NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0802/postcard_maringa_0213.jpg

Le Blanc and I are into our 500th kilometer on the river when he turns my view of modern African history on its head. "We should just give it all back to the whites," the riverboat captain says. "Even if you go 1,000 kilometers down this river, you won't see a single sign of development. When the whites left, we didn't just stay where we were. We went backwards."

Le Blanc earns his keep sailing the tributaries of the Congo River. He's 40 years old, and his real name is Malu-Ebonga Charles — he got his nickname, and his green eyes and dark honey skin, from a German grandfather who married a Congolese woman in what was then the Belgian Congo. If his unconventional genealogy gave him a unique view of the Congo's colonial past, it is his job on the river, piloting three dugouts lashed together with twine and mounted with outboards, that has informed his opinion of the Democratic Republic of Congo's present. "The river is the artery of Congo's economy," he says. "When the Belgians and the Portuguese were here, there were farms and plantations — cashews, peanuts, rubber, palm oil. There was industry and factories employing 3,000 people, 5,000 people. But since independence, no Congolese has succeeded. The plantations are abandoned." Using a French expression literally translated as "on the ground," he adds: "Everything is par terre."

It's true that our journey through 643 kilometers of rainforest to where the Maringa River joins the Congo at Mbandaka, has been an exploration of decline. An abandoned tugboat here; there, a beached paddle steamer stripped of its metal sides to a rusted skeleton; several abandoned palm oil factories, their roofs caved in, their walls disappearing into the engulfing forest, their giant storage tanks empty and rusted out. The palms now grow wild and untended on the riverbanks and in the villages we pass, the people dress in rags, hawk smoked blackfish and bushmeat, and besiege us with requests for salt or soap. There are no schools here, no clinics, no electricity, no roads. It can take a year for basic necessities ordered from the capital, Kinshasa, nearly 2,000 kilometers downstream, to make it here — if they make it at all. At one point we pass a cargo barge that has taken three months to travel the same distance we will cover in two days. We stop in the hope of buying some gasoline, but all we get from the vessel are rats.

Even amid the morbid decay, it comes as a shock to hear Le Blanc mourn colonialism. The venal, racist scramble by Europeans to possess Africa and exploit its resources found its fullest expression in the Congo. In the late 19th century, Belgium's King Leopold made a personal fiefdom of the central African territory as large as all of Western Europe. From it, he extracted a fortune in ivory, rubber, coffee, cocoa, palm oil and minerals such as gold and diamonds. Unruly laborers working in conditions of de facto slavery had their hands chopped off; the cruelty of Belgian rule was premised on the idea that Congo and its peoples were a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible. Leopold's absentee brutality set the tone for those that followed him in ruling the Congo — successive Belgian governments and even the independent government of Mobutu Sese Seko, who ruled from 1965 to 1997 and who, in a crowded field, still sets the standard for repression and corruption among African despots.

Le Blanc isn't much concerned with that history; he lives in the present, in a country where education is a luxury and death is everywhere. Around 45,000 people die each month in the DRC as a result of the social collapse brought on by civil war, according to a study released in January by the International Rescue Committee. It estimated the total loss of life between 1998 and April 2007 at 5.4 million. For many Congolese like Le Blanc, the difficulties of today blot out the cruelties of the past. "On this river, all that you see — the buildings, the boats — only whites did that. After the whites left, the Congolese did not work. We did not know how to. For the past 50 years, we've just declined." He pauses. "They took this country by force," he says, with more than a touch of admiration. "If they came back, this time we'd give them the country for free."

Wow...just wow. Really interesting article by TIME

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html

Comments?

Indeed. Though of course, my shock is in how blatantly racist you are, while yours is in thinking now that TIME is as racist as you are.
Off topic trolling/thread jacking will be reported. This has nothing to do with the thread.

Get back on topic or get out.

Wow, racist poll.

Off topic trolling/thread jacking will be reported. This has nothing to do with the thread.

Get back on topic or get out.

Seems perfectly topical to me.

Wow...just wow.

Indeed. Though of course, my shock is in how blatantly racist you are, while yours is in thinking now that TIME is as racist as you are.

I think I'm going to need more than one guys musing of how happy things where when the Congo belonged to one tyrant rather than many...

edit: looking at the poll question

No, the last thing the Congo needs is another set of thugs dicking about killing everyone

Wow, racist poll.
Deal with it.

The article is describing this as a racial issue, which involves racial politics, which would then involve racially related discussion of the racial issue, which could then inspire the offshoot of a racially-based poll.

Just because you don't want to personally discuss race doesn't mean it's a non-issue elsewhere and here it's obviously not a non-issue, as the article says.

So like I said,

DEAL.

I think I'm going to need more than one guys musing of how happy things where when the Congo belonged to one tyrant rather than many...
Fairly put, but if you notice the article makes mention of the overall stagnation and regression of the economy, industry and services of The Congo....and not just what one guy feels.

Look, we all know AI is a racist.

He even freely admits it (or never denies it anyway).

Why do we need to discuss such topics if it only degenerates into "black people can't rule themselves" , "Yes they can" debates.

i dont think that one guy who never lived under colonial rule counts as "all is forgiven"

So time magazine managed to find one guy to talk about colonialism with rose colored glasses and TAL comes trotting along with his usual racist tripe and barely contained "see, those darkies need us" and we're supposed to act surprised?

Off topic

Your obvious and clear racist bias is not only on-topic, it is the sole reason for this topic.

trolling/thread jacking will be reported.

I hope so.


Get back on topic or get out.

OK, back on topic - you're a racist.

Case closed! ;)

You should've said European instead of white. A subtle but important difference. I think it would help the Congo, as long as the European overlords remain committed to humanitarian development. Which, historically, they haven't been...

But then again, DR Congo is in such a shit hole, almost anything would help them. I read somewhere, DR Congo is the only nation in the world to de-industrialize and revert to a previous economic stage of development.

I didn't say anything, I just posted the article, not write it.

It used White instead of European. Anyway, it's not like the word "White" is a bad word...and if there are some PC people that crazy to believe it is, I couldn't shit the amount of shit that I don't give about what they think.:rolleyes:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0802/postcard_maringa_0213.jpg



Wow...just wow. Really interesting article by TIME

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html

Comments?

You should've said European instead of white. A subtle but important difference. I think it would help the Congo, as long as the European overlords remain committed to humanitarian development. Which, historically, they haven't been...

But then again, DR Congo is in such a shit hole, almost anything would help them. I read somewhere, DR Congo is the only nation in the world to de-industrialize and revert to a previous economic stage of development.

Look, we all know AI is a racist.

He even freely admits it (or never denies it anyway).

Why do we need to discuss such topics if it only degenerates into "black people can't rule themselves" , "Yes they can" debates.

Well, I do believe that they can rule themselves, but you have to admit, there is very little current evidence to support that.

Fairly put, but if you notice the article makes mention of the overall stagnation and regression of the economy, industry and services of The Congo....and not just what one guy feels.

I'm not really surprised considering the nations glorious history

the nation is stuck in an endless cycle of self destruction with rapists offspring being quickly stolen by rebels/militias or if they happen to be really unlucky they will get involved with the growing child anti-Christian affair (which isn't some atheist army more choosing to side with evil spirits because their God seems to be absent)

the sudden appearance of white ghost like people in shiny uniforms will not help affairs especially if they happen to be stereotypical American troops

But then again, DR Congo is in such a shit hole, almost anything would help them. I read somewhere, DR Congo is the only nation in the world to de-industrialize and revert to a previous economic stage of development.

it sucks to have diamonds everywhere you dig, especially if said diamonds are in "rebel" territory (more like gang rapist land)

Well, I do believe that they can rule themselves, but you have to admit, there is very little current evidence to support that.

There are just as many fucked up countries run by "whites" as there are run by "blacks".

Way to pigeon hole the human race into a black/white colour scheme.

And what are the qualifiers for this anyway?
War?
Economic stagnation?
Corruption?
GDP?
Democracy?

It's a bullshit and fundamentally flawed argument because the very premise is bullshit and flawed.

Fairly put, but if you notice the article makes mention of the overall stagnation and regression of the economy, industry and services of The Congo....and not just what one guy feels.

Oh, there's economic stagnation - clearly a sign that White Rulers are needed. Economy goes to shit, that's what happens when dark-complexioned people are in charge, right? I mean you believe "Eurabia" will have a crappy economy, do you not? Of course you do.

In before the lock.

We can rule ourselves, thank you very much.

But setting that aside, some of my thoughts about colonialism. Colonialism isn't all that bad. Don't get me wrong, I live in a country colonized for 400 years by Spain and 50 years by America (oh, and the Brits for 7 years... partially). Though I can say that indeed, there are many negative things that colonialism can bring (that I will not discuss, as probably everyone one of you know about it, slavery, servitude, racism, being treated as second-class people, brutalities, etc...), colonialism does have some positive impact. For example here, the American administration established universities, hospitals, and tried to prepare the country for self-governance (can't say if they were successful, though). The Spanish occupation brought with it the alphabet (though in the process eliminating our old one), religion (please do not comment on this one), contact with Europe (though we had contact with other countries in the region), and perhaps some semblance of unity. (As for them Brits... they raped our nuns.)

However, I do not believe that colonialism is the way to go. There are other ways of pursuing development without resorting to colonialism and all the evil it can bring.

And you know, everyone, white, black, brown, yellow, green, or blue, can be just as corrupt. You cannot be more corrupt or less corrupt just because you have a certain skin color. The problem is, certain countries are willing to prop up corrupt rulers of other countries...

I didn't say anything, I just posted the article, not write it.

It used White instead of European. Anyway, it's not like the word "White" is a bad word...and if there are some PC people that crazy to believe it is, I couldn't shit the amount of shit that I don't give about what they think.:rolleyes:

No, but it context, it strongly implies a racist opinion.

I didn't say anything, I just posted the article, not write it.

Ahh, so you do know it's against forum rules to post an article without commentary of your own right? If you were so eager to report to moderation, why don't you report your own little rules violation?

By success, I'm mean a decent level of economic prosperity, relative equality, and a decent government, among other factors.

Name me a country that within 40 years of gaining it's independence, has stood on its own two feet and become economically prosperous to the equivalent of a Western European or North American state - without aid from another.

Equality in relation to what? Most Middle Eastern states have deplorable conditions of equality.

Define 'decent government'. Effective at ruling, money management, lack of corruption? What?

That's my point. This OP has no qualifiers to make such a sweeping a broad statement.

Ahh, so you do know it's against forum rules to post an article without commentary of your own right? If you were so eager to report to moderation, why don't you report your own little rules violation?
1. I did comment. I said that it's interesting and created a poll to see how people feel about it.

2. That's not what we meant. He was talking about using "White" isntead of "European" which I said I did because the article did....

There are just as many fucked up countries run by "whites" as there are run by "blacks".

Way to pigeon hole the human race into a black/white colour scheme.

And what are the qualifiers for this anyway?
War?
Economic stagnation?
Corruption?
GDP?
Democracy?

It's a bullshit and fundamentally flawed argument because the very premise is bullshit and flawed.

Yes, that's true, but there are very few countries run by a majority of those of African descent that are successes, including those in the Caribbean, while the same can't be said by those countries run by a majority of those of European descent.

By success, I'm mean a decent level of economic prosperity, relative equality, and a decent government, among other factors.

Deal with it.

The article is describing this as a racial issue, which involves racial politics, which would then involve racially related discussion of the racial issue, which could then inspire the offshoot of a racially-based poll.

Just because you don't want to personally discuss race doesn't mean it's a non-issue elsewhere and here it's obviously not a non-issue, as the article says.

So like I said,

DEAL.

I agree with you about this thread and poll, they are not racist. The whiners most likly self-hating white's or reverse racist minorities. But, even though this thread isnt racist, they might be right about you being racist....:confused:

... Hmmm, no. I believe that problems like these exists because of the prior colonization in the first place.

Wow, Im going to keep a link to this thread, so next time TAI gets his panties in a knot over being called a racist, I can just link it.


Anyway, on topic, no, white rule would not help this country, it already had Europian rule, and that was how it got to be in such bad shape.

Fairly put, but if you notice the article makes mention of the overall stagnation and regression of the economy, industry and services of The Congo....and not just what one guy feels.

true, but one also has to look at the cause.

when the 'whites' turned things back over to the Congolese, did they train them in the maintenance of the equiptment and their economy?

Remember, even the article states that the Congolese were kept in slave-like conditions.

if they were freed but not given the training, nor the system to keep their economy/technology/education going, then of course, there will be a regression and stagnation.

these people lived without salt and soap (or were able to make/find their own) and now they have to beg for it? that speaks more of the effect of Colonialism and the sudden abandonment of the people more than the effects of Colonialism itself

I said no and I am white (100% Island of Great Britain ancestry... cannot get much whiter than that)

I say no, not because I think we could not do a better job than they have. Far from it. Petty tribalism has not helped Africa at all. It is incapable of the development of anything approaching a Rule of Law, at least semi-rules oriented society.

The question would be better served by who? The French supported the Hutu genocide. The British committed it against the Boers.

I am against it because we have no 'white man's burden' to shoulder. I would not help them if I could. Our beneficience even now makes them dependent on us.

We would serve them best if we simply stopped trading with any who behave in a way we find unacceptable. And for you folks already poised to label me ethnocentric and racist, I would have no truck with genocidal nations or nations run by warlords.

What gives us the right?

Nuremberg, 1945

We tried those who started, promulgated and abetted the greatest single crime in human history. And it was a fair trial. The British, Russians and French wanted a show trial followed by plenty of executions. But the US insisted that it was fair or it meant nothing

In the end, kicking and screaming, the world eventually did the right thing for the right reason.

Since then, there have been grave wrongs committed when something should have been done. But that is an error or omission.

The UN itself was born from this. An effort to make things work right. The fact that that body has evolved into an old boys club of petty African thusg, Chinese puppets and European bureaucrats does not detract from its wondrous birth.

And to not be a complete hypocrite, I resign from our little UN

It seems to be cut whole from the same cloth; doing nothing, taking time and exploring meaningless minutia

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0802/postcard_maringa_0213.jpg



Wow...just wow. Really interesting article by TIME

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html

Comments?

I'm pretty sure anyone would want help if their country was in trouble. No wonder the guy would say that.
Sure they need help, but not foreign governance. Foreign governance was how the country fell apart to begin with.

What's your opinion of this Atlantian Islands?
Your poll doesn't have an other option.

Name me a country that within 40 years of gaining it's independence, has stood on its own two feet and become economically prosperous to the equivalent of a Western European or North American state - without aid from another.

Equality in relation to what? Most Middle Eastern states have deplorable conditions of equality.

Define 'decent government'. Effective at ruling, money management, lack of corruption? What?

That's my point. This OP has no qualifiers to make such a sweeping a broad statement.

The United States was "standing on its own two feet" 40 years after its independence. As was Canada and Australia. And Hong Kong's seemed to have done pretty well in the 10 years since decolonization.

The United States was "standing on its own two feet" 40 years after its independence. As was Canada and Australia. And Hong Kong's seemed to have done pretty well in the 10 years since decolonization.

And Singapore

The United States was "standing on its own two feet" 40 years after its independence. As was Canada and Australia. And Hong Kong's seemed to have done pretty well in the 10 years since decolonization.
And the United States after 40 years was equatable to Germany, the United Kingdom, France or Spain - world powers?

No, it wasn't.

Canada and Australia.... are dominions of the British Commonwealth.

Israel? Hong Kong? Estonia? Hungary? Iceland? Finland?

Israel gets how much from the United States every year? Yeh, see the whole "on its own to feet" part of the question.

Hong Kong is part of China.
Iceland and Finland were world powers 40 years after achieving independence? Riiiiiiight.

The United States was "standing on its own two feet" 40 years after its independence. As was Canada and Australia. And Hong Kong's seemed to have done pretty well in the 10 years since decolonization.
Israel? Hong Kong? Estonia? Hungary? Iceland? Finland?

The United States was "standing on its own two feet" 40 years after its independence. As was Canada and Australia. And Hong Kong's seemed to have done pretty well in the 10 years since decolonization.

The United States, Canada and Australia,... do they have indigenous people running the top level government? Hong Kong,... that's not decolonized, it's just returned.

I'm pretty sure anyone would want help if their country was in trouble. No wonder the guy would say that.
Sure they need help, but not foreign governance. Foreign governance was how the country fell apart to begin with.

What's your opinion of this Atlantian Islands?
Your poll doesn't have an other option.
Well that's just foreign AID, which we do now but because of their corrupt governments, it doesn't actually get to the country/people/industry/infrastrucutre.....

In my opinion that kind of AIDs doesn't really help.

I don't like other options, it sorta kills the purpose of the poll, in my opinion.

The United States was "standing on its own two feet" 40 years after its independence. As was Canada and Australia. And Hong Kong's seemed to have done pretty well in the 10 years since decolonization.And why? Because the former colonial power set up a viable infrastructure and a European-style civilized society.

So-called white rule contributed nothing to Africa. Africa was farmed and mined of it's resources and those resources were shipped away for manufacture. The infrastructure for economic and industrial self reliance was never built. Schools were never built(except by christian missionaries with ulterior motives). Ethnic and tribal conflict was squashed with favoritism and military force, not with education and understanding. When these colonies were cut loose, they were cut loose with nothing. No schools, no universities, no factories, no free thinkers. Leadership filled the vacuum left by brutal oppressive white leaders by becoming equally brutal oppressive black leaders without the force of a european nation to back up their threats.

Africa would have been better off if it had been left alone to begin with. You expect me to believe that more of what destroyed Africa is what Africa needs more of?

I call bullshit.

Israel? Hong Kong? Estonia? Hungary? Iceland? Finland?what??

The United States, Canada and Australia,... do they have indigenous people running the top level government? Hong Kong,... that's not decolonized, it's just returned.

Unless the British are still ruling Hong Kong in secret, it's decolonized. And your comment about indigenous people isn't very relevant. Yes, it indicates a terrible racist past in the these countries, particularly the US, but the original question was, "Are there any countries that stood on their own two feet after 40 years". The US, Canada, and Australia were all standing on their own two feet and prospering.

As far as the US is concerned the indigenous people were never incorporated into the colonies more often being killed or pushed out of the "colonized" regions. From the sounds of this the Congolese were part of the colonies working with or beneath the colonists. When British rule was lifted from the New England colonies they had already established themselves in order to orchestrate a rebellion. But being of the same origin as the former oppressors were well prepared for the upkeep of the formerly British society. I believe much the same can be said for Australia as the colonies there were British prisons.

All of that being said the circumstances of the colonization seem fundamentally different from that of Congo. The difference being that it was only more Europeans running European cities and towns outside of the European continent and not natives living under European rule before being cut loose with the remnants of the pseudo-European towns.

For the Poll, I said No. I believe that Caucasians (Europeans/Americans/etc) or really any other race could do a better job of running Congo by the credit of their race alone. They may require significant aid or maybe even complete assimilation into a more wealthy nation that has the means to restore their infrastructure and train the locals to aid in the restoration process. I could draw a contrast to add insight, but I believe it was derail this debate, and so I'll digress.

The United States, Canada and Australia,... do they have indigenous people running the top level government? Hong Kong,... that's not decolonized, it's just returned.

Define Indigenous people.

and did those indigenous people, according to your definition, fight for and achieve their country's independance?

The United States was "standing on its own two feet" 40 years after its independence. As was Canada and Australia.

Yeah, let's as the native populations how well that went.

Africa would have been better off if it had been left alone to begin with.I doubt that. I suppose Africa would be exactly what it is now. A chaos of tribal idiocy and despotism.

It still received independence

No it didn't. Hong Kong is ruled by china.

I would consider a country leaving domination of a foreign power and joining a country with which they are ethnically, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous as independence.

And I consider you a barn swallow.

See, I can entirely change the definition of words too!

Yeah, let's as the native populations how well that went.

yep, how dare that those native populations who fought and suceeded in getting their country's freedoms are ignored in their own government.

Yeah, let's as the native populations how well that went.

I'm sure they'll say "Come back, colonialism. All is forgiven! Love, XOXOXOXO."

1. The Congo is in a shit state now.
2. The Congo was in a less shit/not shit state before.
3. Therefore, if the Congo is to be less shit/not shit again it must be run by people of the same race as when it was less shit/not shit.


Wait, what?

No, but it wasn't a failed state either. I believe your original question was whether the country "stood on it's own two feet", not whether the country had achieved superpower status.
No one is talking about being a failed state - and regardless, the DR Congo is not a failed state.
My original question was this:

Name me a country that within 40 years of gaining it's independence, has stood on its own two feet and become economically prosperous to the equivalent of a Western European or North American state - without aid from another.

Become economically prosperous to the equivalent..... Now, the United States after 40 years was not economically prosperous to the equivalent of other Western European powers.

"On it's own two feet" relates to receiving aid or budgetary funding from another state - a la Israel.


They are very much independent. I think if the Queen took an active role in governing them, then there would be riots.
What was the date of their independence?


It still received independence and is still doing very well. I would consider a country leaving domination of a foreign power and joining a country with which they are ethnically, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous as independence.

You're calling Hong Kong independent....but you're also saying it's part of the People's Republic of China.... but it's independent. Which is it? If it's part of the PRC then it's merely a city in China.

And the United States after 40 years was equatable to Germany, the United Kingdom, France or Spain - world powers?

No, but it wasn't a failed state either. I believe your original question was whether the country "stood on it's own two feet", not whether the country had achieved superpower status.


Canada and Australia.... are dominions of the British Commonwealth.

They are very much independent. I think if the Queen took an active role in governing them, then there would be riots.

Hong Kong is part of China.

It still received independence and is still doing very well. I would consider a country leaving domination of a foreign power and joining a country with which they are ethnically, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous as independence.

It still received independence and is still doing very well. I would consider a country leaving domination of a foreign power and joining a country with which they are ethnically, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous as independence.Even though the population would have preferred to remain a British colony instead of being ruled by China? They had more independence, or autonomy, as a British colony than they have now.

1. The Congo is in a shit state now.
2. The Congo was in a less shit/not shit state before.
3. Therefore, if the Congo is to be less shit/not shit again it must be run by people of the same race as when it was less shit/not shit.


Wait, what?Well, what's best for the population?

yep, how dare that those native populations who fought and suceeded in getting their country's freedoms are ignored in their own government.

Well, the squeaky wheel gets force-marched hundreds of miles from it's home to a place out of the way of the nation-builders. At least until such a time as those nation builders need more nation to build. Then they just have a land rush, take it's new home(except for a square mile or two) and use the army to make sure it stays there.

European African Colonies' biggest mistake was using indigenous people as ultra-cheap manual labor instead of just replacing them with more europeans. :p

Comments?

Hmmmm, I'd say selectively quoted out of context race-baiting spam by a 'usual suspect'.

HOWEVER - if you really want to go and take up the 'white mans burden' please don't let me stop you.

Irrational racist policies are clearly not.Why would a colonial rule, or say UN rule, necessarily be irrational?

B- the US had standards of living that were similar, if not better than Europe 40 years after it's independence. Especially on the East Coast. That's not really the case anymore, but it used to be. Their level of economic prosperity was similar, and if Europe was outproducing the states, it was because of the sheer numbers Europe possessed.

C- What gets a lot of people about Africa is not that they aren't comparable to the first world 40 years after independence, it's that they've regressed, gotten worse, and show no signs of improvement. India and the Middle East may not be the best places to live, but they haven't regressed like Africa, and they do show signs of a promising future.

Of course you can't compare them. THe 13 colonies were set up economically to be profitable. The african colonies were not. THe infrastructure left behind by the europeans was radically diferent in each circumstance.


Unless the British are still ruling Hong Kong in secret, it's decolonized. And your comment about indigenous people isn't very relevant. Yes, it indicates a terrible racist past in the these countries, particularly the US, but the original question was, "Are there any countries that stood on their own two feet after 40 years". The US, Canada, and Australia were all standing on their own two feet and prospering.

We're talking about the Congolese right? Can we agree that they're natives, because the context of the topic is "bring back the whites"? If yes, then it is relevant because the US, Canada and Australia, aren't suited the poster child for how bad imperialism is. Well then, you should have gone with Singapore, Malaysia or India for that matter.

Hong Kong, is still under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, ensuring that the previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years from 1997. Until then, I'd say it's still under the process of decolonization.

Define Indigenous people.

and did those indigenous people, according to your definition, fight for and achieve their country's independance?

Indigenous people, natives... oh yeah, I forgot, it has been debated in this forums on what is actually a "native". So in this case, the term indigenous means pre-colonization people who lived in said area.

In the case of the United States, the colonists themselves fought for the freedom from the "homeland". Canada and Australia, are independent from "homeland", still holds the British monarchs as their head of state.

Okay so, now we have colonists who are independent from their country of origin, this opens up a new debate on "whose independence is it anyways?", the aboriginals or the colonists?

Well, what's best for the population?

Irrational racist policies are clearly not.

in fact, let me post something I posted in another thread:

[The 13 American colonies] had build in infrastructure left by the europeans. They had the schools, the colleges, the manufacturing plants. The US, even as a colonial territory, was still fairly independant, and self contained. Boston and New York were, even during colonial periods, major shipping ports that bought and sold goods across the world. The way the Europeans made their money through the american colonies was through a system of taxation. Boston Philladelphia and New York were, at the time, just as advanced as London.

When the european colonial powers left, they left everything behind, including a fairly functional and interconnected economy.

The problem is, the african economies were never ment to be self sustaining. They were never intended to allow for a nation to prosper. They were never intended to They were build for the sole purpose of feeding the parent nations. The infrastructure was designed to do one thing and one thing only. Strip raw materials and send them to the european parent nations. There was no educational infrastructure, no manufacturing capabilities, no refining capabilities, just the ability to extract raw materials and bring them to europe.

Unlike in the US where the europeans built a fairly functional economy and then taxed it, Africa was designed to drain resources into Europe where they were refined. And when europe left, that's all that remained. And the problem with an economy that's built entirely on exporting raw materials and importing manufactured and finished goods is that you inherently run at a deficit when you try to do that.

The US colonies, even during colonization, were capable of managing an economy at a profit. They had to, that's how the British made money on those colonies, they taxed them.

The african colonies on the other hand were managed under an entirely different philosophy. They weren't a profit generating economy that was taxed, and they were never intended to be so. They were designed, intentionally, to run at an incredible loss, because their natural resources were funneled out of the continent and into Europe, leaving them dependant on europe for finished products.

the DR Congo is not a failed state.
Yes, yes it is.

@ The OP

That's just one person's view on the subject. In some cases, colonial rule was probably better, in others, not at all. That's how things are in such cases.

No one is talking about being a failed state - and regardless, the DR Congo is not a failed state.
My original question was this:

Name me a country that within 40 years of gaining it's independence, has stood on its own two feet and become economically prosperous to the equivalent of a Western European or North American state - without aid from another.

Become economically prosperous to the equivalent..... Now, the United States after 40 years was not economically prosperous to the equivalent of other Western European powers.

"On it's own two feet" relates to receiving aid or budgetary funding from another state - a la Israel.



What was the date of their independence?




You're calling Hong Kong independent....but you're also saying it's part of the People's Republic of China.... but it's independent. Which is it? If it's part of the PRC then it's merely a city in China.

