 |
| |
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dainbramage20
Blacks arent respected in this society cause most are poorly educated at english and are driven like zombies to Consumerist-Media-Trends. Not to mention there taste in music is appauling. It wouldnt be so bad if it werent so demeaning to women.
My god, go to your local dance club and look at a 'thug' wrong. You might aswell have thrown him a middle.
He and his boys are all over you. I guess there are punks of every race under the age of 25. The problem is EVERY african american male under 25 thinks he's a punk.
Regarding the slave trade. What Nonsense. We brought them over unwillingly. Thats all that matters. We had moral Objections based on Christianity but it was powerful land-owners who brought them in and used them not everyday middle class people. I think we can all unite and agree on Blaming the Rich white people of the time. |
Actually slavery in the south happened primarily because of the introduction of rice cultivation (to S.C., IIRC)... it was a man-power intensive agriculture. Their employment in cotton and other plantations happened after this seminal event.
So, blame rice.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
Theben,
quote:
Plenty of blacks immigrate to america now. They could've come over of their own free will at a later date. |
Assuming they had the money to pay for a trip and had the desire to leave their home behind. This situation may have produced "higher quality" immigrants, yet that isn't my argument. My argument is that slavery created a situation that has led to millions of people living in America, when otherwise they probably would not have.
quote:
Is there ever a point where hatred is justified? |
No, and I have hardly argued otherwise.
quote:
Except that a lot of them don't have opportunities, and we'll never know what could have been if colonialism/slavery hadn't occurred |
Yes, there are a lot of blacks in America without significant opportunities today, yet even so, they aren't starving to death or being conscripted into local militias, as they very well might be if they were in Africa.
quote:
Africa is actually quite wealthy in resources. |
Sure, I'm quite aware of that. But resources in the ground don't mean a damn thing unless the technology and will exists to both get at and exploit those resources.
quote:
And again, immigration would allow for those people with talent to seek their fortunes in a 1st world nation. |
Absolutely, although I don't see why there wouldn't be immigration limits 
In any case, though, this would mean that a lot of people who live in America today would not, and likely would never end up living here. I'd call that quite negative, in comparison.
quote:
Degrees, my young friend. Both Brazil and Afganistan are 3rd world. Do you equate the two? |
Well, I certainly wouldn't want to live in either country
And if you are arguing that a lack of slavery would mean that some African nations might have improved to the level of Brazil, then you haven't really countered my original point that blacks are/would be better off in America than in Africa, even a Brazil-like Africa.
quote:
You proved my point b/c the corruption currently rampaging thru Africa is a direct result of post-colonial policies designed to maintain the status quo via disruption of tribal boundaries with newer defined boundaries of the state, and installment of dictatorships loyal to the former colonial power. |
I agree, yet prior to colonization tribal warfare and dictatorships were still rampant, and I very much suspect that corruption would still be a problem today.
Pax,
quote:
What positive thing did Colonization/imperialism bring to africa? |
Simple - technology and trade. If the Europeans hadn't colonized Africa, it's a pretty solid bet that the technology and infrastructure of EVERY African country would be behind where it is now.
quote:
You are right when you say that Africa was behind technologically. No argument. This lack of technology led to their enslavement and colonization. Europeans have dominated the world through learning others tech and their own inventiveness. That still does not change how this tech was used. |
No argument. Both colonization and slavery were horribly immoral. I've never argued otherwise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dainbramage20
Blacks arent respected in this society cause most are poorly educated at english and are driven like zombies to Consumerist-Media-Trends. Not to mention there taste in music is appauling. It wouldnt be so bad if it werent so demeaning to women.
My god, go to your local dance club and look at a 'thug' wrong. You might aswell have thrown him a middle.
He and his boys are all over you. I guess there are punks of every race under the age of 25. The problem is EVERY african american male under 25 thinks he's a punk.
Regarding the slave trade. What Nonsense. We brought them over unwillingly. Thats all that matters. We had moral Objections based on Christianity but it was powerful land-owners who brought them in and used them not everyday middle class people. I think we can all unite and agree on Blaming the Rich white people of the time. |
You must be kidding? You're not kidding? Okay. I was'nt a punk and my sons are not punks.
My school system pushed students through schools. I failed most classes outright. Still I was given passing grades through I imagine some qouta only the principles and the teachers know for sure. I learned almost everything from reading science fiction and history books. If was not for Robert Heinlein, I'd be screwed.
Males under 25 act pretty much the same regardless of race. Your perspective is probably different because blacks are outside your comfort zone. Believe me, I've been to a country bar. Talk about nervous and looking at people wrong.
