A Discourse on Rhodesia

[abcdavid01]

http://foseti.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/ ... ian-smith/

Here, for example, is a Times story on the fight against malaria. Often, as with politicians, journalists speak the truth in a fit of absent-mindedness, when their real concern is something else.

If you read the story, you might notice the same astounding graf that I did:

"And the world changed. Before the 1960s, colonial governments and companies fought malaria because their officials often lived in remote outposts like Nigeria’s hill stations and Vietnam’s Marble Mountains. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care."

Let’s focus on that last sentence. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care.

I often find it useful to imagine that I’m an alien from the planet Jupiter. If I read this sentence, I would ask: what is this word freedom? What, exactly, does this writer mean by freedom? Especially in the context of civil war, poverty, and corrupt government?

What we see here is that independence movements – which the writer clearly believes are a good thing – led to some very concrete and very, very awful results, in addition to this curious abstraction – freedom. Clearly, whatever freedom means in this particular context, it’s such a great positive that even when you add it to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care, the result still exceeds zero.

Isn’t that strange? Might we not be tempted to revisit this particular piece of arithmetic? But we can’t – because if we postulate that colonial governments and companies (whatever these were), with their absence of freedom, were somehow preferable to independence movements, which created this same freedom (the words freedom and independence appear to be synonyms in this context), we are off the progressive reservation.

In fact, not only are we off the progressive reservation, we’re off the conservative reservation. No one believes this. You will not find anyone on Fox News or townhall.com or any but the fringiest of fringe publications claiming that colonialism, with its intrinsic absence of freedom and its strangely effective malaria control (note how the writer implies, without actually saying, that this was only delivered for the selfish purposes of the evil colonial overlords), was in any way superior to postcolonialism, with its freedom, its malaria, its civil war, etc.

I see the West as taking the same path. Obviously it is not so bad that I expect a Robert Mugabe to be America's next President, but the principles are the same. We are witnessing a failure of democracy, a veneration of freedom that appeals to the lowest elements of society.

[lone_yakuza]

.

[Jester]

In China, they had signs that said "no chinese and dogs allowed"... on Chinese land.

Yeah, but in the Bruce Lee movie, those signs were posted by....

...the evil Japanese!!!!



Actually, you and Bruce are both wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huangpu_Park

The first park at this location was established in 1886 with the simple name "Public Garden", the first park in China open to the public. Designed by a Scottish gardener in European style, it included a resting pavilion and a tennis court, aiming at the increasing number of foreigners living in Shanghai ever since the city became an international trade port in the 1840s.

The Public Garden was closed to Chinese people between 1890 and 1928, and according to a popular myth, a sign at the park's gate read No dogs or Chinese allowed. However, there is no evidence that the sign ever existed in this form. Period photographs show a different sign listing ten regulations, the first of which was "The Gardens are reserved for the Foreign Community", the fourth being "Dogs and bicycles are not admitted".[1] In any case, the banning of Chinese from Huangpu Park and other parks in China has remained in Chinese public mind as one of the many moments of humiliation by the Western powers in the 19th and early 20th century.[2] For instance, the legend is manifested in the Bruce Lee film Fist of Fury, where a scene taking place at Huangpu Park gate features a (fictitious) "No dogs and Chinese allowed" sign.

Once again, the lesson is that you have been lied to.

[abcdavid01]

http://foseti.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/ ... ian-smith/

Here, for example, is a Times story on the fight against malaria. Often, as with politicians, journalists speak the truth in a fit of absent-mindedness, when their real concern is something else.

If you read the story, you might notice the same astounding graf that I did:

"And the world changed. Before the 1960s, colonial governments and companies fought malaria because their officials often lived in remote outposts like Nigeria’s hill stations and Vietnam’s Marble Mountains. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care."

Let’s focus on that last sentence. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care.

I often find it useful to imagine that I’m an alien from the planet Jupiter. If I read this sentence, I would ask: what is this word freedom? What, exactly, does this writer mean by freedom? Especially in the context of civil war, poverty, and corrupt government?

