Rhodesia

It wasn't. Use google.

the problem with google is that it doesnt give the real story, NYT doesnt have the best reputation in determining what real racism actually is. all im going to get are SJW articles and info tailored to self hating white people

Jesus you suck at doing research then.

Rhodesia denied political representation to black citizens.

so why does the gun industry like to show it around all the time? patches, tshirts, etc.

Do you not know how to use the internet?
They were a white colony that stuck it to the commies in the middle of the civil rights movement and despite having no backing they did well.

Google is a search engine, not a source. At best, Google will lead you to a source, but Jow Forums is supposed to be a source. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the thread, don't post at all.

It was no more "white supremacist" than the USA was in 1940.

>spoonfeeding is good and should be done five times a week when this thread gets posted

Attached: IMG_3946.png (595x451, 141K)

doesnt explain why everyone left of hitler thinks theyre racist, apparently they didnt like black people, or something? i have 0 reliable sources that arent sjw newspapers

Google retard or if you're worried about hidden results, duck duck go. I'll be nice and give a very quick rundown. Blacks got uppity about being treated to some extent lessers and wanted to take back their land and with communist backing, attempted revolution. Most of the world did turn it's back on Rhodesia during so except South Africa and I think Israel oddly enough supplying them with arms to fight the communist nigger threat. Unfortunately, the revolution did succeed (at absurd casualty rates by comaprison) leading to the almost literal joke of a country known as Zimbabwe. While I can't say Rhodesias treatment of blacks was amazing, it was far better then what was to come with Zimbabwe turning a once great nation into absolute shit and some Africans where wise enought to know this going as far as to fight for Rhodesia despite their treatment. All it proved while racism sucks for some, communism and actual retards in power sucks for all. As for why Jow Forums loves it? Aesthetic. FALs and short shorts with great music make for one hell of a combo and many really do consider it a tragic tale of an otherwise great country, Jow Forums or not. If you want full details do some research yourself

youtube.com/watch?v=RFimfcIRGj8

Attached: 1547137707479.jpg (236x405, 15K)

Jesus fucking christ you suck at using the easiest search engine in the world.
>they have war with communists
>communists happen to be black
>civil rights movement happening
>white guys shooting black guys on tv
>dey racisss
>support falls while commies keep shipping in supplies and people
>current day zimbabwe eating rats to survive
The end

No it didn't, it denied voting rights to illiterate dipshits. Blacks could still vote and even hold office, you just had to prove that you were educated and a net benefit to society. Sounds like a pretty good system to me.

That's the narrative. It was essentially a bunch of elite white men civilizing the shit out of some puppity jungle niggers.
Some white supremacists (probably) started the memes because of that, and it caught on. You can't call everyone who likes ghat war a white supremacist though, there's more to it than that. It would be like calling all frogposters 1488 HDNW nazis.
There are other elite soldier vs savage wars though, so yeah, it's about the negros.

It was a successful white nation in Africa that held a common belief in that era that blacks were different than whites. Probably just as racist as every other nation at the time.
The only reason why people scream white supremacy is that retarded spurge dylan roof was wearing a rhodie patch when he shot up a church. If that didnt happen msm would not even know Rhodesia existed.

I like Rhodesia because I like the thought of a successful nation in Africa. It makes me sad that post WWII anti colonialism fucked africa so bad.

One taxpayer one vote I believe was the phrase

people cry racist because they call everything racist. white and blacks fought together against communism, but that was actually one of their major downfalls. like many whites, they thought they could bring the blacks up to their level over the years by forcing them to live under their laws and ways of life. but niggers will always be niggers and you cannot change their behavior and thought process no matter how hard you try. if you live with a large amount of blacks in your country, they will eventually turn on you and destroy you.

t. son of Rhodesian parents.

Attached: story of rhodesia.png (732x2251, 399K)

Actually, I believe Jeff Cooper may be a good source for this one. He apparently had some friends there.

They were a nuisance to (((those))) who wanted to make Africa the hellhole it currently is.
Don't believe the traitorous Anglos.

>The only reason why people scream white supremacy is that retarded spurge dylan roof
DOUBT

>be a comfy colony
>one of the most developed with high rates of literacy even among black people
>UN says colonialism is bad cuz racism n sheit
>UK says we no longer want you
>become independent
>blockade
>fuck
>nigs niggering
>btfo them
>still no Rhodesia anymore because jews in UN, USA, UK, URSS don't like progress and just want voids for communism to spread

>implying blacks can into politics

>don't have conversations I don't like!

