Talk:Rhodesia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Official" Recognition

I've seen the recent edits by 86.206.46.77, and their reversions. It is true that South Africa and Portugal did not formally endorse Ian Smith's UDI ... > i.e., had those two countries been closely questioned then [I am inclined to guess that] they would have agreed that UDI was an illegal act - or at the very least "unconstitutional": (the same could of course be said about the Declaration made by the United States in 1776). But it could be argued that Portugal and South Africa acknowledged that a country called Rhodesia continued to exist after 1965. Indeed, even Zambia had to do that, and (in a sense) Britain and other countries acknowledged that too. Furthermore, when the "Beira Patrol" was set up by the British Royal Navy, there was an angry exchange between Lisbon and London - with Lisbon claiming that Britain had been violating Portuguese sovereignty. I do not have access to all the documents, but some of them could well have implied a certain amount of sympathy by Portugal for Smith's government. So maybe it is a question of the wording to be used in the main Wiki article. Certainly, we cannot say that Rhodesia (as apart from Southern Rhodesia) was accorded "official recognition" by anybody. But in this context, we could perhaps draw a few interesting comparisons with other cases; e.g. did the USA actually give "official recognition" to Vichy France when they opened an embassy there?--DLMcN (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something about this over the next few days. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of a Republic

I see no citation for the statement: "The Rhodesians hoped that the declaration of a Republic would finally prompt sympathetic states to grant recognition". I am inclined to doubt whether that was ever true.

I do remember, though, that many Whites saw very little point in continuing to acknowledge the Queen as titular Head of Rhodesia - when she was obviously not willing to fulfil that role.--DLMcN (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) ... so - pending possible comments - I will remove the above-mentioned statement. --DLMcN (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the point was more that the declaration of a republic would clarify Rhodesia's status internationally. It is far more complicated than simply saying that there was no point in futilely maintaining that Elizabeth II was Queen of Rhodesia. When UDI happened, as I am sure you know, the government deliberately did so claiming what they believed (and I believe, but that's beside the point) they were entitled to, which was dominion status, like that of Australia, New Zealand and so on. However, this meant that no country could recognise it, as, if you are going by Rhodesian constitutional law, it was still intrinsically linked to Britain through its claimed monarchy, and if you are going by British law it was still a self-governing colony, the government of which had been sacked on UDI. Certainly there was much duplicity concerning this over the first few years of UDI, with Britain claiming it was an internal matter, then calling in the United Nations, and the United Nations imposing nonsensical sanctions against something it claimed did not exist. I remember reading in The Great Betrayal that Salisbury wrote to the United Nations soon after UDI to this effect, saying that either they were having Britain impose sanctions against part of itself – which, clearly, made no sense – or, they were acknowledging Rhodesia's self-government by imposing sanctions, and if this were the case then they would be entitled to a hearing at the UN. Smith writes that "We did not even receive the courtesy of a reply!" (or words to that effect, I can't remember exactly).

Whatever you think, this conundrum made it difficult for any country to even consider recognising Rhodesia during the late 1960s. While Rhodesia was claiming to be a crown dominion, with Britain vehemently refuting this, it was technically an internal matter and it would make no constitutional sense for a third country to intervene formally. After all, Dominions are exclusive to the Commonwealth and created by Britain. It would be one thing to recognise a de facto independent state, but quite another to attempt to tell Britain and the Commonwealth what was or wasn't one of their own Dominions. This, I personally believe, was the main motivation for a republican government. The Rhodesian government (if not the people) believed that declaring a republic, rather than a dominion, would clarify the country's situation to the rest of the world and open the doors for potential recognition. It would make more sense for a third party to recognise a fully independent republican government than one which still appeared to casual foreign eyes to have one foot in London and one in Salisbury.

I quote Ralph Nielson, the RF chairman, quoted by the BBC on the declaration of a republic: "We have cut our ties as to whether or not a republic is going to make all that difference, I sincerely believe it will, particularly in the eyes of the rest of the world. I believe various things are going to flow, improved trade and without a doubt, in time, diplomatic recognition." According to this article published in the Glasgow Evening Times on 22 December 1966, entitled "Republic since last week – Smith": "Mr Smith said he believed Rhodesia would more readily gain international recognition as a republic, and that trade relations with other countries would improve despite mandatory sanctions." There is also this article in the Charleston News and Courier, dated 2 March 1970: "The biggest question on the lips of white men in the street and government officials was whether the United States would keep its Salisbury consulate in operation ... some Rhodesians believed that if the United States continues to be represented in Salisbury, even on a low diplomatic level, it would only be a matter of time before other nations followed with diplomatic recognition." As you are probably aware, the US consulate quietly closed on 17 March 1970. (see here).

So what can we conclude from all this? I think the extant wording in the Wikipedia article is perhaps a bit strong, and should be changed, but I think it cannot be denied that opening the doors for recognition was a motivation. I think that the wording is perhaps a bit off – I think whoever wrote this meant "the Rhodesians" to mean the government, but it does read as if it could mean all of the people. Maybe this is the only change that is needed? I will leave it up to you. I am sorry for the long reply. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough - thanks for providing the necessary citations and the suggestion for rewording, which I've now carried out ... even if it was something of a struggle to persuade my 'reference 5' to respond properly - which I now see is identical to reference 3, but that does not really matter too much.

There was, incidentally, one interesting legal development in the late 1960s (which I added to the Wikipedia item 'Unilateral Declaration of Independence', and which you've probably seen) - regarding the ruling by the Rhodesian High Court that Smith's government had become the de jure one - based on a criterion set out by the 17th century Dutch jurist Grotius.--DLMcN (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly it was Justice Hugh Beadle who was instrumental in that ruling. It is an interesting development, which I think supports my view on the entire affair, but unfortunately the duplicitous West simply refused to recognise the judgement of what it saw as the "rebel" appellate division (an appellate division is non-partial, but since when did the truth interfere with British government policy?). Perhaps that should be added to this article too, as I do think it is important. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Done! ... [also changed the number of ref. 4 > 5 above, due to its [displacement'].--DLMcN (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, well done. Good work! —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

-Just one point: Rhodesia was claiming to be a commonwealth realm; not a dominion. There is a difference.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesia never was a Commonwealth realm however. I will remove the template. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge thoughts

What do folks think about merging History of Rhodesia into Rhodesia. Rhodesia is a historical topic, and it is natural that the full summary of its history would be discussed on the main page, with links out to important subtopics. At Talk:History of Rhodesia, there was a proposal to delete that article in 2008, and there were no objections although no one went forward with the deletion. The two articles have considerable overlapping content and Rhodesia is not too large to absorb the additional content. As others actively maintain this page, I'm not going to formally propose - but from my perspective this would make sense. LaTeeDa (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep them separate, but both articles need to be reworked. I would rename the former article (History of Rhodesia) to something like "History of Rhodesia between 1965 and 1979", myself. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now almost all content in the Rhodesia article seems like a description of Rhodesia history to me. How do you see the articles differing, especially keeping in mind the military history article Rhodesian Bush War?

