posted
Ethiopia was never colonized by whites but it's still poor. Why is that?
Those on Stormfront cite this as an example that blacks cannot do well without white intervention, claiming that south Africa is the richest country because of whites. To make it clear, i don't agree with them. I think they are racist white supremacists.
But still, ignoring them, why is Ethiopia poor?
Posts: 27 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shouldn't this be in the politics section? Also, the notion that Ethiopia was never "colonized" has to do with both lack of adequate insight into history and geopolitical language acrobatics initially undertaken by the 'US-Allies' camp, who were then mutually-hostile to the "German-Italian" camp. Plus, even if one were to accept the restricted or selective application of the term "colonization", that doesn't mean that Ethiopia is any more immune to the wide-reaching influence of the IMF, WTO or the global capitalist environment dominated by the major capitalist [mostly colonial] economies, than other developing economies. Neo-colonialism doesn't always necessitate occupational presence, as long as a "stooge" or compliant regime is in place.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because ethiopia has idiots who lead the country it has been in war with it's smaller neighbours and internal seccecionists since the 70's. Ethiopia exist only as military state nothing more, despite being the poorest country in africa it has the second strongest military in africa. It's whole existance is focused on how to fu*ck up it's neighbours as much as possible, not to take care of it's people or economy since the leaders are all ex-rebels. And the west supports them 100%.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also they have nothing to Sell. Frankincense and Myrrh was worth a lot in Jesus days but not really now. They DO lead African in Livestock but other than Coffee, they have little else. Tea and Flowers are making a come-up. But they cant even get a FAIR price for the leading export - Coffee. Also they spend too much on war as Yonis stated. They should spend more money on taming the Nile and figuring how to sell Energy to their neighbors, but they would rather fight their neighbors for the U.S. Ethiopia has TONS of potential also in the tourism area, but some much money has went to waste fighting. They have been at war for the last 40 years.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here we have Ethiopia again picking war with yet another neighbour on behalf of United States. But the sudanese are too smart not to fall for it, since it's obvious the neo-cons are desperatly searching new ways to bring khartoum regime down before the election.
By Opheera McDoom KHARTOUM, July 8 (Reuters) - Sudan's army accused Ethiopian troops on Tuesday of attacking a military camp in northern Sudan and killing about 19 people.
A senior Ethiopian official played down the allegation, saying any "minor incident" on the border could be easily resolved.
Sudan's military spokesman said the attack took place early on Monday in the Jabel Hantub area of Sennar state.
"They hit a camp belonging to the central reserve police and they killed about 19 people," the Sudanese army spokesman said. He did not know how many people were injured.
The central reserve police are a heavily armed military unit and are often deployed along border areas or to defend the capital Khartoum.
"This was an attack and we don't know the reason -- we have no problem with Ethiopia and there are no border disputes or tribal clashes in that area," the army spokesman said.
Bereket Simon, special adviser to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, told Reuters in Addis Ababa the problem was that the long frontier was not properly demarcated.
"Sometimes locals from both sides trespass and minor incidents do happen," he said, denying troops were involved.
"If there was a minor incident involving local inhabitants ... Ethiopia is confident both governments will solve the problem in accordance with the prevailing peaceful norms we maintain."
Sudan signed a north-south peace deal in 2005 which ended Africa's longest civil war and also improved relations with its east African neighbours.
One Sudanese security source and another government official said the attack may have been because Sudan had given refuge a to local Ethiopian officials few weeks earlier and had refused to hand them over to Addis Ababa.
It was not clear why the officials sought refuge in Sudan. Ethiopia is fighting rebels from the Oromo region which borders Sudan and who want greater autonomy for their areas.
