Image talk:Smithy3.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is self evident, with the benefit of hindsight, that the choice for Rhodesia during UDI was either a slow conversion to majority rule (not as slow as that advocated by Ian Smith, but clearly vastly slower than that demanded by the "politically correct" thinking of Wilson, Carter, et al) or reversion to a type of warlord system which, in essence, is what happened with Mugabe.

If Ian Smith could see then what would happen with rapid conversion (and it is now obvious that he could) then it suggests that Wilson, Carter et al couldn't see it because they were toadying to the holier than thou "politically correct," thought police. Ironic isn't it that then, as now, most of the "politically correct" thinking is, in practice, incorrect but seems to come from certain quarters of our education establishments.

With a much slower conversion would Rhodesia/Zimbabwe today have had majority rule, happy faces of all colours, prosperity, functioning education, health and economic systems? Try to answer that from a basis of common sense instead of from a basis of political correctness.

In my opinion the academic establishments of the West have for at least 100 years contained significant numbers of left wing academics who somehow seem to have created this affliction in society known as "political correctness." It was right for the first half of the 1900's but, as usual for humans, the pendulum was pushed continually and went far beyond the point of equilibrium.

It is a bit of a nasty rule of thumb to quote, but sometimes one can't help an old saying springing to mind: "Those that can do. Those that can't teach."

CSense (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. See Observer article If only .... BScar23625 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)