Why are the 10 Poorest Cities in the World all From Black Africa???

[Roudy]

I thought Obama and Biden told us that Detroit is back and Al Queda is on the run? What happened?

 

[norwegen]

This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.

I don't believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, just as I don't believe that Asians are smarted than whites. I have know enough intelligent blacks and unintelligent whites to lead me to believe that it's not genetic.

Call me racist if you want, but I see the never ending failure on the continent of Africa as a huge issue. Regardless of the excuse the leftist give, their continued failure has NOTHING to do with the white man and even less to do with colonialism of the past century. So the question remains, why are all TEN from Africa?

I think the reason why Africa is so backward is based on a LOT of reasons, including white imperialism. There are cultural reasons that started millennia ago. There are nutritional reasons that started millennia ago. There are religious reasons that started millennia ago. Add to those reasons the continuous attacks for slaves that began at least 5,000 years ago and then the imperialistic conquests and their impact and you have the beginnings of the reasons for the problem.

So long as people claim it is one thing or the other, and scream "racist" whenever they can't articulate an argument then nothing will change except the names of the victims.

Nice post, westwall, though I'd like to counter it somewhat. Like I stated earlier, I don't know much about African history, but I know a little of it as it pertained to the American slave trade. African traders and chiefs did not tolerate Europeans bypassing them to seize slaves on their own, and in fact had the power to defeat Europeans who failed to cooperate. They, too, you see, were somewhat successful at imperialism, charging premiums for the people they sold for guns, which they used to raid their poorly armed neighbors. Europeans paid more for black slaves than they did for white slaves, as white slaves were free at the end of their indentures while black slaves were slaves for life. The Ashanti and Dahomey, for example, acquired considerable wealth and power by way of their European trading partners.

Imperialism runs through the human vein. From children bullying each other on the playground to upstarts jockeying for promotions at work to nations and clans exploiting other nations and clans, imperialism has always been a way to determine hierarchies.

Not merely imposing power or influence on others, many Asian societies were highly successful at imperialism, creating powerful empires and dynasties largely at the expense of subject peoples and their lands. By far, though, the most successful at it were the Europeans (whites?), and so they are vilified for it, for the same behavior that cultures throughout history and the world have practiced.

Imperialism is not an invention of the Europeans nor a monopoly owned by them. As imperialistic creatures, they have not been any different than anyone else; just more successful.

Besides that, Europeans built large and powerful centers of commerce in Africa. Really, westwall, imperialism is a hard case to make for the progress of some people and the relative lack thereof of others. Or so is my opinion.

I don't know how significant the role nutrition played - possibly some role in mental acuity - but religion is certainly a reasonable case to make. Animistic and polytheistic religions elevated the spiritual essences of non-humans, discouraging human distinctions and therefore advancements, while the anthropocentrism of Christianity placed human beings at the pinnacle of creation, encouraging exploration, and indeed Europeans felt themselves superior to others during their colonial era because they were Christians.

Other cultural reasons that you can list might be interesting to contemplate or debate. As might physical differences be. Whites are more susceptible to skin cancer while blacks are more susceptible to sickle cell, for example.

Eh?

 

[Esmeralda]

I lectured at a historically black university. The students were generally better than the students at the predominantly white university.

"better" what does that mean

It means that they generally did better work. They were better prepared. They were more disciplined and more mature.

African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation. Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.

 

[DriftingSand]

Cities aren't run by political ideologies, grasshopper.

What? Have you ever heard of the cities of Communist Russia or Communist China or Communist Cuba or Communist North Korea? They all conform to political ideology.

A city isn't a big enough scale to exercise political ideology. You don't have an economy to run other than simply managing a budget. You don't have a constitution, you don't have a foreign policy. Basically you get to declare when the trash gets picked up and present a big fake key when some movie star passes through. That's hardly the stuff of Locke and Voltaire.

Just as all of your examples had to be qualified with not only the country they belong to but the country with an adjective in front of it. The city by itself... not so much.

That's a ridiculous comment. All cities under control of a Communist government conform to the leaders and policies of that government.
1 + 1 = 2

 

[MrMax]

"better" what does that mean

It means that they generally did better work. They were better prepared. They were more disciplined and more mature.

African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation. Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.

Blacks are generally dumber than other races, like seriously, compared to whites and asians, what have black people invented of worth? And crack doesn't count.

