You wrote:

“At no time did I suggest that Smith was better than Mugabe. That is you construing again.”

Of course you did not come out into the open by suggesting that you prefer Smith to Mugabe, but what can one deduce from your comparison? Being an Afrikan, black, and especially a Southern Afrikan, I found your comparison strange, to say the least. At first it even made me wonder whether you’re really an Afrikan, but I still take your word for that, nevertheless … If you say you did not suggest that Smith was better, or that you did not put Smith on a par with Mugabe, then I see little meaning in your statements, because there is no need for such a comparison: … just check your wording!! I for one would say the statement …

… “SMITH … kept a tight grip on power, justifying this by saying he was protecting the country from Communists who were using the Blacks as a tool for their agenda to take over the world … Access to opportunity was based on colour of skin” …

… combined with your other statement that …

… “MUGABE … keeps a tight grip on power, saying that he is protecting the country from Imperialist forces who are using Blacks as a tool for their agenda to take over the world … Access to opportunity is based on political patronage” …

… suggest that Smith’s Rhodesian rebel regime was only pro-white/racist & capitalistic (… and therefore anti-Afrikan, with very little or absolutely no regard for the human rights of the indigenous peoples of the land misnamed “Rhodesia”) while Mugabe’s Zimbabwean government is pro-black and anti-imperialistic (and therefore pro-Afrikan, NOT NECESSARILY ANTI-WHITE, but with conditional regard for the human rights of the whites inevitably caught up in the Zimbabwean government’s drive to right the wrongs of the past).

You must understand, especially as an Afrikan, that what you write (OR DON’T WRITE) about your country reflects the way you think, and of course most people that read these posts know only very little about Rhodesia or Zimbabwe, and would easily take every word you say or post for the full scale of the truth about the situation in Zimbabwe. If you are a Zimbabwean, or an Afrikan, which I believe you are, you should know that Smith is HATED, and only an Afrikan in their wrong frame of mind would even remotely suggest that Smith can be compared to Mugabe, regardless of where they stand in the political spectrum. So much nostalgia!!

You wrote about Smith:

“But this has to be said of him- when he faced sanctions, he strove to make the country more self-sufficient. Under him, Zimbabwe became more industrialised.”

… which I found deficient, funny. For whom and with whose help did Smith make the country more self-sufficient? WHO even loudly imposed sanctions on Smith, and WHO secretly aided him by investing in “his” country to make it self-sufficient? … As someone has already corrected you, there was no Zimbabwe in the era of Smith and, therefore, no “Zimbabwe” became more industrialised. I suggest that as a writer, you need to recheck the meanings of what you write, how you write sometimes. I know about Smith and Rhodesia first-hand, perhaps even more than you do, because I experienced, as a very young boy, Smith’s terror of hit-squads and ruthless commando raids, illegal infiltrations, killings and air bombardments in Livingstone and many other parts of Zambia that were both economic and civilian targets for Smith, Vorster and their faceless friends behind the scenes … MANY PEOPLE DIED!

~

A REMINDER: Please remember that ZANU-PF won the 2005 elections, and stop pretending as if you don't know that. Inversely, it also means the majority of Zimbabweans support ZANU-PF and nothing else!