Well That's An Interesting Take

Arfcom often gives us philosophical gems.

Is it better to starve under a communist dictator who's the same race/tribe as you than to live under a racist "democracy" and be well fed?

It's Rhodesia, again!

The argument being put forward by one poster is that a racist nation that keeps its people fed is worse than a non-racist dictatorship that doesn't.

They're not saying it exactly that way, of course.

They're arguing that since the government in Salisbury wasn't perfect, and could not be made perfect in a very short period of time then it needed to be completely discarded instantly.

Which is kind of what did happen.

What he's avoiding looking at is what was waiting to fill the power vacuum when the Salisbury government was discarded.

One man, one vote, one time.

He also avoids looking at things from a white perspective with regards to what happened in other African nations when majority rule was implemented without any kind of preparatory education of that majority.

The kind of massacres that wikipedia doesn't make note of because white people did the dying.

It can be debated if Rhodesia was going to actually educate the majority and, eventually, let them have proportionate electoral power.  We don't know if they were just mouthing the words or not because they ceased to be the government before it could play out.

And majority rule of unprepared and uneducated people with no tradition of republican democracy got a choice between communist candidates; USSR supported on one side and West Taiwan on the other.  Once.

Then what the whites feared was going to happen, pretty much did.

Forced upon them by decisions made by the US and UK while mouthing the words about stopping the spread of communism...

Slow clap.  Just fucking walk into the gorram light already Jimmah.