Log in

View Full Version : Unapologetic capitalist apologises for impearialism



Unapologetic Capitalist
6th December 2007, 02:58
Originally posted by ¡Viva la Libertad!@November 22, 2007 02:06 am
I'm sorry if these topic seems rather random at first, but I think it's a great injustice that after all of the oppression, the centuries, of oppression that black people had to go through in the United States, up to the ending of slavery (in its official sense) in 1865, and then to go through decades of similar if not even worse oppression — and then during the Second World War they were finally treated with an ounce more of respect by fighting in SEPARATE MILITARY POSTS for the U.S. ("Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"). Anyway, it just pisses me off that they were drafted to fight in the wars fighting for the country that hated them. What a load of shit! :angry:
Reminds me of a quote by Muhammad Ali, on his opposition to serving in Vietnam:


"I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong ... They never called me nigger."
The US may have treated blacks shabbily, but it still beats Africa (look at Liberia for a good example).

Comrade Rage
6th December 2007, 03:15
Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 08:57 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 08:57 pm)
¡Viva la Libertad!@November 22, 2007 02:06 am
I'm sorry if these topic seems rather random at first, but I think it's a great injustice that after all of the oppression, the centuries, of oppression that black people had to go through in the United States, up to the ending of slavery (in its official sense) in 1865, and then to go through decades of similar if not even worse oppression — and then during the Second World War they were finally treated with an ounce more of respect by fighting in SEPARATE MILITARY POSTS for the U.S. ("Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"). Anyway, it just pisses me off that they were drafted to fight in the wars fighting for the country that hated them. What a load of shit! :angry:
Reminds me of a quote by Muhammad Ali, on his opposition to serving in Vietnam:


"I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong ... They never called me nigger."
The US may have treated blacks shabbily, but it still beats Africa (look at Liberia for a good example). [/b]
The situation in Africa springs out of US imperialism, troll.

Unapologetic Capitalist
6th December 2007, 03:23
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 03:14 am
The situation in Africa springs out of US imperialism, troll.
1. I'm not a troll. Trust me, I'd be a lot less polite if I was.

2. US imperialism? Despite the fact that the slave trade began with Arab incursions in the 800s?

3. Africa was pretty screwed up before the Europeans came (Dahomey slavers in the west, Zulu marauders in the South, Arab domination in the north).

4. Even if imperialism hurt the political situation further, it also introduced things like railroads and electricity.

Comrade Rage
6th December 2007, 03:30
Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 09:22 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 09:22 pm)
COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 03:14 am
The situation in Africa springs out of US imperialism, troll.
1. I'm not a troll. Trust me, I'd be a lot less polite if I was.

2. US imperialism? Despite the fact that the slave trade began with Arab incursions in the 800s?

3. Africa was pretty screwed up before the Europeans came (Dahomey slavers in the west, Zulu marauders in the South, Arab domination in the north).

4. Even if imperialism hurt the political situation further, it also introduced things like railroads and electricity. [/b]
1. You're a troll--you're name says it all.

2. US Imperialism is responsible for the interference with socialism in Africa, which would've resulted in better conditions there.

3. What does that matter?

4. True, but there's nothing saying that Africa wouldn't get those things on they're own.

Unapologetic Capitalist
6th December 2007, 03:41
Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+December 06, 2007 03:29 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ December 06, 2007 03:29 am)
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 09:22 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 03:14 am
The situation in Africa springs out of US imperialism, troll.
1. I'm not a troll. Trust me, I'd be a lot less polite if I was.

2. US imperialism? Despite the fact that the slave trade began with Arab incursions in the 800s?

3. Africa was pretty screwed up before the Europeans came (Dahomey slavers in the west, Zulu marauders in the South, Arab domination in the north).

4. Even if imperialism hurt the political situation further, it also introduced things like railroads and electricity.
1. You're a troll--you're name says it all.

2. US Imperialism is responsible for the interference with socialism in Africa, which would've resulted in better conditions there.

3. What does that matter?

4. True, but there's nothing saying that Africa wouldn't get those things on they're own. [/b]
1. This is a stupid issue to squabble about. Have it your way.

2. Yes, it's all our fault. The corrupt politicians didn't matter at all.

3. It matters because imperialism didn't screw up Africa. It worked in an area that was already screwed up.

4. Perhaps, but they sure wouldn't have had the British/French/German governments pay for them.

Comrade Rage
6th December 2007, 04:12
Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 05, 2007 09:40 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 05, 2007 09:40 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 03:29 am

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 09:22 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 03:14 am
The situation in Africa springs out of US imperialism, troll.
1. I'm not a troll. Trust me, I'd be a lot less polite if I was.

2. US imperialism? Despite the fact that the slave trade began with Arab incursions in the 800s?

3. Africa was pretty screwed up before the Europeans came (Dahomey slavers in the west, Zulu marauders in the South, Arab domination in the north).

4. Even if imperialism hurt the political situation further, it also introduced things like railroads and electricity.
1. You're a troll--you're name says it all.

2. US Imperialism is responsible for the interference with socialism in Africa, which would've resulted in better conditions there.

3. What does that matter?

4. True, but there's nothing saying that Africa wouldn't get those things on they're own.
1. This is a stupid issue to squabble about. Have it your way.

2. Yes, it's all our fault. The corrupt politicians didn't matter at all.

3. It matters because imperialism didn't screw up Africa. It worked in an area that was already screwed up.

4. Perhaps, but they sure wouldn't have had the British/French/German governments pay for them. [/b]
2. Some of the corrupt politicians were financed by us.

3. How did imperialism work?! WTF it hasn't help out the African people, and it's still happening. US AFRICOM, look it up.

Play tag with a Mack truck, troll!

JazzRemington
6th December 2007, 04:25
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:40 pm
2. Yes, it's all our fault. The corrupt politicians didn't matter at all.

3. It matters because imperialism didn't screw up Africa. It worked in an area that was already screwed up.
From A Brief History of the Western World, 6th edition, by Thomas H. Greer and Gavin Lewis, (pg. 535)"When rival states began to challenge British economic privileges in particular areas, Britain responded by seeking exclusive arrangements. Thus, after 1870 its Foreign Office sought treaty rights, "spheres of interest," and colonies. Germany and Italy, as well as the older European nation-states, joined in the sweepstakes. All employed various methods for gaining a foothold or an advantage and backed up their efforts by the threat or use of military force. The "underdeveloped" orf declining countries of Asia and Africa found themselves helpless before the combined onslaught. Even more than in the case of earlier confrontations between Europe and non-Western world, the Europeans held the advantage of aggressive purpose, superior organization, and and advanced technologies."

The book then goes on to talk about how various European corporations were set up and took complete advantage of treaties they signed with various tribal leaders, who didn't understand much about the treaties. Shit, read any history book and you'll see pretty much the same thing.

Also, from wikipedia article on Africa: "Colonialism had a destabilising effect on a number of ethnic groups that is still being felt in African politics. Before European influence, national borders were not much of a concern, with Africans generally following the practice of other areas of the world, such as the Arabian Peninsula, where a group's territory was congruent with its military or trade influence. The European insistence of drawing borders around territories to isolate them from those of other colonial powers often had the effect of separating otherwise contiguous political groups, or forcing traditional enemies to live side by side with no buffer between them. For example, although the Congo River appears to be a natural geographic boundary, there were groups that otherwise shared a language, culture or other similarity living on both sides. The division of the land between Belgium and France along the river isolated these groups from each other. Those who lived in Saharan or Sub-Saharan Africa and traded across the continent for centuries often found themselves crossing borders that existed only on European maps."

But let's talk about how "screwed up" Africa is. Africa had many advanced civilizations adn kingdoms when Europeans came over and began colonization (especially so with the Romans and other classical civilizations). But maybe Africa didn't develop much compared to Europe or the Americas because of the environment. You know, the fact that the environment is harsh and is mostly dominated by a huge fucking desert in the middle of the continent and the fact most of the country has historically been isolated from the rest of the world for the fact that the environment was harsh and the population was dispersed over a wide variety of places in small tribes.

Like I told you in chat, read a fucking book, you ignorant ****.

Unapologetic Capitalist
6th December 2007, 04:29
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 04:11 am
2. Some of the corrupt politicians were financed by us.