The Sudan army spokesman said a joint Ethiopian-Sudanese committee had been formed to investigate the attack. (Additional reporting by Tsegaye Tadesse in Addis Ababa; Editing by Matthew Tostevin) (For full Reuters Africa coverage and to have your say on the top issues, visit: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08610535.htmPosts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Because ethiopia has idiots who lead the country it has been in war with it's smaller neighbours and internal seccecionists since the 70's. Ethiopia exist only as military state nothing more, despite being the poorest country in africa it has the second strongest military in africa. It's whole existance is focused on how to fu*ck up it's neighbours as much as possible, not to take care of it's people or economy since the leaders are all ex-rebels. And the west supports them 100%.
This is the answer why. Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Because ethiopia has idiots who lead the country it has been in war with it's smaller neighbours and internal seccecionists since the 70's. Ethiopia exist only as military state nothing more, despite being the poorest country in africa it has the second strongest military in africa. It's whole existance is focused on how to fu*ck up it's neighbours as much as possible, not to take care of it's people or economy since the leaders are all ex-rebels. And the west supports them 100%.
This is the answer why.
that is an affirmative laught,becaus you said it right,Ethipia is poor due to corruption on his government, noy by the race of his habitants, I see you got oversensitive and go defensive,you must calm down a little.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egypt is poor because of it's theological superstition and puppet leaders, without Islam and dictatoral regime i'm quite sure Egypt would be much more economically healthy. Egypt and Iraq were the knowledge centers in the islamic world during the middle ages. But that was before islam was hijacked by illiterate militants. Today Egypt survives because of it's aid from united states (second greatest aid after Israel) and it's well developed tourist industry. Without these two cash cows Egypt would be on the same level as Ethiopia. Both have yet to enter the industrial age due to their totalitarian governments.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Egypt is poor because of it's theological superstition and puppet leaders, without Islam and dictatoral regime i'm quite sure Egypt would be much more economically healthy. Egypt and Iraq were the knowledge centers in the islamic world during the middle ages. But that was before islam was hijacked by illiterate militants. Today Egypt survives because of it's aid from united states (second greatest aid after Israel) and it's well developed tourist industry. Without these two cash cows Egypt would be on the same level as Ethiopia. Both have yet to enter the industrial age due to their totalitarian governments.
You contradicted yourself by admitting that during the middle ages Iraq and Egypt were enlightened centers. Egypt today is not run by those "illiterate militants", so a "hijacked Islam" cannot be a reason why it is poor today. Aid to Egypt is different from aid to Israel, the former cannot decide how to spend it while the latter can. I think it is obvious why Egypt is poor today: bad leadership, period.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Egypt is poor because of it's theological superstition and puppet leaders, without Islam and dictatoral regime i'm quite sure Egypt would be much more economically healthy. Egypt and Iraq were the knowledge centers in the islamic world during the middle ages. But that was before islam was hijacked by illiterate militants. Today Egypt survives because of it's aid from united states (second greatest aid after Israel) and it's well developed tourist industry. Without these two cash cows Egypt would be on the same level as Ethiopia. Both have yet to enter the industrial age due to their totalitarian governments.
You contradicted yourself by admitting that during the middle ages Iraq and Egypt were enlightened centers. Egypt today is not run by those "illiterate militants", so a "hijacked Islam" cannot be a reason why it is poor today. Aid to Egypt is different from aid to Israel, the former cannot decide how to spend it while the latter can. I think it is obvious why Egypt is poor today: bad leadership, period.
Idiot, how did i contradict myself? Egypt was not runned by illiterate militants during the middle ages, the muslims controlled the world during the middle ages and were the most enlightened of all people. I said today Islam is hiijacked by illiterate militants, not the middle ages because that's when Islam had it's brightest minds. Read as it's written, idiot.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Egypt is poor because of it's theological superstition and puppet leaders, without Islam and dictatoral regime i'm quite sure Egypt would be much more economically healthy. Egypt and Iraq were the knowledge centers in the islamic world during the middle ages. But that was before islam was hijacked by illiterate militants. Today Egypt survives because of it's aid from united states (second greatest aid after Israel) and it's well developed tourist industry. Without these two cash cows Egypt would be on the same level as Ethiopia. Both have yet to enter the industrial age due to their totalitarian governments.