BTW, similarly, and from my limited perspective, it seems like the Southern Rhodesia and the Colonial history of Southern Rhodesia articles could be merged. I think if we do away with what look like content duplicates, it will be easier to rework and maintain the core articles.LaTeeDa (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This article specifically deals with the unrecognised state formed by UDI. I think that warrants a seperate article.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

LaTeeDa, I think this article should be reorganised to deal more with details about the country rather than its history in great detail. History can go in a "History of Rhodesia between 1965 and 1979" article. That's my take on it, anyway. Same for S. Rhodesia and Colonial history of S. Rhodesia, the latter of which I would ultimately move to "History of Southern Rhodesia between 1923 and 1965". —Cliftonian (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at some other historic states. Some of these also have "History of" articles, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and Roman Empire, for example. It seems like the key distinction is that the 'history of' articles present a chronological account of political and military history, while the main articles provide only a summary of those topics, and also discuss general topics in a non-chronological format. If this is the direction you want to go, I think the Rhodesia article needs to be paired down considerably regarding military and political history, as these are nearly duplicated in History of Rhodesia, the Rhodesian Bush War. The current situation isn't very pleasing or efficient for general readers like myself. The Rhodesia article could especially use more non-political information, like agricultural and industrial production, literature (from Rhodesia, and later, about Rhodesia, and ), etc. Just my two lepta. -LaTeeDa (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right that that's more or less what's needed, yes. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh

My personal view is that the recently added piece from Evelyn Waugh is misleading and unnecessary. However, rather than reverting it, I am content to wait and see what other editors say about it? --DLMcN (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant at all, particularly in the section it was placed in, so I've taken it out. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Cliftonian. It must have been a rather peculiar sample of people that Evelyn Waugh met. It does not sound as if he went to Wankie Game Reserve. He obviously did not see the Nalatale Ruins, or the Bushmen paintings at Domboshawa. And he makes some [stupid and incorrect] sweeping generalizations - e.g. claiming that Rhodesian men go to bed at 9pm - and that the women spend all day drinking tea. --DLMcN (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The inserted text[1] was referenced and is by an extremely notable British figure, so while it may not belong in the article, I don't think it should be reverted (twice), without a real chance for discussion. This is also a new editor - yet these reversions happened without positive communication on his talk page. He may not understand that there is an article talk page here. I'll let him know.

The editor's apparent intent is correct - there should be more about British and other international criticism of Rhodesia as this was prominent at the time, and is notable. The contortions that Rhodesia put British liberals into is also interesting (i.e., supporting military intervention in a colony). Some prominent British liberals and socialists like Christopher Hitchens considered the Rhodesian government a 'white supremacist junta'[2] - and I don't see the prominence of that view communicated in this article. Likewise, a smaller number of segregationist Americans and conservative Brits and others supported Rhodesia. Also, the views from around Africa (in the midst of the African nationalists movement) are also not represented. Didn't, and correct me if I'm wrong, Rhodesia became kind of a cause celebre internationally for those opposed to institutionalized racism at the time, and a stepping stone for the anti apartheid movement in the 1990s? Therefore, the international views are very notable.

The best reason for not including the Waugh quote is that it is intended to be 'over the top' and humorous in its meanness about Rhodesian perceived parochialism, and that subtlety will be hard to explain in the context of the encyclopedia. Waugh was intentionally playing the part of the arrogant aristocrat ho-humming his way through 'lesser' regions. Also, much of the quote is about parochialism, not racism, and that doesn't seem notable to me. Also, this quote may precede UDI - Waugh traveled to Southern Rhodesia in the late 1950's and wrote a travel book about it, and the quote may be from that era. -LaTeeDa (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The quote does precede UDI, as Waugh refers to the Federation as an extant entity, which would date the time of publishing as between 1953 and '63, which fits with the timeframe you describe. It was me who got rid of the Waugh quotation on both occasions. I feel unable to comment on Waugh's status as an "extremely notable" figure, as I had never heard of him. The reason I deleted the Waugh extract is because I honestly don't see what it adds in an encyclopedic context. As you say, he's being deliberately tongue-in-cheek (and I would venture, rather crass) in his descriptions of Rhodesian people, customs and so on. This is understandable in context, but, as DLMcN says above, he clearly did not see the country properly if he thinks it comprises "no wild life, no trees, one ancient monument". Like I said before, I don't see what such a passage adds to a section about Anglo-Rhodesian governmental relations (cultural relations, perhaps, at a stretch)... that's not even getting into the fact that it pre-dates 1965 anyway.

I must say I'm surprised by Hitchens' description of the Rhodesian government in such strong terms, particularly as he appears to get basic facts wrong, or, at the very least, use hugely misleading language (I don't know when winning an election became "seiz[ing] power", a "junta" is by definition military-led, and in any case the RF took over in '62, not '65 as he says, but I digress). That said, you are right that the liberal view should be represented. The African nationalist views should be shown too, though they extended little beyond racially-motivated clamours for revolution, really, the means invariably justified by the purported end result. You are right that Rhodesia was something of a pre-cursor for the anti-apartheid campaigns of the 1980s, though not on such a large scale. See this 1975 article from Harvard Law School, for example, which describes an incident there where a speech by Rhodesian official Kenneth H. Towsey was cancelled because only four people paid to hear it in the midst of a campus-wide boycott, while 60 anti-Rhodesian students picketed outside. I find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind preventing your opponent from speaking if you are so sure he is wrong—seems to sum up the whole Rhodesian affair for me, really—but that's just my opinion. Thanks for your thoughts, I think this discussion is helping our collective ideas. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment 'since when did winning an election become seizing power' - maybe Hitchens, and apparently most of the world, felt that the election was not legitimate because whites were 95% of the voters, in a country where only 1 in 17 Rhodesians was white. Do you disagree that this is the mainstream view of the matter (separate what you think it is correct)? Also, moderates at the time used the phrase 'seize' - here for example is a pretty middle of the road editorial quite critical of the African nationalists that uses the phrase 'seizing independence'. LaTeeDa (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You should keep in the mind the difference here between "seizing power" and "seizing independence". The RF came into government after winning the 1962 election, but only issued UDI in 1965. I would agree that UDI was "seizing independence", but this is a different matter to implying that the party in question got into power by "seizing" it. The mainstream would not have said the RF "seized power" in 1962, as it was the first election held under the new 1961 constitution, which was agreed upon by the Rhodesian and British governments, and initially the black nationalists too (Nkomo and the others soon withdrew their support because they said the changes, including a new secondary voters' roll with lower qualifications, intended to gradually bring blacks into the mainstream electorate, did not go far enough). The RF did not "seize power" by winning this election; the suggestion that they somehow stole the election by arranging the new constitution is fallacious at best, as the RF did not even exist when the new constitution was hammered out the previous year. I agree that the mainstream view at the time was that UDI was illegitimate, but I don't agree that popular opinion at the time would have considered the Rhodesian government pre-UDI as illicit in any way. Post-UDI you find a lot of references to the "Smith régime", but these refer to its perceived illegality following the independence declaration, not the manner of its coming to power in 1962.

Regarding the racial make-up of the electorate, perhaps Hitchens and his contemporaries should have considered the character of the people voting and not voting rather than the colour of their respective skins? There was a qualified franchise system in place, and the vast majority of the people lived in the countryside, happened to be black and didn't qualify to vote. A lot of them had no interest in doing so, being suspicious of this alien exercise, and preferring the traditional tribal structure. The effective line taken by the Rhodesian government in the 1960s was that an individual black citizen either matched the voting qualifications (which were not impossibly high), and thereby joined the electorate, or did not, and remained represented by his tribal chief and headmen. As such, there were two referendums held in 1964 on independence under the 1961 constitution, one of the electorate and one of the chiefs and headmen. The electorate voted 91% in favour, and the chiefs and headmen unanimously backed it at their indaba in Domboshawa.

While I understand what they were trying to do in attempting to cater for both the urbanised and traditional black communities, I don't agree 100% with this policy as it leaves something of a gap for somebody who lives and works in the city but still doesn't quite reach the voting qualifications. I think the RF could have handled this better, on reflection, but what a wonderful thing hindsight is. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Much of this (below) may be relevant - but relocating the necessary references will require effort: >

Yes, it is indeed appropriate to look at reactions to UDI (with assessments and opinions) from other parts of the world. In that regard, we could emphasize the enormous difference between attitudes in Europe/N. America - and those in Russia and China. Unlike 'Western' nations, these communist states were not primarily concerned with the moral rights and wrongs of the issue; instead, they saw it rather as a 'means to an end', an opportunity. By encouraging and facilitating decolonization in Africa, Asia, etc., they decided that they could acquire easy access to the resources and raw materials in those continents (and this is indeed happening right now, particularly with China in Africa!) They were also attracted by the possibility of setting up 'bases' around the world (e.g. the Soviets in Cuba - even if that did not turn out successfully - and Angola).

