So Megan is catching heat for claiming that Zimbabwe was likely better off under Ian Smtih than Robert Mugabe. She sees Smith as the lesser of two very evil evils. I don't know how much I disagree--mainly because I'm not equipped with the details of it all, but I do think I have a bead on what gets people's hackles up, that being a sense that there's something behind the need to compare the two. As I said, on facts she may be right, but it's a hallow right--we're talking about comparing the thuggish Mugabe, to the terrorist Ian Smith. I'm not saying that for any dramatic effect, or lefty hyperbole--these cats were literally terrorists who were responsible for the largest outbreak of anthrax (at least at that point) in history.
To the extent that blaming Mugabe's craven thuggery on colonialism or some such is fallacious and beside the point, I'd contend the same about a Rhodesia/Zimbabwe comparison. Mugabe may well be worse, but I think people are seeing in the comparison (rightly or wrongly) a tradition wherein white pundits revel in blacks doing what humans do to each other--exploit, kill, torture, main--and then using that as an excuse to expunge themselves, This is the "black people kill more of each other than the Klan ever did" argument, or the "colonialism was great and the blacks screwed it all up" case,
That said, I really don't believe Megan meant it that way, but I think folks are connecting other dots, and for that reasons, I'm not shocked that the comments went somewhere she really wasn't heading. People are nasty on the net.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
"That said, I really don't believe Megan meant it that way"
I do. She lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Every time the mask slips a little Megan follows up with a dozen "I'm so misunderstood" posts. She must have had some sweet connections to get her Atlantic blogging gig.
Not the first time I've heard she's not a good pick and was put in place to 'further the media agenda'.
Don't mind me. I think society is brainwashed and conditioned from school, church, clubs...you name it. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html started a decent view of reality. I have more.
Whoops. http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/links/
"Every time the mask slips a little Megan follows up with a dozen "I'm so misunderstood" posts."
Hey, look, she's already got another "What I meant to say" post up. She's horrible.
"That said, I really don't believe Megan meant it that way"
Oh, please !
She did mean it that way. Unless she ever showed any desire to discuss Smith's rule on its terms, there's no reason to believe she has no interest whatsoever in doing anything but expunging Rhodesia, colonialism or white rule in general.
Beyond that, Mugabe is bad on his own merits, or even in comparison with his neighbourgs. So what's the point of bringing UDI into this ?
I don't know what the point is of an argument that places brutality under colonialism above brutality after colonialism except to say that black people are somehow more depraved. The crux of the argument is ultimately that colonialism is in itself somewhat justified by racial difference, which is in itself a social construct. It's somehow less fucked up for white people to do what they did during colonialism because, they weren't "doing it to themselves"?
I simply don't know any of these liberals who defend Mugabe's brutalization of his own people. But even if these people do exist, I find it equally abhorrent that the most important argument people like Megan and her buddy feel compelled to engage in while Mugabe is butchering the people of Zimbabwe is whether or not the white supremacist regime was slightly better.
What kind of fucked up ass self-aggrandizement is that? And how is it any different from the self-serving arguments of these liberals are making? In either case, these people are tooting their own horns--conservatives at what they see as the superiority of "white western culture", of which they see themselves as its most stalwart guardians, and liberals at their own "enlightened tolerance".
I heard an interview with a Mugabe supporter on the radio. When asked about farm nationalization, he said it was an unequivocal good. Was it? Clearly not. Mugabe isn’t the only crazy one. He’s a crazy figure head of a crazy segment of his society.
Here's a little controversy for you: Look at the impact - the KKK versus young black criminals. Which group has killed more black men? Which group has done more economic damage to black society? After 9/11 we started wars in two countries over the death of less than 5,000 people, while 42,000 die each year on Federal highways because we can't keep our roads safe.
When we get caught up in the blame game we lose sight of the impact. What matters is the impact. Why? Because focusing on the impact is how we really change the situation on the ground.
Rather than argue principles, focus on accountability and impact. Colonial or self rule - hate groups versus criminals - an unjust occupation versus political stability... let's not make a moral drama of these problems, let's talk about the impact.
The Klan is about heritage not hatred. Oh wait, that's the stars 'n' bars. Nevermind, yup, all about hatred. I got my newsletters mixed up.
Ts like trying to decide who was worse-Stalin or Hitler. Really, whats the point of such an exercise?