"Africans were practicing slavery before Europeans came, and the Europeans themselves bought slaves but generally did not do the dirty work of capturing them."
Yes the africans practiced slavery like every other society, they did not practice the chattel slavery practiced by the europeans where women were rape, children killed, being born to a slave meant you were a slave, being born to a slave and a slave master meant you had no right, men were murdered to set an example, men were castered or whipped until they had no skin left, had dogs set on them, hung from trees and set on fire then being torn to pieces in four ways. They are not even the same. One is more like the modern equivalent of being in prison where as the europeans practice was closer to genocide , ethnic cleansing and a gross crime against humanity. Your american you know the horrors of your own peoples. Your also ignoring that the people who europeans hired were acting on behalf of europeans which actually means the europeans are more culpable.
the argument you are trying to use is the argument that ever mass murderer has ever used. I never did it myself, so I have no responsibility. Not 1 court in the world has ever accepted this claim. This is what Hitler's generals claimed, they never killed jews, they never flew planes and drop bombs so they are innocent. Its no different than a kidnapping or murdering for hire. You hire someone to go kidnap people you are the personal of greater responiblty, you will be sued, you will get the longer sentence. There exist plenty of case prescedence for you to look at, your a historians you know this better than me. Besides, most of the true horrors came at the hands of europeans on the slave plantations and on the boats. Not to mention that ethnic africans who are hired by europeans are acting on behalf of european governments and they bear the responsibilty.
"You ignore the violent Zulu, and there were conflicts before then too.
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa-SAColonists1.htm"
The zulu are not khoihikoi peoples, khoihikoi people came to the region about 600 years before the zulu. In most cases the bantus and khoihikoi and bantus and the san intereacted reletively peacefully as they kind of assimlated into the cultures around them. There are 100s of different types of bantu nations the zulu is only one of them and never practiced violence until shaka zulu rose to power.
"One big violent war? No, multiple smaller conflicts over time, one group (San) being treated as lesser people, and pushed out."
Perhaps by the khoihikoi as the article states, but they are neither Bantu or zulu.
"By definition when people are forced to join an empire (or face violence), they have lost their sovereignty. "
Not in the case of Zulu. It worked more like USA or ancient greek city states, each state its own soverign state, which is part of a larger union of independent soverign states. They had the ability to negotiate seperately with other countries, something not typical of non soverign nations.
"AIDS originated in Africa, long before the 1980's.
http://www.avert.org/history-aids-africa.htm"
I'm not disputing the time of origin I am disputing when it started to flare up. If your claim is it flared up in Sa in 1970s then that just further proves my point, that it was the apartheid government who failed to protect people and not the ANC who came to power in the 1994. The apartheid governments had from.
"
South Africa’s white leaders refused to install an AIDS education programme in schools and did not begin to take seriously the danger of a large-scale heterosexual HIV/AIDS epidemic until the end of the decade"
"It is thought that the first case of HIV in South Africa was in a white, homosexual air steward from the USA who died of pneumonia (PCP) in 1982. Blood specimens showed a 16 per cent infection rate among tested
gay men in Johannesburg in 1983. The small-scale epidemic was largely confined to white gay men and remained virtually unheard of in the general population in the mid 1980s. The homosexual epidemic had stopped growing by end of decade21" your own source
"Because not much was known about HIV/AIDS in the mid-1980s people were often not aware that they were infected with HIV until they had progressed to the final stages of the disease when death was often imminent. This fact coupled with the lack of any effective preventative therapies29 or
treatment meant that there was a reluctance to be tested for the virus"
Your own source basically shows that the aprtheid government never dealt with aids because they saw it as a gay man disease, which I think is horrible but understandable at the time.
"But not actually peaceful."
Well he was until Britain backstabbed him. He was knighted hailed as hero, respected the white farmers outrageous claims even though half the country wanted them dead and he took a political beating for it.
"There were many atrocities. However, the British attempted to pit the Natives against the Americans and fight their war for them which lead to disaster for the Natives. "
See we are finally on the same side. The british did the same in zimbabwe. Pitting black man against white man, now you see who fault it really is, british man.