What we see here is that independence movements – which the writer clearly believes are a good thing – led to some very concrete and very, very awful results, in addition to this curious abstraction – freedom. Clearly, whatever freedom means in this particular context, it’s such a great positive that even when you add it to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care, the result still exceeds zero.

Isn’t that strange? Might we not be tempted to revisit this particular piece of arithmetic? But we can’t – because if we postulate that colonial governments and companies (whatever these were), with their absence of freedom, were somehow preferable to independence movements, which created this same freedom (the words freedom and independence appear to be synonyms in this context), we are off the progressive reservation.

In fact, not only are we off the progressive reservation, we’re off the conservative reservation. No one believes this. You will not find anyone on Fox News or townhall.com or any but the fringiest of fringe publications claiming that colonialism, with its intrinsic absence of freedom and its strangely effective malaria control (note how the writer implies, without actually saying, that this was only delivered for the selfish purposes of the evil colonial overlords), was in any way superior to postcolonialism, with its freedom, its malaria, its civil war, etc.

I see the West as taking the same path. Obviously it is not so bad that I expect a Robert Mugabe to be America's next President, but the principles are the same. We are witnessing a failure of democracy, a veneration of freedom that appeals to the lowest elements of society.

That guy does not have his head screwed on straight. Colonial governments may have had "better control of malaria" but at the same time they were allowed to kill natives for fun or oppressed the natives in the ugliest most despicable and dishonorable ways.

In China, they had signs that said "no chinese and dogs allowed"... on Chinese land. If Japan had not adopted western military technology and become an imperialist and strong military power, there would have been signs that said "no nipponjiin and kaiinu (dogs) allowed"

The problem is with colonialism from the very start. You go in, destroy infrastructure and culture and everything, and impose your culture and government, then you leave, OF COURSE THERE IS CHAOS after that! The people no longer remember their original culture and whatever infrastructure they used to have.. is GONE.

Or sometimes the colonial governments would install puppet leaders who listen to their every word, then these puppet leaders become corrupt.

Well I think the point of this article is that Rhodesia wasn't South Africa and there were plans to eventually make it a meritocracy under African rule. Before colonization they didn't have writing or ploughs. They hadn't even invented the wheel. Obviously outright slaughter like the Native Americans isn't the goal here. The story of Rhodesia wasn't Apartheid and the Africans weren't Chinese who had a great history of their own. They didn't even have infrastructure to destroy; they lived in makeshift houses with grass roofs. They didn't have any government, only tribalism. These weren't united tribes either. The world may have seen the Africans of Rhodesia as all the same culture, but they were really tribes who hated each other as shown by the power struggle after independence. This is an argument similar to Singapore where a diverse society can prosper, but it requires less freedom, not more. Lee Kuan Yew influenced Deng Xiaoping as well, so this is even the kind of thinking that lead to the rise of China.

The Native Americans are nearly extinct due to genocide. After the colonization of Rhodesia there was an exponential growth in African population and quality of life.

[lone_yakuza]

.

[Jester]

http://foseti.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/ ... ian-smith/

....Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care."

Let’s focus on that last sentence. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care.

I often find it useful to imagine that I’m an alien from the planet Jupiter. If I read this sentence, I would ask: what is this word freedom? What, exactly, does this writer mean by freedom? Especially in the context of civil war, poverty, and corrupt government?

What we see here is that independence movements – which the writer clearly believes are a good thing – led to some very concrete and very, very awful results....

After the withdrawal from Vietnam, my youthful ambition was to go to Rhodesia and fight for White Civilization against Communist savagery. Later, it was Lebanon. Then at age 19 I got married, and had other battles to fight. Ah, youth.

Re Rhodesia: An old boss of mine had worked there, and told me the people were men of their word, and you could do business on a handshake. No paperwork required.

