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 haven't seen the insensitive comments, hate speech, and language phrasing related to evangelicals, Christians, or the Christian Right ever deleted by mods.
What in my post is offensive to you and why? Seriously.
??
"it looks like you learned it in a post-1965 textbook written by a Leftist Jew from the Northeast!"
is pretty tactless.
"Any non-white racist and whiner, people use use terms like "colonialism" or "post-colonial studies" as cover for their bigotry against Whites, can simply move very easily to a more primitive way of life away from Whites."
alludes to an idea that anything non-white is uncivilized and is primitive.
"These women follow "Sex in the City" and instead of having kids, they end up with STDs or hanging out with homosexuals and voting for Obama!"
this comment is just ridiculous.
"Israel doesn't give its slave-wage working class immigrants the right to vote or become citizens, they are there to work for Jews and that's it."
Why can't you back up what you say? I think it's interesting to run into you again, and you never seem to add to the thread, you always stir up controversy and make personal attacks. I'm expecting more of that from you.
Now that is probably one of the most hilarious & hypocritical posts I've seen yet on here. Bravo! By the way, I believe I've posted one or two things on this thread, so there goes you're statement about me not adding to the thread. Of course I haven't, I don't know enough about the subject to comment on it. I try not to just blather on about race relations & masquerade it as a conversation. Some on here have no problem w/that practice.
How about you do the research and get back to us? Seriously. Let us know.
.
...I do not have the time that is why I asked. But, given your umpteen posts on this topic, I thought you of all people would have a clue about what I asked in post 93.
Now that is probably one of the most hilarious & hypocritical posts I've seen yet on here. Bravo! By the way, I believe I've posted one or two things on this thread, so there goes you're statement about me not adding to the thread. Of course I haven't, I don't know enough about the subject to comment on it. I try not to just blather on about race relations & masquerade it as a conversation. Some on here have no problem w/that practice.
A group of white farmers bears the brunt of ZANU-PF's force.
Ben Freeth (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Ben+Freeth - broken link) did not expect to be alive today. Just after midnight this morning, the white farmer was lying face down next to a bonfire, beside Mike and Angela Campbell, his wife's parents. He had no idea where his own three small children and his wife, Laura, were, only that a marauding band of loyalists from the ruling ZANU-PF (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Zimbabwe+African+National+Uni on+Patriotic+Front - broken link) party was hitting all the white farms in their district near the town of Chegutu, about 60 miles southwest of Harare (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Harare - broken link). The three had been abducted from their farm by an armed gang and brought to their base. By midnight, they had been beaten for seven hours, while their tormentors danced around the bonfire and told them they'd kill them. "I really thought we were all dead," he said. "It must have been our prayers that stopped it. I was praying, and all our friends were praying, and then they put us in a truck and dumped us beside the road outside Kadoma," a town about 25 miles away.
Why the ZANU-PF let them live isn't clear, but the reasons for the attack were plain. Freeth, who is British-born, and his in-laws, white Zimbabweans, are among a small band of white farmers who remain in the fertile agricultural area, the scene of many of the forced expropriations of commercial farms; from 300 white farmers at the beginning of the decade, only about 30 remain in that area.
A historical record is some kind of written record by definition.
Egypt and Ethiopia are not a part of Sub Saharan Africa and aren't characteristic of the continent. Both of these ancient nations have also been influenced by various forms of Middle Eastern contact for over thousands of years. The Egytian state, by its own account, has been multiracial since the time of the pharaohs.
With respect to Ghana, I'm not familiar with any kind of proto-modern civilization that predates Portugese contact in the 1400s (and possibly earlier).
from about.com:
"Ghana, the earliest of the Sudanic empires, flourished in present-day eastern Mauritania from the fourth to the thirteenth century. At the peak of its power in the eleventh century, its realms extended from the Atlantic Ocean to Timbuctu. After the decline of Ghana, the Mali Empire grew into a powerful Muslim state, which reached its apogee in the early part of the fourteenth century. The territory of the Mali Empire in CÙte d'Ivoire was limited to the northwest corner around OdiennÈ. Its slow decline starting at the end of the fourteenth century followed internal discord and revolts by vassal states, one of which, Songhai, flourished as an empire between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. Songhai was also weakened by internal discord, which led to factional warfare. This discord spurred most of the migrations of peoples southward toward the forest belt."
A written record makes it easier to decipher and understand the history of the various people of the world, but the lack of a written record doesn't mean that some civilizations, especially ancient civilizations, didn't have complex societies with thriving economies and social systems. When Europeans colonized Africa, they actively suppressed and destroyed the heritage of the peoples they were exploiting. Forcing people to communicate in English, French, or German, isn't just about making it easier for the European countries to import their own culture. It has a profound effect on cultures with oral traditions, like Austalia's aborigines or America's native Americans. Those oral traditions, the oral history of a people, can be irrevocably lost. Many ancient peoples were nomadic. Nomadic peoples don't keep books on their history, they keep the stories by passing them down, generation to generation. Lose the language, lose the stories, and there is no record of their history. But they have a history. Their ancestors existed, built cities, traveled trade routes, had religions and wars and great leaders. These things happened, but because they were not recorded, our archaelogists and social historians have to work harder to learn about these histories. We're learning more all the time, not just in Africa but in South America, and Asia, and Australia, and Europe, too. Because the written record only preserves fragments of history.
