It is really off the mark to label Rhodesia a “white supremacist’ state. You gloss over the fact that black Rhodesians had full economic rights enjoying the highest standard of living anywhere in Africa and after 1975, some blacks had full political rights. Rhodesia’s parliament was 1/3 black and from 1978 to 1979 had a black Prime Minister. How can a state where some blacks did participate and even led be termed white supremacist?
South Africa had apartaheid. No such system existed in Rhodesia. I’m not going to say that Rhodesia was this model of enlightened liberal democracy of one person, one vote. It wasn’t. They had voting restrictions based on property and education that restricted both the white and black population. Yes, those restrictions affected the black population more. Only 30,000 out of some two million black adults could vote. A fraction while much greater proportion of white Rhodesians were elegible to vote.
And there really is no denying that Rhodesia was a well-managed country unlike Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. From breadbasket of Africa to basket case of Africa really took some doing. And today, a third of Zimbabweans live outside the country.
But your question as to why American white supremacists find Rhodesia as a source of inspriation, I am still not finding why. Rhodesia wasn’t South Africa. How they miss this is beyond me.
Thanks for your thoughts but I don’t find your argument compelling.