3. How did imperialism work?! WTF it hasn't help out the African people, and it's still happening. US AFRICOM, look it up.

Play tag with a Mack truck, troll!
2. Some were financed by us. Fine. Why didn't any honest politicians roll around? We haven't exactly been models in our treatment of Africa, but that doesn't let them off the hook.

3. I know what Africom is, thanks. Imperialism may not have helped (aside from transferring billions of dollars worth of technology and infrastructure), but it didn't make things much worse either (personally, I'd rather live in a poor state with electricity than in a poor tribe without it).

Unapologetic Capitalist
6th December 2007, 04:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:24 am
From A Brief History of the Western World, 6th edition, by Thomas H. Greer and Gavin Lewis, (pg. 535)"When rival states began to challenge British economic privileges in particular areas, Britain responded by seeking exclusive arrangements. Thus, after 1870 its Foreign Office sought treaty rights, "spheres of interest," and colonies. Germany and Italy, as well as the older European nation-states, joined in the sweepstakes. All employed various methods for gaining a foothold or an advantage and backed up their efforts by the threat or use of military force. The "underdeveloped" orf declining countries of Asia and Africa found themselves helpless before the combined onslaught. Even more than in the case of earlier confrontations between Europe and non-Western world, the Europeans held the advantage of aggressive purpose, superior organization, and and advanced technologies."

The book then goes on to talk about how various European corporations were set up and took complete advantage of treaties they signed with various tribal leaders, who didn't understand much about the treaties. Shit, read any history book and you'll see pretty much the same thing.

Also, from wikipedia article on Africa: "Colonialism had a destabilising effect on a number of ethnic groups that is still being felt in African politics. Before European influence, national borders were not much of a concern, with Africans generally following the practice of other areas of the world, such as the Arabian Peninsula, where a group's territory was congruent with its military or trade influence. The European insistence of drawing borders around territories to isolate them from those of other colonial powers often had the effect of separating otherwise contiguous political groups, or forcing traditional enemies to live side by side with no buffer between them. For example, although the Congo River appears to be a natural geographic boundary, there were groups that otherwise shared a language, culture or other similarity living on both sides. The division of the land between Belgium and France along the river isolated these groups from each other. Those who lived in Saharan or Sub-Saharan Africa and traded across the continent for centuries often found themselves crossing borders that existed only on European maps."

But let's talk about how "screwed up" Africa is. Africa had many advanced civilizations adn kingdoms when Europeans came over and began colonization (especially so with the Romans and other classical civilizations). But maybe Africa didn't develop much compared to Europe or the Americas because of the environment. You know, the fact that the environment is harsh and is mostly dominated by a huge fucking desert in the middle of the continent and the fact most of the country has historically been isolated from the rest of the world for the fact that the environment was harsh and the population was dispersed over a wide variety of places in small tribes.

Like I told you in chat, read a fucking book, you ignorant ****.
Your maturity is overwhelming.

What advanced civilizations? Egpyt? Not really African, more closely related to the maritime Sea Peoples, very little intellectual legacy on the continent. Nubian? Blatant rip-off of Egyptian. Meroe? Stole Roman infrastructure. Axum? A trading state, but no major technological or intellectual advances.

Read any history book, and you'll hear that Europeans acted as conquerors always act. What's amazing is that: 1) there wasn't very much for them to destroy; 2) the natives (e.g. Dahomey slavers) were very willing to sell out their own people; 3) the Europeans got nailed for what the Arabs had been doing since the 800s; and 4) Africa has managed to avoid almost any major recovery since decolonization (in contrast to Asia and Latin America).

Comrade Rage
6th December 2007, 04:39
For shit's sake you are a disruptive annoying troll.


Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist Troll
You're maturity is overwhelming.
You used 'You're' in the wrong context, fuckface.

Knock it off, spammy troll.

JazzRemington
6th December 2007, 05:08
What advanced civilizations? Egpyt? Not really African, more closely related to the maritime Sea Peoples, very little intellectual legacy on the continent. Nubian? Blatant rip-off of Egyptian. Meroe? Stole Roman infrastructure. Axum? A trading state, but no major technological or intellectual advances.