"Yes he could have been thrown in prison. The big problem is people like Washington, who were well educated and came to oppose slavery despite being brought up by their parents to think it was acceptable, were not numerous enough in the Southern states."
Yes I would like to see that. In days of sheriffs who were notoriuously corrupt, I would like to see the security guard who would throw washington in prison. That was a time were no court even existed. Why could washington just not take off the shackles and say run free.
Saying washington couldn't force others to give up there slaves is a sounds but debatle argument, saying he couldn't free his own is utter non sense.
"You didn't give figures on how many people were removed from land they owned as opposed to squatters. If in fact they owned the land they were on then and were not given land of equal value in exchange, I will not argue they shouldn't have some compensation, perhaps the best solution is monetary compensation from the government since the government took it."
There were no squatters at that time, if you were black and found in a white area, or squatting on land that a white man owned then you were deported to a black reserve after going to prison for being called an illegal immigrant in your own country. There were black people who were sent to reserves and went back to their old homes and tried to settle on the edge of the farm and were told they were squatters. such a situation is difficult because who is the real squatter here. Blacks could not sue whites in court? so legal options for blacks did not exist. Obviously there was opposition to taking of the land that had been in hand of some people family's for 1000's of years.
"Forced removals from "white" areas affected some 3,5 million people and vast rural slums were created in the homelands, which were used as dumping grounds. The pass laws and influx control were extended and harshly enforced, and labour bureaux were set up to channel labour to where it was needed. Hundreds of thousands of people were arrested or prosecuted under the pass laws each year, reaching over half a million a year from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. Industrial decentralisation to growth points on the borders of (but not inside) the homelands was promoted as a means of keeping blacks out of "white" South Africa."
The question of compensation is even more tricky. If whites mainly benefitted from it, and a white controlled government evicted the 3.5 million blacks illegally, then why should black tax payers and black government or I should say a multi-racial government because it does have roughly 10-20% whites as well pay back farmers when it was a problem largely created by the british and the whites in Sa. Should we cease the house of De Klerk and Botha and give it back to people they evicted from land
Heck some blacks even bought land under apartheid and had that land ceased and were told to move into the middle of nowehere on worthless land.
Blackspots and forced removals
"From 1960 to 1983, the apartheid government forcibly moved 3.5 million black South Africans in one of the largest mass removals of people in modern history"
"Second, African farm laborers made up the largest number of forcibly removed people, mainly pushed out of their jobs by mechanization of agriculture. While this process has happened in many other countries, in South Africa these rural residents were not permitted to move to towns to find new jobs. Instead, they were segregated into desperately poor and overcrowded rural areas where there usually were no job prospects.|
South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid
So black people who have a high unemployment rate in the 50-90% depending on the area range where they are 80% of the population, should pay for the crimes of a white government to themselves?
"Governments are obligated to protect all of their citizens."
Not if they are living on land that the government tells them to get off, aka when they are evicted. It was not Mugabe's policiy to get white farmers, it was his policy that they leave the land and he will continue to pursue that Britain pay the white farmers for their land as they agreed to. If Mugabe hated whites, he would go after all white businesses, including white factories, and white tourism and other big money making white ventures.
"FDR died before the war ended and Truman used the bomb."
well your the historian ill take your word for it.
"The U.S. gained the Philippines from Spain after we won a war against them (they gave the land instead of some money we otherwise would have gotten). The Spanish had already treated it as a colony. The best example of American colonialism would be Hawaii where American businessmen arranged an overthrow of the monarchy and a takeover by the U.S.
In any case, what the Japanese did to China and other Asians was considerably worse than anything America did in its territories. And, WWII was decades after we did that."
Yes this is what confuses people. america which was the eastern seaboard aka 13 colonies. wipes out millions of natives, takes puerto rico, cuba, philipines, hawaii, alaska, and places in the south pacific like guam which they colonize to this day and its all ok. But when Japan tries to play white man, they are evil and it is different. Either colonization is always bad or it is never bad. either invading countries is good or bad. It is unfair to say, it was ok when we did it, but when you do it thats just evil.
"Churchill himself actually opposed the bombings once he found out what was actually done."