 

[DriftingSand]

We've heard lots of reasons why African nations aren't prosperous or highly productive. Everyone seems to have someone to blame. Some claim that Africa had a "thriving" civilization at one point (a point that archaeology doesn't support). It's the fault of Imperialists. It's the fault of slave traders (including the African tribes that sold their brothers). It's the fault of Democrats. Blame - blame -blame. All the while ignoring the one thing we all agree on -- African nations aren't prosperous or very productive!

Perhaps the reason is so simple it's slapping us in the face. Perhaps it just isn't important to Africans to develop thriving, over-sized, highly regulated civilizations.

If the reason is because of lack of contact with the Western World then we're left with places like Detroit that are run by African-Americans and yet don't thrive. But we might be able to blame Socialist Liberals. However, if we're going to blame Socialist-Liberalism then we're forced to consider China which is a Socialist-Liberal regime that IS thriving, producing, and prospering (thanks to their embracing the free market). If the reason is due to Imperialism then we have to consider nations that were very recently subject to USSR Imperialism but jumped right back on their feet the moment they were free to operate as independent governments. If the reason is because Africans are hunter/gatherers then we need to consider Ireland (a rather bleak and desolate landscape in many respects) where the inhabitants began as hunter/gatherers but turned their landscape into a productive and modern nation.

So, the bottom line (for me anyway) is that Africans are perfectly happy living in a tribal manner as hunter/gatherers. There's really nothing wrong with that. I've often wished that I could leave the city life and find a place deep in the woods and live off of the land. There's a PBS show called "Alone In The Wilderness" (I think that's the name) where an old dude leaves civilization and builds a cabin in the Alaskan wilderness and lives there until he dies. He did so by choice -- not because of Democrats, Imperialism, or the slave trade.

 

[dannyboys]

Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting. The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect. It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.

I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question. Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures. They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.

They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention. Instead address the OP. It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.

Look at the OP again.

Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?

This is a troll thread. Period.

Good for him. Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message. Ask yourself a question, is the claim true? If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person? Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia. With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?

All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?

These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent. It's as simple as that.

The endemic violence and poverty seen across Africa today was happening LONG before any tribal Chief sold any of the slaves he captured from the village in the neighbouring valley to the Dutch for a piece of broken mirror. Today in every inner city in the US the gene that compels Blacks towards violence in Africa is alive and well.
The Chinese bless their hearts now own pretty much every natural resource in Africa. They never fired a shot. They just drove up to the local tribal Chief's mansion and bought all the mineral rights for a suitcase full of US thousand dollar bills. The Chief signed the papers and his 'people' became the 'in-house' slave labor work force for the Chinese businessman.
You might say it was like 'taking candy' from a semi mentally retarded person. Which it was.
Long ago the US government had to put a stop to White men purchasing lands from Indian tribes for a few cases of whiskey and some repeating rifles.
Problem is in Africa there was/is no 'government' to prevent the Chiefs from selling off the mineral rights to their ancestral land.
BTW if any LIB here is deluded enough to believe that the Chinese will 'do-right' by any Black worker/slave think again. You think Blacks are discriminated' against by Whites in the US? That level of 'discrimination' is a level one. With the Chinese the level is an easy one hundred.
Will things in Africa or in the US 'get better' for the Blacks? Nope.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Look at the OP again.

Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?

This is a troll thread. Period.

Good for him. Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message. Ask yourself a question, is the claim true? If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person? Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia. With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?

All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?

These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent. It's as simple as that.

The endemic violence and poverty seen across Africa today was happening LONG before any tribal Chief sold any of the slaves he captured from the village in the neighbouring valley to the Dutch for a piece of broken mirror. Today in every inner city in the US the gene that compels Blacks towards violence in Africa is alive and well.
The Chinese bless their hearts now own pretty much every natural resource in Africa. They never fired a shot. They just drove up to the local tribal Chief's mansion and bought all the mineral rights for a suitcase full of US thousand dollar bills. The Chief signed the papers and his 'people' became the 'in-house' slave labor work force for the Chinese businessman.
You might say it was like 'taking candy' from a semi mentally retarded person. Which it was.
Long ago the US government had to put a stop to White men purchasing lands from Indian tribes for a few cases of whiskey and some repeating rifles.
Problem is in Africa there was/is no 'government' to prevent the Chiefs from selling off the mineral rights to their ancestral land.
BTW if any LIB here is deluded enough to believe that the Chinese will 'do-right' by any Black worker/slave think again. You think Blacks are discriminated' against by Whites in the US? That level of 'discrimination' is a level one. With the Chinese the level is an easy one hundred.
Will things in Africa or in the US 'get better' for the Blacks? Nope.

