Colonialism was a disaster for Africa,and the continent continues to pay the price.What would have happened if us Europeans had never come to Africa is of course pure conjecture,so no one can say what would have transpired if we didn’t.
What I can tell you is that when the colonial powers left the continent,what they left behind was an abject disaster,and I seriously doubt that the local populations would have wrought such damage on themselves if they had been left to their own devices.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Colonialism was a disaster for Africa,and the continent continues to pay the price.What would have happened if us Europeans had never come to Africa is of course pure conjecture,so no one can say what would have transpired if we didn’t.
What I can tell you is that when the colonial powers left the continent,what they left behind was an abject disaster,and I seriously doubt that the local populations would have wrought such damage on themselves if they had been left to their own devices.
[/quote]
…which brings me back to my original point that if white people were never in africa, that they could still have, (and in my opinion probably would have) gotten just as many guns, and given that everything you read in sociology states that the poorer areas will have more problems, it is clear that Africa would have just as many problems anyway, but yes I do see your point that this is just my opinion.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lumbernac wrote:
…
Look, if whites never came to africa the place would still have had:
-very little government regulation, allowing more bad luck to happen
Part of the problem is far too much regulation in Africa.
-access to guns
You do the math, bro and this comment goes for X as well since this issue was originally directed at him.
I have quite a few guns and do not have problems. The guns don’t cause the problems. How many people in Rwanda were killed with machetes?
[/quote]
right, right, guns don’t kill people but rather people kill people, we know.
[quote]lumbernac wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Colonialism was a disaster for Africa,and the continent continues to pay the price.What would have happened if us Europeans had never come to Africa is of course pure conjecture,so no one can say what would have transpired if we didn’t.
What I can tell you is that when the colonial powers left the continent,what they left behind was an abject disaster,and I seriously doubt that the local populations would have wrought such damage on themselves if they had been left to their own devices.
…which brings me back to my original point that if white people were never in africa, that they could still have, (and in my opinion probably would have) gotten just as many guns, and given that everything you read in sociology states that the poorer areas will have more problems, it is clear that Africa would have just as many problems anyway, but yes I do see your point that this is just my opinion.
[/quote]
What in the world makes you leap to the assumption that Africa was ‘poorer’?By what standards?Yours?
Read and think a bit deeper,it will do you the world of good.
Then you will see that your original point is…garbage.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
lumbernac wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Colonialism was a disaster for Africa,and the continent continues to pay the price.What would have happened if us Europeans had never come to Africa is of course pure conjecture,so no one can say what would have transpired if we didn’t.
What I can tell you is that when the colonial powers left the continent,what they left behind was an abject disaster,and I seriously doubt that the local populations would have wrought such damage on themselves if they had been left to their own devices.
…which brings me back to my original point that if white people were never in africa, that they could still have, (and in my opinion probably would have) gotten just as many guns, and given that everything you read in sociology states that the poorer areas will have more problems, it is clear that Africa would have just as many problems anyway, but yes I do see your point that this is just my opinion.
What in the world makes you leap to the assumption that Africa was ‘poorer’?By what standards?Yours?
Read and think a bit deeper,it will do you the world of good.
Then you will see that your original point is…garbage.[/quote]
Clearly any culture different than the classical European concept of civilization was nothing but savagery at work.
[quote]lumbernac wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Colonialism was a disaster for Africa,and the continent continues to pay the price.What would have happened if us Europeans had never come to Africa is of course pure conjecture,so no one can say what would have transpired if we didn’t.
What I can tell you is that when the colonial powers left the continent,what they left behind was an abject disaster,and I seriously doubt that the local populations would have wrought such damage on themselves if they had been left to their own devices.
…which brings me back to my original point that if white people were never in africa, that they could still have, (and in my opinion probably would have) gotten just as many guns, and given that everything you read in sociology states that the poorer areas will have more problems, it is clear that Africa would have just as many problems anyway, but yes I do see your point that this is just my opinion. [/quote]
You’re an absolute moron!
Wow, I should have gotten in on this thread sooner. For starters, that net thing is retarded. This sounds harsh but I don’t care. I don’t want to send them nets. I want them to die or adapt. If I have to send them money for nets they’ll live, which means I will have to send them money for food. After that I’m going to have to send them money for AIDS relief.
That said, the wife and I do send money to Africa in the form of Kiva microloans. Adapt or die.
