How Whitey screwed up Africa

[Not2BSubjugated]

So, I know my original response was posed as a point and not a question, but I'm seriously asking. . .

Why is it not okay to force disparate cultures into nations together in Africa, but it is desirable to force disparate cultures into the US and European countries? I'm honestly asking.

Where are you being forced ? Is somebody pointing a gun at you ?
The West invited immigrants to come and work and live here. We are better for it.

I'm not being forced? So I can just alter border enforcement rules and provisions at my will? No? So then, I'm forced to live with whatever the people in power ultimately decide? Just because there isn't a gun physically aimed at my head doesn't mean I have a choice in the matter.

Worse yet in Western Europe. There's a growing number of folks in some of those nations who are quite displeased with Merkel's choice to allow virtually unlimited migration into their nations. The UK voted for Brexit, their Parliament shut it down. Yeah, I'd have to say that "forced" is a pretty accurate way of framing things.

So great, you're happy with immigration. Your opinion on what constitutes the west being "better" really is immaterial to my question, though. If the West is bettered by unmitigated immigration from disparate cultures, why are African nations not bettered by having disparate cultures brought together by borders that create diverse, multicultural countries?

Why is it good for the West but not for the Africans?

The German people can vote out Mrs Merkel if they dont like her policies.
What has brexit got to do with immigration from Africa ? I dont understand.

The EU has shared movement laws. If one nation in the EU invites in immigrants, the other nations are stuck with that. Yeah, the German people can vote out Merkel. The British can't.

You're are right in that the UK could take some greater degree of control of their immigration laws if they chose to do so. However, one of the major reasons Brexit won was based on concern over mass immigration. Clearly, those people in the UK who would like to take more control over the immigration system are unable to affect that.

I'm not trying to knock the democratic process, but the mere fact that people got to vote doesn't mean that the losers have a choice in whether or not they're going to obey the will of the majority. Democracy isn't the absence of force.

Now, if you're done dodging. . .

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for western nations but bad for African ones?

The UK is not a part of the Schengen agreement. Our government controls it. The racist trash had every opportunity to vote for no immigration by backing one of several anti-immigration parties in many elections. None of them ever made a dent.

Democracy sucks when you lose and you end up making up shit on the internet. Like you are doing here.

I'm aware of the Schengen bit, and yeah Tony Blair's government took it upon themselves to do away with their internal Visa checks. That's where I said that you're right in that the UK could take greater control of their own system if they chose to.

You're right, though, bad argument in terms of the mass immigration in Europe that the UK could prevent without actually removing Merkel. Can the Polish?

And yes, democracy can suck when you lose. Not my point. You were clearly implying that diversity wasn't being forced on anyone if it came about democratically. I disagree. When you're on the losing side, the results are forced upon you.

At any rate, if I beg or something, can I get you to answer the question?

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for Western nations, but bad for African ones? No matter how many dodges you respond with, I'm not going to forget that you haven't yet addressed what seems to be a massive contradiction in your outlook.

 

[Meathead]

Regardless of what Africa may have been like before white people arrived, nobody had the right to invade and disrupt their world.

Fair enough. Now they don;t have that right to disrupt ours.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Where are you being forced ? Is somebody pointing a gun at you ?
The West invited immigrants to come and work and live here. We are better for it.

I'm not being forced? So I can just alter border enforcement rules and provisions at my will? No? So then, I'm forced to live with whatever the people in power ultimately decide? Just because there isn't a gun physically aimed at my head doesn't mean I have a choice in the matter.

Worse yet in Western Europe. There's a growing number of folks in some of those nations who are quite displeased with Merkel's choice to allow virtually unlimited migration into their nations. The UK voted for Brexit, their Parliament shut it down. Yeah, I'd have to say that "forced" is a pretty accurate way of framing things.

So great, you're happy with immigration. Your opinion on what constitutes the west being "better" really is immaterial to my question, though. If the West is bettered by unmitigated immigration from disparate cultures, why are African nations not bettered by having disparate cultures brought together by borders that create diverse, multicultural countries?

Why is it good for the West but not for the Africans?

The German people can vote out Mrs Merkel if they dont like her policies.
What has brexit got to do with immigration from Africa ? I dont understand.

The EU has shared movement laws. If one nation in the EU invites in immigrants, the other nations are stuck with that. Yeah, the German people can vote out Merkel. The British can't.

You're are right in that the UK could take some greater degree of control of their immigration laws if they chose to do so. However, one of the major reasons Brexit won was based on concern over mass immigration. Clearly, those people in the UK who would like to take more control over the immigration system are unable to affect that.

I'm not trying to knock the democratic process, but the mere fact that people got to vote doesn't mean that the losers have a choice in whether or not they're going to obey the will of the majority. Democracy isn't the absence of force.

Now, if you're done dodging. . .

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for western nations but bad for African ones?

The UK is not a part of the Schengen agreement. Our government controls it. The racist trash had every opportunity to vote for no immigration by backing one of several anti-immigration parties in many elections. None of them ever made a dent.

Democracy sucks when you lose and you end up making up shit on the internet. Like you are doing here.

I'm aware of the Schengen bit, and yeah Tony Blair's government took it upon themselves to do away with their internal Visa checks. That's where I said that you're right in that the UK could take greater control of their own system if they chose to.

You're right, though, bad argument in terms of the mass immigration in Europe that the UK could prevent without actually removing Merkel. Can the Polish?

And yes, democracy can suck when you lose. Not my point. You were clearly implying that diversity wasn't being forced on anyone if it came about democratically. I disagree. When you're on the losing side, the results are forced upon you.

At any rate, if I beg or something, can I get you to answer the question?

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for Western nations, but bad for African ones? No matter how many dodges you respond with, I'm not going to forget that you haven't yet addressed what seems to be a massive contradiction in your outlook.

Its about the context. We went to Africa armed to the teeth. Killed millions and enslaved people whilst robbing their natural resources. None of this has happened in the west. In the UK immigrants came here to work alongside the indigenous populations and contributed to our society rather than robbing it.
Our immigrants paid taxes, worked in our public services, served in our armies, set up businesses, voted in our elections,taught our kids, cared for our sick and enhanced our cultural and social landscape.
Western nations went to Africa to rob it.

I could go on but the point is made.

 

[MizMolly]

Regardless of what Africa may have been like before white people arrived, nobody had the right to invade and disrupt their world.

Fair enough. Now they don;t have that right to disrupt ours.

I dont think the Africans are disrupting ours

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm not being forced? So I can just alter border enforcement rules and provisions at my will? No? So then, I'm forced to live with whatever the people in power ultimately decide? Just because there isn't a gun physically aimed at my head doesn't mean I have a choice in the matter.

Worse yet in Western Europe. There's a growing number of folks in some of those nations who are quite displeased with Merkel's choice to allow virtually unlimited migration into their nations. The UK voted for Brexit, their Parliament shut it down. Yeah, I'd have to say that "forced" is a pretty accurate way of framing things.

So great, you're happy with immigration. Your opinion on what constitutes the west being "better" really is immaterial to my question, though. If the West is bettered by unmitigated immigration from disparate cultures, why are African nations not bettered by having disparate cultures brought together by borders that create diverse, multicultural countries?

Why is it good for the West but not for the Africans?

The German people can vote out Mrs Merkel if they dont like her policies.
What has brexit got to do with immigration from Africa ? I dont understand.

The EU has shared movement laws. If one nation in the EU invites in immigrants, the other nations are stuck with that. Yeah, the German people can vote out Merkel. The British can't.

You're are right in that the UK could take some greater degree of control of their immigration laws if they chose to do so. However, one of the major reasons Brexit won was based on concern over mass immigration. Clearly, those people in the UK who would like to take more control over the immigration system are unable to affect that.

I'm not trying to knock the democratic process, but the mere fact that people got to vote doesn't mean that the losers have a choice in whether or not they're going to obey the will of the majority. Democracy isn't the absence of force.