That's the dumbest shit I've ever seen. But congrats you must've strained your brain really hard to put together all of those words.

 

[dannyboys]

Good for him. Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message. Ask yourself a question, is the claim true? If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person? Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia. With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?

All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?

These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent. It's as simple as that.

I found this in another thread on the internet asking the same question:

Seems like a fair answer:

Link

Some Africans and others say that the Africans did have some sort of great civilisation in the past. However the evidence is scanty.

Various reasons have been suggested for the undeveloped state of the continent despite the fertile climate of much of it, the presence of enormous mineral wealth etc. Much the same sort of paradox is evident with the indigenous peoples of N. America where the civilisations of Central America never seemed to spread to the north, just as Egyptian civilisation never caught on to the south.

I list, without implying agreement or disagreement with any of them, some of the suggested reasons.

1)...Making a living was just too easy. Where hunting & gathering or subsistence agriculture easily supply year-round food, there is no obvious incentive to change things.

2)...The local culture was hostile to the idea of living in large agglomerations - much as the European Celts preferred to live in loosely organised small settlements and resisted the Roman habit of city-dwelling. The Celts, though not primitive (their woodwork and metalwork were in some ways better than that of the Romans), were also, by comparison, economically underdeveloped.

3)...Recurrent local conflict between tribes, resulting in periodic genocide which made it hard to consolidate advances in knowledge and technique. This is possible, but why it should have this effect in Africa and not in the equally tribal societies of primitive Europe and Asia is hard to explain.

4)...Linguistic problems. I am not a specialist in African studies, but I am told that some parts of Africa have a large number of local languages, making sharing knowledge between communities awkward. Again, the lack of any written language might have made it hard to preserve knowledge or transmit it over distances.

5)...Communities were locally based and travel rare. If this is true (again, I appeal to any specialists to supply accurate information) it would limit cross-fertilisation of ideas. This explanation begs the question of why long-distance trade, analogous to the tin trade in Europe or the silk route from China, did not develop in Africa.

6)...Disease. The same conditions which make it easy for humans to make a living also provide ideal conditions for various pathogens and for the insects, snails etc. which carry them. If their vitality were reduced by debilitating endemic diseases, the locals may have had reduced intellectual as well as physical energy, making it harder for them to advance.

This is getting to the heart of the matter. Most of these points are factual, and have a direct bearing on the African culture now.

Yes this is getting to the heart of the matter. The only fact missing is that Blacks, world wide, have IQ's about fifteen points lower than other races.
Mix that fact into the pot and the aforementioned points start making more sense. Take a million humans with an average IQ of 80. Then take a million humans with an average IQ of 100. Which group is more likely to develop a civil society? Got it in one!
Someone explain why the LIBs will never acknowledge the IQ gap between Blacks and other races.
"Oh no! We couldn't do that! Don't you know everyone is the same? Everyone deserves a trophy right?"
Want to watch a LIB break out in a 'flop sweat'? Just say: "Social Darwinism". LIBs believe in 'Darwinism'/evolution. Except when it comes to looking at the human animal. Pretty funny.

 

[dannyboys]

1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest

Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!

it IS based in imperialism.

but that isn't what you want to discuss.

Yes, it is based in imperialism. European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures. In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures. We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.

Of course we know what Africa would be like now if those darned Europeans hadn't interfered.
Their culture would be just like it had been for thousands of years before any White man set foot in what is now called Africa. The three 'F's: ******* Fighting and Feeding.
That's not 'evolving'. That's only a hop and a step from climbing down from the tree tops.

 

[Swagger]

Re. Imperialism.

One of the key differences between Africa (above and below the Sahara) compared to European possessions in places like Asia, were that most of the conquered territories in Africa were never industrialised to the extend places like India were, thus there was little to none of the infrastructure prosperous nations rely on to sustain stability.

Additionally, the Kalashnikov rifle, coupled with overall rejection of contraception, has wrought huge damage on Africa and its people.

 

[dannyboys]

This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.

I don't believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, just as I don't believe that Asians are smarted than whites. I have know enough intelligent blacks and unintelligent whites to lead me to believe that it's not genetic.

Call me racist if you want, but I see the never ending failure on the continent of Africa as a huge issue. Regardless of the excuse the leftist give, their continued failure has NOTHING to do with the white man and even less to do with colonialism of the past century. So the question remains, why are all TEN from Africa?

Next time you want your opinion to be taken seriously why not take the time to proof read your post. That's a good boy.
BTW your 'opinion' means shit. There are hundreds of non-biased scientific studies which show a clear intellectual hierarchy between Asians/Whites and Blacks.

