Conquer Club

alster wrote:It's a cool historical poster issued by a military that primarily fought for independence and against Soviet sponsored commies (Soviet being happy using "racist" as a propaganda tool).

The photograph Dylann Roof used on his Facebook profile page showed him wearing the flags of countries with a history of racial segregation. The flag of the former British colony Rhodesia, which is now known as Zimbabwe and apartheid-era South Africa. Both nations are held up as racially segregated utopias within the white supremacy movement.

Rhodesia and South Africa hold an important place in the online forums where neo-Nazis and other white supremacists gather. The experience of the two countries since the end of white rule – particularly the economic and humanitarian basket-case Zimbabwe has become – is held up as proof of the racial inferiority of blacks; and the diminished stature of whites is presented as an ongoing genocide that must be fought. Worries about miscegenation and white "genocide" abound.

For years the Rhodesian security forces have been responsible for enforcing a mass of racist and exploitative laws and practices and for suppressing African opposition to colonial rule, both peaceful and latterly through the armed struggle. Possession of their own police force, army and air force is in fact one of the things which always distinguished Rhodesia's white settler population from Britain's other colonies in Africa. The Rhodesian security forces today are in a very real sense the basis of white power.

...as time passed, and the Rhodesian government became more structured, a body of laws came into being over the years that generally inhibited Africans from developing their skills or capabilities that would allow them to enter the skilled labor force. These were passed while protecting most, if not all, of white Rhodesian’s interests. The British had a veto over the legislative body but it was never employed, due to the fact that there was no way to back the veto since the Rhodesian Prime Minister would likely not acknowledge the veto. The a main difference between Rhodesia and the rest of the Crown’s holdings was the fact that the area had never been pacified with British troops and as such there was never a British military base in Rhodesia. Thus, any veto that was to be followed through by Britain would require deploying military troops into the country as a show of force. However, the logistics that this would involve even if it were to be contemplated would likely make any kind of intervention on Britain’s part as very remote. Thus, while Britain would campaign for natives’ rights, the fact remains that Rhodesia never had any incentive to comply (Good 33-34).

While the future of the people of Zimbabwe is being debated at Lancaster House in London, events are taking place on the ground which, while they receive little coverage in the Western press and media, clearly reveal the aggressive and menacing character of the white supremacist regimes. In the current discussions on the future of Zimbabwe, there is major division about the process of transition to genuine majority rule. The illegal regime in Salisbury and the British government both insist that the existing Rhodesian security forces should be used to "police" the transitional period. The Patriotic Front, however, has demanded that the transitional period be supervised by an impartial international force, followed by the establishment of an army and police force which genuinely serve the interests of a new and democratic Zimbabwe. In the process of transforming the present war situation to a peaceful society, it is impossible to conceive of those forces which have upheld the system of white supremacy for so many years being "impartial" in any way.

The white supremacists wanted to strip the African majority of the few rights it held in 1965. Many white Rhodesians felt that they had an unquestionable right to the same measure of independence as the other states in the former Central African federation, Zambia (Northern Rhodesia) and Malawi (Nyasaland). The whites in power in Salisbury argued that they had proved their experience and success in governing the country, especially compared with the untried black politicians who took over in the neighbouring states. Smith and his followers reckoned that London would not, in the final analysis, use force against the rebel colony, partly because of its brave war record on behalf of Britain: per head of (white) population Rhodesia had contributed more in both world wars than any other part of the empire, including the United Kingdom. More especially, a large proportion of the white Rhodesian population had served in the British armed forces in the Second World War, and close ties existed with the senior echelons of the British services. Many British ex-servicemen, especially from the Royal Air Force, had settled in the prosperous colony.

