Org Mobile Site
Thread: Is Hitler the only racist left?
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Zimbabwe was a major exporter locally of food - not any more now of course. Better to starve under a black president than be fed under a white one I guess...
Funnily enough, people tend to like being free more than they like being oppressed.Zimbabwe was a major exporter locally of food - not any more now of course. Better to starve under a black president than be fed under a white one I guess...
Originally Posted by :
First off, minerals rarely feed anyone. Diamonds are valuable, not edible.
in this economical system minerals do feed people. indirectly. First off, minerals rarely feed anyone. Diamonds are valuable, not edible.
Originally Posted by :
Richest fishgrounds? Hardly.
i should have said one of the most richest, i dont know if its the richest...Richest fishgrounds? Hardly.
Originally Posted by :
Africa's corrupt leaders help provide resources to the rest of the world, but there is nothing that Africa has that can not be found elsewhere.
if that is true then why dont the leave africa to its problems and get the stuff elsewhere? and there is nothing (almost) in the world that cannot be found in africa (talking about natural rescourses). Africa's corrupt leaders help provide resources to the rest of the world, but there is nothing that Africa has that can not be found elsewhere.
We all know the reason africa is such a mess politically.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
in this economical system minerals do feed people. indirectly.
i should have said one of the most richest, i dont know if its the richest...
if that is true then why dont the leave africa to its problems and get the stuff elsewhere? and there is nothing (almost) in the world that cannot be found in africa (talking about natural rescourses).
We all know the reason africa is such a mess politically.
Minerals can indirectly feed people if a system exists where the minerals are extracted, and either directly or indirectly the people are paid in some form for this. In some parts of Africa the payment is in weaponry so they can continue killing each other, or to support the regiemein this economical system minerals do feed people. indirectly.
i should have said one of the most richest, i dont know if its the richest...
if that is true then why dont the leave africa to its problems and get the stuff elsewhere? and there is nothing (almost) in the world that cannot be found in africa (talking about natural rescourses).
We all know the reason africa is such a mess politically.
In many areas the West has decided not to obtain resources from Africa. Sadly, the glaring error in this thinking is twofold: China steps in and the black market steps in.
African countries seem uninterested in stopping their (fellow) dictators. South Africa has a lot of clout over Zimbabwe. Yet nothing for over 20 years.
I think that there are many reasons for Africa being in a mess.
Being an ex-colony? Many successful colonies elsewhere.
Poverty? Doesn't help, but it seems that although Nigeria should get billions from oil, the people are still poor.
Relics from the Cold War? Didn't help, but African countries manage to continue the traditions long after the sponsors left.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Funnily enough, people tend to like being free more than they like being oppressed.
What a useful observation! Funnily enough, people tend to like being free more than they like being oppressed.
But they like not dying from starvation even more.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Being an ex-colony? Many successful colonies elsewhere.
such as? the only ones i can think of (with similar colonial background) are india and brazil.. Being an ex-colony? Many successful colonies elsewhere.
which succesful colony can you name where the (best/strongest) indiginous people were taken away, where they cut tribes into pieces with imaginary boundaries, promoted strife, exploited its natural rescourses, than left taking everything of use with them and at the moment the indiginous people still reign??
australia doesnt count... america doesnt count... hongkong and singapore might be on your list but the circumstances are hardly the same to that of africa... ill applaud you if you can name 10 countries...
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
such as? the only ones i can think of (with similar colonial background) are india and brazil..
which succesful colony can you name where the (best/strongest) indiginous people were taken away, where they cut tribes into pieces with imaginary boundaries, promoted strife, exploited its natural rescourses, than left taking everything of use with them and at the moment the indiginous people still reign??
australia doesnt count... america doesnt count... hongkong and singapore might be on your list but the circumstances are hardly the same to that of africa... ill applaud you if you can name 10 countries...
