Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's apples to oranges, dude. Not to mention the colossal damage that the Europeans did to Africa as Western 'Civilization' used their war technology to expand across the globe like a viral plague.
-Joe
In my humble opinion, the superior culture is the one that does the best job of protecting the weak from exploitation by the strong.
________________________
Chickenpox and measles did not kill the Native American cultures, they died because they made poor slaves.
The simple fact is that productivity and profitability on 'New World' plantations was increased by genocide of the native population and importation of Africans. It was a simple business decision.
Can you imagine the 'Apartheid' style mess we'd have in the US if the natives here had been more profitably enslaved?
This statement is a lie! No race as a dominate genetics! You could be more similar to a white man then you would be to black women. Humans are the most genetically similar then any other animal. The only thing that is different is a certain part of our skin make up to soak up Vitamin D rays. As they say walk from Africa to say Norway and you can see people's skin tones get lighter due to the amount vitamin D they get from the sun.Where you have less sun people are lighter to allow for more vitamin D to soak into your body!We all know that Black Genes are dominate. If a Black person and a White person produce a child the Child will have Black Dominate features.Weather
the Black person is male or female.
Does this transfer into racial superiority?. How can whites argue for racial superiority, with degenerative genes?.
I say white superiority is a big lie. It is all false.
Black people and black genes are dominate throughout nature, and everyday life.
Actually African's are the ones who captured the slaves orginally then selling them to other European countries Portugal enslaving the most Africans sending them to Brazil. Some African tribes would start battles so they could take prisoners in turn selling them to the Europeans!There's no evidence that Egypt used slaves, none. None of the slave systems used in Africa are in any way comparable o the chattel slavery in America used by whites, a system that didn't even consider blacks to be human.
Africans usually if not all the time to war captives and used them as labour sometimes[but most were used as mercenary soldiers in the military], but again, this type of "slavery" was in no way comparable to Euro-American chattel slavery. Slaves in Africa could raise up their families, own property, etc and were never considered as subhuman and racially inferior.
Africa was full of thriving cities and wealth *BEFORE* Europeans stepped in, took over and raided and exploited the Africans of their resources and wealth. Its no coincidence that Europe is more developed than African today because Europeans had to underdevelop Africa in order to be as advanced as it is now. European colonialism wrecked havoc on Africa because the Europeans expolited Africa to enrich Europe and did little to develop any infrastructure and anything for the Africans. You don't want to debate this point with me because you will get shut down, totally.
No Joe, you've been somewhat (not completely, of course) misinformed.
By the time there were enough White men to really enslave the AmerIndians, (on the continent itself, I mean) more than half of them (possibly as many as 90%, according to some historians) had already died on the continent.
Few of those which died ever met a White man, either
There's a wonderful account written by a very French missionary who went down the Mississippi with one of the French explorers, long before anyone was settling in those lands
They found cities in the mid west which once had populations in the tens of thousands on the way downstream, and completely devoid of life when they came back.
The White men's diseases traveled a lot faster than the settlers and colonialists since the AmerIndians had extensive trade routes ranging across most of the eastern half of the continent.
While I know that the Spaniards and Dutch tried enslaving Indians, and certainly they died in droves in chains, estimates of the AmerIndians in the NA continent raged up to 30,000,000 before Columbus landed.
No way in hell there were that many Indian people on the continent by the time the French or Dutch or English were colonizing, because had there been that many Indians still in fuctional societies, the early colonies wouldn't have survived their first hostile encounters.
Even the Aztecs which Cortez supposedly dominated by force of arms were already mostly incapacitiated by measels (or pox, nobody's really sure) thanks to their contact with Spanish.
No argument, except on the scale of the crimes.
Indians made lousy slaves. They died quickly and didn't take to grunt work, either.
Yes, I can. We'd have never imported blacks if the natives had been better slave material, and not so likely to up and die on the job.
Guns germs and steel, man.
A formitable combination that Europeans brought with them, but of the three, germs were their best allies, believe me.
Try again.
Japan and Germany were destroyed by white military might, yet they rebounded within years.
Africa never was and will never be an advanced society. That's not because of anything whites did or didn't do... it's because of its population, which has an average IQ of approximately retarded.
The reason they didn't take over the colonist is because the tribes were not unified and often at war with each other. And they did get the spanish colonist out of New Mexico for awhile but their leader Pope' was power hungry and his people decided they would rather have the spanish! Also many tribes allined themselves with the British. Yes there were groups of Natives that died off long before the colonist got her but there were also many new tribes and Native American tribes all over the US when they arrived. Colonist also were not allowed to go that far west after awhile by the British which is one of the reason we called for a revolution. Many natives had retreated to the west or already lived there.No Joe, you've been somewhat (not completely, of course) misinformed.
By the time there were enough White men to really enslave the AmerIndians, (on the continent itself, I mean) more than half of them (possibly as many as 90%, according to some historians) had already died on the continent.
Few of those which died ever met a White man, either
There's a wonderful account written by a very French missionary who went down the Mississippi with one of the French explorers, long before anyone was settling in those lands
They found cities in the mid west which once had populations in the tens of thousands on the way downstream, and completely devoid of life when they came back.
