rmgill Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 the demographic situation was quite different there, Europeans in Rhodesia being outnumbered 23:1 and in South Africa by 8:1, plus the majority was treated as second class at best, not the way Western Civilization is supposed to work these daysI'll admit though that SA&Rhodesia, along with the DDR & former USSR are perfect examples to argue against rapid democratization with a population which isn't ready for it. Now it's working an a much more ideal way right? If you're not in Robert Mugabe's Tribe you're a second or worse third class citizen.
dpapp2 Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 My sincere apologies for returning to the original topic. 7 dead after Hamas fires on Arafat rally
swerve Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) As noted: the economy functioned, there was respect for rule of law, respect for property rights, ... Actually, there was respect for white property rights. In both South Africa & Rhodesia, non-white property was subject to expropriation (& much of it was expropriated), & property rights were restricted, with explicit discrimination in favour of whites. They didn't introduce that, it was a continuation of colonial practice, but IIRC S. Africa extended it. How do you think all that farmland (including most of the best land) got into white hands? How was it that most of the rural population ended up on a minority of the arable land, & that the poorer part? Interestingly, there was an attempt in Rhodesia in the 1950s, under Garfield Todd, to undo some of the earlier expropriations, but Ian Smith et al put a stop to that. The courts weren't bad in either country (& infinitely superior to Zimbabwes courts now, even though they're still not quite slavishly obedient to Mugabes diktats), but many of the laws they enforced were bad, some of the very bad. You (rightly, IMO) lack respect for many Saudi laws, or Afghan laws under the Taleban. What's with the "respect for rule of law" suddenly becoming good when the laws in question are racial supremacy laws? Edited November 12, 2007 by swerve
swerve Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 Now it's working an a much more ideal way right? If you're not in Robert Mugabe's Tribe you're a second or worse third class citizen. It's not a tribal thing. Well, mostly not - non-Shona get it in the neck even worse, but most of Mugabes tribe are out in the cold. Wife of a friend of mine is one, & half her family, like many others, have left the country, & are supporting their relatives who are still there. Not Mugabe supporters, so members of the looted class. Skilled people, doing pretty well here. Would be good for Zimbabwe if they were allowed to do the same back there.
Xavier Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 Now it's working an a much more ideal way right? If you're not in Robert Mugabe's Tribe you're a second or worse third class citizen. If my last sentence wasn't clear enough, today zimbabwe seems a lot worse place to live in for blacks and whites alike, SA doesn't appear to be too good either for the average black citizen. You could say that the entire population had it better during Apartheid, but that doesn't make Rhodesia or Apartheid SA a good example of a Western Civilization
SALADIN Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 The Greek culture of Libya & Egypt (never a majority in either, but locally a majority in major cities) was subsumed. Moslem Arab culture became dominant in Sicily, Malta, parts of Spain & Portugal (overall Arab minority, but definitely the dominant culture) for centuries, until the reconquest. Moslem Tatars took over formerly European Crimea, until the Russians took it & deported many of them. It's arguable that the culture of Tunisia & coastal Algeria was "European" before the Arab conquest.Sorry, i think i wasn't clear enough.I wanted to talk about a permanent takeover of territory and change of culture in the context of what Cookie Monster said.Asia Minor fits that model. Spain and parts of Russia and the other places were recovered back by the West so i did not include them. You are probably right about North Africa.I am thinking whether even Egypt (which was a Byzantine province) can be counted?.
Jim Martin Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Sorry, i think i wasn't clear enough.I wanted to talk about a permanent takeover of territory and change of culture in the context of what Cookie Monster said.Asia Minor fits that model. Spain and parts of Russia and the other places were recovered back by the West so i did not include them. You are probably right about North Africa.I am thinking whether even Egypt (which was a Byzantine province) can be counted?. A large number of early Christian religious figures came from North Africa/Egypt. St Augustine hailed from N. Africa. The Egyptian Coptic Church was very strong until the Muslim invasions.
swerve Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 A large number of early Christian religious figures came from North Africa/Egypt. St Augustine hailed from N. Africa. The Egyptian Coptic Church was very strong until the Muslim invasions. Yes, indeed - and there's still a substantial Coptic Christian minority in Egypt, especially in the south. Last time I was there I was struck by the number of new churches, & the number of locals openly wearing crucifixes. I've not been to Syria, but I'm told there it has pockets like that, & the censuses show several percent of the population as Christian. Both the Egyptian & Syrian armies took Christian chaplains with them to Saudi Arabia in 1990-91. All of North Africa & the Levant was Christian by 600 AD, but I think we shouldn't assume that made it "European", or we'd have to accept that Ethiopia has had a European culture for the last 1700 years or so, along with small parts of SW India. That's why I focused on the Greek-speaking minority in pre-Muslim Egypt, rather than the Coptic majority. The boundaries of European culture are fuzzy, to say the least. What about Armenia & Georgia?
TheSilentType Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Now it's working an a much more ideal way right? If you're not in Robert Mugabe's Tribe you're a second or worse third class citizen. I don't think that anyone is claiming that Mugabe's regime is an improvement over Rhodesia. That doesn't change the fact that the old system was pretty bad, and wasn't going to survive in the long run. Even with 20/20 hindsight I'm not sure what exactly the West should have done. Maybe if they'd supported the internal settlement & the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia compromise that lasted all of about six months things would have turned out better.
Lambda Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 What's the European culture anyway?Ask a Dane or a Norwegian where he things his version of European culture spans out to.Ask the same to an Italian or an Albanian.And now, ask the same question to a Morrocan, a Turk or a Tunisian, and then ask them how different they feel from the individuals they have met from over the border, i.e. Greeks, Italians or Spaniards.Let us not mix a set of ideals to be defended with a cultural/racial inclination to defend people who look/talk/pray like us.That's for those who will define "European culture" or "Western culture" using a set of moral/social norms that just happen to have been put in use for the longest time in some European/Western countries. My sincere apologies for returning to the original topic. 7 dead after Hamas fires on Arafat rallyTopic? What topic? As said waaay previously, that's the Qods Force and their Hizbollah Redux at work opening a new front on Israel now that Lebanon is a bit less safe. Description of forces is nearly the same, if it is to be given any confidence. Remains to see how they will work in the long run, right now it doesn't look like Lebanon 2006 all over again. The Palestinian opposition has long been notoriously disorganized (less Iranian support?), so I'm not 100% sure these methods will take root on that front.
tanknut Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 Good! This is actually a good thing, the transition from a terrorist group to a proper insurgency. I would much rather have a trained, disciplined Palestinian army fighting mano on mano against the israeli army then a reactionary, ill-discplined, unorganized brutal terrorist group blowing up civilians in dance halls and cafes. If iran and Syria is finally giving them a pair to take on the IDF in proper combat then kudos to them.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now