Lets say, Portugal is able to keep Mozambique and Angola until

File: rhodesiantacticalshorts.png (411KB, 370x465px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 370x465px

>>2687683
I would love for Rhodesia to still exist.

>>2687683
>A separate question would be; is their a timeline where Rhodesia could exist in 2017?

No. It's policies would eventually fuck itself in the ass as it faces the huge issue that the ONLY people who aren't unskilled labourers are the small white populace and inability to develop past the Latin America level (a pretty low bar) while retaining it's policies back then

>>2687683
Rhodesia was 8 percent white and 92 percent black. Those figures aren't exaggerated.
The whole thing was never going to work from the start. Even had they won independence the exact same political problems would've surfaced again and probably for the worse.

>>2689062
>8% white
>92% black
>hailed as the bread basket of Africa

>100% black
>needs $1.5 billion in aid to stop mass famine


Its almost like before the whites came their was a lot less black people there...

>>2689071
Yes, but that's exactly my point. Settler states in Africa were never ruthless enough to extirpate or at the very least expel blacks, and since blacks were never subject to the same demographic pressures it always by nature resulted in these dangerous and lopsided figures. You could not run a society forever where 92 percent of the population is an alien underclass, it's completely absurd. It would never have worked.

ITT: Rhodesia was racist! My leftist professor told me so!

>>2689100
Yes, becauze "colonialism" was never about pillaging and looting Africa as it's claimed, it genuinely was about making a livable continentthat had, since the dawn of time, not evolved beyond basic mud structures.

>>2690896
You know your response has literally nothing to do with what he wrote, right? He didn't write a single fucking word about right or wrong, he made a purely factual claim: the situation in Rhodesia was untenable and was never going to last, regardless of what anybody did.

That aside, what you're saying is ludicrously oversimplified - colonialism simply can't be boiled down to either
>pillaging and looting
or
>making a livable continent
and the fact that you're trying to reduce something so complicated to either one of those suggests that you really shouldn't be trying to discuss this at all.

>>2687683
It would last the same, because Portugal is irrelevant in the picture.
The cause of the fall of Rhodesia is to be found in the eternal leaf.
>No independence before majority rule (abbreviated NIBMAR) was a policy adopted by the United Kingdom requiring the implementation of majority rule in a colony, rather than rule by the white colonial minority
>British Prime Minister Harold Wilson was pressured into adopting the approach during a conference in London. Wilson was not initially inclined to do so, fearing it would slow down the rate at which Rhodesia could be granted independence, but Lester Pearson, the Prime Minister of Canada, formulated a draft resolution committing Wilson to NIBMAR

>>2690896
>this is what /pol/tards actually believe

>>2690896
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>2687683
Israel was the biggest backer of Rhodesia, not Portugal