Also from the wiki article:

About 3300 BC, the historical record opens in Africa with the rise of literacy in the Pharaonic-ruled civilisation of Ancient Egypt, which continued, with varying levels of influence over other areas, until 343 BC.[19][20] Prominent civilisations at different times include Carthage, the Kingdom of Aksum, the Nubian kingdoms, the empires of the Sahel (Kanem-Bornu, Ghana, Mali, and Songhai), Great Zimbabwe, and the Kongo.[21][22]

After the Sahara had become a desert it did not present an impenetrable barrier for travellers between north and south. Even prior to the introduction of the camel[23] the use of oxen for desert crossing was common, and trade routes followed oases that were strung across the desert. The camel was first brought to Egypt by the Persians after 525 BC, although large herds did not become common enough in North Africa to establish the trans-Saharan trade until the eighth century AD.[24] The Sanhaja Berbers were the first to exploit this.

Pre-colonial Africa possessed perhaps as many as 10,000 different states and polities[25] characterised by different sorts of political organisation and rule. These included small family groups of hunter-gatherers such as the San people of southern Africa; larger, more structured groups such as the family clan groupings of the Bantu-speaking people of central and southern Africa and heavily-structured clan groups in the Horn of Africa, the Sahelian Kingdoms, and autonomous city-states such as the Swahili coastal trading towns of the East African coast, whose trade network extended as far as China.

In 1418, the fifth expedition by Chinese admiral Zheng He reached Africa's east coast. The two later Zheng He voyages, the last in 1432, also sailed to East Africa. The Chinese travelled at least as far as Malindi in Kenya. In 1482, the Portuguese established the first of many trading stations along the coast of Ghana at Elmina. The chief commodities dealt in were slaves, gold, ivory and spices. The European discovery of the Americas in 1492 was followed by a great development of the slave trade, which, before the Portuguese era, had been an overland trade almost exclusively, and never confined to any one continent.[26]

In West Africa, the decline of the Atlantic slave trade in the 1820s caused dramatic economic shifts in local polities. The gradual decline of slave-trading, prompted by a lack of demand for slaves in the New World, increasing anti-slavery legislation in Europe and America, and the British navy's increasing presence off the West African coast, obliged African states to adopt new economies. The largest powers of West Africa: the Asante Confederacy, the Kingdom of Dahomey, and the Oyo Empire, adopted different ways of adapting to the shift. Asante and Dahomey concentrated on the development of "legitimate commerce" in the form of palm oil, cocoa, timber and gold, forming the bedrock of West Africa's modern export trade. The Oyo Empire, unable to adapt, collapsed into civil wars.[27]


Read any history book, and you'll hear that Europeans acted as conquerors always act. What's amazing is that: 1) there wasn't very much for them to destroy; 2) the natives (e.g. Dahomey slavers) were very willing to sell out their own people; 3) the Europeans got nailed for what the Arabs had been doing since the 800s; and 4) Africa has managed to avoid almost any major recovery since decolonization (in contrast to Asia and Latin America).

But if you insist on the bullshit that a country is only great when they make their own advances, completely unique from other countries, then congratulations: there is no truly unique culture in the world. Period. Not even the Romans were unique in their system, and especially not the Europeans.

Your complete ignorance astounds me. It really is amazing how you managed to side step the proven fact that European colonization caused pretty much all the problems of Modern Africa (aside from any problems related to te environment, which is no one's fault, not even the Africans). When you have a harsh environment, a huge fucking desert in the middle of the country, and warlords fighting over territories established by European colonists, it's obvious why Africa hadn't recovered as quickly as Asia.

It doesn't matter how much there was for them to destroy. The fact is that the European colonists caused major unrest and conflicts that did not exist prior to their coming over. You truly are completely blind and ignorant to this fact. Maybe if you stopped viewing things through your elitist nonsense you will see that you are fucking wrong. Why won't you accept this?

It also doesn't matter that the African kingdoms traded slaves. Pretty much all the ancient civilizations (and even a few early medieval societies) traded slaves but 1) they were won through conquest, 2) they were not based exclusively on one group of people, and 3) African tribes traded slaves (as well as other things) with each other for the purposes of basically obtaining goods that other kingdoms had. They traded with the Europeans mostly out of the necessity of the trade agreements they had forced upon them by the Europeans.

