Warring, Voting, and Leading


© Carey Goodman
Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic

Think of all the usual allegations that are made as part of a claim that some person or group is racist: "They discriminated!"; "They burned the home and the crops!"; "They have no clue about the true meaning of civil rights!".

This is not a trek into the American south during the 1960s. This is what is happening now in southern Africa and more precisely in Zimbabwe. The situation is almost the opposite of what happened in the American south four decades ago: In Zimbabwe the indigenous (e.g. black) people are torching and scorching the property and land of the white inhabitants. This form of indigenous racialism has persisted for most of the last hundred years.

So where are all the human rights groups? Well, for one thing, they are now too busy complaining that Al-Qaeda detainees in Cuba (e.g. globally sought terrorists) were mistreated by the US. Here is why they should redirect their attention.

Zimbabwe has endured a very troubled racial history since its creation as the colony of Rhodesia. White settlers from South Africa and Europe moved into the area to prospect for precious metals and stones. In the process they provided educational and employment opportunities for the indigenous people.

As Africa emerged from colonialism, the natives became quite restless in Rhodesia. During the 1960s a rebel movement led by Robert Mugabe evolved that offered a rather peculiar mix of Marxist rhetoric and espoused some of the same ideals bantered about by the "Black Power" groups in the US. Nothing short of complete independence of Rhodesia was acceptable to Mr. Mugabe and his allies. The official response to these demands was that independence would be granted when two criteria were satisfied: (1) Order was restored; and (2) A majority of the eligible voters in Rhodesia approved a referendum on independence. These were the same criteria required of all other newly independent countries in Africa who would become members of the British Commonwealth.

Rhodesia and the negotiations with Mr. Mugabe its problems entailed were quite troublesome to Labour and Conservative British governments. Although order was far from restored and the result of the referendum seemed foredrawn and not entirely legitimate, a deal was done in 1980 that allowed the referendum vote to proceed.

Precisely as expected, Mr. Mugabe got his wish and Rhodesia gained independence, but the troubles were not ended. After renaming the country Zimbabwe, Mr. Mugabe commenced a rigorous campaign to obliterate all reminders of the colonial legacy. He introduced a hard line Soviet Marxist government; he nationalized the most important industries; but there was one thing he could not do: Make the minority white population cross the border to South Africa. This minority still perceived Zimbabwe offered vast economic opportunities, and most of them considered Mr. Mugabe a dictator whose time in power would end soon. They lost much of their land; they lost many of their civil rights; but they did not leave because they still believed better times lay ahead.

Go To Page: 1 2


Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo