Talk:Second Chimurenga/Rhodesian Bush War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Pedantic
My background - born in Zimbabwe mid '1960's, went to school there, grew up through the war, saw the lowering of the Union Jack (used as the flag during the Zimbabwe Rhodesia era in '79, prior to the general elections), the raising of the new Zimbabwe flag and lived most of the rest of my life there.
Oh! My Family were quite into politics, prior and post 1980 and once, when Ndabaningi Sithole was in our town, he had lunch at our house.
I know what happened during the Rhodesian bush war, I saw it, ate it, walked with it, played with it, slept in it and cried with it.
Now back to the point, this entry about the Rhodesian Bush War.
My mom once said - "There are always TWO sides to a story and then there's The TRUTH".
Besides a few politically incorrect terms, it is quite an accurate summary of the war. In every war the enemy is the enemy and which ever way you look at it, the side you're on you are going to support and you're going to call your enemy all sorts of things, to you he's always a gook, a terrorist, whatever... afterall he is your enemy. And exactly the same the otherway round.
Most of the criticism of this article are by people being pedantic about the way it was written. But actually that's how it was. We should not discuss the moral issues of a white minority political regime in a black country, that could be covered under other entries such as racism or politics and wouldn't fit in the scope of this article.
So besides a few minor points like whether you call your enemy a terrorist or a guerilla, this is quite a true article about the 'Cimurenga'.
Vegon 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] neutrality
i began to change the article to balance out the bias but its hopeless. the whole article reads like a propaganda campaign of ex-rhodesians...the whole article must be adapted. currently, there is absolutely no neutrality. --Severino 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradictory Sentence?
I find the following sentence contradictory:
"In 1976, Rhodesian Selous Scout soldiers destroyed a United Nations refugee camp, containing many hundreds of terrorist trainees, called cadres."
Surely it was either a refugee camp or it was a terrorist training camp, but not both -- or was/is the UN in the business of housing refugees and training terrorists in the same location?
Anyone have any comments?
--Craig 18:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Since I received no response, I went ahead and edited that sentence at the same time as cleaning up the article significantly. --Craig 23:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Craig on this. As this is meant to be an encyclopedia how can something as glaring as this be put in? As for the camp being a UN refugee camp is hard to say. More likely it was a camp for training terrorist (my own veiw).
[edit] Background
Some background information on the war would be nice. It may be blindingly obvious why the war started, but I wouldn't want to just presume and add it myself. --Easytoremember 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Some of this has been added by the anonymous editor, busy doing some reworking of it, but at least it's there for now! Greenman 10:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I find this page to be biased toward the white population of Rhodesia by not being called the bush war.
That's what the Zimbabwean government calls it. Complain to them. Gazpacho 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What to Call this War
This article is certainly the worst that can ever be found in an encyclopedia that is worthy its salt. The article rightly belongs to a homepage of one of the Rhodesian racist white supremacist rifleman in the so called Rhodesian Bush War. Such an article certainly has no place in Wikipedia. Here I want to address only the issue of what to call this war and leaving the treatment of its content to some other day. So far I've tried as best as I can to edit the introductory paragraph in a fair manner. I will try to be objective and to treat everyone, even those who are racist and make racist statements about this war and about us, Zimbabweans, with respect. This is what my Shona culture has taught me to do - even in the face of extreme provocation from all the racist connotations contained in this article.
The proper name of this war is Zimbabwe's Second Chimurenga. Calling the Zimbabwean War, the "2nd Chimurenga" is NOT a ZANU or Mugabe idea - this is in fact what we, the majority of the people of Zimbabwe, call it. White Zimbabweans, especially those of the Rhodesian dispensation, are in the minority and they call this war "the Bush War". Zimbabweans view it as the 2nd war of liberation from racist foreign domination - this process of liberation was, and is still, evolutionary. The 1st war was in 1890-4 which culminated in the execution of Nehanda and Kaguvi who were the war's inspirational leaders.
