PDA

View Full Version : Zimbabwe's seizure of of white people's land



Jimineye
04-19-2004, 03:41 PM
Isn't this reverse racism. All that seizing is going to do is cause more hate.

In Zimbabwe right now the government is raiding white peoples farms and redistrubting them to black people. This is blatant racism.

What are your thoughts on the matter.

Fleshwound
04-19-2004, 04:13 PM
It's wrong but of course since it's not in America, what can we do?

What are the reasons for their actions other than the fact that they're white? If it's only based on skin color, which I presume it is.. then of course it's wrong.

LethalOnGuitarZ
04-19-2004, 04:20 PM
What really sucks, is the fact that we know all of this is happening, but we don't do a goddamn thing about it. I'm sure we could do something to get that lunatic Mugabe out of power.

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Fleshwound
It's wrong but of course since it's not in America, what can we do?

What are the reasons for their actions other than the fact that they're white? If it's only based on skin color, which I presume it is.. then of course it's wrong.


Skin color.

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by LethalOnGuitarZ
What really sucks, is the fact that we know all of this is happening, but we don't do a goddamn thing about it. I'm sure we could do something to get that lunatic Mugabe out of power.


Yes, Mugabe is very inept. But people are having a fuss about the war in Iraq, imagine the uproar if that occured in Zimbabwe. But I wouldn't want to send American troops into Zimbabwe it's not our fight.

axiombiological
04-19-2004, 04:29 PM
The few white Zimbabweans (something on the order of 3000 or more), should simply come to the US. In about 5-10 years they could go back to their land and take it back. This is probably the time it will take for these stupid ****s to starve to death, which they are currently doing.

Note, Mugabe is a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader (Marxist). Shows you the realithy of democracy; the majority can vote to do anything it wishes to the minority.

fireman_x
04-19-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Isn't this reverse racism. All that seizing is going to do is cause more hate.

In Zimbabwe right now the government is raiding white peoples farms and redistrubting them to black people. This is blatant racism.

What are your thoughts on the matter.
I'm not an advocate of the killings of the white farmers however, who's land was it to begin with? European settlers drove off the Africans by force now they are starving, and they see land that the white farmers(mainly of Dutch and German decent) basicly stole from them. Why is it that white farmers in Zimbabwe and South Africa control at least 85% of the ariable land? I know many of you believe in white world wide domination like dave 22 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2941681#post2941681) but I don't. Mugabe promised to distribute the land equally, but of course he has only distributed it to his inner circle of supporters and tribe. He shouldn't be in power but the white minority should not control the majority of the land.

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
I'm not an advocate of the killings of the white farmers however, who's land was it to begin with? European settlers drove off the Africans by force now they are starving, and they see land that the white farmers(mainly of Dutch and German decent) basicly stole from them. Why is it that white farmers in Zimbabwe and South Africa control at least 85% of the ariable land? I know many of you believe in white world wide domination like dave 22 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2941681#post2941681) but I don't. Mugabe promised to distribute the land equally, but of course he has only distributed it to his inner circle of supporters and tribe. He shouldn't be in power but the white minority should not control the majority of the land.

I'm not advocating white supremacy at all if that is what you're aiming at. You could say that about the Indians here in America.
Should they all of a sudden start invading our houses and taking our land because of something out great-great-great-great-great-great grandfathers did? I don't know what the percentage of white owned land is here in America, but they shouldn't be punished for something their dead relatives did.

I also fail to see what Dave said as advocating a white run world.

fireman_x
04-19-2004, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I'm not advocating white supremacy at all if that is what you're aiming at. You could say that about the Indians here in America.
Should they all of a sudden start invading our houses and taking our land because of something out great-great-great-great-great-great grandfathers did? I don't know what the percentage of white owned land is here in America, but they shouldn't be punished for something their dead relatives did.

I also fail to see what Dave said as advocating a white run world.
It was only 200-300 years ago. Like I said I don't advocate the killings but why should the white farmers control almost all of the useful land? In the other thread dave 22 was saying something about how S.A. would be better run by whites in a apartheid fashion.

Ak47
04-19-2004, 05:59 PM
It's wrong but of course since it's not in America, what can we do?

DUH! Invade them!


:rolleyes:


Originally posted by fireman_x
It was only 200-300 years ago. Like I said I don't advocate the killings but why should the white farmers control almost all of the useful land? In the other thread dave 22 was saying something about how S.A. would be better run by whites in a apartheid fashion.

I see where you're going with this, but Jimineye is right. The Indians land was stolen from them by the whites no more than 150 years ago (all the way up to the early 1900's). Does that mean we can expect them to start invading our homes and communities? I had nothing to do with the capture of Native American land, so I know that I for one would be very upset if this happened.

fireman_x
04-19-2004, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Ak47

I see where you're going with this, but Jimineye is right. The Indians land was stolen from them by the whites no more than 150 years ago (all the way up to the early 1900's). Does that mean we can expect them to start invading our homes and communities? I had nothing to do with the capture of Native American land, so I know that I for one would be very upset if this happened.
We're not talking about land that you build neighborhoods on but farmland.
First off these white farmers have hundreds if not thousands of acres of land. They should just return some of the ariable land to the Africans. You have to understand that many of the problems that the African continent is experiencing is due to European colonialism and colonailization. Do you expect people to simply sit back and starve to death? Especially when they know that their land is being unlawfully occupied. If giving the Africans their fair share of the land is not a solution what is?


Much of Zimbabwe's best land is owned by whites as a result of colonial-era policies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2192947.stm

It seems that many of the farmers are moving to Mozambique.
http://www.rense.com/general28/sim.htm


In Zimbabwe right now
BTW this has been going on for quite some time.

My bottom line is that you can't say that since something happened a long time ago you should just forget it. You might try to ignore a situation but the victims will not.

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
We're not talking about land that you build neighborhoods on but farmland.
First off these white farmers have hundreds if not thousands of acres of land. They should just return some of the ariable land to the Africans. You have to understand that many of the problems that the African continent is experiencing is due to European colonialism and colonailization. Do you expect people to simply sit back and starve to death? Especially when they know that their land is being unlawfully occupied. If giving the Africans their fair share of the land is not a solution what is?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2192947.stm

It seems that many of the farmers are moving to Mozambique.
http://www.rense.com/general28/sim.htm


BTW this has been going on for quite some time.

My bottom line is that you can't say that since something happened a long time ago you should just forget it. You might try to ignore a situation but the victims will not.


All the Zimbabwe is accomplishing is punishing people who had nothing to do with what happened, they just happened to be born white in this instance. Also the land isn't being unlawfully occupied, that's like saying our land is unlawfully occupied.

We're not saying because something happened a long time ago that we should forget it, but you learn from the mistakes of the past for a better future. And Zimbabwe is definetely not building a very bright future by doing this type of racism.

axiombiological
04-19-2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
I'm not an advocate of the killings of the white farmers however, who's land was it to begin with? European settlers drove off the Africans by force now they are starving, and they see land that the white farmers(mainly of Dutch and German decent) basicly stole from them.

The starvation only began AFTER Mugabe became leader of Zimbabwe. Prior to this, the country was producing sufficient food to feed its people.


Why is it that white farmers in Zimbabwe and South Africa control at least 85% of the ariable land?

Because European settlers DID take the majority of Zimbabwe's (formerly Rhodesia) best land. The present people are the descendants of these settlers and I doubt they wish to relinquish their property now.


Mugabe promised to distribute the land equally, but of course he has only distributed it to his inner circle of supporters and tribe.

Mugabe, like all Marxists, have no plans to distribute anything but misery equally. This is mere rhetoric. He is nothing more than the black Castro.


He shouldn't be in power but the white minority should not control the majority of the land.

Countries which use the system in place to create change are the ones which tend to succeed. Attempting to overthrow or oust the system and create a new one is very problematic, as witnessed. With constant ideological pressure, the black natives could have assimilated over time just as black Americans have and prevented such problems of starvation and totalitarianism.

fireman_x
04-19-2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
The starvation only began AFTER Mugabe became leader of Zimbabwe. Prior to this, the country was producing sufficient food to feed its people. Starvation wasn't rampant but it's not as if the Africans of Zimbabwe were eating that well.




Because European settlers DID take the majority of Zimbabwe's (formerly Rhodesia) best land. The present people are the descendants of these settlers and I doubt they wish to relinquish their property now. So what? Obviously they don't want to, but the land does not really belong to them period. The white farmers should be compensated for their losses by Britain.



Mugabe, like all Marxists, have no plans to distribute anything but misery equally. This is mere rhetoric. He is nothing more than the black Castro.
There is no question that Mugabe is a dictator and should be removed from power, but the land disporportion is the main issue.




Countries which use the system in place to create change are the ones which tend to succeed. Attempting to overthrow or oust the system and create a new one is very problematic, as witnessed. With constant ideological pressure, the black natives could have assimilated over time just as black Americans have and prevented such problems of starvation and totalitarianism. I don't understand this. You want the Africans to simply ask for land from the whites as if they would just give it up? This is not like Native Americans in the US. Most Native Americans were slaughtered and very few remain, whereas in Zimbabwe a large number of Africans were simply forced to mostly agriculturally useless land. I don't see how you can justify allowing the whites to continue to control the majority of the land while the Africans are forced to live confined to poor conditions.

15u
04-19-2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
What are your thoughts on the matter.

this is obvious racism. when there was racism in south africa against blacks, didn't the us and many other countries have no trade with them? they should do the same here.

axiombiological
04-19-2004, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Starvation wasn't rampant but it's not as if the Africans of Zimbabwe were eating that well.

Eating is always better than starving.


[B] So what? Obviously they don't want to, but the land does not really belong to them period. The white farmers should be compensated for their losses by Britain.

They own the land just as I own the land which my house is on. Because American Indians lived on this land over 200 years ago means nothing today in terms of property rights. There is a point where the land is no longer yours since it was taken by force and you were not able to defend it. If this were not true, then each nation would be embroiled in frivolous property claims suits based on centuries of battles.

The African people lost the land in the early battles long ago, thus they have no moral claim to it.



There is no question that Mugabe is a dictator and should be removed from power, but the land disporportion is the main issue.

The disporportionate nature of their resources is a problem, but confiscation (and murder) is not a reasonable option.



I don't understand this. You want the Africans to simply ask for land from the whites as if they would just give it up? This is not like Native Americans in the US. Most Native Americans were slaughtered and very few remain, whereas in Zimbabwe a large number of Africans were simply forced to mostly agriculturally useless land. I don't see how you can justify allowing the whites to continue to control the majority of the land while the Africans are forced to live confined to poor conditions.

You fail to realize that this same scenario occured in the US. American blacks were not land owners by any measure, but over time and through ideological change now are able to buy and sell property as they wish.

Zimbabwe's problem is that it remained a colonial autocracy for too many years, no establishment of law, merely the will of elite men. Going from one extreme to the other is not successful either, as witnessed in the failure of a minority ruled country to that of a majority ruled country. A system of law must be a templet to work within.

fireman_x
04-19-2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by 15u
this is obvious racism. when there was racism in south africa against blacks, didn't the us and many other countries have no trade with them? they should do the same here. Israel was the only country that continued.

fireman_x
04-19-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
Eating is always better than starving.
:rolleyes: That's just like saying "being a slave is better than being dead".



They own the land just as I own the land which my house is on. Because American Indians lived on this land over 200 years ago means nothing today in terms of property rights. There is a point where the land is no longer yours since it was taken by force and you were not able to defend it. If this were not true, then each nation would be embroiled in frivolous property claims suits based on centuries of battles.

The African people lost the land in the early battles long ago, thus they have no moral claim to it.
This shows your corrupted way of thinking. How the **** could they have defended themselves againsts guns and cannons? Also the fact that you saif that the Africans have no moral claim instead of legal shows your skewed logic. You obviously believe that the whites should keep the land and the Africans should just deal with it. This way of thinking is why the rest of the world hates the West. You take over an area and then generations later when problems arrive you say "too bad". Then when people rise up you cry racism.



The disporportionate nature of their resources is a problem, but confiscation (and murder) is not a reasonable option.

What is your solution then? Mugabe does not care about sanctions, he doesn't care about his people in general. If your had looked at my previous links you would know that neighboring countries have invited the displaced white farmers to develop their land, this is one possible solution.



You fail to realize that this same scenario occured in the US. American blacks were not land owners by any measure, but over time and through ideological change now are able to buy and sell property as they wish.

Zimbabwe's problem is that it remained a colonial autocracy for too many years, no establishment of law, merely the will of elite men. Going from one extreme to the other is not successful either, as witnessed in the failure of a minority ruled country to that of a majority ruled country. A system of law must be a templet to work within.
What is the solution to the land disparity then, you have no answer.
Do you know how low the home ownership rates are for black households in the US are? You seem to act as if racism and injustice have been eleminated in this country while it's just moved under the surface.


Although owning a home is still a main priority for most African Americans, the survey revealed a gap in the education that Blacks and Whites have when it comes to the mortgage process. African Americans believe that discrimination continues to be a problem throughout the owning a home process. Slightly more than 46% of African Americans are homeowners, compared to a national rate of 68%.

http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/pdf/census/notes_12.pdf

Jimineye
04-19-2004, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
This shows your [b]corrupted way of thinking. How the **** could they have defended themselves againsts guns and cannons? Also the fact that you saif that the Africans have no moral claim instead of legal shows your skewed logic. You obviously believe that the whites should keep the land and the Africans should just deal with it. This way of thinking is why the rest of the world hates the West. You take over an area and then generations later when problems arrive you say "too bad". Then when people rise up you cry racism.

I like how you keep the posts organized. :D Axioms logic is right though, today's people cannot be held accountable for something their forefathers did. The Barbarians during the Roman Empire took parts of the Roman Empire land. Should todays Germans be forced to give back those lands to the Italians?



What is your solution then? Mugabe does not care about sanctions, he doesn't care about his people in general. If your had looked at my previous links you would know that neighboring countries have invited the displaced white farmers to develop their land, this is one possible solution.

That is a possible solution, but why should the white farmers have to relocate in the first placed just on the basis of their skin color?



What is the solution to the land disparity then, you have no answer.
Do you know how low the home ownership rates are for black households in the US are? You seem to act as if racism and injustice have been eleminated in this country while it's just moved under the surface.

That is irrelevant to this topic, but it would be foolish to say that rights for minorities have greatly improved since the 60's and things are on a fairly level playing field. This is coming from a "minority".

fireman_x
04-19-2004, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I like how you keep the posts organized. :D Axioms logic is right though, today's people cannot be held accountable for something their forefathers did. The Barbarians during the Roman Empire took parts of the Roman Empire land. Should todays Germans be forced to give back those lands to the Italians? First off both the Germans and Italians are doing fine while most African countirs are in disarray so that comparison doesn't really work. You seem to be forgetting that this is farmland, if it was just ordinary land the story would be a little different.