The Rhodesian government was, of course, well aware of the true motives of the Russians and Chinese, such that Rhodesia regarded itself (justifiably?) as the 'vanguard' in the fight against the forces which were undermining Western Civilization. Ian Smith, in his discussions with Harold Wilson, often tried to mention that point, such that Wilson (in his memoirs) even paid some tribute to Smith by writing that he could not understand how a mere Air Force Flight Lieutenant could have such a profound grasp of world affairs. But unfortunately, Wilson had his own agenda to attend to.

It is perhaps illuminating to contrast the Rhodesian effort with the South African [lack of] one later, where - without digressing into the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of the matter - it could probably be said that the South African Whites 'meekly handed themselves over'. In Rhodesia, on the other hand, every male between 18 and 55 had to serve (at least) part-time in the Armed Forces - and that did indeed make a measurable difference to security. And a lot of women enlisted - on a voluntary basis - for "Cordon & Search" duties, and even as lorry drivers in danger areas. I wonder how Waugh would have assessed all this (including my previous^ paragraph) had he lived on.

But it goes without saying that if ZANU, ZAPU etc. had not enjoyed any Russian and Chinese support, then their task would have been much, much harder. Would they still be unsuccessfully battling now? Who knows? The South African Whites decided that majority rule was unavoidable even when the Soviet Union was in the process of collapsing and abandoning communism.

There is one important point not mentioned by Hitchens > If Wilson had tried in 1965/66 to mount an invasion of Rhodesia, then a fair number of his senior Air Force staff would resisted or refused to cooperate - some of them, even to the extent of resigning. Too many of them remembered, with gratitude, the Rhodesian contribution to the RAF during World War II (indeed, that actually includes a fighter pilot called Ian Smith!) The Royal Navy, on the other hand, [obviously] did not have comparable memories, such that organizing the 'Beira Patrol' was not so problematical. If Wilson had been really determined, though, and had organised maximum effort for a full-scale invasion of Rhodesia (from Zambia), then he probably would have succeeded eventually, although it would have been very difficult and messy. Even so, he must have thought about it, because he is on record as explaining to his African critics that at least two full divisions would have been necessary to carry that out. Perhaps that was an underestimate? --DLMcN (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wilson actually convened a British MOD council, headed by Denis Healey, to consider intervention directly following UDI, and they determined it "impossible", citing various logistical issues, the fear of provoking Rhodesia into pre-emptively attacking Zambia, and "the psychological problems of British troops fighting Rhodesian troops" (alluded to by DLMcN above). In favour of intervention were the Liberal leader Jo Grimond—who apparently forgot that Rhodesia was landlocked, proposing to tackle Rhodesia with an aircraft carrier—and James Callaghan, who was then Wilson's chancellor for the exchequer (see J. R. T. Wood (2008) A matter of weeks rather than months, p. 6). —Cliftonian (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - that^ is probably worth including in the main article? --DLMcN (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It would probably fit well into the "Britain and the UDI" section, with a little copy-editing. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV on Legacy section lead sentence

I tagged this sentence for WP:NPOV. It's been in the article since 2007. OK if we remove it?

"After independence in April 1980, the history of Rhodesians became that of the whites in Zimbabwe." -LaTeeDa (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are good reasons, then remove it - although I confess to being a little puzzled as to why exactly you think it is inappropriate? --DLMcN (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning at Talk:White people in Zimbabwe was that it implies only whites were considered Rhodesian, which is of course not true. As I explained there, it often wasn't that simple, but I still think this reads wrong. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK - fair enough - by all means go ahead and remove (or modify) it. --DLMcN (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

I rewrote the lead to make the most important points obvious in the first few sentences (its relation to Zimbabwe, and its relationship to white rule, especially), and to try to clarify the different political eras. I don't have a great depth of understanding, and it is possible that I stepped on toes regarding this sensitive topic, or otherwise missed the mark. LaTeeDa (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought you did a good job. Well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I made more changes to the first paragraph, adding detail about the transition to zimbabwe. My description regarding motive for Zimbabwe Rhodesia might need additional work. LaTeeDa (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you got the motive for Z-R more or less spot on, essentially. I copy-edited your new additions as before, but I thought they were generally very solid; well done again. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In a three-way discussion in Cliftonian's Talk-File, I suggested replacing: "During an effort to delay immediate transition to indigenous African rule ..." with "After unsuccessful efforts to persuade Britain that [Southern] Rhodesia deserved full independence under its 1961 constitution ..." --DLMcN (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

More discussion on the "Lead"

There has been an extensive three-way discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cliftonian#Rhodesia_Lead [plus another section which followed that] ... if necessary, we could move it all here. I argued in favour of the small change I made today in the main article. --DLMcN (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oligarchy

Somebody is obviously misinterpreting my use of the category "oligarchy" here. Yes, Rhodesia was a republic but so was South Africa under apartheid - a state which is presently classified on this site as an oligarchy. Rhodesia's system concentrated de facto political power in the hands of a small minority (though unlike apartheid, it was nonracial) and so it falls under the definition of "oligarchy". --Katangais (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I would agree with this. South Africa's apartheid system was openly designed to keep power in white hands indefinitely, while Rhodesia's was—at least in theory—intended to gradually transfer power from a small number of qualified voters to a large number of qualified voters. I think it was always intended under both the 1965 and 1969 constitutions that there would be some people outside the electorate because voting qualifications were included in both. The 1969 constitution said that there would eventually be equal "partnership" between Rhodesian blacks and whites when the amount of tax collected from the blacks matched that from the whites, but this never actually came to pass, so this is academic. Parliament remained mostly white throughout the UDI era, which is what this article discusses – as an aside, some would argue that whites played a somewhat oligarchical role in the Zimbabwe Rhodesian system too. In my opinion, the Rhodesian system would indeed be correctly described as an oligarchy, as power was effectively wielded by a small group of people, namely those who were qualified to vote. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that^ does seem logical. --DLMcN (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Afrikaans

I don't know why the title of the country in Afrikaans was included - Afrikaans was never an official language in Rhodesia. It was taught in white schools, and there were many Afrikaners in the country, particularly Enkeldoorn, now Chivhu, and in Ian Smith's government, but it had no official status before or after UDI. Quiensabe (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite right ! ... Good point. By all means take it out. --DLMcN (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish to respectfully point out that Southern Rhodesian (and later post-UDI Rhodesian) passports and official travel documents were printed in both English and Afrikaans, which included the country's official title. --Katangais (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

But I think I am right in saying that French was also included on the opening pages of Rhodesian passports (as indeed it was/is on British and South African passports). And the forms which we all had to fill in when entering Rhodesia, had the text and instructions translated into Portuguese (as well as Afrikaans). --DLMcN (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section - POV re: Gukurahundi?

The section on the Gukurahundi seems carefully pitched to pin all the blame on South Africa and make the Fifth Brigade sound like liberators. Also the casualty estimates differ dramatically from those in the main Gukurahundi article. Furthermore the quotation from Ed Cumming has been cut down from the version of the quote in the source document to make it far more supportive of the POV than it really is. I am not an expert on the subject but some correction seems called for. - Metalello ^talk 05:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The 'impact' of UDI

Katangais - Your sentence: "The years immediately following Rhodesia's UDI saw an unfolding series of economic, military, and political pressures placed on the country which eventually brought about majority rule" is misleading. The "years immediately following" were in fact reasonably prosperous and settled - (I was there at the time!) - Sanctions were admittedly an irritant, but little more. The first serious threat from guerillas was not until 1972 (in the northeast of the country ... when they managed to infiltrate unexpectedly from Mozambique). However, even that was eventually contained effectively, with the help of the construction of Protected Villages. Matters only started to deteriorate (and even then, not straightaway) when Mozambique became independent in 1974-75.

