Slavery Good?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Professor X wrote:
drag0n252pi wrote:
Yeah I know the Egyptians are African. I studied geography. Those other kingdoms that you mentioned paled in comparision to the Egyptian Ptolemy dynasties.

…and your point is?

I get what he’s trying to say, prof…

He’s mentioning how important a major river that floods annually is to the development of a civilization. As evidenced not only by the Nile, but the Euphrates, Tigris, and Yellow river. That was your point, right, drag0n252pi?[/quote]

Now that’s some funny stuff there LOL!

162

[quote]drag0n252pi wrote:
Jprocrastinator wrote:
Vyapada wrote:
Another idea for discussion in this thread; would Africa be in the situation it is now without the substantial meddling of foreign powers - if we erased African slavery from history what would Africa look like today?

I would just like to expand on what Vyapada said. First of all, the mentality that allowed for the creation of black slavery (That blacks were inferior or sub human and therefore it was ok to enslave them) Is the same attitude that allowed the colinial powers to carve up Africa and exploit it. While it is true that Africa is in very sad state today, this is a direct result of the mess created by the colonial powers. If not for the problems they created in carving it up and in creating arbritrary national borders upon giving up there colonies, there would not be the amount of wars, poverty, and other problems that exist today. Africa before the invaders was culturally rich and healthy, and way back in the day, (We’re talking ancient history here) There were parts of Africa that were smelting iron while certain areas of Europe were just coming out of the stone age. It is interesting to contemplate how healthy and advanced the continent would be if not for the “White Man’s burden” mentality that allowed for slavery and colonial domination.

Western Europe was not the first to divide up Africa. Let’s see, there were the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians and the Egyptians at points in time conquered them. SHow me a Gold COast country that had the civilization of the Egyptians and then maybe your argument can hold water.[/quote]

Check out the empires of Ghana, Mali, Or Songhai. (I think I spelled those correctly) Check out the flourishing cultural Mecca that was Timboktu.

163

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Like I said - and you play right into it. The Hate America revisionist crowd can’t see the simple truth.

I didn’t say it was right. I didn’t say that the strong were the good guys. But your lame ass excuse “shit happens” is laughable.

For you to think that I am suggesting a race war proves your blind adherence to a PC doctrine that is just plain wrong.

In terms of history, the dominant aren’t necessarily the strongest, the smartest, or the best. There is nothing revisionist about that. Others are suggesting that europe subjugated africa because africa was ass-backwards. This is not true, it appears to have mostly been because of europe’s naval dominance.

History is history, and what happened then influences what happens now. The situation is bad, how do you propose it be improved?

I’m not talking about immigrants. I’m not talking about starting a race war between me and and your black buddies. I’m not now, nor have I ever said that the losers were primitive.

My post was not entirely directed at you, and I apologize if I did not make that sufficiently clear. Drag certainly does seem to think the losers were more primitive.

I’m sure if the native 16th century africans had had sharper sticks they would have undoubtedly held there own. But they lost. They were subjegated. As were the Incas, the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the American Indians.

While I understand that you are being facetious, I will remind you that they DID have “sharper sticks”, what they lacked was boats.

I could give a shit about your feel good politics. They are revisionist, and just make you look stupid. The truth is the truth. And unlike today - excuses really never came into polay when a race, or a nation, or a tribe of people were getting killed, enslaved, or in any other way dominated.

I don’t follow. What did I say that was revisionist? And who is making excuses? I was correcting drag’s errors, not making excuses.

Would you like to try again and leave the Racist threats against the white man out of it? Or is that all you can see? I wasn’t advocating anything - yet you seem to think that the white man is ready to fall to the hands of the almighty angry black man. Bravo for showing your stripes. I can only be thankful that the ignorance spewing from your keyboard is localized to a canadian racist, and not the feelings of the entirity of all races that have had a rough time in their history. You are indeed an angry little man.

There you go with the belittling again… Look, it’s simple. Either everyone deserves to be treated equally, and with respect, or whoever is strongest gets to treat everyone else like shit. Someone tell me the rules, and I’ll play by them. If it’s the latter, I am going to do whatever I have to not to be subjugated. If you consider that a “racist threat”, I really don’t care.[/quote]

Boats.

Think Gunpowder, Iron and Steel might have had something to do with it too?

164

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
…Europe’s military power was inferior to almost every other civilization’s, except for their naval technology. …[/quote]

Aleksandr, when you post things that are so blatantly untrue it really ruins any point you are trying to make.

Please enlighten us how Europes military power was inferior.

