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

[Sava]

Personally, I think any time black people use that word to describe their friends; it makes all the white racists happy. What better reward for the black-haters then to see black people using derogatory slurs on each other?

[Theben]

Originally posted by David Floyd
While I don't deny this would have had an impact, the fact still remains that Europe and the US would be far better places to live than Africa.

No, you don't get it. The pilgrimage from Mali to Mecca under the reign of Mansa Musa wound up fianancing the Renaissance. Think about how that would've changed history.

[Pekka]

MrBaggins, Well, the world is pretty open these days so you know I don't see why I couldn't say a thing about it. Sure, it's likely that I have to go about 3 months to see one black man in the in real life but hey, that shouldn't hinder me from having an opinion. But I think this is not what you meant. Yeah it's ironic, but it doesn't mean it can't be true.

Sure we are the most homogenic nation in the world possibly, and the whitest too, but we also are not that close to it and we are not that PC

[chequita guevara]

Why do you care what other people call each other? Why not just be a decent person and treat eveyone with respect?

[Theben]

Should I then dislike the Dutch, French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Scandinavian, etc...because at some point in history they invaded (most of them on more then one occasion) my country

Different context. It's not africans in Africa that are upset. It's africans in America. Remember they had no homeland, no history.

Hating entire people for what others did decades or even longer ago is nonsense. It may be emotionally understandable, but it helps noone. If Europeans acted that way, they would still be at war with eachother.

Yugoslavia, anyone?

Bear in mind that if the dressings of slavery still didn't exist, this would be a non-issue. As it is the legacy of slavery in the U.S. was still institutionalized less than 10 years ago, and racial tensions exist to this day. Memories don't fade that quickly.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
Sure we are the most homogenic nation in the world possibly, and the whitest too,

Nope, the Icelanders are, on both counts.

[Pekka]

oh you're right.. Well let's just say one of the most.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Damn those evil whites!

This just goes to show what DF and I have been saying all along - that blacks are just as guilty of participating in slavery as whites.

Quit being a willful idiot.

Every goddman race on this planet has participated in slavery at some point.

I am NOT saying blacks weren't responsible for the slave trade.

I am NOT saying that whites are morally inferior to anyone else.

I AM saying that if colonialism hadn't occurred, or had taken on a different method not involving mass enslavement as historically happened:

1) Africa WOULD be in better shape than it is today.
2) There would not be mass resentment toward whites by blacks in America, for one there wouldn't be as many, and two they wouldn't be descendants of slaves, Jim Crow, and current 2nd class citizens.

What would have happened is pure speculation. What DID happen we know. Why is this so hard for you?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Theben
Yugoslavia, anyone?

Bear in mind that if the dressings of slavery still didn't exist, this would be a non-issue. As it is the legacy of slavery in the U.S. was still institutionalized less than 10 years ago, and racial tensions exist to this day. Memories don't fade that quickly.

Yeah, but this is a special case, because the differences and conflicts between the people on the Balkan were "controlled" by Tito, and during that time there was never a real chance to settle these differences in the region.

While I agree that "Memories don't fade that quickly", People in Yugoslavia hadn't the chance to let them fade (to say it in your words), because the concrete political circumstances were not helpful in really removing them, just the opposite, the rising nationalism during the 90ies reinforced those differences.

But this is not characteristic for the rest of Europe. It is quite amazing when you read how the political elites after WWII in many big European countries ware aware of the fact that the way to improve things would be not to reopen old gaps again. As much as one could criticise aspects of the European integration this kind of thinking is certainly one of the most successful elements in the still ongoing process.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by BeBro


No. I made no assumption how it would have developed because I think it is a waste of time to prove any long-term development that did obviously not happen. What you call "a safe bet" remains pure speculation. You cannot know what societal structures Africans had developed when the continent had been untouched by colonialization.

Sure I can. Dr Livingstone I presume?

Just because you see no signs that they developed similar structures like Europe before the colonization of Africa proves nothing about the possibility of later developments.

Of course it does. If they hadn't yet reached point A for thousands of years before europeans came, it's hardly likely that they would suddenly reach point F on their own.

[Theben]

Originally posted by BeBro


Yeah, but this is a special case...

Not to ignore the rest of what you said, which is interesting, but the role of black americans in america is also very much a special case.

I see no one has answered the question I posed earlier:

at what age were you aware that race was an issue? Now be honest!

This is an important question, and the 1st step in realizing the difference between white and black society in the U.S.

btw, could some mod edit out the last word in the title? thx

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Of course it does. If they hadn't yet reached point A for thousands of years before europeans came, it's hardly likely that they would suddenly reach point F on their own.

More speculation. German tribes weren't on a high societal level, and there weren't colonized by the Romans (except some areas and only temporarily, never completely), just in cultural contact, still they managed to develop further, and even to survive longer than the Roman empire.....

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Theben


1) Africa WOULD be in better shape than it is today.


What would have happened is pure speculation. What DID happen we know. Why is this so hard for you?

If what would have happened is pure speculation, why do you feel you are the only one with the right to speculate?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Caligastia

Of course it does. If they hadn't yet reached point A for thousands of years before europeans came, it's hardly likely that they would suddenly reach point F on their own.

Ah, yes, b/c europeans created everything that was ever worthwhile in a geopolitical vacuum. They never engaged in trade with byzantines, arabs, chinese, or africans (in the early days when there were powerful african empires).

One might suppose that Scandinavians would never have developed these institutions either, since they had to encounter franks, teutons, angles, saxons, bulgars, and slavs and copy their methods 1st.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by BeBro


More speculation. German tribes weren't on a high societal level, and there weren't colonized by the Romans (except some areas and only temporarily, never completely), just in cultural contact, still they managed to develop further, and even to survive longer than the Roman empire.....

Obviously this is more speculation. That's what we are both doing. That was the intent of my original "it would be a pretty safe bet" comment. I speculated that a safe bet would be that things would stay the same. All you've done is dismiss it because it's speculation while hinting that you think things would have been different. So when I speculate it's wrong to speculate - when you speculate it's ok.