# Why are the 10 Poorest Cities in the World all From Black Africa???



## GHook93

1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest

Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!


----------



## Avatar4321

Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.


----------



## Papageorgio

All Africa are red states and full of conservative red necks.

So, most blacks are conservatives. Interesting.


----------



## Noomi

Oh look, another racist troll thread!


----------



## Papageorgio

Noomi said:


> Oh look, another racist troll thread!



Would you like to talk about your racism towards Indians, is that a better subject?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## HenryBHough

African countries tend to elect people who are more concerned with enriching themselves rather than moving the nation forward.  Perhaps tribal loyalties?  Something like America is fast becoming.


----------



## ScienceRocks

GHook93 said:


> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!



A attitude that hates education, knowledge and personal advancement. On top of the realities of a lower iq.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Matthew said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A attitude that hates education, knowledge and personal advancement. On top of the realities of a lower iq.
Click to expand...


Great Matthews here.  Now the party's just missing the steve's.  Nova and McGarrett.  I guess they're not online tonight


----------



## CaféAuLait

Papageorgio said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, another racist troll thread!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to talk about your racism towards Indians, is that a better subject?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.
Click to expand...


Don't forget the  Aboriginal Australians...this song speaks of an apology and re-dress  which was owed to those of the "Stolen Generations" which, then prime minister of Australia, John Howard refused to acknowledge. These children were kidnapped by the Australian government until the 1970's. They tore these families apart under what they called 'child protection" among other awful atrocities. The lands which were stolen...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E&feature=kp]Midnight Oil - Beds Are Burning - YouTube[/ame]

Watch the movie Rabbit Proof Fence. The story of three girls who escape the re-education camps of Australia and walk for days along the rabbit fence to reunite with their mom. Two girls make it back, only to be kidnapped again, 2 sisters die later and then one lost her own children to the freaking camps. True story. Disgusting.


----------



## westwall

*This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*


----------



## LoneLaugher

westwall said:


> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*



It does? Addressing the OP would be interesting? In what way? How about showing us the path? 

The OP does not make an attempt to answer his own question....would you like to try?


----------



## Sallow

westwall said:


> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*



Interesting in what way?

Doesn't Stormfront do these sorts of threads all the time?


----------



## Mac1958

Avatar4321 said:


> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.




Well, agree with it or not, at least there is one (1) actual direct answer to the question posed by the OP, which is unfortunately one (1) more than we get in most threads.  

.


----------



## Sunni Man

Avatar4321 said:


> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.


What an idiotic and misguided statement.

The people of Africa.....and for that matter China, India, Asia, and the Middle East.....all had functioning and vibrant civilizations before the Europeans invaded and destroyed their way of life.

Basically, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources.

And forcing the indigenous people into poverty and servitude to their European colonial masters for centuries.  ..


----------



## LoneLaugher

Mac1958 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, agree with it or not, at least there is one (1) actual direct answer to the question posed by the OP, which is unfortunately one (1) more than we get in most threads.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And your direct answer is........................? 

Oh! That's right! I forgot. You don't have to live up to your own standard. You are the patient observer.  The forum critic. You just sit there atop that strangely slanted fence pissing and moaning for the benefit of all!


----------



## GreenBean

Papageorgio said:


> All Africa are red states and full of conservative red necks.
> 
> So, most blacks are conservatives. Interesting.



What you didn't know that Kenya was a State ?  It's the birthplace of our fearless leader Barry O  and he says we have 57 states  - so Kenya must be one of them- right .


----------



## Mac1958

HenryBHough said:


> African countries tend to elect people who are more concerned with enriching themselves rather than moving the nation forward.  Perhaps tribal loyalties?  Something like America is fast becoming.




Interesting, as is Avatar's answer.  Maybe there's some of both.  It's in the interests of such tribal "leaders" to keep a westernized approach out of the reach of their people, to keep them down and essentially living in a prior century.

.


----------



## deltex1

Surely it is Robert E Lee's fault.


----------



## NYcarbineer

A lack of socialism causes that.  There are huge gaps between the rich and poor in Africa.

And American conservatives want to make the gap between rich and poor larger in this country.


----------



## Two Thumbs

GHook93 said:


> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!



The leftist governmental skills at it's finest.

Look at Detroit to contend to be on that list if they keep voting dem


----------



## FJO

Sunni Man said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiotic and misguided statement.
> 
> The people of Africa.....and for that matter China, India, Asia, and the Middle East.....all had functioning and vibrant civilizations before the Europeans invaded and destroyed their way of life.
> 
> Basically, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources.
> 
> And forcing the indigenous people into poverty and servitude to their European colonial masters for centuries.  ..
Click to expand...


Based on the startlingly similar results, what Democrats have done to American cities, (i.e. Detroit, Chicago, etc.. etc...) those Europeans who enslaved the indigenous people, forced them into servitude and stole their resources, must have been Democrats.


----------



## Tank

IQ LEVELS:


----------



## LoneLaugher

Tank said:


> IQ LEVELS:



Ooh! A bullshit map! Those are fun!

University Study Shows People With Lower IQ's Are Political Conservatives


----------



## dannyboys

B/c Blacks are living in a world where the average IQ of people is about 15 points higher than the average IQ of a Black person.
Any more questions a grade three could answer?
 But let's all 'pretend' the truth is not the truth OK? That way the entire Black race will continue to descend into irrelevance world wide.
China now owns Africa's natural resources and the only use Blacks are now to the Chinese is to be slaves working for nothing but enough money to not starve to death....at least until the Blacks have out lived their usefulness as human machines.
 It's like living in a household with a mildly retarded kid where no one will ever talk about the fact so no one's 'feelings' might get hurt. Sounds like a LIB "every one deserves a trophy" brain dead notion.
 I knew a mother like that who insisted her mentally retarded kid was actually brighter than all the other kids and the only reason the kid could never accomplish anything was b/c the school tests were designed for kids dumber than her kid. Sound familiar?
Look the other way. If God forbid anyone should state the obvious call them a 'racist'. Ya, that's working great.


----------



## The Rabbi

South Korea and Kenya achieved independence at about the same time.  Their economies were roughly equal in most measures.
After 50 years South Korea's economy dwarfs Kenya's.  One reason given is that the first rulers of African countries like Kenya were British educated socialists, so they adopted that model.  We see the results.  Socialism has a record of failure so unbroken that only a certified loon could say otherwise.


----------



## Pete7469

Sunni Man said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiotic and misguided statement.
> 
> The people of Africa.....and for that matter China, India, Asia, and the Middle East.....all had functioning and vibrant civilizations before the Europeans invaded and destroyed their way of life.
> 
> Basically, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources.
> 
> And forcing the indigenous people into poverty and servitude to their European colonial masters for centuries.  ..
Click to expand...


The European exploitation of colonial lands still negatively impacts these regions.

They left behind despotic regimes, political vacuums, and chaos.

The bed wetters just think it's Bush's fault though.


----------



## LoneLaugher

The Rabbi said:


> South Korea and Kenya achieved independence at about the same time.  Their economies were roughly equal in most measures.
> After 50 years South Korea's economy dwarfs Kenya's.  One reason given is that the first rulers of African countries like Kenya were British educated socialists, so they adopted that model.  We see the results.  Socialism has a record of failure so unbroken that only a certified loon could say otherwise.



Please describe South Korea's economic system. 

Thanks.


----------



## HenryBHough

Is anyone amazed that liberals always want others to do their work for them?  Now even to run web searches on their behalf!


----------



## LoneLaugher

HenryBHough said:


> Is anyone amazed that liberals always want others to do their work for them?  Now even to run web searches on their behalf!



Don't try to be an idiot. It isn't necessary.


----------



## thereisnospoon

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does? Addressing the OP would be interesting? In what way? How about showing us the path?
> 
> The OP does not make an attempt to answer his own question....would you like to try?
Click to expand...


Pretty simple. many third world nations are steeped in corruption. The powerful elite keep the respective nation's wealth for themselves while the common people live in abject poverty. 
This is a pattern that repeats itself over and over.
Africa just happens to be the continent with the most third world nations. 
At the end of the day, it matters not the racial makeup of the nation. Human beings not under scrutiny will victimize one another in the absence of the rule of law and the absence of the means to enforce the law.


----------



## HenryBHough

LoneLaugher said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone amazed that liberals always want others to do their work for them?  Now even to run web searches on their behalf!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to be an idiot. It isn't necessary.
Click to expand...



Always.

Without fail.

But one must admire their consistency.


----------



## Toro

westwall said:


> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*



C'mon.  You've been here nearly four years.  You should know better.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Because, as everyone knows, blacks are mentally inferior and don't  produce the businessmen and scientists and engineers that create wealth. Blacks can sing and dance and play sports and that's it. Oh - they're also good at crime and collecting welfare.

Same thing in america. All our poorest cities are  black.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

thereisnospoon said:


> [
> 
> Pretty simple. many third world nations are steeped in corruption. The powerful elite keep the respective nation's wealth for themselves while the common people live in abject poverty.



That's what we're always told but that's not the real reason.  Africans have 70ish IQs and even honest officials can not overcome that. Africa is doomed to third world status unless a massive eugenics program is implemented.


----------



## Papageorgio

Tank said:


> IQ LEVELS:



You do realize IQ tests are not a test of intelligence, they are a test of a culture. You would fail a Japanese IQ test.

There are a lot of reasons Africa has issues, and it has nothing to do with ones IQ.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## Papageorgio

ShootSpeeders said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Pretty simple. many third world nations are steeped in corruption. The powerful elite keep the respective nation's wealth for themselves while the common people live in abject poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're always told but that's not the real reason.  Africans have 70ish IQs and even honest officials can not overcome that. Africa is doomed to third world status unless a massive eugenics program is implemented.
Click to expand...


Ignorant BS. Please try to enlighten yourself, those that are racist seem to be the ignorant.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## natstew

ShootSpeeders said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Pretty simple. many third world nations are steeped in corruption. The powerful elite keep the respective nation's wealth for themselves while the common people live in abject poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're always told but that's not the real reason.  Africans have 70ish IQs and even honest officials can not overcome that. *Africa is doomed to third world status unless a massive eugenics program is implemented.*
Click to expand...


Margaret Sanger ring a bell? Margaret Sanger was a Leftist Democrat Progressive who wanted to do just that, not only in Africa, but also in America to purify and improve the black race. She was honored recently at a Democratic forum.


----------



## Toro

ShootSpeeders said:


> Because, as everyone knows, blacks are mentally inferior and don't  produce the businessmen and scientists and engineers that create wealth. Blacks can sing and dance and play sports and that's it. Oh - they're also good at crime and collecting welfare.
> 
> Same thing in america. All our poorest cities are  black.



The ironic thing is that I employee blacks who are almost certainly smarter, more educated, and make more money than you do.

I lectured at a historically black university.  The students were generally better than the students at the predominantly white university.


----------



## LoneLaugher

thereisnospoon said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does? Addressing the OP would be interesting? In what way? How about showing us the path?
> 
> The OP does not make an attempt to answer his own question....would you like to try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty simple. many third world nations are steeped in corruption. The powerful elite keep the respective nation's wealth for themselves while the common people live in abject poverty.
> This is a pattern that repeats itself over and over.
> Africa just happens to be the continent with the most third world nations.
> At the end of the day, it matters not the racial makeup of the nation. Human beings not under scrutiny will victimize one another in the absence of the rule of law and the absence of the means to enforce the law.
Click to expand...


Are you applying for credentials as a liberal?


----------



## dannyboys

thereisnospoon said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does? Addressing the OP would be interesting? In what way? How about showing us the path?
> 
> The OP does not make an attempt to answer his own question....would you like to try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty simple. many third world nations are steeped in corruption. The powerful elite keep the respective nation's wealth for themselves while the common people live in abject poverty.
> This is a pattern that repeats itself over and over.
> Africa just happens to be the continent with the most third world nations.
> At the end of the day, it matters not the racial makeup of the nation. Human beings not under scrutiny will victimize one another in the absence of the rule of law and the absence of the means to enforce the law.
Click to expand...

My God you are stupid. The "common people" in Africa are essentially what they were two centuries ago. They must have a chief to tell them what to do. They were mental children and they are still mental children. "Africa 'just happens' to have the dumbest race of people in it. Why? B/c Blacks are on average fifteen IQ points behind every other race on the planet.
Here's one for you jack ass: "Germany just happens to have the most highly skilled engineers on the planet'. Nothing 'just happens' you fool. 
Social Darwinism is 'what happens'. The Black race around the globe is reviled and less and less tolerance is afforded for their inability to even survive let alone excel in this world.


----------



## Tank

Toro said:


> I lectured at a historically black university.  The students were generally better than the students at the predominantly white university.


"better" what does that mean


----------



## Toro

Tank said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lectured at a historically black university.  The students were generally better than the students at the predominantly white university.
> 
> 
> 
> "better" what does that mean
Click to expand...


It means that they generally did better work.  They were better prepared.  They were more disciplined and more mature.


----------



## FJO

Pete7469 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiotic and misguided statement.
> 
> The people of Africa.....and for that matter China, India, Asia, and the Middle East.....all had functioning and vibrant civilizations before the Europeans invaded and destroyed their way of life.
> 
> Basically, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources.
> 
> And forcing the indigenous people into poverty and servitude to their European colonial masters for centuries.  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The European exploitation of colonial lands still negatively impacts these regions.
> 
> They left behind despotic regimes, political vacuums, and chaos.
> 
> The bed wetters just think it's Bush's fault though.
Click to expand...


Exactly the same way as the exploitation and slavery still negatively impacts blacks in America.

