Following the Rhodesian Bush war, communists (ZANU, and ZAPU supported by China and Russia), aided with material supplies by Portugal, Denmark, and the Netherlands received full control of Rhodesia, now known as Zimbabwe. At the time, talks were in place to install black majority rule, the question only concerned how the power would transfer. Western powers and Anglican churches favored a slow transition to ensure that communist forces would not abuse minority Ndebele people once the colonial government was absolved. Robert Mugabe, supported by the Catholic Church and the Chinese government was the favored pick because of the role he played in fighting for Zimbabwean independence. Critics of Mugabe cited his instability and historical hatred between the majority Shona people (favored by Mugabe) and the minority Ndebele people.

Once Mugabe came to power he began systematically killing Ndebele people. Around 400,000 people were killed in an attempted genocide (Gukurahundi) following the end of colonial rule. Starvation and famine now plague the country. The country now operates as a tobacco growing colony for China while the people of Zimbabwe starve. Population growth is at all time lows. During 1950 to 1975 the black population more than tripled, but in 1975 to 2000, the black population only doubled. From 1990 to 2001 the population only increased by 30% largely due to starvation. I cannot post photos because they are too horrific to post.

J. Study Relig. vol.27 n.2 Pretoria 2014
For a more detailed explanation of the church-state relations during the liberation struggle see Maxwell (1995:112); Dorman (2001).

I would like to formally go on record as against ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Was there some particular aspect of this that you wanted to discuss?

There was a more moderate Methodist bishop who was a presidential candidate named Abel Muzorewa. I recall the Carter State Department favoring Mugabe, just as some liberal US churches backed communists in Angola. Because communist genocide practitioners were apparently more morally acceptable than mere apartheid.

Yes, Rhodesia and all of her inhabitants were better off under white rule. That the west betrayed Rhodesia in her hour of need will be a never ending stain of shame.

In reply to RebelE Infantry

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Yes, Rhodesia and all of her inhabitants were better off under white rule. That the west betrayed Rhodesia in her hour of need will be a never ending stain of shame.

---

I guess that's philosophical, but it seems like more of a F 16 take.

In reply to Faustus The truth is the truth. Regardless of forum.

Let me bring to R&P- communism is anti-Christ and it's adherents should be marginalized, silenced, and if not converted then eradicated.

In reply to ramblin_ag02 I don't really have anything to discuss. The post is rather self-explanatory and more of an informational. It is very interesting how all of this was in the Journal for the Study of Religion. I don't mind debating the bible, but some things are not open for debate in my opinion.

In reply to RebelE Infantry

RebelE Infantry said:

---

The truth is the truth. Regardless of forum.

Let me bring to R&P- communism is anti-Christ and it's adherents should be marginalized, silenced, and if not converted then eradicated.

---

Lots of religions are "anti-Christ" too. Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, etc., etc.
Should their adherents be marginalized, silenced, and if not converted then eradicated?

i'm getting whiffs of "blacks in america should be thankful their ancestors were slaves"

In reply to RebelE Infantry I don't think that viewing the issue as white versus black rule is a productive one. In reality, I do not think that white rule in Rhodesia was sustainable or always the best for the people of Rhodesia based on the data. But, the real tragedy was that despite the problems with white rule, there was hope that Zimbabwe would emerge as a free nation with a large degree of autonomy and government that would pursue the best interests of the people in Zimbabwe. I think the opposite has occured, where the people of Zimbabwe left colonialism, just to fall right back into colonialism, but with a different master.

In reply to codker92

codker92 said:

---

I don't think that viewing the issue as white versus black rule is a productive one. In reality, I do not think that white rule in Rhodesia was sustainable or always the best for the people of Rhodesia based on the data. But, the real tragedy was that despite the problems with white rule, there was hope that Zimbabwe would emerge as a free nation with a large degree of autonomy and government that would pursue the best interests of the people in Zimbabwe. I think the opposite has occured, where the people of Zimbabwe left colonialism, just to fall right back into colonialism, but with a different master.

---

I agree 100%. Rome "makes a desert and calls it peace". The old colonial empires used to enslave, oppress, and exploit local populations and call it peace. The problems of tribal and ethnic violence existed before the white oppression, and they rose back up afterward. Colonialism was a short term pause that temporarily replaced one evil for another. Let's not pretend that anything about Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is/was good, whether before, during, or after white rule.

Blacks in Zimbabwe are starving and begging white farmers to come back after taking their land.

The entire anti-apartheid, anti-colonial movement in Africa was a Marxist attack to counter the success the US had in Latin America. Look up Joe Slovo (piss be upon him)

Marxism is incompatible with the Gospel, and is the religion of the antichrist. Anyone who attacks Marxism is casting out demons in Christ's name.

In reply to Faustus

Faustus said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Yes, Rhodesia and all of her inhabitants were better off under white rule. That the west betrayed Rhodesia in her hour of need will be a never ending stain of shame.