However, at this stage, I am not going to alter the main article. I do not have access to many references and sources, but what I say above is certainly confirmed in Ian Smith's "The Great Betrayal". --DLMcN (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

While I personally consider Smith a very reliable source, his perceived neutrality is inevitably compromised by the fact that he was prime minister at the time. On the other hand, most of what he says (and what you say above) is confirmed by numerous sources. Have a look at Moorcraft, Paul L.; McLaughlin, Peter (2008) [1982]. The Rhodesian War: A Military History. Barnsley: Pen and Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-84415-694-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help), for example: pages 119 through 126 are particularly interesting and pertinent. They confirm what you say. The Rhodesian economy boomed significantly between 1969 and 1974 (when Portugal had its revolution), with economic growth far outstripping Britain's. Much of this followed the declaration of a republic in 1970. See this graph showing Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's GDP growth per year since 1960: information from the World Bank shows an enormous boom during the early 1970s, followed by a contraction later that decade. Hope all this helps, guys. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: Speaking for myself, I do research sources very thoroughly and believe that there is a way to draw from arguably opinionated works without compromising the neutrality of the article. First off, I keep in mind that I am the writer, not the author of the original source, and am free to use whatever facts or figures as can be gleaned without the accompanying baggage - Mr. Smith's memoirs included - much as I'm certain we would all enjoy raving about "Perfidious Albion".

@DLMcN: Regarding "The years immediately following Rhodesia's UDI saw an unfolding series of economic, military, and political pressures placed on the country which eventually brought about majority rule", perhaps I could remove "immediate"? Elsewhere in the article I have already addressed the poor showing of sanctions and Rhodesia's impressive economic performance.

Thanks,

--Katangais (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Economy of Rhodesia

Just wondering what Rhodesia's economy was like. A dedicated section would be nice. 76.120.229.176 (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have a coin from Rhodesia dating from the 1970's!

This article is quite biased from the very beginning and seems to purposely play down the role Cecil Rhodes had in creating and administrating this "unrecognised state". It was actually a very important part of the British Empire which the British government wanted to exercise direct imperial rule over from London. Rhodes was instrumental in preventing that and fought for independent rule and a domestic parliament.

Actually, that information belongs in Southern Rhodesia or one of the other pre-UDI articles. This particular page is intended to focus on Rhodesia's stint as an independent polity. Only brief background information is provided. --Katangais (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

POV on "indigenous" Africans

Hendrik Biebouw claims that all references to "indigenous African" or "indigenous black" with reference to the nonwhite majority populations of Rhodesia and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland are POV. His ostensible claims include suggesting that neither Shona or Matabele are indigenous to Central Africa because they are of "East African" descent. Hendrik has also gone so far as to claim that Afrikaners are indigenous Southern Africans instead, making some whites more 'native' to Zim than the blacks. We've already discussed the same issue on the White Africans of European ancestry and Afrikaner articles before - in both cases, editors have overruled these reckless changes. First off, if we really wish to open this can of worms, nobody is truly indigenous to the Rhodesias. A number of the black tribes - certainly, the Matabele - emigrated during the medieval Bantu movements. The civilisation that built Great Zimbabwe (in some circles still a matter of debate) was obviously there first, and whether it was Shona or not most historians can agree that they were negroid. Bushmen were around far before then, but their population in Central Africa was negligible. By this logic Afrikaners are not indigenous to Southern Africa either, because most of the Afrikaans parent stock landed at the Cape between 1688-onwards...long after the Bantu migrations began. So it's very likely that the Rhodesias were populated by black tribes prior to van Riebeeck's landing.

Afrikaners have lived in RSA for going on four hundred years now. If they want to call themselves indigenous to Africa, they're welcome to it in my book. But we must recognise that there are black Zimbabwean peoples who have lived in their country for over four hundred years and predate Afrikaners. If they want to call themselves indigenous to Zimbabwe, they have every right to. --Katangais (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Troublesome by your skewed preconceptions and definitions. African is not synonymous with indigenous whatsoever. See the list of indigenous African nations by region.

Thus Afrikaners are not indigenous to Southern Africa as they are not the first inhabitant of the region This applies also to the Black Africans undeniably, as you have demonstrated that they are thus not the first inhabitants of the region of the whole Southern Africa, which geographically includes that of Zimbabwe. Thereof, ruling out that they are indigenous to Zimbabwe. However, they are African nevertheless, not because they have been in Southern African for 'hundreds of years' silly, but because they developed their identity, culture and church on African soil. This applies to Black Africans and Afrikaners only. Time is merely a factor. However, where it hold substance is to underpin whom is thus an aboriginal to Southern Africa, Eastern Africa etcerta. If you have followed through on my link on on African indigenous peoples. It thereof, demonstrates that my changes are thus not a point of view. It's a fact, which you can't argue.

However, I might change my tune if we can decide the definition of indigenous. As it is still theoretically contested, it will be hard to come to an agreeable conclusion which can assert a non biased view on pages relating to the wider Southern Africa. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how we're both clearly weighted, I would appreciate if a third party could be introduced to sort it out. Cliftonian? Dodge? Anybody else care to take a line on this? That being said, if black Africans are not indigenous to Southern Africa who built Great Zimbabwe? And as I've stated on a previous occasion, even Bushmen originated from a Hammite intermixture in Somalia. By your logic nobody is truly "indigenous" to this subcontinent. --Katangais (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Historically and geographically yes in regard to the Khoisan, Khoikhoi and Khoi. However, what distinguish their nations from the non indigenous South Africans (like the Anglo and Bantu nations) is that they were the first inhabitants of Southern Africa.

Henceforth the Bantu was second and so on down the latter of colonialism.

Are you suggesting by your logic, and racially confined towards the characteristics of pigmentation or second comers are 'indigenous' rhetoric, the European nations are indigenous to Australia as they emigrated from Great Britain secondly after the collective of Aboriginal nations from the continent of Asia?

It is of up most importance to concede to the factual definition of indigenous being synonymous to autochthonous, aboriginal and first inhabitants of a region. And thus not a continent. Africa as a continent that has radical diverse, rich demo-graphs throughout the continent and thereof, it is very problematic and counterfactual to have a colonial mentality of maligning all nations who share a much darker pigmentation as 'native' irrespective of distinct culture and attributes references.

See Bantu expansion page (a synonym for colonialism).

Your view is colliding with numerous pages throughout Wikipedia. I wish not to argue about a fact, a fact that is stipulated not only in the pages I've cited, but throughout other independent platforms such as the South African History Portal Online.

It states, that Proto-Khoisan-speaking peoples of Southern Africa, whose few modern hunter-forager and linguistic descendants today occupy the arid regions around the Kalahari desert were colonised three times. The Afrikaner, European and Bantu (not necessarily in that structural order).

I'm not asserting my view, however, I'm asserting the non biased view, which does not omit Bantu colonialism, which is frankly represented and depicted in numerous Wikipedia publications from the Bantu expansion page to the list of indigenous African nations by region.

Either I'm at fault and those pages I've cited from Wikipedia, or it is your view of point of what nation is 'indigenous'. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Technically, since people have moved around the world all through history and colonised and settled, no group is really "indigenous" to anywhere if we go all the way back to the dawn of Man. The closest thing we can really get, in my opinion, is the group that has continuously inhabited the area for the longest time. In the case of the region including Rhodesia/Zimbabwe this would be Bushmen. Bantu have lived in the area for about a millennium now if I am not wrong and in my opinion it is justified to call them indigenous to the area too. After all, we consider English people indigenous to England, and the Norman Conquest was also about 1,000 years ago.