First off, there's been a few decades since Independence. Surely the reasonable peoples of Africa can re-draw the boundaries.such as? the only ones i can think of (with similar colonial background) are india and brazil..
which succesful colony can you name where the (best/strongest) indiginous people were taken away, where they cut tribes into pieces with imaginary boundaries, promoted strife, exploited its natural rescourses, than left taking everything of use with them and at the moment the indiginous people still reign??
australia doesnt count... america doesnt count... hongkong and singapore might be on your list but the circumstances are hardly the same to that of africa... ill applaud you if you can name 10 countries...
Who exploited the natural resources of England? English people! Did all benefit? No, the vast majority didn't. So why treat abroad any different? Press-gangs in the ports, conscription in the countryside. Poor houses and debtors prison, and deportation. In 1880 the life expectancy was 39 years. Life in the colonies was harsh, but white, English people were dropping like flies too.
Promoted strife? Doubt it. Strife is bad for business. Most colonies were initially taken to stop the threats to trade routes.
Taking everything? Like the Indian train lines? Or the buildings? Codes of law? Language? Democracy? Hmmmm... All the mineral wealth? No? What, exactly? To be cynical, most things weren't portable to take.
Indigenous I imagine includes the Maoris who were the only persons on New Zealand mainly thanks to them killing all the others. They were so warlike that they were the only indigenous peoples to have a treaty with the British. Obviously they learnt these skills plaiting flowers...
Here area few names that come to mind:
India
UAE
Malaysia
New Zealand
Ireland
Burmuda
Egypt?
Bahrain a colony in all but name
Kuwait [protectorate]
Cyprus - the invasion was hardly the British fault.
Hong Kong and Singapore are both areas of territory that either were or are self governing. Racially both were mixed and both have done extremelly well.
Most of the Caribbean were exploited, downtrodden farms and most are doing OK.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
First off, there's been a few decades since Independence. Surely the reasonable peoples of Africa can re-draw the boundaries.
Who exploited the natural resources of England? English people! Did all benefit? No, the vast majority didn't. So why treat abroad any different? Press-gangs in the ports, conscription in the countryside. Poor houses and debtors prison, and deportation. In 1880 the life expectancy was 39 years. Life in the colonies was harsh, but white, English people were dropping like flies too.
Promoted strife? Doubt it. Strife is bad for business. Most colonies were initially taken to stop the threats to trade routes.
Taking everything? Like the Indian train lines? Or the buildings? Codes of law? Language? Democracy? Hmmmm... All the mineral wealth? No? What, exactly? To be cynical, most things weren't portable to take.
Indigenous I imagine includes the Maoris who were the only persons on New Zealand mainly thanks to them killing all the others. They were so warlike that they were the only indigenous peoples to have a treaty with the British. Obviously they learnt these skills plaiting flowers...
Here area few names that come to mind:
India
UAE
Malaysia
New Zealand
Ireland
Burmuda
Egypt?
Bahrain a colony in all but name
Kuwait [protectorate]
Cyprus - the invasion was hardly the British fault.
Hong Kong and Singapore are both areas of territory that either were or are self governing. Racially both were mixed and both have done extremelly well.
Most of the Caribbean were exploited, downtrodden farms and most are doing OK.
india i named already...First off, there's been a few decades since Independence. Surely the reasonable peoples of Africa can re-draw the boundaries.
Who exploited the natural resources of England? English people! Did all benefit? No, the vast majority didn't. So why treat abroad any different? Press-gangs in the ports, conscription in the countryside. Poor houses and debtors prison, and deportation. In 1880 the life expectancy was 39 years. Life in the colonies was harsh, but white, English people were dropping like flies too.
Promoted strife? Doubt it. Strife is bad for business. Most colonies were initially taken to stop the threats to trade routes.
Taking everything? Like the Indian train lines? Or the buildings? Codes of law? Language? Democracy? Hmmmm... All the mineral wealth? No? What, exactly? To be cynical, most things weren't portable to take.