I think that I'm going to hold not only the people who were directly involved in the slave trade responsible and hold the people who did not speak out or do something about responsible. That would be american society in general. Including Lincoln who only freed the slaves as a political move. I will however applaud the guys who outlawed the importation of more slaves if their only motivation was decency. However, My readings teach me that they were looking at statistics and the possibility of a slave results. Negros were a large part of the southern population. So, I won't give those guys any credit either. Understand, all the germans have some responsibility for the holocaust. Only babies are truly innocent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
I don't think you have a grasp on the triangle trade here. The Africans got the bad end of the deal. I'm sure we can agree on that. Everyone dealing with the Europeans except the japanese got the bad end of the deal. They were the only ones to realize the significance of the European threat to their society and adapt.
If you guys think that Africa benefited from the European administration then read some books China Achebe or Ngaio. I think the best ones to get a full reflection are the ones that Ngaio wrote. In his books he talks about how the Kenyans gained independance from the British and still nothing had changed. His books earned him an exile.
African Americans are just now starting to having equality in this country. My dad's best friend was lynched in the 60's for sleeping with a white woman. The police knew who did it an did'nt even bother to pretend to look the other way. Blacks have only been "free" for a short period of time. We have only had these benefits in my lifetime. It could easily slip away.
Oh yeah,
rap music is not all niggers and *****es. There are rap songs that take on a variety of political, social, and economic issues. One of my favorites new world water.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Pax isn't that bad. |
what's a trolling dl?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theben
|
 |
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Assuming they had the money to pay for a trip and had the desire to leave their home behind. This situation may have produced "higher quality" immigrants, yet that isn't my argument. My argument is that slavery created a situation that has led to millions of people living in America, when otherwise they probably would not have. |
No argument here. It's a given.
quote:
No, and I have hardly argued otherwise. |
I never said you did. But some have implied that blacks 'in general' hate whites, whereas I don't believe that's true (some do, I'm sure).
quote:
Yes, there are a lot of blacks in America without significant opportunities today, yet even so, they aren't starving to death or being conscripted into local militias, as they very well might be if they were in Africa. |
This is a possibility. But they might not as well. You don't know, and we'll never know the 'what ifs'.
quote:
Sure, I'm quite aware of that. But resources in the ground don't mean a damn thing unless the technology and will exists to both get at and exploit those resources. |
As Pax said, at some point European technology and influence was destined to occur. It's the historical manner in which it did occur that underlines the issue.
quote:
In any case, though, this would mean that a lot of people who live in America today would not, and likely would never end up living here. I'd call that quite negative, in comparison. |
This would be the main point of disagreement. Are you saying the ends justify the means? B/c millionsof people died, often under brutal conditions, just so a few million more could live in the U.S. today. That's not too far from saying the jews are better off b/c of the holocaust, since it resulted in the creation of Israel. And had colonialism been different- such as merely an exchange of goods w/o coercion- it's could have been possible for africa, or parts of it, to make the leap to a 1st world nation. Look at Japan. Yes, there are many cultural differences but Japan was a backward nation in 1853. So it's possible that these people would be alive, in decent living conditions, and not be considered an 'inferior' group by many (including most europeans not too long ago). I say the costs of slavery outweigh the benefits on a considerable scale.
quote:
Well, I certainly wouldn't want to live in either country |
I'm sure there are plenty of cities in Brazil where you could live comfortably. Probably not in Afganistan.
quote:
And if you are arguing that a lack of slavery would mean that some African nations might have improved to the level of Brazil, then you haven't really countered my original point that blacks are/would be better off in America than in Africa, even a Brazil-like Africa. |
Some blacks are. Some others may have been. Again, imigration. The ones who would be successful would be well off enough to immigrate, if they wanted to. Plus many more would be alive, and being alive is always a +.
quote:
I agree, yet prior to colonization tribal warfare and dictatorships were still rampant, and I very much suspect that corruption would still be a problem today. |
Perhaps. But it wouldn't have been artificially maintained, at least by european powers. Again, what if.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
I only joined in Feb 2003, but I had been coming to site for a lot longer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
Theben,
quote:
This is a possibility. But they might not as well. You don't know, and we'll never know the 'what ifs'. |
I do know that the odds of them being better off in Africa than here are not very good. Sure, you can probably find a few individual circumstances if you were omniscient, but I don't have to be omniscient to tell you that on the whole, blacks are better off here than in Africa.
quote:
As Pax said, at some point European technology and influence was destined to occur. It's the historical manner in which it did occur that underlines the issue. |
OK, but as I recall the original point along this line of discussion was that Africa had no chance of catching up with Europe, precisely because of its lack of technology and its failure to exploit resources.
quote:
This would be the main point of disagreement. Are you saying the ends justify the means? |
Certainly not. Slavery was immoral no matter what the outcome. I think it's just a bit hypocritical for blacks today to be angry about slavery, when they are better off because of it. An evil "means" led to a good "end", in this case, yet I don't maintain that because of that, slavery was positive.
quote:
That's not too far from saying the jews are better off b/c of the holocaust, since it resulted in the creation of Israel. |
That is a somewhat different scenario, however, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that without the Holocaust, Israel wouldn't have been created when it was created. Probably would have been later, though.