As far as blaming it on Europeans there’s something to it, but not much. I really doubt that whitey made it worse, but he sure didn’t help. Go back 120 years and ask a 20-something Zulu who isn’t allowed to have sex and who’s often out fighting aggressive wars against his neighbors if he’d like to trade places with the Englishman who’s about to kill him with a Martini-Henry.
Whitey brought a little bit of human dignity to a place sorely lacking in it. That said, I trust there were some places where the spillover made life far worse. It, like most things, was a give and take. It was better for some and worse for others.
I don’t really understand the value in assigning blame here. There were no good guys in the picture. Many of the conquered people were savages who deserved it. But the European powers weren’t there for the right reasons. They were imperialist dicks.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Many of the conquered people were savages who deserved it. [/quote]
Deserved? Are you sure this is the term you want to go with here?
Serves them pesky savages right for having all that underutilized land and unexploited natural resources just lyin’ around. That’ll teach 'em.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Serves them pesky savages right for having all that underutilized land and unexploited natural resources just lyin’ around. That’ll teach 'em.[/quote]
That is the way nature works.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Many of the conquered people were savages who deserved it.
Deserved? Are you sure this is the term you want to go with here?
[/quote]
There is no morality between nations, only between individuals. Government is amoral, so yes, in a sense, they deserve it. If another group develops its resources while another does not, then the first group overpowers the lazy ones.
People in oil rich countries, for ex, didn’t know what they had until the West told them. Should’ve just taken the oil. Being nice cost us big time. That’s what happens when you try and extend morality into groups/governing.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Many of the conquered people were savages who deserved it.
Deserved? Are you sure this is the term you want to go with here?
There is no morality between nations, only between individuals. Government is amoral, so yes, in a sense, they deserve it. If another group develops its resources while another does not, then the first group overpowers the lazy ones.
People in oil rich countries, for ex, didn’t know what they had until the West told them. Should’ve just taken the oil. Being nice cost us big time. That’s what happens when you try and extend morality into groups/governing. [/quote]
So I believe we should tell the Muscovites freezing to death that they deserve it because they didn’t move to a more clement place. Women who get raped would then deserve it too because they didn’t learn Kung-Fu.
And for what it’s worth, I was looking for Mikey’s opinion, not yours.
P.S: Who’s the fatso in that picture?
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Wow, I should have gotten in on this thread sooner. For starters, that net thing is retarded. This sounds harsh but I don’t care. I don’t want to send them nets. I want them to die or adapt. If I have to send them money for nets they’ll live, which means I will have to send them money for food. After that I’m going to have to send them money for AIDS relief.
[/quote]
Holy shit, you sound like one cruel motherfucker. That “net thing” could prevent hundreds of thousands of children dying from malaria each year. You admit that nets might allow those children to live - yet the “net thing is retarded”?? You would rather they “die” if they can’t “adapt”??
Fine if you don’t want to send nets. kudos to you for micro-loaning. But your “die or adapt” posture is morally abhorrent & seriously wanting in compassion. I hope you’re kidding, but somehow I don’t think so.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Many of the conquered people were savages who deserved it.
Deserved? Are you sure this is the term you want to go with here?
[/quote]
Certainly. I’m starting to understand the power of definitions, so let me explain:
To me, being a backwoods hunter-gatherer or simple farmer does not a savage make. A savage is one who engages in savage acts, savagery if you will. If the average African country or individual wishes to engage in peaceful activities then I have no beef with him. Some African yokel out plowing a field has every right to do as he sees fit without someone taking his land or doing him harm.
But I don’t see how you can look at something like the Zulu empire and say that King Cetshwayo doesn’t deserve a taste of British steel. The only misfortune was that it was one set of bad guys (greedy British imperialists) putting the other out of business. I would contend that the British were merely the lesser of two evils.
Now, onto HH’s remark about individuals. You know who I think are the lowest form of life of the 20th century? The boss jews. You know, the guys in the concentration camps that marched their fellows off to the ovens for the slight possibility of saving their own ass. All action is voluntary. When that boss jew picked up a bat or that Zulu picks up an assegai or an Aztec takes up an obsidian blade to deny the human rights of another, then he deserves to die, regardless of his motivation.
This holds true but to a lesser extent to enablers. That poor Iraqi that wished to mind his own business but didn’t forment rebellion against Saddam didn’t exactly deserve to become collateral damage, but he sure as hell doesn’t deserve to have his security trump the ousting of a genocidal asshole.