Re Planet Jupiter: let's give some credit to Lyndon Larouche. An old rich-White-liberal Commie, he had the honesty to take note of exactly this phenomenon, how the supposed friends of the downtrodden actually brought pestilence, graft, rape, torture, doom, etc... and broke off, forming his own progressive movement, striving to evaluate both Leftist and Rightist forces based on who was actually out to help people and build civilization. Sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes neither.

Rhodesia would be a textbook case of neo-imperial destruction.

A lot of other places were better off as colonies. Algeria, Lebanon, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda...

I think an honest man has to look at things as they are, and then develop the theory. Not choose the theory, then ignore inconvenient facts.

It may be that Whites did not really belong in some of these places in the first place. But the neo-Imperial flight (as Yakuza points out actually) was calculated to create chaos and destruction. India is the best-known example, but Iraq is the most recent.

And of course Rhodesia.

[Jester]

In China, they had signs that said "no chinese and dogs allowed"... on Chinese land.

Yeah, but in the Bruce Lee movie, those signs were posted by....

...the evil Japanese!!!!



Actually, you and Bruce are both wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huangpu_Park

The first park at this location was established in 1886 with the simple name "Public Garden", the first park in China open to the public. Designed by a Scottish gardener in European style, it included a resting pavilion and a tennis court, aiming at the increasing number of foreigners living in Shanghai ever since the city became an international trade port in the 1840s.

The Public Garden was closed to Chinese people between 1890 and 1928, and according to a popular myth, a sign at the park's gate read No dogs or Chinese allowed. However, there is no evidence that the sign ever existed in this form. Period photographs show a different sign listing ten regulations, the first of which was "The Gardens are reserved for the Foreign Community", the fourth being "Dogs and bicycles are not admitted".[1] In any case, the banning of Chinese from Huangpu Park and other parks in China has remained in Chinese public mind as one of the many moments of humiliation by the Western powers in the 19th and early 20th century.[2] For instance, the legend is manifested in the Bruce Lee film Fist of Fury, where a scene taking place at Huangpu Park gate features a (fictitious) "No dogs and Chinese allowed" sign.

Once again, the lesson is that you have been lied to.

I highly doubt it, because my grandfather who was int he Japanese Imperial Army and had been to China a few times, did in fact witness the no dogs and no Chinese signs....... and yes many were put up by Japanese while others were put up by foreigners. And I know a few 80 something year old Chinese people from Hong Kong and Guangdong and other parts of SE China who remember that some of the British and other foreign companies/stores/areas did put up "no Chinese and dogs" allowed or remember their parents talking about signs like that.

It's not exactly a stretch considering what the British and other western Europeans used to.. and in some cases still, think about East Asians and Chinese.

The scholar, Fairbanks, from Harvard seems like one of those conservative revisionist historians trying to claim that those signs did not exist simply because of "lack of official record of people seeing the signs." That doesn't mean there were never any signs.... If they have signs that say " no Chinese or dogs allowed" or "no niggers allowed" in the US or sometimes in japan "no gaijin allowed".... then why is it so hard to believe that there were "no Chinese and dogs" allowed signs?

Also what exactly is the difference between "reserved for the foreign community" and "no chinese" lol?

I'll give you the point then. I do believe oral history (unless a group has proven itself to be tribalist liars).

I suspect two Chinese characters "no dogs" and two more, "no Chinese" could have been expressed in English by the more genteel phrase the official historians report. No reason not to believe both.

"No niggers allowed"? Bullshit. I grew up in the South. ONE TIME, in the 1960's in a small rural town, at a wooden gas station, I used a restroom that said "Whites Only". And yes earlier there were accommadations for "White" and "Colored". Niggers? Never saw it. And I grew up in a town once known for Klan activity. Did some of the local boys use the word? Frequently. To someone's face? Never. Except in a fistfight, when name-calling is normal.

It may seem like a small point, but I insist that people have to be viewed as people, not as caricatures in a Hollywood movie.

But back to Shanghai: the point is that foreigners did not emasculate the Chinese by hoarding the park they built for themselves. Anymore than it hurts me for there to be Korean-only or Japanese-only spas and clubs in Thailand and East Asia. It just tells me that they think many Whites are loud and don't know Asian manners - which is, after all, true.