You contradicted yourself by admitting that during the middle ages Iraq and Egypt were enlightened centers. Egypt today is not run by those "illiterate militants", so a "hijacked Islam" cannot be a reason why it is poor today. Aid to Egypt is different from aid to Israel, the former cannot decide how to spend it while the latter can. I think it is obvious why Egypt is poor today: bad leadership, period.
Idiot, how did i contradict myself? Egypt was not runned by illiterate militants during the middle ages, the muslims controlled the world during the middle ages and were the most enlightened of all people. I said today Islam is hiijacked by illiterate militants, not the middle ages because that's when Islam had it's brightest minds. Read as it's written, idiot.
You silly boy, you don't even know what you're saying do you? You tried to connect Islam ("theological superstition") with a secular Arab state as one of the factors for its underdevelopment today. This is reactive anti-Islamic rubbish since it is a secular dictatorship, hence "illiterate militants" have nothing to do with it. Plus, Egypt is far less conservative than even the Gulf States that are more developed! So Islam cannot be a factor either way.
Don't get mad at me because you were caught in another of your many contradictions.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The gulf countries have oil Egypt has not, without oil the gulf countries would have been worse of than Egypt since Egypt atleast has it's multi billion tourism industry and also Egypt is the cultural center of the arabic speaking world, there are more nobel prize winners in Egypt than the the rest of arabic speaking countries. And yes Islam plays a large role in making states retarded. Just go to Egypt and see how superstitious the people are, alot of productive minds have been lost to middle age nonsense.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: The gulf countries have oil Egypt has not, without oil the gulf countries would have been worse of than Egypt since Egypt atleast has it's multi billion tourism industry and also Egypt is the cultural center of the arabic speaking world, there are more nobel prize winners in Egypt than the the rest of arabic speaking countries. And yes Islam plays a large role in making states retarded. Just go to Egypt and see how superstitious the people are, alot of productive minds have been lost to middle age nonsense.
You idiot, you still haven't explained the contradictions of your argument: if Islam make states poor, then how is it that conservative gulf states aren't compared to secular ones like Egypt? Instead you end up flip flopping all over the place even more by stating oil as a reason why they are rich, forgetting you sighted billion dollar aid to Egypt couldn't make a difference because of dictatorship and Islam!
Well, gulf states are as authoritarian and more conservative, yet they are able to take advantage of their oil and Egypt cannot re their billion dollar aid?Why? Because of Islam? LMAO! Instead of parroting neo-con rhetoric you slavish Somali black boy, explain your arguments.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You obviously have no interest in discussing, you just want to redicule like the dick riding freak that you are.
Again the gulf countries would be nothing without oil, they have never produced any value to the international commodity market outside fossil fuel. Egypt can't compete with them, they have not only low return on investment in comparison to gulf countries but also much greater population to support.
Islam or not the gulf countries have advantage due to their natural resources nothing else (not because of their competence), Egypt however could upgrade itself many steps if it cured it's people from Islam.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: You obviously have no interest in discussing, you just want to redicule like the dick riding freak that you are.
Again the gulf countries would be nothing without oil, they have never produced any value to the international commodity market outside fossil fuel. Egypt can't compete with them, they have not only low return on investment in comparison to gulf countries but also much greater population to support.
Islam or not the gulf countries have advantage due to their natural resources nothing else (not because of their competence), Egypt however could upgrade itself many steps if it cured it's people from Islam.
Silly boy if, as you say, Islam makes countries poor, then having natural resources shouldn't matter since their culture (Islam) would preclude them from making good use of it. You tried to argue a similar thing re Egypt being poor despite billions in aid and tourism. According to you, their dictatorship and Islam prevented them from making good on their money. But the prosperity of the Gulf States destroys your rubbish argument as they are just as authoritarian and even more conservative than Egypt. There goes your argument, right up your ass where it belongs. Reasons for poverty in Egypt are the same as for South Africa, Brazil, Haiti etc: bad leadership, IMF, predator capitalism etc. Islam has nothing to do with it.
