Carryfast:
Rjan:
…
Even Stevie Wonder could see that Mugabe’s vote was based on hypocritical reverse racism in the form of your stated premise of a so called ‘white minority’ v ‘black majority’.IE no one voted for Mugabe because he was better than Smith.They voted for him because he was the ‘right’ colour and ethnicity.Which if anyone did here on the grounds of the white majority vote you’d then conveniently shout racist when it suits you. 
Which white man could the blacks have voted for? Under apartheid, they could not vote for a white man or any man at all. After apartheid, the only white men standing were the very people the blacks had just fought a bitter revolutionary war against in order to smash their apartheid ideology.
Your determination to view this through the rubric of racism on the part of the blacks, obtusely overlooks the background and immediate history of apartheid and racism on the part of the whites, targeted specifically against blacks.
It is this, predominantly, which explains blacks’ voting patterns, not racism against whites.
Although for those - the so-called war veterans - who had experienced the horror of the white regime, who had been beaten, tortured, or had lost friends and family, it is quite possible that this developed into a hatred of whites based purely on adverse life experience, rather than upon a science and ideology of racism, and vested interests in exploitation, as drove many whites.
While the definition of apartheid would have,if not already had,obviously developed into ethnic African rule of ethnic African areas.Just like the London vote reflects its foreign ethnic demographic of which you predictably have no issues with being the right demographic.Just as you’re an obvious apologist for zb Mugabe and his Soviet backers.Make no mistake the Socialist rabble are playing with fire having wrecked South Africa and Rhodesia,based on a typically Socialist reverse racist Social engineering crusade,by taking advantage of and corrupting the idea of self determination and multi culturalism and now wanting to do the same at home.
Mugabe was not a socialist, and he was in no alliance with the Soviets at the time of taking power or at any time afterwards.
You say the blacks wrecked South Africa and Rhodesia, you fail to consider the rank exploitation and appalling management of the whites.
It’s no different than if a man breaks into your home and chains you and your large family in the basement. He does not intend to kill anyone if he does not have to, but merely to violate you and use you for his purposes. You manage to break free, you wrestle, much valuable furniture is smashed, you suffer life-changing injuries in the process, but you finally subdue your captor and put him to the sword. You and your family are badly mentally scarred, and do not function well for the rest of your lives - some frankly go mad, others attack each other from time to time, the family business goes to the wall, and the family home deteriorates through neglect, poverty, and apathy.
Are you as the householder seriously to be blamed for the injuries and the smashed furniture, and the long term mental consequences?
Was the alternative really to accept your captor’s terms, tolerate the indignities and violations, and let him continue to do his worst, because at least there would have been order in the household, the furniture (especially that upstairs, in the quarters you no longer occupied) would be safe, and you’d at least have all been fed? Such reasoning is utterly risible.
And all this from the man who constantly rattles the sabre about the importance of sovereignty and self-determination.
On that note the laughable idea,that Rhodesia was just a ‘veneer’,while the Mugabe and ZANU PF regime was/is supposedly a panacea of democracy and stability,is just part of that dangerous blind Soviet Socialist delusional crusade.Which was/is actually more about destabilising the ‘Capitalist’ enemy than making life better for Africa and Africans of whatever ethnicity.
The Soviets had their own agenda in Africa, no more a crusade of socialism (even in the Soviets’ own terms) than the West’s agenda was a crusade of liberal democracy. So to that extent I agree with you, but no further.
And I haven’t suggested Mugabe was a panacea of democracy, although the whites struck a deal with him primarily because they believed he would provide stability for industrialists, and for a number of years he did, although there has obviously been a legacy of violence, political conflict, and low-level civil war that has not yet settled.