Slave revolts

[Politesse]

Loren Pechtel was the one who brought up colonialism, explicitly as evidence in favor of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. You didn't seem to think it was off-topic before I revealed your point to be both completely illogical and morally repugnant.

The question was revolting against a colonial power, not whether they would have been better off without the colonial power in the first place. You're moving the goalposts.

Then it's even more irrelevant to cite, say, trains, as an advantage of remaining subjugated. The colonies are gone, and the trains are still there. Not just that, but everyone is allowed to ride them now, and in whatever cabin they can afford regardless of their skin color.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Was the land more productive (and if so, why?).

Yes. White farmers were turfed off the farms by Mugabe and the farms given to Africans who have no clue about farming and fucked the whole industry up. Zimbabwe is a basket case nation.

Prove it. Prove that soil productivity was higher in Rhodesia than in modern Zimbabwe. And explain why and how.

He already told you what happened. Going into a bit more detail:

A bit of the land was given to the people who were working it. This of course went very badly as they didn't have the money for fertilizer etc, nor did they actually know how to farm. They knew how to do their part of the job, not the big picture.

Most of the land was given to cronies. While they probably could have afforded to actually farm it properly they didn't know what was needed.

Look at my earlier message about maintenance not being done. Fertilizer is a form of maintenance.

 

[Politesse]

Prove it. Prove that soil productivity was higher in Rhodesia than in modern Zimbabwe. And explain why and how.

He already told you what happened. Going into a bit more detail:

A bit of the land was given to the people who were working it. This of course went very badly as they didn't have the money for fertilizer etc, nor did they actually know how to farm. They knew how to do their part of the job, not the big picture.

Most of the land was given to cronies. While they probably could have afforded to actually farm it properly they didn't know what was needed.

Look at my earlier message about maintenance not being done. Fertilizer is a form of maintenance.

I meant to provide actual evidence, not just a more detailed accusation.

Remember, you're trying to justify chattel slavery in this thread. It's going to take more than vague hand-waving and transparently racist rants to establish your case in a convincing fashion.

 

[Politesse]

It's rational because they are unaware of their ignorance.

For an example of how it really goes, look at Africa. There's a lot of similarities between slave revolts and kicking out the colonial powers--and note that in almost every case the people ended up worse off after kicking out the colonials. They didn't get freedom, they traded a competent dictator for an incompetent one.

Bullshit. Name one case in which the post-colonial situation of an African state is worse for Africans than being colonial subjects was? Yes, Europe thought her colonies were fantastic, wonderful places and they were... for the European upper classes. They were not so great for the people expected to be the workforce creating all that wealth, whether for indigenous folks or the exported European lower classes.

All African nations other than Botswana.

They didn't get freedom, they just exchanged dictators.

I was in several African nations in 1982 and there was a very obvious pattern: The later they got independence the better off they were. Progress stopped. The infrastructure I saw was the infrastructure at independence. Note that after the people that came to power at that time died off things have gotten better.

So are you making a concrete claim that no infrastructure has been built in Zimbabwe since 1980? On the basis of your personal impression, as a traveler with no particular insight into local zoning boards and the like, that nothing had built between 1980 and 1982?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prove it. Prove that soil productivity was higher in Rhodesia than in modern Zimbabwe. And explain why and how.

He already told you what happened. Going into a bit more detail:

A bit of the land was given to the people who were working it. This of course went very badly as they didn't have the money for fertilizer etc, nor did they actually know how to farm. They knew how to do their part of the job, not the big picture.

Most of the land was given to cronies. While they probably could have afforded to actually farm it properly they didn't know what was needed.

Look at my earlier message about maintenance not being done. Fertilizer is a form of maintenance.

I meant to provide actual evidence, not just a more detailed accusation.

Remember, you're trying to justify chattel slavery in this thread. It's going to take more than vague hand-waving and transparently racist rants to establish your case in a convincing fashion.

Try again. I'm not trying to justify it. I'm saying that throwing out colonial powers end up hurting the people, not helping them.

Here's a small part of it. Wikipedia so it's got a left bias but it still discusses the failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe

And from the right, a better picture but still not discussing the details: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-mugabes-land-reforms-were-so-disastrous

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All African nations other than Botswana.

They didn't get freedom, they just exchanged dictators.

I was in several African nations in 1982 and there was a very obvious pattern: The later they got independence the better off they were. Progress stopped. The infrastructure I saw was the infrastructure at independence. Note that after the people that came to power at that time died off things have gotten better.

So are you making a concrete claim that no infrastructure has been built in Zimbabwe since 1980? On the basis of your personal impression, as a traveler with no particular insight into local zoning boards and the like, that nothing had built between 1980 and 1982?

No--I'm talking about the period from independence to 1980, and not Zimbabwe as they were not independent for most of that time.

 

[Rhea]

All African nations other than Botswana.

They didn't get freedom, they just exchanged dictators.

I was in several African nations in 1982 and there was a very obvious pattern: The later they got independence the better off they were. Progress stopped. The infrastructure I saw was the infrastructure at independence. Note that after the people that came to power at that time died off things have gotten better.

So are you making a concrete claim that no infrastructure has been built in Zimbabwe since 1980? On the basis of your personal impression, as a traveler with no particular insight into local zoning boards and the like, that nothing had built between 1980 and 1982?

Yeah that a great bit of supporting evidence. A visit in 1982.

Broad brush, much?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All African nations other than Botswana.

They didn't get freedom, they just exchanged dictators.

I was in several African nations in 1982 and there was a very obvious pattern: The later they got independence the better off they were. Progress stopped. The infrastructure I saw was the infrastructure at independence. Note that after the people that came to power at that time died off things have gotten better.

So are you making a concrete claim that no infrastructure has been built in Zimbabwe since 1980? On the basis of your personal impression, as a traveler with no particular insight into local zoning boards and the like, that nothing had built between 1980 and 1982?

Yeah that a great bit of supporting evidence. A visit in 1982.

Broad brush, much?

You're attacking a strawman. What he's claiming I said isn't what I said.