 

[Pogo]

What? Have you ever heard of the cities of Communist Russia or Communist China or Communist Cuba or Communist North Korea? They all conform to political ideology.

A city isn't a big enough scale to exercise political ideology. You don't have an economy to run other than simply managing a budget. You don't have a constitution, you don't have a foreign policy. Basically you get to declare when the trash gets picked up and present a big fake key when some movie star passes through. That's hardly the stuff of Locke and Voltaire.

Just as all of your examples had to be qualified with not only the country they belong to but the country with an adjective in front of it. The city by itself... not so much.

That's a ridiculous comment. All cities under control of a Communist government conform to the leaders and policies of that government.
1 + 1 = 2

Reading is a lost art.

The original comment to which that response was attached:

Detroit is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild. What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.

Is "Detroit" a country?

 

[dannyboys]

Good for him. Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message. Ask yourself a question, is the claim true? If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person? Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia. With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?

All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?

These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent. It's as simple as that.

The endemic violence and poverty seen across Africa today was happening LONG before any tribal Chief sold any of the slaves he captured from the village in the neighbouring valley to the Dutch for a piece of broken mirror. Today in every inner city in the US the gene that compels Blacks towards violence in Africa is alive and well.
The Chinese bless their hearts now own pretty much every natural resource in Africa. They never fired a shot. They just drove up to the local tribal Chief's mansion and bought all the mineral rights for a suitcase full of US thousand dollar bills. The Chief signed the papers and his 'people' became the 'in-house' slave labor work force for the Chinese businessman.
You might say it was like 'taking candy' from a semi mentally retarded person. Which it was.
Long ago the US government had to put a stop to White men purchasing lands from Indian tribes for a few cases of whiskey and some repeating rifles.
Problem is in Africa there was/is no 'government' to prevent the Chiefs from selling off the mineral rights to their ancestral land.
BTW if any LIB here is deluded enough to believe that the Chinese will 'do-right' by any Black worker/slave think again. You think Blacks are discriminated' against by Whites in the US? That level of 'discrimination' is a level one. With the Chinese the level is an easy one hundred.
Will things in Africa or in the US 'get better' for the Blacks? Nope.

That's the dumbest shit I've ever seen. But congrats you must've strained your brain really hard to put together all of those words.

Then you'll have no problem pointing out specifically what I posted was "dumb". There are hundreds of Goggle sites describing in factual detail how the Chinese are basically purchasing Africa's mineral wealth for next to nothing from tribal chiefs/local governments. Chinese immigrants are pouring into Africa and displacing Black workers. Those Black workers who still have a menial job are paid just enough to prevent them from starving.
The only Blacks allowed in China are those with highly sought after skills. And they are very few and far between. As soon as the Chinese have learned/stolen every bit of information they can the Black professional is put on a plane leaving the country the next day.
The Chinese DO NOT WANT any half Chinese half Black people in the country.
There's a special term for those 'half-breeds' in Chinese and it's not a nice one.

 

[DriftingSand]

Re. Imperialism.

One of the key differences between Africa (above and below the Sahara) compared to European possessions in places like Asia, were that most of the conquered territories in Africa were never industrialised to the extend places like India were, thus there was little to none of the infrastructure prosperous nations rely on to sustain stability.

Additionally, the Kalashnikov rifle, coupled with overall rejection of contraception, has wrought huge damage on Africa and its people.

You might have missed my earlier post or simply disagree with it.

Many different nations on earth have taken turns being "Imperialistic" but we can NEVER accuse the African nations of such (other than the Arabic nations of northern Africa) because they never had a naval force nor had they ever invented the weaponry to be a threat to any other nation. They've had centuries worth of time to develop defenses; weaponry; structures; and military strategies. But they haven't.

I stand by my earlier post that they simply aren't interested in being a force to be reckoned with or a massive civilization. They simply prefer living the simple life and just want to be left alone. If they truly had the motivation or ambition or inspiration to move in that direction then they would have by now. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Who says that a nation or a people need to battle to the top of the economic or military heap?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation. Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.

So what? Fact remains they can't learn, at least not important things like math and engineering. It's true in africa just like in america.

 

[DriftingSand]

A city isn't a big enough scale to exercise political ideology. You don't have an economy to run other than simply managing a budget. You don't have a constitution, you don't have a foreign policy. Basically you get to declare when the trash gets picked up and present a big fake key when some movie star passes through. That's hardly the stuff of Locke and Voltaire.

