output, and mass immigration out
Oh and getting it's shitstomoed in by other states in Asia as well as South African holding it by the chain lol.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Well I'm not going to speak with you, your mind is already made up. you haven't had a spiritual awakening with pyschedelics yet and argue for your future murderers. I am more enlightened
1 month ago
Anonymous
>argue for your future murderers.
It's hilarious seeing aiergs think everyone is out to get them lol.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yes, things got alot better in the 1980s, mostly due to sanctions being lifted. but there was alot of improvement in educational services and infrastructure.
In 1980s, Mugabe left whites alone because he was till trying to consolidate his power. Then in 1990s, he started land grabs, and remaining whites finally bailed.
Heaven on earth. Whites have a tendency to elevate the living standards of all living beings wherever they go, groids before whites were there would have been cannibalising, sacrificing and slaughtering the innocent. We are an angelic race who atleast try to teach all the other humanoids how to be human(white)
how?
by employing them as low skilled labor so whites could live like latifundia plantation owners. the only thing blacks seemed to learn is that whites get all this nice stuff like electricity, cars, big houses, and we get a small one room house that we don't even own if we're lucky.
Serious answer
Not great, but better than in most of sub Saharan Africa.
Whites didn’t want a white underclass, so there was a lot of hiring discrimination even for equally qualified candidates. There was instance where a milkman from Britain moved to Rhodesia and became a marketing director. Why, because whites received employment preference. This made the blacks who were skilled and educated resent the Rhodesian government and become the leading figure in the opposition to white minority rule. Ian smith framed it as a meritocracy, but when you have janitors and milkman from Britain getting jobs they wouldn’t have been qualified for in their home country, you have to ask if the game wasn’t rigged
>Not great, but better than in most of sub Saharan Africa
Heavily restricted in cities, had to use ID passes, massive land ownership and property restrictions, most if tge population was still rural and development was kneecapped with state policies which meant other Africans caught up or surpassed them. To say it was better is to set the var extremely low.
Better than living under Bokassa or Idi Amin, that’s for sure.
And they still had it worse/surpassed by others on top of other formerly colonized states in the world moving ahead like India or the Philippines.
Because India and Philippines are not inhabited by blacks. An African should compare to other Africans. It's good to aspire to become like Europe or East Asia but it does not happen overnight. Keep in mind that it's still Africans you're working with.
>Because India and Philippines are not inhabited by blacks.
Both are developing states.
>An African should compare to other Africans
And other peers globally because only comparing to juat one cohort isn't enough.
>Keep in mind that it's still Africans you're working with.
That doesn't mean you should treat them differently or apply a double standard. Double standards lead to policyvssues and strife down the line.
Like why should a white farm labourer get 10x more than an black or mixed one for the exact same labour? How does that entice anyone into wanting to work within a system like that?
White rule was objectively better than what followed. Ultimately it was untenable for international reasons, like what is happening in South Africa. It is more gradual, but the same trajectory. It may work out for the black majority but it won't be a quick and easy recovery, and China will probably suck the continent dry before Africans even realize that they just exchanged masters.
>White rule was objectively better than what followed.
But it wasn't because life for everyone in Rhodesia was extremely restricted and even heavily censored. Not even Whites were exempt from it.
>Ultimately it was untenable for international reasons, like what is happening in South Africa.
Anon, most of the white people weren't even born in Rhodesia. It's labour pool was abysmall because the "literally anyone" polciy the state had only brought in working class Anglos who could not fill up the states need for skilled or semi-skilled labour.
>China will probably suck the continent dry before Africans
China isn't even the largest FDI in many states nor one of the bigger mining entities. A frickton of their "presence" is either selling products in Africa like anyone else or doing infrastructure projects.
>even realize that they just exchanged masters
That was a shitty expression even when it was used during the Cold War. African states buying tractors from Belarus, phones from China, and books from America is NOT exchanging masters
Realpolitik is a hard pill to swallow. As much as everyone would like to see an independent Africa it is merely a pipe dream and a geopolitical impossibility. You will find out as others have already (Somalia etc) that Chinese involvement is deeper and less kind than you imagine. The West is kind of saddled with the burden of Africa for now, and it is a burden if you consider the aid that has flown in and migrants that are flowing out. However things are changing, and even France is disengaging slowly, leaving a power vacuum that only China is strong enough to fill. Power games are always zero sum. There must be winners and losers, and the Chinese certainly are not in it to lose.
>You will find out as others have already (Somalia etc) that Chinese involvement is deeper and less kind than you imagine
China isn't even the only investor at all. They aren't even the largest debt holder either and Somalia doesn't interact with China that much. It does actually interact with Turkey alongside other states.
