Mugabe RIP

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3206
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Mugabe RIP

Post by cassowary » Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:58 am

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wo ... l-11893474

Body flown back to Zimbabwe from Singapore.

As is befitting a Socialist dictator, Mugabe accumulated great wealth rumoured to be $1 billion.

http://money.com/money/5031449/robert-m ... th-assets/

Of course his Socialism impoverished his people. But his wealth enriched the Bankers. Heh.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Mugabe RIP

Post by Doc » Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:49 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:58 am
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wo ... l-11893474

Body flown back to Zimbabwe from Singapore.

As is befitting a Socialist dictator, Mugabe accumulated great wealth rumoured to be $1 billion.

http://money.com/money/5031449/robert-m ... th-assets/

Of course his Socialism impoverished his people. But his wealth enriched the Bankers. Heh.
Did he resign his office before or after he died?
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3206
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Mugabe RIP

Post by cassowary » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:22 pm

Doc wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:49 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:58 am
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wo ... l-11893474

Body flown back to Zimbabwe from Singapore.

As is befitting a Socialist dictator, Mugabe accumulated great wealth rumoured to be $1 billion.

http://money.com/money/5031449/robert-m ... th-assets/

Of course his Socialism impoverished his people. But his wealth enriched the Bankers. Heh.
Did he resign his office before or after he died?
He was kicked out in a coup because he wanted his Wife Grace to succeed him.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Mugabe RIP

Post by neverfail » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:20 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:22 pm
He was kicked out in a coup because he wanted his Wife Grace to succeed him.
Zimbabwe is supposed to be a republic.

What sense of entitlement moved Mugabe to believe that he had any right to pass on the country to his heirs as if it were his personal property?

Dynasty is for hereditary monarchies; not for republics. With a republic the president is supposed earn the right to be in high public office on the basis of merit: not inheritance.

Could you please tell me Cass (or anyone else for that matter): why is it that so many of these Afro-Asian former colonies of one European power or another, instead of moving with the times have regressed backward into the politically infantile state of being ruled by defacto hereditary kings?

The way in which the first generation political leadership of these former colonies used to bellyache on about the alleged evils of white western colonialism one would have thought these would have earnestly striven to build regimes of government as good as if not better than those of the foreign powers that formerly ruled them. Yet in the majority of cases they seem to have ended up with worse, not better, forms of government than those of their former rulers.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3206
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Mugabe RIP

Post by cassowary » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:38 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:20 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:22 pm
He was kicked out in a coup because he wanted his Wife Grace to succeed him.
Zimbabwe is supposed to be a republic.

What sense of entitlement moved Mugabe to believe that he had any right to pass on the country to his heirs as if it were his personal property?

Dynasty is for hereditary monarchies; not for republics. With a republic the president is supposed earn the right to be in high public office on the basis of merit: not inheritance.

Could you please tell me Cass (or anyone else for that matter): why is it that so many of these Afro-Asian former colonies of one European power or another, instead of moving with the times have regressed backward into the politically infantile state of being ruled by defacto hereditary kings?

The way in which the first generation political leadership of these former colonies used to bellyache on about the alleged evils of white western colonialism one would have thought these would have earnestly striven to build regimes of government as good as if not better than those of the foreign powers that formerly ruled them. Yet in the majority of cases they seem to have ended up with worse, not better, forms of government than those of their former rulers.
I have often felt that Africa got its independence from the British and French too early. In the case of Zimbabwe, they got black majority rule too early.

The most offensive thing you can say to a black man is to tell him that he would have been better off being ruled by the white man. But that is the truth. (I can say the truth instead of some politically correct drabble because I am not white. Otherwise, people would accuse me of being a white supremacisr. Heh.)

Zimbabwe is proof that what I said is correct. Ian Smith predicted that giving black majority rule would ruin the country. That came to pass because the Zimbabweans do not have the cultural capital to run a modern, prosperous state.

The Germans and Japanese had all their physical capital destroyed by Allied bombimg during WWII. But cultural capital is more important and so they quickly recovered. Cultural capital consists of people’s habits, attitudes and behaviour. Get these right and you progress.

In some African countries like Zimbabwe, their attitude is such that passing power in a non hereditary fashion is not part of their cultural capital.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: an entire race in denial?

Post by neverfail » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:37 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:38 pm
In some African countries like Zimbabwe, their attitude is such that passing power in a non hereditary fashion is not part of their cultural capital.
Yes, just like in Europe until as recently as the 18th century. After the collapse of the western Roman empire a patchwork of Germanic kingdoms emerged that were ruled by hereditary monarchs. The earliest half millennium of this era is still known as The Dark Ages. So once upon a time and not too many centuries ago even those of my own race had the same kind of "cultural equipment". Well, in those days it was not just kingship that was hereditary. Everything was inherited including most means to a livelihood. The farmer inherited his land and the fisherman his nets and boat from his dad; the carpenter or the blacksmith apprenticed his son to that trade so that the son could take over the family business when the old man passed away. And so on!

But bloody hell! That was then and this is now. As I see it the Africans had the opportunity to short-circuit their way through centuries of often tragic historical experience; jumping from the early iron age into modern times in just a couple of generations but blew the opportunity to do so by having sovereign independence pushed upon them far too early by former white colonial rulers who had lost their sense of having a mission to perform - once upon a time known as the white man's burden.

Dark Ages? When we talk about prehistoric Africa are we not talking about a dark ages without end?

Or would have been had it not been for the historically all too brief circuit breaker of white western colonization; which might prove to be to Africa in centuries to come just what the Roman invasion and colonization of Britannia (England and Wales) almost 2 millennia ago did for the British Isles. It brought these out of the darkness of prehistory into the light of history.

You say that blacks are offended when you try to say that they would have been better off being ruled by the white man? As my late father would have said "truth hurts".

(P.S. when in the United States I would never try to say that to a local black. There they likely associate "white rule" with the deep South; slavery; Jim Crow oppression and discrimination and so forth. I would not want to risk the reaction. But by a process of wildly inaccurate projection I get the the impression that a lot of them still imagine that the relationship between Africans and the European colonizers was like that.)

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Mugabe RIP

Post by Doc » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:17 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:20 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:22 pm
He was kicked out in a coup because he wanted his Wife Grace to succeed him.
Zimbabwe is supposed to be a republic.

What sense of entitlement moved Mugabe to believe that he had any right to pass on the country to his heirs as if it were his personal property?

Dynasty is for hereditary monarchies; not for republics. With a republic the president is supposed earn the right to be in high public office on the basis of merit: not inheritance.

Could you please tell me Cass (or anyone else for that matter): why is it that so many of these Afro-Asian former colonies of one European power or another, instead of moving with the times have regressed backward into the politically infantile state of being ruled by defacto hereditary kings?
That is surprisingly easy NF. European colonialists divided up Africa by river boundaries. African Tribes centered their tribal territories on the rivers.(IE both sides of the river) Because of what the Europeans did, each country is guaranteed, at least two different tribes in each country.

This worked well for the Europeans as it meant their were at least two groups in each colony fighting each other instead of their colonial masters. So those two groups were always looking for protection from the colonizers. Once they were no longer colonies there was nothing to stop them from fighting each other. Which made them even more tribal and more loyal to their tribal leadership.

What is surprising is the amount of death and violence that came from this. Think Rwanda for example.

The way in which the first generation political leadership of these former colonies used to bellyache on about the alleged evils of white western colonialism one would have thought these would have earnestly striven to build regimes of government as good as if not better than those of the foreign powers that formerly ruled them. Yet in the majority of cases they seem to have ended up with worse, not better, forms of government than those of their former rulers.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Mugabe RIP

Post by neverfail » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:39 pm

Doc wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:17 am
neverfail wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:20 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:22 pm
He was kicked out in a coup because he wanted his Wife Grace to succeed him.
Zimbabwe is supposed to be a republic.

What sense of entitlement moved Mugabe to believe that he had any right to pass on the country to his heirs as if it were his personal property?

Dynasty is for hereditary monarchies; not for republics. With a republic the president is supposed earn the right to be in high public office on the basis of merit: not inheritance.

Could you please tell me Cass (or anyone else for that matter): why is it that so many of these Afro-Asian former colonies of one European power or another, instead of moving with the times have regressed backward into the politically infantile state of being ruled by defacto hereditary kings?
That is surprisingly easy NF. European colonialists divided up Africa by river boundaries. African Tribes centered their tribal territories on the rivers.(IE both sides of the river) Because of what the Europeans did, each country is guaranteed, at least two different tribes in each country.

This worked well for the Europeans as it meant their were at least two groups in each colony fighting each other instead of their colonial masters. So those two groups were always looking for protection from the colonizers. Once they were no longer colonies there was nothing to stop them from fighting each other. Which made them even more tribal and more loyal to their tribal leadership.

What is surprising is the amount of death and violence that came from this. Think Rwanda for example.

The way in which the first generation political leadership of these former colonies used to bellyache on about the alleged evils of white western colonialism one would have thought these would have earnestly striven to build regimes of government as good as if not better than those of the foreign powers that formerly ruled them. Yet in the majority of cases they seem to have ended up with worse, not better, forms of government than those of their former rulers.
A good, level headed response Doc.

I too easily lose sight of the fact that the big European carve-up of Africa coincided with the second half of the 19th century and was highly competitive. Once one rival power grabbed a chunk of Africa one or two others felt the need to grab an adjacent piece rather than lose face. back in Europe no nation bigger than Luxembourg wanted to be regarded as a second rate power.