---

I guess that's philosophical, but it seems like more of a F 16 take.

---

I don't think the people killed via genocide or the people starving over there would debate that point very much. But I would be interested in hearing you philosophically debate how hundreds of thousands dead and starving is better than not dying and not starving. Or we could just ask the people it affected.....oh wait they are dead.

In reply to schmendeler

schmendeler said:

---

i'm getting whiffs of "blacks in america should be thankful their ancestors were slaves"

---

Heck no. Apartheid and Rhodesian rule were both white supremacy personified and therefore sinful: the institutions themselves perpetuated poverty and low wage servitude based on skin color.

But the genocide which followed in Zimbabwe was horrific. Since 1994, some 80,000 plus white South Africans have been murdered by black South Africans, especially targeting rural farms where victims suffer horrendous torture. Zimbabwe is a gangster state and South Africa is following in the same path. Crime is extremely high, taxes are high, parastatal enterprises which ought to be making money are failing because the ANC govt there politicizes everything. And the western cape province has an independence movement underway.

Quote:

---

Let me bring to R&P- communism is anti-Christ and it's adherents should be marginalized, silenced, and if not converted then eradicated.

---

One call for eradication of those with different political views

Quote:

---

Yes, Rhodesia and all of her inhabitants were better off under white rule. That the west betrayed Rhodesia in her hour of need will be a never ending stain of shame.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think the people killed via genocide or the people starving over there would debate that point very much. But I would be interested in hearing you philosophically debate how hundreds of thousands dead and starving is better than not dying and not starving. Or we could just ask the people it affected.....oh wait they are dead.

---

Two defenses of white oppression because "it's not as bad as genocide"

Anyone else playing F16 bingo?

https://mfbc.us/m/ej8djw

In reply to ramblin_ag02 I almost posted a bat signal gif once we started seeing the benefits of white rule proclaimed. I knew it was coming.

In reply to UTExan I guess we will never know what white rule would've done because they are dead and black minorities are dead.

In reply to PacifistAg True. No reason for a bat signal because the whites and black minorities are all dead.

In reply to codker92

codker92 said:

---

True. No reason for a bat signal because the whites and black minorities are all dead.

---

They're all dead? Then who is living in Zimbabwe?!

In reply to PacifistAg How many Ndebele people died in the attempted ethnic cleansing?

it's almost like ethnic cleansing is wrong, and white colonial masters controlling the non-whites with an iron fist while reaping the benefits of a country's natural resources disproportionately is also wrong.

In reply to schmendeler Why did the population growth rate change after white rule ended?

In reply to schmendeler

schmendeler said:

---

it's almost like ethnic cleansing is wrong, and white colonial masters controlling the non-whites with an iron fist while reaping the benefits of a country's natural resources disproportionately is also wrong.

---

Crazy, right?

It is strange that very conservative people will advocate for ruthless, authoritarian government for the sake of protecting minorities in Zimbabwe, but they then fiercely oppose expansion of government power for the sake of protecting minorities in the US

In reply to codker92

codker92 said:

---

How many Ndebele people died in the attempted ethnic cleansing?

---

Probably a lot. It's evil. Also colonization and pillaging a land and ruling based on skin color is also evil. You do realize both sides can be evil, and in fact they often are when it comes to power.

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

It is strange that very conservative people will advocate for ruthless, authoritarian government for the sake of protecting minorities in Zimbabwe, but they then fiercely oppose expansion of government power for the sake of protecting minorities in the US

---

It is only strange because you view conservatism through the weird American lens that calls neoliberalism conservative.

In reply to PacifistAg Why did the black population growth rate slow after white people left?

why is population growth rate important?

In reply to schmendeler Because it is an indicator of wellbeing in developing countries. People who are fed, housed, and protected are able to have children who survive to adult hood and themselves reproduce.

In reply to codker92

codker92 said:

---

Why did the black population growth rate slow after white people left?

---

Is apartheid and racism okay as long as the oppressed reproduce enough?

In reply to schmendeler

schmendeler said:

---

why is population growth rate important?

---

It's troubling that some base their sense of morality on reproduction rates.

In reply to codker92

codker92 said:

---

Because it is an indicator of wellbeing in developing countries. People who are fed, housed, and protected are able to have children who survive to adult hood and themselves reproduce.

---

but why is it an important point to bring up when trying to justify what amounted to a slave state?

"my wife left me (i beat her). now she's living in a ****ty motel and working three jobs. shows her!"

In reply to schmendeler

schmendeler said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Because it is an indicator of wellbeing in developing countries. People who are fed, housed, and protected are able to have children who survive to adult hood and themselves reproduce.

---

but why is it an important point to bring up when trying to justify what amounted to a slave state?

---

Because it was better than the alternative. Which should pretty much be the motto for African Colonialism