We can easily avoid this greatly contentious problem altogether by leaving out the word "indigenous" in the lead and instead referring to "majority" rule. After all, this is what the black nationalist stand was always based around—that the government should be black because most of the people were black, not in itself purely because of who was or wasn't indigenous (though that did play a factor, as I'm sure you both know—the nationalists branded all whites "settlers", for example, and all their property "stolen"). I have changed the relevant part of the lead to say "black majority rule"—I hope this is satisfactory to all concerned and that I have been helpful. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I support. Dankie. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Geen probleem meneer —Cliftonian (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Rhodesia in a historical context

It looks like the historical confusion about this name has spread to Wikipedia. :-)

Currently, this page only concerns itself with a small slice out of the history of Rhodesia. However, there are several historical articles talking about pre-1965 Rhodesia linking to simply Rhodesia, that is to here.

If there is consensus that it is appropriate for "Rhodesia" to link to this specialist page and not for the general article on Rhodesia currently Rhodesia (name), fine.

But then I suggest you use "what links here" to tidy up all the existing links created when Rhodesia was an appropriate link to the pre-1965 usage of the term, such as for WWII articles.

As an example, East African Campaign (World War II) says, under "Opening moves":

On 13 June, early in the morning, three Italian Caproni bombers appeared and bombed the Rhodesian air base at the fort located at Wajir in Kenya.

Just a friendly heads up CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Sentences like "Rhodesian society carried rich cultural varieties that went hand in hand with Rhodesia's prosperity", "They also established a relatively balanced economy, transforming what was once a primary producer dependent on backwoods farming into an industrial giant which spawned a strong manufacturing sector, iron and steel industries, and modern mining ventures. These economic successes owed little to foreign aid" among others, really make me concerned about whether or not this article is written in promotion of its style of society instead of merely reporting upon it. Sabot Cat (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on the line about culture, not so much on the economic one. There's a difference between facts backed up by general consensus in the academic community (and any number of qualified references) and biased opinion. See WP:Fringe. Rhodesia's white community was indeed responsible for the industrial expansion of the early twentieth century - and spent much of their own capital developing it. That's no more POV than say, "Amsterdam's Jewish community played a significant role in opening up Holland to the diamond trade". The metropolitan power had little to do with the actual pace of development in this particular dependency after 1923. It's not nearly the same as implying Rhodesia had "rich cultural values" which somehow propagated her economic successes. --Katangais (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sabot Cat: the sentence about "rich cultural varieties" has been removed for a week. Are there any other parts of the article you have issues with? If so, please provide details so we can discuss them with a view to getting that ugly POV template off the top of the article. It doesn't really help just to leave it there indefinitely. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Mm, I suppose that should be good, as I'm not sure what else can be done. Thanks~ Sabot Cat (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sabot Cat. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Republic of" prefix

I appreciate that on 2 March 1970, the Government in Salisbury declared that the country was a republic. However, I very strongly suspect that the "Republic of" prefix was not added to the country's official name. Unfortunately, I haven't found a copy of the (republican) Constitution of Rhodesia, 1969. That would probaby put the question to bed. However, I note that (i) the 1979 constitution (See scan here) refers at the top of the Statute to "Rhodesia", not "Republic of Rhodesia" and (b) the new state, which was a republic, didn't have a "Republic of" prefix nor is there any reference anywhere to "Republic of". I put this out there for consideration. Anegada (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

According to Harold Nelson's Southern Rhodesia: A Country Study, and the subsequent Zimbabwe: A Country Study, the "Republic of" prefix was adopted. --Katangais (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to say that while I can find many references in sundry reliable sources to the "Republic of Rhodesia" (the "R" in republic capitalised), I have yet to find anything explicitly saying "Rhodesia adopted the name Republic of Rhodesia". I think a look at the actual constitution may be necessary to put this to bed for good. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If we could produce a copy of the 1969 constitution for review that would almost certainly do it. For reference, it is identified by the Zimbabwean parliament as Act No. 54 of 1969. --Katangais (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Areed that finding a copy of the 1969 constitution is the only way we will know. Frankly, that some sources may refer to "Republic of Rhodesia" doesn't surprise me. It is quite possible that not much thought may have gone into those. For example, when Ireland became a republic, it didn't change its name but a British Act of Parliament was adopted erroneously stating that it had. Tonnes of sourecs would similary state that its name is the "Republic of Ireland" but it isn't. For the reasons I've mentioned, I very much doubt Rhodesia ever took the pre-fix "Republic of". In addition, the Sailsbury government wasn't republican by nature. Their political instincts were royalist. I doubt that they wanted to emphasise the republican status in the name. But, in any event, it's speculation until we have a copy of the Constitution. I stil can't find it. Anegada (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps for the meantime we can change the infobox to simply "Rhodesia", and the first line to "also known as the Republic of Rhodesia from 1970 to 1979", since the fact remains that this name was and is commonly used. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. Anegada (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why no list of casualties, as in other wars?

I was looking for a list of casualties, at least for the Bush War section, including how many total White civilians, White women, and White children were maimed and killed. Casualties are important to the discussion of any war. Starhistory22 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bush War article is at Rhodesian Bush War. I'm somewhat concerned that you only seem to care about white civilians, women and children. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

clarification of removal

To clarify, the parts that I removed were removed because the only mentions of economy or standards of living in the article are literaly citations of Smith's own thoughts from his memoirs. They're absolutely not something that's useful in an encyclopedia. Maybe in an article about his memoirs, but not on an article about Rhodesia or about its economy. We have actual economic data and conclusions made by economists that we can use to base the article on. Not some former prime minister's vague statements that conflict with data. 78.0.236.124 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with the removal of the information here; however, there are some contributors who would contest the abovementioned logic. To that I say other, more dependable sources exist. Rhodesia's economic performance under sanctions is by no means a topic without significant academic coverage. Using a statement by Smith to make those claims is not setting a good precedent for the article and neither is the pointy sentence in the same paragraph which denotes a gap between "European" and "African", as opposed to white and black Rhodesians. --Katangais (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can use the sources for similar claims from the Ian Smith and Rhodesian UDI articles. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Pop Culture section? E.g., Dylann Roof

I wonder if this page needs a pop culture section -- for better or worse, Dylann Roof's Charleston church massacre propelled Rhodesia and its history into the mainstream, at least in America. He was known to wear a patch of Rhodesia on his jacket, a fact given much attention in the media. Roof's association with Rhodesia is part of the country's legacy -- many, including myself, where unaware of Rhodesia prior to the Roof revelations. Beyond his actions, I'm sure there are films, etc. that are set in or have to do with Rhodesia. Joeletaylor (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that we're talking about an America-centric viewpoint. US society isn't particularly relevant to Rhodesia or its history and vice versa, so the fact that a spree killer was once photographed hunting with a Rhodesian flag patch sewn onto his jacket means absolutely nothing - it's not relevant to America in general, and it's only relevant to Rhodesia from the viewpoint of a certain media cliche in one country (the US). That hardly meets Wikipedia's notability guideline.

Rhodesia was a very big deal back in the 1970s when it was still a country, and certainly significant enough to receive attention from the American mainstream (though like most other African affairs not nearly as much as Southeast Asia or the Middle East). You're obviously from a much more recent generation which has simply been exposed to a chronologically different mainstream. Hence, Rhodesia seems much more significant and new to the US periphery from where you're standing, when in fact it isn't. The hype about Roof's shooting doesn't come anywhere near the amount of media attention given the Smith government when it was still around, especially from a specific scope of 1970s US semi pulp fiction which romanitised Southern African bush wars. You and I just weren't old enough to appreciate it! --Katangais (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Per Katangais. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Two flags in the infobox

Wikipedia has generally dictated that the flag in the infobox should be the most contemporary flag of the state, whether in its present form (for a country that still exists) or the one that was present when it was disestablished (for a former country). Basic examples include South Africa, the Confederate States of America, Burma, etc.

