"...Rhodesia... I don’t want to write about the same subject time after time, as I know that gets boring"
I have a very high boredom threshold for your writing on Rhodesia (I certainly haven't hit it yet). Any time you think you have even a minor new point on that country, I'm very happy to read it, even if it requires repetition of other material, and I hope your other readers think likewise.
I agree with you entirely that Rhodesia is a crucial part of the puzzle if we want to understand that the sides in the Cold War didn't line up in quite the way people imagine, and this, in turn, is crucial to our understanding of how we now find ourselves teetering on the brink of civilizational collapse.
The obvious comparison with Mamdani is the Mayor of London, Sir (!) Sadiq Khan, who has caused immense damage, and is well on the way to ensuring that he has a new electorate that will never fail him.
Even so, the public profile that Khan has promoted is actually much more moderate than Mamdani - Khan is not overtly supportive of Hamas, and doesn't present himself as a socialist. I don't mean that I'm taken in by Khan's carefully constructed persona, but it is noteworthy that Mamdani doesn't even feel the need to do this. Yes, Mamdani has grudgingly walked back some of the points he previously liked to make for the sake of the election, but even that still leaves him far more overtly leftist and Islamist than Khan.
On the other hand, Mamdani has to operate under Trump, whereas Khan has had plain sailing, both under his own Labour Party, and previously under the equally globalist "Conservative" Party.
The level of violence to property and persons in NYC is also still much lower than in the NYC of the 70s and 80s (our host wrote a fine piece on this recently: "When the Radical Left Murdered Dozens and Bombed Thousands in the Name of Communist Revolution") - and we survived that. The mayor for much of the period was Ed Koch, who would have been astounded at the things Mamdani can not only say out loud, but which gain him more votes.
[Will, if you happen to be reading this, there's a new book on the subject of 70s terrorism: "The Revolutionists: The Story of the Extremists Who Hijacked the 1970s", by Jason Burke. The coverage is tilted towards the Middle East and Europe, so it doesn't overlap too much on the ground you covered yourself in your September 12 piece. Burke's CV as a journalist places him firmly within the legacy-media establishment, so I had my doubts. The section made available for free on Amazon is all I've read so far, and although I can tell that he is not a vigorously anti-communist reactionary like your good self (or me), there is nothing obnoxious so far. Burke clearly has a talent for constructing an engaging narrative from the known facts, so on this count alone, the book probably merits reading. If you'd consider this for a review at some point, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts (I don't have professional expertise in the area, but I do have some "uncommon knowledge" concerning the Soviet role). I don't know how your budget works for reviews, but if you have PayPal, I don't mind covering the cost of the book.
Thank you for this useful post. I was observing Rhodesian affairs from Australia in the 1960s and 70s and what you say is totally consistent with my recollections from the time.
Despite the Cold War over those decades, the Soviet and American governments were united in their opposition to Rhodesia.
Tyler Cowen made a total fool of himself in this ridiculous blog post. Ian Smith wasn’t delusional at all. He was pragmatic and realistic. It is folks like Cowen or a hostile, pompous William F. Buckley, Jr. who were the delusional ones. It was the very equality that Cowen whines about here that was forced on Rhodesia by the United States and the United Kingdom that led to its downfall and the nightmare of the Mugabe regime. What Mr. Cowen fails to grasp is that blacks in Rhodesia even if most couldn’t vote, had representation through their tribal chiefs. They were happy with this and the chiefs were supportive of Smith and the white minority government and voted unanimously to support Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the United Kingdom in 1965. Yes, there were some discriminatory laws on the books. But Rhodesia took care of its black citizens. They invested a ton of money in infrastructure for them and gave their tribal chiefs a voice in the government. Most blacks had no problem with the way the government was ran in Rhodesia. It was a small group of urban blacks who had a problem with it. But most blacks would not join them. So they fled the country for communist Zambia and linked up with American radicals in the murderous Black Liberation Army.
ZANU and ZAMU then launched a full on terrorist campaign against the state and all its citizens black and white. They murdered men, women, children, babies, and old people. They beheaded people, burned families alive, raped young girls, attacked churches, schools and hospitals, shot at drivers on the road, blew up government buildings, hacked people to death, tortured people, and intimated moderate blacks from voting. It is unconscionable to me Britain and America supported these terrorist monsters but they did. Rhodesia was a prosperous society where whites and blacks alike enjoyed high living standards, safe streets, clean towns and cities, high quality hospitals, low crime, well-trained security forces, a genteel culture, economic and educational opportunities galore, and massive amounts of food to the point that Rhodesia was called the breadbasket of Africa. The population of the country black and white was patriotic and highly motivated. The prosperity they generated in the dark continent of Africa was unparalleled. It was a Garden of Eden in the middle of otherwise violent, backwards and primitive continent. But the white minority ruled for a reason. It was because they were the ones with the education and the knowledge to do so. Most blacks did not have either of these or property of their own. They also culturally were far behind the whites.
Talented blacks however could rise in Rhodesia and earn the vote if they could show they met these requirements. Meanwhile, the mass of black Rhodesians had their tribal chiefs to advocate on their behalf. So they weren’t excluded from the halls of power. They just interacted with it in a different way than whites did. But outsiders did not understand and badly misunderstood Rhodesia. What Tyler Cowen can’t seem to get through his thick skull is that the very egalitarianism and mass democracy he advocates for is what destroyed Rhodesia in the first place. Universal suffrage or one man, one vote was a disaster because the vote was being given to people who didn’t know what a vote was or how to use it.
Ian Smith was a good man warts and all. He had nothing against and in fact cared deeply about, black Rhodesians. His attitude towards them was paternalistic but he never hated them and genuinely had every regard for their welfare. It does not surprise me at all the Zimbabweans are begging for the return of white minority rule. They and their children could live a good life when the Rhodesian Front ran the show. They live in poverty, misery and despair under ZANU. One of the most shameful things this country ever did was help in the destruction of Rhodesia. Good on Portugal for helping them! Shame on South Africa for betraying them. The capitalist West and the communist East both sought to undo what made Rhodesia so successful in the first place and a relative paradise. Decolonization was h***! Compare Rhodesia to Angola, Mozambique, The Congo, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, The Ivory Coast, Namibia, Zambia, Niger, Mali, and Ethiopia and there’s no comparison! The United States and the United Kingdom should have if anything, embraced Rhodesia as an ally in the war against Communism in Africa.
"...Rhodesia... I don’t want to write about the same subject time after time, as I know that gets boring"
I have a very high boredom threshold for your writing on Rhodesia (I certainly haven't hit it yet). Any time you think you have even a minor new point on that country, I'm very happy to read it, even if it requires repetition of other material, and I hope your other readers think likewise.
I agree with you entirely that Rhodesia is a crucial part of the puzzle if we want to understand that the sides in the Cold War didn't line up in quite the way people imagine, and this, in turn, is crucial to our understanding of how we now find ourselves teetering on the brink of civilizational collapse.
Good to know, thank you!
…and we are watching the same thing happen in NYC, only slower.
Indeed
The obvious comparison with Mamdani is the Mayor of London, Sir (!) Sadiq Khan, who has caused immense damage, and is well on the way to ensuring that he has a new electorate that will never fail him.
Even so, the public profile that Khan has promoted is actually much more moderate than Mamdani - Khan is not overtly supportive of Hamas, and doesn't present himself as a socialist. I don't mean that I'm taken in by Khan's carefully constructed persona, but it is noteworthy that Mamdani doesn't even feel the need to do this. Yes, Mamdani has grudgingly walked back some of the points he previously liked to make for the sake of the election, but even that still leaves him far more overtly leftist and Islamist than Khan.
On the other hand, Mamdani has to operate under Trump, whereas Khan has had plain sailing, both under his own Labour Party, and previously under the equally globalist "Conservative" Party.
The level of violence to property and persons in NYC is also still much lower than in the NYC of the 70s and 80s (our host wrote a fine piece on this recently: "When the Radical Left Murdered Dozens and Bombed Thousands in the Name of Communist Revolution") - and we survived that. The mayor for much of the period was Ed Koch, who would have been astounded at the things Mamdani can not only say out loud, but which gain him more votes.
[Will, if you happen to be reading this, there's a new book on the subject of 70s terrorism: "The Revolutionists: The Story of the Extremists Who Hijacked the 1970s", by Jason Burke. The coverage is tilted towards the Middle East and Europe, so it doesn't overlap too much on the ground you covered yourself in your September 12 piece. Burke's CV as a journalist places him firmly within the legacy-media establishment, so I had my doubts. The section made available for free on Amazon is all I've read so far, and although I can tell that he is not a vigorously anti-communist reactionary like your good self (or me), there is nothing obnoxious so far. Burke clearly has a talent for constructing an engaging narrative from the known facts, so on this count alone, the book probably merits reading. If you'd consider this for a review at some point, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts (I don't have professional expertise in the area, but I do have some "uncommon knowledge" concerning the Soviet role). I don't know how your budget works for reviews, but if you have PayPal, I don't mind covering the cost of the book.