Indigenous I imagine includes the Maoris who were the only persons on New Zealand mainly thanks to them killing all the others. They were so warlike that they were the only indigenous peoples to have a treaty with the British. Obviously they learnt these skills plaiting flowers...
Here area few names that come to mind:
India
UAE
Malaysia
New Zealand
Ireland
Burmuda
Egypt?
Bahrain a colony in all but name
Kuwait [protectorate]
Cyprus - the invasion was hardly the British fault.
Hong Kong and Singapore are both areas of territory that either were or are self governing. Racially both were mixed and both have done extremelly well.
Most of the Caribbean were exploited, downtrodden farms and most are doing OK.
Malaysia doesnt count i think, did they take slaves away?
Ireland? you got to be joking me. Besides Ireland gets huge EU support.
Egypt, can't compare again... no slaves.
Bermuda? thats a small island chain, doubt the native inhabitants still live there.
Hong kong and Singapore, I might give you those...
Caribbean? Are there still any natives left? Don't think so... And they're not doing so well...
Apart from India? Name another big country...
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Yes, in common parlance perhaps, but not in the definition provided. In effect, a democracy can and should run on "populism."
No, I am afraid you miss the point of the word 'populism'. Populism is a pejorative term. When a populist party is accused of being 'populist', their common answer to this allegation will be to insist that 'We are not populists! We simply represent the will of the people'.Yes, in common parlance perhaps, but not in the definition provided. In effect, a democracy can and should run on "populism."
Hugo Chavez is 'a populist'. By this, his critics do not mean he is a fine democrat. What is meant, is that he is a demagogue etc.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
india i named already...
Malaysia doesnt count i think, did they take slaves away?
Ireland? you got to be joking me. Besides Ireland gets huge EU support.
Egypt, can't compare again... no slaves.
Bermuda? thats a small island chain, doubt the native inhabitants still live there.
Hong kong and Singapore, I might give you those...
Caribbean? Are there still any natives left? Don't think so... And they're not doing so well...
Apart from India? Name another big country...
All those ex colonies my own included have one thing in common a properly working civil society of native people who were able to run there own affairs. Not for the first time the British leave a place and leave a working civil service to run the affairs of government.india i named already...
Malaysia doesnt count i think, did they take slaves away?
Ireland? you got to be joking me. Besides Ireland gets huge EU support.
Egypt, can't compare again... no slaves.
Bermuda? thats a small island chain, doubt the native inhabitants still live there.
Hong kong and Singapore, I might give you those...
Caribbean? Are there still any natives left? Don't think so... And they're not doing so well...
Apart from India? Name another big country...
Irelands EU support is irrelevant all of it would be wasted without a properly functioning goverment to spend any support on infrastructure.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
india i named already...
Malaysia doesnt count i think, did they take slaves away?
Ireland? you got to be joking me. Besides Ireland gets huge EU support.
Egypt, can't compare again... no slaves.
Bermuda? thats a small island chain, doubt the native inhabitants still live there.
Hong kong and Singapore, I might give you those...
Caribbean? Are there still any natives left? Don't think so... And they're not doing so well...
Apart from India? Name another big country...
In England the country has been invaded several times. Who are the Natives here? Possibly the Celts, but chances are they displaced earlier tribes. Slavery under the feudal system, followed by a man's freedom to either work or starve to death wherever he chose.india i named already...
Malaysia doesnt count i think, did they take slaves away?
Ireland? you got to be joking me. Besides Ireland gets huge EU support.
Egypt, can't compare again... no slaves.
Bermuda? thats a small island chain, doubt the native inhabitants still live there.
Hong kong and Singapore, I might give you those...
Caribbean? Are there still any natives left? Don't think so... And they're not doing so well...
Apart from India? Name another big country...
What is the big deal with Slavery? It's not something that is somehow unique to Africa. Most countries on the planet either have had or do have slavery in some form or another.
Natives in the Caribbean? So, being there for 3-400 hundred years or so doesn't count? And as for doing well, many Caribbean islands would disagree: Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada. All rubbing along. No civil wars, no begging for aid.
Most colonies were ruled by Europeans who were not native. Same as in Ireland. Ireland only recently got EU aid. It's been independent since after WW1.
Taking slaves from Africa did not ruin the entire continent. There weren't the numbers for starters, and secondly the continent did not suddenly blossom when this "yoke" was lifted. It's still a mess.
Originally Posted by Rory:
Taking slaves from Africa did not ruin the entire continent.
Indeed. Taking slaves from Africa did not ruin the entire continent.
Until well into the 19th century, there were European slaves in Africa. Although not of the same scale as Africans taken by Europeans to the Americas, some estimates put the number of Europeans enslaved to Africa during the period of Atlantic slave trade alone as high as 1.5 million.
For a millenium, Mediterannean Europeans lived in constant danger of being raided and enslaved by Africans.
In the SouthEast of Europe, the Ottoman Empire systematically enslaved Europeans. Constantinople's population usually consited of about a quarter slaves, many from the Balkans. Men for the army, women as sex slaves. This didn't end until the 20th century.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Indeed.
Until well into the 19th century, there were European slaves in north-Africa (aka the mediteranean). Although not of the same scale as Africans taken by Europeans to the Americas, some estimates put the number of Europeans enslaved to Africa during the period of Atlantic slave trade alone as high as 1.5 million.
For a millenium, Mediterannean Europeans lived in constant danger of being raided and enslaved by Africans.
In the SouthEast of Europe, the Ottoman Empire systematically enslaved Europeans. Constantinople's population usually consited of about a quarter slaves, many from the Balkans. Men for the army, women as sex slaves. This didn't end until the 20th century.
the traditional slave system was something quite different than the triangle-slave system. the latter was far more brutal and demeaning to people (as far as a slave system can get more demeaning than it is) and you are right, slave system didnt ruin the continent it did add to the problem, but the core came with the rush for colonies later on..Indeed.
Until well into the 19th century, there were European slaves in north-Africa (aka the mediteranean). Although not of the same scale as Africans taken by Europeans to the Americas, some estimates put the number of Europeans enslaved to Africa during the period of Atlantic slave trade alone as high as 1.5 million.
For a millenium, Mediterannean Europeans lived in constant danger of being raided and enslaved by Africans.
In the SouthEast of Europe, the Ottoman Empire systematically enslaved Europeans. Constantinople's population usually consited of about a quarter slaves, many from the Balkans. Men for the army, women as sex slaves. This didn't end until the 20th century.
the problem i have with your argument is that you make it seem that africa is a mess because its full of africans, and thats a fallacy... basically the situation in africa is somewhat similar to medieval europe in its early stages. im sure it will clean up.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
@Pape - West European racism is anti-Black and anti-Muslim. Only a fringe is anti-Semitic or anti- East Asians.
Roger Madsen is rather standard in that he looks down on Africa, but admires Asia.
Well that is alright then, because if it ain't aimed at me and my brood it's a-ok. @Pape - West European racism is anti-Black and anti-Muslim. Only a fringe is anti-Semitic or anti- East Asians.
Roger Madsen is rather standard in that he looks down on Africa, but admires Asia.
NOT.I'd still like to see Roger Madsen introduced to this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...il_docking.jpg
Because it ain't just for tails ya know.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Well that is alright then, because if it ain't aimed at me and my brood it's a-ok. NOT.
I'd still like to see Roger Madsen introduced to this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...il_docking.jpg
Because it ain't just for tails ya know.
Why would you make him horny? Well that is alright then, because if it ain't aimed at me and my brood it's a-ok.
NOT.I'd still like to see Roger Madsen introduced to this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...il_docking.jpg
Because it ain't just for tails ya know.
If you are a male lamb but not destined to become a Ram, you get your nuts docked in the same manner as the tail... makes breeding a might hard when your 'nads shrivel up and drop off...
