Talk:Ian Smith/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Regime" or "government"

77.101.75.15. When one talks about a change of regime, one is referring to events such as the Glorious Revolution of 1689 or Irish Independence in 1922. It refers to a change in the set of laws and legitimacy of a nation. A change of government happens when personalities change (eg Clinton to Bush in 2001 or Major to Blair in 1997) but without any fundamental change in the rules. Thus one has a Clinton government or a Blair government. In the context of Zimbabwe, people often talk about "the UDI regime" since it began and ended with a change of regime. Does that answer your question?. Bob BScar23625 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ps. It is probably correct to say that there was a Smith government and a Muzorewa government - both of which were associated with the UDI regime. People often talk about the "Mugabe regime" since it started with a change of regime (independence) in 1980, but if there is peaceful change of government in 2008 BBC then it will become more correct to refer to a Mugabe government or Mugabe administration. BScar23625 07:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I asked you a question about this. However, I am afraid I find your explanation rather contradictory.

Whether a polity constitutes a regime or government depends very largely on the perspective of the observer.

Biafrans for example, called their secessionist administration a "government" while Lagos called it a "regime". Equally, while Smith may have referred to his administration as a government London called it a "regime". The key issue here is legitimacy. Smiths "regime" (unlike Mugabes subsequent "govenment") was illegal.

Incidently. Is the Irish government of 1922 an example of "majority rule"?

Best Wishes77.101.75.15 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

77.101.75.15. The terms regime and government are both loosely used by writers - but I think my definitions are those that most students of politics would recognise. The term regime tends to be applied most often to short-lived governments that enter and then exit power through revolutions or coups. The term has therefore taken on undertones of disparagement or disapproval. The UK and US have only experienced regime change on vary rare occasions in their respective histories (1688 and 1776 respectively). Hence UK and US governments are never described as regimes.

Whether or not a government has to be legal in order to be legitimate is open to question. I once read a book about Northern Ireland titled something like "governing without legitimacy". We could debate what constitutes legality and legitimacy in government - but this is not the right forum for that. Bob BScar23625 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Expatriate community

Beneaththelandslide (talk · contribs) has reverted my change of "Rhodesian expatriate community" to "Zimbabwean expatriate community" back to the old, inaccurate wording. There is no 'Austro-Hungarian expatriate community', no 'Soviet expatriate community', and no 'Rhodesian expatriate community'. He says that how they "self-identify" overrides the fact that the nationality Rhodesian does not exist, and therefore cannot comprise a community. Remember that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires the widely-accepted view to be given precedence over minority opinions, and the view that Rhodesia does not exist any more is rather more widely-held than the view it still does. For the time being I have removed the disputed wording altogether, as it is unsourced. Picaroon (t) 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon. On this occasion, Michael has it right. The people concerned are whites who left Rhodesia / Zimbabwe, mostly in the period three years either side of Independence in 1980. They are definitely Rhodies (not 'Zimbos') and generally describe themselves as Rhodesians. There are a lot of Zimbabwean expatriates in SA, but they are generally black and very distinct from the specific group we are considering. Bob BScar23625 11:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Constructive Ideas

1. Firstly this page needs some more cleanup. There is a lot of worthwhile information and quotes. I think it needs some more organizing. I have started that process.
2. Secondly Ian Smith is a very controversial figure - so much so that I think it would be good to have a section on what world opinion thinks about him in retrospect. That way more than one view can be expressed and the article can be neutral and balanced without censoring anyone. Sprew (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Need to Remove POV

Near the end of the article, there is a quotation as follows: "[Smith] made some disastrous political decisions as Prime Minister which directly contributed to the trauma that Zimbabwe is suffering from today."

As I read the article, Smith was only rarely inside the country after he left office. To suggest that he has "direct" responsibility for the actions of Mugabe, who was in control, is defamatory. Either the quote should be removed, or else the article should engage in an even-handed discussion of political and economic conditions in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) after 1980 and in a more thorough analysis of the question of responsibility.

John Paul Parks (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

John Paul. Political biography is best undertaken many years after the event. The full impact of Smithy's premiership and UDI is still being played out. At April 2008 we are at a critical point and I would rate Coltart's quoted comments as being highly authoritative. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. According to this article, Smith spent most of this time after retirement in Zimbabwe. But that's somewhat irrelevant. David Coltart isn't saying that Smith's actions in Zimbabwe after retirement have anything to do with the current situation. What he has stated is that in his opinion, Smith made some disastrous decisions as PM of Rhodesia as it was at the time, decisions which he thought were in the best interest of Rhodesia but which lead to the radicialisation of black nationalists and was one (he never said it was the sole or even the primary) of the direct causes of the creation of Zanu PF and the deplorable situation of Zimbabwe as it is today. Whether you agree with this view is irrelevant (so please don't try and debate it here) but it seems to be a noteable view from a fairly prominent Zimbabwean and so there is probably merit to mention in this article. And no, this article isn't the place to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe, it is simple the article about one person, Ian Smith Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ianjanet.jpg

Image:Ianjanet.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement made by David Coltart is not a fact it is a personal opinion. How can we blame one persons actions that occurred in the past, for events that are happening today. We who are here today are responsible for what happens today. Responsibility? Is the current Black government of Zimbabwe responsible for its own actions today or is the white man Ian Smith responsible for the actions of todays Zimbabwean government? If Ian Smith is responsible for the actions of todays Zimbabwean government then leave this statement up, if not, take it down. Leveni 12 Nov 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.139.96 (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Smith Incumbent Prime Minister of S. Rhodesia, since April 1992?

