Anonymous #2 10w

My favorite is rhodieboos trying to portray the black revolutionaries as foreign intruders when the majority of white Rhodesians were born abroad

5

Comment Deleted

0

Revolutions can be co-opted and lead to dictatorships. The French reign of terror does not mean that the monarchy was good. Same for the Tsars or the Shah. Also those victimized by the Gukurahundi were also revolution supporters who opposed the white supremacist government. They were targeted for being ZAPU, as it was a rival to ZANU. They also hated minority rule.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

You don’t get to use the word tankie if you support white supremacist colonial governments. “Communist foreign nationals” is dumbass rhodie propaganda for indigenous people who were tired of being oppressed. The leaders of ZAPU and ZANU were born there. You can’t say that for the majority of Rhodesian leaders. They were actually foreign.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #2 10w

Tankie is a term for leftists to use against other leftists who defend authoritarian regimes. It is not a word to be used by apologists for white supremacist authoritarian governments.

1

Ah yes, the country that declared independence to prevent majority rule and based its entire identity off of militant resistance to majority rule. I’m sureeeeee they would have gotten there in a century or two. Just look at how willingly South Africa transitioned! Took no armed revolt or international pressure there.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Oh no, scary communism! Clearly I need to read writings from a white supremacist. “Issues such as land being offered to indigenous Africans being of lower quality” what a way to phrase that white people stole all the good land and confined Africans to overpopulated reserves.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

God this is so fucking dogshit how does anyone believe this slop. No guys the government formed solely to maintain white supremacy was totally gonna do racial equality! It’s just the scary communism to be afraid of! Don’t ask how all those black people became so marginalized in their own lands in the first place Every fucking movement towards equality is always called too radical. Abolishing slavery, giving rid of segregation. Those who love inequality always say it’s moving too fast.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Rhodesia existed as a last gasp of colonial control. That was its purpose. Most of its white inhabitants were born elsewhere in the colonial empire. They left to a land where they could maintain white minority rule. They never planned to give it up. 90% of government education funding was spent on whites. They never planned to make Africans educated enough to their standards. They would never qualify for democracy, because their “democracy” was only intended for whites.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

The fucking hoops people like you go through to claim that vocal, avowed racists weren’t actually racist.

1

Comment Deleted

0

I’m not a communist, and I’d never justify a genocide (like the Gukharundi, which you types seem to ignore because you only care about what happened to white people). You’re the one who needs to simp for a long-dead racist state.

1