That is a possible solution, but why should the white farmers have to relocate in the first placed just on the basis of their skin color?

I'm not even saying they should relocate due to their skin color. What I'm saying is that the white farmers simply have too much land. Even if they were black they still should not be a small group of people monopolizing limited resources. Brazil has been heading toward a similar situation with fighting over farmland. If the white farmers would agree to allow the govt. to redistribute lets say 70% of their land that could possibly be a solution.
axiombiological ignores the fact that even when the white farmers had their land, black farmers along with most of the black population were living in poverty. I know that with Mugabe in power that won't improve but the monopolization of precious resouces cannot be tolerated. It's not as if they just own an few acres of land to live on, but in some cases thousands of acres. I'm almost sure that the govt. of Zimbabwe tried to negotiate with the farmers but got rejected, them some militias took matters into their own hands. Like I said, the white farmers can pretend that they are innocent but in the eyes of the Africans they are responsible for the "sins of the father".



That is irrelevant to this topic, but it would be foolish to say that rights for minorities have greatly improved since the 60's and things are on a fairly level playing field. This is coming from a "minority". axiombiological is the one that got on that subject.

A Username
04-19-2004, 11:55 PM
Paybacks a bitch. White people should know one thing that history has happened time and time again. When there is less whites than everyone else. And when those whites have absolute control of the resources and power. They have no power. They were just living on borrowed time.

What the solution going to be? Kill all the blacks to give a few thousand whites there stolen land back?

Ruhanv
04-20-2004, 04:37 AM
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the Zim situation. Having been to Zim and lived in South Africa, I'll try to clear a few things up.

The white farmers that are living in Zim today occupy family owned farms. These farms have often been in their families for many generations but in most cases, these farms were bought in the last few decades. This is legally owned property that they had purchased.

What has happened in the last few years is that Mugabe's govt has confiscated this land, and in most cases killed or jailed any farmer who resisted. This land was then redistributed to black owners but not to poor black farmers but to Mugabe's friends and business partners who know nothing about farming. As such these farms have stopped producing food which has directly led to wide spread famine. This is made worse by the fact that recent figures have shown that more than 80% of Zim's wild life has been exterminated in the past 5 years by hungry locals.

This is a travesty and one has to wonder how the international community would have reacted if Zim had any oil...

Zim is a democracy BUT in the same way that Iraq was a democracy. Free speech was banned and any critisism of Mugabe often led to being given the death sentence. In their last election Mugabe's security forces would threaten the public at polling stations if they voted for the opposition.

fireman_x
04-20-2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the Zim situation. Having been to Zim and lived in South Africa, I'll try to clear a few things up.

There is nothing that needs to be cleared up. You, Jimineye, and axiombiological all say what's going on is horrible yet you don't offer even one viable solution.



The white farmers that are living in Zim today occupy family owned farms. These farms have often been in their families for many generations but in most cases, these farms were bought in the last few decades. This is legally owned property that they had purchased.


It was bought under a racist government which makes the purchases invalid. Do white people think that they can just go anywhere(N. America, Southern Africa, Australia) and just kill or displace the locals, set up shop and just expect no retaliation?



What has happened in the last few years is that Mugabe's govt has confiscated this land, and in most cases killed or jailed any farmer who resisted. This land was then redistributed to black owners but not to poor black farmers but to Mugabe's friends and business partners who know nothing about farming. As such these farms have stopped producing food which has directly led to wide spread famine. This is made worse by the fact that recent figures have shown that more than 80% of Zim's wild life has been exterminated in the past 5 years by hungry locals.

This is a travesty and one has to wonder how the international community would have reacted if Zim had any oil...

Zim is a democracy BUT in the same way that Iraq was a democracy. Free speech was banned and any critisism of Mugabe often led to being given the death sentence. In their last election Mugabe's security forces would threaten the public at polling stations if they voted for the opposition.

There is no argument that Mugabe is a dictator, but most of the land was not purchased. Look up the history of how it was obtained. The South African Government took over land in Nambia and Zimbabwe and gave it to white settlers. It doesn't matter if the whites had the land for generations, when the Africans had it for thousands of years. Very few whites bought the land, and who did they buy it from? They bought it from the British government not the Africans.

Read this link (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/land/ct_safrica.html)

1913
The South African government introduces the Native Land Act, preventing blacks -- except those living in Cape Province -- from purchasing or leasing land outside reserves. The act takes land belonging to African sharecroppers and cash tenants, and restricts the terms under which Africans may live on white-owned farms.


1955
Around 60,000 blacks are moved at gunpoint from Johannesburg's Western Areas. These are redesignated white areas and renamed Triomf.

This as well (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/land/gp_zimbabwe.html)


Access to land and its economic bounty has been a constant issue throughout Zimbabwe's history. Under both British colonial and then white minority government rule, black Africans were denied access to the best agricultural land and forced to eke out their living from small plots on "tribal reserves."


Later, the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 restricted blacks' access to land and forced them into wage labor.

Starsky
04-20-2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
It was only 200-300 years ago. Like I said I don't advocate the killings but why should the white farmers control almost all of the useful land? In the other thread dave 22 was saying something about how S.A. would be better run by whites in a apartheid fashion.


This is nothing but drivel. They should control the land because they were able to make it prosperous. They should control it because they are able to feed far more white & black Africans than under the siezure by people like Mugabe. They should control it because they own it. If there Great Grandfathers did something wrong, it doesn't mean the punishment should be layed on them. By that logic, black modern descendants in Africa deserved to be punished, for their families former association with the slave trade.



Its just like reperations. Where else would you get a system where an Asian family who moved here in the 70's, pays for the the wellbeing of a someone who never experienced slavery, and whose ancestors were never punished by the ones making payments. Its outrageous, and blatantly racist, just like the policy of this racist Marxist dictator.





Originally posted by fireman_x
It was bought under a racist government which makes the purchases invalid. Do white people think that they can just go anywhere(N. America, Southern Africa, Australia) and just kill or displace the locals, set up shop and just expect no retaliation?


If you believe this behavior is exclusive to "white people", you do live in fantasy land. If you think racist governments make purchases invalid, then the spread of Islam and the Arab superiority it entailed is invalid. Of course "white people" can expect retaliation. But the fact is they won, and therefore they kept it like other groups. Once again this behavior is universal among whites, blacks, asians, arabs. All have many cultures that did this.


Its people like you who selectively impugn Western civilization, and glorify criminals because they fit in with your version of "anti-racism" and/or "anti-Imperialism". Its pathological on the left. Viet Cong, Ho Chi Minh, Khmer Rouge, Soviets, Mao Zedong, Mugabe have all been glorified by modern Leftsts, while people like the Founding Fathers, George Patton and British tactical geniuses who controlled half the known world, benefiting immensely science, medicine, reason and liberty. The fact is all cultures are guilty, not just white people, and to ignore the benefits of Western Civilization on all peoples, is to dig your head in the sand and ignore the real world, which is something you seem uniquely capable of.

fireman_x
04-20-2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
This is nothing but drivel. They should control the land because they were able to make it prosperous. They should control it because they are able to feed far more white & black Africans than under the siezure by people like Mugabe. They should control it because they own it. If there Great Grandfathers did something wrong, it doesn't mean the punishment should be layed on them. By that logic, black modern descendants in Africa deserved to be punished, for their families former association with the slave trade.

I love how white people like to pretend as if Africans benefited greatly from the slave trade. Where are all of the great economies that were generated by the slave trade in Africa... oh wait there are none. You can disillusion yourself to try and remove the guilt but it won't work. If you know your history, you would know that the slave trade started in Egypt by the Moors/Arabs then spread west. It was the Europeans that were able to fund their empires thru slave trading and robbing the African continent of precious resources. Portugal started then was followed by Spain, Britain and the rest. America was built on the backs of slaves. I've even heard that the White House was built by slaves. Wealth is passes on from generation to generation as you well know, so don't try to pretend to be nieve and say that past acts have no current relevance.



Its just like reperations. Where else would you get a system where an Asian family who moved here in the 70's, pays for the the wellbeing of a someone who never experienced slavery, and whose ancestors were never punished by the ones making payments. Its outrageous, and blatantly racist, just like the policy of this racist Marxist dictator.

Nobody in this thread has defended Mugabe but you along with others have not suggested even one solution. The British should pay for the land the illegally annexed.



If you believe this behavior is exclusive to "white people", you do live in fantasy land. If you think racist governments make purchases invalid, then the spread of Islam and the Arab superiority it entailed is invalid. Of course "white people" can expect retaliation. But the fact is they won, and therefore they kept it like other groups. Once again this behavior is universal among whites, blacks, asians, arabs. All have many cultures that did this.


I know all civilization conquered another at one pont but the Europeans were the only ones to do that world wide and commit countless atrocities in the process.



Its people like you who selectively impugn Western civilization, and glorify criminals because they fit in with your version of "anti-racism" and/or "anti-Imperialism". Its pathological on the left. Viet Cong, Ho Chi Minh, Khmer Rouge, Soviets, Mao Zedong, Mugabe have all been glorified by modern Leftsts, while people like the Founding Fathers, George Patton and British tactical geniuses who controlled half the known world, benefiting immensely science, medicine, reason and liberty. The fact is all cultures are guilty, not just white people, and to ignore the benefits of Western Civilization on all peoples, is to dig your head in the sand and ignore the real world, which is something you seem uniquely capable of.

Did I ever say Mugabe was a hero no I did not. Quit spouting bull**** about how "I glorify criminals", because I point out an injustice you claim that I support past and present evil leaders. You ignored the actual core of this thread which is finding a solution to the problem and call me an "anti-racist".
How are the Africans benefiting now. Europeans broke up the continent dividing tribes and creating more racial conflict. Rwanda is a perfect example. You probably don't know this but the Belgians treated the minority Tutsi(15%) better than the Hutu because as they put it "they looked more like us". Those actions led to the genocide of over 800,000 people in '94. It's been said that the Hutu killed more people in a faster period than Hitler did, you can thank the Belgians for that. The Middle East is also a result of the British. The Saudi Ropyal Family is just a puppet governing council that was put in place after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and it is destined to collapse. If countries in Africa and the Middle East had been allowed to form their own governments and boders there probably would not be as many problems as there are now.


The founding fathers did many evil things, but I guess that since the "contributed to society" that rights all their wrongs. It's great how the Europeans went around spreading democracy by killing countless people. So if I kill 20 million people somewhere then develop a cure for cancer and AIDS would that annul my past offences?

Also it's Mao Tse-tung.

Jimineye
04-20-2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
There is nothing that needs to be cleared up. You, Jimineye, and axiombiological all say what's going on is horrible yet you don't offer even [b]one viable solution.

There shouldn't even be a need for a solution, the solution is for Mugabe to back the **** off, and allow the white people to keep their land. They didn't take the land their forefathers did, and should not be punished for it. That would be like my great-great-great-great Grandpa killing a guy, and me paying the consequences for it. That is unjust and unreal.




It was bought under a racist government which makes the purchases invalid. Do white people think that they can just go anywhere(N. America, Southern Africa, Australia) and just kill or displace the locals, set up shop and just expect no retaliation?

That doesn't invalidate anything, the U.S government was racist does that invalidate the land we got from Mexico, or the land we took from the Indians? It wasn't only white people, stop blaming the white man for all of the worlds follies.




There is no argument that Mugabe is a dictator, but most of the land was not purchased. Look up the history of how it was obtained. The South African Government took over land in Nambia and Zimbabwe and gave it to white settlers. It doesn't matter if the whites had the land for generations, when the Africans had it for thousands of years. Very few whites bought the land, and who did they buy it from? They bought it from the British government not the Africans.

Oh well a lot of land wasn't purchased here in the U.S, and I'm not going to give it up to the Indians.

Jimineye
04-20-2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
I love how white people like to pretend as if Africans benefited greatly from the slave trade. Where are all of the great economies that were generated by the slave trade in Africa... oh wait there are none. You can disillusion yourself to try and remove the guilt but it won't work. If you know your history, you would know that the slave trade started in Egypt by the Moors/Arabs then spread west. It was the Europeans that were able to fund their empires thru slave trading and robbing the African continent of precious resources. Portugal started then was followed by Spain, Britain and the rest. America was built on the backs of slaves. I've even heard that the White House was built by slaves. Wealth is passes on from generation to generation as you well know, so don't try to pretend to be nieve and say that past acts have no current relevance.

You are also failing to note the fact that a lot of African tribes captured other tribes people to sell to slave traders.




I know all civilization conquered another at one pont but the Europeans were the only ones to do that world wide and commit countless atrocities in the process.[/quote[

The Europeans were also the must technologically advance, look at Japan they conquered China ruthlessly. Not quite sure what this has to do with the argument.

[quote]
If countries in Africa and the Middle East had been allowed to form their own governments and boders there probably would not be as many problems as there are now.

Maybe, but look at Africa today, they are still people running around in tribes and have no clue about modern techonology. It's been thousands of years and these people still haven't evolved. So even if other nations had not gone there and conquered Africa who is say that they would be better off.

Also look at the Middle East, they were under the control of the Ottoman Empire, and what techonological advances have come out of there in the past 400 years?




The founding fathers did many evil things, but I guess that since the "contributed to society" that rights all their wrongs. It's great how the Europeans went around spreading democracy by killing countless people. So if I kill 20 million people somewhere then develop a cure for cancer and AIDS would that annul my past offences?



Actually, it was kingdoms back then, democracy hasn't started spreading except for the past 150 years. Also there is no connection in your last paragraph to the argument.

fireman_x
04-20-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
There shouldn't even be a need for a solution, the solution is for Mugabe to back the **** off, and allow the white people to keep their land. They didn't take the land their forefathers did, and should not be punished for it. That would be like my great-great-great-great Grandpa killing a guy, and me paying the consequences for it. That is unjust and unreal.

Look at my previous links. I don't even understand why I do all this work just for it to be ignored. This land grabbing went on up until the 70's with the oversight of S.A. apartheid government. It dodn't all just happen hundreds of years ago. The land disparity is too great whether the inhabitants happen to be white or black. Letting a select few control 85% of the land is simply a crime, I can't see how you don't realize that. Like I've said many times, we're not talking about just living space, we're talking about thousands hectares of land. The white farmers simply own too much of it they amount to a little over 3,000 people while the rest of the population of over 12 million is forced to live in squalor. Only a white supremacist(and I know your half-hispanic) would say that is somehow justified for the white farmers to control thee majority of the land.




That doesn't invalidate anything, the U.S government was racist does that invalidate the land we got from Mexico, or the land we took from the Indians? It wasn't only white people, stop blaming the white man for all of the worlds follies.