But some more congratulations are in order. Apparently what we were discussing managed to change from the effects of European colonialism on Africa to what the Arabs did. It doesn't matter what they did. What the Arabs did obviously didn't have such disastrous effects on modern Africa. Stop trying to shift the blame around, you dumb fuck.

In sum: you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Unapologetic Capitalist
6th December 2007, 05:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:07 am

What advanced civilizations? Egpyt? Not really African, more closely related to the maritime Sea Peoples, very little intellectual legacy on the continent. Nubian? Blatant rip-off of Egyptian. Meroe? Stole Roman infrastructure. Axum? A trading state, but no major technological or intellectual advances.

Also from the wiki article:

About 3300 BC, the historical record opens in Africa with the rise of literacy in the Pharaonic-ruled civilisation of Ancient Egypt, which continued, with varying levels of influence over other areas, until 343 BC.[19][20] Prominent civilisations at different times include Carthage, the Kingdom of Aksum, the Nubian kingdoms, the empires of the Sahel (Kanem-Bornu, Ghana, Mali, and Songhai), Great Zimbabwe, and the Kongo.[21][22]

After the Sahara had become a desert it did not present an impenetrable barrier for travellers between north and south. Even prior to the introduction of the camel[23] the use of oxen for desert crossing was common, and trade routes followed oases that were strung across the desert. The camel was first brought to Egypt by the Persians after 525 BC, although large herds did not become common enough in North Africa to establish the trans-Saharan trade until the eighth century AD.[24] The Sanhaja Berbers were the first to exploit this.

Pre-colonial Africa possessed perhaps as many as 10,000 different states and polities[25] characterised by different sorts of political organisation and rule. These included small family groups of hunter-gatherers such as the San people of southern Africa; larger, more structured groups such as the family clan groupings of the Bantu-speaking people of central and southern Africa and heavily-structured clan groups in the Horn of Africa, the Sahelian Kingdoms, and autonomous city-states such as the Swahili coastal trading towns of the East African coast, whose trade network extended as far as China.

In 1418, the fifth expedition by Chinese admiral Zheng He reached Africa's east coast. The two later Zheng He voyages, the last in 1432, also sailed to East Africa. The Chinese travelled at least as far as Malindi in Kenya. In 1482, the Portuguese established the first of many trading stations along the coast of Ghana at Elmina. The chief commodities dealt in were slaves, gold, ivory and spices. The European discovery of the Americas in 1492 was followed by a great development of the slave trade, which, before the Portuguese era, had been an overland trade almost exclusively, and never confined to any one continent.[26]

In West Africa, the decline of the Atlantic slave trade in the 1820s caused dramatic economic shifts in local polities. The gradual decline of slave-trading, prompted by a lack of demand for slaves in the New World, increasing anti-slavery legislation in Europe and America, and the British navy's increasing presence off the West African coast, obliged African states to adopt new economies. The largest powers of West Africa: the Asante Confederacy, the Kingdom of Dahomey, and the Oyo Empire, adopted different ways of adapting to the shift. Asante and Dahomey concentrated on the development of "legitimate commerce" in the form of palm oil, cocoa, timber and gold, forming the bedrock of West Africa's modern export trade. The Oyo Empire, unable to adapt, collapsed into civil wars.[27]


Read any history book, and you'll hear that Europeans acted as conquerors always act. What's amazing is that: 1) there wasn't very much for them to destroy; 2) the natives (e.g. Dahomey slavers) were very willing to sell out their own people; 3) the Europeans got nailed for what the Arabs had been doing since the 800s; and 4) Africa has managed to avoid almost any major recovery since decolonization (in contrast to Asia and Latin America).

But if you insist on the bullshit that a country is only great when they make their own advances, completely unique from other countries, then congratulations: there is no truly unique culture in the world. Period. Not even the Romans were unique in their system, and especially not the Europeans.

Your complete ignorance astounds me. It really is amazing how you managed to side step the proven fact that European colonization caused pretty much all the problems of Modern Africa (aside from any problems related to te environment, which is no one's fault, not even the Africans). When you have a harsh environment, a huge fucking desert in the middle of the country, and warlords fighting over territories established by European colonists, it's obvious why Africa hadn't recovered as quickly as Asia.

