Talk:Ian Smith/Archive 2

Quotations Attributed to Ian Smith
Did Ian Smith really say, "All these black people are screwing up my democracy."? Is it this guy? Seems to fit the part, from what I've read here. I've seen it attributed to "Ian Smith" and I found it on Google a couple times, but I never found anything solid about it, like a "in 1975, Ian Smith was heard to say...". So I tried wikipedia but this article doesn't mention it.

Value judgments
Tim. This article contains value judgements such as "Smith acted in a manner that may have shown poor judgement." Such comments add no information so it can only be bias. "A significant number of white Rhodesians were uneasy about UDI." this may or may not be true so what evidence is there - an opinion poll or a few newspaper articles? The attitude after it happened changed too - in what way do you think and would it support the "opinion of the article"? If one is to be even handed about this, I think it's worth considering the fate that befell all the other former colonies and what has since befallen Zimbabwe and ask if Smith was more of a realist than his critics in the west and than those who supported the guerillas. "Most observers now appreciate that Smith was engaged in the stubborn defence of a colonial system that the 20th century has left behind." This claim is very much less likely now as it is considerably more difficult to criticise the "colonial system" given the example of the system that has replaced it - this judgement is itself out of date. It is not politically correct to say that colonial rule was better but a "significant" number of people think it.:-) 206.165.101.124 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

''206.165.101.124 Who is Tim?. Tell me, do you believe that African nations are all "communist banana republics that bankrupted their treasuries while expelling their White and Asian settlers"? Bob'' BScar23625 18:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

''Let me try another one on you. Do you believe that granting independence to India in 1947 was a big mistake?. Just look at the wars, riots, famines and corruption that there have been in India since then. Bob''BScar23625 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tim. Pointless question about who I am and how would anyone verify it anyhow? I am a Zimbabwean. India is an irrelevance brought in to muddy the waters. It certainly is completely clear what has happened to Zimbabwe - don't you think? Who was more realistic about that - Smith or Wilson?

''Tim. Yes it is clear what happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. UDI created a political vacuum which the Mugabe regime filled. To say nothing of the war. Something of the sort was predicted by Wilson in the 1960s. Wilson was more realistic than Smith. But I am sure that the country will turn the corner in the next 5 years, or so. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 05:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

''ps. The pro-Rhodesian Beckett account of the war ends with the following statement : "The legacy of the war was a newly-independent state beset by economic and social problems, not least the rivalries of the nationalists that the war had stimulated and left unresolved". That is an assessment I go along with. Many of the country's problems originated in the UDI era. BScar23625 05:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim. Pro Rhodesians wish to believe that it was ok for them to leave after independence and that there was nothing, after that point, which they could do - it's their excuse for "bugging out" and I understand it although I feel that it's shameful. This argument about power vacuums can simply be contrasted against what happened, for example, in other African former colonies - did Ghana escape dictatorship? What about the Congo or any of the former French colonies or Angola? Allowing these less-than-half-completed systems of government to be wiped out *is* the "fault" of the colonial powers and was entirely predictable at the moment they decided to do it - perhaps the problems stem from that decision?

''Tim. I think we have touched on this area in our discussion of Whites in Zimbabwe. A lot of Rhodesian whites were expats. with foreign passports. They moved on quickly after independence, but many whites did stay on. Independence was inevitable and a lot of the new countries had early problems. Trying to extend the colonial era in both Algeria and Rhodesia showed that this was no solution to those problems. I take a positive view. Many of the new nations are now turning the corner and are making progress in economic, social and political terms. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 08:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim: This article is about Ian Smith - not whites in Zimbabwe. I suggest that we try and restrict it to verifiable facts and leave out the judgments.

''Tim. Yes, but Ian Smith and Whites in Zimbabwe are intertwined topics. I guess there are judgemental elements in the Ian Smith article and you may wish to propose corrections. But, as you know, this article attracts a lot of attention. So, I suggest you propose specific changes on this Discussion page and see if they attract consensus support. If you make unilateral changes to the main article then .... . One's experience of Wikipedia is much happier if one is willing to engage with fellow Wikipedians. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 19:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Tim: This is pompous. I have suggested changes before you even looked at this page - you removed those old discussions. In fact you are the one who operates without consent.