I'm only blaming the white man for the problems that are currently being created by them. If this action was between Africans would you care? No you wouldn't you'd say "just lets them kill each other off" just like how the Rwandan genocide was ignored. But when white people are facing "injustice" people like you, a. americanus, Starksy(who claim's that anyone wwho disagree's with his backwater opinions is a Socialist dog):rolleyes:, and the rest start crying "reverse-racism".


The wrongs of the past will be righted eventually.
I don't remember who said this but it seems to be true.



Oh well a lot of land wasn't purchased here in the U.S, and I'm not going to give it up to the Indians.
That's because most of the Native Americans were killed, unlike the situation in Africa. Did you know that a similar situation has been occuring in Brazil? Well you(and the rest) probably wouldn't care because they're not white.

During 1995 and 1996, 1.3 million people were involved in 1304 violent incidents over land disputes in Brazil, 750 in 1996 alone. That's the highest number since 1985. More than 112 people have been killed since 1995, and 976 died between 1985 and 1996. More recently, there's been quite a bit of fighting between Indians and settlers in Brazil's northern state of Roraima in 1998 and 1999. The battle is over border demarcations in a 4.12 million acre area reserved for natives. Eco-trekkers beware-these guys aren't chucking spears and throwing beer bottles at one another. They are quite well armed. And the Landless Workers Movement (MST) invaded and seized 244 property sites in the first four months of 1999, a 40 percent jump over the same period in 1998. Fully one-third of the occupations have been working ranches, which are usually razed and the cattle destroyed. When the cops show up, things turn nasty. This isn't difficult to imagine in a country where one-fifth of the population owns 90 percent of the land.
http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dplaces/brazil/dthing3.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3634107.stm

It's funny how other injustices occur even in our own hemisphere with Chavez(he's worse that Mugabe) and are ignored but these "other issues" always take precidence. :rolleyes:

Jimineye
04-20-2004, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Look at my previous links. I don't even understand why I do all this work just for it to be ignored. This land grabbing went on up until the 70's with the oversight of S.A. apartheid government. It dodn't all just happen hundreds of years ago. The land disparity is too great whether the inhabitants happen to be white or black. Letting a select few control 85% of the land is simply a crime, I can't see how you don't realize that. Like I've said many times, we're not talking about just living space, we're talking about thousands hectares of land. The white farmers simply own too much of it they amount to a little over 3,000 people while the rest of the population of over 12 million is forced to live in squalor. Only a white supremacist(and I know your half-hispanic) would say that is somehow justified for the white farmers to control thee majority of the land.

A few people in the U.S are considered rich and hold a large amount of money compared to everyday people, should that be redistrubted because someone has none? I really hope you're not saying I'm a white supremacist because that would be very very ignorant on your part, that would be the same as calling a black person a skinhead.




I'm only blaming the white man for the problems that are currently being created by them. If this action was between Africans would you care? No you wouldn't you'd say "just lets them kill each other off" just like how the Rwandan genocide was ignored. But when white people are facing "injustice" people like you, a. americanus, Starksy(who claim's that anyone wwho disagree's with his backwater opinions is a Socialist dog):rolleyes:, and the rest start crying "reverse-racism".
[b]

Yes, I would care and think it was unjust. If I didn't care about issues in Africa I would have never read the stories involving Zimbabwe. Race is not an issue to me, unlike some people who make it the main issue for everything, but if I notice racism I will point it out.




That's because [b]most of the Native Americans were killed, unlike the situation in Africa. Did you know that a similar situation has been occuring in Brazil?

Gee, that explains the large amount of Apache, Cherokee, Cheyenee, Sioux indian tribes that exist today. :rolleyes: A lot of Indians assimiliated into American culture.


Well you(and the rest) probably wouldn't care because they're not white.

That is the most Ignorant thing you have said.



http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dplaces/brazil/dthing3.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3634107.stm


Link for the first one is obviously slanted, and a joke, here is an excerpt from the site.
"Behind white picket fences and two-car garages, husbands clobber their wives silly while their kids make crack deals over the phone with Scarface on the tube" You expect me to take that site as credible?

fireman_x
04-20-2004, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
You are also failing to note the fact that a lot of African tribes captured other tribes people to sell to slave traders.

I'm not ignoring any facts, you simply don't have all the facts for one it was not "a lot" of tribes. Africans did participate in the slave trade for a while but they ran out of captured slaves of other tribes. Do you know what happened then, the Europeans just started capturing random Africans(look it up). I read about how when a tribe leader refused to give his people up for slavery the Portugese had him boiled alive. The Portugese also forced their way into Angola and Nambia, Ethiopia and a few other countries and captured slaves there as well. There was no slave trading in Southern and Eastern Africa until the Europeans went there.



Maybe, but look at Africa today, they are still people running around in tribes and have no clue about modern techonology. It's been thousands of years and these people still haven't evolved. So even if other nations had not gone there and conquered Africa who is say that they would be better off.


Having you people slaughtered and forced into slavery cannot be beneficial. And as far as the "running around in tribes" :rolleyes: that's few a far between just like in South America there are very few "tribes" that still exist. If you ever go to Africa(and I doubt you will) you'll see that there are some well developed area's, but corruption is a main development problem. You don't have to have your country "conquered" in order to advance it technologicly, that is an unbelievably stupid statement.



Also look at the Middle East, they were under the control of the Ottoman Empire, and what techonological advances have come out of there in the past 400 years?

None due to their oppresive governments, all of their "brain power" has gone to either the US or Europe.



Actually, it was kingdoms back then, democracy hasn't started spreading except for the past 150 years. Also there is no connection in your last paragraph to the argument.

The connotation that democracy is for everyone is false. The US shouldn't be trying to force governments into it. Look at China, 50 years ago they were far behind the West but in 10-15 years they might be caught up.
Also since you still don't have the whole multiple quotes thing down yet, I'll respond to your "Japan conquering China" comment. It's false. Japan only controlled Korea several times up until the 40's. http://www.dpg.devry.edu/~akim/sck/kj2.html
We all know about the Rape of Nanking but the Chinese were never defeated in WW2.

fireman_x
04-20-2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
A few people in the U.S are considered rich and hold a large amount of money compared to everyday people, should that be redistrubted because someone has none? I really hope you're not saying I'm a white supremacist because that would be very very ignorant on your part, that would be the same as calling a black person a skinhead.

Ok. :rolleyes: You still refuse to understand. If you would actually put yourself in the position of the Africans(I know you won't do that) then you might understand how dire the situation is for them. It's not as if they were prosperous before the land re-allocation so the voted Mugabe in thinking he would change things, and of course he hasn't improved anyone's life but his own.



Yes, I would care and think it was unjust. If I didn't care about issues in Africa I would have never read the stories involving Zimbabwe. Race is not an issue to me, unlike some people who make it the main issue for everything, but if I notice racism I will point it out.


What other issues in Africa have you brought up? Israel , (although close to Egypt which is a part of the African continent) is not a part of Africa.



Gee, that explains the large amount of Apache, Cherokee, Cheyenee, Sioux indian tribes that exist today. :rolleyes: A lot of Indians assimiliated into American culture.


What large number? I lived in Oklahoma and I doubt that living on a resevation can be considered assimilation. There are less that half a million actual(not people that claim to be 1/20 or 1/35) Native Americans living in North America not including Mexico.



That is the most Ignorant thing you have said.

The only thing you guys ever post about is either "reverse-racism" like this thread, or how Israel(the only country that traded with South Africa during Apartheid) is sooo important. :rolleyes:



Link for the first one is obviously slanted, and a joke, here is an excerpt from the site. You expect me to take that site as credible?

What did you ignore the second link? More than likely. Why do you think I got two sources? Because I know you and the rest of your overly political friends always like to complant about so called slants. I don't belive in all the right-wing, left-wing, conservative, and liberal b.s., all there is, is straight facts. Simply letting a minority control a majority(I'm getting back on topic now) will only lead to bloodshed.

One more thing, since you can't get the whole multiple quotes thing down, you should just forget it because it just takes me longer to respond.

honeybbqgrundle
04-21-2004, 01:54 AM
The land was stolen long ago because the thieves were more powerful and forced them off. Now it happened again. Boo ****ing hoo.

axiombiological
04-22-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
:rolleyes: That's just like saying "being a slave is better than being dead".

So what you are trying to tell us is that the people of Zimbabwe are BETTER now then prior to Mugabe's reign? I am sure you won't since you have no solid stance save "hate whitey".


[B] This shows your [b]corrupted way of thinking. How the **** could they have defended themselves againsts guns and cannons? Also the fact that you saif that the Africans have no moral claim instead of legal shows your skewed logic. You obviously believe that the whites should keep the land and the Africans should just deal with it. This way of thinking is why the rest of the world hates the West. You take over an area and then generations later when problems arrive you say "too bad". Then when people rise up you cry racism.

Thank you Trotsky for demonstrating your position of Marxian Historical Determinism. Of course my thinking is corrupted, I am an American white male..it is innate that I be evil, racist and oppressive, right? We all know that people have no ability to change since the past determines what and how each person will think and do, right? You and Marx have this little problem that contradicts your idea, the little fact that you do not think and do as everyone else in your group, somehow you have broken free from your historical determinism and reason without the chains of the past.

When the hell did it matter what weapons were used in the overthrow or occupation of land? If we took over their land with slingshots would this make it any better? When countries go to war, you have a right to defend yourself. If you win then you have protected your rights, if you don't then you either fight another day or you assume your position in the new society, if justice is available during your lifetime, then you are entitled to it. A right you do not have is to claim that you are due reparations for evils that occured generations ago to others, even if they are related to you. You did not suffer these iniquities, someone else did, thus you cannot make any claim to it. If your argument was true, then I could sue the US government for property loss when the North conquered the South, since my ancestors lost property during this war. Hell in your argument, I could go North and simply take land by force, since I am merely regaining stolen goods.


[B]
What is your solution then? Mugabe does not care about sanctions, he doesn't care about his people in general. If your had looked at my previous links you would know that neighboring countries have invited the displaced white farmers to develop their land, this is one possible solution.

Since the rights of these farmers is currently being violated, then they have every right to fight against this corrupt regime. They do not have a right to win, simply the right to defend what is theirs. I know this is horrible to you, because 200 years ago, somebody's great great grandpappy took somebody else's land, and somehow you think that the sin's of the father are your responsibility. Maybe someone should look into your family's lineage and see if anyone in your family tree ever commited a crime, so that you could be punished.


[B]
What is the solution to the land disparity then, you have no answer.

Let me get this straight, since no answer would magically fix the land disparity issue overnight, you accept the current situation. It is OK to steal and kill because a quick solution cannot be formed? You will no doubt claim that you don't agree with what is going on, but you do such great apologetics that it is the same thing as blessing the situation. Your constant rant "What is your solution?" demonstrates that if one cannot contrive a plan immediately, then robbing and stealing is the only viable answer and somehow, in your mind, morally defendable.


Do you know how low the home ownership rates are for black households in the US are? You seem to act as if racism and injustice have been eleminated in this country while it's just moved under the surface.

Jesus, this is irrelevant. Because blacks have lower home ownership rates DOES NOT mean that this fact is related to discrimination. Are you trying to tell us that banks reject blacks because of race and not on credit scores and income? Banks don't realy care about profit, right, they just hate black people. This is no different than the absurd idea that because blacks make up high percentages of the jail population, that this is evidence of racism. The little fact that they commited a crime is irrelevant. Ridiculous conclusions to statistical analyses demonstrate a lack of basic reasoning skills.

fireman_x
04-22-2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by axiombiological
So what you are trying to tell us is that the people of Zimbabwe are BETTER now then prior to Mugabe's reign? I am sure you won't since you have no solid stance save "hate whitey".


What I'm trying to tell you, through the wall of ignorance you've erected, is that the poor economic situation is what led to this action in the first place. You and I both know that if this situation was occuring between Africans you would not care, but since it white people, your all up in arms. I don't want to make it a race issue but you keep bringing that up. Here's your own quote to remind you.


Originally posted by axiombiological
The few white Zimbabweans (something on the order of 3000 or more), should simply come to the US. In about 5-10 years they could go back to their land and take it back. This is probably the time it will take for these stupid ****s to starve to death, which they are currently doing.

So since they're black they can just "starve to death". You would hope that the Africans would die right, so you could contine with your perceived "conquest" of the continent. You also think that the Africans that are black and suffering under Mugabe should just suffer because they're not white, but the white Zimbabweans should be allowed to flee to the States. Why do you continue to pretend that race is not the driving force in your convictions when you've clearly been exposed.



Thank you Trotsky for demonstrating your position of Marxian Historical Determinism. Of course my thinking is corrupted, I am an American white male..it is innate that I be evil, racist and oppressive, right? We all know that people have no ability to change since the past determines what and how each person will think and do, right? You and Marx have this little problem that contradicts your idea, the little fact that you do not think and do as everyone else in your group, somehow you have broken free from your historical determinism and reason without the chains of the past.


Yes you and that neo-nazi Starsky are right I'm a socialist. :rolleyes: People like you say that third world countries will never improve, I wonder why, what's holding them back? The white settlers drove Africans off their land and you say that becasue it "happened such a long time ago" it should be forgotten. Why don't we let the Africans drive the whites off the land then a few hundred years from now we can say "oh it happened a long time ago, forget about it". :rolleyes:



When the hell did it matter what weapons were used in the overthrow or occupation of land? If we took over their land with slingshots would this make it any better? When countries go to war, you have a right to defend yourself. If you win then you have protected your rights, if you don't then you either fight another day or you assume your position in the new society, if justice is available during your lifetime, then you are entitled to it. A right you do not have is to claim that you are due reparations for evils that occured generations ago to others, even if they are related to you. You did not suffer these iniquities, someone else did, thus you cannot make any claim to it. If your argument was true, then I could sue the US government for property loss when the North conquered the South, since my ancestors lost property during this war. Hell in your argument, I could go North and simply take land by force, since I am merely regaining stolen goods.

What goes around comes around, it's as simple as that. If you know your history you would see that has happened throughout time.
On a side note, what did your ancestors lose in the Civil War, a plantation? :rolleyes:



Since the rights of these farmers is currently being violated, then they have every right to fight against this corrupt regime. They do not have a right to win, simply the right to defend what is theirs. I know this is horrible to you, because 200 years ago, somebody's great great grandpappy took somebody else's land, and somehow you think that the sin's of the father are your responsibility. Maybe someone should look into your family's lineage and see if anyone in your family tree ever commited a crime, so that you could be punished.


If you know you history or at least looked at my links you would see that this illegal land acqusition occcured up until the early 80's under the guidence of the racist South African Government. You selectively respond to my posts, ignoring actual facts I've already stated.