It doesn't matter how much there was for them to destroy. The fact is that the European colonists caused major unrest and conflicts that did not exist prior to their coming over. You truly are completely blind and ignorant to this fact. Maybe if you stopped viewing things through your elitist nonsense you will see that you are fucking wrong. Why won't you accept this?

It also doesn't matter that the African kingdoms traded slaves. Pretty much all the ancient civilizations (and even a few early medieval societies) traded slaves but 1) they were won through conquest, 2) they were not based exclusively on one group of people, and 3) African tribes traded slaves (as well as other things) with each other for the purposes of basically obtaining goods that other kingdoms had. They traded with the Europeans mostly out of the necessity of the trade agreements they had forced upon them by the Europeans.

But some more congratulations are in order. Apparently what we were discussing managed to change from the effects of European colonialism on Africa to what the Arabs did. It doesn't matter what they did. What the Arabs did obviously didn't have such disastrous effects on modern Africa. Stop trying to shift the blame around, you dumb fuck.

In sum: you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Look, I know just as much history as you. In fact, I know enough to understand this basic fact: there's no such thing as historical proof.

JazzRemington
6th December 2007, 05:26
You patronizing shit-for-brains. It's pretty damn obvious when you make wild assertions that go beyond the evidence available. But dont' talk to me about historical proofs. First you assert a wide variety of historical "facts" and then say there's no such thing as historical proof. You can't prove an hypothesis true, but you can prove it false, which is what I did. So fuck off.

Jazzratt
6th December 2007, 13:16
Dear christ. Do I have to split everything?

Zurdito
6th December 2007, 16:42
why hasn't this goddammed fool been restricted yet? he is sub-tungsten, in any case.

RGacky3
6th December 2007, 18:11
US imperialism has only really been a a global problem since WWII, Africas woes can be pretty much blaimed on the Europeans, if its Eygpt or the United States it really does'nt matter, Imperialism is bad no matter who it comes from.


2. Some were financed by us. Fine. Why didn't any honest politicians roll around? We haven't exactly been models in our treatment of Africa, but that doesn't let them off the hook.

No it does'nt your absolutely right, but the majority of leaders in Africa are subservient to bigger powers like the US, China and European powers, and are being pragmatic.

I'm not saying the African leaders are bad, or the American ones, I'm saying the system of Global Capitalism (Imperialism), encourages oppression, infact it forces oppression.

The argument, "We do it fine, but they do it too" is'nt an argument.


3. I know what Africom is, thanks. Imperialism may not have helped (aside from transferring billions of dollars worth of technology and infrastructure), but it didn't make things much worse either (personally, I'd rather live in a poor state with electricity than in a poor tribe without it).

I think most people would rather be free people benefiting fully from their labor, than enslaved with elecricity, also your assuming the technology and infastructure reaches the poor, which it rarely does.

It can be argued that Slavers actually benefited slaves beacuse the salves were fed and housed, whereas in Africa there could have been starvation from bad crops. But its a horrible argument completely putting aside self determination.

synthesis
6th December 2007, 19:26
Everything I have seen this person argue for are things that I have read practically word-for-word from white supremacist literature.

Oh, slavery wasn't that bad. They would have been worse off in Africa. They never had any real civilization of their own.

Fuck you, you piece of shit.

By the way, the Arab slave trade was very different from the European slave trade. The Arabs did not actively encourage warfare between African peoples, which was by and large the primary source of slaves; neither did they supply friendly ethnic groups with guns so that they could more easily subjugate and enslave rival ethnic groups, and then sell them back to the Europeans to pay off the guns.

The Arabs never engaged in the sort of wholesale robbery of African people that Europeans did. The Arabs did not export tens of millions of people for massive agricultural enterprises, most of whom died in horrible conditions en route to their life of inhuman servitude.

ÑóẊîöʼn
6th December 2007, 19:41
2) the natives (e.g. Dahomey slavers) were very willing to sell out their own people; 3) the Europeans got nailed for what the Arabs had been doing since the 800s;

Just because the Arabs and the Africans themselves were doing it does not excuse the Europeans doing it, you shit-encrusted cumstain.