We don't need the two separate flags in Rhodesia's infobox, either. Since Zimbabwe Rhodesia is covered in a separate article, this one should display the last flag to be flown in pre-1978 Rhodesia - the green tricolour. --Katangais (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Putting both flags in the box is unnecessary. The sky blue ensign is notable however as the flag under which UDI was made, and so should probably be shown further down somewhere. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Society Section

ive removed it pending any real reason to keep it, seems to void npov and is pretty useless, its a journal entry with little other sources or verification and a statement that things were better for blacks with a rhodesian state tv program as a source.

65.126.111.194 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rhodesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090531063909/http://www.aliciapatterson.org:80/APF001975/Wright/Wright12/Wright12.html to http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001975/Wright/Wright12/Wright12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

-ise -ize

Not sure where the idea comes from that South African English uses -ise spellings. What is the source, please? During my 30 years as a writer in South Africa, -z endings were the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollystolly (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bolly, sorry for the late response - I was taking the time to request feedback from some of the other editors who have worked on this article in the past. The general consensus seems to be that while "ize" is increasingly common in Saffie English, the standard form remains "ise". A South African style guide (p. 160) from 1996 seems to acknowledge both "ize" and "ise", but states very explicitly that when in doubt the latter suffix is the safest option. This source states that South African, Indian, and Australian form is "ise". Then there's also The Grammarist, which responds to an inquiry in the comment section by noting the preponderance of "organise" over "organize" in RSA, among several other countries.

At this point I'd hazard a guess that it's entirely possible for you to have worked with a South African publisher or readership for three decades without noticing the difference. Due to the increasing frequency of American text editors and spellcheckers, as one Saffie contributor informed me, "ize" has become more and more common. My first source also implies on p. 324 that some publishers are willing to accept the "ize". However, as long as "ise" is what continues to be taught in schools down there as standard form, that's generally what Wikipedia observes.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Katangais for what I judge to be a speedy response!

I worked for (among others) the National Institute for Metallurgy (now Mintek) as their science writer and edited Anglo American’s huge manuals on procedures, and -z endings were the rule.

The problem I have with Wikipedia is that many Sefrican pages use z endings consistently while many others use z and s endings together. Here’s a list of just some of them

South African Republic: naturalisation

Orange Free State: recognise stigmatised

Witwatersrand: photosynthesising oxidizable oxidizes realization

Kaapvaal Craton: stabilised stabilisation mineralisation characterized hypothesized characterized

Second Boer War: mobilisation militarisation organisation civilization summarized characterized reorganized

Cape Coloureds: marginalised

Scouts South Africa: Organized finalised recognised

Transkei: unrecognised

South African Communist Party: organizational organise recognised

Dutch Cape Colony: nationalized organisation

South African Airforce: familiarize

Rhodes University: Organization

Sharpeville Massacre: organizations

Pass laws: urbanization organized

Robert Sobuke: organizations hospitalised

Koos de la Rey: realized sympathizers

Lichtenberg, North West: fertilizer

Voortrekkers: emphasized criticized

Zulu Kingdom: centralised recognised organized

Shaka: organization characterization standardization summarizes organized recognised ritualised

KwaZulu-Natal: symbolizes recognised organisation

Newcastle, KwaZulu-Natal: organizations decentralized authorized

South African Rugby Union (SACOS): organized

South African Rugby Board: organized

Currie Cup: organise

Franschhoek: utilising

Afrikaans: visualise emphasizes grammaticalized realized recognised uncivilised de-politicised theorised characterised capitalised centralised

In short, I feel we should stick to the Wikipedia standard and use z. Otherwise there is a precedent for other entries to use national versions of English, and surely that means more than just the use of z endings? Certainly, I don’t want to spend time editing the above and other Sefrican pages if my edits are all going to be reverted. Also, unless we put a note at the start of each page, readers will not know why we are using -ise endings. We can't expect the average reader to click through to the talk page.

Hope you understand my feelings. Thanks again

Bollystolly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollystolly (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Bolly. The policy has typically been to use national varieties of English per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English; hence there is no official Wikipedia standard use of "ize". Certainly, "ise" remains the standard for articles pertaining to the UK and most of the Commonwealth. The reason we have so many Saffie articles with the opposite spelling of "ize" is, I suspect, due to Wikipedia's preponderance of American editors and the use of US spellcheckers in RSA itself. Multiple varying suffixes on the same article are incorrect, and are due to the fact that the article in question has been edited by so many different people.

We have been trying to get a "use Saffie English" note into the editing window of the articles themselves, but so far it's been implemented in only a few. I just requested that the same be done for this article, so that should be fixed by the end of today.

With regards to your last point: no-one wants to waste any editor's valuable time and contributions, so here's what I'd recommend in the future: check the talk page just in case there's a regional English tag up, and then use a bot. Wikipedia bots will utilise a script to automatically detect all certain words or character combinations in the article, and change them. That way you don't have to make manual corrections for something this tedious. Normally we don't allow fully automated spelling bots for precisely the reason we're discussing: legitimate regional variations. However, you can make a manually assisted bot that only makes an edit when you tell it to (an alternative is to copy and paste the entire article text into a program like Microsoft Word, then auto-correct all the suffixes, and paste it back).

There's no need for you to peruse each individual paragraph in the article trying to fix it in case your edit is later reverted/superseded, etc. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Background section

The Background section is not neutral point of view. Rather than an NPOV and accurate description of the pre-UDI Rhodesia, it is an attempt to glorify the administration at this time. For example, it describes it as a "unique state which reflected its multiracial character". It was "multiracial" only in the obvious sense that it literally had people of multiple races, but the state did not respect people of non-white races in any meaningful sense. Similarly, it says "White residents, meanwhile, provided most of the colony's administrative [...] skills". They "provided" the administration in that the white administration (government) sought to retain power (hence, the UDI) and prevent democratic rule.

Key parts also make vague unquantifiable claims dependent on a single source of questionable reliability: http://www.countriesquest.com/africa/zimbabwe/history/settler_colony.htm ("owed little to foreign aid", "well-organised and praised for their efficiency"). Mattflaschen - Talk 05:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This topic has been broached before, and I'll give the same response I did there: that section isn't an attempt to glorify or vindicate the Southern Rhodesian administration because those facts are proportionately accurate and presented in an apolitical manner. White Southern Rhodesians provided most of the country's skillset prior to World War II and the early 20th century boom in the colony was largely a result of their capital, since it was resident whites as opposed to the British government who invested heavily in industrialisation. Saying these people played a significant role in opening up Southern Rhodesia to industry is no more POV than say, "Amsterdam's Jewish community played a significant role in opening up Holland to the diamond trade". The metropolitan power had little to do with the actual pace of development in this particular dependency after the 1923 referendum. It's not nearly the same as implying white Rhodesians were somehow superior due to their cultural values or colour.

Keep in mind that the paragraph you criticised was discussing the situation in purely economic terms irrespective of who was in charge or what the politics of the day were. "Administrative skill" clearly refers to managerial positions in industry not political careers.

As for being a multiracial state, yes it certainly was, to what degree being a matter of continuing dispute. There were black MPs in the Rhodesian parliament. The fact that you consider this representation meaningless does not make it any less multiracial. --Katangais (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No page about Rhodesia edited by rhodesians is going to be NPOV. By the way, even though the country was 95% Black African at least, there were always more white voters than Black African voters. Anyone who skips over that is disingenuous. MrSativa (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody here that I'm aware of is denying that. Incidentally, I'm also not aware of any ex-Rhodesians editing this article or contributing here. Is there an issue to discuss concerning specific content in the article? --Katangais (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Addition of "bad material"

Howzit all,

This concerns the latest iteration of the page, as revised by User:ComicsAreJustAllRight. I have objected to a number of the changes, specifically removal of a section concerning Gukurahundi as "a conspiracy theory". It has been generally accepted that the campaigns carried out by the CIO, Fifth Brigade, and members of the Police Support Unit in the Midlands in the 1980s resulted in about 20,000 deaths and were a byproduct of the ZIPRA/ZANLA ex-combatant fighting, which also included the 1981 Entumbane Uprising. I think we can all agree it is also no secret that South Africa was involved with the initial surge of ZIPRA dissidence, as documented by Peter Stiff in his books The Secret War and Cry Zimbabwe. This was very generally the opinion in Southern Africa at the time and well researched by journalists such as Brendan Seery, as well as the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe (p.6). Stiff included in his book a number of interviews with former members of South African military intelligence who described Operation Drama, the arming of Super ZAPU militants, in detail. While conducting research for the article "Rhodesian Brushstroke", for instance, I came across multiple references in Stiff's compilation about how Rhodesian uniforms were re-issued to dissidents sent to infiltrate the country from South Africa, which I noted there. There has also been considerable discussion in this regard at the "Gukurahundi" talk page.

User:ComicsAreJustAllRight's attempt to whitewash this piece of history as "nutty conspiracy theories" - to say nothing of his blanket removal of well-cited information pertaining to this, including Stiff's citation, is rather odd considering the article does have a few points which are much more hotly debated by scholars of Zimbabwean and Rhodesian history, but that's not one of them: namely, a) Gukurahundi happened, and thousands of civilians were purged by Mugabe's government, and b) South Africa was involved in the initial phase of dissident activity, which it supported largely through the efforts of ex-members of the Rhodesian security establishment. Due to the vague nature of the pretext given for removing the entire paragraph it is unclear whether the contributor was referring specifically to South African backing of the dissidents being false, or Gukurahundi as a whole. Either way, I think that sort of thinking is WP:Fringe, given the ample amount of evidence and especially considering the mushrooming of recent literary interest on Rhodesian and Zimbabwean history.

Other points to address include the latest revision's removal of what the editor perceives to be "weasel words" - "communist". Communist in itself is not a weasel word, as it merely denoted the political ideology espoused by both Mugabe's ZANU and Nkomo's ZAPU at the time (when Rhodesia was in existence, both Mugabe and Nkomo repeatedly made reference to Marxism as their official ideology). It is important when addressing the topic of the bush war that ZANU and ZAPU considered themselves both African nationalist and Marxist when it came to their politics, while their cause received considerable support from the Southern Rhodesian Communist Party prior to its banning. ZANU-PF - and by extension, ZAPU, chose to abandon Marxism-Leninism as the party ideology only in the 1990s. I object to the labeling of any political ideology, whether it be apartheid or communism, as a "weasel word" when discussing a political party in a political context.

Thirdly, I am very much concerned by edits such as this one where valid information was given, with a source, but instead of merely tweaking the language the actual content was removed as an "opinion". There were final talks in October prior to UDI; that is relevant information. Both sides continued to cite rather irreconcilable opinions - the British wanted immediate majority rule, or at least the immediate commencement of the transition process, Smith's delegation continued to claim these demands were too radical. Certainly, "a formula doomed to failure" could be challenged and removed without affecting the content, but again it's unclear which part of the sentence is contested as "opinion" rather than fact, because all of it was blanked.

Fourthly, the blanket removal of cited information here without a contesting source. The statement that something is not factually accurate cannot be substantiated against sourced data without another source to back it up. The sentence which is now missing from the article goes as follows: "This situation certainly made it very different from other lands which existed under colonial rule, as many Europeans had arrived to make permanent homes, populating the towns as traders or settling to farm the most productive soils...."

Both Northern and Southern Rhodesia were exceptional in this regard. Scott Taylor's source makes ample reference to the fact that European settlers from the British Isles and other colonial dependencies elsewhere were primarily interested in farming or trading in the British South Africa Company's dominion.

One final nitpick: the tag at the top of the editing window was added to this article by an administrator for a reason. South African and British spellings are the rule per the relevant style guide linked there, so the addition of American spellings are generally frowned upon. --Katangais (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"It has been generally accepted ... resulted in about 20,000 deaths" those are weasel words. Generally accepted by whom, and more importantly, based on what? Just because a number is repeated over and over again doesn't give it extra credence. The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe lists 3,750 in it's conclusion. They based their estimate on actual research. Who has done more or better research since then? The number of deaths has become a political football for the MDC. For instance, their Finance Minister Tendai Biti turned the 20,000 into 30,000. The MDC's National Policy Coordinator Eddie Cross turned 30,000 into 80,000. The first time the 20,000 number surfaced was in Joshua Nkomo's diary. MrSativa (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The figure of 3,750 was taken from a much larger report entitled Breaking the Silence, Building True Peace: A Report on the disturbances in Matabeleland and the Midlands, 1980-1988, which I understand was released in 1997. When I was in South Africa I did make a concerted effort to find a full copy of the book, but seeing as how it has been out of print for over a decade and was apparently only published in Zim, was unsuccessful. What we have to work with regrettably, are bits and pieces online, including at the link you helpfully posted. It makes for a very interesting read but my point is what you posted is not the full report.

However, this is my understanding of the situation: the figure of "3,750" is not given in the report as the total civilian death toll between 1980 and 1987 - nowhere in the report does the Commission state that figure is an estimate of such. To claim that's what it represents is deliberately misleading. Rather, it was the number of deaths reported specifically to the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe and its interviewers, who were affiliated with the Bulawayo Legal Project Centre (formerly the Legal Aid Clinic).

Let's put this in perspective. The Commission arrived at this number by interviewing people in two districts: the Tsholotsho area (Matabeleland North) and the Matobo area (Matabeleland South). The figure does not include the deaths that went unreported to the Commission, since nowhere near a majority of people in either of those two provinces were interviewed (to do the math, Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South were both home to well over a million residents, and the Commmission interviewed a grand total of several hundred). It does not include the deaths that occurred outside the Tsholotsho and Matobo districts.

The report specifically states: "In order to try and get a more complete idea of what it was like to be a civilian in a rural area in the 1980s, the Bulawayo Legal Project Centre (BLPC) sent interviewers into two chosen districts to collect more information. It was only possible to reach a few hundred people in this way, and it was only possible to go to these two areas. We know there are thousands of others who suffered and who did not speak to us. We also know that districts such as Lupane, Nkayi, Silobela, Gokwe, Bulilimamangwe, Gwanda, Beitbridge and others also suffered violence in the 1980s. It would have been too expensive and have taken too long to try to speak to everyone. But by choosing one district in each province we hoped to give everyone some idea of how things were in these years." They chose one district apiece in Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South to interview people. That's only two out of thirteen districts, and excludes the Midlands, which was also covered in the report and incidentally, is a much more populous province. The interviews in Matobo were also incomplete, because as the report states, "BLPC also interviewed people in Matobo. However, they did not speak to as many people as they had in Tsholotsho. This was partly because there was not enough time and partly because people were afraid to talk..."

Regarding the cited death toll of between 3,000 to 4,000 people (only 2,000 named victims could be identified and confirmed dead), the report also notes, "These figures are very low compared to what seems to have really happened, but they do give an indication of events, and of which areas suffered." Two paragraphs down, the report reiterates this point for their readers, although you seemed to have missed it: "An effort was made to add up all the information to say how many people we now know to have suffered various offences. The numbers are much lower than what really happened, but they provide a starting point to which future information can add. The full report shows where these figures have come from..."

I would be more inclined to doubt the "20,000" figure if the only people espousing it were Joshua Nkomo, affiliates of his party, and Ian Smith... Smith in fact put the number at 30,000 in his memoirs, so I have a feeling that's were that originated, rather than Tendai Biti. But Genocide Watch agrees with the 20,000 figure, as does the BBC, Radio Netherlands Worldwide, and the Guardian Newspaper also notes that the "20,000" number has been commonly cited. But where did it come from?