I can see you slavishly suck up all the racist western arguments re Islam and modernity you learn in Sweden, ironically it is the one thing liberals and neo-cons agree on! LOL You do this because you are black slave. Period.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: You obviously have no interest in discussing, you just want to redicule like the dick riding freak that you are.
Again the gulf countries would be nothing without oil, they have never produced any value to the international commodity market outside fossil fuel. Egypt can't compete with them, they have not only low return on investment in comparison to gulf countries but also much greater population to support.
Islam or not the gulf countries have advantage due to their natural resources nothing else (not because of their competence), Egypt however could upgrade itself many steps if it cured it's people from Islam.
Silly boy if, as you say, Islam makes countries poor, then having natural resources shouldn't matter since their culture (Islam) would preclude them from making good use of it. You tried to argue a similar thing re Egypt being poor despite billions in aid and tourism. According to you, their dictatorship and Islam prevented them from making good on their money. But the prosperity of the Gulf States destroys your rubbish argument as they are just as authoritarian and even more conservative than Egypt. There goes your argument, right up your ass where it belongs. Reasons for poverty in Egypt are the same as for South Africa, Brazil, Haiti etc: bad leadership, IMF, predator capitalism etc. Islam has nothing to do with it.
I can see you slavishly suck up all the racist western arguments re Islam and modernity you learn in Sweden, ironically it is the one thing liberals and neo-cons agree on! LOL You do this because you are black slave. Period.
First of all never call me a slave, in particular if you are a Jamaican.
Secondly i never said that Islam makes you poor unconditionally. Of course if you have high valued resources righ below your ass you are going to get rich unless you are mentaly retarded where you get robbed on daylight as many central and west african countries.
The reason gulf states are rich is not because of the absence or presence of Islam but because of the bucket of oil they happen to sit on. Your argument is flawed if you conclude that gulf arab success= islam.
I however advocate education and search for practical and relevant knowledge instead of citing obsolete passages delegating bedouin arabs on how they should conduct themselves during the 7th century AD.
First of all never call me a slave, in particular if you are a Jamaican.
Secondly i never said that Islam makes you poor unconditionally. Of course if you have high valued resources righ below your ass you are going to get rich unless you are mentaly retarded where you get robbed on daylight as many central and west african countries.
The reason gulf states are rich is not because of the absence or presence of Islam but because of the bucket of oil they happen to sit on. Your argument is flawed if you conclude that gulf arab success= islam.
I however advocate education and search for practical and relevant knowledge instead of citing obsolete passages delegating bedouin arabs on how they should conduct themselves during the 7th century AD.
You get me?
Don't build straws little slave boy. I never said gulf Arab success = Islam, only showed them as an example of how stupid your line of thinking reasoning is. Least we forget let me remind you abeed, "Egypt is poor because of it's theological superstition and puppet leaders, without Islam and dictatoral regime i'm quite sure Egypt would be much more economically healthy."Which is a rubbish argument from the beginning since Egypt is a secular dictatorship/government and has nothing to do with "citing obsolete passages delegating bedouin arabs on how they should conduct themselves during the 7th century AD."
In short, you make absolutely no sense at all. Nothing new.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Ethiopia exist only as military state nothing more, despite being the poorest country in africa it has the second strongest military in africa.
Sounds very suspect; According to what quantifiers and/or qualifiers are you basing this: Arsenal, military personnel, or what?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw, what are you doing Player 14, wasting your time reading a bunch of simpletons at stormfront? — as anybody informed in geopolitics to some degree can cleary see how absurd and quite simplistic their mode of thinking is.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Player 14: Ethiopia was never colonized by whites but it's still poor. Why is that?
Those on Stormfront cite this as an example that blacks cannot do well without white intervention, claiming that south Africa is the richest country because of whites. To make it clear, i don't agree with them. I think they are racist white supremacists.
But still, ignoring them, why is Ethiopia poor?