''Tim. Good to see you back again, and I hope you are keeping well. Some older discussion has been moved to the archive page, but it is still accessible there. That move was just routine housekeeping. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 15:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim: Patronising now, rather than pompous. No, it's not housekeeping. You do not own this issue and should not remove history any more than I should remove the words you write above.

Commentary / Opinion
A large degree of commentary and opinion is scattered throughout the article. This is quite innappropriate given that Wikipedia articles are expected to comply with a neutral point-of-view. I have deleted it. michael talk 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

''Michael. You used to define yourself as “an eighteen year old Australian Christian”. Consider the following :''


 * When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Dr Martin Luther King (28 August 1963) I have a dream

''What comment do you feel that offers on Rhodesia?. Most Christian denominations (including the Dutch Reformed Church) recognise that racism is a fundamental evil. Any person who promotes racism, by deed, word or thought, is committing a mortal sin. Do you perceive any link between this observation and the political career of Ian Smith?.''

''As an aside, Ian Smith’s son Alec understood the point well. I am genuinely interested to hear your views. Best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 15:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not an apologetic for Smith's regime, nor do I condone racism. What I do condone, however, is unrequired commentary in a Wikipedia article. I'm probably very right to assume that you have a much greater and far-reaching background knowledge than myself when it comes to 'Smithy' and Rhodesia, and, taking this into account, I'm obliged to respect it.


 * However, the issue at hand is the writing of a Wikipedia article. Surely, things such as:


 * "It was evident from the mid 1950s that the white settlers would put up a fight to retain control of Rhodesia. Smith was the central figure in that fight."


 * are nothing more than a on-the-fly commentary, predicting the future and throwing Smith into the drivers seat. The article, under your tenure, has amounted to such that it dismissed UDI, in the words of the Guardian, as a "bit of a lark", and paints a picture of Smith lonely defending an antiquated colonial system.


 * I certainly don't want to come off as brash or rude, but surely there are better ways to improve the article than this kind of text, which borrows heavily from your views and fails neutrality. Even when you responded to my initial comments, you didn't question neutrality; you questioned me on my faith, and seemed to imply that my work here is not in accordance with it because of the changes I made. I think its rather strange for someone to be branded un-Christian simply because they're attempting to contribute to an encylopedia article in an appropriate fashion. michael talk 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

''Michael. The problem is that what you have removed from the article amounts to everything that is even mildly negative concerning Smithy. As regards your motive, I remind you of your posting to User:Expatkiwi on 14 January 2006 :''


 * ”I have been reading articles relating to Ian Smith and Rhodesia of late, and you seem to have been a major contributor. I thank you for doing such an excellent job with them and share your admiration for Ian Smith, the UDI and a destroyed nation”

''How do you explain that?. Best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 05:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge whatever biases I have, displayed obviously through that sentence, as plainly as you have outlined yours in many of the comments you've made. I acknowledge wholeheartedly that the article, in its present form, is slanted slightly in favour of Smith and his regime. However, while acknowledging this, I consider that rectifying a slant through the insertion of on-the-fly commentary is unacceptable. Writing a paragraph, and then sitting back and editorialising on its words does not improve an article; it is this which I do not wish to see.


 * I would have no problem with the insertion of facts that outline a neutral view of Smith and I hope that the article's current bent is rectified. I welcome such additions. Commentary and editorialising I do not, however. michael talk 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

''Michael. Fair enough. But please ask yourself this. How can an enterprise founded in racism and violence be compatible with the Christian ethic?. Bob'' BScar23625 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the 'enterprise' (Rhodesia?) was founded in 'racism and violence'. And I think that both sides in that conflict have a lot to learn from the Christian ethic. michael talk 15:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

''Michael. It is really more you I am concerned about than Wikipedia. Promise me that you will have a think about the points I have raised. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim: Claiming to be concerned for people because they hold a different opinion is simply a way of being unpleasant. Thinkd about this: anyone who can write a racial article about Whites in Zimbabwe as if to sum up their existence must have an axe to grind and you shall not be allowed to get away with it here.