In the liberal mind - yes, I mean you - there is a tendency to lump all evils together. Gang-rape, mass murder, snobbery... But these things are not the same, are they?

[abcdavid01]

[lone_yakuza]

.

[Jester]

I'm talking about pre 1960 pre civil rights era south.

You said there were signs that said "No Niggers Allowed."
There were no such signs in the pre-1960 South.
Not ever.
Your mind is mixing real history with histrionic Jewish-Communist-Hollywood propaganda.

I've also lived in the deep south and I did meet some decent caucasian folk from there, but you can bet that I also met many who would welcome a comeback of jim crow or slavery.

There you go, off the deep end again. NOONE wants slavery back. On the other hand, MOST Whites all over America favor segregation, as do most Asians. You can tell from where they live, and where they spend their time. People dislike being forced to mix with races they view as inferior, or as loud, or as otherwise annoying. Welcome to reality. The only Whites who do not favor segregation are those who who have never lived around large numbers of another race.

The reason they stay quiet now is because the black population is now much bigger, and they have the NAACP as well as many gangs.

Not quite. They stay quiet because Whites are the world's masters at hypocrisy, and they each want to get ahead by looking fashionable and cool and non-racist.

If I'm fighting a white dude I would never call him a whiteboy or cracker or whatever. The point is that name calling with words like nigger or gook or chink or ladyboy or jap is worse because of the historical context and connotation whereas cracker or whiteboy is really more of a reactionary, defensive kind of insult, it doesn't mean "you are a subhuman" it just means "I don't like you cause you don't like me."

I see your point. New information to me, btw. I never looked at it that way - and I can assure you, most Whites don't either. But now let's think - other races can jabber "Cracker", "White trash" etc - and we are just supposed to stammer and deny that we are racists, and try to sing cumbayah? Why do that when you call someone a name in return, and show some spine?

As for Shanghai and southern China:

The first video is pure Illuminati-Commie propaganda. I am not embarrassed by the rickshaw polo. Whites didn't invent rickshaws, Chinese did. Pure selective propaganda.

The second video was also propaganda, but of the good kind. No lies. Just showed positives about Chinese civilization.

But let's be fair. China was a backward society, with no civil rights or freedom, before colonialism.

Opium Wars were disgusting, yes - but guess what - Chinese have been growing, processing and selling heroin for half a century now. That was then, this is now. Besides, I don't need to apologize for what the Anglo-Zionists did to China back then, because I oppose the Anglo-Zionists now. Same families.

(Oh and btw, the Boxers and decrepit Imperial regime, when they retaliated later, committed incredible atrocities against Whites and Chinese Christians. I understand there was provocation, but the response was misdirected and..... very uncivilized.)

Not all White intrusion into China was drug-related. Americans had a sterling record in China, building hospitals and schools.

Not all formal colonialism is necessarily bad, either. While I have no quarrel with Sun Yat-Sen or Chiang Kai-Shek, I also don't see what was so bad about Manchukuo. Life there under the Japanese was probably far better than later under Mao, and China would probably be better off today if the Japanese had kept Manchukuo, at least for a while, and not invaded further.

The Opium Wars were a textbook case of what is wrong with the Anglo-Zionists. I would argue that this is still the paradigm for their approach - how they leech the world's wealth. But this is of more interest to someone like me, who is active politically against the current rulers of the Anglosphere. For an Asian, it is ancient history. It is a couple of genocides ago. Because no crimes committed by Whites in China can compare to what took place under Chinese Communists in the 60's.... and under the Japanese invaders in the 30's in Nanking.

Note that I am not saying Asians have done the worst things ever done in the world. I am saying Asians have done the worst things ever done to other Asians.

[Jester]

Asian Americans are even better than Whites as far as disparate impact. They're wealthier and get better test results.

I propose a special tax on Asian-Americans, to allow them to "give back" to the rest of us who are differently-abled, and do their fair share to reduce the deficit.

It's a matter of basic fairness.