Sadly, Europe did not need Africa for any tangible economic and/or geostrategic reason that I can detect. Even the few hot-spot regions of wealth like minerals rich Katanga Provence in the Belgian Congo has to be balanced against the fact that vast areas of Africa subsequently proved unproductive and a drain on the sovereign power's resources. Think, for instance, of the vast areas of Sahara sands that France gained sovereignty over.

This perhaps explains why, in the decades after the Second World War, the two main powers with colonial interests in Africa, namely Britain and France, were in a stampede to get out of Africa that was conducted even more swiftly than the original 19th century scramble to get in. Looked at in toto they must have decided that Africa was, in terms of the profit returned to the seat of empire, not worth hanging on to.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Mugabe RIP

Post by Doc » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:59 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:39 pm
Doc wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:17 am
neverfail wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:20 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:22 pm
He was kicked out in a coup because he wanted his Wife Grace to succeed him.
Zimbabwe is supposed to be a republic.

What sense of entitlement moved Mugabe to believe that he had any right to pass on the country to his heirs as if it were his personal property?

Dynasty is for hereditary monarchies; not for republics. With a republic the president is supposed earn the right to be in high public office on the basis of merit: not inheritance.

Could you please tell me Cass (or anyone else for that matter): why is it that so many of these Afro-Asian former colonies of one European power or another, instead of moving with the times have regressed backward into the politically infantile state of being ruled by defacto hereditary kings?
That is surprisingly easy NF. European colonialists divided up Africa by river boundaries. African Tribes centered their tribal territories on the rivers.(IE both sides of the river) Because of what the Europeans did, each country is guaranteed, at least two different tribes in each country.

This worked well for the Europeans as it meant their were at least two groups in each colony fighting each other instead of their colonial masters. So those two groups were always looking for protection from the colonizers. Once they were no longer colonies there was nothing to stop them from fighting each other. Which made them even more tribal and more loyal to their tribal leadership.

What is surprising is the amount of death and violence that came from this. Think Rwanda for example.

The way in which the first generation political leadership of these former colonies used to bellyache on about the alleged evils of white western colonialism one would have thought these would have earnestly striven to build regimes of government as good as if not better than those of the foreign powers that formerly ruled them. Yet in the majority of cases they seem to have ended up with worse, not better, forms of government than those of their former rulers.
A good, level headed response Doc.

I too easily lose sight of the fact that the big European carve-up of Africa coincided with the second half of the 19th century and was highly competitive. Once one rival power grabbed a chunk of Africa one or two others felt the need to grab an adjacent piece rather than lose face. back in Europe no nation bigger than Luxembourg wanted to be regarded as a second rate power.

Sadly, Europe did not need Africa for any tangible economic and/or geostrategic reason that I can detect. Even the few hot-spot regions of wealth like minerals rich Katanga Provence in the Belgian Congo has to be balanced against the fact that vast areas of Africa subsequently proved unproductive and a drain on the sovereign power's resources. Think, for instance, of the vast areas of Sahara sands that France gained sovereignty over.

This perhaps explains why, in the decades after the Second World War, the two main powers with colonial interests in Africa, namely Britain and France, were in a stampede to get out of Africa that was conducted even more swiftly than the original 19th century scramble to get in. Looked at in toto they must have decided that Africa was, in terms of the profit returned to the seat of empire, not worth hanging on to.
They got a lot of money and blood out of colonialism. Just think about how many aussie boys dead in Europe during the World Wars.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Mugabe RIP

Post by neverfail » Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:19 pm

Doc wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:59 pm
They got a lot of money and blood out of colonialism. Just think about how many aussie boys dead in Europe during the World Wars.
I do - and so do the rest of us out here. We have an annual public holiday in remembrance.

Those "dead Aussie boys" were however each and every one a wartime volunteer. We never had wartime conscription here in Australia during that conflict (the issue was forced to a referendum in 1916 and the majority vote rejected it) so it was not as though they were exactly the innocent victims of the carnage.

If the Australian government of the day was incapable of implementing a program of wartime military conscription, then even less so was the government of distant Britain capable of compelling us to.

Why did they do it? Because with a large minority population of British immigrant settlers and an even bigger one of Australian born just one generation removed from UK immigrant parents (together, these would at the time have formed the majority population of this country) the urge to serve King and Empire would have still been very strong. A lot of the recruits were rank innocents unaware as to what a dirty, murderous business modern warfare was (and the army recruiting officers did nothing to better inform them of the risks). Warfare, like service to king, country and empire was seen as a glamorous adventure: something like a glorified half-way compromise between a barroom brawl and a participatory team sport.

Please note that with the outbreak of war in 1914, over in the UK the army recruiters were likewise overpowered by the sheer number of young men of military age willing to volunteer for active service. So much so that initially they had to turn a lot of them away as the training officers were unable to cope with the sheer numbers of would-be willing recruits.

They had a very different attitude to war then than we do now.

Post Reply