Jooste is a proud veteran. He fought along South Africa’s borders with Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) and Mozambique in the 1970s and is scarred by what he calls treason. While he was fighting for the white regime, his leaders were making peace with Mandela. 'Aside from the Aborigines in Australia, the African black is the most underdeveloped, barbaric member of the human race on earth,’ he tells the boys during one of his lectures... Jooste is lecturing in the mess hall. 'Who is my enemy in South Africa?’ he asks. 'Who murders, robs and rapes?’ His cadets sit cross-legged on the ground. 'Who are these creatures? The blacks.’ Jooste goes on to tell the boys that black people have a smaller cerebral cortex than whites, and thus cannot take initiative or govern effectively... He picks up the South African flag, which was adopted in 1994, and lays it before the entrance to the mess hall like a doormat. He orders the boys to wipe their filthy boots on it. They laugh uncertainly, then they do as they are told. Jooste tells them that they should love the old South African flag and the old national anthem.

The security forces fought on behalf of the unrecognised government against the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) and the Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA)—the military wings of the Marxist–Leninist black nationalist Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and Zimbabwe African People's Union respectively—during the Rhodesian Bush War of the 1960s and 1970s.

In Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, pressures for secession and black rule were growing. In Britain attitudes were shifting. Harold MacMillan spoke of the "winds of change" blowing through Africa, and Britain's vital ally, the United States, was pressing for decolonisation. Southern Rhodesia's white minority, however, would not comply. The Federation broke up, and in Salisbury a new white nationalist party, the Rhodesian Front, won power. Smith was its deputy leader and was named Deputy Prime Minister in the new government under Winston Field. But Field was too moderate for the Front. Impatient for an early declaration of independence, his parliamentary party voted him out of power and Smith took over. The "African of British stock" was in power. Six months later, in Britain's general election, Harold Wilson's Labour Party defeated the Conservatives. The stage was set for a showdown between the colonial power committed to black majority rule, and the white settlers who had taken over an African land...

White rule in Southern Rhodesia, at least until the liberation war began in earnest in the late 1960s, was subtly different from its counterpart in South Africa. The end product might have been the same, but it was underpinned less by brutality than by self-righteous paternalism. Whites referred without a trace of self-consciousness to "our black people". Until the end of his life, Smith would contrast the travails of Nigeria, the Congo and other newly independent countries of the continent with the contented stability of his white-run Rhodesia, home of "the happiest black faces you ever saw".

alster wrote:Wow. Got a PM re this. Ridiculous, but a sign of the times we live in unfortunately. A lot of angry people out there with a black and white view of the world who love to fight nonsensical battles on the Internet.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a cool, historical poster perfectly fine for a Risk-inspired game that's been in use for several years without anyone complaining.

It's very harmless (no more harm than a, IMO, stupid religious avatar). But of course, if you want to whine, you can always do that and build up a conspiracy story with a bunch of quotes reaffirming your sense of righteousness.

Me, I'm to old and don't have time to argue with people online. Simply put:

"A wise man told me don't argue with fools
‘Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who"

betiko wrote:Well, if you don t wan t to argue then remove it.
I saw dukasaur the other day mentioning that it was a white supremacist avatar and i had no idea. I m not comfortable either with people using that kind of crap as an avatar... and in this case it seems like it s something to fly under the radar.

alster wrote:

betiko wrote:Well, if you don t wan t to argue then remove it.
I saw dukasaur the other day mentioning that it was a white supremacist avatar and i had no idea. I m not comfortable either with people using that kind of crap as an avatar... and in this case it seems like it s something to fly under the radar.

Bah. I fail to see that. Skimming the first post, I only see a lot of words and a lot of insuniations, nothing having to do with my avatar (which I think is cool). And that from owenshooter who appears to have one rapist (Bill Cosby?) and at least one dictator (Mugabe) with a horrible human rights record in his signature... can't take his opinions seriously, he's just comes across as an angry Internet warrior.

Lord Arioch wrote:isnt Rhodesia Zimbabwe of today and not South africa so im questioning the Connection to apartheid...?

Anyhow a avatar is a avatar... would people be offended if i had an pro allies avatar?
Would pepole be offended if i had a pict of Lenin, Trotzky? some would...
Proudhon, Bakunin, Krapokin?

i agree with icepack ... put a swastika up (which is NOT connected to frigging Hitler... he stole it) i will know u... and i will discuss and bloody do my best to off u in game ...

But for Christ sake everybody as the right to freedom of speech/symbolism?