Sure he did, he had good control of his army, he knew what he was doing, he had the power to stop it and chose not to. I don't see any brits in jail for bombing hosiptals the way that Germans are hunted down world wide by angry jews and even kid napped in some cases and brought back from brazil to germany for trial.
"They have slightly more freedom than China or North Korea but they are far, far from free. Mugabe used thug tactics to keep down his opponents in the second vote."
Its not like corruption in other countries including america and canada doesn't exist. Perhaps they do not use open violence but they do rig elections, bush, nixon, paul martin. Its not like political violence does not exist in every other country in the third world. Most of the restrictions in zimbabwe on media are nothing surprising, you think your american media is free. If Bush says do not reales this video it is not realeased by major stations. I can name tons of country that are free who have election violence straight to mind is jamaica, brazil, iran, kenya and so on. It is more like when your politician doesn't win you riot and protest as opposed to real corruption. Like when Bush got re-elected dispite his unpopularity in urban america, if that was any other country there would be protest, and violent riots.
"Please provide reliable sources to back these claims up."
"More than 90% of the land is still owned by the white minority in South Africa. The country's "reform" plan calls for 33% of all arable land to be redistributed to Blacks by 2014; Blacks, however, are growing inpatient with this snail’s pace. Some South Africans are now calling for a "Zimbabwe Solution," adding pressure on the leadership"
South Africa: Whites Own 90% Land - NAM
When apartheid ended the government took over the homelands as no one person owned them, this count non government owned arable land, 90% is white owned in Sa this was a few years ago so it is closer to 87/6. So you see even under a willing buyer/seller plan it is very difficult to do much.
whites are not clean of violent eveictions either
"After decades of dispossession, more than 400 claimants of the Pniel Farm will have their dream of returning to their ancestral land fulfilled.
Their forefathers were violently evicted from their land by white farmers. "I did not believe that one day we would be here," 76-year old Abraham Modise, whose parents were forced off the land and moved into a shantytown on the outskirts of Kimberley in 1967, told local media" same source
"In 1990, when Namibia became independent, 5,000 white farmers owned 74 per cent of arable land. Here the government used the same methods as South Africa to buy land. In a move aimed at reassuring white farmers, the constitution of the new republic prohibited expropriation except for the public good. The new Namibian government resisted pressures from its trade unions, despite the fact that many white farmers were intent on selling land at ‘inflated and unrealistic’ prices, according to one of the country’s ministers, John Mbango (Ministry of Land in a 1997 declaration"
"Between 1960 and 1980 the apartheid regime in South Africa dispossessed three and a half million blacks from their land. Indeed, 80 per cent of cultivatable land belonged to just 60,000 whites by the end of apartheid in 1994. Nelson Mandela's government had undertaken to distribute 30 per cent of this land to black farmers within four years, but had also committed not to expropriate white farmers’ land. Moreover, the latter were encouraged to sell a part of their land to the State at a reasonable price. Even though a number of white farmers graciously gave some of their lands to their black fellow citizens and provided them with some technical assistance, and the government bought back large tracts of land from others, the overall objective has not yet been reached – not by a long way."
The Courier: South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe. Differences in land conflicts
"In 1994 as the apartheid regime fell, 87 percent of South Africa's arable land was white-owned. The government plans to redistribute 30 percent of it to black or mixed-race farmers by 2015"
Hararetribune.com | Harare Tribune | South Africa's failed land reform programme, a ticking time bomb
My goal is not to make white people have no living, but when a few thousand whites own everything and are surrounded by a sea of color who has nothing and many 3.5 million were outright robbed of their land and livelihood and inheritance, what do you think will happen, out of control crime, is just a reality and an effect , apartheid land dispossions or theft is the cause. Its not like white people were not rich before aparthied, they just went from being upperclass to wealthy.
"SA has immense resources and is in a decent location to be a very good country economically if the government gets out of the way."
Yes it has lots of resources but if it was near to europe or america like canada it would be better off, it would get more investors, tourist and so on. I mean if someone says SA to me or the average american the first thing they think is far away.
