Friday, May 29, 2009

Afrikaners and Rhodesians

By Guy White (US blogger)


In my immigration post, some people mentioned that they wouldn’t want Afrikaners and Rhodesians to be allowed to come here because they are responsible for giving in to the Blacks.

I think that is completely wrong. They put up a better fight than we did, except while we started the 1960s outnumbering blacks almost 10-1, they started with a reverse ratio. They had a very hard time controlling their borders, while for us it’s just a matter of will. Both Rhodesia and South Africa couldn’t control large (and expanding) parts of their country.

They fought hard and bravely, but it was demoralizing to have the whole white race against you. Once we abandoned them, it was only a matter of time before they lost. They still put up a fight. In the case of Rhodesians, they did so until they literally ran out oil, as well as being almost out of ammunition. South Africans basically lost control of their country by the 1980s, but fought on for another dozen years.

Many Afrikaners complain about FW de Klerk’s surrender and treason. But he came to a logical decision under the circumstances. Most of the country had already been lost by the time he came to power (despite what white nationalists and Afrikaners claims, this is true… try doing the research of what was and was not controlled by the apartheid government).

Why should they have continued to fight when their loss was guaranteed because the white world was urging on and helping blacks?

How could a few million South Africans fight against not just tens of millions of blacks in their country, but also all the white countries around the world.

This applies even more to the Rhodesians, who never numbered more than a quarter million and had a devil of a time trying to control large parts of their country.

Yet, they fought through the whole 1970s. Everyone abandoned them, even South Africa, which was forced to do so by Britain and the rest of the West.

If these two countries weren’t abandoned by the rest of the West, they would’ve still been around and they’d have no doubt won the war. But we abandoned them. Worse, we turned on them.

If Americans and Europeans displayed 1% of the fight for their countries that Afrikaners and Rhodesians displayed, we wouldn’t have been in the predicament we are in now. They had no choice; we do. They were tiny nations; we are a global superpower. They fought for themselves; we don’t.

To suggest that they earned their fate is wrong. They made mistakes, and you can dwell on it, but ultimately, they stood no chance. Discussing their rights and wrongs is analogous to telling a man who was jumped by 25 gang-bangers what he did wrong while fighting back, that he should’ve punched instead of kicking or whatever. It doesn’t matter if you punch or kick if you get jumped by 25 men. And similarly it doesn’t matter if Afrikaners played their cards perfectly or not.

Plus, who says that they had the responsibility to never make any mistakes. Sure, they made mistakes. So did everyone else. But it’s completely unfair to pick apart their policies when the reality is that they didn’t matter.

Let’s say there was no black migration into South Africa. Blacks would’ve still been a majority. Not as big of a majority, but a majority nonetheless. And the world would’ve sided with them, with the result being the same as what happened.

Let’s take a look at the idea of creating a white homeland. The bantustans were basically that idea and they were actually adjusted (or had plans to be adjusted) to become contiguous. But even if whites didn’t keep most of South Africa, even if they got just the Cape or even just a small part of the Cape. So what? The world would’ve never recognized it, the Cape would’ve been surrounded on all sides and sooner or later, would lose. The only thing fighting would accomplish is a loss of life, but the outcome was well-known. The only way for that white homeland to survive would be to get Western recognition and support. Otherwise, the Afrikaners would have to be moved en masse (destroying the economy and a generation of lives), and would also have to give up major cities, economic trade routes (such as Durban ports), natural resources and control over black militants.

Blacks would then put Katyusha rockets all around the white homeland and fire at it 24/7. Every time whites would respond, the whole West would demonstrate against them. What chance would that white homeland have?

The same can be said across the board. I’m sure people can come up with something that the Afrikaners or the Rhodesians did that was wrong. But ultimately, it simply wouldn’t have mattered because we turned on them.

To say that Afrikaners and Rhodesians are responsible for what happened to them is wrong, factually and morally. We are responsible for it. Even if we just ignored them, they’d have fought on and probably won. But no, we purposely undermined them. Who’s to blame for that?

8 Opinion(s):

FishEagle said...

I have a lot of time for this author!

Anonymous said...

I like him too. Kinda gets to the meat of the topic and considering he is American, still shows he has a good grasp of past and present events in this part of Africa.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

If they are already deciding who should and should not be welcome in an independant Cape, we are Not off to a good start sounds like the same crappy story that got us here in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this article - Proud white South African (Zarky)

Anonymous said...

Rhodesians never die.

Anonymous said...

@ anon 2:42, hear, hear. As long as one Rhodesian lives on this earth, you have Rhodesia.

Para Bellum said...

@ Doberman...

I hear you brother.

Sit Nomine Digna!!!
(Rhodesian Coat of Arms - translates as "May She be Worthy of her Name")

As long as one "Rhodie" lives and breathes, Rhodesia will live on.

Sic Vis Pacem, Para Bellum!