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.
Wow, I had no idea there were so many Native Americans posting on C-D - there must be though. Otherwise, everyone is supposed to go back to "their own country" right?
said, after Europeans colonized Africa in order to have a certain quality of life. I love this place. LMAO.
Let me tell you something smart guy, I forget exactly what region of Africa it was, I don't have the time to look it up now but this is truth.
So there was this person going to school in one of the former French-African territories and he was with a black African. They were in the province or territory or state or whatever that the school was in and they drove into the next territory/province/state/whatever down in this particular part of Africa.
The student asked his chaperone what happened? They were just a minute ago in an area with paved roads, shops, litter clean up, schools etc.. and then they were in what looked like a third world country. His African chaperone turned to him and said, I don't remember the exact quote, but the gist of it was that the French did not colonize that particular town of Africa that they crossed into and was a third world pit.
In other words, and I'd love to get you guys the actual interview and documentation when I have time, but the point is, the parts of the third world that were actually colonized by Europeans are far better than the parts that were not.
In other words colonialism gave the people living there a quality of life that they otherwise would not have experienced. And the very people who say that, are the people who were colonized. It's a true story. It's an interview. And when I have the time I'll post it. The parts of Africa that were colonized by whites are way better off than the parts that were not. And the incredible thing is that native Africans acknowledge this.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
Let me tell you something smart guy, I forget exactly what region of Africa it was, I don't have the time to look it up now but this is truth.
So there was this person going to school in one of the former French-African territories and he was with a black African. They were in the province or territory or state or whatever that the school was in and they drove into the next territory/province/state/whatever down in this particular part of Africa.
The student asked his chaperone what happened? They were just a minute ago in an area with paved roads, shops, litter clean up, schools etc.. and then they were in what looked like a third world country. His African chaperone turned to him and said, I don't remember the exact quote, but the gist of it was that the French did not colonize that particular town of Africa that they crossed into and was a third world pit.
In other words, and I'd love to get you guys the actual interview and documentation when I have time, but the point is, the parts of the third world that were actually colonized by Europeans are far better than the parts that were not.
In other words colonialism gave the people living there a quality of life that they otherwise would not have experienced. And the very people who say that, are the people who were colonized. It's a true story. It's an interview. And when I have the time I'll post it. The parts of Africa that were colonized by whites are way better off than the parts that were not. And the incredible thing is that native Africans acknowledge this.
Let me tell you something smart guy, I forget exactly what region of Africa it was, I don't have the time to look it up now but this is truth.
So there was this person going to school in one of the former French-African territories and he was with a black African. They were in the province or territory or state or whatever that the school was in and they drove into the next territory/province/state/whatever down in this particular part of Africa.
The student asked his chaperone what happened? They were just a minute ago in an area with paved roads, shops, litter clean up, schools etc.. and then they were in what looked like a third world country. His African chaperone turned to him and said, I don't remember the exact quote, but the gist of it was that the French did not colonize that particular town of Africa that they crossed into and was a third world pit.
In other words, and I'd love to get you guys the actual interview and documentation when I have time, but the point is, the parts of the third world that were actually colonized by Europeans are far better than the parts that were not.
In other words colonialism gave the people living there a quality of life that they otherwise would not have experienced. And the very people who say that, are the people who were colonized. It's a true story. It's an interview. And when I have the time I'll post it. The parts of Africa that were colonized by whites are way better off than the parts that were not. And the incredible thing is that native Africans acknowledge this.
Live where your race or values are in the majority.
If you are a New Yorker, don't move to Florida and then start complaining about the lack of "New York Style" pizza.
This is a fascinating concept.
States could have political entrance requirements for new residents. It wouldn't be enough to just get a new driver's license. I can see two-hour machine-graded exams, meant to tease out every nuance of someone's political and social attitudes. If you're offered a new job by a company in a new state, you'd have to pass the ProperPolitics exam. And of course, if you passed the first time, there'd have to be regular re-exams, to make sure your attitudes hadn't changed.
indeed, OP, why didn't the Dutch, English, Germans, Irish, Polish, French, Swedes, etc. just stay in their own countries back in the 1600s?
This is my entire point about people who complain about "white supremacy". Those white people CONQUERED whole parts of the globe because they were superior intellectually, scientifically and militarily.
It's like when a football team controls the lines of scrimmage and dominates a game, they were SUPERIOR athletically and physically so they dominated and beat the other team!
If the people who the white people "suppressed" were able to stop them they would've been stopped. But they were not because they were not capable. If they could have stopped them I assume they would've.
You do realize that the white man could've wiped out all the other continents besides North America and Europe because they were the only ones with the atomic bomb, but they did not, instead they sent billions of dollars of aid to Africa and every other third world pit in the kn own globe. That's not white supremacy, that's caring and mercy. The rest of this planet, with few exceptions, lives an existence of plenty and satisfaction because of the benevolence of the white race.
Take Europe and North America away from the globe tomorrow and you would have the Middle East and Venezuela world wide. In other words complete and utter h*** on earth. Only the principles of White, Western, European nations keep this communist nightmare from happening.
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.
Perspective: get some