If i put a Tyr rune up.. am i a hechmen of Tyr the Norse god of justice or a nazi goon?

Let oit be and discuss not condem... WE who support freedom of speech and the right to express the diff view...stand forth and accept the challenge to discuss, not condem..

f*ck i feel like confederate after this post

oh drunk excuse Spelling..

rockfist wrote:I never would have recognized that avatar as being anything. I'm not saying it isn't, but I don't think I am alone in not recognizing what it stood for.

HitRed wrote:Avatars: Should we ban the Union Jack flag of England? How about the USA Stars and Stripes? French Tricolor? Someone might view them as bad, racist or evil. Some people dislike the boy scouts. Other dislike churches. On and on.

owenshooter wrote:Lord A, sorry, your geography is way off. Rhodesia is within the heart of south africa

Keefie wrote:

owenshooter wrote:Lord A, sorry, your geography is way off. Rhodesia is within the heart of south africa

and so is yours. Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) borders but is not within South Africa

iAmCaffeine wrote:No Keefie. It's quite common knowledge that "the Heart of South Africa" actually refers to SA, Zambia, Botswana, Mocambique (Mozambique) and Rhodesia (Congo). That is why it's called the heart. Live and learn.

iAmCaffeine wrote:No Keefie. It's quite common knowledge that "the Heart of South Africa" actually refers to SA, Zambia, Botswana, Mocambique (Mozambique) and Rhodesia (Congo). That is why it's called the heart. Live and learn.

Keefie wrote:The RSF is a collective title for the Rhodesian Army, Air Force & Police.

The Rhodesian Army (both black & white) made a massive contribution to the Allied effort in WWII. In percentage terms compared to the population, larger than any other country. After the illegal declaration of independence by Southern Rhodesia in 1964 the RSF mainly defended the country against communist led forces such as the ZANU PF. Throughout the period from 1964 to 1980 the number of blacks in the army grew until by the end they were by far the largest group.

The Rhodesian Security Forces of 1964–80 traced their history back to the British South Africa Company armed forces, originally created during company rule in the 1880s and 1890s. These became the armed forces of the British self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia on its formation in 1923, then part of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland military in 1953. After the break-up of the Federation at the end of 1963, the security forces assumed the form they would keep until 1980.

The Rhodesian Bush War—also known as the Second Chimurenga or the Zimbabwe War of Liberation—was a civil war that took place from July 1964 to December 1979[n 1] in the unrecognised country of Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe-Rhodesia).[n 2][26] The conflict pitted three forces against one another: the Rhodesian government, under Ian Smith (later the Zimbabwe Rhodesian government of Bishop Abel Muzorewa); the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union; and the Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army of Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union.

The war and its subsequent Internal Settlement, signed in 1978 by Smith and Muzorewa, led to the implementation of universal suffrage in June 1979 and the end of white minority rule in Rhodesia, which was renamed Zimbabwe Rhodesia under a black majority government. However, this new order failed to win international recognition and the war continued.

Negotiations between the government of Zimbabwe Rhodesia, the British government and Mugabe and Nkomo's united "Patriotic Front" took place at Lancaster House, London in December 1979, and the Lancaster House Agreement was signed. The country returned temporarily to British control and new elections were held under British and Commonwealth supervision in March 1980. ZANU won the election and Mugabe became the first Prime Minister of Zimbabwe on 18 April 1980, when the country achieved internationally recognised independence.

Keefie wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:No Keefie. It's quite common knowledge that "the Heart of South Africa" actually refers to SA, Zambia, Botswana, Mocambique (Mozambique) and Rhodesia (Congo). That is why it's called the heart. Live and learn.

Really !!!!!!!

Geography is one of my stronger topics and I've NEVER heard of 'the Heart of South Africa'/ Google it and you get absolutely NO results that corroborate this. Also Rhodesia used to be two countries. Northern Rhodesia, which is now Zambia and Southern Rhodesia which is now Zimbabwe. There are two countries called 'Congo'. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) and The Republic of the Congo, neither of which were ever part of Rhodesia.