Another issue that has interested me and which is an obvious regime change tactic is the myth that Rhodesia was better.
Now i have seen this and the purpose is to target the young generation which doesn’t know too much about their history and convince them that even oppressive white rule was better than what we have now.
The arguments placed are that because Rhodesia had a strong currency and economic activity then this is evidence that indeed we were better off under the racist Ian Smith government.
But is this true?Was Rhodesia a great country for all or it was great so long as you were white?
First does a strong currency really translate to better living conditions for black peoples?Or maybe we are just looking at statistics that had absolutely no bearing on the standard of living for the black man.
Now lets look at the facts of Rhodesia.In Rhodesia 80% of the population lived in the Tribal Trust Lands.This means that only 20% of people about 9% of whom were either white or indian constituted the urban population.
So another myth that is thrown around is look we were better as our streets were clean,had good services etc yet reality is Ian Smith artificially kept down urban populations so as to protect white priviledges like running water,electricity and avoiding overcrowding of his streets for the benefit of the whiteman.
Also under Rhodesia 60% of black people were illiterate and add to that only 3% of our people had secondary education.
Now what happened to this 60% who couldn’t read or write?Or the 97% that didnt have secondary education?
This means this was a segment that had no chance in life whether at home or abroad.
Also in 1980 we also notice that Infant Mortality was at a staggering 120 in every 1000 children born,that is 12% of black babies dead.Contrast that to the present 25 in every 1000.
Now how is this better.
So if such grotesque fugures symbolised Rhodesia then what use were the so called jobs that Rhodesia offered?
Think about it