|
On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now.
If Malaysia and Singapore were not colonised for the purpose of, well, let's not call it exploitation, but basically in British interests, then what the heck were they doing there in the first place? I'm not denying that the British did a great job with those countries - colonisation was good! But the fact is that Malaysia was a great source of rubber and Singapore had a great strategic location to pitch a trading port there.
You mean to tell me that the British gave these two countries preferential treatment in the colonisation game? And what is ripe corruption?
compared to the way Dutch shit on Indonesia ?
yeah, British give these two countries preferential treatment in the whole colonization 'game'
and its ripe with corruption
sorry if my Asian grammar is not good enough for you westerner
|
On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now.
If Malaysia and Singapore were not colonised for the purpose of, well, let's not call it exploitation, but basically in British interests, then what the heck were they doing there in the first place? I'm not denying that the British did a great job with those countries - colonisation was good! But the fact is that Malaysia was a great source of rubber and Singapore had a great strategic location to pitch a trading port there.
You mean to tell me that the British gave these two countries preferential treatment in the colonisation game?
Sigh, get over your paper-thin arguments and comparisons; they're hardly relevant. The reason why Europeans are being blamed is simply because of the fact that they drew the damn borders. If you think that is somehow insignificant compared to the technological/infrastructural contributions...well...you really don't know what you are talking about.
|
I wish this was the worst thing that happens in Africa 
Unfortunately every day something worse comes along.
And I have little doubt things similar to this happen all across the world, even in America.
On June 03 2011 02:44 sandyph wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now.
If Malaysia and Singapore were not colonised for the purpose of, well, let's not call it exploitation, but basically in British interests, then what the heck were they doing there in the first place? I'm not denying that the British did a great job with those countries - colonisation was good! But the fact is that Malaysia was a great source of rubber and Singapore had a great strategic location to pitch a trading port there.
You mean to tell me that the British gave these two countries preferential treatment in the colonisation game? And what is ripe corruption? compared to the way Dutch shit on Indonesia ? yeah, British give these two countries preferential treatment in the whole colonization ' game' and its ripe with corruption sorry if my Asian grammar is not good enough for you westerner
That was the sickest sneak attack comeback I've ever seen.
|
On June 03 2011 02:45 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now.
If Malaysia and Singapore were not colonised for the purpose of, well, let's not call it exploitation, but basically in British interests, then what the heck were they doing there in the first place? I'm not denying that the British did a great job with those countries - colonisation was good! But the fact is that Malaysia was a great source of rubber and Singapore had a great strategic location to pitch a trading port there.
You mean to tell me that the British gave these two countries preferential treatment in the colonisation game? Sigh, get over your paper-thin arguments and comparisons; they're hardly relevant. The reason why Europeans are being blamed is simply because of the fact that they drew the damn borders. If you think that is somehow insignificant compared to the technological/infrastructural contributions...well...you really don't know what you are talking about.
Borders have been drawn right through population centers since the dawn of man. You think the Chinese emperor gave a fuck if some mongolian horde had suddenly become a part of his nation?
You think the Muslim caliphate gave a damn?
Maybe the Roman empire gave a fuck?
Leaders make borders and never in history has there been much attention to who gets to live on what side, but there has always been plenty of attention as to wich side of the border would have a mountain filled with iron.
But for some strange reason the people in Africa couldn't cope with this and reacted in a fit of uncontrollable self-destructive rage that is still going on today.
Honestly there is only so long you can go on with carying a grudge and still be taken seriously. This border nonesense has been repeated often enough and has no grounding in reality. Another one of those false truths wich is accepted on no other basis then "sounds reasonable".
|
On June 03 2011 02:30 TeWy wrote:
So let me get this straight, you think that the current aid which is already gigantic is not enough and that we should do more.
You think that all these Western association, and that the fact that the Europeans working class is currently financially sustaining Africa, repaying all their debts, is not enough but that "we" should do more, and furthermore, not take any advantage from the situation ?
