Comments by "Ayodeji Olowokere" (@ayodejiolowokere1076) on "SYND 22 3 76 RHODESIAN PRIME MINISTER IAN SMITH SPEAKING AT A PRESS CONFERENCE IN SALISBURY" video.

@mrman8541 there were race curfews. Blacks had to leave the white area at a certain time of day, and segregation was the rule of the day. Also, with the 1969 constitution 50 out of 66 seats in Rhodesia's parliament were reserved for whites. In addition, blacks and whites could not purchase property in the other's area. Finally, there was a colour bar that dictated what amenities an individual could utilize based on their race. What did any of this have to do with education?
4
@mrman8541 so why create race based institutions that also discriminated against educated blacks?
2
@mrman8541 you're wrong. 50 out of 66 seats were reserved for Europeans. In theory it would change in the future then would be 50-50 as black income increased but under the 'no mad rush' philosophy it was set at 50-16. And what about the racial segregation you brushed over? Furthermore, how are 50 seats being reserved for whites fair if whites are only 5 percent of the population?
2
@mrman8541 what? You're saying the Brits were there first? And what about Africans in the armed forces and police?
2
@KosherPorky don't be ridiculous. Just because Africans are in the UK doesnt make it a black and white country. Rhodesia was and is a black country.
2
@KosherPorky you can't force that on anybody. And the average Brit will rightfully disagree with you. Britain is a white country and will always be. Half the seats in the UK parliament are not reserved for blacks. Let alone half the land.
2
@ezws I agree but my point is in Rhodesia it was limited to a certain group. All without the consent of the governed.
2
@SilencedButNotForgotten Indeed, it did. The country was racially segregated and 50 out of 66 seats in parliament were reserved for whites.
2
@denismunashesidunaSID you're as dense as they come if you support the majority of seats in parliament being reserved for a minority. And what's wrong with you? Even qualified blacks were exempted in favour of retaining a white quota in the government. All of this by a pro segregation government thar reserved half the land in Zimbabwe for five percent of the population. What's wrong with you?
2
@avian8338 Rhodesia stays dead. Nothing can change that.
2
So not wanting black majority rule in a black majority country is fair?
1
@mrman8541 yes. They made a country where other people were living while paying no mind to those people. Nevermind the country was made with black labour, nevermind the natives never wanted them there. The natives should have just rolled over and let aliens rule their country like good little Africans. Do you take the time to consider the implications of what you type?
1
@KosherPorky Rhodesia was a black country. Absolute black rule wasn't unjust.
1
@KosherPorky what's wrong with that? It is a black country after all.
1
@Scotseasy not really. He wanted white rule to continue indefinitely and when he saw that would never happen he changed the script to he was just trying to maintain standards. If he truly only wanted competent rule he would have abolished segregation.
1
@Wickedonezz how so?
1
@Wickedonezz that's funny.
1
@avian8338 nobody wants the name. She's worthy of it alright.
1
@avian8338 why are you scared to type "fuzzy wuzzy"? Scared it'll discredit Rhodesian support?
1
@denismunashesidunaSID then be a slave on your own since that is your nature. Find a white person who's racist and throw yourself at his feet and say please save me from my inability to save myself. For goodness sake, you prefer to be at the boot of a racist system than to fix your own country? That makes you a slave, and no one can or should respect you.
1
@steve19811 actually, it's more developed than it was in 1979. Thank you though for admitting you Rhodesia advocates are motivated by race. It gets so tiring when you pretend otherwise.
1