>China isn't even the largest FDI in many states nor one of the bigger mining entities.
Most of the migration is internal within AFrica and the aid is jackshit considering how much times it has been cut back on top of how much said aid does not go into any development (like border aid lmao)and gets eaten up by NGOs administrative fees.
>However things are changing, and even France is disengaging slowly, leaving a power vacuum that only China is strong enough to fill
Why the frick are you so fixated on China? homie your reddit ass takes are straight from 2008.
>he believes in the multipolar kumbaya narrative
As I said, it's good to dream but civilizations aren't built on dreams. Power vacuums must be filled. The ride never ends.
Ignorant take. Countries like France still extract a lot of wealth from African countries, in the form of resources and by controlling their currency.
>We are so inept we let others steal our wealth
Not helping your case.
its almost like the country was set up for resource extraction by the british israelites just like the american south.... hmmm you might be onto something here anon
An average white Briton now is vastly more intelligent and qualified than a modern average native Rhodesian. I can't imagine the disparity was more favorable to Rhodesians in the past.
I'm not arguing that discrimination didn't happen (I don't think discrimination is bad to begin with), but a person from a highly developed place outperforming uneducated and unintelligent locals isn't great evidence. Especially when the foreigner actually has a language advantage over the locals.
You obviously aren’t familiar with working class Britons. These aren’t your Faustian yeoman farmers. They are like the proles in 1984. As for language, even their thick accent needs subtitles sometimes.
That and the franchises requirements had to be changed to accommodate them because a lot failed to meet it.
>I'm not arguing that discrimination didn't happen (I don't think discrimination is bad to begin with), but a person from a highly developed place outperforming uneducated and unintelligent locals isn't great evidence
Because the states discrimination was self-reinforcing. It aas built on making sure that even when an African met or far surpassed the franchise requirements, they STILL were politically and socially isolated on top of still being seen as a threat to the Rhodesian system.
If White rule is so wonderful and Blacks are so awful, then why did they come to Africa to lord over the natives?
because they found a cure for yellow fever in the bark of a tree, something that was stopping them before
You could see more trees in a day in Africa than you could in the entirety of Britain. Also may have something to do with a giant yellow thing in the sky, may also explain why there are so many of them at the Costa del Sol actually. Baffling, I know.
That's because Europeans love destroying the environment.
I think it was the resources that africans couldn't figure out how to use
>resources that africans couldn't figure out how to use
That always sounded like a weird statement because a lot of iconic resource deposits were only discovered late or after colonialism.
Idk, seems mostly like a scheme to attract as many white immigrants as possible because they weren't having any children of their own + the black population was constantly rising.
Also like, how can you be an apartheid state but then give blacks positions of power? Wouldn't they just like... Immediately turn on you? Maybe I'm a bit slow in the brain, anon. Can you explain it to me?
True. Britains were given a lot of financial incentives to emigrate. Especially very generous low rate loans, with no payments for the 1st 10 years. As for positions of power. I believe 16 parliamentary seats out of 76 were reserved for blacks with only 9000 blacks in a country of 7 million blacks eligible to vote. Also, there was plenty of petty Jim Crow style apartheid. Businesses were allowed to refuse service to black patrons like in the Deep South. And blacks were banned from buying property in cities like Salisbury
>so there was a lot of hiring discrimination even for equally qualified candidates
>Heavily restricted in cities, had to use ID passes
That was irrelevant to the vast majority of black Rhodesians, who were (and still are) living in the same villages their ancestors lived in 1,000 years before the first white guy set food in the territory. The only real difference is that they didn't have , unlike almost every other African other country at the time (and today) because Europeans were still managing their farms.
>massive land ownership and property restrictions
Blacks own the farms today, look how that worked out.
>is that they didn't have *repeated food shortages*
>Rhodesians, who were (and still are) living in the same villages their ancestors lived in 1,000 years before the first white guy set food in the territory.
Most are urbanized now lmao.
>The only real difference is that they didn't have , unlike almost every other African other country at the time (and today) because Europeans were still managing their farms.
Europeans seized the land and basically had the entire population work for them for pennies whike the syate refused to support and subsiduze African farmer. The entire Rhodesian system hinged on theft as a way to shore up margins because the state NEVER had to pay for the land and it depressed wages so low that no one could make gains in economic attainment or leveraging the income outside of substinence living so worse because at least they had land before.
Even during chattel slavery, a class system between slaves emerged and the smart blacks became doctors and tradesmen, bought their freedom, and became upper middle class. Are you really telling me that Rhodesia and South Africa were harsher than literal chattel slavers?
Why are people so slow and begrudging to admit that the inherent IQ differences between blacks and whites better explains the coffee cup stratified society you seen at the time?