Let me get this straight, since no answer would magically fix the land disparity issue overnight, you accept the current situation. It is OK to steal and kill because a quick solution cannot be formed? You will no doubt claim that you don't agree with what is going on, but you do such great apologetics that it is the same thing as blessing the situation. Your constant rant "What is your solution?" demonstrates that if one cannot contrive a plan immediately, then robbing and stealing is the only viable answer and somehow, in your mind, morally defendable.


There are several solutions that I have contrived, however the white farmers continuing to control 85% of the land when they are less that 1% of the population is not one of them. I never said that there was an easy answer but understand this. If Mugabe does not kick the white farmers out they will be killed by factions of angry black farmers, which has already started to occur. It would be similar to Rwanda in '94 where the majority would slaughter the minority, but you probably know nothing of that situation. But a minority cannot and has not ever rulled a majority without an overwhelming amount of power.



Jesus, this is irrelevant. Because blacks have lower home ownership rates DOES NOT mean that this fact is related to discrimination. Are you trying to tell us that banks reject blacks because of race and not on credit scores and income? Banks don't realy care about profit, right, they just hate black people. This is no different than the absurd idea that because blacks make up high percentages of the jail population, that this is evidence of racism. The little fact that they commited a crime is irrelevant. Ridiculous conclusions to statistical analyses demonstrate a lack of basic reasoning skills.

So your saying that there are no laws that target minorities right. Banks can reject people based on race due to a variety of reasons, what are you in 5th grade? Banks can afford to reject minorities based on race due to the fact that they are a minority, you'd be an idiot to claim that never happens. They are :rolleyes: Most of the minorities in prison the first time are on drug charges(non-violent), then after being through the system become violent(it's the only way to survive in prison). Alcohol and cigs are legal and cau much more damage than all other drugs(illegal and pharmaceutical) combined, yet the drug that causes the higest incarceration rate(marijuana) is not legal. Maybe if you ever go to college you'll realize that victimless "crimes" are discriminatory. Don't respond if you don't read this link.
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html
If you ever go to college you might learn something.

Also if you can't quote me correctly with out leaving VB code in the quote you should forget about trying to do individualized responces.

Kane Fan
04-22-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
I'm not an advocate of the killings of the white farmers however, who's land was it to begin with? European settlers drove off the Africans by force now they are starving, and they see land that the white farmers(mainly of Dutch and German decent) basicly stole from them. Why is it that white farmers in Zimbabwe and South Africa control at least 85% of the ariable land? I know many of you believe in white world wide domination like dave 22 (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2941681#post2941681) but I don't. Mugabe promised to distribute the land equally, but of course he has only distributed it to his inner circle of supporters and tribe. He shouldn't be in power but the white minority should not control the majority of the land.

rationalizing current bad behavior by pointing to past bad behavior means as soon as something bad happens there are no more morals anywhere
that's why it dosn't work
you don't look at the past to say I can do whatever I want now that's stupid
wrong is wrong
racisim is wrong
theft is wrong
this is wrong
you won't hear much from the Dems over this one tho

Starsky
04-22-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
I love how white people like to pretend as if Africans benefited greatly from the slave trade. Where are all of the great economies that were generated by the slave trade in Africa... oh wait there are none. You can disillusion yourself to try and remove the guilt but it won't work. If you know your history, you would know that the slave trade started in Egypt by the Moors/Arabs then spread west. It was the Europeans that were able to fund their empires thru slave trading and robbing the African continent of precious resources. Portugal started then was followed by Spain, Britain and the rest. America was built on the backs of slaves. I've even heard that the White House was built by slaves. Wealth is passes on from generation to generation as you well know, so don't try to pretend to be nieve and say that past acts have no current relevance.


Sorry fireman, but we aren't all liberals and as such we aren't all guilt ridden. We are as responsible for slavery as the descendants of slave themselves....i.e. nothing. You are spouting classic anti-Western, anti-Reason propaganda.


African and Arab tribes took and made slaves of each other, practiced slaving, had white slaves, sold slaves to one another, and sold slaves to Europeans. Slavery was a phenomenon of *all* races. The descendants of Africans, Arabs, and Europeans who practiced this are not guilty of anything other than having the same blood. Which I suppose, to you, is now a crime.


If you go back far enough, everyone's descendants will have had some injustice done to them for which they have not been recompensated.



Originally posted by fireman_x
Also it's Mao Tse-tung.



There are two legitimate spellings(http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/mao.html), you don't seem to be aware of the other. The rest of your post is so steeped in infantile anti-Western, college-level indoctrination, that it really isn't worth wasting time with.

fireman_x
04-22-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Sorry fireman, but we aren't all liberals and as such we aren't all guilt ridden. We are as responsible for slavery as the descendants of slave themselves....i.e. nothing. You are spouting classic anti-Western, anti-Reason propaganda.

Who said you were responsible for slavery? Your only responsible for the current situations you have created. All you spout is radical right wing neo-nazi rhetoric, what's your point? You expect impoverished people to simply accept their fate when they know that their lives could be better? You must be smoking some strong stuff.



African and Arab tribes took and made slaves of each other, practiced slaving, had white slaves, sold slaves to one another, and sold slaves to Europeans. Slavery was a phenomenon of *all* races. The descendants of Africans, Arabs, and Europeans who practiced this are not guilty of anything other than having the same blood. Which I suppose, to you, is now a crime.

If you go back far enough, everyone's descendants will have had some injustice done to them for which they have not been recompensated.


This proves that you did not read my post because I already said all of this. I know many groups were enslaved in the past such as the Jews were by the Egyptians, and I'm not try to "force guilt" on anyone, this thread is not about the past, it's about the current situation in Zimbabwe(which you would not care about if it only involved Africans) and what needs to be done about it. Unsurprisingly you, as always, ignore the real issue and jump at the chance to label people(liberal, marxist, etc.) and then quit acting as if you won a debate when you simply sidestepped the issue entirely.



There are two legitimate spellings(http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/mao.html), you don't seem to be aware of the other.


Still sticking to the non-issues which you can easily defend as usual. :rolleyes:



The rest of your post is so steeped in infantile anti-Western, college-level indoctrination, that it really isn't worth wasting time with.

Continue to try and discredit my college education when you yourself are probably a college dropout. You have simply been shot down from every angle, now try to go on with your overly politicized life trying to argue facts with your baseless assumptions. :rolleyes:

Starsky
04-22-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Continue to try and discredit my college education when you yourself are probably a college dropout. You have simply been shot down from every angle, now try to go on with your overly politicized life trying to argue facts with your baseless assumptions. :rolleyes:



First, you question my spelling...which turns out to be right, then you accuse Neo-Nazism, which is false. Do a search on Israel genius. You expect long drawn out rebuttals, when you offer virutally substansive nothing to rebut them. Some people are actually busy, and don't have time to waste on people making non-points.


As for your other accusation of me caring about Zimbabwe *only because they are white*...why do you think very little post's I've made have concerned Zimbabwe, but Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, China...etc. Because the people being oppressed there are white? No, they are not white. This is the exact opposite of your accusation. What have you to say of this?


It's easy to spout entry level drivel you learned from your leftist political science professors. Its not so easy to actually back up what you say with reason. You seem to think that if you go back far enough and find an injustice, that it must be corrected in the modern day, by invalidating the accomplishment of the descendants of those who commited it. This carries about as much logic as punishing the child of a child molestor for their parents crime, thus making the victim feel better.


You also made a statement with an accusation about feeling guilt. This is false, most people feel no guilt about slavery, and if you do you are probably either a) a Liberal with a white guilt complex or b) In North Africa, and actually do own slaves. Rest assured, most people are neither.


Also, in regards to your questioning policy in the 80s. Of course it was wrong, however the policy of giving over farms to those who have no idea how to run them, thus inducing starvation on whites and blacks is arrogant and ignorant. Robert Mugabe has struck a damaging blow against his own country with this action. In inviting a Mugabe takeover for exclusively blacks, you are exchanging one racism for another. Black Zimbabweans being given farms which they do not run, and selective exclusion of whites who *do* run them, who provide people like Mugabe with his dinner is both racist and ignorant. Does this validate having a policy of white superiority? No, it validates having the most individuals who are able to run the farms most efficiently and create more food run them. If you assume that qualification based ownership is "racist", then you are ignorant beyond belief.



In regards to the over all movement of "anti-Colonialism", it is flawed just like the true nature of the environmental movement. Both movements, in their purest forms, try to purge the world of Western influence. Unfortunately for these movements, Western influence was the greatest contribution to aspects like science, logic, medicine, philosophy, freedom, mass food production, and individual rights.

fireman_x
04-22-2004, 10:04 PM
It's nice how you space out your responces, it makes it easier for me to dismanle them. I get back from the weight room just to have to shut you down again.

Originally posted by Starsky
First, you question my spelling...which turns out to be right, then you accuse Neo-Nazism, which is false. Do a search on Israel genius. You expect long drawn out rebuttals, when you offer virutally substansive nothing to rebut them. Some people are actually busy, and don't have time to waste on people making non-points.

What does Israel(the only country to trade with apartheid South Africa) have to do with anything? With your post count you don't seem to be too busy, let me guess, your "self-employed".



As for your other accusation of me caring about Zimbabwe *only because they are white*...why do you think very little post's I've made have concerned Zimbabwe, but Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, China...etc. Because the people being oppressed there are white? No, they are not white. This is the exact opposite of your accusation. What have you to say of this?


Funny how all the states that you named are basicly considered as enemies of the US with the exception of Saudi Arabia due to its oil. All of the threads I've seen of you lately were nothing but arguments against "lefties", and tirades about how Clinton "was the worst president ever" and Bush is "doing an excelent job":rolleyes: (it makes me sick just typing that).



It's easy to spout entry level drivel you learned from your leftist political science professors. Its not so easy to actually back up what you say with reason. You seem to think that if you go back far enough and find an injustice, that it must be corrected in the modern day, by invalidating the accomplishment of the descendants of those who commited it. This carries about as much logic as punishing the child of a child molestor for their parents crime, thus making the victim feel better.


Lefttist Political Science professors? No not hardly, your way off the mark as usual. I had the same guy for two semesters and he clearly stated that he was a Libertarian, which is more of what I would consider myself to be. My current Economics of Crime professor is just like you. He gives us articles stating that white people will be headed towards minority social status due to unwed mothers. :rolleyes: He also gives us "stats" on how all drugs should be illegal and other false facts on minority imprisonment due to the "War on Drugs" being justified. I need to beat his ass at the end of the semester. It's also funny how you bring up child molestors out of nowhere, you must have some serious issues.



You also made a statement with an accusation about feeling guilt. This is false, most people feel no guilt about slavery, and if you do you are probably either a) a Liberal with a white guilt complex or b) In North Africa, and actually do own slaves. Rest assured, most people are neither.

I'm c) An African-American college student.
The slave trade going on in Africa is in Sudan mainly which (if you can find a map) is in East Africa. There is also slavery going on in Mauritania which is on the Northwest coast of the African continent.
http://www.themarcusgarveybbs.com/Slavery2day.htm
http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/1529/Slavery_today_yes_it_is_still_happening
There are also still people that deny that slavery was even wrong like you tried to. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/6/145738.shtml
If your going to respond with "all your sources are liberal propaganda"(assuming that you even look at them) don't waste your "precious" time.




Also, in regards to your questioning policy in the 80s. Of course it was wrong, however the policy of giving over farms to those who have no idea how to run them, thus inducing starvation on whites and blacks is arrogant and ignorant. Robert Mugabe has struck a damaging blow against his own country with this action. In inviting a Mugabe takeover for exclusively blacks, you are exchanging one racism for another. Black Zimbabweans being given farms which they do not run, and selective exclusion of whites who *do* run them, who provide people like Mugabe with his dinner is both racist and ignorant. Does this validate having a policy of white superiority? No, it validates having the most individuals who are able to run the farms most efficiently and create more food run them. If you assume that qualification based ownership is "racist", then you are ignorant beyond belief.

I never said I agreed with the policy did I? You also seem to believe that no Africans know how to farm. Although many black farmers who worked on white owned farms were killed along with their bosses, they're are still many Africans that can farm for themselves, and yes I know that Mugabe did not give them any land.



In regards to the over all movement of "anti-Colonialism", it is flawed just like the true nature of the environmental movement. Both movements, in their purest forms, try to purge the world of Western influence. Unfortunately for these movements, Western influence was the greatest contribution to aspects like science, logic, medicine, philosophy, freedom, mass food production, and individual rights.
Did the Europeans develop math? No it was developed in North Africa. Did the europeans develop gunpowder or the compass? No the Asians developed that. The Europeans just had the fortune of being able to combine all of that technology they acquired and exploit it to their advantage. You talk about medicine and science when people in Central America, Africa, and South East Asia die of easily preventable diseases like influenza. They say

you have to take the good with the bad but you seem to be in denial that Colonialism did any harm to the enviroments they were administered in.

Also you "forgot" to state what your level of education is(unsurprisingly).

irpker
04-22-2004, 10:32 PM
Ad Hominem attacks get you no respect, and only make you look foolish.

It's best to debate the issues, and not one another's character.

fireman_x
04-22-2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by irpker
Ad Hominem attacks get you no respect, and only make you look foolish.

It's best to debate the issues, and not one another's character.
How original. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by quodnomen 04-21-2004 06:16 PM
ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of debate.

Starsky
04-22-2004, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
It's nice how you space out your responces, it makes it easier for me to dismanle them. I get back from the weight room just to have to shut you down again.

What does Israel(the only country to trade with apartheid South Africa) have to do with anything? With your post count you don't seem to be too busy, let me guess, your "self-employed".


From an objective point of view, you never shut anyone "down" period. Arguments are spaced out, to make it easier to read BTW. In answer to your question/declarative statement...you threw out the charge of Neo-Nazism, twice. Now, since being Anti-Semetic is the basic tenet of Nazism, how can someone supportive of both Jews and Israel be a Nazi or anti-Semite?


What sort of jump in logic did you take, in order to correlate those two things? Because that accusation is false.


Also, as you can see my colossal 2.37 posts average bears out your second statement.




Originally posted by fireman_x
Funny how all the states that you named are basicly considered as enemies of the US with the exception of Saudi Arabia due to its oil. All of the threads I've seen of you lately were nothing but arguments against "lefties", and tirades about how Clinton "was the worst president ever" and Bush is "doing an excelent job":rolleyes: (it makes me sick just typing that).


The purpose there was to invalidate accusations of selectively caring for Zimbabwe based on White populations. You must not have been here very long, because countries with white populations(Europe) usually recieve the heaviest criticism. Besides that, the peoples of these "enemy" nations are not represented whatsoever by the dictatorial regimes that truly "are" enemies. Not considered.