Human rights are universal. They are sacred and undeniable. I called for the fall of the Taliban in 1998 or 99 after learning of their subjugation of women. Deny the rights of others and expect me to bring hell upon you.
I’m a dirty interventionalist and wholly unapolgetic about it. To be quite frank, had their been some brave citizen capable and willing to do it, I’d smile to know that someone put a bullet in FDR’s brain when he ordered the internment of Americans of Japanese descent. To quote Samuel L. Jackson, “Yeah I’m glad he’s dead, and I hope he burns in hell.”
My own struggle lies in my current position as an American. My wife is strongly anti-interventionalist. She sees something like the Iraq war as not being bad on its face, but rather because tax dollars are extorted from unwilling citizens to fund a military that engages in adventurism, despite it’s worth. Couple that with income tax being a lesser form of slavery and you’ve really got something there for a case against the war.
I’d support that if it were possible to really send citizens overseas to fight a noble fight. Unfortunately we have a terrorist organization in our own country called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that systematically eliminates the proper arming of citizen’s militias and of gun owners in general. It’s kind of hard to train and equip men to do some good that way. Such is the reason I’m not going back in the Corps. There are too many bad guys in my own country. Fuckin’ breaks my heart too. I miss military life.
Lixy, we gotta have a beer together someday man. I know you catch a lot of shit on here, but I bet you’re an alright guy.
mike
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Wow, I should have gotten in on this thread sooner. For starters, that net thing is retarded. This sounds harsh but I don’t care. I don’t want to send them nets. I want them to die or adapt. If I have to send them money for nets they’ll live, which means I will have to send them money for food. After that I’m going to have to send them money for AIDS relief.
Holy shit, you sound like one cruel motherfucker. That “net thing” could prevent hundreds of thousands of children dying from malaria each year. You admit that nets might allow those children to live - yet the “net thing is retarded”?? You would rather they “die” if they can’t “adapt”??
Fine if you don’t want to send nets. kudos to you for micro-loaning. But your “die or adapt” posture is morally abhorrent & seriously wanting in compassion. I hope you’re kidding, but somehow I don’t think so. [/quote]
I am honestly just glad their true colors are showing publicly. One can only wonder why they chose this particular time to show how ignorant they are.
Following that logic, the people in the WTC disaster deserved to die because we didn’t have escape routes for plane crashes well designed in advance. People who die in drunk driving accidents shouldn’t have been in cars to begin with.
The racism and hatred shining through in these threads is staggering lately.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Wow, I should have gotten in on this thread sooner. For starters, that net thing is retarded. This sounds harsh but I don’t care. I don’t want to send them nets. I want them to die or adapt. If I have to send them money for nets they’ll live, which means I will have to send them money for food. After that I’m going to have to send them money for AIDS relief.
Holy shit, you sound like one cruel motherfucker. That “net thing” could prevent hundreds of thousands of children dying from malaria each year. You admit that nets might allow those children to live - yet the “net thing is retarded”?? You would rather they “die” if they can’t “adapt”??
Fine if you don’t want to send nets. kudos to you for micro-loaning. But your “die or adapt” posture is morally abhorrent & seriously wanting in compassion. I hope you’re kidding, but somehow I don’t think so. [/quote]
I believe the point is that we are giving them a fish a day instead of teaching them how to fish (to paraphrase an old Chinese proverb). All people and all cultures need to learn to exist on their own and be self-sustaining. The reason South African’s had a hard time after Britain left is because they created a dependency.
So the answer is teaching them how to live in the modern Africa, how to use their natural resources, take care of their healthcare, etc.
Some purists’ may say that this will destroy their old tribal culture and force western values and philosophy on them. Well, they are living now, not 200 years ago. And if they want our help our values and way of thinking come along with it. And if they don’t like that they can STFU and stop asking us for help.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Wow, I should have gotten in on this thread sooner. For starters, that net thing is retarded. This sounds harsh but I don’t care. I don’t want to send them nets. I want them to die or adapt. If I have to send them money for nets they’ll live, which means I will have to send them money for food. After that I’m going to have to send them money for AIDS relief.
Holy shit, you sound like one cruel motherfucker. That “net thing” could prevent hundreds of thousands of children dying from malaria each year. You admit that nets might allow those children to live - yet the “net thing is retarded”?? You would rather they “die” if they can’t “adapt”??