A- DR Congo is a failed state. The Kinshasa gov't only has power over the immediate region. Much of the country is more under the control of neighboring nations. The life expectancy is 54 years, rebellions are occurring all over the place. GDP per capita is $300. If this isn't a failed state to you, then there must be no such thing as a failed state.

B- the US had standards of living that were similar, if not better than Europe 40 years after it's independence. Especially on the East Coast. That's not really the case anymore, but it used to be. Their level of economic prosperity was similar, and if Europe was outproducing the states, it was because of the sheer numbers Europe possessed.

C- What gets a lot of people about Africa is not that they aren't comparable to the first world 40 years after independence, it's that they've regressed, gotten worse, and show no signs of improvement. India and the Middle East may not be the best places to live, but they haven't regressed like Africa, and they do show signs of a promising future.

C- What gets a lot of people about Africa is not that they aren't comparable to the first world 40 years after independence, it's that they've regressed, gotten worse, and show no signs of improvement. India and the Middle East may not be the best places to live, but they haven't regressed like Africa, and they do show signs of a promising future.

India is a perfect example.

40 years after independence they are beginning to flex their potential and economic power.
The difference between India and the DR Congo?

When India achieved independence, it had a fully functioning and workable civil service and branches of government left intact by the British.

The Congolese - did not. The Belgians left practically overnight and since the bureaucracy was in it's entirety Belgian, the Congolese were left without any functioning service from which to continue. It only naturally descended into immediate maladministration.

As LG has said, there's a difference between leaving a country and abandoning a country. India was left, the Congo was abandoned.

Well, what's best for the population?

I don't know. I just don't think the race of the people in charge will make much of a difference to anyone, except maybe TAI.

B- the US had standards of living that were similar, if not better than Europe 40 years after it's independence. Especially on the East Coast. That's not really the case anymore, but it used to be. Their level of economic prosperity was similar, and if Europe was outproducing the states, it was because of the sheer numbers Europe possessed.

Comparing the US with the Congo and using economic prosperity as a measure of the stability of the state? Oh my, how disingenuous. The US was an untapped, ginormous goldmine of virgin resources on a scale to dwarf anything reasonably related. Not only did it have said resources (allowing prosperity) it had enough land so that population and social pressures wouldn't combine to make things yet more difficult.

Well, except for the natives who got slaughtered and oppressed, but hey! we're glorifying colonialism and racism here so that really wouldn't matter.

HOWEVER - if you really want to go and take up the 'white mans burden' please don't let me stop you.

Fuck that.

If he and his lot of racist scum want to defend and expand the white supremacist global system, he should and will meet with opposition.

For me, it has never been particularly difficult to choose sides in that conflict.

We're talking about the Congolese right? Can we agree that they're natives, because the context of the topic is "bring back the whites"? If yes, then it is relevant because the US, Canada and Australia, aren't suited the poster child for how bad imperialism is. Well then, you should have gone with Singapore, Malaysia or India for that matter.

Hong Kong, is still under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, ensuring that the previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years from 1997. Until then, I'd say it's still under the process of decolonization.



Indigenous people, natives... oh yeah, I forgot, it has been debated in this forums on what is actually a "native". So in this case, the term indigenous means pre-colonization people who lived in said area.

In the case of the United States, the colonists themselves fought for the freedom from the "homeland". Canada and Australia, are independent from "homeland", still holds the British monarchs as their head of state.

Okay so, now we have colonists who are independent from their country of origin, this opens up a new debate on "whose independence is it anyways?", the aboriginals or the colonists?


I was answering the question by PM, not responding to TAI. That makes all the difference in the world. Context is huge. To continue with the debate, just because they have ancestry from another nation doesn't mean that the country isn't their homeland. They may not recognize the rights of others who live in their homeland (which is terrible, I agree), but it's still their home. I may be of European ancestry, but the United States is my homeland. Europe will NEVER be considered my homeland. And if that's the way you truly feel, then do immigrants not deserve citizenship? And should the Anglo-Saxon British be expelled from the island?

Why would a colonial rule, or say UN rule, necessarily be irrational?

This reasoning (which you were responding to):

"1. The Congo is in a shit state now.
2. The Congo was in a less shit/not shit state before.
3. Therefore, if the Congo is to be less shit/not shit again it must be run by people of the same race as when it was less shit/not shit."

Is flawed and irrational. If you want to defend said argument - as you seemed to be - you really should stick with that instead of changing the goal posts to UN rule and "colonial rule" in generality.

European African Colonies' biggest mistake was using indigenous people as ultra-cheap manual labor instead of just replacing them with more europeans. :p... now that would've been an interesting turn in history... :p

Indigenous people, natives... oh yeah, I forgot, it has been debated in this forums on what is actually a "native". So in this case, the term indigenous means pre-colonization people who lived in said area. ah, and considering (in the case of the USA and Canada) that the 'natives' who where there before the European colonization period also came from Asia and South America to live in 'the new world' can also be considered 'colonists' during their 'colonization period'... ;)

Okay so, now we have colonists who are independent from their country of origin, this opens up a new debate on "whose independence is it anyways?", the aboriginals or the colonists? good question.

This reasoning (which you were responding to):

"1. The Congo is in a shit state now.
2. The Congo was in a less shit/not shit state before.
3. Therefore, if the Congo is to be less shit/not shit again it must be run by people of the same race as when it was less shit/not shit."

Is flawed and irrational. If you want to defend said argument - as you seemed to be - you really should stick with that instead of changing the goal posts to UN rule and "colonial rule" in generality.I change nothing. Colonial rule or UN rule would be white rule. But in reality race is not the issue, mindsets is the issue.

Comparing the US with the Congo and using economic prosperity as a measure of the stability of the state? Oh my, how disingenuous. The US was an untapped, ginormous goldmine of virgin resources on a scale to dwarf anything reasonably related. Not only did it have said resources (allowing prosperity) it had enough land so that population and social pressures wouldn't combine to make things yet more difficult.

Well, except for the natives who got slaughtered and oppressed, but hey! we're glorifying colonialism and racism here so that really wouldn't matter.

Read the original question by PM, perhaps you won't be so confused.

in fact, let me post something I posted in another thread:

so true.

Ah, well that was kind of an accident. The asians had some sort of fixation with the cold and kept moving north and east. After a while, a smaller smarter subset broke off and said, "Fuck this cold shit!" and headed south. Little did we know hat due to the land bridge, we headed south onto the wrong continent. :p

The really smart ones settled onto the carribbean islands. :DThen why are carribbean-islanders not smart?

Unless this bloke is the Negro Hivemind, I don't really think this can be interpreted as "Africa would rather have European rule."

Read the original question by PM, perhaps you won't be so confused.

Read my post. Perhaps you won't be so confused either.

ah, and considering (in the case of the USA and Canada) that the 'natives' who where there before the European colonization period also came from Asia and South America to live in 'the new world' can also be considered 'colonists' during their 'colonization period'... ;)

Ah, well that was kind of an accident. The asians had some sort of fixation with the cold and kept moving north and east. After a while, a smaller smarter subset broke off and said, "Fuck this cold shit!" and headed south. Little did we know hat due to the land bridge, we headed south onto the wrong continent. :p

The really smart ones settled onto the carribbean islands. :D

Ah, well that was kind of an accident. The asians had some sort of fixation with the cold and kept moving north and east. After a while, a smaller smarter subset broke off and said, "Fuck this cold shit!" and headed south. Little did we know hat due to the land bridge, we headed south onto the wrong continent. :p the same story with Chris Columbus... damnit! When will people learn that it PAYS to stop and ask for directions! :headbang: :p

The really smart ones settled onto the carribbean islands. :D

and to think that all this time, I thought they took that left turn at Alburque! :p

Yes, yes it is.


I would (personally) say it's on the borderline of descending into failure - when I think of failed states I think more of Afghanistan and Somalia. But I don't mind being told "Look, X Y and Z say it fits the definition of a failed state".

Which is all beside the point of the OP anyway so.... :)

I am no prude, but the intellectual masturbation of racists should remain a solitary endeavor.

I would (personally) say it's on the borderline of descending into failure - when I think of failed states I think more of Afghanistan and Somalia. But I don't mind being told "Look, X Y and Z say it fits the definition of a failed state".
Afghanistan and Somalia aren't failed states so much as areas of complete anarchy, nominally governed from the capital, but not really.

The DRC has a 'proper' government, but it's rubbish at stopping the problems in the north-east with a few Rwandan generals camped out there, nor is it doing anything about the rebel problem in the south and east of the country.

But there we go.

I am no prude, but the intellectual masturbation of racists should remain a solitary endeavor.
Intellectual?

Because most carribbean islanders nowadays are of european and african descent. You'd be hard pressed to find an islander with 50% indigenous ancestry. :(
The European blanket-weaving industry wins again!

Fuck that.

If he and his lot of racist scum want to defend and expand the white supremacist global system, he should and will meet with opposition.


I meant him getting his spotty behind on a plane to the Congo. His health and success in his endavours were not, if I'm to be honest, to the forefront of my mind when I made the suggestion.

Then why are carribbean-islanders not smart?

Because most carribbean islanders nowadays are of european and african descent. You'd be hard pressed to find an islander with 50% indigenous ancestry. :(

I meant him getting his spotty behind on a plane to the Congo.

Oh, that is a different matter entirely. :)

Seriously, though, I'd rather he just overcome his obvious racist tendencies.

Finding one local who endorses colonialism in the Congo is like finding someone who misses the days of Soviet-style communism in one of the former provinces of Yugoslavia. They exist. What's the point of this thread anyway other than to prove TAI thinks the blackies need the tightie-whities?

Heck, even as late as 1952, 25% of the German population still had a favourable opinion of Hitler.

ah, and considering (in the case of the USA and Canada) that the 'natives' who where there before the European colonization period also came from Asia and South America to live in 'the new world' can also be considered 'colonists' during their 'colonization period'... ;)

In a joking sense... well, there's this theory that homo sapiens emerged in Africa, so, in a way, African colonization is ...well, an anaspora.

I was answering the question by PM, not responding to TAI. That makes all the difference in the world. Context is huge. To continue with the debate, just because they have ancestry from another nation doesn't mean that the country isn't their homeland. They may not recognize the rights of others who live in their homeland (which is terrible, I agree), but it's still their home. I may be of European ancestry, but the United States is my homeland. Europe will NEVER be considered my homeland. And if that's the way you truly feel, then do immigrants not deserve citizenship? And should the Anglo-Saxon British be expelled from the island?

Oh, I'm not arguing about about "the standing on their two feet part" just arguing on your choice of examples.

Hmmm, well, how many generations has it been since the US claimed independence? Enough to settle the nationalist notion that, "hey, this is now MY homeland"? Now we are talking about the state of mind of the citizens of the now independent nation.

Immigrants, are different from colonists, as they follow the rules of an established government, rather than to create an enclave of immigrants with their own special and/or they homeland's rules.

The peoples of Saxony and Angles should be expelled from the British Isles? Hmmm, why is that? I'm not versed in the history of the Celts and the Britons.

The European blanket-weaving industry wins again!

:p

Wow...just wow. Comments?
"These days, anyone says whatever they want with no regard to what kind of dribble is coming out of their mouths!" says angry commuter German Nightmare. "It's gone too far. We should go back to the good old days, when if someone started talking garbage, we'd smack them one."

I am no prude, but the intellectual masturbation of racists should remain a solitary endeavor.

come to my thread then. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549727) (shameless promotion) there's no racism there, only smokeism.

In a joking sense... well, there's this theory that homo sapiens emerged in Africa, so, in a way, African colonization is ...well, an anaspora. well, semi-serious... but it's a very, very small serious portion... :p

I've heard theories also, of Homo Sapiens emerging in Asia... but that's not important here and now.

At what point does someone become a "native". I was born in Hawaii, and I live in Hawaii, yet, I am not considered a Native to Hawaii. it's admitted that early Hawaiians came to the islands from somewhere else, so technically, they are not native either.

Is it being born at a place that makes one native? in which case, I (being of Japanese Ancestory) can be considered a native to Hawaii.

Is it generational? if so, how many Generations is needed until your family/bloodline is considered a native?

Oh, I'm not arguing about about "the standing on their two feet part" just arguing on your choice of examples. to be honest, it was asked "within 40 years of winning independence..." and they were focusing on the nations within the 40 yr period... just saying is all.

well, semi-serious... but it's a very, very small serious portion... :p

I've heard theories also, of Homo Sapiens emerging in Asia... but that's not important here and now.

At what point does someone become a "native". I was born in Hawaii, and I live in Hawaii, yet, I am not considered a Native to Hawaii. it's admitted that early Hawaiians came to the islands from somewhere else, so technically, they are not native either.

Is it being born at a place that makes one native? in which case, I (being of Japanese Ancestory) can be considered a native to Hawaii.

Is it generational? if so, how many Generations is needed until your family/bloodline is considered a native?

to be honest, it was asked "within 40 years of winning independence..." and they were focusing on the nations within the 40 yr period... just saying is all.



What you ask for is an answer to one of the Great Mysteries of the Universe.

1. I did comment. I said that it's interesting and created a poll to see how people feel about it.

Thats not a comment, it's a given. It's like writing 'in my opinion' in a paper. We know it's your opinion, unless you make reference to someone else it is taken as a given that it's your opinion. The same thing with copypasta, we know you think it's interesting, it's implicit in you posting it. Restating the obvious is not commenting.
true, but one also has to look at the cause.

when the 'whites' turned things back over to the Congolese, did they train them in the maintenance of the equiptment and their economy?