Just as all of your examples had to be qualified with not only the country they belong to but the country with an adjective in front of it. The city by itself... not so much.

That's a ridiculous comment. All cities under control of a Communist government conform to the leaders and policies of that government.
1 + 1 = 2

Reading is a lost art.

The original comment to which that response was attached:

Detroit is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild. What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.

Is "Detroit" a country?

But you responded to my post that states that a city CAN be "Communist" if it's subject to a Communist regime. You chose to negate that point. So, apparently, reading IS a lost art.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Blacks are generally dumber than other races, like seriously, compared to whites and asians, what have black people invented of worth? And crack doesn't count.

Then invented the dunk shot. And MJ invented that "moon walk" thing. Blacks have really accomplished a lot.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

We've heard lots of reasons why African nations aren't prosperous or highly productive. Everyone seems to have someone to blame. Some claim that Africa had a "thriving" civilization at one point (a point that archaeology doesn't support). It's the fault of Imperialists. It's the fault of slave traders (including the African tribes that sold their brothers). It's the fault of Democrats. Blame - blame -blame. All the while ignoring the one thing we all agree on -- African nations aren't prosperous or very productive!

Perhaps the reason is so simple it's slapping us in the face. Perhaps it just isn't important to Africans to develop thriving, over-sized, highly regulated civilizations.

If the reason is because of lack of contact with the Western World then we're left with places like Detroit that are run by African-Americans and yet don't thrive. But we might be able to blame Socialist Liberals. However, if we're going to blame Socialist-Liberalism then we're forced to consider China which is a Socialist-Liberal regime that IS thriving, producing, and prospering (thanks to their embracing the free market). If the reason is due to Imperialism then we have to consider nations that were very recently subject to USSR Imperialism but jumped right back on their feet the moment they were free to operate as independent governments. If the reason is because Africans are hunter/gatherers then we need to consider Ireland (a rather bleak and desolate landscape in many respects) where the inhabitants began as hunter/gatherers but turned their landscape into a productive and modern nation.

So, the bottom line (for me anyway) is that Africans are perfectly happy living in a tribal manner as hunter/gatherers. There's really nothing wrong with that. I've often wished that I could leave the city life and find a place deep in the woods and live off of the land. There's a PBS show called "Alone In The Wilderness" (I think that's the name) where an old dude leaves civilization and builds a cabin in the Alaskan wilderness and lives there until he dies. He did so by choice -- not because of Democrats, Imperialism, or the slave trade.

HAHAHA. So why don't blacks in america live in the wilderness and take care of themselves.? Fact is blacks want the good life same as everyone else. But they don't have the intelligence to build a first world country.

 

[Nutz]

We've heard lots of reasons why African nations aren't prosperous or highly productive. Everyone seems to have someone to blame. Some claim that Africa had a "thriving" civilization at one point (a point that archaeology doesn't support). It's the fault of Imperialists. It's the fault of slave traders (including the African tribes that sold their brothers). It's the fault of Democrats. Blame - blame -blame. All the while ignoring the one thing we all agree on -- African nations aren't prosperous or very productive!

Perhaps the reason is so simple it's slapping us in the face. Perhaps it just isn't important to Africans to develop thriving, over-sized, highly regulated civilizations.

If the reason is because of lack of contact with the Western World then we're left with places like Detroit that are run by African-Americans and yet don't thrive. But we might be able to blame Socialist Liberals. However, if we're going to blame Socialist-Liberalism then we're forced to consider China which is a Socialist-Liberal regime that IS thriving, producing, and prospering (thanks to their embracing the free market). If the reason is due to Imperialism then we have to consider nations that were very recently subject to USSR Imperialism but jumped right back on their feet the moment they were free to operate as independent governments. If the reason is because Africans are hunter/gatherers then we need to consider Ireland (a rather bleak and desolate landscape in many respects) where the inhabitants began as hunter/gatherers but turned their landscape into a productive and modern nation.

So, the bottom line (for me anyway) is that Africans are perfectly happy living in a tribal manner as hunter/gatherers. There's really nothing wrong with that. I've often wished that I could leave the city life and find a place deep in the woods and live off of the land. There's a PBS show called "Alone In The Wilderness" (I think that's the name) where an old dude leaves civilization and builds a cabin in the Alaskan wilderness and lives there until he dies. He did so by choice -- not because of Democrats, Imperialism, or the slave trade.

HAHAHA. So why don't blacks in america live in the wilderness and take care of themselves.? Fact is blacks want the good life same as everyone else. But they don't have the intelligence to build a first world country.

*****