I understand the Europeans got lucky in every battle they fought because you have already explained this.

What I don’ understand is how their military was inferior.

Was it their reliance on superior technology (firearms, steel, etc.) that made them inferior?

Was it their professional armies that made them inferior?

165

[quote]gadget wrote:
… Hell, our president has a masters degree in economics. Yours?

… [/quote]

Ours has a masters degree in business administration.

166

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
gadget wrote:
… Hell, our president has a masters degree in economics. Yours?

…

Ours has a masters degree in business administration.[/quote]

I stand corrected.

167

I don’t think South Africa reprsents the continent as a whole very well. Do you? I don’t think many rich white Europeans were brought to America as slaves, but I’ve only read about SA, never been there. I’m sure that scientist, Naki would have rather been able to flourish in America than stagnate in SA. If you are doing well in SA and have pride in your country good, no disrespect, so don’t get bent.

168

Hedo said

Hedo, gunpowder did not originate in europe, and many, many civilizations were in the iron age before europe. No, I don’t think those had much to do with it. I’m pretty sure it was the boats.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
…Europe’s military power was inferior to almost every other civilization’s, except for their naval technology. …

Aleksandr, when you post things that are so blatantly untrue it really ruins any point you are trying to make.
[/quote]

How much have you studied world history? Just because it’s not a commonly accepted position doesn’t make it untrue. If all it takes is one new idea in a post for you to disregard the whole thing, you’re better off not reading anything.

I’m pretty sure I used examples outside of europe as well. When it comes down to it, luck is a huge part of any battle, and any battle can totally change the course of a war.

This technology was not exclusive to europe, and often times did not originate there. Not until around the 18th century did europe have any sort of technological advantage on land, and even then it was marginal, and not kept very long (eg, new iron artillery was captured and replicated by others).

An actual long-term technological advantage in weapons came only in the middle of the 19th century, with the rifling of barrels. Note that it was at this time that european trading posts began becoming colonies.

Professional armies only came around in the 17th century, and did not become widespread until the 18th century. Even then, they were pretty small, and “gentlemanly” qualities over professional ones until the 19th century. Again, this is when trading posts really started being conquered as colonies.

And others had well-organized, well-disciplined armeis as well. The Zulu, and others in the area come to mind. I also recall a certain Abyssinian victory…

Sorry guys, but other civilizations were actually not retarded children that needed european “help”. No one, obviously, stopped the momentum that europe’s naval capabilities created, but that doesn’t mean europeans were superior.

To answer how naval technology could have been so important, europe was the only place that had developed sea-firing artillery. They could control trade routes, others couldn’t. They could move around more accurately, and faster. If this doesn’t make it obvious how, after a few centuries of trading-post empires, europe finally managed to get enough of an upper-hand to become the world superpower, you need to play more video games. =P

169

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
To answer how naval technology could have been so important, europe was the only place that had developed sea-firing artillery. They could control trade routes, others couldn’t. They could move around more accurately, and faster. If this doesn’t make it obvious how, after a few centuries of trading-post empires, europe finally managed to get enough of an upper-hand to become the world superpower, you need to play more video games. =P[/quote]

OMG - you actually believe that playing more video games will help us gain a better PC view of Europe’s domination of Africa?

That speaks volumes for your position.

170

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Hedo said

Boats.

Think Gunpowder, Iron and Steel might have had something to do with it too?

Hedo, gunpowder did not originate in europe, and many, many civilizations were in the iron age before europe. No, I don’t think those had much to do with it. I’m pretty sure it was the boats.

Zap Branigan wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
…Europe’s military power was inferior to almost every other civilization’s, except for their naval technology. …

Aleksandr, when you post things that are so blatantly untrue it really ruins any point you are trying to make.

How much have you studied world history? Just because it’s not a commonly accepted position doesn’t make it untrue. If all it takes is one new idea in a post for you to disregard the whole thing, you’re better off not reading anything.

Please enlighten us how Europes military power was inferior.

I understand the Europeans got lucky in every battle they fought because you have already explained this.

I’m pretty sure I used examples outside of europe as well. When it comes down to it, luck is a huge part of any battle, and any battle can totally change the course of a war.

What I don’t understand is how their military was inferior.

Was it their reliance on superior technology (firearms, steel, etc.) that made them inferior?

This technology was not exclusive to europe, and often times did not originate there. Not until around the 18th century did europe have any sort of technological advantage on land, and even then it was marginal, and not kept very long (eg, new iron artillery was captured and replicated by others).

An actual long-term technological advantage in weapons came only in the middle of the 19th century, with the rifling of barrels. Note that it was at this time that european trading posts began becoming colonies.