This has truth to it. South Africa has infrastructure because of the white man. Ethiopia has been growing on average at 8%.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Here we have Ethiopia again picking war with yet another neighbour on behalf of United States. But the sudanese are too smart not to fall for it, since it's obvious the neo-cons are desperatly searching new ways to bring khartoum regime down before the election.
By Opheera McDoom KHARTOUM, July 8 (Reuters) - Sudan's army accused Ethiopian troops on Tuesday of attacking a military camp in northern Sudan and killing about 19 people.
A senior Ethiopian official played down the allegation, saying any "minor incident" on the border could be easily resolved.
Sudan's military spokesman said the attack took place early on Monday in the Jabel Hantub area of Sennar state.
"They hit a camp belonging to the central reserve police and they killed about 19 people," the Sudanese army spokesman said. He did not know how many people were injured.
The central reserve police are a heavily armed military unit and are often deployed along border areas or to defend the capital Khartoum.
"This was an attack and we don't know the reason -- we have no problem with Ethiopia and there are no border disputes or tribal clashes in that area," the army spokesman said.
Bereket Simon, special adviser to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, told Reuters in Addis Ababa the problem was that the long frontier was not properly demarcated.
"Sometimes locals from both sides trespass and minor incidents do happen," he said, denying troops were involved.
"If there was a minor incident involving local inhabitants ... Ethiopia is confident both governments will solve the problem in accordance with the prevailing peaceful norms we maintain."
Sudan signed a north-south peace deal in 2005 which ended Africa's longest civil war and also improved relations with its east African neighbours.
One Sudanese security source and another government official said the attack may have been because Sudan had given refuge a to local Ethiopian officials few weeks earlier and had refused to hand them over to Addis Ababa.
It was not clear why the officials sought refuge in Sudan. Ethiopia is fighting rebels from the Oromo region which borders Sudan and who want greater autonomy for their areas.
The Sudan army spokesman said a joint Ethiopian-Sudanese committee had been formed to investigate the attack. (Additional reporting by Tsegaye Tadesse in Addis Ababa; Editing by Matthew Tostevin) (For full Reuters Africa coverage and to have your say on the top issues, visit: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08610535.htm
Sudan government needs to be overthrown. Sudan is down with Al Qaeda and the jihadist rebels. They are being funded by Al Qaeda to kill off anyone who is not muslim. The Sudanese Government is nothing but rebels, radicals, and fanatics.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Don't forget the so-called 'Arab' Sudanese are psychopaths who deny their black African identity and kill their Muslim brothers and sisters who don't!!
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: This has truth to it. South Africa has infrastructure because of the white man. Ethiopia has been growing on average at 8%.[/qb]
This has very little truth to it. Whites brought good ideas from Europe but this doesn't justify their racist views that blacks are less intelligent than whites or are incapable of succeeding without whites. While whites brought ideas from Europe they also enforced a social apartheid system which was to blacks' disadvantage. Whites had more advanced weapons and were better armed, this is why they could control blacks despite being vastly outnumbered. Even today there is a form of economic apartheid in South Africa where whites have better jobs and more money than blacks despite being a minority in the country.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: And yes Islam plays a large role in making states retarded.
Care to explain how.
Regards
I think it is more about political issues rather than religious ones in my opinion.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: This has truth to it. South Africa has infrastructure because of the white man. Ethiopia has been growing on average at 8%.
This has very little truth to it.
Can say that again. In fact, many natives were forced into "Bantustans" thanks to the "white man". Large sprawling underdeveloped slums are still seen where Blacks were restricted, that saw virtually no social spending during the reign of apartheid state, yet the apartheid state built those so-called "infrastructure" by the sweat and blood of those very same Blacks--that is to say, that the said infrastructure are standing, precisely because of Black labor. Beaten down minds today take this interesting stance of not crediting the "white man" for the devastated slums, but for the "infrastructure" that was actually built by Black labor. Far from being a force for progress, colonialism in Africa has been a force for counterrevolutionary and socio-economic regression!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To blame “African socialism” for Africa's failure to develop is a convenient fiction. Any serious examination of the continent's history shows that the reasons for Africa's backwardness lie in the centuries of foreign domination it suffered, dating back to the time of the **slave trade**. This **helped to fuel the development of capitalism in Europe, but deprived Africa of millions of able-bodied people** and fomented predatory wars that disrupted its economy." - Ann Talbot, SEP.