Now, if you're done dodging. . .

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for western nations but bad for African ones?

The UK is not a part of the Schengen agreement. Our government controls it. The racist trash had every opportunity to vote for no immigration by backing one of several anti-immigration parties in many elections. None of them ever made a dent.

Democracy sucks when you lose and you end up making up shit on the internet. Like you are doing here.

I'm aware of the Schengen bit, and yeah Tony Blair's government took it upon themselves to do away with their internal Visa checks. That's where I said that you're right in that the UK could take greater control of their own system if they chose to.

You're right, though, bad argument in terms of the mass immigration in Europe that the UK could prevent without actually removing Merkel. Can the Polish?

And yes, democracy can suck when you lose. Not my point. You were clearly implying that diversity wasn't being forced on anyone if it came about democratically. I disagree. When you're on the losing side, the results are forced upon you.

At any rate, if I beg or something, can I get you to answer the question?

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for Western nations, but bad for African ones? No matter how many dodges you respond with, I'm not going to forget that you haven't yet addressed what seems to be a massive contradiction in your outlook.

Its about the context. We went to Africa armed to the teeth. Killed millions and enslaved people whilst robbing their natural resources. None of this has happened in the west. In the UK immigrants came here to work alongside the indigenous populations and contributed to our society rather than robbing it.
Our immigrants paid taxes, worked in our public services, served in our armies, set up businesses, voted in our elections,taught our kids, cared for our sick and enhanced our cultural and social landscape.
Western nations went to Africa to rob it.

I could go on but the point is made.

If the reason for the continuing bloodshed in Africa is the fact that they were occupied and robbed, then why do people keep bringing up the fact that the national lines were drawn without taking into account the different tribes and their different cultures? Wouldn't that part of it ultimately be one of the few positive things that occurred as a result of said occupation, seeing as it created nations with cultural diversity?

I guess what I'm asking now is, how does the historical context cause cultural diversity to be a bad thing?

Also, "we" didn't go there. "We" didn't do shit. Some people who had your skin tone did that hundreds of years before you or I were born.

 

[Meathead]

Regardless of what Africa may have been like before white people arrived, nobody had the right to invade and disrupt their world.

Fair enough. Now they don;t have that right to disrupt ours.

I dont think the Africans are disrupting ours

I'm not being forced? So I can just alter border enforcement rules and provisions at my will? No? So then, I'm forced to live with whatever the people in power ultimately decide? Just because there isn't a gun physically aimed at my head doesn't mean I have a choice in the matter.

Worse yet in Western Europe. There's a growing number of folks in some of those nations who are quite displeased with Merkel's choice to allow virtually unlimited migration into their nations. The UK voted for Brexit, their Parliament shut it down. Yeah, I'd have to say that "forced" is a pretty accurate way of framing things.

So great, you're happy with immigration. Your opinion on what constitutes the west being "better" really is immaterial to my question, though. If the West is bettered by unmitigated immigration from disparate cultures, why are African nations not bettered by having disparate cultures brought together by borders that create diverse, multicultural countries?

Why is it good for the West but not for the Africans?

The German people can vote out Mrs Merkel if they dont like her policies.
What has brexit got to do with immigration from Africa ? I dont understand.

The EU has shared movement laws. If one nation in the EU invites in immigrants, the other nations are stuck with that. Yeah, the German people can vote out Merkel. The British can't.

You're are right in that the UK could take some greater degree of control of their immigration laws if they chose to do so. However, one of the major reasons Brexit won was based on concern over mass immigration. Clearly, those people in the UK who would like to take more control over the immigration system are unable to affect that.

I'm not trying to knock the democratic process, but the mere fact that people got to vote doesn't mean that the losers have a choice in whether or not they're going to obey the will of the majority. Democracy isn't the absence of force.

Now, if you're done dodging. . .

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for western nations but bad for African ones?