>Racist
Rhodesia was racist, but if you've ever been to Africa you'd realise why. Even if you're not usually inclined to mean spirited racial prejudice, you soon find yourself having to resist the thought that blacks are irredeemably useless as a people.

Attached: 20120515201821d74.jpg (900x598, 249K)

Wait, it wasn't?

My uncle was in the Rhodesian Grey Scouts, Rhodesia at the time was more about preserving western capitalist culture.
They also didn't want blacks in politics due to how retarded they are.

I hadnt heard anything about rhodesia outside Jow Forums until him.

>My uncle was in the Rhodesian Grey Scouts
No, he wasn't

Alright OP, disregard these fucknuggets and pay attention. You want real knowledge? Start here
>Fireforce by Chris Cocks
Author was a member of the Rhodesian Light Infantry and gives a great account of the war. He did believe in equal representation for blacks and didn't fully agree with Ian Smith's policies, but did his duty and participated in some pretty crazy ops. Excellent resource on how the RLI conducted themselves during the war, particularly Fireforce tactics (common Rhodesian strategy to encircle guerrilla bands with heliborne infantry or paratroopers with light gunship support).
>The Bush War in Rhodesia by Dennis Croukamp
Quintessential book on the Selous Scouts, which the author was a part of since its inception (he was a member of the RLI before that). This guy talks about insane ops behind ZANLA/ZIPRA lines, including some crazy shit in Mozambique. Goes into great detail on how the Selous Scouts went about their business, including their "turned terr" program and how they infiltrated guerrilla units. Must read.

Those are the books I've read so far, this next one I've just started and the ones after that are ones I've heard about.

>The Elite by Barbara Cole
History of the Rhodesian SAS, starting with their roots in the British SAS and their eventual split into Rhodesia's military following UDI. The Rhodie SAS are often overlooked compared to the Selous Scouts, however the former were often doing more conventional operations as compared to the latter.
>A Handful of Hard Men by Hannes Wessels
Haven't read it but I've heard nothing but good things about it, another book on the Rhodesian SAS
>Three Sips of Gin
Another book on the Selous Scouts, heard mostly good things about it however at least one Jow Forumsommando dissed the book as being inaccurate. Haven't read it yet so I have no bearing on it.

Other than that, there's also Bitter Harvest by former Prime Minister Ian Smith, talking about how the country went to shit once ZANU and Robert Mugabe took over.

Attached: fire-force.jpg (999x520, 135K)

Not OP but this has been really helpful lads, I really appreciate all this info

Really nigger

Attached: can-of-worms-saying-cartoon-vector-1978944.jpg (700x1080, 178K)

Because they were fighting for a government that denied blacks representation, education, government jobs and most kinds of government services.

>treated to some extent as lessers
>some extent

You forgot to mention that 90% of all education funding was handed to the white parts of the segregated education system

>why was it racist
Who fucking cares??

Good rundown, haven't seen it thanks.
I can't understand why all these faggots are doing nothing but telling OP to browser search as something like this definitely would not show up.

That image is so factually wrong and biased. Schools were free - except 90% of the budgets went to white sections (they were segregated, another incorrect fact. Segregation was just less severe than apartheid). And affordable health care? Affordable for who? Rhodesia had vast poverty - and despite its supposed wealth, the Zimbabwe of today has three times the gdp per captia. This idea that Rhodesia was prosperous for anyone I have no idea where it comes from - it lacked any significant infrastructure, education or urban housing outside of European areas.

>worked hand in hand with tribal chiefs
Haha. Specifically, they were given 8 assembly seats. With another 6 for blacks. Against 50 white seats.

The idea that backs were behind the Smith government is also ridiculous. Every government has some level of support - even Japanese Manchuria had Chinese troops. But the vast majority of blacks supported the rebels, which was why they had many times more blacks despite the proper pay and benefits of the Rhodesian forces.

And this idea that Smith was waiting for blacks to get educated is patently ridiculously. Rhodesia never put any real, or even proportionate, fiscal spending into black education or infrastructure. Their voting representation, based morally on tax revenue contributions, would be as moral as letting billionaires get a disproportionate number of votes.

I can't find any reliabe about the rebels conscripting at gunpoint, but the Rhodesian government implemented conscription as well.

No its not. It's vague, missing key points, obviously biased and occasionally just factually wrong.

What key points is it missing? Explain how the NYT narrative isn't also obviously biased.

