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.
They are Christians. That is why they are encouraged to be killed.
Sometimes it's not all about Christians.
There has been Civil War in Sudan since its independence, in the 50's. Regardless if leadership was military or elected, Islamic or secular, the country has been run by a minority of Arab - speaking Muslim elite from North Sudan who control the money and power. There are hundreds of rebels groups in the south and most are Muslim. The extermination of the rebels is the government's top priority. Religion is not a factor.
It's an educated minority with financial resources fighting a primitive majority within the same country.The
U.S. froze Sudan's assets in the 90's and placed a trade embargo on the country for human rights abuses.
China and India remained as foreign investors. A few months ago, rebel groups claimed to have taken control of Sudan's oil refinery, owned by the Sudan Government and China.
Dr Tom Cantena is Catholic from New York. He says he always wanted to be a missionary, to serve rather than be served. He has no interest in proselytizing. The U.S. Navy paid his way through medical school. He reportedly has more experience with amputations than any other MD, anywhere. My gut tells me that wedding cakes for SSM are not on his mind.
Even with you Kenyan visitor 50 years ago, you don't seem to know much about who runs the industries and economics in Africa today. Also, the majority of the continent has not been free of colonialism for a long time. Fifty years is not a long time. Many countries in Southeastern an Southwestern countries have only been free of colonialism since the 1990s.
I personally believe that in 50 more years, the countries of Africa that are currently stable will be stable, economically viable countries. Bu the devastating effects of colonialism and the fact that the natural resources of which you speak are still controlled for the most part by European companies, remnants of colonialism, makes their succession into the first world all the more difficult.
The U.S. became independent in 1776 or 1783 and by 1826 it was one of the wealthiest countries of the world.
Canada became independent in 1867 and was quite advanced in 1917.
Australia became independent in 1878 and was quite advanced in 1928.
Iceland gained independence in 1944 as was almost immediately viable.
Israel was viable far sooner than 50 years after its independence in 1948. Within a few years the desert was blooming and industry was starting.
Singapore has been free from colonialism only since 1964, or 1959, depending on whether you count their possession by a newly independent Malaysia. Singapore is a first-world country.
What distinguishes these success stories from the laggards of Africa and Asia is their genesis as free market countries. Socialism made these countries basket cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
And FWIW, the others commenting indirectly about black Americans need to have their heads examined. Black Americans as well have only been "free" for 51 years.
George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, Jackie Robinson and numerous others were far from being slaves during their lives.
Modern blacks do need to reflect seriously on the inner city pathologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
It is amazing, if you look at their statistical standings before and after passage of the Civil Rights Act in the mid 1960s and the end of housing discrimination in the 1970s, how far they have come as a group both educationally and economically. Luckily for us black Americans, we don't have to deal with as much corruption as there is in developing countries. But Americans in general should take a step back and look at where the USA was 50 years post Revolution. No country becomes an economic power that quickly.
In 1826 the U.S. had built the Erie Canal, the Cumberland Road, and was humming with industry and enterprise. Alexis de Toqueville was amazed at what he personally saw in the early 1830's.
Thanks for thinking I'm an expert on African things!
If you want to learn about Africa and its various countries, please do some research about colonial Africa and its current status as a continent of many nations and find answers to your own questions.
Odd how you like to lecture...until the content doesn't fit your argument.
The people of backwater sub-Saharan Africa have been there 100k to possible 1.8 million years without any white people to hold them back, no frigid weather and plenty of natural resources and never accomplished a single verifiable thing. I guess from prehistoric times to the 1600s white people were telepathically holding back the continent of Africa with voodoo lol. Nuts. It's just the opposite. It was Europeans that took Africa and the New world out of the stone age.
The people of backwater sub-Saharan Africa have been there 100k to possible 1.8 million years without any white people to hold them back, no frigid weather and plenty of natural resources and never accomplished a single verifiable thing. I guess from prehistoric times to the 1600s white people were telepathically holding back the continent of Africa with voodoo lol. Nuts. It's just the opposite. It was Europeans that took Africa and the New world out of the stone age.
I don't think that's a justification for colonizing a group of people.
I don't think that's a justification for colonizing a group of people.
Who said it was or it wasn't? No one asked or need justification prior to the 1940s to engage in conquest. But at least European colonization, completely contrary to the common narrative, actually improved outcomes. Historical colonization in Africa doesn't explain Africa's failures before or after. So what justifies Mexico and other 3rd world colonizing America to bring it downward today?
Who said it was or it wasn't? No one asked or need justification prior to the 1940s to engage in conquest. But at least European colonization, completely contrary to the common narrative, actually improved outcomes. Historical colonization in Africa doesn't explain Africa's failures before or after. So what justifies Mexico and other 3rd world colonizing America to bring it downward today?
Sorry, once you start mixing in things that are not part of the discussion, it becomes not worth continuing.
The United Nations does not own selective outrage we need to look in the mirror
Let's start a hashtag campaign to show just how much we care.
Anyone that complains that it's ineffective we will just call racist or sexist or some other kind of ist.
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.