Fine if you don’t want to send nets. kudos to you for micro-loaning. But your “die or adapt” posture is morally abhorrent & seriously wanting in compassion. I hope you’re kidding, but somehow I don’t think so. [/quote]
laugh I’m actually a softie. Wife says I’m a bleeding heart lib. It isn’t that I don’t feel bad for the situation. It’s simply that there’s no reason to continue a system that isn’t working. If you could somehow give the kids nets, food, etc, until they can fend for themselves then I could get behind that. But this isn’t about supporting them; it’s about supporting the entire system of continual dependency. This increases suffering.
I take a utilitarian view of this. If all those that couldn’t cut it died tomorrow then it would be a tragedy. But several times that are going to die with the continued suffering of each passing generation. I’m convinced microloans work. They’ll help all of Africa support itself over time. Throwing nets at starving, AIDs ridden people only succeed in making you feel better about yourself, which you shouldn’t because you only bring forth more children who will suffer.
mike
[quote]Professor X wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Wow, I should have gotten in on this thread sooner. For starters, that net thing is retarded. This sounds harsh but I don’t care. I don’t want to send them nets. I want them to die or adapt. If I have to send them money for nets they’ll live, which means I will have to send them money for food. After that I’m going to have to send them money for AIDS relief.
Holy shit, you sound like one cruel motherfucker. That “net thing” could prevent hundreds of thousands of children dying from malaria each year. You admit that nets might allow those children to live - yet the “net thing is retarded”?? You would rather they “die” if they can’t “adapt”??
Fine if you don’t want to send nets. kudos to you for micro-loaning. But your “die or adapt” posture is morally abhorrent & seriously wanting in compassion. I hope you’re kidding, but somehow I don’t think so.
I am honestly just glad their true colors are showing publicly. One can only wonder why they chose this particular time to show how ignorant they are.
Following that logic, the people in the WTC disaster deserved to die because we didn’t have escape routes for plane crashes well designed in advance. People who die in drunk driving accidents shouldn’t have been in cars to begin with.
The racism and hatred shining through in these threads is staggering lately.[/quote]
X, do NOT lump me in with those racist fucks that have been running around in these recent threads.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Many of the conquered people were savages who deserved it.
Deserved? Are you sure this is the term you want to go with here?
This holds true but to a lesser extent to enablers. That poor Iraqi that wished to mind his own business but didn’t forment rebellion against Saddam didn’t exactly deserve to become collateral damage, but he sure as hell doesn’t deserve to have his security trump the ousting of a genocidal asshole.
Human rights are universal. They are sacred and undeniable. I called for the fall of the Taliban in 1998 or 99 after learning of their subjugation of women. Deny the rights of others and expect me to bring hell upon you.
I’m a dirty interventionalist and wholly unapolgetic about it. To be quite frank, had their been some brave citizen capable and willing to do it, I’d smile to know that someone put a bullet in FDR’s brain when he ordered the internment of Americans of Japanese descent. To quote Samuel L. Jackson, “Yeah I’m glad he’s dead, and I hope he burns in hell.”
My own struggle lies in my current position as an American. My wife is strongly anti-interventionalist. She sees something like the Iraq war as not being bad on its face, but rather because tax dollars are extorted from unwilling citizens to fund a military that engages in adventurism, despite it’s worth. Couple that with income tax being a lesser form of slavery and you’ve really got something there for a case against the war.
I’d support that if it were possible to really send citizens overseas to fight a noble fight. Unfortunately we have a terrorist organization in our own country called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that systematically eliminates the proper arming of citizen’s militias and of gun owners in general. It’s kind of hard to train and equip men to do some good that way. Such is the reason I’m not going back in the Corps. There are too many bad guys in my own country. Fuckin’ breaks my heart too. I miss military life.
Lixy, we gotta have a beer together someday man. I know you catch a lot of shit on here, but I bet you’re an alright guy.
mike[/quote]
Of course, the trouble with intervening militarily in another country’s affairs is that you often make a bad situation worse. Nations are complicated. You can’t just take out a “genocidal asshole” and expect everything to get better. Sometimes when you take out that one asshole, you get many more assholes. It also sounds quite arrogant to say that any given Iraqis security should not trump taking out Saddam. It is also strange, given the results of taking Saddam out. I am sure the Iraqis are pleased by the fact that they got to trade in Saddam for Al Qaeda in Iraq and sectarian warfare.
You might gain some personal gratification from taking out the bad guy. In the end though, you have to consider the big picture. To me, this is a far better case against the war than the fact that it is paid for by our tax dollars.
So MIke, a little off the subject, but what do you imagine the Blackwater thugs deserve?