Was it their professional armies that made them inferior?

Professional armies only came around in the 17th century, and did not become widespread until the 18th century. Even then, they were pretty small, and “gentlemanly” qualities over professional ones until the 19th century. Again, this is when trading posts really started being conquered as colonies.

And others had well-organized, well-disciplined armeis as well. The Zulu, and others in the area come to mind. I also recall a certain Abyssinian victory…

Sorry guys, but other civilizations were actually not retarded children that needed european “help”. No one, obviously, stopped the momentum that europe’s naval capabilities created, but that doesn’t mean europeans were superior.

To answer how naval technology could have been so important, europe was the only place that had developed sea-firing artillery. They could control trade routes, others couldn’t. They could move around more accurately, and faster. If this doesn’t make it obvious how, after a few centuries of trading-post empires, europe finally managed to get enough of an upper-hand to become the world superpower, you need to play more video games. =P[/quote]

Read about the history of gunpowder and it’s manufacture. It is completely the opposite of what you are stating…I am sure you will not agree with it.

171

Alexandr, I do not deny the warrior spirit or organization of various peoples around the world. If the Zulus would have had the superior weaponry and tactics, perhaps they would have defeated the Brits. They did not and they were vanquished.

You made the statement that Europes military power was inferior. It was not, it was superior for many hundreds of years.

History is littered with examples of European armies defeating numerically superior opponents. Luck was not the sole reason!

As to my disregarding your posts when you fill them with falsehoods (or new ideas as you call them), you are damn right I disregard them and so do many others.

If you want to make a point, be factual.

If your point is that Africans and Native Americans were victims because they had inferior technology and not because they themselves were inferior, you would be correct. All men are created equal. There is no such thing as an inferior or superior race.

Your point appeared to be Europeans are inferior (you stated their militaries were). In this case you would be incorrect.

172

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Alexandr, I do not deny the warrior spirit or organization of various peoples around the world. If the Zulus would have had the superior weaponry and tactics, perhaps they would have defeated the Brits. They did not and they were vanquished.

You made the statement that Europes military power was inferior. It was not, it was superior for many hundreds of years.

History is littered with examples of European armies defeating numerically superior opponents. Luck was not the sole reason!
[/quote]

Zap, the 19th century isn’t the only period in human history. Looking at the early period of sea travel, when europeans first started making serious contact with others, they could not have defeated them. Like I said, it wasn’t until much later that europe gained dominance on land. When you say “many hundreds of years”, you mean “a couple of hundred years”, starting from the mid 19th century until the early 20th century. In the late 1800s, a european army could win a war outnumbered 50-1. In the early 1900, they required at least equal numbers. Luck is never the only reason, but it always plays a part. I am not saying europe had dumb luck, I am saying that what led to the colonial age was a series of fairly minor occurances coming together to set the stage. It certainly wasn’t because europeans were “smarter”, however.

Just because you don’t agree (because of a different viewpoint, having done diffferent readings) doesn’t mean what I am saying isn’t true.

Yes and no. The superior technology thing is fairly recent, and was pretty short lived. It had a lot to do with complex strategies (France’s african trade-post empire, where rather than controlling an area they “provided protection”, having only enough military presence to cause some serious damage, but never actually win; this went on until ~1890, I think), betrayals (the british conquest of their allies against Asante), and messed up alliances (like the alliance with spain against the spanish, although I’m sure it seemed like a good choice at the time).

[quote]
Your point appeared to be Europeans are inferior (you stated their militaries were). In this case you would be incorrect.[/quote]

No, my point was that europeans were not superior in everything. Believe it or not, every person, and every nation, has weaknesses. In the case of european countries, it was land warfare for a pretty long time. At the same time, I said they were superior at sea. Why does the thought of europeans not being supreme in every field bother you?

173

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
To answer how naval technology could have been so important, europe was the only place that had developed sea-firing artillery. They could control trade routes, others couldn’t. They could move around more accurately, and faster. If this doesn’t make it obvious how, after a few centuries of trading-post empires, europe finally managed to get enough of an upper-hand to become the world superpower, you need to play more video games. =P

OMG - you actually believe that playing more video games will help us gain a better PC view of Europe’s domination of Africa?

That speaks volumes for your position. [/quote]

I felt it was pretty obvious I said that in jest…

But even if you took it seriously, it’s not about “gaining a better PC [if you ment “Personal Computer”, then ignore all this, as it was a very clever pun] view”, it’s understanding strategy, and the effect of an early advantage. In this case, it has to do with the importance of controlling supply lines. I think you’d be surprised at the level of sophistication in strategy games these days.