>the smart blacks became doctors and tradesmen, bought their freedom
This isn't true in the fricking slightest. Buying ones freedom was literally banned in multiple states and in the states it wasn't banned onerous burdens were placed upon obtaining freedom (such as leaving the state within a certain amount of days on pain of being reenslaved) and it was always at the whim of the owner(s).
lost causers are so funny, never got an answer to why states righters banned states rights to abolish slavery
>lost causers are so funny, never got an answer to why states righters banned states rights to abolish slavery
Yea, just say "states rights to what?" and they combust. It's pretty sad how moronic they are.
>smart blacks became doctors and tradesmen
And didn't get employed either due to employers refusing to or them getting threatened by other workers.
>bought their freedom
Family still enslaved and several states had freeman get re-enslaved and faced restrictions.
>became upper middle class.
If you are explicitly barred from enjoying the privileges and status of middle class and above luce you aren't really middle class.
heaven on earth
maybe for blacks who still lived in the "tribal context" many of whom never saw a white person. For them, ignorance was bliss.
For the blacks who were around white people, they probably wondered "why those white people have nice things, but we don't?"
Watch this. Their teeth are as good or better as the British, they look healthy, they have access to British clothing, they are well fed, there was no issue.
Allowing blacks in the country at all was the wrong strategy. They should have been banned entirely and the British should have done all the work themselves, but they were too lazy and scared.
look at this guy. based on his manner of speech, we was obviously a prole back in Britain. He's obviously not high society in any way. but in Rhodesia he bosses around black servants and has a nice house with a pool. I wonder what his job is and how he got it.
>Allowing blacks in the country at all was the wrong strategy.
They always were in the country.
>Their teeth are as good or better as the British, they look healthy, they have access to British clothing, they are well fed, there was no issue.
On every metric the locals were explicitly disadvantaged compared to the white minority class. One set if teeth doesn't mean jackshitm especially when the act of merely not eating excessive sugar and bread is like 50% of the work for dental maintenance
And israelites were always allowed until they were expelled, moron.
Try expelling 93% of your population and your workforce and see how that works little troggie.
Works just fine, Germany was able to build rockets with like 30 people in bumfrick nowhere, Africa.
What makes you think a country of 10,000 brits would not be able to live there without relying on an african workforce?
>What makes you think a country of 10,000 brits would not be able to live there without relying on an african workforce?
Because no working class British man worth his hair on his chest/beard will migrate to Rhodesia just to end up living in worse conditions and working for pennies like a damn serf
Have you looked at Britain outside of central London these days?
It certainly wasn't better in those times, people were working in coal mines, it wasn't much better than slavery if at all
Why would they come to Rhodesia to become a percentage underclass serf? Why not literally any other Anglo settler state. Even with the infinite handouts Rhidesua offered most of the people moving in eventually emmigrate later on. Like they had no way to force people in so one could just move in, bleed the state dry while they climb to a better social status, then bail to South Africa or back home. That's actually the most rational thing to do in that position and I don't blame a Nigel or Thomas for doing so.
Why would they be a serf or some kind of underclass and not be starting farm, small business or otherwise employed? Again, Germans moved to Africa to build rockets on their own volition, what makes you think Britons could not survive there?
>Why would they be a serf or some kind of underclass and not be starting farm, small business or otherwise employed?
Because a population of "10,000" is tiny as frick and farming has a huge amount of start up costs.
>Again, Germans moved to Africa to build rockets on their own volition.
You skimmed the vid/info about it. They onky were ket in through Mobutu, had to leave after a while due to the whole "dictatir access to ricjets", thing abd then went to Libya before Gaddafi seized it all. The Gernans also had to hustle for start up capital in Europe and in the end the rocket company went bust.
Why do you think the Britons would not have investors?
Orania functioned as a community of 800 people with no blacks, it's simple as frick for white people to survive in Africa and run their own community
>Orania functioned as a community of 800 people with no blacks
By using a labour underclass if White Afrikaners to prop it up. Compared to other white areas in SA it's actually shit.
>it's simple as frick for white people to survive in Africa and run their own community
It really isn't. The idea of full on total isolation today is never taken seriously by white communities or thise of settler descent in places like Kenya
what's shit about it? have you been there?
>there was no issue.
The man was living in a country outnumbered by natives 34-1 and insisted on calling them "affies" and seemingly felt affronted by Africans learning how to drive cars and aspiring to own houses. If that isn't emblematic of the issue with Rhodesia then idk what is.