The UK is not a part of the Schengen agreement. Our government controls it. The racist trash had every opportunity to vote for no immigration by backing one of several anti-immigration parties in many elections. None of them ever made a dent.

Democracy sucks when you lose and you end up making up shit on the internet. Like you are doing here.

I'm aware of the Schengen bit, and yeah Tony Blair's government took it upon themselves to do away with their internal Visa checks. That's where I said that you're right in that the UK could take greater control of their own system if they chose to.

You're right, though, bad argument in terms of the mass immigration in Europe that the UK could prevent without actually removing Merkel. Can the Polish?

And yes, democracy can suck when you lose. Not my point. You were clearly implying that diversity wasn't being forced on anyone if it came about democratically. I disagree. When you're on the losing side, the results are forced upon you.

At any rate, if I beg or something, can I get you to answer the question?

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for Western nations, but bad for African ones? No matter how many dodges you respond with, I'm not going to forget that you haven't yet addressed what seems to be a massive contradiction in your outlook.

Its about the context. We went to Africa armed to the teeth. Killed millions and enslaved people whilst robbing their natural resources. None of this has happened in the west. In the UK immigrants came here to work alongside the indigenous populations and contributed to our society rather than robbing it.
Our immigrants paid taxes, worked in our public services, served in our armies, set up businesses, voted in our elections,taught our kids, cared for our sick and enhanced our cultural and social landscape.
Western nations went to Africa to rob it.

I could go on but the point is made.

You forgot about AIDS, crime, terrorism. Details, eh?

 

[squeeze berry]

why is everything whitey's fault?

OP is either a racist or a virtue signalling SJW or both

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The German people can vote out Mrs Merkel if they dont like her policies.
What has brexit got to do with immigration from Africa ? I dont understand.

The EU has shared movement laws. If one nation in the EU invites in immigrants, the other nations are stuck with that. Yeah, the German people can vote out Merkel. The British can't.

You're are right in that the UK could take some greater degree of control of their immigration laws if they chose to do so. However, one of the major reasons Brexit won was based on concern over mass immigration. Clearly, those people in the UK who would like to take more control over the immigration system are unable to affect that.

I'm not trying to knock the democratic process, but the mere fact that people got to vote doesn't mean that the losers have a choice in whether or not they're going to obey the will of the majority. Democracy isn't the absence of force.

Now, if you're done dodging. . .

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for western nations but bad for African ones?

The UK is not a part of the Schengen agreement. Our government controls it. The racist trash had every opportunity to vote for no immigration by backing one of several anti-immigration parties in many elections. None of them ever made a dent.

Democracy sucks when you lose and you end up making up shit on the internet. Like you are doing here.

I'm aware of the Schengen bit, and yeah Tony Blair's government took it upon themselves to do away with their internal Visa checks. That's where I said that you're right in that the UK could take greater control of their own system if they chose to.

You're right, though, bad argument in terms of the mass immigration in Europe that the UK could prevent without actually removing Merkel. Can the Polish?

And yes, democracy can suck when you lose. Not my point. You were clearly implying that diversity wasn't being forced on anyone if it came about democratically. I disagree. When you're on the losing side, the results are forced upon you.

At any rate, if I beg or something, can I get you to answer the question?

Why is the combination of disparate cultures good for Western nations, but bad for African ones? No matter how many dodges you respond with, I'm not going to forget that you haven't yet addressed what seems to be a massive contradiction in your outlook.

Its about the context. We went to Africa armed to the teeth. Killed millions and enslaved people whilst robbing their natural resources. None of this has happened in the west. In the UK immigrants came here to work alongside the indigenous populations and contributed to our society rather than robbing it.
Our immigrants paid taxes, worked in our public services, served in our armies, set up businesses, voted in our elections,taught our kids, cared for our sick and enhanced our cultural and social landscape.
Western nations went to Africa to rob it.

I could go on but the point is made.

If the reason for the continuing bloodshed in Africa is the fact that they were occupied and robbed, then why do people keep bringing up the fact that the national lines were drawn without taking into account the different tribes and their different cultures? Wouldn't that part of it ultimately be one of the few positive things that occurred as a result of said occupation, seeing as it created nations with cultural diversity?