Indeed; if anything, the capitalist economies of the "white man" owe their existence to Africans; they should be grateful to Africans, not the other way around. The capitalist colonial economies of the "white man" have actually been the *main* hindrance to African economic progress, yet there are fools here and there, ignorant of both history and the complexities of the global economic apparatus, who go around speaking of the need for Africans to be grateful to the "white man", as the supposed "bastion of progress", when reality tells any able-minded person the contrary.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Don't forget the so-called 'Arab' Sudanese are psychopaths who deny their black African identity and kill their Muslim brothers and sisters who don't!!
It don't change the fact that the Sudanese governement is a coverted Al Qaeda breeding ground. They are funded by Jihadists and other fundamentalists from Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. That government need to be overthrown.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: This has truth to it. South Africa has infrastructure because of the white man. Ethiopia has been growing on average at 8%.
This has very little truth to it. Whites brought good ideas from Europe but this doesn't justify their racist views that blacks are less intelligent than whites or are incapable of succeeding without whites. While whites brought ideas from Europe they also enforced a social apartheid system which was to blacks' disadvantage. Whites had more advanced weapons and were better armed, this is why they could control blacks despite being vastly outnumbered. Even today there is a form of economic apartheid in South Africa where whites have better jobs and more money than blacks despite being a minority in the country. [/QB]
What I said is complete truth. South Africa has infrastructure because of the white man. The europeans did not forced an apartheid system with weapons. They did it with ideology. It is Africans own fault they don't have the ability to reason and outwit the white man. Blacks are less intelligent than whites in a way that the white man knows how to think forward and put ideas into consideration. This ability has failed Africa and blacks worldwide.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some scholars cite Africa's geography as a source of its poverty. Personally i hate this idea because this means that whites will always be economically better than blacks.
"Africa has the largest hot desert and the second largest tropical forest in the world that hinder building transcontinental means of transportations, hampering its economy. In the centre of the continent, on the western side, an almost impenetrable rainforest impedes the transit of people and goods. The Sahara creates an obvious barrier to trade from the north. Although Africa has great river systems such as the Nile, Niger, Congo, and Zambezi, they do not link the continent into trade routes effectively as happens in Europe and China. Rapids and cataracts block African rivers, requiring development projects to allow navigation. The wet terrain of the interior complicates transport. Few roads are paved and during the wet season unpaved tracks become impassable mud.
Africa is as well suited to agriculture as any other continent; the volcanic soils of the Great Lakes region are—by some measures—the best in the world."
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: This has truth to it. South Africa has infrastructure because of the white man. Ethiopia has been growing on average at 8%.
This has very little truth to it.
Can say that again. In fact, many natives were forced into "Bantustans" thanks to the "white man". Large sprawling underdeveloped slums are still seen where Blacks were restricted, that saw virtually no social spending during the reign of apartheid state, yet the apartheid state built those so-called "infrastructure" by the sweat and blood of those very same Blacks--that is to say, that the said infrastructure are standing, precisely because of Black labor. Beaten down minds today take this interesting stance of not crediting the "white man" for the devastated slums, but for the "infrastructure" that was actually built by Black labor. Far from being a force for progress, colonialism in Africa has been a force for counterrevolutionary and socio-economic regression!
What I said is 100% truth. The infastructure you see in South Africa is solely because of the white man. If not, South Africans would have built industrialized venues before the white man came on the scene. There shouldn't be a "fair" share if the blacks in South Africa had nothing to do with the ideology of building South Africa and making it an economic necessity.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good, bad or indifferent, Europeans know how to exploit nature (whatever its manifestations) to secure and control! African countries, per the modern era, would rather (appearance and reality), spend money to increase their power base as opposed to feeding the multitude. So, in thi sense priorities are a problem in the case of Africa!