The White men's diseases traveled a lot faster than the settlers and colonialists since the AmerIndians had extensive trade routes ranging across most of the eastern half of the continent.
While I know that the Spaniards and Dutch tried enslaving Indians, and certainly they died in droves in chains, estimates of the AmerIndians in the NA continent raged up to 30,000,000 before Columbus landed.
No way in hell there were that many Indian people on the continent by the time the French or Dutch or English were colonizing, because had there been that many Indians still in fuctional societies, the early colonies wouldn't have survived their first hostile encounters.
Even the Aztecs which Cortez supposedly dominated by force of arms were already mostly incapacitiated by measels (or pox, nobody's really sure) thanks to their contact with Spanish.
No argument, except on the scale of the crimes.
Indians made lousy slaves. They died quickly and didn't take to grunt work, either.
Yes, I can. We'd have never imported blacks if the natives had been better slave material, and not so likely to up and die on the job.
Guns germs and steel, man.
A formitable combination that Europeans brought with them, but of the three, germs were their best allies, believe me.
Before Europeans stepped in and disrupted Africa it was *NOT* a fail you idiot and keep ignoring the obvious. The neocoloinialist are the ones playing a big part in keeping Africa underdeveloped. No one is supporting Mugabe's racism and it isn't racist to keep out out neocolonialists whites who sole intention is to exploit the country and reap the benefits while caring jack about the population, thats why there's so many corrupt dictators is Africa, guess who's supporting them? Neocolonialist whites. Its the truth, post some facts to refute this or shut the hell up.
hehehe.. whatever you say, negro.. Make as many excuses as you want to. You still enjoy a nation brought to you by WHITE people so... enjoy dwelling on that today. hell, rationalize you own racism dude! it's cool! black people CANT be racist against white people, right?
I don't disagree completely, but I stand by my thesis that genocide and importation of Africans was a business decision. Why else go through the expense of importing slaves?
Regarding the biology of disease, the peoples of Europe and the Americas had common ancestry in Central Asia less than 2,000 generations back... While their re-acquaintance in the 1500's would surely have been fraught with sickness under any circumstances, if the systematic genocide of the American Natives had not been a European goal, the disease aspect would have been but a footnote to history.
A nation brought to him by a coalition of races and ethnicities each contributing in different ways throughout time. White people alone could not have established the United States. Thats Kind of why they had slaves in the first place eh? America also had black slave owners for those of you who failed to catch that part of your history class.
We all know that Black Genes are dominate. If a Black person and a White person produce a child the Child will have Black Dominate features.Weather
the Black person is male or female.
Does this transfer into racial superiority?. How can whites argue for racial superiority, with degenerative genes?.
I say white superiority is a big lie. It is all false.
Black people and black genes are dominate throughout nature, and everyday life.
hey, we can play "spot the Negro" in any of our founding documents, paintings, primary resources etc. if you wanna... To suggest that white people could not have created the US without blacks is a joke considering the FACT of Europe's world dominance and evolved cultures. No, they had slave to keep from working in the fields. What, did you think farming was invented in the south by africans?
sheesh.. I realize that post-modern revisionist inclusion is posh these days but white people gave the world the US. deal with it.
We all know that Black Genes are dominate. If a Black person and a White person produce a child the Child will have Black Dominate features.Weather
the Black person is male or female.
Does this transfer into racial superiority?. How can whites argue for racial superiority, with degenerative genes?.
I say white superiority is a big lie. It is all false.
Black people and black genes are dominate throughout nature, and everyday life.
We can debate everything except your idiocy. That is a truth on this board we perceive to be self evident. No, Whites did not give us America. Especially if we want to look at the knowledge gained by whites only after traveling to Asian countries. We could with that information gather that Asians gave whites the ability to come to America the mathmatical and scientific basis upon which white, black and every ethnicity has based their discoveries and advancements. Also white people were not able nor willing to do the manual labor neccessary to stimulate the economic growth in the South.
Shogun - maybe extend your reach beyond your traditional information sources. If you look to the dominant culture for information, you'll find the answers that comply with that culture's viewpoint, no? Find out about the courageous creativity of those who didn't get first crack at writing history due to an unfair balance of power...
Hey we can both talk shit, dude. In case you haven't noticed i'm probably as good at shit talking as I am stomping mudholes in the asses of silly little pubic crabs like yourself all trying to sound smart on this forum. Yes, as a matter of FACT white people gave us the United States of America. Name the non-white to sign any founding document. Go ahead, lil guy.. all you gots to do is name the black man who had ANYTHING to do with the United States gov during it's first 10 fucking years. And, bringing up Marco Polo doesn't invalidate the WHITE dude who sailed the seas of blue around 1492, stupid. Nor does it invalidate all those WHITE DUDES who were big fans of the enlightenment enough to work liberty (for WHITE people) into the founding docs of this great nation. Now, again, if you have a single name of a single non white motherfucker then, please, toss that shit out here in the thread. But, since we both know you don't have shit to work with besides peanut butter inventors and shit of that nature, feel free to continue talking impotent shit.
NOT ABLE to do manual fucking labor?
Not ABLE to do MATH?
wow. again, I realize backlogging some inclusiveness means ignoring the reality of our history altogether but at least try to make a cohesive argument that isn't essentially a fucking historic reparation.