Secondly, you are pulling statements out your ass. Never have made a thread title remotely like either of those, never said Clinton was the worst president and rarely if ever, claimed Bush was universally doing an excellent job. So congradulations, if you are arguing against a lying caricature of someone, you have ability to win.




Originally posted by fireman_x
Lefttist Political Science professors? No not hardly, your way off the mark as usual. I had the same guy for two semesters and he clearly stated that he was a Libertarian, which is more of what I would consider myself to be. My current Economics of Crime professor is just like you. He gives us articles stating that white people will be headed towards minority social status due to unwed mothers. :rolleyes: He also gives us "stats" on how all drugs should be illegal and other false facts on minority imprisonment due to the "War on Drugs" being justified. I need to beat his ass at the end of the semester. It's also funny how you bring up child molestors out of nowhere, you must have some serious issues.


Your a libertarian, are you? You repeatedly advocate and/or defend government intervention in Zimbabwe led by the statist, Robert Mugabe. This man represents the antitheses of Libertarianism in every sense. Liberteranism entails minimal government intervention and minimal government size. Both of these principles, Robert Mugabe and others like him violate to extreme degrees. Then, you fantasize about beating a college Professor, pretty tough! Then you go on to make some sort of vague inference into an interest in child molesting. Its a nice way of sidestepping a perfect and relevant point, but ultimately its just infantile garbage.



Originally posted by fireman_x
I'm c) An African-American college student.
The slave trade going on in Africa is in Sudan mainly which (if you can find a map) is in East Africa. There is also slavery going on in Mauritania which is on the Northwest coast of the African continent.


Good point, since you are the *first* person here who mentioned North African Slavery. If your purpose is to reiterate, then you did great.



Originally posted by fireman_x
I never said I agreed with the policy did I? You also seem to believe that no Africans know how to farm. Although many black farmers who worked on white owned farms were killed along with their bosses their are still many Africans that can farm for themselves, and yes I know that Mugabe did not give them any land.


People "seem" to think this, people "seem" to think that. Why dont you just come out and accuse people of what you are really trying to say? No need, to disguise it, after all you threw out the charge of Neo-Nazism early. You did read that farming should be based distinctly on those who run the farms most efficiently and produce the most food? Now, do you think this statement is inherently racist? Its easier to throw charges or condescension then present facts.


Also, the farming we are talking about is not the widespread farming for personal uses in Africa, but mass-production necessary to feed many starving populations.



Originally posted by fireman_x
Did the Europeans develop math? No it was developed in North Africa. Did the europeans develop gunpowder or the compass? No the Asians developed that. The Europeans just had the fortune of being able to combine all of that technology they acquired and exploit it to their advantage. You talk about medicine and science when people in Central America, Africa, and South East Asia die of easily preventable diseases like influenza. They say
but you seem to be in denial that Colonialism did any harm to the enviroments they were administered in.

Also you "forgot" to state what your level of education is(unsurprisingly).


Since when did *any* statements in the post, imply that those were untrue. Those achievements are great, and those civilizations should be extremely proud of them, which they are. But to list developments of other civilizations does not make the ones of the West any less vital or valuable.


The greatness of the West is not a racist prejudice; it is an objective fact. The core values and achievements of the West and America must be asserted proudly and defended to the death. Our lives depend on them. Western culture, which is partly based on Ancient Greece, includes: Reason, Invidual Rights, and Technology. The triumph of reason and rights made possible the full development and application of science and technology and ultimately modern industrial society. Electricy, Sanitation, Cars, Rails...it goes on too long to mention.

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
the exception of Saudi Arabia due to its oil. All of the threads I've seen of you lately were nothing but arguments against "lefties", and tirades about how Clinton "was the worst president ever" and Bush is "doing an excelent job":rolleyes: (it makes me sick just typing that).


Hey, without whining every minute of the day about "liberals" trying to steal their freedom, destroy America, subvert capitalism, kick their dog, and knock up their sister, some conservatives wouldn't have anything to say. Be easy on them.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
[B]What other issues in Africa have you brought up? Israel , (although close to Egypt which is a part of the African continent) is not a part of Africa.
[B]

Oh I guess because I don't make a lot of threads involving Africa that automatically lables me as a neo-nazi, evil white supremacist. :rolleyes:


What large number? I lived in Oklahoma and I doubt that living on a resevation can be considered assimilation. There are less that half a million actual(not people that claim to be 1/20 or 1/35) Native Americans living in North America not including Mexico.

Are you that naive to think that the majority of the Indians are still living on reservations, and doign all their jobs on reservations? Whup-de-****ing-do you lived in Oklahoma I live in Oregon what's your point? And the majority of the Indians here don't live on reservations, besides the ones opening up casinos.

fireman_x
04-22-2004, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Oh I guess because I don't make a lot of threads involving Africa that automatically lables me as a neo-nazi, evil white supremacist. :rolleyes:

What is your reason for the sudden interest in Africa ther than the fact that white people are being "mistreated".



Are you that naive to think that the majority of the Indians are still living on reservations, and doign all their jobs on reservations? Whup-de-****ing-do you lived in Oklahoma I live in Oregon what's your point? And the majority of the Indians here don't live on reservations, besides the ones opening up casinos.
And you still can't get the multiple quotes down without leaving extra VB code. *tisk, tisk* My point is that there were over 20,000,000(that's twenty million) Native Americans living in North America before the Europeans came and now there are

approximate 2.4 million Indians and Eskimos alive in the United States today http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates02.htm

In the US whites are the majority and control everything, in Zimbabwe whites are the minority and control everything why is that? Don't respond with a "we made all the technology" or "white people were ordained by god" rant. The majority can never be ruled by a minority without conflict.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x

between Africans[/u] you would not care, but since it white people, your all up in arms. I don't want to make it a race issue but you keep bringing that up. Here's your own quote to remind you.

It is occuring between Africans, because people who are white that are born in Africa does that not make them African? Gee, I guess me being hispanic and being born in America must make me a Spaniard then by your logic.



So since they're black they can just "starve to death". You would hope that the Africans would die right, so you could contine with your perceived "conquest" of the continent. You also think that the Africans that are black and suffering under Mugabe should just suffer because they're not white, but the [b]white Zimbabweans should be allowed to flee to the States. Why do you continue to pretend that race is not the driving force in your convictions when you've clearly been exposed.

Nice try by putting words in my mouth, are you having fun arguing with your made up person? What it sounds like to me is that your a black-supremacist.



Yes you and that neo-nazi Starsky are right I'm a socialist. :rolleyes: People like you say that third world countries will never improve, I wonder why, what's holding them back? The white settlers drove Africans off their land and you say that becasue it "happened such a long time ago" it should be forgotten. Why don't we let the Africans drive the whites off the land then a few hundred years from now we can say "oh it happened a long time ago, forget about it".

The white people there are Africans too. Just because they aren't black doesn't make them any less African. The thing is you learn from the mistakes of the past, to prevent them in the present and future. Needless to say Mukabe should have learned from what happened in the past instead of repeating them. But of course you won't see it that way since it's happening to the evil white man.



What goes around comes around, it's as simple as that. If you know your history you would see that has happened throughout time.
On a side note, what did your ancestors lose in the Civil War, a plantation? :rolleyes:

Oh, my ancestors were in the Union thank you. Which would be the opposite of what you're painting me, thanks to MY ancestors slavery was abolished. Oh wait I didn't know the white man abolished slavery, because they are all evil and wish to promote slavery again to hold the black man down. :rolleyes:



It would be similar to Rwanda in '94 where the majority would slaughter the minority, but you probably know nothing of that situation. But a minority cannot and has not ever rulled a majority without an overwhelming amount of power.

I guess because I'm an evil half-white man I never know what is going on in Africa. :rolleyes:


So your saying that there are no laws that target minorities right. Banks can reject people based on race due to a variety of reasons, what are you in 5th grade? Banks can afford to reject minorities based on race due to the fact that they are a minority, you'd be an idiot to claim that never happens. They are :rolleyes: Most of the minorities in prison the first time are on drug charges(non-violent), then after being through the system become violent(it's the only way to survive in prison). Alcohol and cigs are legal and cau much more damage than all other drugs(illegal and pharmaceutical) combined, yet the drug that causes the higest incarceration rate(marijuana) is not legal. Maybe if you ever go to college you'll realize that victimless "crimes" are discriminatory. Don't respond if you don't read this link.
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/victcrim.html
If you ever go to college you might learn something.


Bull ****! Stop pretending like minorities do nothing wrong. If you do the crime, if it's doing drugs, and you get caught you do the time. Plain and simple.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x


What does Israel(the only country to trade with apartheid South Africa) have to do with anything? With your post count you don't seem to be too busy, let me guess, your "self-employed".

What does post count have to do with anything?


Funny how all the states that you named are basicly considered as enemies of the US with the exception of Saudi Arabia due to its oil. All of the threads I've seen of you lately were nothing but arguments against "lefties", and tirades about how Clinton "was the worst president ever" and Bush is "doing an excelent job":rolleyes: (it makes me sick just typing that).

I made a thread about Africa quit bitching about how we don't bring up other nations besides white dominated ones.



I never said I agreed with the policy did I? You also seem to believe that no Africans know how to farm. Although many black farmers who worked on white owned farms were killed along with their bosses, they're are still many Africans that can farm for themselves, and yes I know that Mugabe did not give them any land.

Again ignoring the fact that white people living in Zimbabwe are Africans. No one has said that blacks can't farm, we have been saying that the whites should haven't give up THEIR farms, because of a racist bigot.



Did the Europeans develop math? No it was developed in North Africa. Did the europeans develop gunpowder or the compass? No the Asians developed that. The Europeans just had the fortune of being able to combine all of that technology they acquired and exploit it to their advantage. You talk about medicine and science when people in Central America, Africa, and South East Asia die of easily preventable diseases like influenza. They say
but you seem to be in denial that Colonialism did any harm to the enviroments they were administered in.

Also you "forgot" to state what your level of education is(unsurprisingly).


What is your point with this? Western civiliazation developed, the telephone, phonograph, t.v, light bulb, automobile, nuclear energy, cell phones, penicillin, etc.

Jimineye
04-23-2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
What is your reason for the sudden interest in Africa ther than the fact that white people are being "mistreated".

I am interested in world politics and have been since a young age, just because it happens to affect people who are black doesn't make a difference to me. I read about politics happening in China, Mexico, etc.



My point is that there were over 20,000,000(that's twenty million) Native Americans living in North America before the Europeans came and now there are
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates02.htm

Yes, but as a country age people interbreed, hence making the pure Indians number dwindle. Not to mention the fact that when Europeans first arrived in America, a lot of Indians were killed off due to influenza.


In the US whites are the majority and control everything, in Zimbabwe whites are the minority and control everything why is that? Don't respond with a "we made all the technology" or "white people were ordained by god" rant. The majority can never be ruled by a minority without conflict.

It's simply survival of the fittest. If other races or nations can't keep up then they will be controlled. It's simple evolution.

fireman_x
04-23-2004, 12:08 AM
Why is it that you ignore so many parts of my posts? It's probably because you know that you can't defend against them. You also ignored my question about the level of your education, hmmm I wonder why?


Originally posted by Starsky
From an objective point of view, you never shut anyone "down" period. Arguments are spaced out, to make it easier to read BTW. In answer to your question/declarative statement...you threw out the charge of Neo-Nazism, twice. Now, since being Anti-Semetic is the basic tenet of Nazism, how can someone supportive of both Jews and Israel be a Nazi or anti-Semite?

What sort of jump in logic did you take, in order to correlate those two things? Because that accusation is false.


The Nazi thing had nothing to do with you hating Jews. It had to do with your right-wing, believe everything the government tells me attitude, and take an unbending stance to issues you can't back up with sources. Where are your sources Starsky? Let me guess you "just know" the "facts" right?




Also, as you can see my colossal 2.37 posts average bears out your second statement.


I just said that because I knew that it would be easy for you to defend and that you would ignore the other questions that I posed to you.



The purpose there was to invalidate accusations of selectively caring for Zimbabwe based on White populations. You must not have been here very long, because countries with white populations(Europe) usually recieve the heaviest criticism. Besides that, the peoples of these "enemy" nations are not represented whatsoever by the dictatorial regimes that truly "are" enemies. Not considered.


Criticism does not hurt, but sanctions do ask any Iraqi.



Secondly, you are pulling statements out your ass. Never have made a thread title remotely like either of those, never said Clinton was the worst president and rarely if ever, claimed Bush was universally doing an excellent job. So congradulations, if you are arguing against a lying caricature of someone, you have ability to win.


Where did I say you "made a thread", you have posted comments like that in other threads, but I really don't feel like searching your history. But knowing how you are, I'm sure you already deleted any threads that had any resembalance to those to statements I posed.






Your a libertarian, are you? You repeatedly advocate and/or defend government intervention in Zimbabwe led by the statist, Robert Mugabe. This man represents the antitheses of Libertarianism in every sense. Liberteranism entails minimal government intervention and minimal government size. Both of these principles, Robert Mugabe and others like him violate to extreme degrees. Then, you fantasize about beating a college Professor, pretty tough! Then you go on to make some sort of vague inference into an interest in child molesting. Its a nice way of sidestepping a perfect and relevant point, but ultimately its just infantile garbage.


Infantile garbage, that's hilarious, I won't take it as an insult though seeing how you are probably three times my age.(That would be 63) I can see how I would seem to be quite young compared to you.




Good point, since you are the *first* person here who mentioned North African Slavery. If your purpose is to reiterate, then you did great.


:rolleyes: This coming from the guy that reiterated how I said all countries had slaves at one point. Anyways I don't see you making threads about the slavery still going on. In case you didn't know there is also forced labor going on in South America under drug cartels.




People "seem" to think this, people "seem" to think that. Why dont you just come out and accuse people of what you are really trying to say? No need, to disguise it, after all you threw out the charge of Neo-Nazism early. You did read that farming should be based distinctly on those who run the farms most efficiently and produce the most food? Now, do you think this statement is inherently racist? Its easier to throw charges or condescension then present facts.


Also, the farming we are talking about is not the widespread farming for personal uses in Africa, but mass-production necessary to feed many starving populations.


Since when did *any* statements in the post, imply that those were untrue. Those achievements are great, and those civilizations should be extremely proud of them, which they are. But to list developments of other civilizations does not make the ones of the West any less vital or valuable.


The greatness of the West is not a racist prejudice; it is an objective fact. The core values and achievements of the West and America must be asserted proudly and defended to the death. Our lives depend on them. Western culture, which is partly based on Ancient Greece, includes: Reason, Invidual Rights, and Technology. The triumph of reason and rights made possible the full development and application of science and technology and ultimately modern industrial society. Electricy, Sanitation, Cars, Rails...it goes on too long to mention.
What do you want me to say, "the Europeans are the greatest creatures to ever walk the earth"? Europeans woould never have achieved what they did if it wasn't for the accumulation of foreign technology. Would the British have been able to control as much land as they did has they not had gunpowder? I doubt it.

fireman_x
04-23-2004, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Jimineye


Originally posted by fireman_x
You and I both know that if this situation was occuring between Africans you would not care, but since it white people, your all up in arms. I don't want to make it a race issue but you keep bringing that up. Here's your own quote to remind you.

It is occuring between Africans, because people who are white that are born in Africa does that not make them African? Gee, I guess me being hispanic and being born in America must make me a Spaniard then by your logic.

Nice try by putting words in my mouth, are you having fun arguing with your made up person? What it sounds like to me is that your a black-supremacist.


The white people there are Africans too. Just because they aren't black doesn't make them any less African. The thing is you learn from the mistakes of the past, to prevent them in the present and future. Needless to say Mukabe should have learned from what happened in the past instead of repeating them. But of course you won't see it that way since it's happening to the evil white man.



Oh, my ancestors were in the Union thank you. Which would be the opposite of what you're painting me, thanks to MY ancestors slavery was abolished. Oh wait I didn't know the white man abolished slavery, because they are all evil and wish to promote slavery again to hold the black man down. :rolleyes:


I'm not related to any slaves since my ancestors came from Africa on their own accord.



I guess because I'm an evil half-white man I never know what is going on in Africa. :rolleyes:


Bull ****! Stop pretending like minorities do nothing wrong. If you do the crime, if it's doing drugs, and you get caught you do the time. Plain and simple.

Actually let me start a thread on whether drugs should be illegal because this thread is getting way off topic.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of this. I did not put any words in you mouth, if you had actually paid attention you would have seen that this post was directed to axiombiological. Also it took me almost ten minutes to try and correct your grevious VB coding mistakes.

fireman_x
04-23-2004, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I am interested in world politics and have been since a young age, just because it happens to affect people who are black doesn't make a difference to me. I read about politics happening in China, Mexico, etc.


Wow you read a lot. :rolleyes: What do you plan to major in and what job do you plan to get with that interest? Politics? BWHAHAHAHA! Wait till you go to school in the fall then you'll have a better understanding of how the world really works(hopefully).



Yes, but as a country age people interbreed, hence making the pure Indians number dwindle. Not to mention the fact that when Europeans first arrived in America, a lot of Indians were killed off due to influenza.

That was far more prevalent in South America than North America.
It was disease, war and the near extermination of the buffalo that caused the Native American population to dwindle.



It's simply survival of the fittest. If other races or nations can't keep up then they will be controlled. It's simple evolution. So you go from "let the white farmers keep their land to feed the poor" to "who cares, you live and you die".

MISTERDUDE
04-23-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Isn't this reverse racism. All that seizing is going to do is cause more hate.

In Zimbabwe right now the government is raiding white peoples farms and redistrubting them to black people. This is blatant racism.

What are your thoughts on the matter.

Reverse racism is still racism, I have never understood why white people call it that. I'm not white (or black) so I'm pretty nuetral in these issues btw.......

Jimineye
04-23-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Wow you read a lot. :rolleyes: What do you plan to major in and what job do you plan to get with that interest? Politics? BWHAHAHAHA! Wait till you go to school in the fall then you'll have a better understanding of how the world really works(hopefully).

Hmm, there's only so much you can do to learn about foreign politcs right and reading is one of them. Unless you are traveling over to Africa every day how else do you learn about what is going on. Oh yes, and I have no understanding of how the world works :rolleyes:


So you go from "let the white farmers keep their land to feed the poor" to "who cares, you live and you die".


I never said that the white farmers should keep their land to feed the poor. I said the white farmers should keep their land because it is THEIR land.

fireman_x
04-23-2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Hmm, there's only so much you can do to learn about foreign politcs right and reading is one of them. Unless you are traveling over to Africa every day how else do you learn about what is going on. Oh yes, and I have no understanding of how the world works :rolleyes:


You ignored my question of what your major would be and what field you plan to work in, I wonder why? :rolleyes: If you really read as often as you claimed you would not have responded to two posts that were clearly not directed to you. Calling me a black supremacist. :rolleyes: Or maybe you realized that Starsky and axiombiological have no defense and you felt a need to try a defend them. You need to read more carefully about who my posts are addressed to before you jump to yet even more illconcieved conclusions.


I made a thread about Africa quit bitching about how we don't bring up other nations besides white dominated ones.

I've still yet to see you make a thread about the fighting going on in the Congo, oh wait those conflicts only involve Africans.



I never said that the white farmers should keep their land to feed the poor. I said the white farmers should keep their land because it is THEIR land.

Sure, you said nothing about the Africans not being able to feed themselves without the help of the white farmers. :rolleyes:
Also on a side note about something you said earlier, whites in Southern Africa do not call themselves Africans they call themselves Afrikaners or Boers there is a difference.

Jimineye
04-23-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
You ignored my question of what your major would be and what field you plan to work in, I wonder why? :rolleyes: If you really read as often as you claimed you would not have responded to two posts that were clearly not directed to you. Calling me a black supremacist. :rolleyes: Or maybe you realized that Starsky and axiombiological have no defense and you felt a need to try a defend them. You need to read more carefully about who my posts are addressed to before you jump to yet even more illconcieved conclusions.

I have several options that I'm considering to major in. First one being Buisness Adminstration, other one is Political Science, third one is law. Because you address one person's issues does not mean that I cannot address your points made in that post.




I've still yet to see you make a thread about the fighting going on in the Congo, oh wait those conflicts only involve Africans.

Do you really want me to make a post about that so I can appease you? This post does involve Africans.



Sure, you said nothing about the Africans not being able to feed themselves without the help of the white farmers. :rolleyes:
Also on a side note about something you said earlier, whites in Southern Africa do not call themselves Africans they call themselves Afrikaners or Boers there is a difference.


If your born in Africa, you're African plain and simple. The white South Africans originated from Holland predominately, just as some black people here call themselves "African American" it applies the same to white South Africans who call themselves "Afrikans"

fireman_x
04-23-2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I have several options that I'm considering to major in. First one being Buisness Adminstration, other one is Political Science, third one is law. Because you address one person's issues does not mean that I cannot address your points made in that post.


This attempted cover up is pathetic. You clearly assumed that my post was directed toward you. I don't care if you respond to any of my posts, but don't get defensive when you incorrectly assume that it was directed towards you.


Nice try by putting words in my mouth, are you having fun arguing with your made up person? What it sounds like to me is that your a black-supremacist.


The post you responded to, which probably doubled your heart rate, was clearly directed towards axiombiological and you claimed that I was putting words in your mouth. :rolleyes:


Oh, my ancestors were in the Union thank you. Which would be the opposite of what you're painting me, thanks to MY ancestors slavery was abolished. Oh wait I didn't know the white man abolished slavery, because they are all evil and wish to promote slavery again to hold the black man down.

Painting you? The post was not addressed to you. Here again you go on about your ancestors being in the Union and I could care less. Axiombiological said his ancestors lost land to the North(meaning they were from the South) and I sarcasticly responded whether it was a plantation. So you can't say that you can address these points because there is no way you could relate to them.



Do you really want me to make a post about that so I can appease you? This post does involve Africans.


No I wouldn't want you to do it out of guilt. :rolleyes: Don't pretend that you care about the issues occuring on the African continent when you only bring up one issue, and you act like it's breaking news when it's been going on for over a year. Remeber what you titled this thread Zimbabwe's seizure of of white people's land. It's not just the siezure of land but white people's land, which is what makes it such a crisis in your eyes. So please don't pretend that you didn't bring up this topic due to race.



If your born in Africa, you're African plain and simple. The white South Africans originated from Holland predominately, just as some black people here call themselves "African American" it applies the same to white South Africans who call themselves "Afrikans"
That's not how whites in Southern Africa see it. Here are some quotes from another thread.


"The radical blacks hate us because we are strong, blonde, hard-working and productive. We came to South Africa and turned it into the richest country in the world, while before we came, the locals had been here for many centuries and did nothing with the land," Coetzee explained.


Sometimes a war is the only answer to your problems. Remember, the great Boer prophet Seer van Rensburg has prophesied that the whites will again come to rule in Southern Africa.

This shows that you clearly can't speak on their behalf.

Starsky
04-23-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Or maybe you realized that Starsky and axiombiological have no defense and you felt a need to try a defend them.


Fireman, the only thing substansive you have done is accuse people of: racism, old age, spelling, Neo-Nazism, post counts, lack of degrees etc. You throw out false charges, then move on to then next 3rd grade line. From any objective point of view, your ability to debate is mediocre at best, but downright awful compared to others. Is this snubbing out the rest of your arguments, because they are just *so* right? No, its snubbing them out because they are that bad.


Granted fireman_x, there are many who are worse debaters, but you are one of the few who takes a bad argument and debate so seriously, that it helps reflect just how bad the argument is.

fireman_x
04-24-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Fireman, the only thing substansive you have done is accuse people of: racism, old age, spelling, Neo-Nazism, post counts, lack of degrees etc. You throw out false charges, then move on to then next 3rd grade line. From any objective point of view, your ability to debate is mediocre at best, but downright awful compared to others. Is this snubbing out the rest of your arguments, because they are just *so* right? No, its snubbing them out because they are that bad.


My debating is bad and I've thrown out false accusations? Let's see, I posted facts backed up with links and sources, you posted nothing, but your personal twisted opinion. When asked about your level of education after disparaging mine what did you do? You danced, ducked, dodged, backfliped, backpeddled, tapdanced, skated around, juked and jived, cowered in fear, and overall just ran away from answering the question. You have obviously learned more from Clinton than you are willing to admit. Do you have a PHD, masters, or even a bachelors, no you don't because as you put it, higher education "brainwashes you with liberal non-sense". I hope you at least finished high school, or did you drop out to "avoid brainwashing". :rolleyes:

You can try to lie about the real reason you only answer approx. 1/3 of my posts, but you and I both know the real reason is simply that you can't come up with the answers. You provided no proof(sources, links, anything) of your claims and on top of that you have a vulture-like mind set. You can't go after my strong points because there is no way you could even come close to proving me wrong, so you go after the weakest most sidetracked angle you can find. You couldn't even come up with one solution to the situation in Zimbabwe, you know that if the current situation continued their would be another Rwandan-like genocide but you obviously ignored that fact.



Granted fireman_x, there are many who are worse debaters, but you are one of the few who takes a bad argument and debate so seriously, that it helps reflect just how bad the argument is.

It only a "bad agrument" in your view because you have been shot down, shut down and owned in this thread. Don't be too ashamed though, your not the first, I've already done the same to dave22 and a.americanus, and Jimineye three members of your right wing cult.

dave22
04-24-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x


It only a "bad agrument" in your view because you have been shot down, shut down and owned in this thread. Don't be too ashamed though, your not the first, I've already done the same to dave22 and a.americanus, and Jimineye three members of your right wing cult.

Is this how you debate?? Calling people Nazis and ****. You act like you're in 3rd grade and for the record, nobody gives a **** what kind of degree you have. The reason most of us aren't responding to your attacks is because we don't care.

Starsky
04-24-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Is this how you debate?? Calling people Nazis and ****. You act like you're in 3rd grade and for the record, nobody gives a **** what kind of degree you have. The reason most of us aren't responding to your attacks is because we don't care.


Bump.

fireman_x
04-24-2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Is this how you debate?? Calling people Nazis and ****.

You must be so offended because the truth hurts doesn't it.
How do you and Starsky debate, by calling people "left-wing this and that" as well as "Marxists". :rolleyes:



You act like you're in 3rd grade and for the record, nobody gives a **** what kind of degree you have. The reason most of us aren't responding to your attacks is because we don't care.
Oh I guess I can't win a debate against a high-school dropout(Starsky) and an overly politicized 8th grader(dave22). :rolleyes:
I keep getting attacked by the uneducated masses. You say you don't care, yet you reply. :rolleyes:

I can tell by your reply, which only recycled Starsky's response, that you did not read this thread. You probably got a desperate PM from Starsky begging you to attempt to help him out, which of course failed miserably(like Starsky did in school). You fools are unbelieveably pathetic. You state imaginary facts that have no standing and when I have sources, quotes, and links you try to discredit the truth. How does that work? Your so indoctrinated in your neo-conservative, Bill O Rilley based beliefs that you refuse to see the truth for what it is. That is just sad. *shakes head*

ComfortEagle
04-24-2004, 05:19 PM
What "race" a person is shouldn't have anything to do with the amount of land they control, whether they are in the majority or the minority. The land should be controlled by whomever has the most knowledge of farming, and can put it to the best use, be they black or white. I think we can all agree that Mugabe's "redistribution" has done nothing short of cripple Zimbabwe's economy.

I'd say Jimineye titled the thread "seizure of white people's land" not because he is racist against blacks, but to illustrate a form of racism other than white on black.

fireman-x, feel free to ignore this post, as my education level is obviously far inferior to your own (I do not hold a PhD, masters, and am only currently working on my bachelors).

Boer soldaat
05-23-2004, 09:46 PM
The Boers and white famers are the best thing that has ever happened to Africa. The Boers where not settlers like the british or french, they came to Africa to make a home for themselves, fleeing the hostilitys of Europe. Unlike the Conalnists they did not want to exploite the land and the people. The Majorty of Boers were famers, South Africa at the time had no perment farm land, in fact there where no perment residence of Southern Africa, just tribes that wondered in and out. So the claim of blacks that white stole there land is ridiculas, not to mention the fact that look all over the world, evey peace of land i'm sure was "stolen" from some one else, it's the way things work.


Zimbabwe is 10 years ahead of South Africa, they took control of the country 10 years befour the ANC did in south africa, there polices and polticts are along the lines of what South AFricas will be in 10 years. Whites in Southern Africa need to come together and bring about our own homeland befour the ANC takes compleat control of the country under there racist polcies of Affirmitave action and Black empowerment, once they control eveything why keep the whites around? thats what happened in Zimbabwe, SA is next.

lucubration
05-23-2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
Zimbabwe is 10 years ahead of South Africa, they took control of the country 10 years befour the ANC did in south africa, there polices and polticts are along the lines of what South AFricas will be in 10 years. Whites in Southern Africa need to come together and bring about our own homeland befour the ANC takes compleat control of the country under there racist polcies of Affirmitave action and Black empowerment, once they control eveything why keep the whites around? thats what happened in Zimbabwe, SA is next. You're probably right.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
The Boers and white famers are the best thing that has ever happened to Africa. The Boers where not settlers like the british or french, they came to Africa to make a home for themselves, fleeing the hostilitys of Europe. Unlike the Conalnists they did not want to exploite the land and the people. The Majorty of Boers were famers, South Africa at the time had no perment farm land, in fact there where no perment residence of Southern Africa, just tribes that wondered in and out. So the claim of blacks that white stole there land is ridiculas, not to mention the fact that look all over the world, evey peace of land i'm sure was "stolen" from some one else, it's the way things work.