At best, the language of having a strong nation state is to feed the people, provide a strong civil defence (extension=military) whiel still exploiting the weakness of enemies to take their resources, or control their land area.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: Good, bad or indifferent, Europeans know how to exploit nature (whatever its manifestations) to secure and control! African countries, per the modern era, would rather (appearance and reality), spend money to increase their power base as opposed to feeding the multitude. So, in thi sense priorities are a problem in the case of Africa!
At best, the language of having a strong nation state is to feed the people, provide a strong civil defence (extension=military) whiel still exploiting the weakness of enemies to take their resources, or control their land area.
It has a lot to do with this as well. Africans were never a collective people. They always has been an individualistic people and they always will be.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti wrote: -------------------------- Don't forget the so-called 'Arab' Sudanese are psychopaths who deny their black African identity and kill their Muslim brothers and sisters who don't!! --------------------------
If so, then how do they differ from you?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What kind of a question is that? They differ from me in that I am neither a black African nor a psychopath, but YOU are definitely the latter. Moving on...
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian.: "To blame “African socialism” for Africa's failure to develop is a convenient fiction. Any serious examination of the continent's history shows that the reasons for Africa's backwardness lie in the centuries of foreign domination it suffered, dating back to the time of the **slave trade**. This **helped to fuel the development of capitalism in Europe, but deprived Africa of millions of able-bodied people** and fomented predatory wars that disrupted its economy." - Ann Talbot, SEP.
Indeed; if anything, the capitalist economies of the "white man" owe their existence to Africans; they should be grateful to Africans, not the other way around. The capitalist colonial economies of the "white man" have actually been the *main* hindrance to African economic progress, yet there are fools here and there, ignorant of both history and the complexities of the global economic apparatus, who go around speaking of the need for Africans to be grateful to the "white man", as the supposed "bastion of progress", when reality tells any able-minded person the contrary.
Truth be told! This is the very fact that aplogists for white Western supremacy deny-- folks like Hore and what now Bettyboo!
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: ...Blacks are less intelligent than whites in a way that the white man knows how to think forward and put ideas into consideration. This ability has failed Africa and blacks worldwide.
It's official, 'Bettyboo' is a either pathetic self-hating Uncle Ruckus OR just another white racist nutjob posing as a black person. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what Betty thinks of the fact that agriculture, written language, and sciences like chemistry (metallurgy) and advanced math (algebra up) have all indigenously spawned across Asia, Africa, Americas .. and the same cannot be said for Europe.
But the 'white man' is "the best at thinking forward'.
How about the 'white man' is in "the best" position to think about the future, while Africans and others need to think more about NOW.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if 'Betty' is actually a white guy (not chick) posing as a black chick.
What black female you know would not only go by the name "Betty" but "Bettyboo" and then say all this crap about black people!
'She' sounds like Hore cyber roleplaying his fantasy of being a black female but still with his right-wing white supremacist propaganda! LOLPosts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Player 14: Ethiopia was never colonized by whites but it's still poor. Why is that?
Those on Stormfront cite this as an example that blacks cannot do well without white intervention, claiming that south Africa is the richest country because of whites. To make it clear, i don't agree with them. I think they are racist white supremacists.
But still, ignoring them, why is Ethiopia poor?
First iff WHAT MATTER does it make what some Neanderthal Sister Fcking Rednecks think anyway? Are you losing sleep becuase the stormfromn clowns say blacks are infereor...lol.
What a sad moment when all certain people can do is think in their Eurocentric traid mind of black and white...lol
Last I checked there were plenty of "poor" nations that whos inhabitants would be claimed as "Whites"
I think it boils down as said earlier to Wars and Political corruption. Ethiopia has been successful in the past and it still has potential.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): I wonder what Betty thinks of the fact that agriculture, written language, and sciences like chemistry (metallurgy) and advanced math (algebra up) have all indigenously spawned across Asia, Africa, Americas .. and the same cannot be said for Europe.
But the 'white man' is "the best at thinking forward'.
How about the 'white man' is in "the best" position to think about the future, while Africans and others need to think more about NOW.
You are a fvcking idiot. Europeans are the youngest people, so, of course they came across agriculture, written language, chemistry, mathematics later. However, when they did come across these things they use it better than everyone else simply because they are smarter. Why Africans didn't use a written language despite them being the oldest of mankind? Why did it take the Roman/Latin alphabet to come about before majority of Africans came up with a written language?
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Europeans are the youngest people, so, of course they came across agriculture, written language, chemistry, mathematics later.
uh.. Sure.
quote:However, when they did come across these things they use it better than everyone else simply because they are smarter.
Um, not sure in what ways anything was used better, but if you mean to say that they propelled us further than their predecessors - this is pretty much always the case.
For instance, software is better than software yesterday.
quote:Why did it take the Roman/Latin alphabet to come about before majority of Africans came up with a written language?
Moreover, why can the same be said for Europe?
How many indigenous written languages were conceived there?
Why did Latin script have it's roots in Phonician (and Egyptian)?
Why all the miguided rhetorical questions from you?
Maybe it's cuz tha white man is best at thinking ahead -- whatever floats your boat, you can think that if you wish to make an excuse for the lack of though put into your posts (or if you're a white boy and it makes you feel better).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The notion that Europeans are the "youngest people", and are therefore excused for not inventing "agriculture, writing, science, etc", but at the same time, are to be remarkably credited for using those very same things better than everybody else, is just irrational pseudo-scientific bunk. Consider the fact for example, that E1b1a and E1b1b lineages, which happen to constitute a major section of African gene pool today, are relatively more recent arrivals than the R1-derived lineages [like R1b] widely distributed in Europe. So this rationalization along the lines of "they are the youngest makes 'em smarter" , is just a hogwash non-starter.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian.: The notion that Europeans are the "youngest people", and are therefore excused for not inventing "agriculture, writing, science, etc", but at the same time, are to be remarkably credited for using those very same things better than everybody else, is just irrational pseudo-scientific bunk. Consider the fact for example, that E1b1a and E1b1b lineages, which happen to constitute a major section of African gene pool today, are relatively more recent arrivals than the R1-derived lineages [like R1b] widely distributed in Europe. So this rationalization along the lines of "they are the youngest makes 'em smarter" , is just a hogwash non-starter.
lol true. The statement let me know I was dealing with someone who wasn't even mildly knowledgable in the subject she spoke of.
Didn't want to be condescending, (I don't know how to communicate as well as you), and would rather post links to written languages anywho.
Some folks act as if Europeans ancestors weren't there right along (maybe not next to) with everyone else's, as if humans spawned out of nowhere in Africa, first, and then elsewhere, and Europe last. This is all assumed where common sense should tell you otherwise.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why did it take the Roman/Latin alphabet to come about before majority of Africans came up with a written language?
Moreover, why can the same be said for Europe?
How many indigenous written languages were conceived there?
Why did Latin script have it's roots in Phonician (and Egyptian)?
Why all the miguided rhetorical questions from you?
Maybe it's cuz tha white man is best at thinking ahead -- whatever floats your boat, you can think that if you wish to make an excuse for the lack of though put into your posts (or if you're a white boy and it makes you feel better). [/QB][/QUOTE]
You idiot. All those written languages above came about later in life. Geez/Ethiopic and Egyptian are the only written language that goes back thousands of years. All those other languages are "NEW". They came into existence only a few hundred years ago or less. The Mende written language is new. It is only about 100 years old or less. Even "Amharic" is new.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
It's official, 'Bettyboo' is a either pathetic self-hating Uncle Ruckus OR just another white racist nutjob posing as a black person. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic