Talk:Rhodesia (region)

Timelines, Dates, etc.

Initial two messages in thread copied from User talk:El C.

Hi there. I have given the Rhodesia (disambiguation) page an overhaul in order to make it more consistent with the guidelines for disambiguation pages and to make the presentation more consistent as well. I figured it would be a five-minute job, but... you know how these things go. :) I have corrected a couple of dates that I am sure were incorrect -- e.g., you had Northern Rhodesia existing until 1963, but if Zambia didn't come into being until October 24, 1964, there's an unaccountable gap there. If I have not taken something into account, please let me know.

However, the main reason for writing is to ask for your help in sorting out some other dates, as I'd rather clear them up between us than have us operating at cross purposes. First I'll start with the good news: all of the dates in the Southern Rhodesia / Rhodesia / Zimbabwe Rhodesia / Zimbabwe section are consistent within that section. (Phew!) But some of the dates in the Northern Rhodesia / Zambia section are inconsistent and multiple dates between the two section are inconsistent.

With respect to Northern Rhodesia, I'm confused about anything before 1911. First, the first two items overlap, and the third item doesn't make sense when compared against the way you originally presented all of the rest of the information -- i.e., who governed North West Rhodesia and North East Rhodesia between 1900 and 1911?

Then there's date consistency between Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. According to the second item under Northern Rhodesia / Zambia, the Rhodesia protectorate lasted from 1895 to 1900 (second item), but according to the information under Southern Rhodesia / Rhodesia / Zimbabwe Rhodesia / Zimbabwe it lasted from 1895 to 1901 (third item).

I guess what it boils down to is the following:

1. Clarifying the information for Northern Rhodesia before 1911,
2. Clarifying the overlap between BSAC-administered North Zambezia and the Rhodesian protectorate,
3. Clarifying the nature of the northern (small "n") Rhodesian entity after the Rhodesian protectorate and before Northern (capital "N") Rhodesia in 1911, and
4. Clarifying when the Rhodesian protectorate ended.

Thanks very much!

--Craig 14:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I only glanced at your changes; I don't have a lot of time to spare at present. Hopefuly I'll be able to attend to it next week. But on the surface, your changes and questions seem useful and in need of attention. I wrote that piece in 10 minutes or so, but at the time I was doing a lot of that reserach myself elsewhere, so it was fresh in my mind. The pre-1911 period has always been a gap because I've never researched it closely. For now, please have a look at my year-old draft at the top of the page for Southern Rhodesia and see if you can find anything useful in the narrative or reference section (though there is the gap in the early days which is about time was resolved). For Northern Rhodesia (which I am far less versed in), you could refer to Constitutional Development in Northern Rhodesia, 1890s-1964. Otherwise, I will try to get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you again for all your work. I am looking forward to further collaboration with you in the near future! Regards, El_C 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I did read through the early-history part of the link you gave me (ZAMLII) and I'm probably just as confused as I was before. While the page itself is very interesting, the information there is contradictory and has gaps itself, just as this page did and still does. Example: "ADMINISTRATION OF NORTH-WESTERN AND NORTH-WESTERN [sic] RHODESIA: In 1899 the territory was formally divided into two administrative units called North-Western Rhodesia and North Eastern Rhodesia. The two territories had been declared protectorates in 1893." First the title suggests amalgamation (assuming the second "North-Western" should say "North-Eastern") of some sort, then it refers to division, and then it jumps back to an "oh, by the way" for something six years earlier. Then there's the nomenclature -- was it "North West", "North-West", "North-Western", "Northwest", or "Northwestern", etc.?

In my latest revision of the page I have commented out two lines in the Northern Rhodesian timeline. I'm not claiming more knowledge than I have (which is why I have only commented them out and not deleted them), but in my history lessons of long, long ago, I don't remember a "Rhodesian protectorate" of North Zambezia and South Zambezia; in fact, I don't remember North and South Zambezia either! That said, I am talking about pre-high-school history lessons here, and unfortunately my not-that-extensive-anyway library is packed away in a storage locker at the moment, so I can't consult it to supplement the dearth of information on the Web. The only union between Northern and Southern Rhodesia that I remember is the Federation. I could be wrong, but can you, without holding my hand too much, clarify my hazy memory?

One thing I have also done is remove the disambiguation tag. I was tempted to on my last edit, but I didn't. It has really gone past disambiguation and developed into a timeline. However, the page is still named "Rhodesia (disambiguation)", so it really should be renamed. A redirect could be put in place to the new name, but there are only three non-talk pages linking to it so I could easily update all the links.

Your thoughts when you have the time. Thanks.