>they thought they could bring the blacks up to their level
They purposefully kept them second class citizens and when given the ultimatum on giving them rights, they doubled down, said "no" and some of their politicians came out as neo-nazis and every single European nation and even a shit ton of South African politicians broke up with them. Rhodesia was a short lived nation built on ego and retardation. And once the locals started rebelling, the politicians robbed their banks and ran back to Europe.

Attached: 1452051630043.jpg (1600x920, 759K)

I no idea what this NYT article is, but this is whataboutism and not logical argument.

First, he might have mentioned Rhodesia did in fact implement segregation. There was in fact a big row, crystallizing the Reps Theater row where there was a stink because it was going to be opened to all races.

Second is that despite Smith saying he wanted blacks to get proportional representation, the Rhodesian government grossly allocated public funds only to whites. White schools got 90% of the education budget despite being a minority. Infrastructure was non existent almost everywhere but European urban areas. And aside from the principle that voting should be based on your fiscal contribution - which was actually the more significant requirement at the time, not education - and what it would mean if we tried to apply it to today's society instead of one man one vote, the whole system is grossly incompatible with any modern idea of democracy.

And probably the most biased and gross error is comparing Rhodesia to the "roaring twenties" and having "good times for whites and blacks ". The GDP per capita of Rhodesia was a third of modern Zimbabwe. And Zimbabwe is really not a well run country.

And I should add that politically, denying most of the people in the country voting rights even if you claim its for a good cause - and when your road map to represention is at best decades long (logically, no existing black adult make could achieve the educational, much less economic, requirements), based on promises of a better economy, it doesn't work. I mean, would you give up your rights to millionaires for a better economy and promises of a better life?

And on the ground, when effectively only whites could vote, like any voter they voted for public money to be spent on themselves, which reflected in how the Rhodesian government spent its money. It would've been political suicide for the white government to allocate the large sums needed or raise taxes to actually do what he promised.

That, and his willingness to militarise so quickly to deal with the rebels, it was clear he was only interested in these promises to try and quell the disturbances from the blacks.

It was

>Wow they committed a racism!
Blacks were kept separate from whites, and blacks and women weren't given the vote.
Blacks weren't oppressed, really, they lived dramatically better lifestyle and their population increased 4 fold. What kind of oppressed peoples would ask for more access to their oppressors?

Compared to America in 2019 or The rest of the world in 1970?

Everybody liked them because they stuck it to the niggers, and everybody else disliked them for the same reason. Jews got mad that they were doing so well and they fucked them over, the end.

Israel supported them until the day they fell though.

They did nothing wrong

>Jews got mad that they were doing so well and they fucked them over
the Israelis supported them until the nation collapsed historylet

RAR Officers Mess

Attached: 2019-01-22.png (927x656, 917K)

Attached: 413043_4397831577894_1733228257_o.jpg (1241x853, 126K)

Corporal N'Duna, RAR regimental mascot

Attached: 10733922_10205057812258926_2649598649537110389_o.jpg (2048x1477, 165K)

Attached: 704291_4396302339664_209035333_o.jpg (1297x829, 139K)

Attached: 11022636_10205057816099022_1548242859590305894_o.jpg (2048x1385, 247K)

Attached: 36525939_10214099003083046_8430135149726793728_o.jpg (1489x1041, 125K)

>Jews got mad

Attached: 0C3FFFED-5720-4800-A3C6-115D950C8512.jpg (303x270, 23K)

|
|>
|3
|

It proves that smaller forces of white men can still wipe thousands upon thousands of Africanoids while taking only a few casualties.

I was making a joke to a friend about doing some contracting work in Africa. I said when I go I am looking for a FAL to buy so I could slot some floppies he said he never heard the saying. So he looked it up and it said it was a racist term used against commies. I mean it is kind of right but the target doesn't exist any more . So my point is fighting commies is now racist so take it with a grain of salt.

Jow Forums really like seeing men in short shorts

Floppy has never been a racist term, it's just a description of how a human reacts to getting shot. It's only been considered a racist phrase since the NYT article last year which is full of factual inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods.

Attached: 1538591251102.jpg (500x396, 53K)

I though the term floppy came from the fact that guerrillas would often lack access to proper equipment being forced to fight in flip-flops rather than combat boots.

That was what I said the article he found said it was a term that referred to a commie leader. I knew what I was saying and another guy sitting there laughed when I said it.

Can you provide sources? Or better yet literature corroborating your statements?

Flip-flops aren't called flip-flops in Southern Africa, usually they are called slops, thongs or just sandals.

Floppy comes from the fact that when a man catches a 7.62 he dies and goes floppy, hence terrs came to be known as floppies as the troopies expected to kill them and make them floppy.