I guess what I'm asking now is, how does the historical context cause cultural diversity to be a bad thing?

Also, "we" didn't go there. "We" didn't do shit. Some people who had your skin tone did that hundreds of years before you or I were born.

Its all about the context.When you merge whole countries on a whim then there will be tensions, whether in Africa or Europe. That is not just cultural but encompasses political and economic power and everything that ensues from that.
Immigration cannot be compared to that, it just isnt the same.
Different waves of immigrants went to the US and made it what it is. Its the poster child for diversity. There is a great scene in the Deer Hunter where the Doctor is interviewing Christopher Walkens character Nick.

Army Doctor : Chevotarevich, is that a Russian name?

Nick : No, it's an American name.

What a line that is. That is the essence of America.

 

[squeeze berry]

Skip Gates is an African historian.
The heat he is getting is from Gnigus that are in denial about the truth concerning slavery.

Personally I enjoy studying African history. It is when gniggus such as the OP brings politics into history we have a problem

 

[mudwhistle]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Afri...targid=pla-456344281800&psc=1&th=1&psc=1&tag=

10,000 different tribes divided neatly into 40 nations bounded by straight lines that divided mountains,rivers and religions. The maps were drawn in Europe by people who had no knowledge of the continent or its people.

What could go wrong ?

What is different from before whitey set foot in the continent? Nada, zip, zero. The place was fucked up before whitey, and it's fucked up now.

And it's blacks butchering and enslaving blacks.

Same as its been for the last 10,000 years.

Well.....Egypt was a decent society, but all of their productivity was thanks to slavery. Once the slaves left Egypt became a 3rd world country again.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

How Britain dishonoured its African first world war dead

Antonny Wachira Kimani is the caretaker for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) cemetery in Voi in southern Kenya, maintaining rows of graves near hills that lead south towards Tanzania. Paying my respects to the fallen, I read names of British captains and corporals who died far from home. I ask Kimani where the bodies of the Africans are buried. He points beyond the perimeter fence of the immaculately kept grounds into the bush, where homeless locals sometimes sleep in the undergrowth and dogs pee among rubbish.

Official records put the death toll of the Africans who served Britain in the East Africa campaign at around 100,000, but many historians estimate it at up to three times that. Kimani shows me where some of them lie. Outside the fence. No names, no graves, no dignity.

God Bless the British Empire and of course Churchill the twat. More evidence of the colonial mindset.

 

[westwall]

How Britain dishonoured its African first world war dead

Antonny Wachira Kimani is the caretaker for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) cemetery in Voi in southern Kenya, maintaining rows of graves near hills that lead south towards Tanzania. Paying my respects to the fallen, I read names of British captains and corporals who died far from home. I ask Kimani where the bodies of the Africans are buried. He points beyond the perimeter fence of the immaculately kept grounds into the bush, where homeless locals sometimes sleep in the undergrowth and dogs pee among rubbish.

Official records put the death toll of the Africans who served Britain in the East Africa campaign at around 100,000, but many historians estimate it at up to three times that. Kimani shows me where some of them lie. Outside the fence. No names, no graves, no dignity.

God Bless the British Empire and of course Churchill the twat. More evidence of the colonial mindset.

The Brits treated Aussies like shit. Canadians like shit, and Kiwis like shit. The only non Brits who were ever treated well were the Gurkhas.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

How Britain dishonoured its African first world war dead

Antonny Wachira Kimani is the caretaker for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) cemetery in Voi in southern Kenya, maintaining rows of graves near hills that lead south towards Tanzania. Paying my respects to the fallen, I read names of British captains and corporals who died far from home. I ask Kimani where the bodies of the Africans are buried. He points beyond the perimeter fence of the immaculately kept grounds into the bush, where homeless locals sometimes sleep in the undergrowth and dogs pee among rubbish.