"Land claims by Natives in the U.S. and Canada are heard because of treaties with the Natives that entitle them to land. Israel exists because of several reasons, notably: the Western powers after WWII felt some sympathy for the Jews and secondly, the british during WWI promised a homeland for the Jews, many of whom had already purchased land in Israel. They also created a homeland (state) for the Palestinians, however, that never took off because the Arab nations declared war immediately on Israel who defeated them."
"Not exactly Black, Pan-African Historian position. This group, which is really directly related to a political movement, includes many African historians, Blacks, whose goals were to claim accomplishments for Blacks in Africa. Some of their claims are accurate, many are baseless."
"There were Whites in parts of ancient Egypt very early on. As were Blacks in other parts. Egypt was a melting pot."
I don't dispute it was a melting pot, but the whites did not come until later, it would have been very hard for a white man to survive in upper egypt hot desert. The claims that ancient egyptians were mostly white is about as credible as the claim that ancient greeks were mostly black in my opnion. LOL they would have turned black anyways he he he.
"There is considerable speculation she was part Black, but no concrete evidence yet. In any case, her skin was likely, from the evidence, neither Black nor bright White."
I have yet to meet a person with black or white skin. Well I have meet some whose skin would be white but it appears to be some kind of make up. I'd say brown and pink are more accurate discriptions. I think cleopatra may better represent the era of when egypt was a melting pot than say narmar who was in all likelihood a pure african.
"That's the definition of European Colonialism (or imperialism). Not only Europeans have been involved in colonialism over the centuries."
Not exclusively no, ethiopia and australia were the biggest colonizers as far as africans go. If your a biblical man then it was Cush and his children.
"Displacement of millions does not mean each one owned land and lost it."
I gave you the links above.
"Not a professor, I got out of the teaching business.
I do not have many resources on laws available to me, but anyways, if you make an assertion about specific laws of a country, you need to be prepared to cite the statute."
What business are you in if you don't mind me asking.
"That was a costume party involving historical costumes. Overblown. The monarchs do have free speech rights like others."
He might has well have given the salute if he didn't, for a leader of a country to dress as hitler is to incite hate in a country that has that kind of past. It would be like Joe Biden dressing as a klan's man at an american historic party.
"Forced removals began in 2000, after voters rejected the plan but Mugabe forced it on them anyways. He has no intention of ever paying the Whites even if he does get money from the U.K. And governments are obligated to protect all citizens' rights."
HE has no intention of paying whites with black peoples money from zimbabwe, if Britain gives the money he will give it to whites.
"As a result, between 1980 and 1990, the government acquired 40 percent of the targeted 8 million hectares (19.77 million acres) of land, and 71,000 families out of a target of 162,000 were resettled" wiki, webs search
Clearly Mugabe was not corrupt as the British claimed, all 71,000 people could not have been his cronies, thugs, family, etc. Clearly white farmers did get money to leave but Britain did not like the price. They are the true culprit
"
Kenneth Kaunda, former president of
Zambia, responded dismissively by saying "when Tony Blair took over in 1997, I understand that some young lady in charge of colonial issues within that government simply dropped doing anything about it"
This seems to be the reality.
"No, it's a logical fallacy and a poor one at that. Two wrongs don't make a right."
Yes but it is closer to jsutice when fairness is absent. A man kills you he gets the death penalty. Is it right to kill, no, is it right to lock someone ina prison, well me or you can't build prisons in our basements without going to jail, but it brings us closer to justice to fix a wrong with another wrong.
"I'd say being completely forced out of the country, and tortured or killed in the process, is worse than being given a little land. The problems you see on the reservations are what you get whenver government runs such matters."
Yes but what do you think aparthied governments did? Half of south africa was living in mozambique and neighbouring countries because of how much black people they were killing. Thats like saying concentration camps were the result of poorly run government housing.
"I have no double standards. I condemn what was done to the Natives as much as I condemn the ANC and Mugabe too."
Yes you do, you just don't condemn the whites only the color man you condemn.
"The multiple locations theory is more popular with racists (KKK, et al) than with scientists these days. "
LOL, none of us were there it is all theories. we find a bone in europe tomorrow and maybe man came from europe, we find one in china 3 days later then maybe man came from china, who knows, we are all human beings.