Pretty bad, got exceptionally worse during the bush war.
describe how life sucked
These are from the time period of the Bush War, they go in depth:
https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1976/01/Southern-Rhodesia-Racial-discrimination-and-repression-report-1976-eng.pdf
https://archive.org/details/zimbabwe-the-facts-about-rhodesia
I'd say a pretty major way life sucked for blacks would be the being herded into one of about 200 plus concentration camps (protected villages) and subject to curfew which left you liable to be immediately shot with no recourse. There's a plethora of reasons why Rhodesia sucked for blacks ranging from systemic discrimination as explicit government policy to petty segregation all the way to the use of biological and chemical weapons which killed many black civilians.
Also the use of whipping , plundering tribes and deliberately inducing hunger through the destruction of food and grinding mills would also be an issue.
having your children seized by the state with force and not being told where they are, if they're alive or how they're doing would be an issue for most parents, i would think
Not good. Rhodesia is indefensible, even from a chuddy perspective.
It doesn't matter how good black have it. They will always complain and want more free stuff when they see someone richer than them.
>Haiti, Zimbabwe, Detroit, Chicago, South Africa, Atlanta
There must be a connection. I wonder what it is?
hmm...
Atlanta and Chicago are pretty nice
Have you never been to Atlanta?
The country is named after Cecil Rhodes who is a Rothschild asset. "X" named in Rhodes' will is Rothschild. So what was life like for blacks? Exploitation, being controlled by the israeli international money power.
https://info.publicintelligence.net/RhodesLastWill.pdf
The entire international community including Britain boycotted Rhodesia you moron.
You're the idiot here. The British government was fine with Rhodesian independence, but it was on the condition they would allow black majority rule. When Ian Smith refused, they boycotted Rhodesia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_independence_before_majority_rule
So the anon said nothing wrong and you just added the context no one asked for.
What did I say that was wrong?
A paradise compared to what it is now.
It suxjed ass back then. Not saying current Ximbabwe is "good" either. Rhodesia back then was a joke if we are to compare it to the other Anglo settler states.
Wonder why that is
Rhodesian state killed itself to maintain control. 7% of the population cannot provide the skilled labour force of an entire country when most of those in the 7% don't pursue higher skilled education/training in any sufficient amount.
A paradise compared to what it is now. Now quiet you blabbermouth c**t you
>A paradise compared to what it is now
Not really. Poverty is widespread in both bit Zimbabwe actually has a middle class. That and a lot of government services and amenities were expanded by the state. Something Rhodesia did not do.
I told you to shut the frick up
On top of what I said Rhodesia also had the problem if not being up to par with other states like Australia or Canada. Within the realm of education, the first university in Rhodesia was only established in 1952. Until then their only university was going to SA or flying all the way to Britain.
What you mean to say is that Black folk and Black person ghettos in Rhodesia weren't on par with Canadian & Australian whites, what a surprise!
And Rhodesia wasn't colonized until 1888. Australia was colonized starting 1790 thereabouts & Canada even earlier, you know all this you disingenuous piece of shit. Of course Rhodesia was behind, there is no reason to think had the white Rhodesians maintained majority rule they wouldn't of caught up to the rest of the Anglo-sphere.
>And Rhodesia wasn't colonized until 1888. Australia was colonized starting 1790 thereabouts & Canada even earlier, you know all this you disingenuous piece of shit
And yet it took almost 70 years to get one university.
>there is no reason to think had the white Rhodesians maintained majority rule they wouldn't of caught up to the rest of the Anglo-sphere.
Not with those tiny numbers, low educational output, and mass immigration out
Nope Rhodesia as a whole couldn't hold up a candle to the other settler state background states. Why do there when other better options existed.
>Not with those tiny numbers, low educational output, and mass immigration out
Oh and getting it's shitstomoed in by other states in Asia as well as South African holding it by the chain lol.
Well I'm not going to speak with you, your mind is already made up. you haven't had a spiritual awakening with pyschedelics yet and argue for your future murderers. I am more enlightened
>argue for your future murderers.
It's hilarious seeing aiergs think everyone is out to get them lol.
Yes, things got alot better in the 1980s, mostly due to sanctions being lifted. but there was alot of improvement in educational services and infrastructure.
In 1980s, Mugabe left whites alone because he was till trying to consolidate his power. Then in 1990s, he started land grabs, and remaining whites finally bailed.
Heaven on earth. Whites have a tendency to elevate the living standards of all living beings wherever they go, groids before whites were there would have been cannibalising, sacrificing and slaughtering the innocent. We are an angelic race who atleast try to teach all the other humanoids how to be human(white)
how?
by employing them as low skilled labor so whites could live like latifundia plantation owners. the only thing blacks seemed to learn is that whites get all this nice stuff like electricity, cars, big houses, and we get a small one room house that we don't even own if we're lucky.
Boo hoo be thankful you're not a human sacrifice victim
Why be such a bootlicker?
how's life for native Palestinians in Israel?