Thank you for this useful post. I was observing Rhodesian affairs from Australia in the 1960s and 70s and what you say is totally consistent with my recollections from the time.
Despite the Cold War over those decades, the Soviet and American governments were united in their opposition to Rhodesia.
Great article. Keep fighting the good fight!
Thank you!
That Tyler Cowen has so large an audience tells you he is not a Truth-Teller; Truth-Tellers are never popular.
Tyler Cowen made a total fool of himself in this ridiculous blog post. Ian Smith wasn’t delusional at all. He was pragmatic and realistic. It is folks like Cowen or a hostile, pompous William F. Buckley, Jr. who were the delusional ones. It was the very equality that Cowen whines about here that was forced on Rhodesia by the United States and the United Kingdom that led to its downfall and the nightmare of the Mugabe regime. What Mr. Cowen fails to grasp is that blacks in Rhodesia even if most couldn’t vote, had representation through their tribal chiefs. They were happy with this and the chiefs were supportive of Smith and the white minority government and voted unanimously to support Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the United Kingdom in 1965. Yes, there were some discriminatory laws on the books. But Rhodesia took care of its black citizens. They invested a ton of money in infrastructure for them and gave their tribal chiefs a voice in the government. Most blacks had no problem with the way the government was ran in Rhodesia. It was a small group of urban blacks who had a problem with it. But most blacks would not join them. So they fled the country for communist Zambia and linked up with American radicals in the murderous Black Liberation Army.
ZANU and ZAMU then launched a full on terrorist campaign against the state and all its citizens black and white. They murdered men, women, children, babies, and old people. They beheaded people, burned families alive, raped young girls, attacked churches, schools and hospitals, shot at drivers on the road, blew up government buildings, hacked people to death, tortured people, and intimated moderate blacks from voting. It is unconscionable to me Britain and America supported these terrorist monsters but they did. Rhodesia was a prosperous society where whites and blacks alike enjoyed high living standards, safe streets, clean towns and cities, high quality hospitals, low crime, well-trained security forces, a genteel culture, economic and educational opportunities galore, and massive amounts of food to the point that Rhodesia was called the breadbasket of Africa. The population of the country black and white was patriotic and highly motivated. The prosperity they generated in the dark continent of Africa was unparalleled. It was a Garden of Eden in the middle of otherwise violent, backwards and primitive continent. But the white minority ruled for a reason. It was because they were the ones with the education and the knowledge to do so. Most blacks did not have either of these or property of their own. They also culturally were far behind the whites.
Talented blacks however could rise in Rhodesia and earn the vote if they could show they met these requirements. Meanwhile, the mass of black Rhodesians had their tribal chiefs to advocate on their behalf. So they weren’t excluded from the halls of power. They just interacted with it in a different way than whites did. But outsiders did not understand and badly misunderstood Rhodesia. What Tyler Cowen can’t seem to get through his thick skull is that the very egalitarianism and mass democracy he advocates for is what destroyed Rhodesia in the first place. Universal suffrage or one man, one vote was a disaster because the vote was being given to people who didn’t know what a vote was or how to use it.
Ian Smith was a good man warts and all. He had nothing against and in fact cared deeply about, black Rhodesians. His attitude towards them was paternalistic but he never hated them and genuinely had every regard for their welfare. It does not surprise me at all the Zimbabweans are begging for the return of white minority rule. They and their children could live a good life when the Rhodesian Front ran the show. They live in poverty, misery and despair under ZANU. One of the most shameful things this country ever did was help in the destruction of Rhodesia. Good on Portugal for helping them! Shame on South Africa for betraying them. The capitalist West and the communist East both sought to undo what made Rhodesia so successful in the first place and a relative paradise. Decolonization was h***! Compare Rhodesia to Angola, Mozambique, The Congo, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, The Ivory Coast, Namibia, Zambia, Niger, Mali, and Ethiopia and there’s no comparison! The United States and the United Kingdom should have if anything, embraced Rhodesia as an ally in the war against Communism in Africa.