"You are using poor reasoning based on racism for this. You are basically saying only Blacks can be Africans. Africa is a continent. A person born in Africa is an African the same as a person born in North, South, or Central America is an American, a person born in Europe a European. Since all races of humans are descended from a common ancestor from Africa, a person of any race born in Africa can be an African. I don't really understand why you have trouble with this unless you're racist."
If you want to talk about racists we can talk about how the slave masters use to cut out the toungue of slaves for speaking in african languages, or how black men were lynched in broad day light by mobs of angry whites, or how entire schools were gunned dwon by angry whites officers in south africa, or how cities in oklahoma aka black wall street was bombed by the us military. Only a black or partially black person can be an african, all other races are guest, vistors. I would no more consider a black man from portugal portugese than I would consider a white man from angola angolan.
"You will simply never believe your hero is corrupt, and that's what this boils down to. People of every possible background have observed and proven Mugabe is corrupt."
No one has proven this, just baseless allegations. Same allegations made about every politician including good ones like Bush, Reagan, Obama, and so on by an extreme fraction who likes to muddy peoples names. It is very hard to prove these kind of things and people in politics exaggerate all the time, how is it that people who cannot even read or write can know the interact plot of corruption by mugabe. People who have never heard mugabe's voice, never seen his face can say he is corrupt. 99% of western media has never directly seen Mugabe, never heard his voice, only second, thrid, forth and more often 5th and 6th hadn accounts or heresay of what Mugabe said or did. No court would stand for such non sense. Until you have a minister like bush's ministers come out and say mugabe told me xyz, i don't believe ALLEGATIONS.
" You simply say "not true" without any concrete evidence for your claims that these people lie. You blindly believe Mugabe."
I believe politicians are telling the truth until proven otherwise. With so many people who have so much to gain by lying on them I am more skeptical of the media who wants to make a story than of the actuall people. Look at Michael Jackson, if he says something he is a liar, but if a journalist says it, it must be true because journalist never lie, even when they work for the nytimes and are caught making up stories, anything they say must be believed and be true. If the NY times wrote Mugabe had white concentration camps everyone would believe without questioning. 90% of american media is controledd by 5 organizations.
"Mugabe was knighted in 1994 before information about some of his crims was widely known and before he committed quite a few of them. His knighthood was removed by the Queen because of his crimes:
Foreign Office revokes Mugabe knighthood | World news | guardian.co.uk"
In order for it to be a crime you must be convicted or at least have it proven or admit to some of it, not the case with Mugabe who seemedingly has no involvement. war veterans, Nkomo, and black jesus are the ones guilty if any. According to you Mugabe has been eating babies from 1979 so why did it take so long. They knew, they gave Mugabe and Nkomo money to fight an armed conflict and stage protest. Mugabe was a school teacher who was independently wealthy yet never had enough money on his own to start wide spread protest. Nkomo never was wealthy enough to build his own army, your being short sighted right now, where does a carpeneter/teacher get money to build an army capable enough to fighting one of the best armed forces in africa?
"Well perhaps the people at the time believed he would follow their will on the other matter. Mugabe lost the last election but refused to concede defeat."
In zimbabwe you must win more thaneither 50 or 51% in order to be declared the winner, from my memory, Morgan was just short of that and refused to engage in a direct run of because he knew he would lose and he is not interested in governing. He is interested in throwing a coup and taking over violently. H eonly knows how to start protest. Mugabe will retire next election, he has wanted to go for 9 years now but has no succesor. Morgan will crash and burn because he cannot govern, he will see how it is to in a country where 1000s of people want to kill you for no other reason than you are leader. He will have millions of angry unemployed war veterans to deal with in addition to people who want all white farmers gone, high wages, and cheap goods,
"Prove all the witnesses and reports are lies."
Its up to them to prove their crazy allegations. There are 3 sets of lies
-western/english propaganda to vilify mugabe-ie newspapers
-angry white farmer propagaganda,-Mugabe is taking away my only farm and livlihood, yet I gave examples how most own multiple farms as many as 20 and are only being asked to share and have the option to sell at a fair not over valued.