Was anyone here in the marines when they used starcraft in teaching?

174

[quote]hedo wrote:

Read about the history of gunpowder and it’s manufacture. It is completely the opposite of what you are stating…I am sure you will not agree with it.

[/quote]

I’m not following. It’s my understanding that gunpowder is generally believed to have originated in China, and later the Arabs began applying it to rocketry and ballistic warfare, as well as coming up with ideal formulations for it. Only later did europe obtain it. From what I know, gunpowder was not by any means a european invention. I do not know much about gunpowder though, and if there is something I’m missing, by all means, elighten me.

175

Back to the original topic, if Bill Gates murdered me and my wife sued him for $ 10 billion, my kids, grandkids and great grandkids would likely have a much higher standard of living.

This would not make the original murder good.

While black Americans on average enjoy a higher standard of living than black Africans, this does not make slavery good.

176

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
I felt it was pretty obvious I said that in jest…

But even if you took it seriously, it’s not about “gaining a better PC [if you ment “Personal Computer”, then ignore all this, as it was a very clever pun] view”, it’s understanding strategy, and the effect of an early advantage. In this case, it has to do with the importance of controlling supply lines. I think you’d be surprised at the level of sophistication in strategy games these days.

Was anyone here in the marines when they used starcraft in teaching?[/quote]

PC = Politically Correct.

You view on this seems to be VERY Afro-centric to the point that you ignore the simple fact that excuses don’t help make the Africans any less conquered.

I can just see them standing on the shore watching the Europeans sail off from yet another plunder, and saying “Yeah - but we are stronger and have a better army than they do”.

Excuses were worthless then - just as they are now.

177

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
I’m not following. It’s my understanding that gunpowder is generally believed to have originated in China, and later the Arabs began applying it to rocketry and ballistic warfare, as well as coming up with ideal formulations for it. Only later did europe obtain it. From what I know, gunpowder was not by any means a european invention. I do not know much about gunpowder though, and if there is something I’m missing, by all means, elighten me.[/quote]

The Europeans had it and used it before the Africans did. They had it and used it ON the Africans - from their superior Naval vessels.

178

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
hedo wrote:

Read about the history of gunpowder and it’s manufacture. It is completely the opposite of what you are stating…I am sure you will not agree with it.

I’m not following. It’s my understanding that gunpowder is generally believed to have originated in China, and later the Arabs began applying it to rocketry and ballistic warfare, as well as coming up with ideal formulations for it. Only later did europe obtain it. From what I know, gunpowder was not by any means a european invention. I do not know much about gunpowder though, and if there is something I’m missing, by all means, elighten me.[/quote]

This is my understanding as well. I am not sure why you were questioned on this point.

179

Pretzel, you are an ignorant racist ass.

Rainjack, highly disappointing! Not that you care what I think, but more and more you are showing your true colors.

You smack of a politically correct racist who attempts to rationalize a totally sickening and barbaric period in the history of America.

It doesn’t matter if there were black slave traders! That doesn’t wash away the culpability of the thousands of white Americans who took part in what is purely EVIL behavior.

You sound like the “woe is me” white American who thinks “what happened to those blacks wasn’t that bad!.. what the hell are they crying about?” “Why their rap stars and basketball players now… damn cry babies”!

I read about half of this read and saw that the majority of posters are able to see this topic for what it is but their are a few that made me want to vomit.

180

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
hedo wrote:

Read about the history of gunpowder and it’s manufacture. It is completely the opposite of what you are stating…I am sure you will not agree with it.

I’m not following. It’s my understanding that gunpowder is generally believed to have originated in China, and later the Arabs began applying it to rocketry and ballistic warfare, as well as coming up with ideal formulations for it. Only later did europe obtain it. From what I know, gunpowder was not by any means a european invention. I do not know much about gunpowder though, and if there is something I’m missing, by all means, elighten me.[/quote]

The large scale production of gunpowder, not the invention, was the catalyst to military development. This occured only in Europe. The Chinese and Arabs viewed it more as an amusement not a weapon of war. Precise manufacturing capability allowed reliable ignition and the calculation of ballistic tables. This lead to the development of firearms and artillery. The chinese did not advance between unguided wood rockets until after the development of siege artillery. The Arabs were slow to pick up on artillery as well. They had no hand in it’s development.

Combined with advanced metallurgy, and the ability to produce weapons that could use the reliable gunpowder being manufactured, is why Europe swept the field. Naval Technology was in addition to not the reason why.