Now we are faced with another form of liberation struggle - that of liberating ourselves from our war heroes with a focus on issues of good governance, rule of law, corruption, and a host of other post-war ills that face our nation today. These issues concern all Zimbabweans, black or white, and must not be addressed from a racist and white-supremacist perspective although I admit that some of the issues are legacies of the Rhodesian racist and white-supremacist era. For instance, Mugabe himself, born 1924, is, in fact, a legacy of that era. ZANU-PF was formed in 1964 and hence it is also a legacy of the Rhodesian era. ZANU-PF is in fact a military organisation whose modus operandi was necessitated by the very nature of Rhodesian racism, white-supremacism and the Rhodesian government's systems and policies of brutality, cruelty and injustice. The Rhodesian era required an equally ruthless and cruel military organisation on the side of the suffering masses if the Rhodesian structures were to be successfully dismantled. The need for such a military organisation was what the suffering majority of the people wanted in order to free themselves from Rhodesian racist brutality. If only the Rhodesians could reason normally like civilised human beings, we would not have had ZANU-PF today. ZANU-PF is a military monster created by the people and necessitated by Rhodesian conditions. Both the Rhodesian dispensation and the ZANU-PF monster are not necessary in modern-day Zimbabwe.
Mugabe and all fighters in the 2nd Chimurenga, were our heroes and they will remain so to us Zimbabweans within the context of the 2nd Chimurenga even if we are now fighting to liberate ourselves from them today. In the post-war Zimbabwe, Mugabe and the fighters like him may not be our heroes but this does not mean that, from a historical perspective, they cease to be our heroes for the 2nd Chimurenga period.
For purposes of this encyclopedia, I find nothing wrong in laying bare the views of everyone in this war in a neutral manner. Even if you are a Rhodesian at heart and a racist through and through - to the bone marrow, there should be no conflict in your mind in seeing true and bare facts about each perspective to this war being portrayed in a neutral way in wikipedia.
Is there no theory or methods of historical analysis and rules of encyclopedic writing that guides writers/contributors on how to name a physical or conceptual "thing"? The question is if we the majority of Zimbabweans call a "thing" in our country X, why should the English or anybody on earth call it Y when referring to this particular Zimbabwean "thing"? Rhodesians call this war, a "bush war" because their racist perspective allow them to see only "bushes" instead of people with genuine grievances arising from one of the world's most unjust, verulent and brutal form racism and apartheid.
I view this war as one chapter of Zimbabwe's history and in that chapter Mugabe and other freedom fighters are heroes to Zimbabweans. Today, we have a different chapter dealing with issues of rule of law, governance and democracy, and in this chapter, Mugabe and these others are NOT heroes to Zimbabweans. I have no problem, no conflict in my mind in accommodating Mugabe, the 2nd Chimurenga hero, on one hand, and Mugabe the neo-despot of post-war Zimbabwe, on the other. I submit that only irrational minds would have a problem with this.
This Zimbabwean war must be properly called "Zimbabwe's 2nd Chimurenga". This title has no connotations of a racial nature. The word Chimurenga is inward looking on the Shona people of Zimbabwe and does not include any notion of an external factor. Murenga is an ancient Shona King who is well known for military prowess and for leading his people successfully in armed conflicts and struggles. We, the Shona use the name "Chimurenga" as an inspiration and the word is a de-personification of the freedom and liberation struggle virtues that were embodied in the person of King Murenga. "Chi-murenga" is broken down into "chi-" for depersonification and nounification to a "thing" and "-murenga" becomes "the virtues and characteristics of Ishe/Lord/King Murenga". Thus, there is no racism in the notion of Chimurenga - and both black and white Zimbabweans can comfortably subscribe to the values of Chimurenga without feeling dehumanised as we find in calling the war "the bush war". Theirs (the white Rhodesians of racially and white-supremacist oriented minds) was a "bush war", but ours (the predominantly black dehumanised and suffering but inspired victims of Rhodesian institutionalised racism and systems of injustice) was the 2nd Chimurenga War of liberation. There is nothing wrong in portraying these two perspectives in a neutral and sober manner within the body of the article. - Shiku
[edit] WP:MilHist Assessment
A nice, thorough article, with a good handful of pictures, and good section divisions. Is there anything more to be said, to make this a bit longer? Also, I think the addition of an infobox, and a campaignbox (if appropriate), would put this article over the edge beyond the Start-class. LordAmeth 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moving articles
