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.
JB totally agree with you, but just wanted to see if your story would change. This is why i was challenging Macmeal to remain consistent regardless of race, ethnicity, and country. Wrong is wrong is wrong is wrong.
If your position is the US should not meddle in others affairs, which is my posistion too, that means all affairs not just white countries or black countries should be left to their own devices etc.
By all means the Africans should do what they want. I have no right to impose my positions on them, I was just voicing my opinion that it would be a mistake for them to redistribute land and wealth. And don't see how those of us in America could justify it without redistrbting our farmland to the Indians.
By all means the Africans should do what they want. I have no right to impose my positions on them, I was just voicing my opinion that it would be a mistake for them to redistribute land and wealth. And don't see how those of us in America could justify it without redistrbting our farmland to the Indians.
I agree it is bad policy and it would be much more effective for government to reduce the number of land holding it currently owns. I'm sure the government owns a large portion of farm land, but to maintain large amounts of power it is unwilling to release, that land to the people. Aside from calling the other poster out. I do agree with both of your points in land redistribution.
You are making some pretty bold statements. Africa is NOT a first world country. It has a long way to go. Lots of third world countries have 5 star hotels. 5 Star Hotel does not equal First world country.
You also blame the media for the shallow observations of a very unprepared tourist who happened to go to college. I used to have a Japanese woman, BORN IN HAWAII, work for me who was a Harvard MBA. She used to tell me that a classmate of hers at Harvard asked if she grew up wearing grass skirts. There is plenty of jungle out in Africa and plenty of Tigers and Lions.
First of all I said South Africa is turning itself into a first world country. There is plenty of jungle out in the united states and plenty of tigers and lions. Didn't two young men just get killed by a tiger in san francisco only a while back. In florida you can be jogging down the street and be eaten up by a alligator. Last time i check south africa has hotels, and resturants just like any major american city today.
JB totally agree with you, but just wanted to see if your story would change. This is why i was challenging Macmeal to remain consistent regardless of race, ethnicity, and country. Wrong is wrong is wrong is wrong.
Macmeal here. I agree that wrong is wrong....but I don't agree that anyone can remain "constant" about race, ethnicity, or country, as long as the MEMBERS of these races, ethnicities, and countries behave in ways that are anything BUT consistent. I agree that "wrong is wrong"....and THAT is consistent. Many people, though, insist that SOME things are NOT wrong for some people, but wrong for others....and that's where we disagree. Many people also see racism as the world's number-one crime---bigger than murder, mayhem, violence, or anything else. Here, too, I disagree. I think those things are WORSE than racism.
I wrote you extensive explanations of my position on another post, which you failed to comment on, other than calling my entire position "total and utter crap". Therefore, I fail to understand how you can now talk of "challenging" me....how can anyone "challenge" total and utter crap?
BTW, I disagree with you on many points, but not on all. In some cases, I think your priorities are wrong. But your position, in my estimation, isn't "total crap" "utter crap", or even "partial crap". It's simply a differing view from mine....
First of all I said South Africa is turning itself into a first world country. There is plenty of jungle out in the united states and plenty of tigers and lions. Didn't two young men just get killed by a tiger in san francisco only a while back. In florida you can be jogging down the street and be eaten up by a alligator. Last time i check south africa has hotels, and resturants just like any major american city today.
This is beyond comment. Neither the United States, NOR South Africa, have any "jungle". Both lie in the world's "temperate zones". Lions don't live in "jungles", they live in savannahs. (unless, of course, you get your knowledge of zoology from Tarzan movies)....And there are few countries on earth that don't have hotels and restaurants...NEITHER of which is an indicator of their society's conditions...
Bad reasoning.....
Huh?? What are you talking about?? You're certainly not following this discussion, so let me repeat: The multitude of problems that African nations are facing today are a DIRECT result of European colonization. By colonizing Africa Europe intentionally underdeveloped that continent.
Then why is it that the two African nations that saw the least European presence (Ethiopia and Somalia, both of which had virtually no European presence at any time in their history) are the least developed and have some of the worst problems on the continent?
The whole "African problems are the white mans fault" might exist OK in some theoretical "academic" vacuum but the above fact alone is pretty telling and speaks directly to the contrary.
Then why is it that the two African nations that saw the least European presence (Ethiopia and Somalia, both of which had virtually no European presence at any time in their history) are the least developed and have some of the worst problems on the continent?
The whole "African problems are the white mans fault" might exist OK in some theoretical "academic" vacuum but the above fact alone is pretty telling and speaks directly to the contrary.
Somalia was at one time an Italian colony (along with Libya). The Italians were probably among the most "laid back" of the colonial powers, and generally, I agree with your post....
In regards to those white farmers that you are blathering about, answer this question; who farmed that land before those whites got there, and also how did those white farmers come to own that land?
In regards to South Africa,no-one farmed the region.
The current black tribes moved to the region AFTER the arrival of the Dutch Boers.
The Boers ARE an African culture/ethnic group,they just happen to be white.
Successful for whites, but not for blacks. That's one fact you conveniently left out. Why? Probably because you know that that makes ALL the difference. One group of people--a small minority--get most of the wealth, while the rest--the vast majority--get scraps.
And NOW all are starving...well except for Mugabes cronies.
Inflation is running at 1000%....
There is not enough food to feed the people.
Funny thing is under the evil white men,there wasn't 1000% inflation and there was EXTRA food that could be sold to other impoverished nations.
In regards to South Africa,no-one farmed the region.
The current black tribes moved to the region AFTER the arrival of the Dutch Boers.
The Boers ARE an African culture/ethnic group,they just happen to be white.
My understanding was that the "Boers" arrived on the "Cape" to find it nearly devoid of inhabitants--EXCEPT for the very primitive "Hottentots" who did live there. (The ORIGINAL purpose in the Dutch 'settling' people on The Cape was to provide a 'way station' on the long route between Holland and her holdings in Indonesia)..Over the ensuing decades, the Boers moved north and inland, and eventually clashed with the "Zulus", the advanced African tribes who were still in the process of migrating southward.
The bulk of the black population of today's South Africa is descended from those Africans who migrated INTO South Africa, after it was "founded" by the Afrikaners, mostly in search of work. Many Africans, even in the darkest days of Apartheid, came in great numbers into South Africa, legally or not, because of the many jobs there. Apartheid was demeaning and annoying, but it apparently beat unemployment.
It's loosely comparable to the situation in the US Southwest, where the presence of a VERY FEW Hispanics and Indians, prior to the arrival of Whites, is NOW being used to justify a general, ethnic Hispanic-wide "claim" to the whole region, by any and all arrivals, however recent, and no matter from how far away, who can claim some sort of "Hispanic" ethnicity. It's a big stretch.....
In other words, the Afrikaners weren't the FIRST people on the "Cape"...but they've been there longer than MOST of the present-day black groups have--(black groups who, by the way, were all very eager to "beat up on" the original Hottentots, at LEAST as much a the whites were).
Very 'testy' subject, these 'race relations'.....
Last edited by macmeal; 02-18-2008 at 01:38 PM..
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.
What are you talking about?? You're certainly not following this discussion, so let me repeat: The multitude of problems that African nations are facing today are a DIRECT result of European colonization. By colonizing Africa Europe intentionally underdeveloped that continent.