''Tim. Good to hear from you again. Go to the final item in External Links and listen to the talk given by Smithy in 2005. In this he notes that Zimbabwe is now “on the rocks”. Two extreme views are possible on what he says, these are :''

''(A) That Smithy is entirely right. Had world opinion listened to him in the 1970s and allowed white minority rule to continue, then everything would be fine in Zimbabwe today.''

''(B) That Smithy is talking bullshit. The fact that Zimbabwe is currently on the rocks is largely the fault of him and his government.''

''Which of those two views do you consider is nearest the truth?. Regards. Bob''BScar23625 14:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

''Tim. Let me try another one on you. In the same 'A Bit of a Rebel' item, there is a clip of an interview with the very attractive and articulate Kathy Olds. She describes the situation of Rhodesia in the mid 1970s as "... the country was terribly united ...". This was a country slipping into civil war. So, what do you think she means when she refers to "the country"?. I will be very interested to hear your views. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 06:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt by to impose his politics on this article
I made a simple change to this article to improve its accuracy from "European-dominated" to "Apartheid government". User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington accused me of misconduct and said he suspected I was a vandal. Perhaps he would like to explain his reasons here. 82.18.125.110 12:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said on User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I think 'Apartheid' is the correct term for the South African government, certainly after 1948. However, Rhodesia did not have an apartheid system and the terms used at the time were 'European' and 'African'. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference I edited was to the South African government !!!!!!!!!!!  82.18.125.110 12:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned you used too few exclamation marks there. I'd put a few more in if I was you. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Still no one has the good grace to admit that I did nothing wrong. I am sick of this. What have I done to deserve this treatment? You tell me, is editing Wikipedia worth it, or is it just pointless grief? 82.18.125.110 12:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is expected of users to 1) be registered if they are to contribute to discussion, and 2), not use excessive !!!!'s and bold and italic text (it looks like you are shouting). You are right, apartheid is the correct term for the South African government, but not the Rhodesian one. michael talk 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to contribute to discussion, I was instructed to contribute to discussion, and it was all due to mistakes by others. I made an edit which I will now assume that everyone accepts was a simple non-controversial factual correction (I have to assume because it seems that no one will ever admit it). There was nothing to discuss until other people made mistakes. I got stressed because I was subjected to a series of attacks, and still there is no sign of sympathy. 82.18.125.110 13:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

''Michael. I am determined to restore balance to this article. Believe me : (1) Smithy was no hero, a fact members of his family were well aware of, and (2) Wilbur Smith novels are not a reliable source of historical information. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 17:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

''ps : 82.18.125.110. I sympathise with you. Every time I try to put in anything even mildly critical of Smithy, Michael removes it. Bob''

Digging up a four and a half y/o discussion I know, but people seem to call Israel an apartheid nation for w/e reason although I in all seriousness don't see how it applies there. Could it be used to describe this gov where Blacks were excluded? Also (!!!!!!!!!!!!) as seems to be the way of this section. Hpelgrift (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The term 'Apartheid' is, to say the least, is now a loaded political pejorative. Used correctly, however, it applies to a historical period in South Africa.


 * Wikipedia articles are to be constructed using a neutral point of view. Adding this term to this article would break NPOV and lower the quality of its contents.


 * Additionally, however common it is to use the term for the US, Swedish, Israeli, or other governments by activists, it is an ahistorical usage. In fact the use of this term is so prejudical that it may serve to Godwin the position of those who use it.


