Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Almost every Western nation cut off diplomatic relations with Rhodesia due to the nature of its racist regime, for starters. Also, Zim had loads of natural resources, so locals were put into labor-intensive, low-skilled work. From what I know of Hong Kong, the natural endowments of the island necessitated the development of a more capital focused economy, which subsequently required a higher skillset for the local population.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    But the troubles for Zim started only when the British handed the land over right?

    Hongkong was kept under the British hands for an extended period of time (till 1997), did they contribute to their success?

    EDIT:
    From what I know of Hong Kong, the natural endowments of the island necessitated the development of a more capital focused economy, which subsequently required a higher skillset for the local population.
    What were the "natural endowments of the island"?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Umm...none?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wow! So if Zim had no natural resources it would be as prosperous as Hongkong?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Only if it had a competent government. Right now it may as well not have any natural resources since the government's mismanagement of the mines is running them into the ground...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lamenter)
    What Mugabe to stand for election? :rolleyes: What is it with ignorance in this forum?
    Right, apparently you can't even understand the basic point I'm making. My point is that there is a clear break in the chain of causation between Britain allowing someone to stand for election, and what they then do in office 20 years later having been elected numerous times. You cannot pin the results two-decades later on the decision made originally, because there has been a hell of a lot of human free-will exercised in the middle to make decisions that eventually ended in the result. The chain of causation has been thoroughly broken.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Right, apparently you can't even understand the basic point I'm making. My point is that there is a clear break in the chain of causation between Britain allowing someone to stand for election, and what they then do in office 20 years later having been elected numerous times. You cannot pin the results two-decades later on the decision made originally, because there has been a hell of a lot of human free-will exercised in the middle to make decisions that eventually ended in the result. The chain of causation has been thoroughly broken.

    I'm sorry but letting someone who spent a good decade murdering white people where they could find and black people that didn't want to help. Is not a good candidate. The British government knew what he did and they didn't care. If someone is mired in blood and is adamant that he did the right thing. You obviously he to crazy to stand in power.

    If the government removed the pressure from the Rhodesian government after they only wanted black people who weren't involved in any murders. To stand in power. Then Zimbabwe could have become racially equal without having mad men in powers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lamenter)
    I'm sorry but letting someone who spent a good decade murdering white people where they could find and black people that didn't want to help. Is not a good candidate. The British government knew what he did and they didn't care. If someone is mired in blood and is adamant that he did the right thing. You obviously he to crazy to stand in power.

    If the government removed the pressure from the Rhodesian government after they only wanted black people who weren't involved in any murders. To stand in power. Then Zimbabwe could have become racially equal without having mad men in powers.
    Be that as it may - and there's a decent point in there - my issue was with the causation - that doesn't make Britain responsible for what Mugabe did later on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spencer11111)
    Can you point out the difference between HK and Zimbabwe colonial rule, other than that Hongkong had zero natural resource when compared to Zimbabwe?
    The Chinese have a completely different culture to people from Zimbabwe. There was no explicitly white-supremacist government installed in HK. HK has never been an independent state. HK is a major banking and finance centre, Zimbabwe never was even in the relitively 'good' years. What more do you want? You seem obsessed with natural geography.

    On another point, a white Zimbabwean actually told me Mugabe was never considered that bad until he started to go crazy. This is a guy that had to flee Zimbabwe, his home, telling me that. I think thats the real reason Zimbabwe has such a high profile, the rapid decline in living standards is due to one man's mental state.

    I don't the British left Zimbabwe in a much different state to SA, and the differences are incredible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madscot)
    The Chinese have a completely different culture to people from Zimbabwe. There was no explicitly white-supremacist government installed in HK. HK has never been an independent state. HK is a major banking and finance centre, Zimbabwe never was even in the relitively 'good' years. What more do you want? You seem obsessed with natural geography.
    What do you mean by that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There was no explicitly white-supremacist government installed in HK. HK has never been an independent state.
    The chinese faced discrimination from the British and Zimbabwe was never an independent state. Just like 90% of African countries it was artificially created by a British company.


    HK is a major banking and finance centre, Zimbabwe never was even in the relitively 'good' years. What more do you want? You seem obsessed with natural geography.
    HK was a British port city. Which means that unlike Rhodesia which cut it ties with the UK. HK has benefited immensely from that association. Rhodesia was under international sanctions for most it it's life. That never happened to HK.

    On another point, a white Zimbabwean actually told me Mugabe was never considered that bad until he started to go crazy. This is a guy that had to flee Zimbabwe, his home, telling me that. I think thats the real reason Zimbabwe has such a high profile, the rapid decline in living standards is due to one man's mental state.
    Actually Mugabe was never good. When he took power he left the situation in its status quo. When he tried to change the situations for the Black people by forcing out Whites. That was when the living standards declined because the White Zimbabweans were the backbone of the economy.

    I don't the British left Zimbabwe in a much different state to SA, and the differences are incredible.
    The difference between SA and Rhodesia was that SA enjoyed more legitimacy and was only severely sanctioned in the late 80s.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madscot)
    The Chinese have a completely different culture to people from Zimbabwe. There was no explicitly white-supremacist government installed in HK. HK has never been an independent state. HK is a major banking and finance centre, Zimbabwe never was even in the relitively 'good' years. What more do you want? You seem obsessed with natural geography.
    There was a white-supremacist government installed in HK. From what I checked, all the governors of Hong Kong were directly sent in from London. Until the last 2 terms of office, almost all the people in key office and parliament were British. The Chinese had little say except to go about their lives, earning their living.

    Hong Kong was not a major banking and finance centre when the British captured it. A little reading around here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong suggested it was merely a barren rock with a few fishing villages scattered around. The Imperial Chinese government didn't even bother to keep any records for Hong Kong, because of its lack of importance.

    Not that I am particularly obsessed with natural geography, but it is just common-sense that a place endowed with natural resources is going to fair better than a place that don't. But we are seeing the exact opposite on the issue of Zimbabwe and Hong Kong, which is still left unexplained unless the key factor was the presence of British in HK and absence of British in Zimbabwe.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.