And it is still George W. Bush's fault.


----------



## Tank

Toro said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lectured at a historically black university.  The students were generally better than the students at the predominantly white university.
> 
> 
> 
> "better" what does that mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means that they generally did better work.  They were better prepared.  They were more disciplined and more mature.
Click to expand...

Well this is a first, I was under the impression that blacks did poorly in school


----------



## jillian

GHook93 said:


> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!



it IS based in imperialism. 

but that isn't what you want to discuss.


----------



## Toro

Tank said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "better" what does that mean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means that they generally did better work.  They were better prepared.  They were more disciplined and more mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well this is a first, I was under the impression that blacks did poorly in school
Click to expand...


You should get out more.


----------



## Decus

European imperialism in Asia included:
Hong Kong
India
Singapore
Malaysia
Indonesia
Philippines
Vietnam 
and even China

Many of those countries have moved on after their time as a colony and some are doing quite well. Funny.


----------



## Tank

Toro said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means that they generally did better work.  They were better prepared.  They were more disciplined and more mature.
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is a first, I was under the impression that blacks did poorly in school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should get out more.
Click to expand...

I don't know, should I believe you and your little story or the facts?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2-tyJHJcEI]50% OF BLACK KIDS ARE DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall

Toro said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon.  You've been here nearly four years.  You should know better.
Click to expand...








Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting.  The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect.  It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.

I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question.  Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures.  They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.

They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention.  Instead address the OP.  It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.


----------



## LoneLaugher

westwall said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon.  You've been here nearly four years.  You should know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting.  The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect.  It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.
> 
> I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question.  Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures.  They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.
> 
> They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention.  Instead address the OP.  It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.
Click to expand...


Look at the OP again. 

Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank? 

This is a troll thread. Period.


----------



## westwall

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon.  You've been here nearly four years.  You should know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting.  The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect.  It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.
> 
> I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question.  Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures.  They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.
> 
> They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention.  Instead address the OP.  It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the OP again.
> 
> Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?
> 
> This is a troll thread. Period.
Click to expand...






Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?

All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?

These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.


----------



## Pogo

Avatar4321 said:


> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.



The last, huh?     This will come as quite a shock to Alexander the Great.  And the Phoenicans.  And the Romans.

Actually it's more the opposite-- Africa was the _*last *_continent to break free of colonialism, a nice word for one culture barging in and exporting natural resources out of another.  Including people, which had never been done before.

So other than being utterly and completely wrong, good point.  If your point is ethnocentric bullshit.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

natstew said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Pretty simple. many third world nations are steeped in corruption. The powerful elite keep the respective nation's wealth for themselves while the common people live in abject poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're always told but that's not the real reason.  Africans have 70ish IQs and even honest officials can not overcome that. *Africa is doomed to third world status unless a massive eugenics program is implemented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Margaret Sanger ring a bell? Margaret Sanger was a Leftist Democrat Progressive who wanted to do just that, not only in Africa, but also in America to purify and improve the black race. She was honored recently at a Democratic forum.
Click to expand...

And they call republicans racists.


----------



## The Rabbi

Pete7469 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiotic and misguided statement.
> 
> The people of Africa.....and for that matter China, India, Asia, and the Middle East.....all had functioning and vibrant civilizations before the Europeans invaded and destroyed their way of life.
> 
> Basically, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources.
> 
> And forcing the indigenous people into poverty and servitude to their European colonial masters for centuries.  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The European exploitation of colonial lands still negatively impacts these regions.
> 
> They left behind despotic regimes, political vacuums, and chaos.
> 
> The bed wetters just think it's Bush's fault though.
Click to expand...


That's utter bullshit.  How do you explain Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia, which were all colonies?


----------



## Tank

Whites & blacks 100 Facts (and One Lie)


----------



## Big Black Dog

Why are the 10 Poorest Cities in the World all From Black Africa???

Detroit is in Africa??????


----------



## Roudy

Sunni Man said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiotic and misguided statement.
> 
> The people of Africa.....and for that matter China, India, Asia, and the Middle East.....all had functioning and vibrant civilizations before the Europeans invaded and destroyed their way of life.
> 
> Basically, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources.
> 
> And forcing the indigenous people into poverty and servitude to their European colonial masters for centuries.  ..
Click to expand...

Your history is a little mixed up if not wrong. The last great civilization coming out of Africa was Egypt, and that was over 3000 years ago. And Egypt isn't really considered Africa either. They call themselves Arabs and identify themselves with their Middle Eastern counterparts. 

I personally think that because Africa was always an after thought when great civilizations like the Persians, Romans, Greeks, etc., who were always more focused on Europe and the Middle East, came and went. 

Plus Africa was never really in the middle of any trade or spice routes (and they didn't really have anything the world wanted to get its hands on), they didn't therefore benefit from any advances being made elsewhere in the world. And since they weren't as involved in defending themselves from invaders in other words WAR, (which usually indirectly causes a civilization to make technological advances) they were left alone. By the time the "outside world" came to visit them, it wasn't with any good intentions.


----------



## LoneLaugher

westwall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting.  The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect.  It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.
> 
> I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question.  Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures.  They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.
> 
> They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention.  Instead address the OP.  It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the OP again.
> 
> Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?
> 
> This is a troll thread. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?
> 
> All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?
> 
> These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


You know......you still have not made an attempt to answer the question. You suggest that their is an answer and that liberals are failing to reach it due to dishonesty. 

What is it?


----------



## The Rabbi

westwall said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon.  You've been here nearly four years.  You should know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting.  The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect.  It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.
> 
> I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question.  Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures.  They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.
> 
> They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention.  Instead address the OP.  It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.
Click to expand...


And yet you find the same dynamic even when it's not Africa.  Look at Haiti, the only example fo a successful slave revolt in the western hemisphere.  The country has been poor and miserable ever since.
I posted this observation several years ago:that countries, and even US cities ruled over by blacks simply do not have a good track record of increasing wealth and prosperity for their citizens.  I was of course called a racist, even though I do not necessarily attribute the phenomenon to race.  I would be curious if there is some better explanation.  It can hardly be culture.


----------



## Pogo

westwall said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon.  You've been here nearly four years.  You should know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting.  The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect.  It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.
> 
> *I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question*.  Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures.  They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.
> 
> They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention.  Instead address the OP.  It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.
Click to expand...


Uh-- really?

Read the thread title.  What's the function of the word "black"?


----------



## Roudy

westwall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting.  The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect.  It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.
> 
> I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question.  Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures.  They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.
> 
> They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention.  Instead address the OP.  It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the OP again.
> 
> Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?
> 
> This is a troll thread. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?
> 
> All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?
> 
> These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

I found this in  another thread on the internet asking the same question:

Seems like a fair answer:

*Link*

Some Africans and others say that the Africans did have some sort of great civilisation in the past. However the evidence is scanty. 

Various reasons have been suggested for the undeveloped state of the continent despite the fertile climate of much of it, the presence of enormous mineral wealth etc. Much the same sort of paradox is evident with the indigenous peoples of N. America where the civilisations of Central America never seemed to spread to the north, just as Egyptian civilisation never caught on to the south. 

I list, without implying agreement or disagreement with any of them, some of the suggested reasons. 

1)...Making a living was just too easy. Where hunting & gathering or subsistence agriculture easily supply year-round food, there is no obvious incentive to change things. 

2)...The local culture was hostile to the idea of living in large agglomerations - much as the European Celts preferred to live in loosely organised small settlements and resisted the Roman habit of city-dwelling. The Celts, though not primitive (their woodwork and metalwork were in some ways better than that of the Romans), were also, by comparison, economically underdeveloped. 

3)...Recurrent local conflict between tribes, resulting in periodic genocide which made it hard to consolidate advances in knowledge and technique. This is possible, but why it should have this effect in Africa and not in the equally tribal societies of primitive Europe and Asia is hard to explain. 

4)...Linguistic problems. I am not a specialist in African studies, but I am told that some parts of Africa have a large number of local languages, making sharing knowledge between communities awkward. Again, the lack of any written language might have made it hard to preserve knowledge or transmit it over distances. 

5)...Communities were locally based and travel rare. If this is true (again, I appeal to any specialists to supply accurate information) it would limit cross-fertilisation of ideas. This explanation begs the question of why long-distance trade, analogous to the tin trade in Europe or the silk route from China, did not develop in Africa. 

6)...Disease. The same conditions which make it easy for humans to make a living also provide ideal conditions for various pathogens and for the insects, snails etc. which carry them. If their vitality were reduced by debilitating endemic diseases, the locals may have had reduced intellectual as well as physical energy, making it harder for them to advance.


----------



## Toro

Tank said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should get out more.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, should I believe you and your little story or *the facts?*
Click to expand...


You sounded like Truthmatters there.

"Tankmatters."

lol

Edit - Here some more "facts" for you, Tankmatters.

Racists have lower intelligence


----------



## westwall

Roudy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the OP again.
> 
> Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?
> 
> This is a troll thread. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?
> 
> All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?
> 
> These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I found this in  another thread on the internet asking the same question:
> 
> Seems like a fair answer:
> 
> *Link*
> 
> Some Africans and others say that the Africans did have some sort of great civilisation in the past. However the evidence is scanty.
> 
> Various reasons have been suggested for the undeveloped state of the continent despite the fertile climate of much of it, the presence of enormous mineral wealth etc. Much the same sort of paradox is evident with the indigenous peoples of N. America where the civilisations of Central America never seemed to spread to the north, just as Egyptian civilisation never caught on to the south.
> 
> I list, without implying agreement or disagreement with any of them, some of the suggested reasons.
> 
> 1)...Making a living was just too easy. Where hunting & gathering or subsistence agriculture easily supply year-round food, there is no obvious incentive to change things.
> 
> 2)...The local culture was hostile to the idea of living in large agglomerations - much as the European Celts preferred to live in loosely organised small settlements and resisted the Roman habit of city-dwelling. The Celts, though not primitive (their woodwork and metalwork were in some ways better than that of the Romans), were also, by comparison, economically underdeveloped.
> 
> 3)...Recurrent local conflict between tribes, resulting in periodic genocide which made it hard to consolidate advances in knowledge and technique. This is possible, but why it should have this effect in Africa and not in the equally tribal societies of primitive Europe and Asia is hard to explain.
> 
> 4)...Linguistic problems. I am not a specialist in African studies, but I am told that some parts of Africa have a large number of local languages, making sharing knowledge between communities awkward. Again, the lack of any written language might have made it hard to preserve knowledge or transmit it over distances.
> 
> 5)...Communities were locally based and travel rare. If this is true (again, I appeal to any specialists to supply accurate information) it would limit cross-fertilisation of ideas. This explanation begs the question of why long-distance trade, analogous to the tin trade in Europe or the silk route from China, did not develop in Africa.
> 
> 6)...Disease. The same conditions which make it easy for humans to make a living also provide ideal conditions for various pathogens and for the insects, snails etc. which carry them. If their vitality were reduced by debilitating endemic diseases, the locals may have had reduced intellectual as well as physical energy, making it harder for them to advance.
Click to expand...








This is getting to the heart of the matter.  Most of these points are factual, and have a direct bearing on the African culture now.


----------



## tyroneweaver

Papageorgio said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, another racist troll thread!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to talk about your racism towards Indians, is that a better subject?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.
Click to expand...


you think the Indians ar bad that other Ohio team the Reds suck to


----------



## LoneLaugher

Roudy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the OP again.
> 
> Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?
> 
> This is a troll thread. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?
> 
> All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?
> 
> These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I found this in  another thread on the internet asking the same question:
> 
> Seems like a fair answer:
> 
> *Link*
> 
> Some Africans and others say that the Africans did have some sort of great civilisation in the past. However the evidence is scanty.
> 
> Various reasons have been suggested for the undeveloped state of the continent despite the fertile climate of much of it, the presence of enormous mineral wealth etc. Much the same sort of paradox is evident with the indigenous peoples of N. America where the civilisations of Central America never seemed to spread to the north, just as Egyptian civilisation never caught on to the south.
> 
> I list, without implying agreement or disagreement with any of them, some of the suggested reasons.
> 
> 1)...Making a living was just too easy. Where hunting & gathering or subsistence agriculture easily supply year-round food, there is no obvious incentive to change things.
> 
> 2)...The local culture was hostile to the idea of living in large agglomerations - much as the European Celts preferred to live in loosely organised small settlements and resisted the Roman habit of city-dwelling. The Celts, though not primitive (their woodwork and metalwork were in some ways better than that of the Romans), were also, by comparison, economically underdeveloped.
> 
> 3)...Recurrent local conflict between tribes, resulting in periodic genocide which made it hard to consolidate advances in knowledge and technique. This is possible, but why it should have this effect in Africa and not in the equally tribal societies of primitive Europe and Asia is hard to explain.
> 
> 4)...Linguistic problems. I am not a specialist in African studies, but I am told that some parts of Africa have a large number of local languages, making sharing knowledge between communities awkward. Again, the lack of any written language might have made it hard to preserve knowledge or transmit it over distances.
> 
> 5)...Communities were locally based and travel rare. If this is true (again, I appeal to any specialists to supply accurate information) it would limit cross-fertilisation of ideas. This explanation begs the question of why long-distance trade, analogous to the tin trade in Europe or the silk route from China, did not develop in Africa.
> 
> 6)...Disease. The same conditions which make it easy for humans to make a living also provide ideal conditions for various pathogens and for the insects, snails etc. which carry them. If their vitality were reduced by debilitating endemic diseases, the locals may have had reduced intellectual as well as physical energy, making it harder for them to advance.
Click to expand...


