🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mark Richards" <markrichards8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aja35h$5sf$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> I'll grant you this: if a people lived in a relatively benign climate that
> was rich in food and water, they might stagnate developmentally because
> there had no pressing needs to overcome. Perhaps they might continue for
> 100,000 years in relative contentment, and then be dazzled and amazed at
> what other cultures had created when contact was finally made.
>
> So why do I reject this argument in reference to blacks? Simply because
upon
> being exposed to the wondrous new technology, they did not copy it and
adapt
> it to themselves. It is often said that it took the white man to build a
> modern civilization in Africa, but that is not exactly true. They did not
> bring in hordes of Belgians and Swiss etc. to tame the wilderness and
build
> great European-style cities. No, actually the local blacks did it. The
> whites provided the ideas and the motivation, but mostly blacks did the
> work. They also achieved at least mid-level management in all the African
> colonies, so they were involved in the day-to-day operation of a
functioning
> economy. Yet in every case - every single case - upon the departure of the
> whites the former colonies descended into chaos. And the worst "villains"
of
> all, the South Africans, provided the most enduring civilization, although
> it, too, is doomed.

Every single case? That is a broad claim, one you cannot back up. Many of
the countries in North Africa, such as Morocco, Senegal, and Egypt,
maintain a fair quality of life. Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand is a
difficult place, and even the European powers were unable to make much use
of these territories. The European powers, by the way, were only in those
countries to extract natural resources. Any mark of civilization was
imported, not manufactured locally. An obvious example is South Africa,
whose main commercial products are diamonds and gold, which are cheaply
extracted by white-owned mining companies, and promptly shipped to Europe to
be sold at gigantic profit.

Also, don't forget that the borders of most of the African colonies were
drawn to suit the colonists, not the natives. Having been liberated, the
people within these borders lacked a common cultural identity or national
purpose, and it's understandable that they would descend into civil war.
Imagine if France and Germany were bound together by a foreign power until
1900, then let loose.


>
> So never mind what could have happened, should have happened, or didn't
> happen in the last 2,000 years. Right now today, why is there not a single
> African country that simply maintained the goodies it inherited from the
> colonials?
>
> My answer is: because they are run by blacks. You do not accept that
answer.
> But since all available evidence says it is, your argument requires the
> greater proof, which is probably why it uses such long and convoluted
> explanations.

My answer is: because the whites are still operating extraction economies in
Africa, but using puppet dictators and warlords to maintain the tyranny that
they cannot openly operate themselves.

>
> > >Now that's funny. Where I work, every qualified black is hired. Then
they
> > >are treated with kid gloves because management is afraid to reprimand
> them.
> > >(In fairness, they are decent enough fellows who wouldn't cause trouble
> > >anyway, in my opinion.
> >
> > Well then how do you know how management would treat them "if"?  You
> > are ASSuming it.
>
> Because I am part of management.

How comforting to know that "management" is racist at your company. Does
that not demonstrate ANYTHING to you?

> Well, just for the record, the only division of Americans that makes sense
> to me is between the taxpaying and the non-taxpaying. Unfortunately,
because
> of the realities of our country today, that position is often construed as
> racist, since any attempt to let working Americans keep their money
results
> in less money for blacks.
>
> I am no socialist. "We Americans" should not have the legal obligation to
> support "those Americans" who can't or won't support themselves,
regardless
> of what color they are.

Have you no concept of social responsibility? Since the dawn of
civilization, society has been divided according to wealth and power. An
enlightened sovereignty generally understands that they have a
responsibility to those from whom their wealth and power are derived. This
is the social contract, as recognized by Rousseau. The ones who forget this
contract, or are unaware of it, are fools or tyrants. And, where the social
contract is ignored, history has shown us that the lower class overthrows
the upper class in order to restore justice. Think about France in 1789, or
Russia in 1917.