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
If you are a male lamb but not destined to become a Ram, you get your nuts docked in the same manner as the tail... makes breeding a might hard when your 'nads shrivel up and drop off...
yes....I was referring to exposing Mr. Madsen to the rear ends of two lambs....If you are a male lamb but not destined to become a Ram, you get your nuts docked in the same manner as the tail... makes breeding a might hard when your 'nads shrivel up and drop off...
I won't take the consequences for what will happen next.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
the problem i have with your argument is that you make it seem that africa is a mess because its full of africans, and thats a fallacy... basically the situation in africa is somewhat similar to medieval europe in its early stages. im sure it will clean up.
Medieval Europe didn't have the option of syphoning off money to Swiss banks which allows so many African leaders to pillage countries to a level that would even make King Leopold III blush. The "cream" of European society were predominantly tied to their country. Running meant risking being used as a pawn in power games. In Africa you get a few billion and always have the option of going elsewhere. I fail to be optimistic about cleaning up. The African Union appears more keen in buttressing each other up rather than anything else.the problem i have with your argument is that you make it seem that africa is a mess because its full of africans, and thats a fallacy... basically the situation in africa is somewhat similar to medieval europe in its early stages. im sure it will clean up.
Africa is a mess because of Africans... As a postulate it is impossible to prove or disprove. It could be cultural, but strongly doubt genetic. I stick to Africa is a mess and the leaders still prefer to blame Europe for most problems.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Well that is alright then, because if it ain't aimed at me and my brood it's a-ok. NOT.
I'd still like to see Roger Madsen introduced to this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...il_docking.jpg
Oi, just describing the nature of Europe's rightwing populism for ya. It is important that Madsen said 'don't go to these African half-monkeys, go to Asia instead'. It is not coincidental. Well that is alright then, because if it ain't aimed at me and my brood it's a-ok.
NOT.I'd still like to see Roger Madsen introduced to this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...il_docking.jpg
It also helps to identify him, to know who or what he is.
He wrote his comments publicly on Facebook, about a visit from Norwegian royalty. It is very public, and would not have happened if it wasn't ubiquitous, if his thoughts weren't shared by so many of his voters. Madsen wrote it almost as an off-hand, 'common sense' comment.
If Madsen had said, say, 'don't hang out with Jews', he would've expected a lot of flak, instead of being almost surprised by it. It would also mean he would lose a lot of voters, instead of being in a government office as a member of the country's second largest party.
Racism is a contentious subject, with very many different subtexts. For example, when is the last time we heard anybody complain about Japan's 'mono-etnic' policy? If Finland doesn't want to take its share of refugees, they are considered hopeless racists. If Japan doesn't, nobody cares because their racism isn't white. It is simply accepted, taken for granted that Japan should be mono-etnic. Whereas white preferring mono-etnicity are deemed racists. The hidden subtext here is a remnant, or even lingering, idea that whites are superior. Or, more often, that white western culture is the natural standard, all other cultures variants from this standard. That is why westerners in a single breath will demand monocultural Finland to become multicultural, lest they be terrible racists, but will simultaneously deem it intolerable if mono-cultural Khoisan society should be 'destroyed' by foreign influence.
Not angry with you. I am annoyed with Mr Madsen, but the world is full of idiots who prove themselves with every word they utter. As for Japan I don't get that annoyed, its not like knee high socked school girls have taken over the internet...
Finland probably isn't the best choice of a mono-culture... after all at this festive time of year the awareness of Sami would have to be at the yearly high.
Finland probably isn't the best choice of a mono-culture... after all at this festive time of year the awareness of Sami would have to be at the yearly high.
It seems like Europe is going to the facists....again. When will you people learn politics is much less important than football?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
It seems like Europe is going to the facists....again. When will you people learn politics is much less important than football?
Aye, take a page from the Croats. It seems like Europe is going to the facists....again. When will you people learn politics is much less important than football?