Remember, even the article states that the Congolese were kept in slave-like conditions.

if they were freed but not given the training, nor the system to keep their economy/technology/education going, then of course, there will be a regression and stagnation.

these people lived without salt and soap (or were able to make/find their own) and now they have to beg for it? that speaks more of the effect of Colonialism and the sudden abandonment of the people more than the effects of Colonialism itself
this
So-called white rule contributed nothing to Africa. Africa was farmed and mined of it's resources and those resources were shipped away for manufacture. The infrastructure for economic and industrial self reliance was never built. Schools were never built(except by christian missionaries with ulterior motives). Ethnic and tribal conflict was squashed with favoritism and military force, not with education and understanding. When these colonies were cut loose, they were cut loose with nothing. No schools, no universities, no factories, no free thinkers. Leadership filled the vacuum left by brutal oppressive white leaders by becoming equally brutal oppressive black leaders without the force of a european nation to back up their threats.

Africa would have been better off if it had been left alone to begin with. You expect me to believe that more of what destroyed Africa is what Africa needs more of?

I call bullshit.
and this
in fact, let me post something I posted in another thread:
And this.
Then why are carribbean-islanders not smart?
If you're life doesn't suck you're not going to waste a lot of time figuring things out. "Is the day beautiful? Is the beach still awesome? Sweet, another day is done, where's that monkey with my coconut?"

... does this mean we gotta now build "Deep Thought"? :confused:

Screw that, let the mice do it.

"These days, anyone says whatever they want with no regard to what kind of dribble is coming out of their mouths!" says angry commuter German Nightmare. "It's gone too far. We should go back to the good old days, when if someone started talking garbage, we'd smack them one."

"It's times like this," comments Slightly Irritated poster Junii, "that I really miss Eut..."

With a wistful sigh, Junii then hands to German Nightmare a smilie to layeth the smackdown.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif

He then smiles at the irony of handing a smilie to GNM - Master of a gazillion smileys.

What you ask for is an answer to one of the Great Mysteries of the Universe.

... does this mean we gotta now build "Deep Thought"? :confused:

well, semi-serious... but it's a very, very small serious portion... :p

I've heard theories also, of Homo Sapiens emerging in Asia... but that's not important here and now.

At what point does someone become a "native". I was born in Hawaii, and I live in Hawaii, yet, I am not considered a Native to Hawaii. it's admitted that early Hawaiians came to the islands from somewhere else, so technically, they are not native either.

Is it being born at a place that makes one native? in which case, I (being of Japanese Ancestory) can be considered a native to Hawaii.

Is it generational? if so, how many Generations is needed until your family/bloodline is considered a native?

to be honest, it was asked "within 40 years of winning independence..." and they were focusing on the nations within the 40 yr period... just saying is all.

Like I said, a new can of worms. Anyways, this is where it turns to opinion rather than fact. My opinion on what's natives are the original people who developed the original distinct culture of said area, so it became indigenous to said area. Now according to my opinion, natives are cultural. So your ancestory doesn't matter if you embraced the local culture.

If it is generational, there are no natives in this world, aren't we all just migrating here and there over the course of human written and unwritten history? I don't even believe the notion of "the races of men".

Hand Africa to the Ants to rule! Look at how well some of their colonies have done? All we'd have to do is make sure Africa isn't stepped on!

Before Colonization they had some decent countries in Africa and some fairly good Empires. After Colonization they are in the shitter. During Colonization People were in the shitter. If we brought back colonization depending on how they went about it, you might find things getting better but it would have nothing to do with skin colour, and more to do with the kind of governing style brought in.

In any event, I still think we should let the Ants run it as they seem to know what their doing.

PS. Quotes of the day:

UB: Black people are barbarians! They always have been. I feel important because I have blue eyes. *shoves head up own ass*

Thread Op: I'm not racist, I just think black people are inherently inferior to people who spend less time in the sun!

Like I said, a new can of worms. Anyways, this is where it turns to opinion rather than fact. My opinion on what's natives are the original people who developed the original distinct culture of said area, so it became indigenous to said area. Now according to my opinion, natives are cultural. So your ancestory doesn't matter if you embraced the local culture.

If it is generational, there are no natives in this world, aren't we all just migrating here and there over the course of human written and unwritten history? I don't even believe the notion of "the races of men".

True, I'll just put this can on the side then... and we'll save it just in case this thread devolves more into people calling other people racists. :cool:

... does this mean we gotta now build "Deep Thought"? :confused:

Couldn't hurt. :)

From 'The Atlantian islands', the man who brought you 'bring back Apartheid!', comes a totally new racist production, 'Come Back, Colonialism!', coming to a theater near you!

Couldn't hurt. :)

has to be slow... cuz it's doing all that thinking... I got an IBM PS2... we load up Windows 98 on it and it'll crawl... :p

The United States was "standing on its own two feet" 40 years after its independence.
You'd have a point if it weren't for the whole France helping the U.S. to a nigh-ridiculous extreme bit.

From 'The Atlantian islands', the man who brought you 'bring back Apartheid!', comes a totally new racist production, 'Come Back, Colonialism!', coming to a theater near you!

... wouldn't this be the sequal... I mean they both take place in Africa... :confused:

Wow...just wow. Really interesting article by TIME

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html

Comments?

Wow. A whole 5 paragraphs based almost entirely on the opinion of one man, a river boat captain of mixed heritage.

No, that doesn't suffice as a justification for future colonialism or an excuse for past colonialism. Le Blanc lacks perspective. So what?

The United States was "standing on its own two feet" 40 years after its independence. As was Canada and Australia. And Hong Kong's seemed to have done pretty well in the 10 years since decolonization.

OK, we'll ignore the vast differences between colonialism in North America and Africa because a comparison was implied by the question you are answering.

However, things were far from peachy in the United States in the early 1800s. One little thing you might have heard of was slavery, which led in turn to the Civil War.

"It's times like this," comments Slightly Irritated poster Junii, "that I really miss Eut..."

With a wistful sigh, Junii then hands to German Nightmare a smilie to layeth the smackdown.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif

He then smiles at the irony of handing a smilie to GNM - Master of a gazillion smileys.
;)

I do appreciate the gesture none the less - although (of course!) I have that particular smiley stored away somewhere.

Come Back, Colonialism, All Is ForgivenYou want someone to colonize Israel ???

I am assuming you are from Israel because of this post:
http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/b/b5/Israel_flag_large.png
http://youtube.com/watch?v=biQtrQpyJGo

As long as in the heart, within,
A Jewish soul is yearning,
And to the edges of the East, forward,
An eye watches towards Zion,

Our hope is not yet lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free nation in our own land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

כל עוד בלבב פנימה
נפש יהודי הומיה,
ולפאתי מזרח קדימה,
עין לציון צופיה,

עוד לא אבדה תקוותנו,
התקווה בת שנות אלפים,
להיות עם חופשי בארצנו,
ארץ ציון וירושלים.

That was a silly idea, AI.

This is pretty obviously an issue of economic management by government. Colonialist leaders had someone to watch them make sure money went back to the motherland, so their graft was a little more restricted. When the colonies became independent, the resistance leaders were national heroes and no one dared question or investigate their actions, so their graft was much greater. Then there were civil wars, wars with neighbours, and reoccuring coups. Occasionally you got a government that actually had an economic policy, but those were usually socialists - needless to say that their plans came crashing down sooner or later.

None of these things have anything to do with race (except maybe some of the civil wars). The question the article is asking is a worthwhile one, but your attempt to slant it into a different direction just made the whole thread pointless.

Ultimately I think colonialism is a little bit like the Soviet Union. There were good sides to it and plenty of bad ones. Occasionally you get people more interested in one than the other, and whether Le Blanc wants the Belgians back or some Moldovan guy wants the Soviets back - I don't see the difference.

This topic isn't racist. Neither the TC nor TIME claimed whites are supreme to others. People use the word racist too loosely.

Considering how little Belgium did to prepare the Congolese for independence, and how heavily we meddled in their internal affairs afterwards, can we really be surprised by how things turned out?

Considering how little Belgium did to prepare the Congolese for independence, and how heavily we meddled in their internal affairs afterwards, can we really be surprised by how things turned out?

Their was only like 10 university graduates in the whole population at the time of independence, so inevitably even after independence the Belgians had to run the government and everything else.

Threads like this just don't seem to understand that colonialism is exploitation, for every 1$ he Belgians put in they got 10 back. Africa's legacy of poverty, corruption and tribalism is due in large part to the legacy of colonialism. Remember that decolonization for the most part was not peaceful, millions died in the African struggles for independence, and the colonial powers did not give up their monopolistic exploitation without a fight.

Millions of Africans died in the slave trades, even more enslaved, just so the bourgeois could industrialize the world.

This topic isn't racist. Neither the TC nor TIME claimed whites are supreme to others. People use the word racist too loosely.
You have to take into account the history of this specific poster to tell you something about the motives when creating this particular poll in connection to that particular article.

This topic isn't racist.

Oh, give me a fucking break.

:rolleyes:

prepare the congolese for independence? you mean, treat them in a benevolent fatherly way like little children until they are all grown up and capable of taking care of themselves? is that how we see the people of the congo and other failed states still?

No, it means educate the population. The belgians did this for a reason, it was better to have an ignorant, superstitious people to exploit than a thinking one. It was the introduction of education and nationalistic/socialist ideas to Africa which destroyed colonialism. This is also true of Asia as well.

Their was only like 10 university graduates in the whole population at the time of independence, so inevitably even after independence the Belgians had to run the government and everything else.

Threads like this just don't seem to understand that colonialism is exploitation, for every 1$ he Belgians put in they got 10 back. Africa's legacy of poverty, corruption and tribalism is due in large part to the legacy of colonialism. Remember that decolonization for the most part was not peaceful, millions died in the African struggles for independence, and the colonial powers did not give up their monopolistic exploitation without a fight.

It depends on the time period you're talking about. In the 1950s-1960s, most did gain independence peacefully (exceptions being Algeria, Cameroon to a certain extent, and Kenya during the Mau Mau Uprising).

But yes, colonialism royally fucked over Africa. The Congo had 17 university graduates at the time of independence, and the Belgians did next to nothing to prepare them for independence. Moreover, the Congolese have had little role in shaping their own country's destiny; outsiders always have.

This topic isn't racist. Neither the TC nor TIME claimed whites are supreme to others. People use the word racist too loosely.

You obviously don't know TAI very well, do you?

Considering how little Belgium did to prepare the Congolese for independence, and how heavily we meddled in their internal affairs afterwards, can we really be surprised by how things turned out?

prepare the congolese for independence? you mean, treat them in a benevolent fatherly way like little children until they are all grown up and capable of taking care of themselves? is that how we see the people of the congo and other failed states still?

Oh, and the poll is completely stupid. What does skin pigmentation have to do with one's ability to govern? There is no correlation between level of competence and level of melanin in one's skin.

prepare the congolese for independence? you mean, treat them in a benevolent fatherly way like little children until they are all grown up and capable of taking care of themselves? is that how we see the people of the congo and other failed states still?

No. The Congo should never have been colonized in the first place. What I'm saying is that the Congolese are not responsible for their current predicament. They didn't create the Congo Free State. They didn't impose Mobutu or Kabila on themselves. They didn't start the First or Second Congo War. In each case, it was outsiders.

No, it means educate the population. The belgians did this for a reason, it was better to have an ignorant, superstitious people to exploit than a thinking one. It was the introduction of education and nationalistic/socialist ideas to Africa which destroyed colonialism. This is also true of Asia as well.

Correct. Colonialists (and the apartheid government in South Africa) deliberately gave their subjects only the most rudimentary education, to prevent them from raising their expectations and demanding more rights, or worse (from the colonialists' perspective) outright independence. They did not want an educated populace, they wanted an abundant supply of cheap labor.

Oh, give me a fucking break.

:rolleyes:

To put it in a nicer way, its

"radicaly classifing someone by the color of their epidermis" ;)

Hey, TAI, how did you know I wanted to test out my new move?

Based on a very nice fighting game move...

One premise, then 52 words, that should debunk his entire point.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPWEOfyXF0U&feature=related if you want to see the move. It begins on the 50th second. The full move is 53 hits, the wall-press and 52 cards...)

***Joker***

The African colonization was made by purposefully keeping the natives ignorant and fighting among themselves, all the while sucking them dry and maintaining just enough of a condition for them to live and be further explored.

And now that I have you on the wall, TAI... 52 words.

Thus it is pretty clear that, by leaving the natives in such conditions, Congo would be made into the current third-world country it is today. It is obvious that its present state would not be SOLVED through colonialism, it DERIVES from it. Sure they should be helped, but not by colonization.

*Poses, smiling, after he's done.*

From 'The Atlantian islands', the man who brought you 'bring back Apartheid!', comes a totally new racist production, 'Come Back, Colonialism!', coming to a theater near you!

LOL

People use the word racist too loosely.
100 times over and 100 times again.
That was a silly idea, AI.
I didn't think so...obviously most people here are more interested in the poster (you guys flatter me) than the topic at hand.
This is pretty obviously an issue of economic management by government. Colonialist leaders had someone to watch them make sure money went back to the motherland, so their graft was a little more restricted. When the colonies became independent, the resistance leaders were national heroes and no one dared question or investigate their actions, so their graft was much greater. Then there were civil wars, wars with neighbours, and reoccuring coups. Occasionally you got a government that actually had an economic policy, but those were usually socialists - needless to say that their plans came crashing down sooner or later.
Exactly. But the argument here is, would the Colonialist serve as a better government than the governments in place in Africa. I think the article had a really powerful message when it said about how people are overlooking the past atrocities by Europeans because to them it's history, and they are faced with the struggles and hardships of today, a very real threat, to which they feel a European government may be a better solution.....

That's all this debate is about, in my opinion.
None of these things have anything to do with race (except maybe some of the civil wars). The question the article is asking is a worthwhile one, but your attempt to slant it into a different direction just made the whole thread pointless.
I really wasn't trying to slant it, honestly. The question is would a European/White (the article said "White") be a better government for this country than the African/Black government currently in power. It's about the culture and government rather than the color of the skin of the people in it. For that VERY SAME REASON I oppose Islam whether it's White people who are Muslim or Arabs who are Muslim.....
Ultimately I think colonialism is a little bit like the Soviet Union. There were good sides to it and plenty of bad ones. Occasionally you get people more interested in one than the other, and whether Le Blanc wants the Belgians back or some Moldovan guy wants the Soviets back - I don't see the difference.
I think they are quite different. There are various sucessful former Soviet dominated states and various that are on the road to becoming sucessful. I can't say the same for Africa, to be honest.