Just a note on #1

Making a living was not so much easy as it was time consuming and labor intensive. Hunter/gatherers need to spend a huge portion of their lives actually hunting and gathering. There was no time for much else. 

Where agriculture takes hold, there is free time. That free time is applied to pursuits other than subsistence. Science, art, commerce.


----------



## Esmeralda

jillian said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it IS based in imperialism.
> 
> but that isn't what you want to discuss.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is based in imperialism.  European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures.  In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures.  We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AvgGuyIA said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're always told but that's not the real reason.  Africans have 70ish IQs and even honest officials can not overcome that. *Africa is doomed to third world status unless a massive eugenics program is implemented.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Margaret Sanger ring a bell? Margaret Sanger was a Leftist Democrat Progressive who wanted to do just that, not only in Africa, but also in America to purify and improve the black race. She was honored recently at a Democratic forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they call republicans racists.
Click to expand...


Ayn Rand was a nazi. So was Charles Lindbergh. But both are heroes to the right. 

For all her faults, Sanger did enormous good for the poor. You can't say that for any rw hero.


----------



## Pogo

Esmeralda said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it IS based in imperialism.
> 
> but that isn't what you want to discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is based in imperialism.  European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures.  In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures.  We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.
Click to expand...


^^ that right there. 

Where did Uganda get the idea of persecuting gays?  That shit ain't home grown.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Esmeralda said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it IS based in imperialism.
> 
> but that isn't what you want to discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is based in imperialism.  European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures.  In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures.  We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.
Click to expand...


Same is true of Mexico and every other culture that was trampled on by imperialism. And now we're seeing rear it's ugly head AGAIN here.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Pogo said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> it IS based in imperialism.
> 
> but that isn't what you want to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is based in imperialism.  European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures.  In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures.  We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^ that right there.
> 
> Where did Uganda get the idea of persecuting gays?  That shit ain't home grown.
Click to expand...


And the catholics and fundies saw an opportunity to commit the worst atrocities - just because they don't like gays.


----------



## Tank

Esmeralda said:


> Yes, it is based in imperialism.  European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures.  In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures.  We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.


They would be the same as the day Europeans first found them.


----------



## westwall

LoneLaugher said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?
> 
> All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?
> 
> These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> I found this in  another thread on the internet asking the same question:
> 
> Seems like a fair answer:
> 
> *Link*
> 
> Some Africans and others say that the Africans did have some sort of great civilisation in the past. However the evidence is scanty.
> 
> Various reasons have been suggested for the undeveloped state of the continent despite the fertile climate of much of it, the presence of enormous mineral wealth etc. Much the same sort of paradox is evident with the indigenous peoples of N. America where the civilisations of Central America never seemed to spread to the north, just as Egyptian civilisation never caught on to the south.
> 
> I list, without implying agreement or disagreement with any of them, some of the suggested reasons.
> 
> 1)...Making a living was just too easy. Where hunting & gathering or subsistence agriculture easily supply year-round food, there is no obvious incentive to change things.
> 
> 2)...The local culture was hostile to the idea of living in large agglomerations - much as the European Celts preferred to live in loosely organised small settlements and resisted the Roman habit of city-dwelling. The Celts, though not primitive (their woodwork and metalwork were in some ways better than that of the Romans), were also, by comparison, economically underdeveloped.
> 
> 3)...Recurrent local conflict between tribes, resulting in periodic genocide which made it hard to consolidate advances in knowledge and technique. This is possible, but why it should have this effect in Africa and not in the equally tribal societies of primitive Europe and Asia is hard to explain.
> 
> 4)...Linguistic problems. I am not a specialist in African studies, but I am told that some parts of Africa have a large number of local languages, making sharing knowledge between communities awkward. Again, the lack of any written language might have made it hard to preserve knowledge or transmit it over distances.
> 
> 5)...Communities were locally based and travel rare. If this is true (again, I appeal to any specialists to supply accurate information) it would limit cross-fertilisation of ideas. This explanation begs the question of why long-distance trade, analogous to the tin trade in Europe or the silk route from China, did not develop in Africa.
> 
> 6)...Disease. The same conditions which make it easy for humans to make a living also provide ideal conditions for various pathogens and for the insects, snails etc. which carry them. If their vitality were reduced by debilitating endemic diseases, the locals may have had reduced intellectual as well as physical energy, making it harder for them to advance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a note on #1
> 
> Making a living was not so much easy as it was time consuming and labor intensive. Hunter/gatherers need to spend a huge portion of their lives actually hunting and gathering. There was no time for much else.
> 
> Where agriculture takes hold, there is free time. That free time is applied to pursuits other than subsistence. Science, art, commerce.
Click to expand...







It's the same issue as in Polynesia, hunter/gatherer societies in certain areas actually have it very easy.  It really is as easy as walking along and eating as you go, year round.
Thus, there is no pressure.  Pressure drives innovation.

Look at evolutionary biology as a guide.  90+% of all evolution occurs in the temperate zones, the Arctic and equatorial see virtually none because there is no climactic stress.


----------



## The Rabbi

Esmeralda said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it IS based in imperialism.
> 
> but that isn't what you want to discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is based in imperialism.  European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures.  In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures.  We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.
Click to expand...


Native American culture was filled with nomadic subsistence living involving warfare, cruelty, and chattel slavery.  The attempts to romanticize it are laughable.
Nor does your post answer the question why Africa basically sucks, while other countries, some even more enmeshed in imperialism, thrived.


----------



## LoneLaugher

westwall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found this in  another thread on the internet asking the same question:
> 
> Seems like a fair answer:
> 
> *Link*
> 
> Some Africans and others say that the Africans did have some sort of great civilisation in the past. However the evidence is scanty.
> 
> Various reasons have been suggested for the undeveloped state of the continent despite the fertile climate of much of it, the presence of enormous mineral wealth etc. Much the same sort of paradox is evident with the indigenous peoples of N. America where the civilisations of Central America never seemed to spread to the north, just as Egyptian civilisation never caught on to the south.
> 
> I list, without implying agreement or disagreement with any of them, some of the suggested reasons.
> 
> 1)...Making a living was just too easy. Where hunting & gathering or subsistence agriculture easily supply year-round food, there is no obvious incentive to change things.
> 
> 2)...The local culture was hostile to the idea of living in large agglomerations - much as the European Celts preferred to live in loosely organised small settlements and resisted the Roman habit of city-dwelling. The Celts, though not primitive (their woodwork and metalwork were in some ways better than that of the Romans), were also, by comparison, economically underdeveloped.
> 
> 3)...Recurrent local conflict between tribes, resulting in periodic genocide which made it hard to consolidate advances in knowledge and technique. This is possible, but why it should have this effect in Africa and not in the equally tribal societies of primitive Europe and Asia is hard to explain.
> 
> 4)...Linguistic problems. I am not a specialist in African studies, but I am told that some parts of Africa have a large number of local languages, making sharing knowledge between communities awkward. Again, the lack of any written language might have made it hard to preserve knowledge or transmit it over distances.
> 
> 5)...Communities were locally based and travel rare. If this is true (again, I appeal to any specialists to supply accurate information) it would limit cross-fertilisation of ideas. This explanation begs the question of why long-distance trade, analogous to the tin trade in Europe or the silk route from China, did not develop in Africa.
> 
> 6)...Disease. The same conditions which make it easy for humans to make a living also provide ideal conditions for various pathogens and for the insects, snails etc. which carry them. If their vitality were reduced by debilitating endemic diseases, the locals may have had reduced intellectual as well as physical energy, making it harder for them to advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a note on #1
> 
> Making a living was not so much easy as it was time consuming and labor intensive. Hunter/gatherers need to spend a huge portion of their lives actually hunting and gathering. There was no time for much else.
> 
> Where agriculture takes hold, there is free time. That free time is applied to pursuits other than subsistence. Science, art, commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same issue as in Polynesia, hunter/gatherer societies in certain areas actually have it very easy.  It really is as easy as walking along and eating as you go, year round.
> Thus, there is no pressure.  Pressure drives innovation.
> 
> Look at evolutionary biology as a guide.  90+% of all evolution occurs in the temperate zones, the Arctic and equatorial see virtually none because there is no climactic stress.
Click to expand...


Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?


----------



## The Rabbi

LoneLaugher said:


> Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?



That's like the Nancy Pelosi school of economics.  IN reality necessity is the mother of invention.
The polynesians lacked metallurgical skills and probably access to cheap energy.  I would wager their mathemtatics was not strong either.


----------



## Pogo

The Rabbi said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> it IS based in imperialism.
> 
> but that isn't what you want to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is based in imperialism.  European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures.  In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures.  We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native American culture was filled with nomadic subsistence living involving warfare, cruelty, and chattel slavery.  The attempts to romanticize it are laughable.
> Nor does your post answer the question why Africa basically sucks, while other countries, some even more enmeshed in imperialism, thrived.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.

You can't broad brush every diverse culture that happens to fall within a chosen skin color.  Some Native Americans warred, others did not; some were nomadic, others not, etc.

Not to mention, the Europeans who came here would have completely died of abject cluelessness had not the aboriginals guided them through on basic survival.

Fat lot of good it did them too.


----------



## Two Thumbs

westwall said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon.  You've been here nearly four years.  You should know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting.  The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect.  It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.
> 
> I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question.  Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures.  They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.
> 
> They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention.  Instead address the OP.  It IS an interesting question, a*nd it's root cause go's back centuries.*
Click to expand...



no it doesn't

they are socialist, government controls everything, countries.  They are what happens when progs take control

they keep their people poor, hungry and dumb to keep them in line and dependent on the government to survive.

sound familiar?


----------



## Pogo

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a note on #1
> 
> Making a living was not so much easy as it was time consuming and labor intensive. Hunter/gatherers need to spend a huge portion of their lives actually hunting and gathering. There was no time for much else.
> 
> Where agriculture takes hold, there is free time. That free time is applied to pursuits other than subsistence. Science, art, commerce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same issue as in Polynesia, hunter/gatherer societies in certain areas actually have it very easy.  It really is as easy as walking along and eating as you go, year round.
> Thus, there is no pressure.  Pressure drives innovation.
> 
> Look at evolutionary biology as a guide.  90+% of all evolution occurs in the temperate zones, the Arctic and equatorial see virtually none because there is no climactic stress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?
Click to expand...


Of course, this presupposes that industrial revolution/innovation is a _desirable _thing...


----------



## Tank

LoneLaugher said:


> Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?


It's kind of like being on welfare


----------



## LoneLaugher

The Rabbi said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's like the Nancy Pelosi school of economics.  IN reality necessity is the mother of invention.
> The polynesians lacked metallurgical skills and probably access to cheap energy.  I would wager their mathemtatics was not strong either.
Click to expand...


They lacked metallurgical skills? How simple of you. Did they, in fact, have any metal ore?


----------



## The Rabbi

LoneLaugher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's like the Nancy Pelosi school of economics.  IN reality necessity is the mother of invention.
> The polynesians lacked metallurgical skills and probably access to cheap energy.  I would wager their mathemtatics was not strong either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lacked metallurgical skills? How simple of you. Did they, in fact, have any metal ore?
Click to expand...

I dont know.  Why don't you report on ore deposits in Polynesia?


----------



## MrMax

The hot sun makes them lazy.


----------



## MACAULAY

It is generally agreed now that Humanity first emerged in Central Africa.  So, it seems fair to ask why, after all this time, can they still not feed themselves over there?

And also, why, after a half century of the Great Society and the War on Poverty, can they still not feed themselves in Detroit and Chicago?  

I realize that just asking such questions will draw the race card, but don't they deserve to be asked and what is the answer?


----------



## Londoner

HenryBHough said:


> African countries tend to elect people who are more concerned with enriching themselves rather than moving the nation forward.  Perhaps tribal loyalties?  Something like America is fast becoming.



I agree with this to some extent, but I think Africa, like so many quasi-colonial regions, are merely bit players in the global economy, much like the middle east, which is an energy chess piece for powerful nations.

Consider this. Our economy depends heavily on raw material and labor from all over the 3rd world. We depend on Africa for strategic minerals like chromium, cobalt, manganese and platinum (to name only 4) - as do other powerful nations.

Our goal is to have easy access to these resources. The biggest threat, for the USA, is when a particular leader wants to nationalize resources (meaning: he wants to use the resources for his own country's enrichment as opposed to giving them to foreign investors). To understand this look at Mosaddegh in Iran. He was democratically elected and wildly popular, but he refused to play ball with Western energy needs. He wanted his country to control their resources without foreign influence. So the USA, whose economy depends on middle east petroleum, took part in a coup to remove him. He was replaced by the brutal Shaw of Iran, who turned over his country's oil resources to the west (mostly UK and USA). [I can't complain since my lifestyle has been enriched by cheap energy]

So in reality, we don't want strong democratic leaders who are inclined to put their nation's needs ahead of ours. We look for corruptible leaders who are willing to do our bidding with their resources. This is why Reagan initially poured so much money and weapons into the Hussein regime - because Hussein was a corrupt leader _willing_ to be a chess piece for _our_ needs. Unfortunately, like most corrupt leaders, he outlived his utility.

Also study how we used IMF Loans in the 80s. We would get poor nations, mostly from the global south, to take out large loans for "structural improvement". This tended to work only with corrupt dictators because honest leaders were often hesitant to mortgage their nation's future to foreign powers. After taking out the loan, the corrupt leader would predictably default (but get very generously rewarded). This default would put the nation into technical receivership and give western powers the ability to seize control over necessary assets like raw material, trade laws and anything else that allowed us to insert them into a global economy which primarily served the more powerful nations. 