Sir, in what world are you living ? Which European leader would accept to dilapidate the wealth of its indebted nation to volunteerely help the fishers in Zimbabwe ? Not to mention that most of this money is going to be intercepted by corrupted leaders and so on.
I never mentioned financial aid, I merely said aid. A lot of stuff is going on that helps the situation, like building schools and hospitals, giving free medicin and so on, and this has to happen more.
I agree that financial aid only is the wrong way to go about it, and i furthermore explained that there are things we could STOP doing, that in effect would help African nations, but i guess you didnt read that part.
Also your comment about repaying their debts is quite funny, as since, companies and governments have been instilling a whole lot of debt INTO African nations, but I guess you don't know about that either. It genuinely seems like you don't know a whole lot about this stuff, so ill let you off the hook, but please, read what I am saying.
The ill nations of Africa was exploited and suffered on many levels during and after colonization and imperialism, this is a fact. That we still this day cause problems for many African nations is a fact and to think otherwise is living in a bubble, sorry to say.
However a lot of people are doing a good job trying to right the ongoing wrongs of many people in Africa and we need to support that.
|
Stop the aid, it has done way more ill than good. I just wrote a paper about it so cba to explain my points, but read Dambisa Moyos book "Dead Aid" and you will get the hang of it. Only humanitarian aid should exist, development aid has to be removed or drastically changed.
|
Some African nations were never colonized, and they're still doing pretty bad. Africa needs to start helping themselves before we can help them. They also need to stop blaming others, even if it is true (which i dont believe it is) it wont help them.
As it is now Africa doesnt want to change. Many leaders just dont care about it and therefore handing them money wont do anything. Until Africa is ready, no amount of money will help them.
This is a terrible story
|
On June 03 2011 02:40 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now. I guess if the Mongols didn't run rampant around the world for a while most people would have no idea about effective horseback artillery and crude siege weapons, thereby stalling the development of Europe for 3,000 years
/sarcasm Your stupidity is truly amazing
You'd be suprised how advanced the mongols were when Europe was still a shit hole after the fall of Rome (which it was). Not being sarcastic Europeans should probably be thanking Muslims (not Mongols) for helping them develop out of that mess. And yes, if Muslims hadn't had a "Jihad" the rest of the world might actually be farther behind than it really is. Even thought most people only know Jihad as a "holy war". Why do people have to take such opposite sides and not see that the answer may be in the middle? Africa has had problems for a long time, (slavery has almost always been apart of their culture) some people are saying that, no need to get offended by it (especially since its the truth. The only people that can do anything about it are the people living their as well.
|
On June 03 2011 02:45 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now.
If Malaysia and Singapore were not colonised for the purpose of, well, let's not call it exploitation, but basically in British interests, then what the heck were they doing there in the first place? I'm not denying that the British did a great job with those countries - colonisation was good! But the fact is that Malaysia was a great source of rubber and Singapore had a great strategic location to pitch a trading port there.
You mean to tell me that the British gave these two countries preferential treatment in the colonisation game? Sigh, get over your paper-thin arguments and comparisons; they're hardly relevant. The reason why Europeans are being blamed is simply because of the fact that they drew the damn borders. If you think that is somehow insignificant compared to the technological/infrastructural contributions...well...you really don't know what you are talking about.
yeah surely Africa was the pinnacle of civilisation prior to the border rearrangements
I'm not arguing that colonisation did not create some problems, of course they did. What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners.
|
On June 03 2011 02:50 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:45 Judicator wrote:On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now.
If Malaysia and Singapore were not colonised for the purpose of, well, let's not call it exploitation, but basically in British interests, then what the heck were they doing there in the first place? I'm not denying that the British did a great job with those countries - colonisation was good! But the fact is that Malaysia was a great source of rubber and Singapore had a great strategic location to pitch a trading port there.