Whatever problems white farmers face these days, it's not political motivated. I don't deny that there are farm murders. It's terrible. But it cannot be compared to political massacres like in Sharpesville or the many Black Leaders who got thrown out of windows in police buildings. Even knuckleheads like the AWB can spread their opinion in the New South Africa. Boers have a party which campaigns for an sovereign Boer Nation, the FF plus.
South Africa has definitely a security problem, but I dare to say that White people are not the main target of criminals. Most crime and homicides happen in the townships. Rich people - no matter if black or white - are of course victims too. And it gets nasty for anyone where burglars are getting into the house. They are not hunting for White people. They probably choose the houses which look easy to get into.
Crime is a big problem and there's not enough done to eliminate it. I think crime results from the disparity of income. Countries with a huge disparity of Rich and very poor are often crime ridden. Brasil, Mexico and others are good examples.
The political leaders in South Africa are not doing a good job to fight the cause of so many problems.
The Afrikaners or Boers use to forget how influenced they are by their arch-enemies, the Brits. Before arrival of the British empire in the Cape, the Boers were a pretty uncivilized bunch of illiterate hicks seperated from all modern inventions and attitudes. All the technological inventions were brought by the Brits. They were fighting alongside to defend Boer settlements from attacking African tribes and taught all kinds of things.
Afrikaans language is influenced by people of Color. It's nothing but kitchen dutch, a simplyfied form of dutch spoken by the slaves and over the years adopted by the Boers. And it wasn't rare for Boers to have non-white wifes before the Religion became dominating. These days most Boers do have non-white forefathers somewhere in their family line.
I guess one suggestion could be that Whites in the USA and Europe should follow the racial leads of the way Jews act, and Israelis act in governing their country.
Unfortunately, Jews in both America and Europe are at the forefront of pushing everything they vehemently reject in Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem
They only went there to exploit natural resources and labor. And dominate a culture which existed for eons without their intervention.
To exploit natural resources that the inhabitants did not know were there or had no idea how to get to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem
Colonization basically ruined the African continent.
By bringing thousands of years of technology and civilization? Most of Africa would still be living in the stone age had outsiders not arrived. I don't see any of them pushing back to pre-colonial hunter-gatherer days (except perhaps South Africa & Zimbabwe both of which are going backwards in development, living standards, etc since the White rule ended).
And Africa was hardly a paradise before Europeans arrived, they simply were not advanced enough to document their history.
Unless you think African Warlords like Chaka-Zulu were 'peaceful'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem
Which nation should an African American "move back to"? 98% of Black Americans have zero idea of where on the continent their forefathers were stolen from,...
Stolen or bought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem
Social and economic development is one shining reason why indigenous people choose not to go back to their dusty towns. And why should they? Why haven't developments such as flush toilets and clean running water made it where they live?
#1, I think the people of the United States should have a say in their immigration policy, not big business. I don't know anyone who wants the U.S to turn into a Brown, third world mass resembling a country such as Ecuador, Peru, etc and all that goes with it.
To answer your question on development -- it's quite simply -- it seems certain ethnic/racial groups have never invented much; where-as others have given a lot.
I, for one, cannot name one invention from a Black-African from Africa, can you? I mean, for thousands of years and the millions & millions of European inventions, what has came from Africa?
It's funny how these pro-diversity advocates are. Would they live as a South African? With all the 'benefits' coming with it, such as living behind a massive gated compounds. Or what about living in Detroit or Compton?
These people love diversity as long as they live far away from it or while living in an essentially White-dominated system of law & order. These same people would never dare live in Ecuador, South Africa, or near any of the same policies they claim to support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem
You seem to be a new poster here and you will find out soon enough that language phrased insensitively will be deleted by the moderators.
You say that like what she said wasn't true. It was. PeaceTree: When Whites came to North America, the land was VASTLY uninhabited. The United States of America was created solely by White people. The vast North American continent was here, but it was Whites that created our nation-state, gave it its laws and structure, imparted it its moral underpinnings, and then all the resulting improvements (i.e. roads, bridges, factories, farms, mines, churches, civic structures, etc.) too.
What is incorrect about that statement? This is politics and other controversies, is the truth too un-PC for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
A written record makes it easier to decipher and understand the history of the various people of the world, but the lack of a written record doesn't mean that some civilizations, especially ancient civilizations, didn't have complex societies with thriving economies and social systems.
We're not really talking about 'ancient civilizations.'
The Europeans only began to explore Africa in the 19th century and the majority of the people were literally still living in the stone age while both Europe and Asia were thriving with technology and advancement. Africa was literally thousands of years behind the rest of the world. Is this fact too un-PC?
It is not "human" to not be able to feed yourself, and to still reproduce. To reproduce and not be able to feed or provide is of itself as a "animal" In the U.S. here too we have those that cannot provide, but still reproduce at the expense of the taxpayer, while that taxpayer works, budgets and plans or "limits" their size of family. While those that do not contribute to society, lay all day, and not care how large they're "family" may grow. Not worrying one bit how they will be fed, relying on "others" to pay for their carelessness and lack of "humanity"
"They may eat dung over there, but they eat off of me over here"-doubbltunman
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.
