So how come black people call each other ******?

[Pax]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


it's not "what's" its "who's"... and the answer is... you

okay a trolling dl is a racial slur.
I have no clue how to uplift my status and you racist won't tell me!!

[Theben]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


it's not "what's" its "who's"... and the answer is... you

Look again, dimwits. Pax has Feb 2003.

Pax-
The dainbramaged20 person is a DL, i.e. double login. A regular poster hiding behind a fake name, usually to elicit a response by posting humorous or insulting remarks. Probably one of the people we've been debating with. Can be identified by registeration dates [Feb 2004] and lack of information in their personal descriptions.

Of course what he's said only shows that some whites still think of blacks as inferior, which just goes to show that some institutions of slavery still exist- even among the so-called 'enlightened' folk of Poly. A pyrrhic victory, I know.

[Pax]

I only joined in Feb 2003, but I had been coming to site for a lot longer.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Joseph
The word WOP starting at Ellis Island, and it met "Without papers".

hmmm... supposedly so many Italians are named 'Tony' 'cuz it means TO New York.

[Theben]

btw, guys, that 2nd post from the top was really directed at you- I'm sure Pax is well aquainted with racial incidents.

Y'all need to ask yourself- at what age were you aware that race was an issue? Now be honest!

[David Floyd]

Theben,

This is a possibility. But they might not as well. You don't know, and we'll never know the 'what ifs'.

I do know that the odds of them being better off in Africa than here are not very good. Sure, you can probably find a few individual circumstances if you were omniscient, but I don't have to be omniscient to tell you that on the whole, blacks are better off here than in Africa.

As Pax said, at some point European technology and influence was destined to occur. It's the historical manner in which it did occur that underlines the issue.

OK, but as I recall the original point along this line of discussion was that Africa had no chance of catching up with Europe, precisely because of its lack of technology and its failure to exploit resources.

This would be the main point of disagreement. Are you saying the ends justify the means?

Certainly not. Slavery was immoral no matter what the outcome. I think it's just a bit hypocritical for blacks today to be angry about slavery, when they are better off because of it. An evil "means" led to a good "end", in this case, yet I don't maintain that because of that, slavery was positive.

That's not too far from saying the jews are better off b/c of the holocaust, since it resulted in the creation of Israel.

That is a somewhat different scenario, however, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that without the Holocaust, Israel wouldn't have been created when it was created. Probably would have been later, though.

And had colonialism been different- such as merely an exchange of goods w/o coercion- it's could have been possible for africa, or parts of it, to make the leap to a 1st world nation.

On the other hand, the most developed nation in Africa, South Africa, arrived at that level despite colonization and apartheid. Interestingly enough, South Africa is also probably the richest country, resource-wise, in South Africa, and those in control of it were able to properly exploit its resources. Would this have been done without colonialism? I seriously doubt it.

Look at Japan. Yes, there are many cultural differences but Japan was a backward nation in 1853.

True, but Japan hardly became a 1st World nation without coercion. It was coerced into trade concessions, the pro-Westerner Japanese coerced the Japanese samurai and peasants into going along with them and industrializing, and the new Japanese nation as a whole coerced other nations through wars - in fact, it was considered a first rate power for the first time after it won a war with Russia.

I'm sure there are plenty of cities in Brazil where you could live comfortably. Probably not in Afganistan.

I bet that I couldn't live as comfortably in Brazil as I do here, or anywhere close to it, without being one of the richest people in Brazil. Put another way, the vast majority of Brazilians do not live in a way we would consider comfortable. I hardly think that just because it is within the bare realm of possibility to live well in Brazil makes Brazil a good country to live in.

As for Afghanistan, I'd live pretty decent on a US military installation

Some blacks are. Some others may have been. Again, imigration. The ones who would be successful would be well off enough to immigrate, if they wanted to.

To me, this is positive. I don't want immigrants with no drive to succeed. On the other hand, just living in the US, whether or not you are successful by US standards, would count as a positive for just about anyone in the Third World.

Plus many more would be alive, and being alive is always a +.

Assuming they didn't starve to death, die from disease, get killed in a tribal war, be enslaved in Africa, or something else equally unpleasant.

Perhaps. But it wouldn't have been artificially maintained, at least by european powers.

No, they would have artificially maintained their own dictatorships and wars

[Pax]

The cows that make the milk are better off than cows that could chopped up for meat and leather.
These milk cows should not complain
The same with the chickens that lay eggs. would you prefer to have your head cutoff stupid chicken.

My argument on this issue and it seems most others comes down to self determination. The Europeans took the right of self determination from Africa and anyone descended from africa. If given a choice I would will that Europe was never able to collect slaves or colonize Africa. The word ****** would not be a topic for discussion.
The Europeans set up a system where the resources of the world flowed into Europe. Today, any resources Africa has available pretty much follow the same path. had the Europeans set up a fair trade for the receive things really would be different. It's not human nature to giive a fair deal when you can get over so the Europeans did not. I don't blame them though.

[David Floyd]

Pax, that's fine, as long as you recognize the consequences of reversing history would most likely result in you and millions of others never being able to live in the US, and as a result, the vast majority would be worse off.

[Pax]

Actually,
I never would have been born.

[Pax]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Pax, that's fine, as long as you recognize the consequences of reversing history would most likely result in you and millions of others never being able to live in the US, and as a result, the vast majority would be worse off.

Without African labor or some other labor to replace it america would be a very different country as well. maybe more people would have been used as labor and less as soldiers. Then possibly the indians could have held off long enough to become strong enough to defeat the U.S. or england. Maybe mexico would have been able to hold on to the territories that were lost in the mexican american war. The dutch would not be so well off possibly annexed by france or germany. All kinds of possibilities open up

[David Floyd]

Pax, come on. The absence of slaves in the southern US would not have been enough to save the Indians or the Mexicans.

[Pax]

Growth of South Carolina's slave population
South Carolina had a clear black majority from about 1708 through most of the eighteenth century. By 1720 there were approximately 18,000 people living in South Carolina – and 65% of these were African-Americans slaves. For example, in St James Goose Creek, a parish just north of Charles Towne, there were 535 whites and 2,027 black slaves.
The following tables and the graph below them show how South Carolina's slave population grew to match the success of its rice culture. Whereas in 1790 there were slightly more whites than blacks living in South Carolina, by 1860 the black population had grown to more than double that of the white.


1790
White Black
140,178 108,895
1820
White Black
237,440 265,301
1840
White Black
259,084 335,314
1860
White Black
291,300 412,320

That's just south carolina.

[David Floyd]

Fine, but the size of the US military, even during the Mexican-American War, was somewhere on the order of 30,000, IIRC. Not really big enough to be a burden on the population. And in peacetime, and in the Indian Wars, it was much smaller.

[Pax]

The lack of slaves would have been the burden. It's harder to spare 30,000 men when you just don't have 30,000. Also the U.S. would need the money that these slaves would have produced for food, clothing, and bullets. It's harder to make war when everybodies needed on the farm.

[David Floyd]

But you forget that the northern states, which were generally more populous, were not agricultural or dependant upon slaves.

Are you asserting that without slavery, the US could not have fielded an army big enough to defeat the Indians?