You mean to tell me that the British gave these two countries preferential treatment in the colonisation game? Sigh, get over your paper-thin arguments and comparisons; they're hardly relevant. The reason why Europeans are being blamed is simply because of the fact that they drew the damn borders. If you think that is somehow insignificant compared to the technological/infrastructural contributions...well...you really don't know what you are talking about. Borders have been drawn right through population centers since the dawn of man. You think the Chinese emperor gave a fuck if some mongolian horde had suddenly become a part of his nation? You think the Muslim caliphate gave a damn? Maybe the Roman empire gave a fuck? Leaders make borders and never in history has there been much attention to who gets to live on what side, but there has always been plenty of attention as to wich side of the border would have a mountain filled with iron. But for some strange reason the people in Africa couldn't cope with this and reacted in a fit of uncontrollable self-destructive rage that is still going on today. Honestly there is only so long you can go on with carying a grudge and still be taken seriously. This border nonesense has been repeated often enough and has no grounding in reality. Another one of those false truths wich is accepted on no other basis then "sounds reasonable".
The borders were drawn by other countries, not native leaders. Come on, think about this for more than 5 seconds.
|
Ace I disagree with your post. Colonialism ended a long enough time ago and the AU and many other multinational political organisations have had the opportunity to redraw borders but most African wars remain internal. I'm open to clarification on a subject that I admittedly don't know a tremendous amount about.
|
On June 03 2011 02:55 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:45 Judicator wrote:On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now.
If Malaysia and Singapore were not colonised for the purpose of, well, let's not call it exploitation, but basically in British interests, then what the heck were they doing there in the first place? I'm not denying that the British did a great job with those countries - colonisation was good! But the fact is that Malaysia was a great source of rubber and Singapore had a great strategic location to pitch a trading port there.
You mean to tell me that the British gave these two countries preferential treatment in the colonisation game? Sigh, get over your paper-thin arguments and comparisons; they're hardly relevant. The reason why Europeans are being blamed is simply because of the fact that they drew the damn borders. If you think that is somehow insignificant compared to the technological/infrastructural contributions...well...you really don't know what you are talking about. yeah surely Africa was the pinnacle of civilisation prior to the border rearrangements I'm not arguing that colonisation did not create some problems, of course they did. What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners.
You are going to want to stop posting before you embarass yourself further.
Yes, europeans brought "power grids" to Africa. And Africa also had large, advanced empires and kingdoms strong enough to be major bargaining powers against European military might until the advent of machine guns.
The root of Africa's current problems is the legacy of colonialism combined with global policies that condemn much of the continent to abject poverty.
|
This is disgusting... I can't believe that stuff like this still happens. Even more disgusting is that they are selling the babies to black magicians for torture and sacrifice. Ugh...
|
On June 03 2011 03:13 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:55 shadymmj wrote:On June 03 2011 02:45 Judicator wrote:On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now.
If Malaysia and Singapore were not colonised for the purpose of, well, let's not call it exploitation, but basically in British interests, then what the heck were they doing there in the first place? I'm not denying that the British did a great job with those countries - colonisation was good! But the fact is that Malaysia was a great source of rubber and Singapore had a great strategic location to pitch a trading port there.
You mean to tell me that the British gave these two countries preferential treatment in the colonisation game? Sigh, get over your paper-thin arguments and comparisons; they're hardly relevant. The reason why Europeans are being blamed is simply because of the fact that they drew the damn borders. If you think that is somehow insignificant compared to the technological/infrastructural contributions...well...you really don't know what you are talking about. yeah surely Africa was the pinnacle of civilisation prior to the border rearrangements I'm not arguing that colonisation did not create some problems, of course they did. What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners. You are going to want to stop posting before you embarass yourself further. Yes, europeans brought "power grids" to Africa. And Africa also had large, advanced empires and kingdoms strong enough to be major bargaining powers against European military might until the advent of machine guns. The root of Africa's current problems is the legacy of colonialism combined with global policies that condemn much of the continent to abject poverty.
Wait, what? Which internally generated African empire has ever challenged Europe?
And let's not forget that about thirty generations ago all our European ancestors were sacrificing humans. This is a terrible thing but it's not like Africans or African nations have a monopoly on doing awful stuff. Hopefully the world advances sufficiently that problems like this will become far less common all around the world.
|
On June 03 2011 02:27 KingVietKong wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:10 RoosterSamurai wrote:On June 02 2011 16:55 baoluvboa wrote:On June 02 2011 16:53 ondik wrote:On June 02 2011 16:23 Lexpar wrote:
I truly hope that somewhere in the future the backwards continent of Africa can receive real humanitarian aid and reparations for the hundreds of years of social and economic damage the rest of the world has caused it. It seems like many of the most terrible articles I read are fueled by the ever pressing poverty and hunger and disease that grips the African continent. I'm interested in TL's opinion as to whether or not the hundreds of western charities set up to benefit Africa can, have, or will make a real difference. Is a larger, international, government effort needed?
Hundreds of years of social and economic damage the rold has caused it? What does this mean? African countries recieved and are recieving much more humanitarian aid than any cuontry in the world. Amount of money which was basicly given to Africa for free is incredible and as we can see, almost all of it went to waste. Africa needs help, but definitely not the kind of help it's been recieving for years. And most definitely not from some world government. Because the blatant inequality in wealth distribution of the world is caused by racial superiority right? Blacks are clearly innately inferior which is why they are poor and don't deserve foreign aids. Imperialism didn't exist at all. we stole their resources and people? slavery in the US was a long time ago.. unless you are talking about something else? We study history for a reason. The impact of slavery and imperialism has lasting impacts which is evident by today's standing in wealth. Japan has had both Imperialism, AND slavery. Why are they not a third world country like some African nations? Uh.... this is pretty blatantly inaccurate, as what you're saying is that because Japan took slaves and were imperialistic they should thus be like Africa. Japan has never (ever) been subject to Africa-levels of either, especially not simultaneously, and ESPECIALLY not since it has been known as Japan. So, unless I'm just too tired and not reading the sarcasm in this, here's what I got: I'm not going to sustain an argument with you about it, because this whole thread is a god damned factory for misinformation and stupidity and reading 3 pages of it has caused brain to leak out my ears, so I'm sure I won't even convince you how ridiculous what you just posted is, despite the fact that I know for certain far more than you about this topic. But I'll tell you this; even implying that Japan had remotely similar conditions to Africa, at pretty much any time in history (perhaps during the Jurassic they were somewhat similar socioeconomically) is appallingly ignorant. If you are being sarcastic, and I hope to holy Buddha you are, then well played. More importantly, why the FUCK is a thread about a baby factory now a thread about imperialism? Focus people!
Er.....Go look up the Tokugawa shogunate. Or any other shogunate, for that matter. Families were enslaved to other families for generations. Please learn what you're talking about before making such a big post...Or any post at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan
Apology incoming?
|
Well, I just died alittle inside reading the op and story.
Sad to say that it happens, at least the government there is trying to do some good.
I wonder...interogating? Normally they say questioning. I do hope they do something very painful to him to get answers.
/leave thread.
|
On June 02 2011 22:05 ChApFoU wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 20:26 xarthaz wrote:
Africa WANTS slavery, africa WANTS poverty- when will you get it!
Africa acts in a manner that rejects the premises of wealth accumulation - the establishment of property rights and liquid capital markets, hence it demonstrated its preference of poverty. Lets say youre on an island. And so too is another guy. And you choose to steal and plunder each others stuff constantly, instead of trading and peaceful relations. Now how can you blame the rest of the world what these two guys are doing? It is clearly their own preference to live in poverty, so let them have it i say. Eliminate all foreign aid, and let them handle their affairs like adults. If they want poverty and misery, let them have it. O_o; You live in a fucking fairy-tale dude ! Things are just a LITTLE bit more complicated than 2 guys on an island. You know, history and stuff and political and economical relations with the rest of the world ....