I think they are quite different. There are various sucessful former Soviet dominated states and various that are on the road to becoming sucessful. I can't say the same for Africa, to be honest.

In each of the former Soviet states, the literacy rate was nearly 100% at the time of their independence. In most African countries, it was a tiny fraction of that. Even Ghana, one of the better-off colonies, had a literacy rate of only 25% at the time of independence. Countries like Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau had literacy rates of under 5%.

Oh yes, the wonders of colonialism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404300.html
compounding these legacies was Britain's famous imperial policy of "divide and rule," playing one side off another, which often turned fluid groups of individuals into immutable ethnic units, much like Kenya's Luo and Kikuyu today. In many former colonies, the British picked favorites from among these newly solidified ethnic groups and left others out in the cold. We are often told that age-old tribal hatreds drive today's conflicts in Africa. In fact, both ethnic conflict and its attendant grievances are colonial phenomena.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0802/postcard_maringa_0213.jpg



Wow...just wow. Really interesting article by TIME

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html

Comments?

Progress under colonialism? How about more economic exploitation and continued mass suffering. The conditions in Africa under colonialism were absolutely horrific, and there's no way in fucking hell you can justify it.

No. Africans ruled the Congo fine under the Kongo Empire before Europeans fucked it up. I'm sure given time they will again (although unfortunately it may take centuries).

When LG gets serious, you know someone fucked up.

QFMFT

So-called white rule contributed nothing to Africa. Africa was farmed and mined of it's resources and those resources were shipped away for manufacture. The infrastructure for economic and industrial self reliance was never built. Schools were never built(except by christian missionaries with ulterior motives). Ethnic and tribal conflict was squashed with favoritism and military force, not with education and understanding. When these colonies were cut loose, they were cut loose with nothing. No schools, no universities, no factories, no free thinkers. Leadership filled the vacuum left by brutal oppressive white leaders by becoming equally brutal oppressive black leaders without the force of a european nation to back up their threats.

Africa would have been better off if it had been left alone to begin with. You expect me to believe that more of what destroyed Africa is what Africa needs more of?

I call bullshit.

When LG gets serious, you know someone fucked up.

Colonial rule is what screwed up Africa in the first place.

I suggest different help than colonialism. One possible way to help is build their infrastructure so that it is easy for them to communicate and move goods. Maybe a total communications upgrade? Possible rail link improvements and an interstate highway system?

Colonial rule is what screwed up Africa in the first place.

I suggest different help than colonialism. One possible way to help is build their infrastructure so that it is easy for them to communicate and move goods. Maybe a total communications upgrade? Possible rail link improvements and an interstate highway system?

won't work... at least after several years.

They need the education to keep it running... the ability to get their economy going and to maintain it. otherwise, they will still be dependant on others to maintain their infrastructure. they couldn't maintain the buildings, much less the factories themselves.

won't work... at least after several years.

They need the education to keep it running... the ability to get their economy going and to maintain it. otherwise, they will still be dependant on others to maintain their infrastructure. they couldn't maintain the buildings, much less the factories themselves.

There are enough educated people in Africa to keep a communications infrastructure running. Assume for a minute private companies were to install these systems. They also have the maintenance contracts. Do you not think they would train people to maintain the system? There are plenty of educated people to at least train on the systems that they are installing. As for the other parts of a functioning economy they would learn. If there was an the ability to get goods and services to market fast you would be surprised at how fast voids would be filled with entrepreneurs.

There are enough educated people in Africa to keep a communications infrastructure running. Assume for a minute private companies were to install these systems. and yet it takes them about a year to get goods from the city to those areas?
It can take a year for basic necessities ordered from the capital, Kinshasa, nearly 2,000 kilometers downstream, to make it here — if they make it at all.

They also have the maintenance contracts. Do you not think they would train people to maintain the system? and how are those people supposed to pay for the contracts? add to that the fact that their education would be specifically to that company's equiptment and procedures that they would still be reliant to those companies. an economic Colonialism to be sure.

There are plenty of educated people to at least train on the systems that they are installing. As for the other parts of a functioning economy they would learn. which is an argument for the Education and spreading of knowledge.

If there was an the ability to get goods and services to market fast you would be surprised at how fast voids would be filled with entrepreneurs.
they already have the ability or at least the tools. they have a major river and the boats, yet...
At one point we pass a cargo barge that has taken three months to travel the same distance we will cover in two days. We stop in the hope of buying some gasoline, but all we get from the vessel are rats.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Sure they can use the improvements to their infrastructure, but by starting them off with what they do know, using the river as a means to move goods, you can teach them how to use their resources efficently and effectively and they can then start taking steps on their own.

you can have small villages along the river become trading centers and even hubs for communities to improve.

sure telecomunications system would be nice, but I think getting them to the point where they can farm and even produce some goods themselves might be the first step.

Actually TAI, it was the colonialists who divided Africa into arbitrary political divisions and sewed the seeds of tribalism, war and corruption. If anything they set the whole situation up so that when independence came they could say 'see the black race can't govern themselves'... The way the 'First World' deals with the 'Third World' today is a prime example of racism/classism.

I daresay it is the duty of developed countries to help undeveloped countries build economic infrastructure and a stable civil society.

The squealing pigs of the world will squeal and snort about how this is racism, but that is because they can't or don't understand the factors which propelled the developed world into development.

If they were genuinely literate or well educated, they would understand.

There is no reason that the developed world should assist the undeveloped without any benefit to the former, so the best answer is a system where investment in the undeveloped world pays itself off to the countries providing funds and expertise, while at the same time gradually being bought into and owned by the natives.

I support the return of white rule, but not by colonialism, but by me.

Yes, Me. In the odd event that somehow I ever wind up in Africa, I have the full intention of leading a great revolution. It's not really as crazy as it sounds.

With all these petty conflicts, I would seem likely that the average African would find some hope in supporting a politically moderate, socially progressive leader regardless of his race.

While I feel that Africans and Caucasians are capable of the same levels of intelligence, I do not think that there is going to be any African leader to help them out.

This is because Africans have lived, well, in Africa. The pettiness and struggle is all they know. This also makes them partisan to one tribe or another, usually.

However, as a foreigner, I can see through the petty disputes and promise the people of Africa (I have plans either to lead this in Chad, Sudan, or the DRC) a better life overall.

I would invest in my people and work hard on getting them educated, cared for medically, sheltered and fed/watered. I would have to run a mixed economy, with both private enterprise and government industries.

I do not want European colonialism; I just want to help these poor, displaced people with their dysfunctional governments.

I do not feel that just because I happen to be white makes me any more or less suited to rule these people.

No one is talking about being a failed state - and regardless, the DR Congo is not a failed state.
My original question was this:

Name me a country that within 40 years of gaining it's independence, has stood on its own two feet and become economically prosperous to the equivalent of a Western European or North American state - without aid from another.

Become economically prosperous to the equivalent..... Now, the United States after 40 years was not economically prosperous to the equivalent of other Western European powers.

"On it's own two feet" relates to receiving aid or budgetary funding from another state - a la Israel.



What was the date of their independence?


To answer partially this question - Australia gained independence in 1901.
I think it is reasonable to assume that by 1941 Australia was considered stable enough as it assisted its allies in the pacific and european theaters of war.

Colonialism is back?! AWESOME!

*digs out musket*

For the EMPIRE!...I'm gonna kill a lion and make a rug out of it...

Sheesh, guys ...

Attack the POST, not the POSTER!


Got it?

Soheran, warned for flaming for this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13456638&postcount=65) and other posts along the same lines. Nodinia, your additions were less than helpful.

Greater Trostia, after two posts which boil down to "u r racist", you finally got on-topic. Several others (Andaras, Knights of Liberty) made similar transitions. Next time, skip the name-calling.

Those who have posted on topic throughout, congratulations on discerning what it was, because, The Atlantian Islands, your copy-paste OP didn't make it clear -- one of the reasons why we have this rule against copypasta -- and the false dichotomy in your poll further obscured it.

When LG gets serious, you know someone fucked up.

I find no greater joy than in defying expectations. :)

and Ardchoille (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13457939&postcount=141)...

thanks for going though all of those goombas... Have a cookie, on me. :D

http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/super_mario_cookie.jpg

To answer partially this question - Australia gained independence in 1901.
I think it is reasonable to assume that by 1941 Australia was considered stable enough as it assisted its allies in the pacific and european theaters of war.
We gained reasonable autonomy with Federation in 1901, but we didn't gain independence, he still have a foreign head of state. It wasn't really until after WWII that he exercised de facto independence, and Chifley was responsible for this for the most part. Don't forget that during WWII Churchill 'acquired' Australian foreign units (about 120,000 in all) fighting in North Africa and the Middle-East and controlled them before Curtin told him to GTFO, Churchill wanted to send them to defend Rangoon from the Japanese, but with no air cover, little heavy weapons Curtin knew it would it would end up like another Philippines disaster. Instead Curtin redirected the forces to Australia itself, which at the time was thought to be going to be invaded.

Either way, it wasn't until Curtin's 'abandon the Empire' speech that Australia shifted to America as an ally and thus proper independence. But even post-war Australia remains in a constitutionally untenable and impossible situation, the Constitutional Crisis in the 70's prove this.

Wow, racist poll.

It's not a particularly smart poll, either. Number one, your skin colour really doesn't matter when it comes to your opinion. Number two, it's unlikely anyone's opinions would be that simple. Number three, where's the "other" option?

Indeed. Though of course, my shock is in how blatantly racist you are, while yours is in thinking now that TIME is as racist as you are.

Off topic trolling/thread jacking will be reported. This has nothing to do with the thread.

Get back on topic or get out.
Seems perfectly topical to me.



I certainly don't think it's absolutely off-topic...

Well, I do believe that they can rule themselves, but you have to admit, there is very little current evidence to support that.

I think that they would be perfectly able to rule themselves if someone helped them get out of poverty.

I agree with you about this thread and poll, they are not racist. The whiners most likly self-hating white's or reverse racist minorities. But, even though this thread isnt racist, they might be right about you being racist....:confused:

:rolleyes:

I said no and I am white (100% Island of Great Britain ancestry... cannot get much whiter than that)
*snip*

That made me giggle out loud. The term "white" really annoys me... My skin colour is very very pale, but I have little British ancestry.

So-called white rule contributed nothing to Africa. Africa was farmed and mined of it's resources and those resources were shipped away for manufacture. The infrastructure for economic and industrial self reliance was never built. Schools were never built(except by christian missionaries with ulterior motives). Ethnic and tribal conflict was squashed with favoritism and military force, not with education and understanding. When these colonies were cut loose, they were cut loose with nothing. No schools, no universities, no factories, no free thinkers. Leadership filled the vacuum left by brutal oppressive white leaders by becoming equally brutal oppressive black leaders without the force of a european nation to back up their threats.

Africa would have been better off if it had been left alone to begin with. You expect me to believe that more of what destroyed Africa is what Africa needs more of?

I call bullshit.

I agree.



I don't think the author of the article agrees that bringing back colonialism is the answer either, and he certainly doesn't seem to agree with the old man is ranting about. Bringing back a situation where "unruly laborers working in conditions of de facto slavery had their hands chopped off" is definitely not the answer.

I don't know. I just don't think the race of the people in charge will make much of a difference *snip*.

I agree.

Oh, and the poll is completely stupid. What does skin pigmentation have to do with one's ability to govern? There is no correlation between level of competence and level of melanin in one's skin.

That's what I wanted to say... but you articulated it better.

*snip*
That's all this debate is about, in my opinion.*snip*

There really isn't much of a debate. You've just posted an article that quotes a crazy old man.

Sheesh, guys ...

Attack the POST, not the POSTER!


Got it?

Soheran, warned for flaming for this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13456638&postcount=65) and other posts along the same lines. Nodinia, your additions were less than helpful.

Greater Trostia, after two posts which boil down to "u r racist", you finally got on-topic. Several others (Andaras, Knights of Liberty) made similar transitions. Next time, skip the name-calling.

Those who have posted on topic throughout, congratulations on discerning what it was, because, The Atlantian Islands, your copy-paste OP didn't make it clear -- one of the reasons why we have this rule against copypasta -- and the false dichotomy in your poll further obscured it.

I'm shocked that the moderators care more about the fact that people are attacking a RACIST for being RACIST, than the racist comments The Atlantian Islands constantly makes.

One of the main problems in Africa is that when the whites got there they decided to arbitrarily divide up the landmass based on what they could control, and not with any considerations to the people living on them. Once the Europeans left, the countries which they left behind had either divided up or pushed together tribes which did not like each other, which we obviously see with all the various genocides which have occurred on the continent. If there is going to be any progress, the people of the continent either need to learn to live with one another, or there needs to be a massive reconsideration of the borders of the countries.

The only thing white people did while they were there was to oppress everybody to the point where they were not able to focus on their own older arguments with each other. Bringing them back would not solve anything, it would at best put off the current problems. Besides that, the people of the continent aren't children, they can figure their own shit out.

If the outside world offered help would it be accepted? If Industrialized nations from the West and East offered to fund a rebuilding of Africa do you think they would take it? Maybe some type of international convention where all the African nations attend that want to and the rest of the world offers help.

Why are we being forced to tolerate racism?

Why are we being forced to tolerate racism?

Why beat a dead horse at this point?

Why beat a dead horse at this point?
Ethics.

Ultimately, the solutions to Africa's problems do not lie in a paternalistic approach to situation. The most realistic solutions lay in understanding how long it took India to recover from British rule, or how it America to become the superpower it is today after the Revolutionary War. Africa has been expected to do what the Western world did over centuries, overnight, and it simply can't.

Redrawing sovereign nations to better reflect traditional boundaries, long-term basic infrastructure programs (roads, water, sewerage, etc) are the most likely solutions to see an African continent that is competitive within a reasonable amount of time.

In a joking sense... well, there's this theory that homo sapiens emerged in Africa, so, in a way, African colonization is ...well, an anaspora.Not really. Homo sapiens has culturally, socially, technically evolved outside of Africa and after 55000+ years came back. In African colonization the discrepancy between the colonizers and the colonized could not have been bigger.

I do not want European colonialism; I just want to help these poor, displaced people with their dysfunctional governments.By having someone with a European education to rule?

Ethics.

Ultimately, the solutions to Africa's problems do not lie in a paternalistic approach to situation. The most realistic solutions lay in understanding how long it took India to recover from British rule, or how it America to become the superpower it is today after the Revolutionary War. Africa has been expected to do what the Western world did over centuries, overnight, and it simply can't.

Redrawing sovereign nations to better reflect traditional boundaries, long-term basic infrastructure programs (roads, water, sewerage, etc) are the most likely solutions to see an African continent that is competitive within a reasonable amount of time.

I agree with helping them get the basics going as you can tell in my earlier posts. In fact it may be better to have nations outside the former colonizers to offer the help.

As for redrawing the map of Africa the biggest problem areas are the horn and central Africa. Do you really think that you could get an agreement on how lines should be drawn? I believe that is one issue that would be extremely difficult to get over. As you can see recently tribal fighting in Kenya has proven that point. I would think to leave it as it is and try and teach people to co-exist without resorting to the violence that we have seen in the past. Most of the problems have been at the root representation of the different peoples in their respective governments.

I agree with helping them get the basics going as you can tell in my earlier posts. In fact it may be better to have nations outside the former colonizers to offer the help.

As for redrawing the map of Africa the biggest problem areas are the horn and central Africa. Do you really think that you could get an agreement on how lines should be drawn? I believe that is one issue that would be extremely difficult to get over. As you can see recently tribal fighting in Kenya has proven that point. I would think to leave it as it is and try and teach people to co-exist without resorting to the violence that we have seen in the past. Most of the problems have been at the root representation of the different peoples in their respective governments.

The African Union has been able to achieve modest stability, however they lack training and resources. An untrained army is an army prone to disorganisation and that is a major hindrance. I think with the right amount of training they could be used to assist in the process.

However, it will be difficult to get the parties to sit down and draw up a new map. To a certain degree it will require a single force that can provide the diplomatic codling and prodding to get a plan on the table. My hope is that a nation and a statesman in Africa can rise up to this challenge.

I agree with helping them get the basics going...But why? They always brag about being the cradle of humankind. So if they have been around so much longer than the rest of the world, why can't they manage their own fucking business? I am all for letting them do whatever they wish (as long as they do no damage to the rest of the world), and if they should die let them die. There is no need to support stupid people or nations.

But why? They always brag about being the cradle of humankind. So if they have been around so much longer than the rest of the world, why can't they manage their own fucking business? I am all for letting them do whatever they wish (as long as they do no damage to the rest of the world), and if they should die let them die. There is no need to support stupid people or nations.

Because African nations weren't suffering from widespread drought, famine and in-fact many parts of Africa were enjoying long periods of peace before Europeans began settlement on the continent.

Just for the record; America owes a large part of it's independence to foreign aide, over $11 Million, a massive sum by today's standards.

Why are we being forced to tolerate racism?

I should think because tolerance is a virtue.

Life isn't fair, and it is incumbent upon us all to overcome its hurdles instead of squeal about them.

I myself am a "victim of racism" but wouldn't think for a moment to complain about that particular challenge.

Because African nations weren't suffering from widespread drought, famine and in-fact many parts of Africa were enjoying long periods of peace before Europeans began settlement on the continent.Wtf? When Europeans started colonizing Africa in the 15th century all they encountered were savages in tribal fights. And droughts weren't the result of European colonization.

Just for the record; America owes a large part of it's independence to foreign aide, over $11 Million, a massive sum by today's standards.And??

I'm shocked that the moderators care more about the fact that people are attacking a RACIST for being RACIST, than the racist comments The Atlantian Islands constantly makes.

It's because racist opinions and views (unfortunately) are legal here, while attacking the poster directly (the post in question was "racist scum") is viewed as a flame, which is prohibited.

Call the bigot bigot and the racist racist, but once the extra step is taken...

I should think because tolerance is a virtue.

Life isn't fair, and it is incumbent upon us all to overcome its hurdles instead of squeal about them.

I myself am a "victim of racism" but wouldn't think for a moment to complain about that particular challenge.Tolerance in certainly no virtue. Either something is convincing, or it is not. Tolerance means to suffer something without accepting it.

And how are you a "victim of racism" ?

I doubt anybody really wants colonialism back. Neither are "white people" better suited to rule. I see no evidence of that at all.

So yeah. Thread fails.

Tolerance in certainly no virtue. Either something is convincing, or it is not. Tolerance means to suffer something without accepting it.

And how are you a "victim of racism" ?

People of another race receive preferential treatment where I live.

I am sometimes made to pay more than people of a different race for the same thing.

I'm a foreign barbarian. Et cetera.


I wonder how many squealing pigs in the US have had to pay more for things because of their race.

Moral of the story: it is only as big a deal as you choose to allow it to be.

I'm shocked that the moderators care more about the fact that people are attacking a RACIST for being RACIST, than the racist comments The Atlantian Islands constantly makes.


You should be happy that the moderators permit diversity on this site and punish bad behavior instead of unpopular opinions.

It's a big demerit that you're "shocked."

Wtf? When Europeans started colonizing Africa in the 15th century all they encountered were savages in tribal fights. And droughts weren't the result of European colonization.

I think you need to take a look better look at history there. During the 15th century West African tribes had a highly developed and rich culture (Lefton 1990), were engaged in constant trade (Boddy-Even 2008)(Braudel 1992), war by comparison to Europe was little known (Crumpton 2006),

And given that the role of climate change and political unrest caused by poorly drawn national boundaries in the drought, it is.

And??
Even the largest super-power needed a massive hand out to get to where it is today.

Wtf? When Europeans started colonizing Africa in the 15th century all they encountered were savages in tribal fights. And droughts weren't the result of European colonization.

True, but force feeding "high European civilized culture" to them is also wrong. The Europeans brought in guns, modern religion, concept of capitalism and mercantilism (and subsequently,... economic greed), the concept of despotic rulership, diseases, among other things that's somewhat alien to them. The culture shock itself was enough to distort their gemeinschaft and gesellschaft to a bloody mutated version of their own with the colonists.

Droughts are not the Europeans result, and the Africans themselves have handled droughts for millennia. But with the "village" mindset (which is based on smaller community and reasonable resource gathering) and norms forcibly taken out of them and replaced with a more larger scale of worldview and economics, add some resources raping, the creation of a labor work class (thus creating and imbalance population demographic in the years after colonization), how could have they handled it?

Give aid? Well I don't recommend that as well,... educate, train, equip, and then leave em the hell alone.

Neither are "white people" better suited to rule.Well, where the white people are the educational systems are generally better than where the black people are. Being educated is a basic requirement for rule.

Well, where the white people are the educational systems are generally better than where the black people are. Being educated is a basic requirement for rule.

Oh please.

Where poverty is; lower standards of education are reflected irregardless of race.

No, it's not. They are running out of time and the world cannot wait until dumb people will finally wake up.

My IQ is 175, thank you.

True, but force feeding "high European civilized culture" to them is also wrong. No, it's not. They are running out of time and the world cannot wait until dumb people will finally wake up.

Oh please.

Where poverty is; lower standards of education are reflected irregardless of race.I did not say it is race-related. The fact remains.

I did not say it is race-related. The fact remains.

You stated that the education was better where white people were over where black people were and offered no other information, just the racial demographics; you made it race-related.

That doesn't help Africa.

As an African, it does

My IQ is 175, thank you.That doesn't help Africa.

Oh, then get into politics and change the way your country is run.
And which country is that?

I was born in South Africa, I'm doing just that, but I plan to change the way the entire world is run.

But the argument here is, would the Colonialist serve as a better government than the governments in place in Africa.
No, because government against the people isn't sustainable anymore. Back in colonial days various insurgencies were a common occurance, but fairly easily dealt with through a genocidal military campaign.

Today insurgency warfare has progressed greatly and the technology divide is much smaller.

Of course, there is also the question of motivation. Colonial governments weren't run for Africa, they were run for Europe. Presumably you would now want to change this, which requires different policies (those farms he talks about in the article were monocultures that only produced for consumers in one particular country - nothing that is economically viable in the 21st century) and an entirely different approach. You would for example have to ask the population for their opinion, which wouldn't give you clear answers and may well just come back with "foreigners out". Somewhat ironically, wouldn't you think?

That's all this debate is about, in my opinion.
And you'd excuse the lot of us for not assuming your good intentions. Afterall, you are an ethnocentrist who is very clear that he wants to different ethnic groups to keep to themselves - stupid but at least consistent.

But now you're claiming that one ethnic group should in fact be ruling and the other be subservient. That's not what the article is about, but it is the topic your poll is about.

Put the two together and I really, really can't see what crying to moderation gives you. The responses you got were to be expected and I wouldn't blame anyone for it. The 20th century has been a long, hard struggle to try and banish the sort of thought you're advocating here.

It's about the culture and government rather than the color of the skin of the people in it.
I disagree with your repeated abuse of the word "culture" as a euphemism.

But aside from that, your poll doesn't support your story. If this is about the culture of government, or even the culture of African countries, then asking us our skin colour has absolutely no relevance.

For that VERY SAME REASON I oppose Islam whether it's White people who are Muslim or Arabs who are Muslim.....
You don't know anything about Islam.

I think they are quite different. There are various sucessful former Soviet dominated states and various that are on the road to becoming sucessful. I can't say the same for Africa, to be honest.
That's because you don't know very much about Africa, or because you're being rather arbitrary in your definitions of success.

As an African, it does
Oh, then get into politics and change the way your country is run.
And which country is that?

You stated that the education was better where white people were over where black people were and offered no other information, just the racial demographics; you made it race-related.I did not say that race was the cause for the correlation, however. School systems in Europe, North America, Australia are better than those in Africa. That also happens to be along the dividing line of race, if you wish, but race does not create that dividing line.

I did not say that race was the cause for the correlation, however. School systems in Europe, North America, Australia are better than those in Africa. That also happens to be along the dividing line of race, if you wish, but race does not create that dividing line. If it were different, Africa wouldn't have the problems it currently has.
The thing is; you didn't state any reason at all. Take two schools in America; one well funded, one under funded, the well funded school will generate more high achiever than the the under funded school. However, you never bothered with any of this.

Well, where the white people are the educational systems are generally better than where the black people are. Being educated is a basic requirement for rule.
Here is where the elaboration would go if you actually wanted to add anything else.

No, it's not. They are running out of time and the world cannot wait until dumb people will finally wake up.

Well, that's very totalitarian. And I don't agree with that. The world will have to wait because if the world wants to grow together, it should.

Well, that's very totalitarian. And I don't agree with that. The world will have to wait because if the world wants to grow together, it should.Until then the environment is dead. That's not acceptable.

Until then the environment is dead. That's not acceptable.

And whose fault is that? Let's look from the top. Who gives the idea of industrialism in the first place to the so called "third world" hm? Now they forced them to keep up with the times.

I say, unless we work together and build together, we deserve to die together. Now it's time to reap what you sow and pay the piper.

The thing is; you didn't state any reason at all. Take two schools in America; one well funded, one under funded, the well funded school will generate more high achiever than the the under funded school. However, you never bothered with any of this.But school is not all that makes someone's education. It's the overall mindset of a society. And the quality of a school education does not only depend on funding, but on the student's ability and willingness to learn. Even the badly funded school in America will produce more high and average archivers than most schools in Africa. What future is there for African states, except maybe S-Africa and the countries north of Sahara? They are 40 years and more behind the rest of the world.

But school is nat all that makes someone's education. It's the overall mindset of a society. And the quality of a school education does not only depend on funding, but on the student's ability and willingness to learn. Even the badly funded school in America will produce more high and average archivers than most schools in Africa. What future is there for African states, except maybe S-Africa and the countries north of Sahara? They are 40 years and more behind the rest of the world.

It may not be, but in a classroom of a hundred students sitting on a dirt floor, with a one teacher, when you haven't eaten in weeks, flies are laying eggs in your eyes and you lack the strength to swat them away; it might be a little hard for those student to concentrate.

Again, your history fails you. The Bantu Education Act deliberately prevented non-white South Africans accessing education, this law would remain in force until 1991, and access to education would only begin to be implemented in 1994. Just 14 years later you honestly can't understand why preventing an entire generation from being educated resulted in an uneducated population?

Well, where the white people are the educational systems are generally better than where the black people are. Being educated is a basic requirement for rule.
I did not say that race was the cause for the correlation, however. School systems in Europe, North America, Australia are better than those in Africa. That also happens to be along the dividing line of race, if you wish, but race does not create that dividing line.
So basically, you now claim that your response to me had nothing to do with my post. Interesting.

But school is nat all that makes someone's education. It's the overall mindset of a society. And the quality of a school education does not only depend on funding, but on the student's ability and willingness to learn. Even the badly funded school in America will produce more high and average archivers than most schools in Africa. What future is there for African states, except maybe S-Africa and the countries north of Sahara? They are 40 years and more behind the rest of the world.
I call ignorant bullshit.

irregardless

My IQ is 175

uh huh...

:rolleyes:

uh huh...

:rolleyes:

Are you kidding me?

Why are we being forced to tolerate racism?

Because so many people on here seem to think that victims are supposed to just "take" it, like I was just supposed to "take" the fact that I was beaten up, and just like I'm sure some people on here are just supposed to "take" the fact that people will criticize them because they're gay.

:(

But why? They always brag about being the cradle of humankind. So if they have been around so much longer than the rest of the world, why can't they manage their own fucking business? I am all for letting them do whatever they wish (as long as they do no damage to the rest of the world), and if they should die let them die. There is no need to support stupid people or nations.

Oh, really? They brag, do they? Give me an example.

And if there's no need to support stupid people, I suppose your government should cut off your hot water/electricity/food supply and so forth, because by posting this you prove how stupid you must be.

As for Africa, I see no evidence that they're "stupid"...

Unless the entire population of the continent makes posts like yours.

Wtf? When Europeans started colonizing Africa in the 15th century all they encountered were savages in tribal fights. And droughts weren't the result of European colonization.



Savages?

Just because someone's culture is different to your own doesn't make it "savage". Haven't you seen Poccahontas?

Tolerance in certainly no virtue. Either something is convincing, or it is not. Tolerance means to suffer something without accepting it.


Exactly... and it's not as though we're talking about "tolerating" something like a child's pestering questions or a little bit of a tickle. Racism is not something you should have to "tolerate".

You should be happy that the moderators permit diversity on this site and punish bad behavior instead of unpopular opinions.

It's a big demerit that you're "shocked."

No, they don't punish bad behaviour.

If they did, they would have punished The Atlantian Islands a long time ago.

Well, where the white people are the educational systems are generally better than where the black people are. Being educated is a basic requirement for rule.

Take America for example. The difference between places with succesful schools and struggling schools has more to do with the amount of money the people in those areas have. It has nothing to do with skin colour.

No, it's not. They are running out of time and the world cannot wait until dumb people will finally wake up.

Oh, please.

"Dumb" people? You're calling the African people "dumb"? Let's talk about "dumb". You know who's stupid? George W. Bush, and he is the leader of one of the world's super powers.

I did not say it is race-related. The fact remains.

Yes you did.

I was born in South Africa, I doing just that, but I plan to change the way the entire world is run.

*snap*

But school is not all that makes someone's education. It's the overall mindset of a society. And the quality of a school education does not only depend on funding, but on the student's ability and willingness to learn. Even the badly funded school in America will produce more high and average archivers than most schools in Africa. What future is there for African states, except maybe S-Africa and the countries north of Sahara? They are 40 years and more behind the rest of the world.

Of course a school isn't all that makes someone's education, and that's why you can't just send White people in to "educate" Africa.

Are you suggesting that Africans are less willing to learn that Americans? That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard.

PS: I'm pretty sure they're African countries, not states...

IMO, the key to Africa's revival lies in Africa's indigenous roots. Rather than emulating foreign countries, Africa should turn to its past and bring back its pre-colonial societies.

Why are we being forced to tolerate racism?

Its not like we're taking one thread out of context either.

IMO, the key to Africa's revival lies in Africa's indigenous roots. Rather than emulating foreign countries, Africa should turn to its past and bring back its pre-colonial societies.And live in huts? And dance around little fires and pray for rain?
Yeah, welcome to the 21st century :rolleyes:
I really hope colonies on Mars come quickly.
I call ignorant bullshit.You can call whatever you want. But still Africa is where Europe was in the 60ies and 70ies.

You can call whatever you want. But still Africa is where Europe was in the 60ies and 70ies.

:eek:

I've always wanted to be a hippie at Woodstock!

*Runs off to join the sexual revolution*

And live in huts? And dance around little fires and pray for rain?
Yeah, welcome to the 21st century :rolleyes:
I really hope colonies on Mars come quickly.

Ah yes, "let's pound some cultural sense into the savages, shall we?" elitism mentality. Welcome to the 21st century as well, we respect differences and self determination.

No, because government against the people isn't sustainable anymore. Back in colonial days various insurgencies were a common occurance, but fairly easily dealt with through a genocidal military campaign.

Today insurgency warfare has progressed greatly and the technology divide is much smaller.
More to the point, one can now buy an AK47 in Somalia for about $20 at the Mogadishu arms market - effective resistance has, once again, become cheap.

You get revolutions when the average person can buy or build themselves the military equipment of the day at a cheap price - see the revolutions in the late 18th Century. The musket is not an expensive or difficult weapon to create, and it was on a par with that the military of the time were armed with, albeit slightly shabbier.

Now the very same thing has come to happen - $20 is not a lot of money, even in Africa, and an easy-to-maintain automatic rifle is always handy if you're going up against somewhat better-armed, and much better trained soldiers.

That, basically, is why you can't really oppress Africa like in The Olden Days.

And live in huts? And dance around little fires and pray for rain?
Yeah, welcome to the 21st century :rolleyes:
I really hope colonies on Mars come quickly.

Someone's been watching too many bad movies.

... we respect differences and self determination.meaning what? if they want their differences and self-determination, that's completely fine as long as they don't complain about their condition then. but if they want to live and have living standards like europeans, maybe they should start doing things like europeans instead of just asking for aid money.

Someone's been watching too many bad movies.

On the other hand, if the United States had been the colonial power running Africa into the ground UB would be throwing a bitchfest about it.

What mess? Roads and schools? Houses instead of huts?

You are incorrect

meaning what? if they want their differences and self-determination, that's completely fine as long as they don't complain about their condition then. but if they want to live and have living standards like europeans, maybe they should start doing things like europeans instead of just asking for aid money.

IF the European had left them alone, of course. But then again, they left their mess there. Pay damages and then go away.

IF the European had left them alone, of course. But then again, they left their mess there. Pay damages and then go away.What mess? Roads and schools? Houses instead of huts?

What mess? Roads and schools? Houses instead of huts?

Yep those,... European roads which needs asphalt, stones and equipment to built it, houses which requires a whole lot of attention rather than a simple hut. Poison to those who are not accustomed to it. Might as well giving them nuclear technology for their tribal wars, eh?

But why? They always brag about being the cradle of humankind. So if they have been around so much longer than the rest of the world, why can't they manage their own fucking business? I am all for letting them do whatever they wish (as long as they do no damage to the rest of the world), and if they should die let them die. There is no need to support stupid people or nations.

You would not apply such logic to Palestinians, would you? ;)

meaning what? if they want their differences and self-determination, that's completely fine as long as they don't complain about their condition then. but if they want to live and have living standards like europeans, maybe they should start doing things like europeans instead of just asking for aid money.

You think that all Europeans live in great living conditions? You must be dellusional.

Wtf? When Europeans started colonizing Africa in the 15th century all they encountered were savages in tribal fights. And droughts weren't the result of European colonization.


For the Africans, Europeans were the savages.

Btw, did anybody watch "Prince among slaves" in PBS?

European roads which needs asphalt, stones and equipment to built it, houses which requires a whole lot of attention rather than a simple hut.And Africans cannot manage that? Why?

Poison to those who are not accustomed to it.It only takes a brain and a few minutes of thinking to get accustomed to that. And then there are also books about all that. So where is the problem really?

Either way, it wasn't until Curtin's 'abandon the Empire' speech that Australia shifted to America as an ally and thus proper independence. But even post-war Australia remains in a constitutionally untenable and impossible situation, the Constitutional Crisis in the 70's prove this.

What the Fuck does the events on the 11th December have to do with independence or not after all Sir John Kerr acted on his own behalf and was not under direct orders from the Queen, and if we didn't have a Governor-General but a President or other such figure it is entirely still possible, under most circumstances expect for the initial act by the ALP in early 1975which set off these events. The events leading up to this point had nothing to do with having a British Monarch. But we truly came into our own in 1986 with the Australia Acts which took away powers from Britain to legislate for Australia (something which they never did) and establishing the title the Queen (King) of Australia thus giving us our own Monarch

Why can't they manage? Because it's,... oh I don't know, they're too busy serving the colonists to ever learn anything?

And the fact that the colonialists never bothered to give their subjects more than the most rudimentary education.

And Africans cannot manage that? Why?

It only takes a brain and a few minutes of thinking to get accustomed to that. And then there are also books about all that. So where is the problem really?

Why can't they manage? Because it's,... oh I don't know, they're too busy serving the colonists to ever learn anything?

Research moar about culture shocks, cultural invasions and their subsequent effect sometimes. It pays to broaden your perspective, you know. Or you could just bury your head under the sand. Either way, I win.

Long as we keep the Americans and all of Asia out of colonialism, it can honestly only improve Africa. The old colonial powers raped the place and then retreated leaving in its wake arbitrary boundaries and no supervision and from that we get a number of indescribably corrupt local governments who continue to rape everything. With a sudden political control blackout, those controlled just end up rising up and mimicing what had previously happened.

Why can't they manage? Because it's,... oh I don't know, they're too busy serving the colonists to ever learn anything?But the colonists are gone for 40+ years now. That's 2 generations.

Read about culture shocks and cultural invasions sometimes. It pays to broaden your perspective, you know.Culture shock is a cheesy excuse, especially after such a long time.

Long as we keep the Americans and all of Asia out of colonialism, it can honestly only improve Africa. The old colonial powers raped the place and then retreated leaving in its wake arbitrary boundaries and no supervision and from that we get a number of indescribably corrupt local governments who continue to rape everything. With a sudden political control blackout, those controlled just end up rising up and mimicing what had previously happened.

Honestly, I don't believe that Asia or America has the time nor patience to go in and colonize Africa which could cost billions and kill maybe millions. Africa has, for the most part, has been tribe against tribe, and most countries or empires in Africa throught history (Excluding Egypt and those along the Medditeranian) have not lasted past 200 years, the record is something like 400, but that is an exception, not a rule. So as long as you have African tribes that bicker over just as something as simple as a 1 mile area, there will be chaos, not to mention the mass diseases like malaria or AIDS.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0802/postcard_maringa_0213.jpg



Wow...just wow. Really interesting article by TIME

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html

Comments?The "We'd give them this country for free," sticks out. I have severe doubts as to whether everyone thinks like that, considering how heavily contested the rule over the country is ;)

Also, the phrase "Those who would give a little liberty to gain a little security deserve neither and will lose both," comes to mind.

Yep those,... European roads which needs asphalt, stones and equipment to built it, houses which requires a whole lot of attention rather than a simple hut. Poison to those who are not accustomed to it. Might as well giving them nuclear technology for their tribal wars, eh?

"What have the Romans ever done for us?" "The Aqueduct", "And the Sanitation" "And the Roads", "Irrigation" "Medicine" "Education" "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us"

Seriously though, While we may not want to go back to the days of oppressive colonialism. No can deny that many countries have not pospered under their new rulers due to many reasons such as corruption, tribal fighting and basic incompetence (look at Zimbabwae they have gone to the dogs ever since Smith was kicked out and Mugabe took over with his balatnly racist policies not only against Europeans but other Africans who are not a part of his tribal area) While some have increased to better living standards (I once worked with a man from Zambia and from the way he talked about the amount of money and luxuries he had, you could tell he was well off.)

But apart from the leadership some misguided policies are to blame as well (it could be labbelled as incompeteance as I have already stated) if we take Zambia as an example, the school system states that if a student fails their exams at the end of the year then they are kicked out of school and are not allowed to rejoin the education system thus we have a large amount of children being kicked out not having a good education and thus not helping the country's economy to improve. They are probably countless more examples of this sort of thing put in place across Africa which haven't helped their conditions. Of course one thing you could say is that they wanted independence thus it was given to them and looked what happened. Should the EU step in and help to correct these things perhaps but then the question is do they want their help, one man in the Congo does but many don't not helped by the fear spread by those with power and money who says white man will destroy you and take away your things.

Oh, and do you know how they did they leave? And did they miss the change they had brought?

Uuuh, because they were thrown out,... okay,... but their legacy still lives.

Cheesy? I think it's classy,... because culture shock is the initial impact that changed their culture, is the change is for the good? Let's see,... I say no. Why, because they're incorporated into the new culture as workers, laborers,... never thinkers.

Oh well, it looks like it's all beginning to be a pointless circle debate, so I think, I'll play some Civilization IV and culturally dominate some other poor civilization that dares to cross my path. :fluffle:

Good for you....run over the Chinese while your there for me.... :D

But the colonists are gone for 40+ years now. That's 2 generations.

Culture shock is a cheesy excuse, especially after such a long time.

Oh, and do you know how they did they leave? And did they miss the change they had brought?

Uuuh, because they were thrown out,... okay,... but their legacy still lives.

Cheesy? I think it's classy,... because culture shock is the initial impact that changed their culture, is the change is for the good? Let's see,... I say no. Why, because they're incorporated into the new culture as workers, laborers,... never thinkers.

Oh well, it looks like it's all beginning to be a pointless circle debate, so I think, I'll play some Civilization IV and culturally dominate some other poor civilization that dares to cross my path. :fluffle:

You should be happy that the moderators permit diversity on this site and punish bad behavior instead of unpopular opinions.

Racism IS bad behavior.

I think that in the haste to point the slanted nature of the OP, I forgot to bring up a good reminder of just what the 'good old days' in the Congo were like under white rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State

:rolleyes:



That made me giggle out loud. The term "white" really annoys me... My skin colour is very very pale, but I have little British ancestry.

Me too. I have mostly Danish, French, Russian, Native American and Jewish ancestry. Depending on just what type of racist I talk to, I'm either White (cuz I look it), or Non White. I argue a lot against racism though, so most Pure White proponents assume I am Impure since otherwise I would just be basking in the complacency of my supposed racial superiority. I guess according to Kontor I might be a "Self Hating White" or "Race Traitor" or "Mudblood" or whatever.

I'm shocked that the moderators care more about the fact that people are attacking a RACIST for being RACIST, than the racist comments The Atlantian Islands constantly makes.

From a moderator perspective it's not about racism or anti-racism, it's about "attacking."

I'm shocked that the moderators care more about the fact that people are attacking a RACIST for being RACIST, than the racist comments The Atlantian Islands constantly makes.

It's because this:
Attack the POST, not the POSTER!

Is a rule, the idea is to debate intelligently, not just devolve into petty name calling.

I was born in South Africa, I'm doing just that, but I plan to change the way the entire world is run.

Good luck with that :)

No, and I'm not white.

However, color has absolutely NOTHING to do with governments. The Congo needs a potent government - just because white people may dominate it doesn't mean that the country would become any better. I thought George W. Bush disproved this Social-Darwinism.

Just because my skin isn't light doesn't mean that I will suck at running a country. Just because your skin is light doesn't mean that you can run a country.

Deal with it.

The article is describing this as a racial issue, which involves racial politics, which would then involve racially related discussion of the racial issue, which could then inspire the offshoot of a racially-based poll.

Just because you don't want to personally discuss race doesn't mean it's a non-issue elsewhere and here it's obviously not a non-issue, as the article says.

So like I said,

DEAL.

You know, your poll has absolutely nothing to do with the article, believe it or not.

The man was obviously talking about European rule and not rule by whites. So asking whether you're white or not and if whites should rule the country has nothing to do with the man said and shows that you didn't understand what he was trying to say. If Europeans were black, he'd say that they should give the country back to the blacks.

I think that he should've said "European" instead of "white".

Anyway, my last post was in response to you/the poll, and not the article.

I think we need to boycott NSG until racism is banned.

I think we need to boycott NSG until racism is banned.

That's like boycotting democracy until we have real political equality: pointlessly purist and unwise.

That's like boycotting democracy until we have real political equality: pointlessly purist and unwise.

Hmmm good point, revolution against NSG then.

Hmmm good point, revolution against NSG then.

Yay! *starts handing out guillotines like candy*

I think we need to boycott NSG until racism is banned.

Agreed, you first AP ;)

No, it was the shitty transition like 1990s Russia that caused it all.

I think we need to boycott NSG until racism is banned.

That's a remarkably good idea you have there!

Make a vow and see it through to the bitter end, prove to the forum your dedication to anti-racism!

Not one more post until racism is banned!

Hasta la victoria siempre!

Racism IS bad behavior.

I agree.

From a moderator perspective it's not about racism or anti-racism, it's about "attacking."

The thing is that a complaint has previously been made about the original poster, because he has attacked someone becuase he's black.

It's because this:

Is a rule, the idea is to debate intelligently, not just devolve into petty name calling.

1. Calling someone "racist" isn't petty name calling. If it's true, there's no real harm in saying it. However, saying a someone looked like he'd "sell my organs for crack" The Atlantian Islands resorts to petty (and offensive) name calling.

I think we need to boycott NSG until racism is banned.

Sigh, I wish it were that easy. Perhaps we should take part in some vigilante justice...

Sigh, I wish it were that easy. Perhaps we should take part in some vigilante justice...

Don't knock it 'till you try it!

Make a vow! Stick it through to the bitter end! Show the world your commitment to anti-racism!

Not one more post until racism is officially banned from NSG!

Hasta la victoria siempre!

Not posting won't stop people being racist.

This is the beginning of truth.

Now lets see how far we can expand our list of things that won't stop people from being racist.

Don't knock it 'till you try it!

Make a vow! Stick it through to the bitter end! Show the world your commitment to anti-racism!

Not one more post until racism is officially banned from NSG!

Hasta la victoria siempre!

Not posting won't stop people being racist.

Not posting won't stop people being racist.Neither will breaking the rules. The idea behind letting Racists post here is the naive hope that one or two may be shown the error of their ways in open debate.

Neither will breaking the rules. The idea behind letting Racists post here is the naive hope that one or two may be shown the error of their ways in open debate.

Oh please. Which is why you have tried ever so hard.

Where, exactly, are people getting this strange idea that racism is generally unacceptable on the internet?

Unacceptable in terms of prohibited rather than ostracised, btw.

Oh please. Which is why you have tried ever so hard.I'm a bit too tired at the moment to refute every bit of racist bullshit that comes across my screen. It's real easy to make an asinine accusation, but it takes research to properly refute it, and I'm currently not motivated enough to make the effort. Just yelling "Racist!" at anything that appears to be so isn't helpful, so I refrain unless I have been able to do my research.

Although how that is related to the reason why racists are allowed to post is beyond me...

White rule would help Congo for the simple reason that we left country - and Africa - in such a shithole condition that they were quite literally sent hundreds of years backwards.

Think about it, until they have proper education system giving them basic education anywhere near the level of Europeans they have no bloody chance of functioning in global market.

It's not a racial thing, it's a cultural thing - When you have a huge underclass that's dependent on the leadership of oppressive minority then suddenly taking away the leadership will leave a vacuum of competence that's impossible to fill without foreign help: You can't even properly farm without knowing about soil conditions, fertilizers or growth cycles let alone being able to construct more complex structures.

I'm a bit too tired at the moment to refute every bit of racist bullshit that comes across my screen. It's real easy to make an asinine accusation, but it takes research to properly refute it, and I'm currently not motivated enough to make the effort. Just yelling "Racist!" at anything that appears to be so isn't helpful, so I refrain unless I have been able to do my research.

Although how that is related to the reason why racists are allowed to post is beyond me...
There are two issues here; firstly, I've gone to the effort to refute racism and judging by a search of you're posts you just haven't bothered in a very long time, secondly, whilst I can carefully recontrust every argument placed before me by the hordes of racist out there, the fact that moderators on this forum would rather tongue lash people for pointing out racism than ask people to down behaviour is ridiculous.

At the end of the day, if you are too lazy to counter racism, but have the will power to argue the rights of racists with me, well...

On a mostly unrelated note, the last attempt (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542000&highlight=are+jews+smarter) to get the mods to crack down on the racist ended either horribly or hilariously, depending on how you view it.

White rule would help Congo for the simple reason that we left country - and Africa - in such a shithole condition that they were quite literally sent hundreds of years backwards.

Think about it, until they have proper education system giving them basic education anywhere near the level of Europeans they have no bloody chance of functioning in global market.

It's not a racial thing, it's a cultural thing - When you have a huge underclass that's dependent on the leadership of oppressive minority then suddenly taking away the leadership will leave a vacuum of competence that's impossible to fill without foreign help: You can't even properly farm without knowing about soil conditions, fertilizers or growth cycles let alone being able to construct more complex structures.

I posted a link to how Congo was under European rule a page or two back. If you read it you will note there never really was competence, except in the way they destroyed what native societies were there. The result is the trash-heap they left behind. Thus its not a cultural thing, its a culture of dysfunction and one not of their making.

There are two issues here; firstly, I've gone to the effort to refute racism and judging by a search of you're posts you just haven't bothered in a very long time, secondly, whilst I can carefully recontrust every argument placed before me by the hordes of racist out there, the fact that moderators on this forum would rather tongue lash people for pointing out racism than ask people to down behaviour is ridiculous.

At the end of the day, if you are too lazy to counter racism, but have the will power to argue the rights of racists with me, well...

You may not have heard, but there is a big cool protest going on with all the NSG Anti Racist Squealers, where they are boycotting NSG until racism is banned!

Take a stand! See it through to the bitter end! Not one more post until racism is banned from NSG!

Hasta la victoria siempre!

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0802/postcard_maringa_0213.jpg



Wow...just wow. Really interesting article by TIME

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html

Comments?

Interesting article. I don't see it as racist or even mean spirited. I see it as pining for a better life. Nothing more. The addage 'be careful what you wish for' is pretty well summed up. The desire for freedom from colonialism was right and morally correct no question regarding that. The lack of any kind of leadership to fill the void was wrong, no question of that.

The knowledge and management skills needed to prosper left. What is needed is education and motivation. It doesn't matter the color of who does it, nor does it mean a specific racial 'rule'. It means someone cares enough to want to invest and grow the country again. And this time in a proper manner.

I think our riverboat captain pines for prosperity, which he happens to have only seen under white rule. His opinion is based solely in what he knows and not what the possibilities are in reality. Anyone can prosper. Someone just has to want to do so.

Btw I didn't vote in the poll, I didn't see the point. I did however enjoy and appreciate the link to the story.

You may not have heard, but there is a big cool protest going on with all the NSG Anti Racist Squealers, where they are boycotting NSG until racism is banned!

Take a stand! See it through to the bitter end! Not one more post until racism is banned from NSG!

Hasta la victoria siempre!
I here there is a cool protest where idiots who think disliking racism is somehow radical socialism are holding their heads under water until the bubbles stop.

There are two issues here; firstly, I've gone to the effort to refute racism and judging by a search of you're posts you just haven't bothered in a very long time,I've been offline for a while and it's been a really shitty year so far. I'd ask you to forgive me when real life gets in the way of winning a forum debate, but to be honest, I don't need to justify my online behavior to anyone, so long as it doesn't break any rules. Ignoring off course my off-forum work against racism. secondly, whilst I can carefully recontrust every argument placed before me by the hordes of racist out there, the fact that moderators on this forum would rather tongue lash people for pointing out racism than ask people to down behaviour is ridiculous.While I think it's admirable that you're defending your GF, and while I also don't think that TAI and TBC should have been let off that easily for their statements in the picture thread, drive-by "You're a racist!" statements, especially if that's all that is contributed, are borderline flaming or trolling. I've seen both Amor and Knights of Liberty do it, but just as with engaging in a racist debate, I'm not motivated to do anything about it (though unlike in the latter case, I probably never will be motivated to do so). From what I've seen (I can't see individual TG boxes), most of the tongue-lashing has been dealt out to people who haven't made the effort to say why the statement was racist.

At the end of the day, if you are too lazy to counter racism, but have the will power to argue the rights of racists with me, well...Mind showing me where I've debated their rights?

Although I am White my Ancestors came from British India amongst other places. My family have lived in most of Britain's colonies. I believe that Colonialism is good, so long as it does not contain Racisism. I think Kenya, Zimbabwe, Congo, Burma, Malaysia and Ethiopia could well benefit from modern Colonialism. I also think that had the British Empire not suffered World War 2, it would still exist today as a network of developed Dominions and Territories.

I here there is a cool protest where idiots who think disliking racism is somehow radical socialism are holding their heads under water until the bubbles stop.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. There is a difference between idle and trivial whining and radical socialism. The fact that an exponent of loathsome murderous communism happens to squeal loudly and often about the eebil racism on NSG does not indicate that I or anyone else equates such noise with radical socialism.

I shall forgive the disturbing and vile suggestion that I should drown myself to death, irregardless(sic) of the immorality of it and the fact that it might be 'actionable.'

"Don't invite the man into your life," they say.

How does going to a group of people different than you and telling them you're more fit to rule them, because you're European, not racist?

I think the standard answer to that...*scans a few pages up*... is that the Europeans brings civilization to the savages or something along the lines of that.

:rolleyes:

Although I am White my Ancestors came from British India amongst other places. My family have lived in most of Britain's colonies. I believe that Colonialism is good, so long as it does not contain Racisism. I think Kenya, Zimbabwe, Congo, Burma, Malaysia and Ethiopia could well benefit from modern Colonialism. I also think that had the British Empire not suffered World War 2, it would still exist today as a network of developed Dominions and Territories.How does going to a group of people different than you and telling them you're more fit to rule them, because you're European, not racist?

Ignoring off course my off-forum work against racism. Your part-time job at the NAACP?

While I think it's admirable that you're defending your GF, and while I also don't think that TAI and TBC should have been let off that easily for their statements in the picture thread, drive-by "You're a racist!" statements, especially if that's all that is contributed, are borderline flaming or trolling. Are you honestly saying that "racist" is boardering on some kind of hate speech? That is ludicrous

I've seen both Amor and Knights of Liberty do it, but just as with engaging in a racist debate, I'm not motivated to do anything about it (though unlike in the latter case, I probably never will be motivated to do so). From what I've seen (I can't see individual TG boxes), most of the tongue-lashing has been dealt out to people who haven't made the effort to say why the statement was racist.In an argument where you are talking about people not providing examples, it would be prudent to cite your examples; but we'll let that one go. I doubt there is a person on this forum who needs the racism in post made by certain individuals on this forum explained

For example;

"Still, he looks much less likely to kill me and sell my organs for crack if I met him on the street than Rotovia..."

I could launch into a long tirade about how people with dark skin do not steal organs for crack money, or one could just say "That's racist" and the NSG community would understand.

Mind showing me where I've debated their rights?

The idea behind letting Racists post here is the naive hope that one or two may be shown the error of their ways in open debate.

I think the standard answer to that...*scans a few pages up*... is that the Europeans brings civilization to the savages or something along the lines of that.

:rolleyes:

Do you disagree with that statement?

Your part-time job at the NAACP?:rolleyes:

Are you honestly saying that "racist" is boarding on some kind of hate speech? That is ludicrous:rolleyes: Rotovia, quit acting like a child.

In an argument where you are talking about people not providing examples, it would be prudent to cite your examples; but we'll let that one go. Sure. You could also show evidence of backlash against posters that have been pointing out racism.
I doubt there is a person on this forum who needs the racism in post made by certain individuals on this forum explainedYou don't need to explain it for the purpose of enlightening people, your obligation to explain it stems from the need to avoid your reply from violating the rules.
For example;

"Still, he looks much less likely to kill me and sell my organs for crack if I met him on the street than Rotovia..."

I could launch into a long tirade about how people with dark skin do not steal organs for crack money, or one could just say "That's racist" and the NSG community would understand.Yup.

As to the "debating their rights": I'm not. That's a paraphrase of official policy, as I've come to understand it in my years on NSG and NSM. Doesn't mean I support it or oppose it or why it would be justified. All it says is that's how it is, and you're welcome to disprove it if you can.