I have heard on a prior occasion that the big 20,000 first originated in Nkomo's diary, but here's the truth: it actually originated in the Catholic Commission's report, the same one you cited the 3,750 figure for.

It's like this - the Commission could confirm 3,750 deaths. But elsewhere in the report (in a segment that has not been published online) they estimated a death toll of 20,000.

In short, I've heard your points before. But I've also had good reason to write the things I did. From an encyclopedic point of view, "it has been generally accepted...the campaign... resulted in about 20,000 deaths" was and remains, I believe, a fair comment. --Katangais (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

thames television report on the end of rhodesia from 1979 called Goodbye Rhodesia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3u5CxS3j5M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man74 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ey?

"Resistance" movements seem rather biased, whatever you think the actions of the guerrillas were guerrilla/terrorist war (with the majority of victims being of course Black). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rhodesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531063909/http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001975/Wright/Wright12/Wright12.html to http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001975/Wright/Wright12/Wright12.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118152034/http://riv.co.nz/rnza/tales/subritzky5.htm to http://riv.co.nz/rnza/tales/subritzky5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100911213214/http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001975/Wright/Wright19/Wright19.html to http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001975/Wright/Wright19/Wright19.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418031150/http://www.newsnet.co.zw/index.php?nID=6941 to http://www.newsnet.co.zw/index.php?nID=6941
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510234222/http://www.rhodesianforces.org/Pages/Army/Rhodesia%20-%20a%20study%20in%20military%20incompetence.htm to http://www.rhodesianforces.org/Pages/Army/Rhodesia%20-%20a%20study%20in%20military%20incompetence.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=1296&file=S83-08_FragileDomEnergy.pdf&title=The+Fragility+of+Domestic+Energy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813050154/http://www.zwnews.com/3-Main%20Body.pdf to http://www.zwnews.com/3-Main%20Body.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813050154/http://www.zwnews.com/3-Main%20Body.pdf to http://www.zwnews.com/3-Main%20Body.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Black Nationalism or African Nationalism?

This article refers to ZANU and ZAPU as African and black nationalist on separate occasions, despite the article for African nationalism saying "Not to be confused with black nationalism..." Not to mention only ZANU is listed as African nationalist on their article. I think the term black nationalist [forces] should be replaced with either African nationalist [forces] or insurgent [forces]. Insurgent is my preferred option as it is the only one 100% accurate. ActuallyPalpatine (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there really nothing about the economy of Rhodesia?

--Spafky (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Spafky:This book mentions a bit about Rhodesian economy [3]. Rhodesia is an interesting case as it did well economically despite international sanctions and the Bush War. Gustmeister (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Basic flaw to this article

The UDI government was unrecognised, not Rhodesia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

.

Prince Charles lowering the British flag

Not sure if this is useful but here is the link to the video

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/independence-ceremony-union-jack-flag-lowered-prince-news-footage/685232232 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.198.17 (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Flags

Which flag should illustrate these articles?

United Kingdom	United States	Rhodesia
Older? Flag of Great Britain	Older? Flag of the United States (1777-1795)	Older? Flag of Southern Rhodesia#Rhodesia (1965-1968)
Newer? Flag of the United Kingdom	Newer? Flag of the United States	Newer/Last? Flag of Rhodesia (1968-1979)

It seems odd to me that the original flag, which was used for only three of the fourteen years Rhodesia existed, would get the prominence it now gets as a result of a relatively recent edit. Yes, chronologically it came first, but the flag of Rhodesia is undoubtedly the green and white tricolour with which anyone who is familiar with the history of the country is acquainted, and which is prominent in the flag of Rhodesia article.

Is there a technical way in Mediawiki in which the green and white tricolour can be given greater prominence without negating the correctness and relevance of the older flag? In particular I'm referring to the tooltip that one sees when hovering the mouse pointer over a link to this article -- e.g., Rhodesia.

--Craig (t|c) 21:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I should also note that the green and white tricolour was the only flag of the Republic of Rhodesia, which is really what almost everyone understands to be "Rhodesia".

I've experimented a bit with the template, and intend to adjust it shortly.

--Craig (t|c) 23:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is done. --Craig (t|c) 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Because this keeps getting changed, I have added an HTML comment for those that may think they are "correcting" the article. It reads:

The flags are in the correct order, with the second flag of the Republic of Rhodesia -- that existed for 80% of the existence of "Rhodesia" -- given prominence because the Republic of Rhodesia is really what this article is about, and it was the flag of the country when the country ceased to exist. The other flag, while the "first" flag, was almost unknown outside of Rhodesia (and the UK) and it makes no sense to give it prominence over the flag of the Republic of Rhodesia. To make an analogy, it would be like making the flag in the article on the United Kingdom the flag of Great Britain of 1606/1707 (without St. Patrick's Cross), or the flag of the United States article the old Betsy Ross flag with thirteen stars in a circle. If you disagree with this, please take it to the talk page where this can be discussed, and where there is already a section addressing it.

--Craig (t|c) 00:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Going back to my original post in this section, I expressed surprise when the old flag appeared in the article. I stand to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any other country's article that features multiple flags in the infobox. If there is such an article, the appearance of multiple flags probably has an explanation. In the articles for the two example countries to which I refer -- the UK and the US -- there are separate articles on the flags of the countries -- "Flag of the United Kingdom" and "Flag of the United States" -- just as there is with "Flag of Rhodesia". Such accompanying articles should be sufficient for additional information for vexillologists.

In fact, I propose that the original/old flag be removed and relegated to the either or both of the "Flag of Southern Rhodesia" and/or "Flag of Rhodesia" articles. Having it featured in the infobox for the article on the country itself does not add understanding, and in fact it only serves to confuse the issue. In fact, the "Flag of Rhodesia" article already addresses the issue of the older flag in its lead paragraph, so I just don't see the point in keeping both.

I do see two possibilities whereby the old flag keeps taking precedence over the newer flag that existed for most of the existence of Rhodesia, and existed at its conclusion:

• Technological/orderliness: Perhaps some editors see the two flags and assume that they should be shown in chronological order. I see the sense in this, but as I said in my original post, Mediawiki then displays the first flag in the tootip that one sees when hovering the mouse pointer over a link to this article -- e.g., Rhodesia.

• Political: I'm not even going to try and tackle this in any detail. Rhodesia was a controversial country, and its idea remains so. That there are or could be political reasons for giving the old flag prominence is not beyond the realm of possibility.

As I said before, I an not against the old/original flag receiving some prominence, but not more prominence than the green-and-white tricolour, for the reasons I have stated. If someone knows a technical way in which this can be achieved, I'm all ears. Until then, or until there is agreement to remove the original flag, maybe the HTML comment I inserted will do the trick.

--Craig (t|c) 03:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone seems to have decided this question by reverting the article back to having just the green tricolour, as the article was before someone else added the Southern Rhodesian flag. As I said at the start, I had no problem with including the Southern Rhodesian flag; I just had an issue with it getting more prominence than the green tricolour for all the reasons stated above. However, neither Havsjö nor anyone else has weighed in on this conversation, so I suppose we'll just leave it now. --Craig (t|c) 08:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "black"

Hi @Thorpewilliam: could you help me understand the reversion of my edit? It seems the reasoning you put in your edit summary supports the exact opposite of the edit you made, and indeed goes against a previous edit you made that I fixed the whole article to align with. Thanks Volteer1 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Volteer1:, it seems the consensus was against the capitalisation. It also points out that much of the discussion concerns US-specific topics, which this isn't. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: Well, yes, which is why both you and I uncapitalised them, so it doesn't make much sense for you to capitalise them again. Volteer1 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: It appears we are confused. Check the edit summary. I uncapitalised them, didn't I? thorpewilliam (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No... you did the opposite Volteer1 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: My apologies! Fixed. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)