 * I hope that clarifies this a bit. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherclear (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

More bias
Bob, old boy, I don't know your motivation, why you're doing it, or your history—but I request that you stop adding material to articles solely to twist their political direction in your favour. You use sensationalist, inappropriate and hyperbolic terms such as 'race war' and write things blatantly out of context. Every time I've reverted your changes you haven't been interested in working towards a neutral article, you've told me about how bad 'Smithy' is. Every time you change a Rhodesia article, it's to bend it from a neutral work into a peice of 'liberation' history. michael talk 04:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael.

Thanks for your note.

''The term “race war” was widely used in the 1970s to describe the former conflict in Rhodesia. That term was even used by supporters of Rhodesia, Time magazine, 1979. The modern usage is “ethnic conflict”. Do you feel more comfortable with “ethnic conflict” than with “race war”?. Surely it is better to use the term which was current in the 1970s rather than its modern equivalent?.''

One pro Rhodesia website Free Speech makes the following statement :

''“In the 1950s Rhodesia was a prosperous, White country, and it was a very pleasant place to live. The Rhodesians had worked hard and well to build their country and to develop their farms. They were a nation of strong men and beautiful women. They played as hard as they worked. Rhodesia was the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. When the rot back in London led the British government to begin dismantling its empire and turning its colonies over to the local savages, the Rhodesians declared their independence and made an effort to preserve the country where they had been born and bred.”'' ''Do you agree with that statement?. Be honest.''

regards, Bob BScar23625 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to play your games—that statement is blatant propaganda (altough it differs little, although in the opposite direction, from your introduction statement)! I'm interested in a neutral and appropriate introduction. Suggest one here so I can make changes. michael talk 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

''Michael. I first encountered you on the Whites in Zimbabwe page at the start of this year. Why are you so reluctant to engage with me?. Answer the two questions I have posed above. What is the problem about that?. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely changed the introduction to concentrate on Smith. I disagreed with the statement and branded it propaganda—showing my disagreement with it. On the other hand, your introduction was the equal, although the polar opposite politically, of that statement in terms of simplification and taking things out of context. I'm more than happy to engage in discussion which will go somewhere, but if you're simply going to debate the negatives and positives of Smith and Rhodesia instead of concentrating on the article, then I see see little point in doing so. michael talk 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

''Michael. You haven't answered any of my earlier questions. Let us alight on one of them. Do you or do you not agree with the statement I quote above?. That is the one concerning the "strong men and beautiful women" in Rhodesia. best wishes. Bob'' BScar23625 15:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ps : I have just looked at your previous comment again and see that you did disagree with the statement; sorry about that.BScar23625 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Postnominal letters "ID"
I've just seen this in the lead para. The link takes us to UDI, which says nothing about any such honour or postnominal. I'm going to remove it because there's nothing I know of to substantiate it. I raise this here simply because it's been there for 14 months, ever since User:Expatkiwi put it there on 7 January 2006. It's odd that nobody's taken issue with this until now. Or maybe I'm the one out of step. Grateful for any feedback. JackofOz 03:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Should have linked to Independence_Decoration_%28Rhodesia%29. Comparitively new article. Will put it back now. --Bnynms 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retirement
We read:
 * After his retirement from active politics, Smith became an outspoken critic of the Mugabe regime. Mugabe himself often uses Smith's quiet retirement as validation of current policies.

I think I understand both of those sentences; I haven't a clue what they could mean in combination. -- Hoary 11:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

''Hoary. I think the issue here was that Smithy enjoyed a long and comfortable retirement from politics on his 20,000 acre agricultural estate. He even appeared to enjoy some high-level protection. That invites a few questions.''