Zimbabwe is 10 years ahead of South Africa, they took control of the country 10 years befour the ANC did in south africa, there polices and polticts are along the lines of what South AFricas will be in 10 years. Whites in Southern Africa need to come together and bring about our own homeland befour the ANC takes compleat control of the country under there racist polcies of Affirmitave action and Black empowerment, once they control eveything why keep the whites around? thats what happened in Zimbabwe, SA is next.

When I first saw your name Boer, I knew you would be a problem if you ever entered this section. It no surprise how people like you were silent during apartheid atrocities, yet now want to to *murder the Africans to take back your illegally usurped land or seperate into your own white contrled and occupied country*(and no, I'm not saying that you implied this but I can find sources that have Boers and Afrikaaners making those statements).
"evey peace of land i'm sure was "stolen" from some one else, it's the way things work" According to this statement you should have no problem with what is occuring to whites in Southern Africa due to the fact that it's the way things work. :rolleyes: The reason the problems of Southern Africa will not be solved is because people like your self simply want the whites to seperate instead of trying to actually resolve the land situation.

dixon
05-24-2004, 02:03 AM
I think I understand what Fireman's point is now. We are guilty of something that a person of similar skin colour did. By fireman's logic, if there was a white man on the street who killed someone, the police should come to my house, handcuff me, and take me to jail. After all, aren't I guilty, since I am the same colour, or a descendant of a criminal? :rolleyes:

Same case in Africa. If my grandpa took some land, of course I should responsible for what he did, since after all I do contain some of his genes. But what if the property he took dosn't have a living owner? Thats okay, we'll just give it to people the same skin colour as him, since they are somehow deserving of it because of their skin colour, according to fireman. That's moral by fireman's standards.

The conclusion we can make here is that fireman dosn't believe people are individuals, and thinks that they should be classified by race. This is also known as racism

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by dixon
I think I understand what Fireman's point is now. We are guilty of something that a person of similar skin colour did. By fireman's logic, if there was a white man on the street who killed someone, the police should come to my house, handcuff me, and take me to jail. After all, aren't I guilty, since I am the same colour, or a descendant of a criminal? :rolleyes:

Same case in Africa. If my grandpa took some land, of course I should responsible for what he did, since after all I do contain some of his genes. But what if the property he took dosn't have a living owner? Thats okay, we'll just give it to people the same skin colour as him, since they are somehow deserving of it because of their skin colour, according to fireman. That's moral by fireman's standards.

The conclusion we can make here is that fireman dosn't believe people are individuals, and thinks that they should be classified by race. This is also known as racism
:rolleyes: X 1000 Unbelieveable
The land theft occured up until the 1980's why the **** do you and the others ignore that fact!?!

dixon
05-24-2004, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
:rolleyes: X 1000 Unbelieveable
The land theft occured up until the 1980's why the **** do you and the others ignore that fact!?! Then those who had the land stolen from them should have it returned the just way, through a court system. Most didnt have it stolen recently, however. This is why your racist policy is injust.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by dixon
Then those who had the land stolen from them should have it returned the just way, through a court system. Most didnt have it stolen recently, however. This is why your racist policy is injust.
My racist policy? What racist policy have I envoked? :confused: Also what is your definition of recent? I would suggest that land acquired from 1950 to the present should be attempted to be retured to the rightful owner or decendant.

BTW it would be unjust.

Boer soldaat
05-24-2004, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
When I first saw your name Boer, I knew you would be a problem if you ever entered this section. It no surprise how people like you were silent during apartheid atrocities, yet now want to to *murder the Africans to take back your illegally usurped land or seperate into your own white contrled and occupied country*(and no, I'm not saying that you implied this but I can find sources that have Boers and Afrikaaners making those statements). According to this statement you should have no problem with what is occuring to whites in Southern Africa due to the fact that it's the way things work. :rolleyes: The reason the problems of Southern Africa will not be solved is because people like your self simply want the whites to seperate instead of trying to actually resolve the land situation.


When I first saw your name Boer, I knew you would be a problem if you ever entered this section

Well i'm only 18 so my first hand expearence of pre 1994 south africa is limited, but i've lived though whats happened after.


It no surprise how people like you were silent during apartheid atrocities

Probley because majorty of thoses "atrocities" where figuments of western media and libirals. That aside lets not forgets that the end of the Apartheid was brought about by a Boer President, voted on by all Afrikaners.


want to to *murder the Africans to take back your illegally usurped land or seperate into your own white contrled and occupied country

Were do i say i want to murder people? Thankfully in South Africa we haven't plunged that far yet with farms being forcble taken from whites, thats why we need to act now. Provinces like Northern Transvaal and Northern Cape are 80-90% white, We Afrikaners have a right to self determination, these provinces should slipt off of the coroup South Africa and form Boer Republics in all there glory as they were befour the Boer war, thats the only soultion. No where does it invlove murder, in fact it's probley the only soultion to advoide it.


The reason the problems of Southern Africa will not be solved is because people like your self simply want the whites to seperate instead of trying to actually resolve the land situation.

Because thats the only soultion, the Laws of South Africa are going the way to drive the whites out. Right now there is Affirmitave Action and Black empowerment, these laws say that any compaine with over 20 employs must have 70% black employs, 20% women. now that leaves 10% for white males, 10% of the jobs for 27% of the population, doesn't add up, it's just another way to make life hard for us and force us to leave. There's no soultion to the land problemes, it's our land and we'll keep it, the Afrikaners have a right to self determination, the ANC doesn't have my best intrests in mind, only a Boer nation with a Boer Preisident does.


The land theft occured up until the 1980's why the **** do you and the others ignore that fact!?!

wtf, there was never any land theft, but we Boers came to South Africa in the 16th century, after the first Boer War in the 1700's we took apone the great treek up into the northern proviences, the Boer republics were established in the 1740's, i am sure that by the 1980's all the land was being used, i'm sure by the 1900's all the ladn was being used.


My racist policy? What racist policy have I envoked?

That all whites have stolen land from the poor blacks and they should give it back.


I would suggest that land acquired from 1950 to the present should be attempted to be retured to the rightful owner or decendant.

Rightfull owner of decendant? the blacks didn't own land, they never did. the rightfull owners and decendants are the Boers.

Juicematic
05-24-2004, 10:44 AM
Great work fireman x. I don't know why you waste your time trying to explain these things to mostly over-entitled teens that think they know how the world works because they read The Fountianhead (or probably the cliff notes). All you have to do is take a basic history of Africa class or even pick up a book on the repercusions of colonialism in Africa to see that what's going on there now is enevitable.

Boer soldaat
05-24-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Juicematic
Great work fireman x. I don't know why you waste your time trying to explain these things to mostly over-entitled teens that think they know how the world works because they read The Fountianhead (or probably the cliff notes). All you have to do is take a basic history of Africa class or even pick up a book on the repercusions of colonialism in Africa to see that what's going on there now is enevitable.

Or mabey live there for your life and see the reality and how it has nothing to do with colonalism.

LethalOnGuitarZ
05-24-2004, 01:36 PM
Who cares... if they want to starve themselves to death because their farming techniques are about as good as a chicken's, then let it be so.

Africa was f*cked up right from the start. Poor resource base, technilogically backwards, infact many of the African tribes were living like Nomads until the Europeans colonized the continent in the 18th/19th century.

Juicematic
05-24-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
Or mabey live there for your life and see the reality and how it has nothing to do with colonalism.

BS moron, I don't care if you do live there. Only someone not willing to see the truth would say that. Europe underdevloped Africa on purpose in a number of ways but education and the non self sufficent nature of African economies being the biggest. Then the US and Soviet flooded the continent with weapons during the cold war and packed up and left. SA is different situation than the rest of Africa, they are going through a rough patch but will rebound if AIDS dosn't wipe out the future.

Jimineye
05-24-2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Juicematic
BS moron, I don't care if you do live there. Only someone not willing to see the truth would say that. Europe underdevloped Africa on purpose in a number of ways but education and the non self sufficent nature of African economies being the biggest. Then the US and Soviet flooded the continent with weapons during the cold war and packed up and left. SA is different situation than the rest of Africa, they are going through a rough patch but will rebound if AIDS dosn't wipe out the future.


Hmm who knows more the person who lived there, or the college kid who thinks he knows everything from his idealistic professor?

Sorry pal but you lose.

Teenytinyboo
05-24-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I'm not advocating white supremacy at all if that is what you're aiming at. You could say that about the Indians here in America.
Should they all of a sudden start invading our houses and taking our land because of something out great-great-great-great-great-great grandfathers did? I don't know what the percentage of white owned land is here in America, but they shouldn't be punished for something their dead relatives did.

I also fail to see what Dave said as advocating a white run world.

Could you imagine if every black american was able to take out a law suit for the wrong doings to their ancestors? america would be fukked =p

Jimineye
05-24-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Teenytinyboo
Could you imagine if every black american was able to take out a law suit for the wrong doings to their ancestors? america would be fukked =p


There is some idiot that thinks that blacks shouldn't pay taxes because his relatives were slaves. This was on Hannity and Colmes, and even Colmes shot this guy down.

Teenytinyboo
05-24-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
There is some idiot that thinks that blacks shouldn't pay taxes because his relatives were slaves. This was on Hannity and Colmes, and even Colmes shot this guy down.


Whats that got to with a law suit? I can imagine it now waking up in the morning to the sound of the door bell ringing while some one hands me some papers,

"Mr Joseph you are being sued for 300 years worth of labour at minimum wage, would you like to pay now or take it to court =p

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by LethalOnGuitarZ
Who cares... if they want to starve themselves to death because their farming techniques are about as good as a chicken's, then let it be so.

Africa was f*cked up right from the start. Poor resource base, technilogically backwards, infact many of the African tribes were living like Nomads until the Europeans colonized the continent in the 18th/19th century.

Yeah Africans didn't stand a chance at technological advancement until Eurpoeans started colonizing the continent, along with capturing slaves. :rolleyes: (There was slave trading going on but when demand exceeded supply Europeans started capturing anyone they could find.)
Africans were not starving before the Europeans arrived. I also have no idea of what you ment by "poor resource base" the African continent is rich in natural resources that the Europeans stole. *waits for Jimineye to try and justify the plundering of gold, diamond, copper and other elements. :rolleyes:
You look at Africa and its a mess thanks to the Europeans. You look at North and South America and the original inhabitants were almost completely wiped out, same with Austrailia. In Southern Africa blacks were treated as second class citizens (if even that) and were either killed in mass numbers or displaced. Now if you look at Asia you don't see any of the problems caused by colonization because they were able to avoid that fate(with the exception of India and Indonesia). Now you look at the world markets and you see Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, China, and India with either strong markets or up-and-coming markets all without being held under the oppression of European colonization.

Boer soldaat
05-24-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Juicematic
BS moron, I don't care if you do live there. Only someone not willing to see the truth would say that. Europe underdevloped Africa on purpose in a number of ways but education and the non self sufficent nature of African economies being the biggest. Then the US and Soviet flooded the continent with weapons during the cold war and packed up and left. SA is different situation than the rest of Africa, they are going through a rough patch but will rebound if AIDS dosn't wipe out the future.

Europe underdeveloped Africa? Rember that Africa had no infrustructure intill Europeans came, they had no society, no goverment. Europe advanced Africa thousads of years from where it was, the Africans were the ones who kicked the Europeans out, demanded that they goverern themselves, they ****ed it up. People who've never governed a country in there entire existance can't just start in a modern countyr, they don't know anything about commerce, society, goverment. They messed it up themselves.

The Soviet Union was the one who flooded Africa with weapons, the Soviet union wanted to exploit the natural resources of Africa, so they fooled weak willed africans with the communist propaganda of a great nation were evey one was equal, then send some advisours and armed masses of africans to go and fight the evil capatilst eurpeans. The Soviet Union is to blame for 99% of the conflicts in Africa, they armed these communist gangs and the coflicts have just keep going. In South Africa alone there are over 30 million unregistered soviet weapons.

Juicematic
05-24-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Hmm who knows more the person who lived there, or the college kid who thinks he knows everything from his idealistic professor?

Sorry pal but you lose.

OK dickhead read the posts. the kid is only 18 and admitted he doesn't know much about apartied politics but has lived through the rest. Instead of wishing for white rule again he should look into the problems that that are causing his country to go down the tubes. Who knows more the college grad with a job or the kid that is still getting hand outs living at home wishing he could be white.

Jimineye
05-24-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Yeah Africans didn't stand a chance at technological advancement until Eurpoeans started colonizing the continent, along with capturing slaves. :rolleyes: (There was slave trading going on but when demand exceeded supply Europeans started capturing anyone they could find.)
Africans were not starving before the Europeans arrived. I also have no idea of what you ment by "poor resource base" the African continent is rich in natural resources that the Europeans stole. *waits for Jimineye to try and justify the plundering of gold, diamond, copper and other elements. :rolleyes:
You look at Africa and its a mess thanks to the Europeans. You look at North and South America and the original inhabitants were almost completely wiped out, same with Austrailia. In Southern Africa blacks were treated as second class citizens (if even that) and were either killed in mass numbers or displaced. Now if you look at Asia you don't see any of the problems caused by colonization because they were able to avoid that fate(with the exception of India and Indonesia). Now you look at the world markets and you see Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, China, and India with either strong markets or up-and-coming markets all without being held under the oppression of European colonization.

Africa was a bunch of nomadic tribes when Europeans came. Africa in certain parts are still nomadic tribes. They have not advanced. Africa has only advanced because of technology that the Europeans brought.
Japan, and China were imperialist nations as well. *waits for firedemon to blame the whiteman for the worlds problems :rolleyes:*

Jimineye
05-24-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Juicematic
OK dickhead read the posts. the kid is only 18 and admitted he doesn't know much about apartied politics but has lived through the rest. Instead of wishing for white rule again he should look into the problems that that are causing his country to go down the tubes. Who knows more the college grad with a job or the kid that is still getting hand outs living at home wishing he could be white.


Hey dumb **** I have read the posts. Just because he is 18 doesn't mean he doesn't know what is going on, or saw what happened. He never said he is wishing for whites to rule again, he is simply stating that the blacks have not done a good job of ruling. Which is true.