Official records put the death toll of the Africans who served Britain in the East Africa campaign at around 100,000, but many historians estimate it at up to three times that. Kimani shows me where some of them lie. Outside the fence. No names, no graves, no dignity.

God Bless the British Empire and of course Churchill the twat. More evidence of the colonial mindset.

The Brits treated Aussies like shit. Canadians like shit, and Kiwis like shit. The only non Brits who were ever treated well were the Gurkhas.

I wouldnt repeat that crap to a Gurkha. They have been treated like shit by the UK and have been campaigning for decades for fair treatment. But we treat our own troops like shit , just not as bad as the blacks and asians.

 

[westwall]

How Britain dishonoured its African first world war dead

Antonny Wachira Kimani is the caretaker for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) cemetery in Voi in southern Kenya, maintaining rows of graves near hills that lead south towards Tanzania. Paying my respects to the fallen, I read names of British captains and corporals who died far from home. I ask Kimani where the bodies of the Africans are buried. He points beyond the perimeter fence of the immaculately kept grounds into the bush, where homeless locals sometimes sleep in the undergrowth and dogs pee among rubbish.

Official records put the death toll of the Africans who served Britain in the East Africa campaign at around 100,000, but many historians estimate it at up to three times that. Kimani shows me where some of them lie. Outside the fence. No names, no graves, no dignity.

God Bless the British Empire and of course Churchill the twat. More evidence of the colonial mindset.

The Brits treated Aussies like shit. Canadians like shit, and Kiwis like shit. The only non Brits who were ever treated well were the Gurkhas.

I wouldnt repeat that crap to a Gurkha. They have been treated like shit by the UK and have been campaigning for decades for fair treatment. But we treat our own troops like shit , just not as bad as the blacks and asians.

No, of all of the colonial troops they have consistently been treated the best. There are 25,000 of them who retired before 1997 who are still, regretfully, only getting a third of the pensions that those who retired afterwards are getting. You can thank the progressives in parliament for that bit of crap though.

Your problem tainty, is you don't know crap about military history, or those who fought it save what your masters shovel down your throat.

 

[Questioner]

If you'd read so much as a history book, you'd know that your conspiracy theory regarding "white" this or that is silly, and that cultural clashes are the overriding factor in history - wheras "race" or purely physical factors are minutia - WWI was allegedly started over the death of a politican, for example, while wars between cultures of the same race are known In history - whether French and British, American and British, Japanese and Chinese, or otherwise.

Have you ever read any history? Honest question.

By your own token then, the Common Law, Magna Carta, and so forth are part of your "white" conspiracy theory, as is your computer, or other things invented by "white" men and women.

Your only consistent method would be to take an anarchist or Marxist approach, would that not be the case - rather than appealing to the authority of "white" institutions. (Which civilization as a whole, is not - every culture, black, white or Asian, having some variant of civilization, "colonialism", and so forth).

10,000 different tribes divided neatly into 40 nations bounded by straight lines that divided mountains,rivers and religions. The maps were drawn in Europe by people who had no knowledge of the continent or its people.

What could go wrong ?

Even here you're contradicting yourself, on your biased assertion of people having "no knowledge of the continent and the people".

If you're appealing to the universal notion of "people not wanting to be colonized", for instance, this is still appealing to some notion of moral or ethical universalism, which goes above and beyond individual "cultures" or "people".

If you appeal solely to cultural "relativism", then you just as well could justify colonialism or whatnot, especially given that colonialism in cultures which aren't a part of your "white" conspiracy theory have been documented to be colonizers.

 

[Questioner]

Did you want 10,000 nations?

My views are irrelevant. The people whose views were relevant were not consulted.

Even here he's contradicting himself - by his own logic, then the development of the EU or other "overarching" systems or institutions - are part of the "colonial mindset", and as far as I'm aware of, he somehow irrationally associates EU discontent with his "white xenophobia" conspiracies, even though the EU itself is another institution which is part of the same "white" conspiracy.