Shurely Shome Mishtake? I don't know the exact dates for this so i can't edit it but can someone either change this or explain to me how Ian Smith got to become prime minister in 1992 to a state that no longer existed, succeeding a man who left the post in 1964? And how he is still there, as 'incumbent'

How long has this been there?

Its at best misleading, if it is somehow or other technically true. Louboi (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

memoirs

removed a sentence that seem to be trying to skew the intentions of Smith. although ZANU didn't officially adopt marxism until 1977 its top ranking officials did undoubtably have communist roots from the start of the movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

catch phrase

It was after one of the Lancaster House meetings that Ian Smith was asked how things were going and replied.

             "We've agreed.........to differ"

This used to be in the Oxford Book of quotes.AT Kunene (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin luther king

Can someone add in reliable history of rhodesian and ian smith links to martin kuther king assasination. Has link been oroved, or is just circumstantial? James earl ray etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.105.88 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start with this. You're joking, right? —Cliftonian (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Ian Smith in the info box.

My god could anyone of picked a worse photo of Ian Smith in the info box. He has his eyes closed for heavens sake!!! 117.120.18.133 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the only public domain image we've discovered that we can use ... in two years' time his official portrait (from 1964) will become public domain, however, and we'll be able to use it. I agree the one we have now is kind of crappy, frankly, but it's all we've got. If you've got a photo of Smithy that isn't copyrighted, please feel free to contribute it. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A positive look at Smith

On many issues, Smith was right. He rightly saw that the British Government would never express support for his regime and his settlement in Rhodesia because they were always seeking to please the OAU and the Commonwealth. Smith is right to point out, as he does several times in **Bitter Harvest** that the vast majority of Commonweath leaders were soundly undemocratic and represented oppressive dictatorships against the founding principles of the British Commonwealth which sought to spread the practice of parliamentary democracy. Smith could not understand why the British - with good democratic credentials - preferred to support them rather than him on this basis. Here Smith reveals that he was not a realist. No doubt the British government felt more at home with Smith and his regime, but also knew that the African dictatorships were there to stay. Sometimes in politics sound principles - and Smith's were a good deal sounder than the African dictators' - have to give way to (wrong) reality.

Smith's Rhodesia was about separate development - yet not forced separation as in South Africa - and traditions and he accurately saw that handing Rhodesia over to the black population would destroy the way of life the whites (not all of them living in palaces, by the way) had and the customs and ideals which they cherished. He also saw that with no experience the black population would not be able to manage a country successfully as the whites did and pointed to other African dictatorships as evidence. He more than once stated that black majority rule - given the stage of development of the black population - would inevitably act against their own interests. He was right.

Smith was also right when he said that there was no racial stipulation in the Rhodesian constitution. This contrasts sharply with the Apartheid structure of South Africa to 1994. However, it could also be said that the qualifications de facto kept the black population away from the reins of power. Neverthless, he was also right when he said that most Africans had no understanding of the processes and establishment of parliamentary democracy. They were content to remain in tribes governed by their chiefs who held indabas periodically. Smith, however, genuinely saw the black population becoming, albeit very slowly, achieving a greater status in the long term with education and qualifications. The Rhodesian government invested in schools for the black population which the nationalists destroyed. They even murdered many blacks who attended in covert raids on villages - the very nationalists purporting to act in the interests of the black population.

Smith was also correct to say that the black population had the best living standards and quality of life in sub-Saharan Africa. Their lasting friendships toward him are testimony to this and those that brand Smith a racist - which he was not - deserve to be confounded by these.

There was much misinformation, stupidity, ignorance and lack of understanding of the situation of Rhodesia in Britain. Smith obviously saw that the white population had built up the economy from nothing and wanted to draw the blacks in slowly as they became able, not hand it over to them. This may sound patronising, but is a fair point to make. Let us compare Smith's Rhodesia with the situation of the American War of Independence or the foundation of Australia - where the European settlers had truly pushed the respective indigenous Amerindians and Aborigines out. How would it have been to apply International policy of the 1960s towards the United States in the 1790s, i.e. the European settlers should have handed everything over to the indigenous population? Double standards are often to be found in world affairs.

'I told you so' was stated by Smith and rightly. What a mess Zimbabwe has become. It had a flourishing economy, was the bread basket of Sub-Saharan Africa, enjoyed a huge domination of the world's chromium market, etc, etc, and it has all been ruined.

No, Smith was right about most things. He and his principles were sacrificed to the particular political imperatives of the day.

