Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not evading your question. I don't know if your figures are accurate or not, however, like I said for the time being I'll assume your figures are correct. And I would presume then that 98% of the wealth is owned by White-Americans.
Where did I say anything about equality?
I'm talking about the U.S. dollar and its exchange rate relative to other currencies. Exchanging U.S. dollars for Euros will get you less Euros. But exchanging the U.S. dollar for the Angolan Kwanza will get you 96 of the their dollars for every 1 of our dollars.
Or put it this way. In the U.S. $1 = $1.
But in Angola U.S. $1 = roughly Kz 96. (Kz being the equivalent Angolan symbol of $.)
LOL The comments from "celebs" just get dumber and dumber. I guess this dope doesnt know much about Africa today. But please, take your own advice and move. And leave behind all the money youve made from white people/Americans. We'll see how long you last.
I guess he forgot about where the slavery of blacks started as well.
No, they should move to and establish residence in those "safe" RW Congressional districts. Get fully registered to vote, then vote in 2014, 2016, 2018 .... etc.
Akon's family is from Senegal and he partially grew up there, so he has pretty current knowledge. His family probably made their money there. Here was pretty well off growing up.
FYI Africa is not a country.
BTW:
These are places in Africa as well -
South Africa -
Nigeria -
Ethiopia -
And this is the US
What about those Asians who are racking up cash in the US, by getting educated at American universities, cashing in at American companies, and then returning home to live in the lack of luxury. Do you have same level of animosity towards them, or is it limited to black people?
"Welfare roads" were built in the United States too after WWII. The Americans were impressed with the German network of paved roads and the U.S. Government financed the building, the expansion that is, of the interstate roads throughout the U.S.
The Chinese have ghost cities themselves (in China). They may have advised Angola that it is better city planning to prepare the needed infrastructure for population growth--in conjunction with economic growth--ahead of time.
The slums and throughout Latin America and what Brazilians term "favelas" resulted from poor city planning. As rural people flooded into the cities they squatted on land, usually encircling the core of the city (in contrast to the "inner-cities" of the U.S. were the poor were usually placed into the core of the city and the wealthy encircled them). They built their own shelters, many times going from cardboard up to wood and then eventually constructing their homes out of brick. Since these were squatter camps they had no addresses and no public services like running water, electricity, mail delivery, garbage pick up etc.
Traditionally in Latin America the poor squatted on land, the communities were built over time out of brick and cement, with no building codes, and no property taxes to pay, and then the residents would demand the local government provide public services to them.
In other words, Latin American cities did not have the infrastructure capable (or prepared) for all the waves of rural people flooding into their cities looking for work.
You also see the same thing in mammoth cities in India like Mumbai. (you may have to click onto the "youtube" button to go on the actual youtube site to watch the Brazilian favela video, if pressing the start button pops up an "Embedding disabled.")
You are correct. The United States like powerful empires before here were built off of slavery. It's inexpensive labor. And given the enslavement comes with the concept of owning the person and not just owning their labor, you didn't have labor rights.
After slavery ended the U.S. used cheap labor from European immigrants. Today the U.S. uses the cheap labor from Mexico.
I was rather impressed with Canada finding out on this board that Canada stopped a while ago from depending on cheap labor of immigrants to drive its economy. Canada one of the Canadians on this website said, has primarily educated immigrants moving into its nation.
A posting style unlike most of what I usually see at CD. Its methodical, logical, respectful, with plausible arguments and the sources to back it up. Unfortunately when it comes time to refute you, you may barely be able to recognize that it came from a functional human.
The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. Comments made by Confederates attest to this. The North was not willing to allow slavery to expand into the West either, which the South wanted. The feelings of Lincoln or abolitionists (many abolitionists were racist--they believed in white superiority but not in enslaving others) are neither here nor there.
Though, I'm persuaded Lincoln over time came to view slavery as wrong.
You have a simplistic view. The war wasn't fought to free the slaves... no matter what they told you in public school.
A posting style unlike most of what I usually see at CD. Its methodical, logical, respectful, with plausible arguments and the sources to back it up. Unfortunately when it comes time to refute you, you may barely be able to recognize that it came from a functional human.
You have a simplistic view. The war wasn't fought to free the slaves... no matter what they told you in public school.
I said it was fought over the issue of slavery. I never claimed the war was fought to free slaves. The South initiated the war . And I went to Catholic school. My information came from a book written by a Civil War scholar. Not that one book makes you know any great deal on a subject. Actually, reading one book on a subject can sometimes be worse than reading no books at all on the subject because you risk thinking you know more than you do, plus you only get one perspective.
However, I found the author's position rather persuasive. He quoted some Confederate leaders themselves. And he seems to have wrote that book (my impression from some comments he made) as a response to a growing number of people that suggest the U.S. Civil War did not result from any concerns or interests involved over slavery whatsoever.
But the Confederate leaders seem to have thought themselves that their principle reason for waging war against the North (the U.S. Government) was their (Southern) cultural and monetary interest in slavery.
You have a simplistic view. The war wasn't fought to free the slaves... no matter what they told you in public school.
That is a logical fallacy of complex cause in either extreme argument that it was the cause or was not the cause of the civil war. It was a very central issue of the republic and one of the clear fault lines. Indeed it certainly was also an economic fault line of agricultural slave based economics and industrial freemen.
Look how you cleverly rephrase his comment:
"The issue of slavery"
Easily argued showing the political tension by the Missouri Compromise
With freeing the slaves which is in no way a war involving the issue of slavery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. And I went to Catholic school. My information came from a book written by a Civil War scholar. Not that one book makes you know any great deal on a subject. Actually, reading one book on a subject can sometimes be worse than reading no books at all on the subject because you risk thinking you know more than you do, plus you only get one perspective.