Historically, overarching systems and institutions, whether the United States, the EU, or other forms of nations or empires, whether Roman, Chinese, African and so forth are well documented.

If Tommy here was consistent, his only logical position would seem to be an advocate for anarchism, but I doubt he wants to take that route, and prefers instead to appeal to the very institutions which are part of his "vast white conspiracy" - whether the Common Law, Magna Carta, the EU, the UN, or so forth.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If you'd read so much as a history book, you'd know that your conspiracy theory regarding "white" this or that is silly, and that cultural clashes are the overriding factor in history - wheras "race" or purely physical factors are minutia - WWI was allegedly started over the death of a politican, for example, while wars between cultures of the same race are known In history - whether French and British, American and British, Japanese and Chinese, or otherwise.

Have you ever read any history? Honest question.

By your own token then, the Common Law, Magna Carta, and so forth are part of your "white" conspiracy theory, as is your computer, or other things invented by "white" men and women.

Your only consistent method would be to take an anarchist or Marxist approach, would that not be the case - rather than appealing to the authority of "white" institutions. (Which civilization as a whole, is not - every culture, black, white or Asian, having some variant of civilization, "colonialism", and so forth).

10,000 different tribes divided neatly into 40 nations bounded by straight lines that divided mountains,rivers and religions. The maps were drawn in Europe by people who had no knowledge of the continent or its people.

What could go wrong ?

Even here you're contradicting yourself, on your biased assertion of people having "no knowledge of the continent and the people".

If you're appealing to the universal notion of "people not wanting to be colonized", for instance, this is still appealing to some notion of moral or ethical universalism, which goes above and beyond individual "cultures" or "people".

If you appeal solely to cultural "relativism", then you just as well could justify colonialism or whatnot, especially given that colonialism in cultures which aren't a part of your "white" conspiracy theory have been documented to be colonizers.

Mate, Ive rated your post as a winner because it is the ultimate in faux intellectual bollox. You spew out a lot of words in such a jumbled up way that I have given up trying to make sense of it.
I sort of get that you dont agree with me but the reasons escape me. The only folk on here who disagree with me are racist trash so be careful you dont get grouped in with them.

Less is more when making a point.

 

[Questioner]

The only folk on here who disagree with me are racist trash so be careful you dont get grouped in with them.

Less is more when making a point.

Show me proof of that, that sounds like paranoia or a conspiracy theory. (If everyone who disagrees with you is part of a racist plot, then maybe you're nuts, or that's not the whole story).

But anyway, as far as history goes - how many wars have been fought between rival cultures, rather than "races" - I think most of them were the same race, but different culture - whether British and French, British and American, Japanese and Korean, Japanese and Chinese, Sunnis and Shiites, Catholics and Protestants, Aztecs and other indigenous American cultures, and so on.

I believe even Hitler stole his idea of "Aryans" from India or the Orient, along with the Swastika - the original Ayrans were Indians who believed themselves a master Indian or "Hindu" race, and wanted to dominate their fellow Indians.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So I have reached the chapter that explains what set up the Rwanda tragedy. Guess what. Its all the fault of whitey.
the Hutu and Tutsi were two different tribes who lived side by side in the same communities in peace and goodwill until interventions by German and Belgian administrators.
Once again Whitey fucks up Africa.

 

[Questioner]

So I have reached the chapter that explains what set up the Rwanda tragedy. Guess what. Its all the fault of whitey.
the Hutu and Tutsi were two different tribes who lived side by side in the same communities in peace and goodwill until interventions by German and Belgian administrators.
Once again Whitey fucks up Africa.

But they didn't screw up Spain, not sure of the logic on that one. I'm sure behaviors would have varied heavily from tribe to tribe.

Most of the Romancism about the ancient tribes simply isn't true, on the whole. And none of the Romantic or anarchist persuasion will actually move to Africa or other 3rd would countries. I was planning on reading some books on African Civilization - the reality is that civilization of some variety or another is a historical constant, regardless of race or ethnicity, this shows that the anarchist myths are based on wishful thinking, more or less.