Sic transit gloria Rhodesiae Smithensis — Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis (talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. Ian Smith never actually objected to majority rule in principle, he was simply astute enough to recognise that if you give something to people before they are ready, they will make a mess of it. 1965 was not the time to hand power over to the African "nationalists" such as Nkomo, Mugabe, or Sithole (who had rather badly confused anti-colonialism with radical Marxism) - not while the communists were pulling their strings. Note that in 1970 he announced that he was prepared to accept the Anglo-Rhodesian settlement - which would have delayed majority rule until after the collapse of Soviet aggression worldwide - no later than 1999. The ZANU-PF regime and its proponents have tried to contest this with the blatant lie that Smith only endorsed the settlement because it would have delayed majority rule until 2035, and in the meantime he could have continued raising the voting standards to keep whites in a dominant position. The 1970 agreement, however, specifically provided a means to eliminate racial divisions in politics, terminate discrimination permanently, and barred the government from making any constitutional moves to block African advancement as it came. **Bitter Harvest** (**The Great Betrayal** on my own bookshelf) was accurate in denouncing the so-called Pearce Commission as fraudulent, indeed - outright farcial. Intimidation by agitators and terrorists against blacks were conveniently ignored by the British, as were the fact that a great deal of nonwhites (including Rhodesia's Indian and Coloured communities) stood behind the proposal all the way.

When Smith agreed to majority rule in 1978, he was facing a political and military crisis which seemed nearly hopeless (increased effectiveness of sanctions, an expanded military frontier, unbelievably severe South African diplomatic pressure, the closure of borders and vital trade links with Zambia and Mozambique, respectively). But despite the mounting casualties and increasingly overstretched resources, the Rhodesian security forces were still winning their bush war. After all, they were the best-disciplined fighting force on the continent at the time (1978), surpassing even the SADF, and in Pretoria John Vorster was about to replaced by P.W. Botha, who would have backed Rhodesia's military effort to the hilt (Botha was even willing to deploy ground troops and Mirage jets if ZIPRA or Cubans attempted a conventional invasion). But Mugabe, Vorster, and the "international communist conspiracy" (to quote RBC) showed no signs of letting up - twisting Smithy's arm until he was forced to concede before national television that this looked like the end of everything Rhodesia had been fighting for since independence date.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened otherwise - if Salazar had stayed on another decade, if the coup by white Mozambicans to prevent the FRELIMO take-over had succeeded, if Botha had been in place of Vorster, if the SAP hadn't been withdrawn and ammunition supplies cut, etc. Had Rhodesia survived past 1985 they would have outlasted the Soviet bloc, which was thereafter too precoccupied with its own domestic and foreign policy failures to continue propping up "liberation movements" and Cuban armies in Africa. ZAPU and perhaps ZANU with it would have been finished for good - for all Mugabe's support from Red China he still received much of his armament from Yugoslavia and Warsaw Pact member states. Alas, we can only speculate. 1978 must have seemed a nightmare with no end in sight for a chap like Smith who'd already gone twelve rounds in the ring. --Katangais (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

Mikrobølgeovn (talk · contribs) thinks we should change the picture of Smith in the infobox to the fair use image of him apparently giving two fingers about halfway down the page (see here). I personally think this is inappropriate because of how the image could be construed in such a prominent position on the page, but he thinks it is a superior picture. What do other users think? —Cliftonian (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Demonizing Smith was not what I had in mind when I changed the infobox picture - he was a decent man and a great politician, as well as a victim of international politics. On the contrary, I replaced a picture which I viewed as inconvenient because he blinked when it was taken. In my opinion, the best option would be to find a new picture. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the present image is far from the best because he blinked when it was taken, as you point out. While looking for a new image it should be kept in mind that images created in Rhodesia come under the modern Zimbabwean rules regarding copyright. According to clause 6(3) of the Copyright Act of Zimbabwe, Chapter 26:1, any photograph created in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia lapses into the public domain fifty years after it was first published. This means that right now any locally-taken image of Smith first published before 1963 is public domain and therefore fair game.

Newsday has this official image of Smith and his wife on their website, which would be very handy to create a profile picture of Smith. According to the caption, it was taken in 1963 (when he was deputy prime minister); exactly 50 years ago. Because we don't know the exact date it was taken, however, we can't be sure that it is yet in the public domain.

I have just leafed through my copies of Smith's 1978 biography, The Quiet Man, and his 1997 autobiography, The Great Betrayal, to look for images that might potentially be suitable and in the public domain. In The Quiet Man, all the appropriate images are either too recent and therefore still in copyright, or too old to be particularly relevant (pictures of him as a child, in the university rowing team, in the RAF, etc). In The Great Betrayal, the images are mostly post-1965; the only one of Smith from beforehand shows him as "captain of the first XI, Chaplin High School, 1937".

I'll keep my eye out for a better picture that we might perhaps be able to use. If anybody else comes up with anything in the meantime that would also be great. Thanks and keep well —Cliftonian (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)