''In 1980 he agreed to go quietly and cooperate with the new regime. His own personal position was then ring-fenced, either by agreement or by tacit understanding. I believe that "mad Bob" was offered the same deal in 2000, but turned it down. Bob'' BScar23625 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about 'high level protection', I seem to recall several media sources referencing the lax security at his Harare home. For instance, ordinary people would often visit and there was little in the way of stopping people getting onto the property. Teatreez (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Loss of Zimbabwean citizenship
There's nothing about Smith losing his Zimbabwean citizenship in March 2002 by failing to comply with the requirement for dual citizens to renounce one or the other by 8 January. He was reported as having applied to restore his Zimb citizenship, but I don't know what happened to that process. JackofOz 06:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Still nothing about this. He lost his Zimbabwe citizenship in January 2002, and it was claimed that he'd been stripped of it.  The Registrar-General Tobaiwa Mudede is reported as saying: "The Government did not strip him of his Zinbabwe citizenship but he chose not to comply with the renunciation of foreign citizenship requirement".  That requirement was that people who had dual citizenship of Zimbabwe and another country had until 8 January 2002 to renounce one or the other, or risk being deemed to be no longer Zimbabwean citizens.  This is apparently what happened to Ian Smith.  Mudede also said that this was a requirement under British law, which presumably means that Ian Smith became stateless for some time.  He applied to have his Z citizenship restored, and that may have happened before his death for all I know. --  JackofOz (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I recall, he applied for (and was granted!) a British passport. I am not sure that I can immediately lay my hands on a reliable source for that, however - but we could try and search, if necessary. --DLMcN (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * His Zim passport was taken away long before 2002; it was taken away in December 1982 after the government accused him of "criticising Zimbabwe while on a trip to the United States". He tried to get it back so he could go to South Africa for medical treatment, but was refused twice, so he applied for, and got, a British passport in April 1983. He insisted in an interview at the time that he was not planning to flee the country, as Nkomo did a month before, and "The only reason I need a passport is so I can go to South Africa for medical treatment. I should have gone in January ... I'll still try to get my Zimbabwean passport back. I was born here and that is the passport I should travel on." (source: Glasgow Herald, 7 April 1983, p. 4). He apparently got it back at some point afterwards, and had it taken away again in 2002 because of the new law (passed in 2001) making dual citizenship illegal (many personal friends of mine were also affected by this, incidentally). Smith refused to disavow his right to British citizenship and therefore had his passport stripped. (source: Daily Telegraph, 2 March 2002). I hope this is all helpful. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is probably worth adding some of that^ to the main article? --DLMcN (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think so, yes. I've added a bit, what do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done ... Great! --DLMcN (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Majority rule" or "democracy"?
"Majority Rule" Why does this article use the term "Majority Rule" instead of the more accurate "Democracy"?

77.101.75.15. Because "white minority rule" and "majority rule"'' were the contemporary terms used to describe the political division.reference. Bob'' BScar23625 14:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Used by whom? Certainly not Africans. By this measure, many contemporary western democracies are also systems of "majoity rule". Why should Wiki use this rather misleading term to to describe the democratic process simply because takes place in Africa? Democacy is not a "politcal division".

Were Wikipedia to confine itself soley to European contemporary usage in the context of Africa, it would be peppered with offensive terms.

Further, it is important that visitors to this page understand that those opposed to Ian Smith wanted the vote. I note that the term democracy doesn't appear anywhere in your original version. Do you have some kind of aversion to it?

Best Wishes

The twenty-first century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.75.15 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks towards the other editors are a poor way to avoid page reversions. Keep in mind WP:3RR. You are on the verge of violating it on this page and Robert Mugabe. Perspicacite 17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what constitutes a personal attack here? Are you prepared to answer the points I've raised? Can we find some sort of compromise in which the article acknowledges that the term "majority rule" is unique to this particular context?

Best Wishes (trying my best not to offend) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.75.15 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

''77.101.75.15. The point being that the two conflicting ideas were "white minority rule" and "majority rule". That is unambiguous and clear. Your claim that the two conflicting ideas were actually "dictatorship" and "democracy" is defensible, but contains all sorts of ambiguities. Bob'' BScar23625 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue here is just whose "conflicting ideas" we are talking about. In this repect, the article as originaly constituted seems to me profoundly ethnocentric. The ideas you allude to - were essentially those of the Smith regime. Ideas don't arise spontaneously but instead eminate from a human source. In this case the Smith regime. In this context, I'd like to explore quite why the Smith article describes Rhodesias (illegal) 1965 administration as a "government" while the Mugabe article calls his current (elected) administration a "regime"?

Perhaps you might also expand a little on the nature of the ambiguities you mention?

I await your response to my suggested compromise; viz that the Smith article acknowledge that the use of "majorty rule" is unique to South Africa and UDI Rhodesia and, in effect, means Democracy.

Best Wishes


 * '"Do you have some kind of aversion" to democracy?' is a personal attack. What you propose is not a compromise so no. Perspicacite 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for offending you. I think protracted umbrage of this kind is of little value in a setting such as Wikipedia?

You were kind enough to alert me to rule WP:3RR. Allow me, in return, to warn you that an unsophisticated reader of these pages might conclude that you cling to this slight in an effort to avoid engagement with the argument.

Perhaps we might leave the "aversion to democracy" matter to one side for a moment and concentrate the substantive issues raised by the article?

What about the "ambiguities" you mentioned? Your last entry makes no mention of the regime/government question I raised? I think if you are going to present yourself as the gatekeeper of these articles you might explain your reasoning.

Would you be interested in exploring the possibility of Wiki arbitration on the majority rule/democracy matter?

Best Wishes


 * while the term democracy might be grammatically correct, it also lacks NPOV - to use terms such as dictatorship and democracy imply certain negative and positive aspects. I'm in 2 minds - 1. Democracy is the correct term, but may be implying POV 2. Majority rule is also correct, but using it may be an attempt to appear politically correct, at the expense of being grammatically correct.

In this case, given the lack of rights given to the minority (whites) I would say that majority rule is the better term of the two.Sennen goroshi 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sennen. Forgive me, but you appear to have misunderstood the meaning of the phrase "majority rule" (democracy). It meant that every citizen of Zimbabwe would enjoy the same rights - that is one vote each in a General Election.

Best Wishes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.75.15 (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

''77.101.75.15. "Majority rule" and "democracy" are not strictly the same thing. For example, if you go to the reference I give above, there is talk about the advent of majority rule in Angola and Mozambique in 1975. In both cases, majority rule was not immediately accompanied by democracy. I sympathise with your sentiments, but the idea is to express yourself in neutral and unambigous terms. Bob''BScar23625 08:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bob,

I think what happened in Angola and Mozambique in 1975 was not "majority rule" but rather the establishment of politcal independence from Portugal. While discrimination may have existed in these countries, it is not the case that white citizens of Zimbabwe were denied their democratic rights. At no point since 1965 have they suffered disenfrancisement. On the contrary, until 1987, the provisions of the Lancaster House agreement meant that twenty parliamentary seats were reserved exclusively for their use.

How do you reconcile this fact with your statement about "lack of rights given to the minority (whites)"?

The (quite admirable) concept of "NPOV" can only be valid if it is applied equally throughout Wikipedia. Would we describe the US system of government before the advent of the civil rights movement as "majority rule"? I think not.

Here, I would invite you to find an example of this phrase, used in this context, anywhere else in Wikipedia?

Best Wishes77.101.75.15 21:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

''77.101.75.15. It wasn't me that referred to "... lack of rights given to the minority (whites)". The term "majority rule" was widely used at the time of decolonisation in Africa to describe the process of transferring political power from colonial authorities and white settlers to the majority African population. I do not see any purpose in agonizing about what level of democratization went with majority rule in every case or questioning why the term wasn't used in a North American context. regards. Bob'' BScar23625 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Smith regime was not a "colonial authority" and it is innacurate to assert that this phrase was "widely used" in Africa. Its application was unique to southern Africa simply because that part of the continent was the focus of white settlement. Elsewhere, people talked of "independence".

The reason we should "agonize" over these matters is to acheive that precisely that neutrality you call for in your earlier post:

"...the idea is to express yourself in neutral and unambigous terms"

Best Wishes77.101.75.15 08:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

''77.101.75.15. You may be right that the term "majority rule" was generally used in the context of African countries where there were significant numbers of white settlers. Bob'' BScar23625 10:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)