quote:
And had colonialism been different- such as merely an exchange of goods w/o coercion- it's could have been possible for africa, or parts of it, to make the leap to a 1st world nation. |
On the other hand, the most developed nation in Africa, South Africa, arrived at that level despite colonization and apartheid. Interestingly enough, South Africa is also probably the richest country, resource-wise, in South Africa, and those in control of it were able to properly exploit its resources. Would this have been done without colonialism? I seriously doubt it.
quote:
Look at Japan. Yes, there are many cultural differences but Japan was a backward nation in 1853. |
True, but Japan hardly became a 1st World nation without coercion. It was coerced into trade concessions, the pro-Westerner Japanese coerced the Japanese samurai and peasants into going along with them and industrializing, and the new Japanese nation as a whole coerced other nations through wars - in fact, it was considered a first rate power for the first time after it won a war with Russia.
quote:
I'm sure there are plenty of cities in Brazil where you could live comfortably. Probably not in Afganistan. |
I bet that I couldn't live as comfortably in Brazil as I do here, or anywhere close to it, without being one of the richest people in Brazil. Put another way, the vast majority of Brazilians do not live in a way we would consider comfortable. I hardly think that just because it is within the bare realm of possibility to live well in Brazil makes Brazil a good country to live in.
As for Afghanistan, I'd live pretty decent on a US military installation
quote:
Some blacks are. Some others may have been. Again, imigration. The ones who would be successful would be well off enough to immigrate, if they wanted to. |
To me, this is positive. I don't want immigrants with no drive to succeed. On the other hand, just living in the US, whether or not you are successful by US standards, would count as a positive for just about anyone in the Third World.
quote:
Plus many more would be alive, and being alive is always a +. |
Assuming they didn't starve to death, die from disease, get killed in a tribal war, be enslaved in Africa, or something else equally unpleasant.
quote:
Perhaps. But it wouldn't have been artificially maintained, at least by european powers. |
No, they would have artificially maintained their own dictatorships and wars
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
The cows that make the milk are better off than cows that could chopped up for meat and leather.
These milk cows should not complain
The same with the chickens that lay eggs. would you prefer to have your head cutoff stupid chicken.
My argument on this issue and it seems most others comes down to self determination. The Europeans took the right of self determination from Africa and anyone descended from africa. If given a choice I would will that Europe was never able to collect slaves or colonize Africa. The word nigger would not be a topic for discussion.
The Europeans set up a system where the resources of the world flowed into Europe. Today, any resources Africa has available pretty much follow the same path. had the Europeans set up a fair trade for the receive things really would be different. It's not human nature to giive a fair deal when you can get over so the Europeans did not. I don't blame them though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
Pax, that's fine, as long as you recognize the consequences of reversing history would most likely result in you and millions of others never being able to live in the US, and as a result, the vast majority would be worse off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Actually,
I never would have been born.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Pax, that's fine, as long as you recognize the consequences of reversing history would most likely result in you and millions of others never being able to live in the US, and as a result, the vast majority would be worse off. |
Without African labor or some other labor to replace it america would be a very different country as well. maybe more people would have been used as labor and less as soldiers. Then possibly the indians could have held off long enough to become strong enough to defeat the U.S. or england. Maybe mexico would have been able to hold on to the territories that were lost in the mexican american war. The dutch would not be so well off possibly annexed by france or germany. All kinds of possibilities open up
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
Pax, come on. The absence of slaves in the southern US would not have been enough to save the Indians or the Mexicans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Growth of South Carolina's slave population
South Carolina had a clear black majority from about 1708 through most of the eighteenth century. By 1720 there were approximately 18,000 people living in South Carolina – and 65% of these were African-Americans slaves. For example, in St James Goose Creek, a parish just north of Charles Towne, there were 535 whites and 2,027 black slaves.
The following tables and the graph below them show how South Carolina's slave population grew to match the success of its rice culture. Whereas in 1790 there were slightly more whites than blacks living in South Carolina, by 1860 the black population had grown to more than double that of the white.
1790
White Black
140,178 108,895
1820
White Black
237,440 265,301
1840
White Black
259,084 335,314
1860
White Black
291,300 412,320
That's just south carolina.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
Fine, but the size of the US military, even during the Mexican-American War, was somewhere on the order of 30,000, IIRC. Not really big enough to be a burden on the population. And in peacetime, and in the Indian Wars, it was much smaller.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
The lack of slaves would have been the burden. It's harder to spare 30,000 men when you just don't have 30,000. Also the U.S. would need the money that these slaves would have produced for food, clothing, and bullets. It's harder to make war when everybodies needed on the farm.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
But you forget that the northern states, which were generally more populous, were not agricultural or dependant upon slaves.
Are you asserting that without slavery, the US could not have fielded an army big enough to defeat the Indians?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-03-2004 08:07
|