Please do not rename articles by copying and pasting the text. There is a process for this that preserves the page history. Gazpacho 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded. - Bobet 20:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, why was this article moved? This looks like a POV-move. "Second Chimurenga" is the official name in Zimbabwe, so let's stick to that. JackyR | Talk 11:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because to the rest of the world it's known as the Rhodesian Bush War? Because 'Chimurenga' means nothing to english speakers? Because it's not up to Mugabe's discredited government to decide what it is called (cf the Burma vs Myanmar name change debate)? (Just suggestions btw)
[edit] NPOV
Where to start :) Phrases such as 'leftist rebels', 'Good police work, based on intelligence, stamped out any urban threat.', 'masses of ill-disciplined and barely trained guerrillas and was unable to seize and retain an objective. Training standards were so low that many cadres did not clean their rifles.', 'ZANLA had to terrorise to achieve popular support','subsequently abused, raped and massacred by the ZIPRA terrorists', all betray a particular slant, while the external links are all from one perspective as well. The article needs serious attention to achieve balance. Greenman 23:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It will always be known as the Rhodesian Bush War. Do we call Burma Myanmar? The nation of Zimbabwe is a failed state, and though what I say now is biased, it should have still been Rhodesia instead. --Bluelist 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Iwe Bluelist, hauzivi zvachose. The earth is created NOT as a static and dogmatic world. The point is that only Rhodesians will always know this war as a "Rhodesian Bush War". Your concept of "nation" is clearly confused. The nation of Zimbabwe is certainly not a failed state. I think what you wanted to say was "Mugabe's ZANU PF Government is a failed government". This fact does not in itself prevent the Nation of Zimbabwe or the State of Zimbabwe to put in place a successful government in future. Note that it is a government that has failed and not the nation.It is also not true to say that the "Rhodesian nation is a failed state" it was the Rhodesian governments that failed, which led to them being dismantled. Because the Mugabe government has failed, it will also be dismantled. - Shiku
The article's name is the absolute least of its problems. The wording has an obvious racist POV slant ("leftists", "terrorists", "nationalists", "tribal") emphasising how the rebel savage natives had started a "bush war" against a civilised government that had treated them so well and given them so much. Its content needs an extensive rewrite before any half serious person would consider it worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Also, this is an encyclopedia of World knowledge, not just a mirror of the naturally limited knowledge of English speakers, so the "this is what English speakers call it/care about" argument does not have much validity. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 06:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- How on earth is calling the groups in question "leftist" classed as POV, let alone racist? They were communists, for crying out loud - how much more leftist can you get? ZANU only abandoned its commitment to marxism in 1991, and the rebel groups were supported by the Chinese and the Soviet bloc. 222.131.214.10 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The ANC is communist, were they also leftist nationalist terrorist rebels? Calling them "leftist" is POV, so is "terrorists". It's almost as subtle as the slur of "unrully hordes toy-toying and shouting slogans...", simply because you've regularly heard these labels without really thinking about what they imply does not automatically make it appropriate to include them in a POV article. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 14:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
By all rights, the ANC *is* a leftist organization, and it *did* commit acts of terrorism in the past. Certainly, innocents were injured or killed in its operations. The ANC has helped, however, to bring equality before the law for many in South Africa. It is always worthwhile to remember the crimes committed so that future generations can weigh whether or not those crimes in the past justified the ends many years later. An argument might be made that the ANCs crimes ARE so outweighed. Can Mugabe's crimes also be justified? That is not for us to answer, but the information should be presented. Jkp1187 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- If all bombings with collateral damage are acts of terrorism, then really, who isn't a terrorist? It's obvious that the word terrorism itself is always going to be hotly contested. Due to its vague meaning, and heavily negative connotation, using it in this article is very POV. In my mind there is no good reason to use such a term in any NPOV wikipedia article save Terrorism. Angrynight 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted all the way back to October 3, because there's little reason to expect that the anonymous editors will come back to clean up their changes. Gazpacho 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"leftist" and "terrorist" have no racial slant whatsover. Their usage in the article is also 100% correct. The term "Leftist" describes the political bent of both organisations AT THE TIME, and terrorism describes perfectly the methods they used, eg. targeting civilians in their urban bombing campaigns, and utilising terror tactics against rural civilians to ensure their support.