--Craig (t|c) 10:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the lengthy delay. Yes, timeline would probably be a more suitable title with the dismabiguation as an aside (rather than the other way around). I'm sorry to learn that this seemingly comprehensive source proved to be so inconsistent. I'm facing the same problem as you, being in need of print sources. Just finding an internet source pertaining to Zambezia, seems rather problematic, as most links lead to the Mozambican province rather than the short-lived historical entity (which is as it should be, but makes it all the more difficult for us). Most online sources, therefore, seem cursory at best (e.g. [1], [2], etc.), but the U.S. Dept. of State overview I just tracked may prove useful (PDF), but it, too, is rather cursory and fails to note the Northwest Northeast divisions, for ex. (in non-answer to your question, I can't recall which is the correct title as per north-east, northeastern, etc.). A visit to most university libraries should clear this up, I would hope. The intro reads:

The Portuguese discovered the mouth of the Zambezi early in their voyages of exploration along the east coast of Africa. Traders and missionaries soon penetrated the lower valley but not until 1850 did a European view the upper course of the river when Livingstone traveled from South Africa overland into the heart of central Africa. Five years later, this famous missionary-explorer also discovered the Victoria Falls and followed the river to its mouth. Returning to the region in 1858, Livingstone persisted in his explorations in an effort to expose the cruelties of the infamous slave trade.

Within thirty years, the British were to declare a protectorate (July 20, 1888) over Zambezia, the region of the modern-day Rhodesias. From 1880 to 1888, British subjects had negotiated numerous mining concessions from local rulers. These grants, consolidated by Cecil Rhodes, led to the declaration of protection and the formation of the British South Africa Company (1889). In effect, the Rhodesias remained until 1923 the private domain of this chartered company.

The first European settlers arrived at the site of modern Salisbury on September 12, 1890. After struggling overland from South Africa, the pioneers soon realized that the effective occupation of the territory and the exploitation of its mineral and agricultural wealth demanded improved communications. As a consequence, the railroad was extended from South Africa through Bechuanaland to Salisbury and via Bulawayo to Victoria Falls, Livingstone, Lusaka, Broken Hill and the Copper Belt along the Belgian Congo frontier. Settlements soon were established along the line and they tended to remain concentrated along this vital artery. In Southern Rhodesia, the railroad traverses areas of high veld, over 5,000 feet in elevation, climatically suitable for European development. European farms and ranches spread in a broken band averaging 50 miles in width along the railroad. As a consequence agriculture has dominated the economy of Southern Rhodesia although gold, chrome, coal and asbestos have been exploited. Industry has developed recently and the economy has become more diversified.

In contrast, Northern Rhodesia, with almost no land above 5,000 feet, offers little incentive to permanent European agricultural settlement. The economy is based on mining, concentrated particularly at Broken Hill and in the Copper Belt south of Katanga. On the average, the population density of Northern Rhodesia is about half that of Southern Rhodesia.

In 1895 Southern Rhodesia was separated from Zambezia as a consequence of the influx of Europeans and given greater control over its own affairs. In 1923 after union with South Africa was rejected by a referendum, self-governing colony status was granted. With only slight modifications, the present form of government reflects this development. Although by 1911, the various entities remaining in Zambezia had been amalgamated to form Northern Rhodesia, political development had to wait until 1924 when, with the cancellation of the charter of the British South Africa Company, the Crown assumed responsibility for the protectorate. Due to the lack of a sizable European minority, however, the British ruled the territory indirectly through local leaders

After many years of discussion, the two Rhodesias and neighboring Nyasaland became in 1953 the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The union, however, did not succeed and the United Kingdom dissolved it effective December 31, 1963. During the period of federation the first stage of the Kariba Dam and power station was completed and, with most of Northern and Southern Rhodesia situated within a 300-mile radius, has contributed to the territories' economic development. If the construction of the second stage is decided upon, this complex will generate approximately 1, 500,000 kilowatts of electricity. The resulting 160-mile long reservoir, however, has obliterated the original boundary and made a redefinition necessary.

Hope this will prove of some limited use until one of us tracks a decent & detailed print source. Thanks! El_C 23:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks El_C. There is some information there to digest and distill, and unfortunately I don't have time right now. However, I do hope to be able to devote some time to Wikipedia again in the next few months, and this will be one of the projects I will start with. Thanks again. --Craig (t|c) 06:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Exact form of names for North-Western and North-Eastern Rhodesia

My refs give 'North-Western Rhodesia' and 'North-Eastern Rhodesia' as names of the BSAC territories and this is how they appear in their wikipedia articles and on the Northern Rhodesia page so I have changed them so they to link in to those pages. If anyone has refs that BSAC used the form 'North West Rhodesia' etc pls change back and change the linked pages too.Rexparry sydney 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)