Is Hitler the only racist left?

[rory_20_uk]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Taking slaves from Africa did not ruin the entire continent.

Indeed.

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.

[The Stranger]

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..

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

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.

[The Stranger]

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.

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.

well... they are to blame. simple fact. and so are the africans themself

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.