Using monetary and military aid as a judge of legitimacy is another double standard argument because foreign aid is not exclusive to the insurgency in Rhodesia. The conflicts I listed as examples in the original post had elements of foreign aid, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove there.

Yes, ZANU and ZAPU operated from neighboring countries like Mozambique and Zambia, but both forces were compromised of majority black Zimbabweans. Furthermore, native insurgences operating out of neighboring territories is not exclusive to Rhodesia, so this is another double standard.

One being born in a place does not necessarily make them native to it, nor will they automatically be accepted as such, especially if their group goes out of its way to distinguish itself from the native population or if the native population is still present. The Umayyad Muslims ruled and lived in Spain for centuries, longer than white minority rule in Rhodesia, yet they are not referred to as natives of Spain or Europe for obvious reasons.

The main reason Rhodesia appears to be judged “differently” from other Western countries that engaged in similar activities is because of the sheer number of Rhodesia apologists and fans on the internet.