Your last sentence doesn't even make sense as an analogy, I sure as hell hope you're not a college grad because hopefully they would have taught you how to properly form an analogy.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Africa was a bunch of nomadic tribes when Europeans came. Africa in certain parts are still nomadic tribes. They have not advanced. Africa has only advanced because of technology that the Europeans brought.
Japan, and China were imperialist nations as well. *waits for firedemon to blame the whiteman for the worlds problems :rolleyes:*

You clearly have never been to Africa and never will, I have. I know for a fact that the majority of African tribes are not nomadic period. The only ones that were nomadic were the tribes that lived close to the sahara desert. Asia recieved European technology but didn't have to recieve the racism, and brutality that went along with it. And Europeans did cause most of the world problems, carving up the African continent along with the Arab peninsula has created problems that still exist today, maybe you learn some of this in college.(Although you would probably drop the class as soon as you started to learn the truth.) :rolleyes:

Juicematic
05-24-2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
Europe underdeveloped Africa? Rember that Africa had no infrustructure intill Europeans came, they had no society, no goverment. Europe advanced Africa thousads of years from where it was, the Africans were the ones who kicked the Europeans out, demanded that they goverern themselves, they ****ed it up. People who've never governed a country in there entire existance can't just start in a modern countyr, they don't know anything about commerce, society, goverment. They messed it up themselves.

The Soviet Union was the one who flooded Africa with weapons, the Soviet union wanted to exploit the natural resources of Africa, so they fooled weak willed africans with the communist propaganda of a great nation were evey one was equal, then send some advisours and armed masses of africans to go and fight the evil capatilst eurpeans. The Soviet Union is to blame for 99% of the conflicts in Africa, they armed these communist gangs and the coflicts have just keep going. In South Africa alone there are over 30 million unregistered soviet weapons.

once again you prove that you don't know ****. Yes europe underdevoloped Africa. First of all there was a society and government just not a european one. second europe didn't advance Africa thousands of years since they didn't invest in the countries. the land was divied up and the people were used to get raw materials for shipment to european factories. the were taught just enough to be useful workers. by your logic they should never be self governing because they have no experience, that's retarded. The CIA was behind just as many rebel armies as the soviets Angola and Mozimbique are 2 examples. Everytime a post colonial marxist govt came into power the CIA funed a competing army for civil war to begin. since the post colonial period only beganin the 70's these things are still getting worked out. You sound like Jimineye and the rest of the Daughters of the Confederacy where since Blacks in America got equal rights in 1965 they should be on a level playing field with whites instantly. white rule lasted 400 years I think Africans should get more than 30 before declaring their governments failures.

Jimineye
05-24-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
You clearly have never been to Africa and never will, I have. I know for a fact that the majority of African tribes are not nomadic period. The only ones that were nomadic were the tribes that lived close to the sahara desert. Asia recieved European technology but didn't have to recieve the racism, and brutality that went along with it. And Europeans did cause most of the world problems, carving up the African continent along with the Arab peninsula has created problems that still exist today, maybe you learn some of this in college.(Although you would probably drop the class as soon as you started to learn the truth.) :rolleyes:

Prove it, prove to us that the majority of African tribes back in the 1600's+ were not nomadic.

Are you blind, Asians received rascism from Europeans.

You need to open your eyes, for someone in college you are pretty blind.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Prove it, prove to us that the majority of African tribes back in the 1600's+ were not nomadic.


All you have to do is do a little bit of research on the history of Africa or you could actually visit the continent (I know you won't do that). You believe in god yet you don't belive that Africans could actually not be nomadic. :rolleyes: I feel that if I really tried to explain this, you would simply dismiss it like you always do, so I won't waste my time.



Are you blind, Asians received rascism from Europeans.


Who said the Asians didn't recieve racism? What I said is that they were not colonized and did not recieve the amount of oppression that Africans did. Racism is different from catagoric geographical displacement and genocide.



You need to open your eyes, for someone in college you are pretty blind.

Blind to what, I've seen more of the world than you have and I've met more people from various cultures than you have. Hopefuly college will open your eyes to reality. Countries in Africa and the Middle East were not allowed to form natural boundries like European and Asian countries, their boundries were created by the Europeans which has led to many current conflicts.

Jimineye
05-24-2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
All you have to do is do a little bit of research on the history of Africa or you could actually visit the continent (I know you won't do that). You believe in god yet you don't belive that Africans could actually not be nomadic. :rolleyes: I feel that if I really tried to explain this, you would simply dismiss it like you always do, so I won't waste my time.



Who said the Asians didn't recieve racism? What I said is that they were not colonized and did not recieve the amount of oppression that Africans did. Racism is different from catagoric geographical displacement and genocide.

[B]

Blind to what, I've seen more of the world than you have and I've met more people from various cultures than you have. Hopefuly college will open your eyes to reality. Countries in Africa and the Middle East were [b]not allowed to form natural boundries like European and Asian countries, their boundries were created by the Europeans which has led to many current conflicts.


God has no relevance to the argument, so I don't see the point why you brought God up. Obviously it is because you are unable to refute my argument and have to use the typical change the subject tactic.

Asia recieved European technology but didn't have to recieve the racism

You said it.

How do you know you have seen more of the world than me. Once again you are throwing out statements that you cannot support. How about you try actually debating me instead of making some bull **** up, I know that will be hard for you to do.

Boer soldaat
05-24-2004, 04:28 PM
OK dickhead read the posts. the kid is only 18 and admitted he doesn't know much about apartied politics but has lived through the rest

I know enough, the first 8 years of my life i lived though it, and being from a rual Boer Farm town really up intill i was 16 things didn't really change much.


Instead of wishing for white rule again he should look into the problems that that are causing his country to go down the tubes.

The blacks can ahve there own country, the Boers shoudl have our own. The country only started going down the tubes when the ANC took power.


Instead of wishing for white rule again he should look into the problems that that are causing his country to go down the tubes.

I goto collage, i am in Canada right now going to collage. and i am white.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
God has no relevance to the argument, so I don't see the point why you brought God up. Obviously it is because you are unable to refute my argument and have to use the typical change the subject tactic.

Read(I know it may be difficult for you) some books by African authors that discuss the regions of Africa and you will find out that hardly any tribes were nomadic. They may have moved due to drought, but they mainly lived in the same geographical region.



Asia recieved European technology but didn't have to recieve the racism

You said it.

You should have quoted my entire sentence, but knowing you(and how that would have given you no arguement), I'm not surprised. :rolleyes:

and brutality that went along with it.
The above quote means the brutality that went along with colonialization. Like I've said before the Rwandan genocide was due to the Belgians. (They treated the Tutsi minority better than they Hutu majority.) And that's just one of many examples.



How do you know you have seen more of the world than me. Once again you are throwing out statements that you cannot support. How about you try actually debating me instead of making some bull **** up, I know that will be hard for you to do.

How do I know I've seen more of the world that you? It simple, after I skim past your postwhore posts, I see that you live in a small town in Oregon and have only been to Mexico because you father's family is there, but if you've been to more countries feel free to say so. Also being in college I've met people from at least 50 different countries. I've been to parts of Western Africa and Europe, not to mention Mexico.

Jimineye
05-24-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Read(I know it may be difficult for you) some books by African authors that discuss the regions of Africa and you will find out that hardly any tribes were nomadic. They may have moved due to drought, but they mainly lived in the same geographical region.

[B]
You should have quoted my entire sentence, but knowing you(and how that would have given you no arguement), I'm not surprised. :rolleyes:

The above quote means the brutality that went along with [b]colonialization. Like I've said before the Rwandan genocide was due to the Belgians. (They treated the Tutsi minority better than they Hutu majority.) And that's just one of many examples.



How do I know I've seen more of the world that you? It simple, after I skim past your postwhore posts, I see that you live in a small town in Oregon and have only been to Mexico because you father's family is there, but if you've been to more countries feel free to say so. Also being in college I've met people from at least 50 different countries. I've been to parts of Western Africa and Europe, not to mention Mexico.


They moved to different areas, means they are nomadic. I just did a google search and plenty of tribes came up as being nomadic.

Asians encountered racism as well, but unlike the blacks in Africa had something to offer to the west, other than slave labor.

Yes the Belgians did favor the Tutsui's but that by no means justifies the attack the hutus did on the Tutsui's.

You only know what I let be known on this forum. So your argument that you've been to more places than me, etc has no bearing.

Boer soldaat
05-24-2004, 07:02 PM
Just because you've been places doens't mean your an expert on it, or know more then the next person. I've lived in Canada for over a year and i'm still at a loss to hundresds of things that happen here each day, and if some one were to ask me about the intrecies of Canadian society i couldn't tell you the begining. Just because you've been to "West Africa" doesn't mean your an expert on Africa. The majorty of African tribes are Nomadic, expecialy in Southern Africa. Name me one perment African settlement that dates to befour 1500? With the exception of Northern Africa (Egypt ect) there is none, No ruins of a great African city have ever been found, why? because there were none, they didn't have cities because they were nomadic, they wondered around, usualy in specific areas durring certin times such as some of the natives of north amercia, but none the less they were nomadic.

fireman_x, you seem to think that Africa was a garden of eden befour the Europeans came, your example of Rwandan illistrates it. You blame the belguim for the genocide (even though Belgium gave control back to the Africans over 20 years befour) but did you know that the Tutsi and Hutu had been fighting for over 2000 years, since befour Jesus was born. in fact the genocide wasn't the first one recorded, back in the 1800's there was a Tutsi Genocide were the Hutus burned and slagutered over 20 Tutsi "settlements". There were 2 more inbetween befour 1950, alot less people died, probley because of the lack of modern weapons, but none the less genocide between thoses two people wasn't an invention of europeans. Read some books by Tutsi, according to there stories there have been mass killings between the two tribes for thousands of years. The story is the same accrost Africa, tribes have been fighting tribes for menilium.

You really need to get a clue, people had problems befour the europeans came around, but then again it's eaiser to blame the whitey.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
Just because you've been places doens't mean your an expert on it, or know more then the next person. I've lived in Canada for over a year and i'm still at a loss to hundresds of things that happen here each day, and if some one were to ask me about the intrecies of Canadian society i couldn't tell you the begining. Just because you've been to "West Africa" doesn't mean your an expert on Africa. The majorty of African tribes are Nomadic, expecialy in Southern Africa. Name me one perment African settlement that dates to befour 1500? With the exception of Northern Africa (Egypt ect) there is none, No ruins of a great African city have ever been found, why? because there were none, they didn't have cities because they were nomadic, they wondered around, usualy in specific areas durring certin times such as some of the natives of north amercia, but none the less they were nomadic.

fireman_x, you seem to think that Africa was a garden of eden befour the Europeans came, your example of Rwandan illistrates it. You blame the belguim for the genocide (even though Belgium gave control back to the Africans over 20 years befour) but did you know that the Tutsi and Hutu had been fighting for over 2000 years, since befour Jesus was born. in fact the genocide wasn't the first one recorded, back in the 1800's there was a Tutsi Genocide were the Hutus burned and slagutered over 20 Tutsi "settlements". There were 2 more inbetween befour 1950, alot less people died, probley because of the lack of modern weapons, but none the less genocide between thoses two people wasn't an invention of europeans. Read some books by Tutsi, according to there stories there have been mass killings between the two tribes for thousands of years. The story is the same accrost Africa, tribes have been fighting tribes for menilium.

You really need to get a clue, people had problems befour the europeans came around, but then again it's eaiser to blame the whitey.

What is the solution to the problems in southern Africa then other than seperation? An island of white people living in the middle of Africa will not work, it would probably be like another Israel.

I know that there were conflicts before the Europeans arrived, but it sems that the Europeans simply exacerbated the different ethnic and tribal differences to their own benefit. (Having various groups kill each other so that the African population as a whole would be easier to control) The Kingdom of Kush was a great kingdom(it extended fom Egypt to Southern Sudan and covered all of East Africa(Ethiopia and some of Somalia), trading in the Mediterrian, Red, and Arabian Seas.), in fact it has been said that some of the early Pyramids were built by them, but it was the rise in the Roman Empire that led to their downfall. Somalia and Ethiopia also had empires as well, but the Arab slave trade diminished those as well. There weare also a few kingdoms in West and Southwestern Africa but I forget the names.

Your entire ideology leans towards the same views that most white supremacist have, claiming that because Africans did not have empires like the Europeans they are inferior and deserved to be colonized. :rolleyes: Had the Europeans not been able to gain technology from other civilizations such as gunpowder from China, they would have never expanded as far as they did.

Boer soldaat
05-24-2004, 11:03 PM
What is the solution to the problems in southern Africa then other than seperation? An island of white people living in the middle of Africa will not work, it would probably be like another Israel.

Why wouldn't it work? Because the succes of a white nation in africa would embares the other African failures? Thats what led to the orgional condemnation of South Africa, the libirals who fought so hard for blacks to control there own coutnry were being showed up by some white farmers down in South Africa, had to scilence them.

Norther Transvaal and Nothern Cape (provinces in south africa) both have a 80-90% white population, why shouldn't we be allowed to seperate and govern outselves? the ANCdoesn't have my best intrests in mind, with laws such as Black Empowerment and Affirmitave action there only trying to make life hard for the Afrikaner.


The Kingdom of Kush was a great kingdom(it extended fom Egypt to Southern Sudan and covered all of East Africa(Ethiopia and some of Somalia)

Again, when i speak of Afrika i mean sub-sahara, Norther Africa is either called Norther Afrika or part of the middle east. Give me an example of a empire, city, or even a building in Sub-sahara africa? thats what were talking about, norther africa is a different storie.

axiombiological
05-25-2004, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
I know that there were conflicts before the Europeans arrived, but it sems that the Europeans simply exacerbated the different ethnic and tribal differences to their own benefit.

"It seems" that way...meaning you construe it that way. Understand the concept of a "spurious correlation"? Maybe "specious argument"?


Your entire ideology leans towards the same views that most white supremacist have, claiming that because Africans did not have empires like the Europeans they are inferior and deserved to be colonized. :rolleyes:

Well of course it does. We all know that unless one plays apologetics for all African tragedies, then one is a racist. Is this not the core of your posts?


Had the Europeans not been able to gain technology from other civilizations such as gunpowder from China, they would have never expanded as far as they did.

Yes, because we know that Western Europeans never did anything on their own; we only shot people and took their knowledge and inventions.

Why pray tell did the Chinese not surpass Western Europe since they invented gunpowder before us? Why is the Middle East no better than when they were in the 12th century, when they had an "enlightenment" period centuries before Western Europe? Why did Western Europe undergo a "Dark Age" if we had the all powerful "gunpowder", which you claim was the source of our power?

The Kurgan
05-25-2004, 02:01 AM
People like Mugabe make me sick. Isn't this a better way to spend $80 billion?