That is, our largest corporations, the one's who own many of our congressmen, benefit immensely from Taiwanese sweatshops. Remember: the whole point of capitalism is to get a higher return on investment - meaning cheap labor is key. In order to get ultra cheap sweatshop labor, you need to invest in freedom-hating dictators who keep their people living in hovels, making $5/day. The biggest threat to capital accumulation is when a freedom-loving, politically literate middle class sprouts up near a supply chain. These people drive up labor costs and they snoop around your smoke stakes and the chemicals you're dumping in the river. When this happens, you have to ship the jobs to communist China. Of course, in the front of the house you scare the serfs with stories about evil communists, but in the back of the house you set up a conveyor belt from communist China to Walmart (so you can get your TVs and toasters made for pennies). The point of political news coverage is to obscure this stuff with disinformation, and to keep people anesthetized with the culture war.


----------



## LoneLaugher

The Rabbi said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's like the Nancy Pelosi school of economics.  IN reality necessity is the mother of invention.
> The polynesians lacked metallurgical skills and probably access to cheap energy.  I would wager their mathemtatics was not strong either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They lacked metallurgical skills? How simple of you. Did they, in fact, have any metal ore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont know.  Why don't you report on ore deposits in Polynesia?
Click to expand...


Yeah.  You don't know. 

That should be an option on your keyboard, dummy.


----------



## Roudy

Luddly Neddite said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Margaret Sanger ring a bell? Margaret Sanger was a Leftist Democrat Progressive who wanted to do just that, not only in Africa, but also in America to purify and improve the black race. She was honored recently at a Democratic forum.
> 
> 
> 
> And they call republicans racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand was a nazi. So was Charles Lindbergh. But both are heroes to the right.
> 
> For all her faults, Sanger did enormous good for the poor. You can't say that for any rw hero.
Click to expand...

Ayn Rand was a Nazi?!  You realize what you just uttered?  Wow.


----------



## MrMax

MACAULAY said:


> It is generally agreed now that Humanity first emerged in Central Africa.  So, it seems fair to ask why, after all this time, can they still not feed themselves over there?
> 
> And also, why, after a half century of the Great Society and the War on Poverty, can they still not feed themselves in Detroit and Chicago?
> 
> I realize that just asking such questions will draw the race card, but don't they deserve to be asked and what is the answer?



There's nothing to hunt and gather in Detroit or Chicago. Well, except drugs.


----------



## Billy000

GHook93 said:


> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!



It's not something I like acknowledging, but there is no denying that Africans have significantly lower IQs. I second what Matthew said on the first page. They just don't have the culture of advancement. However, IQ is only one factor for this. 

All this being said, this thread was obviously created out of a bigotry.


----------



## norwegen

Tank said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is based in imperialism. European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures. In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures. We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> They would be the same as the day Europeans first found them.
Click to expand...

American civilization evolved, slowly though it may have been. From hunting to extinction some of the larger prey animals (mastodons, mammoths, giant beavers) to developing weaponry to pursue more elusive animals, the Paleo-Americans, after thousands of years, began living in more permanent settlements, engaging in agriculture while in season, even developing corn (from maize and other native grasses), but not much else (the dog was the only animal they had domesticated by the time they encountered Europeans). Given time, they even started becoming imperialistic.

By the fifteenth century, the Aztecs, for example, were exacting tribute and labor from subject peoples over hundreds of square miles (tributes included sacrifices to their gods). And the Five Nation Iroquois were a formidable people who plundered their enemies for scalps and prisoners, and occasionally engaged in the cannibalism of their foes after a "mourning war."

I don't know anything about African history, but certainly they were so easily subdued because they were also in conflict with each other and lacked the technology that the Europeans had. Did they even have the wheel? The Americans didn't. At any rate, though centuries behind the Europeans in technology and culture (written languages, for example), other peoples of the world were not frozen in time.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sunni Man said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiotic and misguided statement.
> 
> The people of Africa.....and for that matter China, India, Asia, and the Middle East.....all had functioning and vibrant civilizations before the Europeans invaded and destroyed their way of life.
> 
> Basically, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources.
> 
> And forcing the indigenous people into poverty and servitude to their European colonial masters for centuries.  ..
Click to expand...


And yet, which are the nations that are thriving? Those who have had prolonged contact with western ideas. Those we are struggling the most the ones that had the shortest contact with colonial powers. Their prior civilizations don't have relevance to their current prosperity.


----------



## Roudy

MrMax said:


> MACAULAY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is generally agreed now that Humanity first emerged in Central Africa.  So, it seems fair to ask why, after all this time, can they still not feed themselves over there?
> 
> And also, why, after a half century of the Great Society and the War on Poverty, can they still not feed themselves in Detroit and Chicago?
> 
> I realize that just asking such questions will draw the race card, but don't they deserve to be asked and what is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to hunt and gather in Detroit or Chicago. Well, except drugs.
Click to expand...

Detroit is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild.  What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Roudy said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MACAULAY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is generally agreed now that Humanity first emerged in Central Africa.  So, it seems fair to ask why, after all this time, can they still not feed themselves over there?
> 
> And also, why, after a half century of the Great Society and the War on Poverty, can they still not feed themselves in Detroit and Chicago?
> 
> I realize that just asking such questions will draw the race card, but don't they deserve to be asked and what is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to hunt and gather in Detroit or Chicago. Well, except drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Detroit is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild.  What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.
Click to expand...


Yeah. That was a measured and thoughtful comment. So glad you took the time.


----------



## westwall

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a note on #1
> 
> Making a living was not so much easy as it was time consuming and labor intensive. Hunter/gatherers need to spend a huge portion of their lives actually hunting and gathering. There was no time for much else.
> 
> Where agriculture takes hold, there is free time. That free time is applied to pursuits other than subsistence. Science, art, commerce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same issue as in Polynesia, hunter/gatherer societies in certain areas actually have it very easy.  It really is as easy as walking along and eating as you go, year round.
> Thus, there is no pressure.  Pressure drives innovation.
> 
> Look at evolutionary biology as a guide.  90+% of all evolution occurs in the temperate zones, the Arctic and equatorial see virtually none because there is no climactic stress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?
Click to expand...







Because historically it is true.   "Necessity is the mother of invention" is a very old saying.
It's roots lay in fact.  If there is no need to do anything why bother.  We see this every day here in the US.  So long as people are getting their unemployment benefits they don't seek out work.  There was a Danish study several years ago that pointed out the very same thing, so long as benefits are received there is no need to look for work.


----------



## LoneLaugher

westwall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same issue as in Polynesia, hunter/gatherer societies in certain areas actually have it very easy.  It really is as easy as walking along and eating as you go, year round.
> Thus, there is no pressure.  Pressure drives innovation.
> 
> Look at evolutionary biology as a guide.  90+% of all evolution occurs in the temperate zones, the Arctic and equatorial see virtually none because there is no climactic stress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because historically it is true.   "Necessity is the mother of invention" is a very old saying.
> It's roots lay in fact.  If there is no need to do anything why bother.  We see this every day here in the US.  So long as people are getting their unemployment benefits they don't seek out work.  There was a Danish study several years ago that pointed out the very same thing, so long as benefits are received there is no need to look for work.
Click to expand...


Sorry. I thought you wanted a serious discussion. You were practically begging for one earlier. Now this? 

Fuck.


----------



## The Rabbi

LoneLaugher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They lacked metallurgical skills? How simple of you. Did they, in fact, have any metal ore?
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know.  Why don't you report on ore deposits in Polynesia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  You don't know.
> 
> That should be an option on your keyboard, dummy.
Click to expand...


Right.   I dont know.  Am I suddenly your personal librarian, you lazy retard?


----------



## The Rabbi

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because historically it is true.   "Necessity is the mother of invention" is a very old saying.
> It's roots lay in fact.  If there is no need to do anything why bother.  We see this every day here in the US.  So long as people are getting their unemployment benefits they don't seek out work.  There was a Danish study several years ago that pointed out the very same thing, so long as benefits are received there is no need to look for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry. I thought you wanted a serious discussion. You were practically begging for one earlier. Now this?
> 
> Fuck.
Click to expand...


A serious discussion with you is an oxymoron. You lack both the knowledge base and the intellectual heft to carry one off on any topic.  You simply post what you imagine the truth to be, based maybe on Disney cartoons.


----------



## Moonglow

GHook93 said:


> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!



Overpopulation, tribal warfare...


----------



## Londoner

Jimmy Carter has a higher IQ than Ronald Reagan. He did his graduate work in reactor technology and nuclear physics. But he couldn't motivate people like Reagan. Jimmy Carter also got much better grades than George W. Bush, but nobody on the right would say Carter is smarter than Bush

IQ tests and SAT tests are not only flawed predictors, but intelligence and genes are often politicized by the doctrinal systems, to benefit those in power. It's harder to justify making someone a slave, or seizing the land of indigenous populations without first claiming that these people are lowly beasts.

The system always justifies the hierarchies it creates. In the 1800s it was believed that women were far less rational then men. This was a justification for why they could not hold public office. This belief was supported in the prevailing medical texts of the time, the same texts that claimed blacks had thick skulls and were therefore taxonomically closer to animals on the biological spectrum. This was used as a justification to enslave them. 

The belief in the inferiority of women also fit with scripture, which claimed that the man was king of the home, and women, built from his rib, existed to be his domestic helper. The Bible was one of the earliest mechanisms for creating the social glue needed to put people into convenient hierarchies for those in power.

Of course, when women and blacks were given the same opportunities as white men, they proved that they had the intellectual equipment to thrive.

I am not saying that there are no racially-based traits that play a role in survival, i'm merely suggesting that there are a whole bunch of secondary traits which are supplied by environment that can easily override these primary traits and genetic differences.  That is, I think Obama's children will end up with a lot more wealth and success than a white person who is currently being born in a trailer park to a crack mother.


----------



## Pete7469

The Rabbi said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiotic and misguided statement.
> 
> The people of Africa.....and for that matter China, India, Asia, and the Middle East.....all had functioning and vibrant civilizations before the Europeans invaded and destroyed their way of life.
> 
> Basically, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources.
> 
> And forcing the indigenous people into poverty and servitude to their European colonial masters for centuries.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European exploitation of colonial lands still negatively impacts these regions.
> 
> They left behind despotic regimes, political vacuums, and chaos.
> 
> The bed wetters just think it's Bush's fault though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's utter bullshit.  How do you explain Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia, which were all colonies?
Click to expand...


HMMM... fair enough, but I've been to Hong Kong. It still seemed 3rd world to me. I haven't been to Singapore or Malaysia, but from what I've come to understand there are many backwards and fucked up laws there.


----------



## Two Thumbs

MACAULAY said:


> It is generally agreed now that Humanity first emerged in Central Africa.  So, it seems fair to ask why, after all this time, can they still not feed themselves over there?
> 
> And also, why, after a half century of the Great Society and the War on Poverty, can they still not feed themselves in Detroit and Chicago?
> 
> I realize that just asking such questions will draw the race card, but don't they deserve to be asked and what is the answer?



my guess is that like canine mutts tend to be smarted than pure breads, other races have an edge.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Luddly Neddite said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Margaret Sanger ring a bell? Margaret Sanger was a Leftist Democrat Progressive who wanted to do just that, not only in Africa, but also in America to purify and improve the black race. She was honored recently at a Democratic forum.
> 
> 
> 
> And they call republicans racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand was a nazi. So was Charles Lindbergh. But both are heroes to the right.
> 
> For all her faults, Sanger did enormous good for the poor. You can't say that for any rw hero.
Click to expand...


she was a genocidal racist and a heroin to the left.

I'm not making shit up, but you are.


----------



## Coyote

*Moved to appropriate forum.*


----------



## Pete7469

Londoner said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> African countries tend to elect people who are more concerned with enriching themselves rather than moving the nation forward.  Perhaps tribal loyalties?  Something like America is fast becoming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this to some extent, but I think Africa, like so many quasi-colonial regions, are merely bit players in the global economy, much like the middle east, which is an energy chess piece for powerful nations.
> 
> Consider this. Our economy depends heavily on raw material and labor from all over the 3rd world. We depend on Africa for strategic minerals like chromium, cobalt, manganese and platinum (to name only 4) - as do other powerful nations.
> 
> Our goal is to have easy access to these resources. The biggest threat, for the USA, is when a particular leader wants to nationalize resources (meaning: he wants to use the resources for his own country's enrichment as opposed to giving them to foreign investors).
> 
> That's pseudointellectual liberal bullshit. Show me ONE despot who nationalized a resource for any other purpose beyond SELF enrichment.
> 
> 
> To understand this look at Mosaddegh in Iran. He was democratically elected and wildly popular, but he refused to play ball with Western energy needs. He wanted his country to control their resources without foreign influence. So the USA, whose economy depends on middle east petroleum, took part in a coup to remove him. He was replaced by the brutal Shaw of Iran, who turned over his country's oil resources to the west (mostly UK and USA). [I can't complain since my lifestyle has been enriched by cheap energy]
> 
> Of course, liberals NEVER complain about cheap energy...
> 
> So in reality, we don't want strong democratic leaders who are inclined to put their nation's needs ahead of ours. We look for corruptible leaders who are willing to do our bidding with their resources. This is why Reagan initially poured so much money and weapons into the Hussein regime - because Hussein was a corrupt leader _willing_ to be a chess piece for _our_ needs. Unfortunately, like most corrupt leaders, he outlived his utility.
> 
> Are you really that daft? We sold weapons to both sides of Iraq/Iran. Our "foreign policy" of that goat fuck was "hopefully both sides will lose". You might be stunned to find out that's exactly what happened.
> 
> Also study how we used IMF Loans in the 80s. We would get poor nations, mostly from the global south, to take out large loans for "structural improvement". This tended to work only with corrupt dictators because honest leaders were often hesitant to mortgage their nation's future to foreign powers. After taking out the loan, the corrupt leader would predictably default (but get very generously rewarded). This default would put the nation into technical receivership and give western powers the ability to seize control over necessary assets like raw material, trade laws and anything else that allowed us to insert them into a global economy which primarily served the more powerful nations.
> 
> That is, our largest corporations, the one's who own many of our congressmen, benefit immensely from Taiwanese sweatshops. Remember: the whole point of capitalism is to get a higher return on investment - meaning cheap labor is key. In order to get ultra cheap sweatshop labor, you need to invest in freedom-hating dictators who keep their people living in hovels, making $5/day. The biggest threat to capital accumulation is when a freedom-loving, politically literate middle class sprouts up near a supply chain. These people drive up labor costs and they snoop around your smoke stakes and the chemicals you're dumping in the river. When this happens, you have to ship the jobs to communist China. Of course, in the front of the house you scare the serfs with stories about evil communists, but in the back of the house you set up a conveyor belt from communist China to Walmart (so you can get your TVs and toasters made for pennies). The point of political news coverage is to obscure this stuff with disinformation, and to keep people anesthetized with the culture war.
Click to expand...