Attached: 1530196422530.jpg (1280x866, 174K)

The people in media are currently changing history and I knew what I was saying when I said it but whatever he read said it was racist.

Not him, but he's a classic lying lefty who can't stand the fact his beloved "liberation hero socialist" turned out to be a blood thirsty tribalist murderer who ruined his country.

rhodesia.me.uk/a-peoples-progress/?fbclid=IwAR03tThuJAa3u-CpdXCuihOQNJ2_uTNZ-cFD2PreMNVQTSlQ1takXXIiuDg

This is what I told the guy I was talking to but what he was reading said it was racist I told him it was wrong. I don't care what the internet said if I do go over to Africa I am slotting floppies with my FAL.

bitchute.com/video/11CRARUuklU/

Not to be an ass. But he specifically compared Rhodesia-Zimbabwe to the Roaring 20's. At which point the govt was universally elected. I want to believe that your interested in factual and historical correctness, but your focus on a particular part of that account as well as your incorrect citation of a provided account is making it difficult to do so. Can you correct your statement and try to explain it again, please?

friendly reminder that the Jews supported Rhodesia

Attached: jews_and_rhodesia.png (443x560, 31K)

As much as I'd like to believe that as well, there's very little on that site that can be seen as unbiased. My point is, people on this board are acting as though racism in the 60's and 70's wasn't normal. It's stupid to deny that it existed not just in Rhodesian, but literally everywhere. China is probably the worst country to date in terms of racial persecution, after all. The problem I have is that sources are cited and can corroborate much of what the pro-Rhodesia persons are claiming in this image. However, their detractors don't have anything cited. If there is valid imfoatipn from a primary source that can explain or elaborate on the point of the detractors, then the truth of the situation in Rhodesia/Rhodesia-Zimbabwe could be gleaned from the middle ground of the two sides of this discussion. Yet it seems impossible.

Attached: john_cusack_say_anything_2_-_photo_courtesy_of_twentieth_century_fox.jpg (600x512, 104K)

Where'd you get these RAR pics? Been trawling around Rhodie threads for years and never seen these.

The shariablue plant here obsessing about comparing Zimbabwe's and Rhodesia's GDP forgets to take into account the fact that, while a segregated society, everyone as a whole, both blacks and whites, had better access to food during the Rhodesian years.

You can't mention militarism without gay.
What's gay in civilian is brotherhood in military.

*You're.

My bad. Spelling/typing correctly on my phone is challenging.

Original plan was to slowly teach and transfer power but then some commie blacks went "gib me da ewriding nao!"
And rhodesia was created.

It has an interesting history, specifically militarily.

It's being cooped by racists however. Fucking sucks.

no it fucking wasnt, 8% of the entire countrys GDP was spent on african education, black education was a massive govt priority

All politics aside it was a really fascinating conflict, as morbid as that sounds. I just finished reading “Africa lost” highly recommended it. Basically a small landlocked and surrounded country under political pressure from the west with extremely limited resources managed to kick the crap out of commie invaders and even took the fight to the enemy on their own ground. Really really heroic stuff went on during this time especially from the selous scouts and the Rhodesian SAS.

You mean Zimbabwe

>point is, people on this board are acting as though racism in the 60's and 70's wasn't normal

My biggest problem with most articles is that they go holocoaster tier racist or not racist at all. Rhodesia had serious race problems but the capitalist government was far superior to the communist one.

I feel as though if given enough time rhodesia would have moved closer to a modern day US when it came to race relations, still skewed towards whites but much better than 40 years prior.

It kinda stuns me that people don't think racism is the norm for most parts of the world today. I think only white nations have to answer for racism when the rest of the world is completely ignored.

Yeah, this is probably the best explanation

Yeah, this is probably the best tl;dr

Also just read the Wikipedia page
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia

There wasn't any state segregated laws in Rhodesia though. Just self segregated, which I'm replying to anyone in this thread who didn't read about Rhodesia.

> modern day US
>still skewed towards whites

Shut the fuck up, retard.

actually they could vote there was just an educational requirement

>vast majority of senate and house are white, vast majority of supreme court is white, president is white.
>inner city schools get zero funding
>blacks are the poorest demographic in america
>blacks have the highest chance of getting arrested (mostly because of their own fault)

Tell me most Americans dont prefer to interact with only whites

well
basically
niggers

Rhodesian policy was somewhat racist but couldve still peacefully transitioned if it wasnt for a communist backed revolution that accomplished nothing for anybody but Mugabe