All interpersonal relations are a subset of what i described. The dichotomies of choice that must be made remain the same. Hence, my conclusions are without exception correct in the real life, and the argument follows - that the unpleasant truth of african preferences and ideals, that of Poverty and Slavery, are correct.
|
On June 03 2011 02:55 shadymmj wrote:
What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners. You seem to think there's only 2 possibilities in the equation:
A) Africa with no foreign contact at all, which would likely be still in bronze or feudal age today
B) Africa being exploited to death by europeans, which did bring them more than they had although got them worse than every other place on earth today
Then you conclude B > A. No one is arguing against that. (though we'll never be 100% sure) But instead we're trying to show you that foreign contact was inevitable, and it didn't need to be destructible. Instead these could happen.
C) Non destructive contact with beneficial trades for both sides. Ex.: europe trading with some asian countries
D) Settling colonies just like europe did to US, Australia and others.
(C and D) > B > A
It's very subjective to try to say who is "to blame" of why africa is less developed than the rest of the world. But you can't say africa wouldn't be in a much better shape today if the inevitable foreign contact wasn't as destructive and exploitive as it was. Africa was the most exploited region of the world and as a result it's the least developed place of the world. It's very simple.
|
As for the actual story, theres not much I can say, that's one of the most disgusting and awful things I have ever heard.
The caster thing though, casters have different standards for what they will and will not say to describe a situation. Some of the more popular casters do use the word rape, however it's obviously not meant to be sexist in any way whatsoever. And unless you're really sensitive to that kind of thing, I think you should be able to look past it and realize that online the word has a different meaning, so to say. I think more violent descriptions of crushing defeats have been used before by casters, however they're not sexually or racially oriented, so people see no relevance in modern society and accept it for what it is; A harmless joke that offends nobody but the (in my opinion) overly sensitive.
I do want to recall an event where HDstarcraft referenced WW2 to describe a defeat, and he got a LOT of flack for it by people in his comments and on his channel (note, he didn't mention jews or the holocaust, it was something about the armies of nazi germany and the USA). I would say this is an overreaction, and especially since the WW2 reference was harmless in nature, people were kind of having a knee-jerk reaction at the fact that he mentioned WW2. I don't know really, personally i'm not offended by much and can take a lot of offensive jokes, recognizing that it's just comedy that can harm no one. However I could understand people being mad at controversial metaphors and references ("too soon?").
|
On June 03 2011 03:51 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:55 shadymmj wrote:
What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners. You seem to think there's only 2 possibilities in the equation: A) Africa with no foreign contact at all, which would likely be still in bronze or feudal age today B) Africa being exploited to death by europeans, which did bring them more than they had although got them worse than every other place on earth today Then you conclude B > A. No one is arguing against that. (though we'll never be 100% sure) But instead we're trying to show you that foreign contact was inevitable, and it didn't need to be destructible. Instead these could happen. C) Non destructive contact with beneficial trades for both sides. Ex.: europe trading with some asian countries D) Settling colonies just like europe did to US, Australia and others. (C and D) > B > A It's very subjective to try to say who is "to blame" of why africa is less developed than the rest of the world. But you can't say africa wouldn't be in a much better shape today if the inevitable foreign contact wasn't as destructive and exploitive as it was. Africa was the most exploited region of the world and as a result it's the least developed place of the world. It's very simple.
B) Nearly every civilization ever has been exploited by another, had Africa been advancing like the rest of the world they would have been fine by now. However they weren't, so they are in the shape they are in. Is it their fault? No not really, but is it everyone else's fault for treating them the same way they treated the other civilizations?
C) Europe only traded with those countries because it was easier than taking their resources by force. In Africa's case it was easier to take things by force, hence they did so.
D) Settling only works when they gain control over the area, kinda hard when the current inhabitants have large numbers and are not all too friendly. Not to mention settling has a purpose, people don't just up and move to a new place for the hell of it, why send a bunch of people to a place that already has a bunch of people? Why not simply take advantage of those current people and exploit them for their resources? Also Australia was originally a prison, not a colony.
Hate to say it, but it's not a kind world, it never has been. Africa is in it's shape because they couldn't keep up, it's fine to feel sorry for them, but to shoulder the blame to everyone else is just stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