That was really all the mindless drivel I could tolerate reading. It hurt my brain to answer the stupid shit I addressed above.

Remove the child proof lids on household chemicals people... it needs to become a national priority.


----------



## DriftingSand

Food for thought:

1) All races have been on the planet for many, many centuries.
2) All races have had ample time to "step up to the plate" and prosper or at least vastly improve their condition.

When we step back and look into past history we will see that not all races have contributed equally to their own prosperity.  Some have created wonderful architecture; rich music; awe-inspiring paintings; road systems; sewer systems; irrigation systems; vast farms that feed thousands; intricate machinery; etc.  They have made vast headway in the fields of medicine; mathematics; language; science; etc.

Others, on the other hand, have created very little in comparison. I realize that it's not politically correct to recognize these facts but I'm a realist and simply can't help it.


----------



## DriftingSand

Avatar4321 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Africa was the last of the world to be colonized by westerners, Africa had the least contact with the principles of western civilization that create wealth and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiotic and misguided statement.
> 
> The people of Africa.....and for that matter China, India, Asia, and the Middle East.....all had functioning and vibrant civilizations before the Europeans invaded and destroyed their way of life.
> 
> Basically, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources.
> 
> And forcing the indigenous people into poverty and servitude to their European colonial masters for centuries.  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, which are the nations that are thriving? Those who have had prolonged contact with western ideas. Those we are struggling the most the ones that had the shortest contact with colonial powers. Their prior civilizations don't have relevance to their current prosperity.
Click to expand...


My question is this: Why should a third world nation have contact with the western world in order to prosper?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Papageorgio said:


> ]
> 
> You do realize IQ tests are not a test of intelligence, they are a test of a culture. You would fail a Japanese IQ test.
> 
> .



Is that so.?  Maybe the verbal questions, but the ones involving math or spatial relationships are the same in all languages.

BTW - if it's all about culture why do asian-americans do as well on IQ tests as white americans  while black americans always bring up the rear.?  In fact  that's true on all standardized tests.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

DriftingSand said:


> Food for thought:
> 
> 1) All races have been on the planet for many, many centuries.
> 2) All races have had ample time to "step up to the plate" and prosper or at least vastly improve their condition.
> 
> When we step back and look into past history we will see that not all races have contributed equally to their own prosperity.  Some have created wonderful architecture; rich music; awe-inspiring paintings; road systems; sewer systems; irrigation systems; vast farms that feed thousands; intricate machinery; etc.  They have made vast headway in the fields of medicine; mathematics; language; science; etc.
> 
> Others, on the other hand, have created very little in comparison. I realize that it's not politically correct to recognize these facts but I'm a realist and simply can't help it.




And africa is the worst. They don't have the brains to make a first world country. Hell,  they can't even maintain a first world country after they steal one from the whites that built it.  Look at the incredible collapse of zimbabwe over the last 35 years. Or the Congo over the last 50.  And South Africa is now going the same route.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Londoner said:


> J
> Of course, when women and blacks were given the same opportunities as white men, they proved that they had the intellectual equipment to thrive.



HAHA. They proved no such thing. That's why america is awash in affirmative action programs.  You give equal opportunity to blacks and women and they do nothing with it.  They need special treatment.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Coyote said:


> *Moved to appropriate forum.*



Hey einstein. Why was this moved to the europe board?  USMB has an africa board.


----------



## Pogo

Roudy said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MACAULAY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is generally agreed now that Humanity first emerged in Central Africa.  So, it seems fair to ask why, after all this time, can they still not feed themselves over there?
> 
> And also, why, after a half century of the Great Society and the War on Poverty, can they still not feed themselves in Detroit and Chicago?
> 
> I realize that just asking such questions will draw the race card, but don't they deserve to be asked and what is the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to hunt and gather in Detroit or Chicago. Well, except drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Detroit is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild.  What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.
Click to expand...







Cities aren't run by political ideologies, grasshopper.


----------



## DriftingSand

Pogo said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to hunt and gather in Detroit or Chicago. Well, except drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> Detroit is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild.  What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cities aren't run by political ideologies, grasshopper.
Click to expand...


What?  Have you ever heard of the cities of Communist Russia or Communist China or Communist Cuba or Communist North Korea?  They all conform to political ideology.


----------



## Pogo

DriftingSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detroit is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild.  What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cities aren't run by political ideologies, grasshopper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Have you ever heard of the cities of Communist Russia or Communist China or Communist Cuba or Communist North Korea?  They all conform to political ideology.
Click to expand...







A city isn't a big enough scale to exercise political ideology.  You don't have an economy to run other than simply managing a budget.  You don't have a constitution, you don't have a foreign policy.  Basically you get to declare when the trash gets picked up and present a big fake key when some movie star passes through. That's hardly the stuff of Locke and Voltaire.

Just as all of your examples had to be qualified with not only the country they belong to but the country with an adjective in front of it.  The city by itself... not so much.


----------



## westwall

ShootSpeeders said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> J
> Of course, when women and blacks were given the same opportunities as white men, they proved that they had the intellectual equipment to thrive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA. They proved no such thing. That's why america is awash in affirmative action programs.  You give equal opportunity to blacks and women and they do nothing with it.  They need special treatment.
Click to expand...







Tell that to the Tuskegee airmen.


----------



## GHook93

westwall said:


> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*



I don't believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, just as I don't believe that Asians are smarted than whites. I have know enough intelligent blacks and unintelligent whites to lead me to believe that it's not genetic. 

Call me racist if you want, but I see the never ending failure on the continent of Africa as a huge issue. Regardless of the excuse the leftist give, their continued failure has NOTHING to do with the white man and even less to do with colonialism of the past century. So the question remains, why are all TEN from Africa?


----------



## Pogo

GHook93 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, just as I don't believe that Asians are smarted than whites. I have know enough intelligent blacks and unintelligent whites to lead me to believe that it's not genetic.
> 
> Call me racist if you want, but I see the never ending failure on the continent of Africa as a huge issue. Regardless of the excuse the leftist give, their continued failure has NOTHING to do with the white man and even less to do with colonialism of the past century. So the question remains, why are all TEN from Africa?
Click to expand...


If you're just going to reject any reasoned answer that's not what you want to hear, then what's the point of engaging here?


----------



## westwall

GHook93 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, just as I don't believe that Asians are smarted than whites. I have know enough intelligent blacks and unintelligent whites to lead me to believe that it's not genetic.
> 
> Call me racist if you want, but I see the never ending failure on the continent of Africa as a huge issue. Regardless of the excuse the leftist give, their continued failure has NOTHING to do with the white man and even less to do with colonialism of the past century. So the question remains, why are all TEN from Africa?
Click to expand...







I think the reason why Africa is so backward is based on a LOT of reasons, including white imperialism.  There are cultural reasons that started millennia ago.  There are nutritional reasons that started millennia ago.  There are religious reasons that started millennia ago.  Add to those reasons the continuous attacks for slaves that began at least 5,000 years ago and then the imperialistic conquests and their impact and you have the beginnings of the reasons for the problem.

So long as people claim it is one thing or the other, and scream "racist" whenever they can't articulate an argument then nothing will change except the names of the victims.


----------



## Tank

Why are you deleting my posts?


----------



## TheOldSchool

> Hi, you have received -1144 reputation points from GHook93.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> Go fuck yourself ******
> 
> Regards,
> GHook93


----------



## Roudy

LoneLaugher said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to hunt and gather in Detroit or Chicago. Well, except drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> Detroit is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild.  What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. That was a measured and thoughtful comment. So glad you took the time.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, my bad, Obama is a great president, he has led this country to the promised land and restored our respect in the international community, how's that?


----------



## Esmeralda

Roudy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they call republicans racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand was a nazi. So was Charles Lindbergh. But both are heroes to the right.
> 
> For all her faults, Sanger did enormous good for the poor. You can't say that for any rw hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayn Rand was a Nazi?!  You realize what you just uttered?  Wow.
Click to expand...


Metaphorically, yes, in many ways she was a Nazi.  Don't you realize the term Nazi is used metaphorically for a certain type of individual?  This  has been done for decades.  Where have you been?  Or is this another case of a conservative being unable to think in anything but literal terms?


----------



## Roudy

I thought Obama and Biden told us that Detroit is back and Al Queda is on the run?  What happened?


----------



## norwegen

westwall said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, just as I don't believe that Asians are smarted than whites. I have know enough intelligent blacks and unintelligent whites to lead me to believe that it's not genetic.
> 
> Call me racist if you want, but I see the never ending failure on the continent of Africa as a huge issue. Regardless of the excuse the leftist give, their continued failure has NOTHING to do with the white man and even less to do with colonialism of the past century. So the question remains, why are all TEN from Africa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the reason why Africa is so backward is based on a LOT of reasons, including white imperialism. There are cultural reasons that started millennia ago. There are nutritional reasons that started millennia ago. There are religious reasons that started millennia ago. Add to those reasons the continuous attacks for slaves that began at least 5,000 years ago and then the imperialistic conquests and their impact and you have the beginnings of the reasons for the problem.
> 
> So long as people claim it is one thing or the other, and scream "racist" whenever they can't articulate an argument then nothing will change except the names of the victims.
Click to expand...

Nice post, westwall, though I'd like to counter it somewhat. Like I stated earlier, I don't know much about African history, but I know a little of it as it pertained to the American slave trade. African traders and chiefs did not tolerate Europeans bypassing them to seize slaves on their own, and in fact had the power to defeat Europeans who failed to cooperate. They, too, you see, were somewhat successful at imperialism, charging premiums for the people they sold for guns, which they used to raid their poorly armed neighbors. Europeans paid more for black slaves than they did for white slaves, as white slaves were free at the end of their indentures while black slaves were slaves for life. The Ashanti and Dahomey, for example, acquired considerable wealth and power by way of their European trading partners.

Imperialism runs through the human vein. From children bullying each other on the playground to upstarts jockeying for promotions at work to nations and clans exploiting other nations and clans, imperialism has always been a way to determine hierarchies.

Not merely imposing power or influence on others, many Asian societies were highly successful at imperialism, creating powerful empires and dynasties largely at the expense of subject peoples and their lands. By far, though, the most successful at it were the Europeans (whites?), and so they are vilified for it, for the same behavior that cultures throughout history and the world have practiced.

Imperialism is not an invention of the Europeans nor a monopoly owned by them. As imperialistic creatures, they have not been any different than anyone else; just more successful.

Besides that, Europeans built large and powerful centers of commerce in Africa. Really, westwall, imperialism is a hard case to make for the progress of some people and the relative lack thereof of others.  Or so is my opinion.

I don't know how significant the role nutrition played - possibly some role in mental acuity - but religion is certainly a reasonable case to make. Animistic and polytheistic religions elevated the spiritual essences of non-humans, discouraging human distinctions and therefore advancements, while the anthropocentrism of Christianity placed human beings at the pinnacle of creation, encouraging exploration, and indeed Europeans felt themselves superior to others during their colonial era because they were Christians.

Other cultural reasons that you can list might be interesting to contemplate or debate. As might physical differences be. Whites are more susceptible to skin cancer while blacks are more susceptible to sickle cell, for example.

 Eh?


----------



## Esmeralda

Toro said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lectured at a historically black university.  The students were generally better than the students at the predominantly white university.
> 
> 
> 
> "better" what does that mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means that they generally did better work.  They were better prepared.  They were more disciplined and more mature.
Click to expand...


African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation.  Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.


----------



## DriftingSand

Pogo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cities aren't run by political ideologies, grasshopper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Have you ever heard of the cities of Communist Russia or Communist China or Communist Cuba or Communist North Korea?  They all conform to political ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A city isn't a big enough scale to exercise political ideology.  You don't have an economy to run other than simply managing a budget.  You don't have a constitution, you don't have a foreign policy.  Basically you get to declare when the trash gets picked up and present a big fake key when some movie star passes through. That's hardly the stuff of Locke and Voltaire.
> 
> Just as all of your examples had to be qualified with not only the country they belong to but the country with an adjective in front of it.  The city by itself... not so much.
Click to expand...


