🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in

> Or if they lived in a harsh environment that required devoting their
> full attention to acquiring food and water, they might stagnate
> developmentally.  The Eskimo's and Laplanders did not invent any
> advanced civilizations either.

True. But what is the point? Are you saying Africans did not live in a land
of plenty?

> Likewise the Eskimos and the Laplanders.  Likewise all manner of
> "primitive peoples" of the world.  NONE of them "copy and adapt it to
> themselves".  Are they all inferior to western European whites?

Well, let's look at that. India and Pakistan built on their English legacy.
Hong Kong and Singapore prosper with native rule. South America and southern
Asia are getting by. So I don't see how your statement is true.

Or
> perhaps they are missing something necessary to taking advantage of
> it?  (Like "money", i.e. extra resources above and beyond that needed
> for survival in order to invest in new things at a significant rate).

But they had it already. The colonials built it and turned it over to them.
All they had to do was maintain a system that was already in place.

>>Yet in every case - every single case - upon the >>departure of the
> >whites the former colonies descended into chaos.

> Political chaos, perhaps. Loss of civilization?  I think you are
> imagining things.
>
> Do you really think that Nairobi and Lagos are prehistoric villages
> with 2 million and 12 million people respectively.  Do you know what
> kind of infrastructure is needed to support a city of 12 million?
> They couldn't do it in medieval Europe.  The African nations are
> putting their limited resources into nation-building, which takes
> time.

I think they're running out of time.

> But it takes time to build an educated populace and a modern economy
> starting with few resources other than manpower.  You seem to think
> that because they haven't done so in the 40 years since British
> independence, that they cannot do so.

I think they're going backwards. And they are not without resources, either.
Zaire in particular has tremendous mineral wealth, and tremendous
hydroelectric potential on the Congo River. And lots of manpower is no
asset; in fact it's the biggest drawback to progress.

> >Because I am part of management.
>
> In other words, YOU are afraid to reprimand them, if they do something
> wrong.  You are a wimp who is not qualified to be a manager, and
> takeout your inferiority complex by racist postings on the net.

I am in the trucking business, and the workers I'm talking about are
drivers. I am not their supervisor.

> >Well, just for the record, the only division of Americans that makes
sense
> >to me is between the taxpaying and the non-taxpaying.
>
> An odd division to call the "only" one that makes sense.  And you
> obviously think that blacks don't pay taxes.  Tell me, O manager: do
> you withhold income tax from the paychecks of your black workers?  Do
> you think they get all that money back in refunds or something?  If
> not, then they pay taxes too.
>
> I hate to correct your misinformation, but in 1999, 12.6% of black
> households had over $75K of income, and 14% had incomes between $50K
> and $75K.  The median income was over $27K.  Do you think people at
> that income level "don't pay taxes"?

All workers pay taxes. I never said they didn't.

> Thereby implying that you make a different division than the one you
> say "makes sense", between "working Americans" and "blacks".  THAT
> distinction is what gets you labeled as a racist.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear. Working Americans of all races support
lowlifes of all races. But because any attempt to reform welfare would have
a disproportionate impact on blacks, welfare reform can, and often is,
described as racist.

> I guess I should remember that if you suffer an injury in an auto
> accident like a friend of mine (white, if it matters) that leaves you
> unable to work, or if you get an illness that your insurance doesn't
> fully cover.  Then we can let you starve to death or depend on the
> charity of your black, taxpaying, workers.

Exactly. If I do not provide for myself, I will have to rely on the charity
of others. My family and friends should be there first, but if they cannot
provide enough, I would have to appeal to the greater community. If my
situation is sympathetic enough, I will receive the help I need. If not, I
should not have the legal right to force others to pay my bills for me.


> >American blacks, you mean. African blacks will almost certainly die off
in
> >great numbers before the next century.
>
> Really?  That is why they are currently growing at an unsustainably
> high rate.  Part of the reason that Africa remains mired in such
> poverty is their population grows as fast as their income.

Right. And the reason they starve is because there are more mouths than
food.

> This in turn is because their civilization level has risen to the
> point where the death rate from starvation and disease no longer keep
> up with the birth rate, which remains at pre-modern levels (a level
> that the US was still at in the 19th century).  Birth rates tend to
> drop when education levels get higher.

And because they don't have enough discipline to create babies they cannot
feed. We need not fear starvation or disease, either, but we are keeping our
birth rate at barely replacement level.

> Given what you seem to call "throwing money down a rathole" (i.e.
> spending money on the poor rather than giving you yet another tax
> cut), the US is BEHIND most modern countries in this endeavor.

Am I supposed to be ashamed that we are not yet socialist enough?

 Around
> 100 nations of the world provide social security benefits to sick and
> maternity patients, including most of Europe and Japan.  Around 30
> countries spend a high percentage of their government income on social
> protection programs than the US does, including Japan, Germany, and
> Switzerland.

Yeah, I know. That's why people like me can't move. There's nowhere to move
to that isn't worse.

Mark