Look up the "tu quoque" fallacy.

RedKnight
6th December 2007, 20:24
Liberia was created by the U.S. as a place to send freed slaves. There society is dominated by americo-liberians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

Connolly
6th December 2007, 20:38
What advanced civilizations? Egpyt? Not really African, more closely related to the maritime Sea Peoples, very little intellectual legacy on the continent. Nubian? Blatant rip-off of Egyptian. Meroe? Stole Roman infrastructure. Axum? A trading state, but no major technological or intellectual advances.

He sounds like a racist fucking fash with these stupid arguments - of "who came up with what".

Why isnt he restricted anyway?

MT5678
6th December 2007, 21:46
No, it doesn't beat Africa. Leopold II made Pol Pot look like a humanitarian. He reduced the population of Congo from 20 million to under 10 million (no emigration, from around 1890 to 1913 or something) with his market-driven rubber madness. Numders from King Leopold's Ghost: a Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild.

Comrade Rage
7th December 2007, 00:53
Originally posted by RGacky3+December 06, 2007 12:10 pm--> (RGacky3 @ December 06, 2007 12:10 pm) US imperialism has only really been a a global problem since WWII [/b]
Whu... :huh:

WWII may have been when it really got going strong, but US Imperialism is as old as hell.

How do you think we got Hawaii as a state?


RGacky3
It can be argued that Slavers actually benefited slaves beacuse the salves were fed and housed, whereas in Africa there could have been starvation from bad crops. But its a horrible argument completely putting aside self determination.
What they have today, and what is increasingly becoming the norm in the world, even in the west, is serfdom. It is one rung below slavery, as in slavery, at least the slaves were fed and housed.

¡Viva la Libertad!
8th December 2007, 03:01
The topic wasn't even originally ABOUT imperialism. It was originally about the hypocrisy of the U.S. recruiting those they hated into their army to protect the same country (the U.S.) that had so disenfranchised them.

counterblast
8th December 2007, 08:42
I forgive you.

Os Cangaceiros
8th December 2007, 17:27
Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 02:57 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 02:57 am)
¡Viva la Libertad!@November 22, 2007 02:06 am
I'm sorry if these topic seems rather random at first, but I think it's a great injustice that after all of the oppression, the centuries, of oppression that black people had to go through in the United States, up to the ending of slavery (in its official sense) in 1865, and then to go through decades of similar if not even worse oppression — and then during the Second World War they were finally treated with an ounce more of respect by fighting in SEPARATE MILITARY POSTS for the U.S. ("Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"). Anyway, it just pisses me off that they were drafted to fight in the wars fighting for the country that hated them. What a load of shit! :angry:
Reminds me of a quote by Muhammad Ali, on his opposition to serving in Vietnam:


"I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong ... They never called me nigger."
The US may have treated blacks shabbily, but it still beats Africa (look at Liberia for a good example). [/b]
The US may have treated blacks shabbily?

:blink:

bootleg42
9th December 2007, 09:51
Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 06, 2007 02:57 am
The US may have treated blacks shabbily, but it still beats Africa (look at Liberia for a good example).
Whoa Whoa Whoa....

Go to an inner city black neighborhood and say that. Let's see if they take that nicely in masses.

Robert
9th December 2007, 15:24
I doubt that any of us or any of the residents of the inner city have any idea what African village life is like, so they'd be hard pressed to compare. Not that they should have to choose, either.

Invader Zim
9th December 2007, 16:08
I think the subject of slavery is a complicated one, however I side with Lansiné Kaba and his article 'The Atlantic Slave Trade Was Not a "Black-on-Black Holocaust"', African Studies Review, Vol. 44, No. 1. (Apr., 2001).

And to quote the abstract to this article: -

"sound historical evidence points to the European and American origins of the slave trade."


The simple fact is that the Atlantic Slave Trade provided a hitherto unparalleled demand for African labour; that demand led to a steady rise of militarism in Africa, militarism which was made possible by White trades selling guns in Africa in exchange for slaves. So not only did Europeans create the demand for slavery, but they also provided the weapons in order to make it possible. To argue that the role of Africans, though not wanting to minimise it, is greater than the role of Europeans is poor history.