That's a ridiculous comment. All cities under control of a Communist government conform to the leaders and policies of that government.  
1 + 1 = 2


----------



## MrMax

Esmeralda said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "better" what does that mean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means that they generally did better work.  They were better prepared.  They were more disciplined and more mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation.  Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.
Click to expand...


Blacks are generally dumber than other races, like seriously, compared to whites and asians, what have black people invented of worth? And crack doesn't count.


----------



## DriftingSand

We've heard lots of reasons why African nations aren't prosperous or highly productive.  Everyone seems to have someone to blame.  Some claim that Africa had a "thriving" civilization at one point (a point that archaeology doesn't support). It's the fault of Imperialists.  It's the fault of slave traders (including the African tribes that sold their brothers).  It's the fault of Democrats. Blame - blame -blame.  All the while ignoring the one thing we all agree on -- African nations aren't prosperous or very productive!

Perhaps the reason is so simple it's slapping us in the face.  Perhaps it just isn't important to Africans to develop thriving, over-sized, highly regulated civilizations.   

If the reason is because of lack of contact with the Western World then we're left with places like Detroit that are run by African-Americans and yet don't thrive.  But we might be able to blame Socialist Liberals.  However, if we're going to blame Socialist-Liberalism then we're forced to consider China which is a Socialist-Liberal regime that IS thriving, producing, and prospering (thanks to their embracing the free market). If the reason is due to Imperialism then we have to consider nations that were very recently subject to USSR Imperialism but jumped right back on their feet the moment they were free to operate as independent governments.  If the reason is because Africans are hunter/gatherers then we need to consider Ireland (a rather bleak and desolate landscape in many respects) where the inhabitants began as hunter/gatherers but turned their landscape into a productive and modern nation.  

So, the bottom line (for me anyway) is that Africans are perfectly happy living in a tribal manner as hunter/gatherers.  There's really nothing wrong with that.  I've often wished that I could leave the city life and find a place deep in the woods and live off of the land.  There's a PBS show called "Alone In The Wilderness" (I think that's the name) where an old dude leaves civilization and builds a cabin in the Alaskan wilderness and lives there until he dies.  He did so by choice -- not because of Democrats, Imperialism, or the slave trade.


----------



## dannyboys

westwall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting.  The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect.  It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.
> 
> I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question.  Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures.  They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.
> 
> They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention.  Instead address the OP.  It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the OP again.
> 
> Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?
> 
> This is a troll thread. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?
> 
> All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?
> 
> These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

The endemic violence and poverty seen across Africa today was happening LONG before any tribal Chief sold any of the slaves he captured from the village in the neighbouring valley to the Dutch for a piece of broken mirror. Today in every inner city in the US the gene that compels Blacks towards violence in Africa is alive and well.
The Chinese bless their hearts now own pretty much every natural resource in Africa. They never fired a shot. They just drove up to the local tribal Chief's mansion and bought all the mineral rights for a suitcase full of US thousand dollar bills. The Chief signed the papers and his 'people' became the 'in-house' slave labor work force for the Chinese businessman.
 You might say it was like 'taking candy' from a semi mentally retarded person. Which it was.
Long ago the US government had to put a stop to White men purchasing lands from Indian tribes for a few cases of whiskey and some repeating rifles.
Problem is in Africa there was/is no 'government' to prevent the Chiefs from selling off the mineral rights to their ancestral land.
BTW if any LIB here is deluded enough to believe that the Chinese will 'do-right' by any Black worker/slave think again. You think Blacks are discriminated' against by Whites in the US? That level of 'discrimination' is a level one. With the Chinese the level is an easy one hundred.
Will things in Africa or in the US 'get better' for the Blacks? Nope.


----------



## TheOldSchool

dannyboys said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the OP again.
> 
> Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?
> 
> This is a troll thread. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?
> 
> All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?
> 
> These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The endemic violence and poverty seen across Africa today was happening LONG before any tribal Chief sold any of the slaves he captured from the village in the neighbouring valley to the Dutch for a piece of broken mirror. Today in every inner city in the US the gene that compels Blacks towards violence in Africa is alive and well.
> The Chinese bless their hearts now own pretty much every natural resource in Africa. They never fired a shot. They just drove up to the local tribal Chief's mansion and bought all the mineral rights for a suitcase full of US thousand dollar bills. The Chief signed the papers and his 'people' became the 'in-house' slave labor work force for the Chinese businessman.
> You might say it was like 'taking candy' from a semi mentally retarded person. Which it was.
> Long ago the US government had to put a stop to White men purchasing lands from Indian tribes for a few cases of whiskey and some repeating rifles.
> Problem is in Africa there was/is no 'government' to prevent the Chiefs from selling off the mineral rights to their ancestral land.
> BTW if any LIB here is deluded enough to believe that the Chinese will 'do-right' by any Black worker/slave think again. You think Blacks are discriminated' against by Whites in the US? That level of 'discrimination' is a level one. With the Chinese the level is an easy one hundred.
> Will things in Africa or in the US 'get better' for the Blacks? Nope.
Click to expand...


That's the dumbest shit I've ever seen.  But congrats you must've strained your brain really hard to put together all of those words.


----------



## dannyboys

westwall said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?
> 
> All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?
> 
> These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> I found this in  another thread on the internet asking the same question:
> 
> Seems like a fair answer:
> 
> *Link*
> 
> Some Africans and others say that the Africans did have some sort of great civilisation in the past. However the evidence is scanty.
> 
> Various reasons have been suggested for the undeveloped state of the continent despite the fertile climate of much of it, the presence of enormous mineral wealth etc. Much the same sort of paradox is evident with the indigenous peoples of N. America where the civilisations of Central America never seemed to spread to the north, just as Egyptian civilisation never caught on to the south.
> 
> I list, without implying agreement or disagreement with any of them, some of the suggested reasons.
> 
> 1)...Making a living was just too easy. Where hunting & gathering or subsistence agriculture easily supply year-round food, there is no obvious incentive to change things.
> 
> 2)...The local culture was hostile to the idea of living in large agglomerations - much as the European Celts preferred to live in loosely organised small settlements and resisted the Roman habit of city-dwelling. The Celts, though not primitive (their woodwork and metalwork were in some ways better than that of the Romans), were also, by comparison, economically underdeveloped.
> 
> 3)...Recurrent local conflict between tribes, resulting in periodic genocide which made it hard to consolidate advances in knowledge and technique. This is possible, but why it should have this effect in Africa and not in the equally tribal societies of primitive Europe and Asia is hard to explain.
> 
> 4)...Linguistic problems. I am not a specialist in African studies, but I am told that some parts of Africa have a large number of local languages, making sharing knowledge between communities awkward. Again, the lack of any written language might have made it hard to preserve knowledge or transmit it over distances.
> 
> 5)...Communities were locally based and travel rare. If this is true (again, I appeal to any specialists to supply accurate information) it would limit cross-fertilisation of ideas. This explanation begs the question of why long-distance trade, analogous to the tin trade in Europe or the silk route from China, did not develop in Africa.
> 
> 6)...Disease. The same conditions which make it easy for humans to make a living also provide ideal conditions for various pathogens and for the insects, snails etc. which carry them. If their vitality were reduced by debilitating endemic diseases, the locals may have had reduced intellectual as well as physical energy, making it harder for them to advance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to the heart of the matter.  Most of these points are factual, and have a direct bearing on the African culture now.
Click to expand...

Yes this is getting to the heart of the matter. The only fact missing is that Blacks, world wide, have IQ's about fifteen points lower than other races.
Mix that fact into the pot and the aforementioned points start making more sense. Take a million humans with an average IQ of 80. Then take a million humans with an average IQ of 100. Which group is more likely to develop a civil society? Got it in one!
 Someone explain why the LIBs will never acknowledge the IQ gap between Blacks and other races. 
"Oh no! We couldn't do that! Don't you know everyone is the same? Everyone deserves a trophy right?"
Want to watch a LIB break out in a 'flop sweat'? Just say: "Social Darwinism".  LIBs believe in 'Darwinism'/evolution. Except when it comes to looking at the human animal. Pretty funny.


----------



## dannyboys

Esmeralda said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it IS based in imperialism.
> 
> but that isn't what you want to discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is based in imperialism.  European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures.  In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures.  We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.
Click to expand...

Of course we know what Africa would be like now if those darned Europeans hadn't interfered.
Their culture would be just like it had been for thousands of years before any White man set foot in what is now called Africa. The three 'F's: Fucking Fighting and Feeding.
That's not 'evolving'. That's only a hop and a step from climbing down from the tree tops.


----------



## Swagger

Re. Imperialism.

One of the key differences between Africa (above and below the Sahara) compared to European possessions in places like Asia, were that most of the conquered territories in Africa were never industrialised to the extend places like India were, thus there was little to none of the infrastructure prosperous nations rely on to sustain stability.

Additionally, the Kalashnikov rifle, coupled with overall rejection of contraception, has wrought huge damage on Africa and its people.


----------



## dannyboys

GHook93 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, just as I don't believe that Asians are smarted than whites. I have know enough intelligent blacks and unintelligent whites to lead me to believe that it's not genetic.
> 
> Call me racist if you want, but I see the never ending failure on the continent of Africa as a huge issue. Regardless of the excuse the leftist give, their continued failure has NOTHING to do with the white man and even less to do with colonialism of the past century. So the question remains, why are all TEN from Africa?
Click to expand...

Next time you want your opinion to be taken seriously why not take the time to proof read your post. That's a good boy.
 BTW your 'opinion' means shit. There are hundreds of non-biased scientific studies which show a clear intellectual hierarchy between Asians/Whites and Blacks.


----------



## Pogo

DriftingSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Have you ever heard of the cities of Communist Russia or Communist China or Communist Cuba or Communist North Korea?  They all conform to political ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A city isn't a big enough scale to exercise political ideology.  You don't have an economy to run other than simply managing a budget.  You don't have a constitution, you don't have a foreign policy.  Basically you get to declare when the trash gets picked up and present a big fake key when some movie star passes through. That's hardly the stuff of Locke and Voltaire.
> 
> Just as all of your examples had to be qualified with not only the country they belong to but the country with an adjective in front of it.  The city by itself... not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a ridiculous comment. All cities under control of a Communist government conform to the leaders and policies of that government.
> 1 + 1 = 2
Click to expand...


Reading is a lost art.

The original comment to which that response was attached:


Roudy said:


> *Detroit* is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild.  What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.



Is "Detroit" a country?


----------



## dannyboys

TheOldSchool said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him.  Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message.  Ask yourself a question, is the claim true?  If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person?  Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia.  With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?
> 
> All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?
> 
> These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent.  It's as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> The endemic violence and poverty seen across Africa today was happening LONG before any tribal Chief sold any of the slaves he captured from the village in the neighbouring valley to the Dutch for a piece of broken mirror. Today in every inner city in the US the gene that compels Blacks towards violence in Africa is alive and well.
> The Chinese bless their hearts now own pretty much every natural resource in Africa. They never fired a shot. They just drove up to the local tribal Chief's mansion and bought all the mineral rights for a suitcase full of US thousand dollar bills. The Chief signed the papers and his 'people' became the 'in-house' slave labor work force for the Chinese businessman.
> You might say it was like 'taking candy' from a semi mentally retarded person. Which it was.
> Long ago the US government had to put a stop to White men purchasing lands from Indian tribes for a few cases of whiskey and some repeating rifles.
> Problem is in Africa there was/is no 'government' to prevent the Chiefs from selling off the mineral rights to their ancestral land.
> BTW if any LIB here is deluded enough to believe that the Chinese will 'do-right' by any Black worker/slave think again. You think Blacks are discriminated' against by Whites in the US? That level of 'discrimination' is a level one. With the Chinese the level is an easy one hundred.
> Will things in Africa or in the US 'get better' for the Blacks? Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the dumbest shit I've ever seen.  But congrats you must've strained your brain really hard to put together all of those words.
Click to expand...

Then you'll have no problem pointing out specifically what I posted was "dumb". There are hundreds of Goggle sites describing in factual detail how the Chinese are basically purchasing Africa's mineral wealth for next to nothing from tribal chiefs/local governments.  Chinese immigrants are pouring into Africa and displacing Black workers. Those Black workers who still have a menial job are paid just enough to prevent them from starving.
The only Blacks allowed in China are those with highly sought after skills. And they are very few and far between. As soon as the Chinese have learned/stolen every bit of information they can the Black professional is put on a plane leaving the country the next day.
 The Chinese DO NOT WANT any half Chinese half Black people in the country.
There's a special term for those 'half-breeds' in Chinese and it's not a nice one.


----------



## DriftingSand

Swagger said:


> Re. Imperialism.
> 
> One of the key differences between Africa (above and below the Sahara) compared to European possessions in places like Asia, were that most of the conquered territories in Africa were never industrialised to the extend places like India were, thus there was little to none of the infrastructure prosperous nations rely on to sustain stability.
> 
> Additionally, the Kalashnikov rifle, coupled with overall rejection of contraception, has wrought huge damage on Africa and its people.



You might have missed my earlier post or simply disagree with it.  

Many different nations on earth have taken turns being "Imperialistic" but we can NEVER accuse the African nations of such (other than the Arabic nations of northern Africa) because they never had a naval force nor had they ever invented the weaponry to be a threat to any other nation.  They've had centuries worth of time to develop defenses; weaponry; structures; and military strategies.  But they haven't.

I stand by my earlier post that they simply aren't interested in being a force to be reckoned with or a massive civilization.  They simply prefer living the simple life and just want to be left alone.  If they truly had the motivation or ambition or inspiration to move in that direction then they would have by now.  There's nothing necessarily wrong with that.  Who says that a nation or a people need to battle to the top of the economic or military heap?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Esmeralda said:


> African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation.  Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.



So what?  Fact remains they can't learn, at least not important things like math and engineering. It's true in africa just like in america.


----------



## DriftingSand

Pogo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A city isn't a big enough scale to exercise political ideology.  You don't have an economy to run other than simply managing a budget.  You don't have a constitution, you don't have a foreign policy.  Basically you get to declare when the trash gets picked up and present a big fake key when some movie star passes through. That's hardly the stuff of Locke and Voltaire.
> 
> Just as all of your examples had to be qualified with not only the country they belong to but the country with an adjective in front of it.  The city by itself... not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a ridiculous comment. All cities under control of a Communist government conform to the leaders and policies of that government.
> 1 + 1 = 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading is a lost art.
> 
> The original comment to which that response was attached:
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Detroit* is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild.  What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is "Detroit" a country?
Click to expand...


But you responded to my post that states that a city CAN be "Communist" if it's subject to a Communist regime.  You chose to negate that point.  So, apparently, reading IS a lost art.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

MrMax said:


> Blacks are generally dumber than other races, like seriously, compared to whites and asians, what have black people invented of worth? And crack doesn't count.



Then invented the dunk shot.  And MJ invented that "moon walk" thing.  Blacks have really accomplished a lot.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

DriftingSand said:


> We've heard lots of reasons why African nations aren't prosperous or highly productive.  Everyone seems to have someone to blame.  Some claim that Africa had a "thriving" civilization at one point (a point that archaeology doesn't support). It's the fault of Imperialists.  It's the fault of slave traders (including the African tribes that sold their brothers).  It's the fault of Democrats. Blame - blame -blame.  All the while ignoring the one thing we all agree on -- African nations aren't prosperous or very productive!
> 
> Perhaps the reason is so simple it's slapping us in the face.  Perhaps it just isn't important to Africans to develop thriving, over-sized, highly regulated civilizations.
> 
> If the reason is because of lack of contact with the Western World then we're left with places like Detroit that are run by African-Americans and yet don't thrive.  But we might be able to blame Socialist Liberals.  However, if we're going to blame Socialist-Liberalism then we're forced to consider China which is a Socialist-Liberal regime that IS thriving, producing, and prospering (thanks to their embracing the free market). If the reason is due to Imperialism then we have to consider nations that were very recently subject to USSR Imperialism but jumped right back on their feet the moment they were free to operate as independent governments.  If the reason is because Africans are hunter/gatherers then we need to consider Ireland (a rather bleak and desolate landscape in many respects) where the inhabitants began as hunter/gatherers but turned their landscape into a productive and modern nation.
> 
> So, the bottom line (for me anyway) is that Africans are perfectly happy living in a tribal manner as hunter/gatherers.  There's really nothing wrong with that.  I've often wished that I could leave the city life and find a place deep in the woods and live off of the land.  There's a PBS show called "Alone In The Wilderness" (I think that's the name) where an old dude leaves civilization and builds a cabin in the Alaskan wilderness and lives there until he dies.  He did so by choice -- not because of Democrats, Imperialism, or the slave trade.



HAHAHA. So why don't blacks in america live in the wilderness and take care of themselves.?  Fact is blacks want the good life same as everyone else.  But they don't have the intelligence to build a first world country.


----------



## Nutz

ShootSpeeders said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've heard lots of reasons why African nations aren't prosperous or highly productive.  Everyone seems to have someone to blame.  Some claim that Africa had a "thriving" civilization at one point (a point that archaeology doesn't support). It's the fault of Imperialists.  It's the fault of slave traders (including the African tribes that sold their brothers).  It's the fault of Democrats. Blame - blame -blame.  All the while ignoring the one thing we all agree on -- African nations aren't prosperous or very productive!
> 
> Perhaps the reason is so simple it's slapping us in the face.  Perhaps it just isn't important to Africans to develop thriving, over-sized, highly regulated civilizations.
> 
> If the reason is because of lack of contact with the Western World then we're left with places like Detroit that are run by African-Americans and yet don't thrive.  But we might be able to blame Socialist Liberals.  However, if we're going to blame Socialist-Liberalism then we're forced to consider China which is a Socialist-Liberal regime that IS thriving, producing, and prospering (thanks to their embracing the free market). If the reason is due to Imperialism then we have to consider nations that were very recently subject to USSR Imperialism but jumped right back on their feet the moment they were free to operate as independent governments.  If the reason is because Africans are hunter/gatherers then we need to consider Ireland (a rather bleak and desolate landscape in many respects) where the inhabitants began as hunter/gatherers but turned their landscape into a productive and modern nation.
> 
> So, the bottom line (for me anyway) is that Africans are perfectly happy living in a tribal manner as hunter/gatherers.  There's really nothing wrong with that.  I've often wished that I could leave the city life and find a place deep in the woods and live off of the land.  There's a PBS show called "Alone In The Wilderness" (I think that's the name) where an old dude leaves civilization and builds a cabin in the Alaskan wilderness and lives there until he dies.  He did so by choice -- not because of Democrats, Imperialism, or the slave trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA. So why don't blacks in america live in the wilderness and take care of themselves.?  Fact is blacks want the good life same as everyone else.  But they don't have the intelligence to build a first world country.
Click to expand...


Pussy


----------



## Pogo

DriftingSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a ridiculous comment. All cities under control of a Communist government conform to the leaders and policies of that government.
> 1 + 1 = 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading is a lost art.
> 
> The original comment to which that response was attached:
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Detroit* is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild.  What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is "Detroit" a country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you responded to my post that states that a city CAN be "Communist" if it's subject to a Communist regime.  You chose to negate that point.  So, apparently, reading IS a lost art.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.  I responded to Roudy, and you jumped in.

A city government is simply _not capable_ of engaging in political philosophy, which was the point of the randbot bent on his eliminationist fantasy -- trying to equate a city (Detroit in this case) with "liberalism".  That's impossible  There's nothing "liberal" or "conservative" about negotiating a contract with Waste Management.  Does not apply.

What country a city is in is irrelevant.  Cities DO NOT and CAN NOT set their own political philosophy agendas.  Period.


----------



## Pogo

ShootSpeeders said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I stand by my earlier post that they simply aren't interested in being a force to be reckoned with or a massive civilization.  They simply prefer living the simple life and just want to be left alone.  If they truly had the motivation or ambition or inspiration to move in that direction then they would have by now.  There's nothing necessarily wrong with that.  Who says that a nation or a people need to battle to the top of the economic or military heap?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uranidiot. It's not about motivation or ambition. It's about ability and blacks don't have it.  They are mentally inferior and cannot make a world with cell phones and computers.  Blacks don't want to live in mud huts and eat bugs, but without the white man, that's the only life they can manage.  THINK
Click to expand...


----------



## DriftingSand

> Pogo: Horseshit.  I responded to Roudy, and you jumped in.
> 
> A city government is simply _not capable_ of engaging in political philosophy, which was the point of the randbot bent on his eliminationist fantasy -- trying to equate a city (Detroit in this case) with "liberalism".  That's impossible  There's nothing "liberal" or "conservative" about negotiating a contract with Waste Management.  Does not apply.
> 
> What country a city is in is irrelevant.  Cities DO NOT and CAN NOT set their own political philosophy agendas.  Period.




First ... let's take one more look at the exchange: 



> DriftingSand: What? Have you ever heard of the cities of Communist Russia or Communist China or Communist Cuba or Communist North Korea? They all conform to political ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> __________________
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo: A city isn't a big enough scale to exercise political ideology.  You don't have an economy to run other than simply managing a budget.  You don't have a constitution, you don't have a foreign policy.  Basically you get to declare when the trash gets picked up and present a big fake key when some movie star passes through. That's hardly the stuff of Locke and Voltaire.
> 
> Just as all of your examples had to be qualified with not only the country they belong to but the country with an adjective in front of it.  The city by itself... not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So your response was a DIRECT response to my post whether I "jumped in" or not.  As for cities enacting policies they most certainly CAN propose Socialist rules and regulations.  I could give you a few examples from the city of Denver but I'm sure you've already made up your mind.


----------



## DriftingSand

ShootSpeeders said:


> HAHAHA. So why don't blacks in america live in the wilderness and take care of themselves.?  Fact is blacks want the good life same as everyone else.  But they don't have the intelligence to build a first world country.



One doesn't have to live in the wilderness to maintain a tribal (gang) mentality and to be hunter/gatherers.  There may not be any wildebeests to hunt but one can hunt in other ways and gather what they deem helpful (dumpster diving, scraping, etc.).


----------



## Nutz

1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?  

2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture.  Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts.  I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.


----------



## westwall

norwegen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, just as I don't believe that Asians are smarted than whites. I have know enough intelligent blacks and unintelligent whites to lead me to believe that it's not genetic.
> 
> Call me racist if you want, but I see the never ending failure on the continent of Africa as a huge issue. Regardless of the excuse the leftist give, their continued failure has NOTHING to do with the white man and even less to do with colonialism of the past century. So the question remains, why are all TEN from Africa?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the reason why Africa is so backward is based on a LOT of reasons, including white imperialism. There are cultural reasons that started millennia ago. There are nutritional reasons that started millennia ago. There are religious reasons that started millennia ago. Add to those reasons the continuous attacks for slaves that began at least 5,000 years ago and then the imperialistic conquests and their impact and you have the beginnings of the reasons for the problem.
> 
> So long as people claim it is one thing or the other, and scream "racist" whenever they can't articulate an argument then nothing will change except the names of the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice post, westwall, though I'd like to counter it somewhat. Like I stated earlier, I don't know much about African history, but I know a little of it as it pertained to the American slave trade. African traders and chiefs did not tolerate Europeans bypassing them to seize slaves on their own, and in fact had the power to defeat Europeans who failed to cooperate. They, too, you see, were somewhat successful at imperialism, charging premiums for the people they sold for guns, which they used to raid their poorly armed neighbors. Europeans paid more for black slaves than they did for white slaves, as white slaves were free at the end of their indentures while black slaves were slaves for life. The Ashanti and Dahomey, for example, acquired considerable wealth and power by way of their European trading partners.
> 
> Imperialism runs through the human vein. From children bullying each other on the playground to upstarts jockeying for promotions at work to nations and clans exploiting other nations and clans, imperialism has always been a way to determine hierarchies.
> 
> Not merely imposing power or influence on others, many Asian societies were highly successful at imperialism, creating powerful empires and dynasties largely at the expense of subject peoples and their lands. By far, though, the most successful at it were the Europeans (whites?), and so they are vilified for it, for the same behavior that cultures throughout history and the world have practiced.
> 
> Imperialism is not an invention of the Europeans nor a monopoly owned by them. As imperialistic creatures, they have not been any different than anyone else; just more successful.
> 
> Besides that, Europeans built large and powerful centers of commerce in Africa. Really, westwall, imperialism is a hard case to make for the progress of some people and the relative lack thereof of others.  Or so is my opinion.
> 
> I don't know how significant the role nutrition played - possibly some role in mental acuity - but religion is certainly a reasonable case to make. Animistic and polytheistic religions elevated the spiritual essences of non-humans, discouraging human distinctions and therefore advancements, while the anthropocentrism of Christianity placed human beings at the pinnacle of creation, encouraging exploration, and indeed Europeans felt themselves superior to others during their colonial era because they were Christians.
> 
> Other cultural reasons that you can list might be interesting to contemplate or debate. As might physical differences be. Whites are more susceptible to skin cancer while blacks are more susceptible to sickle cell, for example.
> 
> Eh?
Click to expand...







Imperial powers play one tribe off against the other.  This was most famously done by the Jurched empire and how they played the Mongol, vs the Uighurs, vs the Tatars, vs the Merkid etc.  Every year they would ally with the weaker groups to make war on the larger.  This had been going on for hundreds of years.

Genghis Khan emerged and broke that cycle.  He united all the Steppe nomads (among which the Mongols were among the weakest) and crushed the Jurched empire.  He then defeated the Sung and continued on.  By the time he was done the formerly weak and fragmented steppe nomads had conquered more than the known world.  That empire is the greatest the world has ever seen.

Africa never had a Genghis so the imperialistic bridgeheads could play one tribe off against the other and keep them all weak.  I never stated that outsiders ruled the slave game.  It is well known that was an African dominated market, but once again inter tribal warfare led to an overall weakening of the native Africans allowing a much smaller group of outsiders to dictate what went on in the continent.


----------



## westwall

ShootSpeeders said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation.  Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Fact remains they can't learn, at least not important things like math and engineering. It's true in africa just like in america.
Click to expand...







And this has been demonstrably proven false over, and over and over again.  Anyone who believes that to be true is an ignorant stupid fool.  Yes, I am looking at you speedo.


----------



## westwall

Nutz said:


> 1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?
> 
> 2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture.  Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts.  I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.







Please do.  Don't let a twit like speedo interfere.


----------



## Roudy

MrMax said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means that they generally did better work.  They were better prepared.  They were more disciplined and more mature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation.  Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks are generally dumber than other races, like seriously, compared to whites and asians, what have black people invented of worth? And crack doesn't count.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that.  Background, upbringing, education, opportunities, and environment are the cause.


----------



## MrMax

Roudy said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation.  Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks are generally dumber than other races, like seriously, compared to whites and asians, what have black people invented of worth? And crack doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with that.  Background, upbringing, education, opportunities, and environment are the cause.
Click to expand...


Most blacks in the US still have a slave mentality where whitey will provide for them. And after so many generations, their genes are possibly moving away from being able to provide for themselves, meaning learning, inventing...
Africans, on the other hand, aren't too far removed yet from living in straw huts, and education is still relatively a new concept to them.