-morgan supporters, he will say anything to get mugabe out of office, mugabe beat me rape, me blah blah blah-mugabe was in china when it happened
"And if he isn't behind it he is responsible for protecting the people. In that he failed to do his duty then."
I could accept this to an extent as a fair accusatioon. But ath the same time, if the whole world accuses you off beating white farmers and your opponents and there are roves of people who do it anyways without your involvement, it must be mighty tempting to let it just HAPPEN, if you know what I mean. Besides its the thrid world, eevryon wants a bribe before they arrest a criminal/suspect. I went to mexico with my best friend who got punched in the face by a taxi driver because he asked him for change, the cops refused to arrest him even though he was right there because my friends refused to pay them $50 US and buy them a beer first.
"Mugabe was poor. He got his education through charity by Jesuits and others, and some of it came later when he had political office."
Yes but he earned a master of law, bos, a degree from oxford and so on, so he was able to draw in enough money on his own, all lawyers, especially in africa, make good money.
"These people were not starving until the land grabs after 2000. Others are fleeing the violence, which Mugabe is responsible for."
This would suggest the sanctions that prevent import and exports are destroying people's incomes.
"The agreement was the land the British were paying for would go to the landless Blacks. Instead it was going to Mugabe and his friends (Mugabe, for instance, has 3 enormous farms taken from Whites, not one, but three)."
Mugabe makes 20,000 us a year, plus his lawyer income and his other incomes from intertest and investments, this does not prevent him from buying farms. 3 farms for a president are not corrupt, bill clinton or bush own more land. I gave a specfifc example, from my understanding 90,000 people have been resetlled, they cannot all be Mugabe and his friends, i proved at least 70,000 were defintely resetteld. The only people with good paying jobs are government workers, mugabe and whites, so its no surprise he owns some land, he is a lawyer. Most zimbabweans were illerate when he took office the lieteracy rate is now 85%, he has done much to improve education in zimbabwe.
"Even food aid sent to Zimbabwe is serized by mugabe and used for political leverage (given to supporters, not to opponents)."
Like Bush did not do the same to the people of new orleans vs the people of florida. Every politician is the same, they help those who supprt them and screw those who don't.
"To the country not Mugabe individually however, Mugabe was in power and violated the agreement. It was his responsibility as the head of the government to follow it. Perhaps if he did not force all the WHites out starting in 2000 when he is out of power the British could continue payments, but it's too late now. "
It appears that both sides point the finger, it is hard to say that Mugabe is the only guilty party. H enver claimed he would not compensate farmers, which was never part of the agreement, he just said they would have to leave the land FIRST and get compensated AFTER from the UK. Which does makes sense if you are being accused of corruption. If you were Mugabe, and you are being told you are taking the land, so we won't help the farmers, logically it would go, ok put the landless people on the land, remove the white farmer, then no one can accuse you of taking the land aka corrupt-after you have given it to the third party. Then Britain should pay the farmer, but they just want to cry corrutpion instead of paying the farmers who are white. I think Britain is being racist to white farmers. Tony Blair is more racist because he won't pay some white farmers even though they have left the land and it is given over to landless blacks. I did not see the clause that said Mugabe could own no land, or that Mugabe was not a landless black, his presidental home does not count.
"
Last white Zimbabwean farmers to be evicted
The last White farmers have been ordered out and are being attacked.[/quote]"
bolderdash, there are still plenty of white farmers.
Your allegations of Mugabe's corruption ignore the obvious that even if Mugabe lost the election and stepped down and went to his house in HK and said good luck Morgan I wish you the best, Morgan could never govern and would never be accepted as the president.
Former Zimbabwe army commander dies
"
Zimbabwe's former army commander, who vowed during the violent 2002 presidential elections that the country's security forces would not salute the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) if it won the polls, has died."
Between this guy and the commander of the airforce black jesus both of who would much rather the other rule or throw a coup than see morgan in power. So even if Mugabe would step down, the possibility of whites being flat out murdered by his less diplomatic halfs is more likely than anything else.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
BAWK
to not be left landless so that they would not victimize a second group of people. Typical Britain picking on africans again except this time only white white ones 
Linear Mode