"terrorism describes perfectly the methods they used, eg. targeting civilians in their urban bombing campaigns, and utilising terror tactics against rural civilians"- you are talking about the rhodesian army,right? --Severino 11:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
What about adding a bibliography to this page? There are a number of books on each side, which could help to demonstrate the differing viewpoints.
[edit] Balance ?
I belive the important thing to remember here is that no matter who was called on to produce an balanced article, it would be bias to a greater or lesser degree, dependent on the authors view. This goes for every publication on the subject, whether a recognised publishing or not.
Apart from references to existing publications, it would be valuable to any reader or researcher to see a version of the article written with the perspective of the 'other' side ? 196.28.38.72 06:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
Readig this article is difficult because different sections are written from different points of view, pro and anti Rhodesia and pro and anti Mugabe/ZANU. Can I suggest that the piece be rewritten giving BOTH points of view as exactly that POINTS OF VIEW. For a start we can change the name of the piece from Rhodesian Bush War to either 2nd Chimurenga/Rhodesian Bush War or vice versa. Secondly, can we say that the present Zimbabwean Administration justified the war as a battle against foreign and colonial domination [[while]]the Rhodesian Administration at the time justified their actions as an attempt to prevent Communist tyranny from destroying the conservative, civilised and Christian nature of their (our) country. For the record, many Black Zimbabwean/Rhodesians fought for the Smith Administration, just as at the same time many white Rhodesians/Zimbabweans campaigned for an end to the white hedgemony, usually from outside the Republic. While there can be no doubt that there was extreme racism ON BOTH SIDES, it can also be argued that there were many on both sides who did not see the conflict as one between races but between a right wing regime (on one side) and left wing revolution (on the other). As for the legality of either side, we see too often people simply follow either the line that UDI was illigal or that ZANU/ZAPU. Any thorough reading of Zimbabwean/Rhodesian history will indicate that UDI was legally justifiable as Britian had renaged on her obligations to grant dominion status, in fact what is suprising is that UDI did not happen earlier. Secondly, why distinctly definable terrorist acts were carried out such as the shooting down of Civilian Aircraft by ZAPU, for the most part ZANU restricted itself to a slow insurgancy. Some commentry should be added aboout atrocities on both sides, (rape, murder and mutilations within Zimbabwe by Nationalists and assasinations outside Zimbabwe by the Rhodesian forces) and there should be more context added: that the war was part of both the decolonisation process in Africa and of the Cold War; that many in the West sympathised with the Rhodesians and many actively aided the Nationalists; That the British Army refused to support Wilson's view that the Rhodesians should be put down by the Empire (or what was left of it) and that while China, Russia and the US were players in this affair (the US through Kisinger finally ending it), the main external players were the AU, Zambia, Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Cuba on one hand and South Africa, the Portuguese Empire (while it lasted) on the other, with Britain flapping its hands on the sideline....
[edit] Article title
While I think it's good to try and find a balance, slash seperated article titles are frowned upon here. They suggest a hierarchy and there's a technical reason as well, making whatever before the slash a "parent" to whatever is after it. See here for a similar debate. I think it'll have to be one or the other. Google brings up more than three times the amount of results for "Rhodesian Bush War" [1] than "Second Chimurenga" [2] Bnynms 03:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is there an alternative, such as 'or' or something in the title? Choosing one title over the other is inherently POV :) Greenman 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should use the most common name and put the other one in bracktets: Rhodesian Bush War (Second Chimurenga). Its a bit messy, but its a compromise. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), and to some extent Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), seem to support Rhodesian Bush War, but since Second Chimurenga is prefered in Zimbabwe, we would be perpetuating systemic bias if we used Rhodesian Bush War instead of the term preferred in Zimbabwe (where the events took place). The difference in google hits is far from colossal, and the difference that exists is probably also a result of systemic bias. --Ezeu 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- 'Second Chimurenga' is the name that the Communist government gave the war after it had finished for its own propaganda purposes. To call this war the Second Chimurenga would be like calling the Korean War the 'War to Resist America and Aid Korea', or the Eastern Front of World War II the 'Great Patriotic War'. I would call it the Rhodesian Bush War and then mention the term Second Chimurenga is the lead. michael talk 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