----------



## Roudy

dannyboys said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found this in  another thread on the internet asking the same question:
> 
> Seems like a fair answer:
> 
> *Link*
> 
> Some Africans and others say that the Africans did have some sort of great civilisation in the past. However the evidence is scanty.
> 
> Various reasons have been suggested for the undeveloped state of the continent despite the fertile climate of much of it, the presence of enormous mineral wealth etc. Much the same sort of paradox is evident with the indigenous peoples of N. America where the civilisations of Central America never seemed to spread to the north, just as Egyptian civilisation never caught on to the south.
> 
> I list, without implying agreement or disagreement with any of them, some of the suggested reasons.
> 
> 1)...Making a living was just too easy. Where hunting & gathering or subsistence agriculture easily supply year-round food, there is no obvious incentive to change things.
> 
> 2)...The local culture was hostile to the idea of living in large agglomerations - much as the European Celts preferred to live in loosely organised small settlements and resisted the Roman habit of city-dwelling. The Celts, though not primitive (their woodwork and metalwork were in some ways better than that of the Romans), were also, by comparison, economically underdeveloped.
> 
> 3)...Recurrent local conflict between tribes, resulting in periodic genocide which made it hard to consolidate advances in knowledge and technique. This is possible, but why it should have this effect in Africa and not in the equally tribal societies of primitive Europe and Asia is hard to explain.
> 
> 4)...Linguistic problems. I am not a specialist in African studies, but I am told that some parts of Africa have a large number of local languages, making sharing knowledge between communities awkward. Again, the lack of any written language might have made it hard to preserve knowledge or transmit it over distances.
> 
> 5)...Communities were locally based and travel rare. If this is true (again, I appeal to any specialists to supply accurate information) it would limit cross-fertilisation of ideas. This explanation begs the question of why long-distance trade, analogous to the tin trade in Europe or the silk route from China, did not develop in Africa.
> 
> 6)...Disease. The same conditions which make it easy for humans to make a living also provide ideal conditions for various pathogens and for the insects, snails etc. which carry them. If their vitality were reduced by debilitating endemic diseases, the locals may have had reduced intellectual as well as physical energy, making it harder for them to advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to the heart of the matter.  Most of these points are factual, and have a direct bearing on the African culture now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes this is getting to the heart of the matter. The only fact missing is that Blacks, world wide, have IQ's about fifteen points lower than other races.
> Mix that fact into the pot and the aforementioned points start making more sense. Take a million humans with an average IQ of 80. Then take a million humans with an average IQ of 100. Which group is more likely to develop a civil society? Got it in one!
> Someone explain why the LIBs will never acknowledge the IQ gap between Blacks and other races.
> "Oh no! We couldn't do that! Don't you know everyone is the same? Everyone deserves a trophy right?"
> Want to watch a LIB break out in a 'flop sweat'? Just say: "Social Darwinism".  LIBs believe in 'Darwinism'/evolution. Except when it comes to looking at the human animal. Pretty funny.
Click to expand...

Take a million whites and a million blacks and give them everything the white kids have, environment, education, financial ability, upbringing etc. and you will see the blacks doing just as good as the whites. 

The reason Chinese / Asians for example excel academically even more than the whites and others, is because they go to tougher schools, and from early childhood their parents and extended families nurture and indoctrinate them such that there no other acceptable result.


----------



## DriftingSand

Nutz said:


> 1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?
> 
> 2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture.  Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts.  I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.



That's the point I've tried to make at least twice.  Folks would rather "blame" someone for African's approach to life so my conclusion has been swept under the rug without any real consideration.  I'm saying that perhaps there's nobody to "blame" at all.  Not everyone wants a huge, over-sized, over-regulated, mega-culture.


----------



## Nutz

DriftingSand said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?
> 
> 2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture.  Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts.  I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point I've tried to make at least twice.  Folks would rather "blame" someone for African's approach to life so my conclusion has been swept under the rug without any real consideration.  I'm saying that perhaps there's nobody to "blame" at all.  Not everyone wants a huge, over-sized, over-regulated, mega-culture.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I was hoping to reinforce that truth.  Nonetheless, until the racist pussies are recognized for what they are on this forum and as long as they continue to be allowed to derail every thread and create countless race baiting threads, I will only participate in a limited manner.  

I still want to know why a thread about AFRICA is in the European sub-forum.  Makes no sense.


----------



## DriftingSand

Nutz said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?
> 
> 2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture.  Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts.  I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point I've tried to make at least twice.  Folks would rather "blame" someone for African's approach to life so my conclusion has been swept under the rug without any real consideration.  I'm saying that perhaps there's nobody to "blame" at all.  Not everyone wants a huge, over-sized, over-regulated, mega-culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was hoping to reinforce that truth.  Nonetheless, until the racist pussies are recognized for what they are on this forum and as long as they continue to be allowed to derail every thread and create countless race baiting threads, I will only participate in a limited manner.
> 
> I still want to know why a thread about AFRICA is in the European sub-forum.  Makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Not everyone has a grasp of geography.  Perhaps we can start a thread on Sweden and put it in the Asia forum.   But it looks like it has been moved to the proper forum.


----------



## Roudy

ShootSpeeders said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a million whites and a million blacks and give them everything the white kids have, environment, education, financial ability, upbringing etc. and you will see the blacks doing just as good as the whites.
> 
> The reason Chinese / Asians for example excel academically even more than the whites and others, is because they go to tougher schools, and from early childhood their parents and extended families nurture and indoctrinate them such that there no other acceptable result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More talk.  You don't have a shred of evidence for any of it.  Why not employ occam's razor and accept the simplest and most obvious explanation for black failure?  They are mentally inferior.
Click to expand...

There is no obvious reason for black failure.  There are plenty of blacks that come from good families, go to good schools, do well in SAT's, and thrive in colleges.  What do you think your president Obama is, as much as I detest him.


----------



## HenryBHough

Roudy said:


> What do you think your president Obama is, as much as I detest him.




Half black at best.  

Sadly, He got the worst half from each side.


----------



## westwall

ShootSpeeders said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a million whites and a million blacks and give them everything the white kids have, environment, education, financial ability, upbringing etc. and you will see the blacks doing just as good as the whites.
> 
> The reason Chinese / Asians for example excel academically even more than the whites and others, is because they go to tougher schools, and from early childhood their parents and extended families nurture and indoctrinate them such that there no other acceptable result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More talk.  You don't have a shred of evidence for any of it.  Why not employ occam's razor and accept the simplest and most obvious explanation for black failure?  They are mentally inferior.
Click to expand...







Probably because that has never been shown to be true.  Occam's razor says you're an imbecile, yet you can still breathe.  But that's because you live in a country that protects morons.  Had you been born in Africa you would have failed to leave puberty due to your lack of intellectual capacity.

The only reason why you can spout the BS you do, is because you live in a country that protects the mentally challenged, and the weak.  Both of which describe you.


----------



## GHook93

jillian said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest
> 
> Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it IS based in imperialism.
> 
> but that isn't what you want to discuss.
Click to expand...


If you are inferring that I believe African countries, African populated western countries (Jamaica, Haiti etc) and after African America communities are failures because they have a lower IQ then you are wrong. I don't think it is genetic. I have seen blacks, esp black women, show their intellect beyond most people around. That doesn't change the question, why are they all so bad off and never making a rebound. Even African countries that weren't colonized have never advanced. Then a country like South Africa that was give a HUGE head start (first world infrastructure, society, rule of law etc) has become a crime ridden basket-case hopelessly spiraling into poverty and decay. 

Call me a racist if you please, but the question remains, African countries are always toward the bottom and they never seem to go in the right direction!


----------



## Smilebong

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does? Addressing the OP would be interesting? In what way? How about showing us the path?
> 
> The OP does not make an attempt to answer his own question....would you like to try?
Click to expand...


The OP was a sarcastic statement, not meant to garner serious interaction.


----------



## MrMax

Africa is China's problem now.


----------



## dannyboys

DriftingSand said:


> We've heard lots of reasons why African nations aren't prosperous or highly productive.  Everyone seems to have someone to blame.  Some claim that Africa had a "thriving" civilization at one point (a point that archaeology doesn't support). It's the fault of Imperialists.  It's the fault of slave traders (including the African tribes that sold their brothers).  It's the fault of Democrats. Blame - blame -blame.  All the while ignoring the one thing we all agree on -- African nations aren't prosperous or very productive!
> 
> Perhaps the reason is so simple it's slapping us in the face.  Perhaps it just isn't important to Africans to develop thriving, over-sized, highly regulated civilizations.
> 
> If the reason is because of lack of contact with the Western World then we're left with places like Detroit that are run by African-Americans and yet don't thrive.  But we might be able to blame Socialist Liberals.  However, if we're going to blame Socialist-Liberalism then we're forced to consider China which is a Socialist-Liberal regime that IS thriving, producing, and prospering (thanks to their embracing the free market). If the reason is due to Imperialism then we have to consider nations that were very recently subject to USSR Imperialism but jumped right back on their feet the moment they were free to operate as independent governments.  If the reason is because Africans are hunter/gatherers then we need to consider Ireland (a rather bleak and desolate landscape in many respects) where the inhabitants began as hunter/gatherers but turned their landscape into a productive and modern nation.
> 
> So, the bottom line (for me anyway) is that Africans are perfectly happy living in a tribal manner as hunter/gatherers.  There's really nothing wrong with that.  I've often wished that I could leave the city life and find a place deep in the woods and live off of the land.  There's a PBS show called "Alone In The Wilderness" (I think that's the name) where an old dude leaves civilization and builds a cabin in the Alaskan wilderness and lives there until he dies.  He did so by choice -- not because of Democrats, Imperialism, or the slave trade.


You've got 'Dick's' story pretty much accurate. In the last fifteen years of his life he spent his winters near Seattle. Where he died. In these latter years he was flown in with all the supplies he needed. And then some. He often invited hunters travelling on the lake in for coffee and biscuits. (And a little 'belt').


----------



## Nutz

ShootSpeeders said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Then a country like South Africa that was give a HUGE head start (first world infrastructure, society, rule of law etc) has become a crime ridden basket-case hopelessly spiraling into poverty and decay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing happened with zimbabwe (former Rhodesia).  Whites built it into a first world country and then in 1980 blacks stole it from the whites and now it has per capita GDP of $500.
> 
> It all comes down to the fact that blacks are mentally inferior and can't do technology.  They sing and dance and play sports but they don't become engineers and businessmen and scientists.  True in both africa and america.  Difference is in america, blacks are a minority and can live off the whites.
Click to expand...


Pussy


----------



## Tank

Who expects dumb people to be rich?

Just Sayin


----------



## MrMax

China had to go to Africa and show them how to grow food on a large scale because white folks are fed up with trying to help Africans who are simply too dumb to get ahead.


----------



## dannyboys

MrMax said:


> China had to go to Africa and show them how to grow food on a large scale because white folks are fed up with trying to help Africans who are simply too dumb to get ahead.


The Chinese basically own 100% of Africa's mineral resources. Never fired a shot. Just handed the local tribal chiefs/politicians a small briefcase of US thousand dollar bills. Now the Blacks are basically slaves owned by the Chinese business men.
Africa is China's satellite country now. No more overcrowding in China. Any Chinese who wants to go work for a Chinese mining company is given a free ticket.
The most important point: Every Chinese who goes to work in Africa displaces a Black.
In Chinese culture dogs are considered more important than Blacks.
Think the Chinese are going to start welfare and unemployment programs for displaced Blacks? Not likely. In a couple of decades any Black who can not survive on their own productivity will be shipped off to 'camps' to basically starve to death.
Did I mention that already Chinese mine owners are targeting Black employees who are having more than one kid? "You are now making enough money to feed yourself, your wife and one child. Have another child and your hourly wage is reduced by the amount the mine owner must pay to provide food and housing for that child. Break a leg or something and you and your lovely family are out of here on the next bus. Where you go is your problem".
Did I mention that the mine owners feed/cloth/house their employees 'on-sight'?
Sounds sort of like the cotton mill owners in the South doesn't it?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

MrMax said:


> China had to go to Africa and show them how to grow food on a large scale because white folks are fed up with trying to help Africans who are simply too dumb to get ahead.



And china will fail too.  Africans can do subsistence "farming" where they have a small garden or something like that.  But to run a 500 acre farm requires technical skills and africans don't have that.

Africa is hopeless and always will be because blacks are mentally inferior.


----------



## dannyboys

ShootSpeeders said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> China had to go to Africa and show them how to grow food on a large scale because white folks are fed up with trying to help Africans who are simply too dumb to get ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And china will fail too.  Africans can do subsistence "farming" where they have a small garden or something like that.  But to run a 500 acre farm requires technical skills and africans don't have that.
> 
> Africa is hopeless and always will be because blacks are mentally inferior.
Click to expand...

Every chinese who moves to Africa to work for a mining company is allotted a small amount of company owned land to grow a garden. Some go together to form large market gardens where the wives work while the kids are attending the company run school.
The Black's who used to habit this land are now living in scanty villages where they 'get the day in' committing violent crimes against each other and 'making babies'.
Now that the Chinese own this land there is no way as long as man lives on the earth that the Black's will ever get the land back.
In a couple of decades the Blacks will be living in scanty towns amide squalor and crime/drug infested areas the size of Maine.
Oh ya I forgot. The chinese who came to work in the mining camps will employ Black servants AKA slaves to clean the toilets in the chinese mansions while the chinese are at their offices making multi-millions.


----------