Or the Brits.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Medieval Europe didn't have the option of syphoning off money to Swiss banks which allows so many African leaders to pillage countries to a level that would even make King Leopold III blush. The "cream" of European society were predominantly tied to their country. Running meant risking being used as a pawn in power games. In Africa you get a few billion and always have the option of going elsewhere. I fail to be optimistic about cleaning up. The African Union appears more keen in buttressing each other up rather than anything else.
no they did it to templar banks or other moneylenders... dont tell me they werent corrupt... at the sides the worth of money now and then is different, if you did the sums i doubt there would be a huge difference. so, in medieval countries nobles were all tied to each other, they could always find refuge in some other country and they did.Medieval Europe didn't have the option of syphoning off money to Swiss banks which allows so many African leaders to pillage countries to a level that would even make King Leopold III blush. The "cream" of European society were predominantly tied to their country. Running meant risking being used as a pawn in power games. In Africa you get a few billion and always have the option of going elsewhere. I fail to be optimistic about cleaning up. The African Union appears more keen in buttressing each other up rather than anything else.
Originally Posted by :
Africa is a mess because of Africans... As a postulate it is impossible to prove or disprove. It could be cultural, but strongly doubt genetic. I stick to Africa is a mess and the leaders still prefer to blame Europe for most problems.
in any other place/country/people/etc you would call the problem political, but because it involves africa and africans you wont say that.Africa is a mess because of Africans... As a postulate it is impossible to prove or disprove. It could be cultural, but strongly doubt genetic. I stick to Africa is a mess and the leaders still prefer to blame Europe for most problems.
well... they are to blame. simple fact. and so are the africans themself
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
no they did it to templar banks or other moneylenders... dont tell me they werent corrupt... at the sides the worth of money now and then is different, if you did the sums i doubt there would be a huge difference. so, in medieval countries nobles were all tied to each other, they could always find refuge in some other country and they did.
in any other place/country/people/etc you would call the problem political, but because it involves africa and africans you wont say that.
well... they are to blame. simple fact. and so are the africans themself
Well, the Knights didn't lend at interest, they couldn't, and the other money lenders were "only" Jews and not really secure because their own positions meant they couldn't be relied upon to hold your money for you; a bank isn't much good if a mob might come along and burn it.no they did it to templar banks or other moneylenders... dont tell me they werent corrupt... at the sides the worth of money now and then is different, if you did the sums i doubt there would be a huge difference. so, in medieval countries nobles were all tied to each other, they could always find refuge in some other country and they did.
in any other place/country/people/etc you would call the problem political, but because it involves africa and africans you wont say that.
well... they are to blame. simple fact. and so are the africans themself
Further, you completely ignore A: the Power of the Church in restraining the worst excesses of the Kings and B: the fact that most monarchs were of the same race as their vassals and saw themselves as Father Figures. What happened when a nation was invaded by another race can be seen in the economic collapse in England a generation after the Norman Conquest, when what had once been the most stable nation in Europe was brought to it's financial knees by the incompetance of it's overlords and the grasping of it's officials.
Early Medieval Europe was always about recovering the glory of Rome, of healing the damage done by your own ancestors.
Currently Africa is about blaming your former overloads for your current problems. Everywhere the Bitish went, they built an efficient Civil Service, only in Africa has this completely broken down. Look at South Africa, sliding towards chaos and ruin since the end of Apartied.
Something is very wrong in Africa, and it isn't colonialism or current Western interference.
Originally Posted by Beefy187:
I think it was tasteless thing to say as man with such an influence.
But in general, I think its only racist if the ones being offended took it seriously.
How will most africans (Central and South) even know about it?I think it was tasteless thing to say as man with such an influence.
But in general, I think its only racist if the ones being offended took it seriously.
sorry, had to take it.
but really, i think this is racist. id put him on suspension from his job, and bring him back in a few months to see if he's re-thought his views on africa.
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron:
How will most africans (Central and South) even know about it?
I don't know.... Perhaps if a bunch of africans, you know.... Lived here.... In this country... As immigrants...How will most africans (Central and South) even know about it?
Sure glad they don't though!
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO