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

[Az]

This is a very interesting debate.

I would like to point out a couple of things. Saying "Whites are to blame for slavery", or "Blacks are to blame just as well" is stupid. There are many individuals that committed these crimes, and many more that were victims.

Slavery was a great immoral crime, no doubt about that. But was the overall occurance of those centuries good or bad? It was certainly good. The european imperialism WAS a positive developement. It would've been more than marginally positive, but great, if not for the terrible crime of slavery.

[MrFun]

Oh please . . . .


get rid of that Barney avatar -- NOW.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
No... just another example of where Africa has been better run by foreigners than the natives... along with the obvious example of S.A., of course.

Rhodesia was not better of under whites than Blacks. It reached it's peak productivity under Mugabe, during the 1980s. It was a model for many other African nations. Don't make the mistake that so many stupid people do of assuming today's conditions extend backwards in history.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
But was the overall occurance of those centuries good or bad?

That question depends primarily one where you're standing. Africa still has not recovered from the slave trade or the colonial period. The neo-colonial period isn't looking so great either. Almost anyway you measure it, European imperialism was an unmitigated attrocity. Using your logic one might make the argument that the Holocaust was good for the Jews because the survivors got Israel because of it.

The decendents of the native Americans are certainly much worse off as a result of European imperialism. The ones that remain are disposessed in their own lands, stripped of their culture, even in countries where they form the majority of the populations, such as Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia.

India and parts of East Asia are recovering only now.

The global positive effects of European imperialism have yet to materialize.

[Az]

That question depends primarily one where you're standing. Africa still has not recovered from the slave trade or the colonial period. The neo-colonial period isn't looking so great either. Almost anyway you measure it, European imperialism was an unmitigated attrocity.

Not so. When deciding was it an atrocity or not, we must make a feasible alternative scenario for what would happen if it didn't occur.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that people would be hacking and slashing each other in Africa, Asia, and America, just as the Europeans hacked and slashed through them. Also, an interesting debate is whether the meteor rise of European sciences, which were the most ethically positive thing in the world, perhaps ever, would've been possible without it.

Was it the most ethical way to go through it? Were the people who were in charge commited to make the world a better place? for the most not. Would the world be worse place without european imperialism? I think so.

Using your logic one might make the argument that the Holocaust was good for the Jews because the survivors got Israel because of it.

Umm, no, but I don't think that we should look at the holocaust without the whole context of WWII. WWII's benefits... well, they're nowhere near in comparison to the destruction they created. Not much has changed for the better since before the worse, and a whole lot of things got a lot worse. I don't think that thinking about "the jews" is right. Roman Imperialism was a slave-driving empire that destroyed my people ( "my people" It's sounds like a line from a movie), that waged war for centuries, etc. etc. It doesn't prevent it from being an extremely positive ethical phenomenon.

The decendents of the native Americans are certainly much worse off as a result of European imperialism. The ones that remain are disposessed in their own lands, stripped of their culture, even in countries where they form the majority of the populations, such as Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia.

It might be the case for the Native northen americans, but I am not certain if it is true for the central and southern americans. While stripped from their cultures, the standard of live of the vast majority of them turned for the better. You think that life in 3rd worldcountries is hard? It is, in comparison to our's. It isn't at in comparison to life in those countries before the modern age, and since there are much more people enjoying those improved conditions, It has a great positive effect.

India and parts of East Asia are recovering only now.

I didn't know that parts of East asia were high-tech information economies before imperialism. You see, That's the entire point. Without imperialism, there wouldn't be no slavery, death, epidemics, etc. but there also wouldn't be a world population of 6 billion people, information age, right of free speech, basketball, LotM movies, social security, modern medine. The supply of these things is extremely lacking in many places, but it would've been out of the question if not for imperialism. Today, there are estimated 100 million people in India, living in conditions similar to those of the west, and hundreds of millions more living in globally average conditions, with a hundreds of millions living in poverty. What would you get if you didn't have imperialism? I don't know. certainly more deseases, a much smaller population, with more people dying younger.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Rhodesia was not better of under whites than Blacks. It reached it's peak productivity under Mugabe, during the 1980s. It was a model for many other African nations. Don't make the mistake that so many stupid people do of assuming today's conditions extend backwards in history.

And as good as it was, it was less productive and prosperous than, say, South Africa. If thats the best Africa has to offer, I'd say that they don't offer very much at all.

[Q Classic]

east asia was civilized before you numbskulls from the west came in and mucked everything up.

stagnant it may have been, but there would have been no occupation of korea, no vietnam war, no communist china, no imperial japan.

[Q Classic]

btw, i'm only half-serious.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Caligastia, as you show yourself to be utterly ignorant of African history, I suggest you are not able to be a useful part of this "debate."

Don't be such a snob. You're just getting upset because I don't share your revisionist view of african history OH ENLIGHTENED ONE

If we applied the level of knowledge you are displaying to European history I could some it up this way. White people slaughtered white people and for a thousand years Europe was a barbarian backwater.

At least they managed to come up with the wheel.

[lord of the mark]

with respect to use of names ingroup vs outside:

As info: The word "yid" is actually the yiddish word for "jew" and when used by jews with some connection to Yiddish culture, can have warm, "insidery" overtones. When used by a gentile its an insult - cause thats how gentiles use it. "****" otoh, which has derogatory origins (similar to "wop") is NEVER used by Jews, AFAIK.

"******" is a corruption of Negro or of analogous words in other european languages - it is derogatory only in how whites use it. It is therefore something that insiders can appropriate.


WRT to the discussion of african history, slave trade, etc - thats a giant thread jack - its hard enough to cut through the nonsense being spouted on the subject, plus its all mixed up with the original topic of the thread.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
You're just getting upset because I don't share your revisionist view of african history [/URL]

You're the one wityh the revisionist view. Anyone who has studied African history, which you obviously have not done, know what I'm writing about. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's what happened. The revisionism occured during the late 19th Century, when the West collectively began to erase Africa's history. That revisionism is being undone now.

At least they managed to come up with the wheel.

The wheel was invented in the middle east.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Caligastia
You're just getting upset because I don't share your revisionist view of african history [/URL]

You're the one wityh the revisionist view. Anyone who has studied African history, which you obviously have not done, know what I'm writing about. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's what happened. The revisionism occured during the late 19th Century, when the West collectively began to erase Africa's history.

The evil white man rides again!

The wheel was invented in the middle east.

The oldest wheel was found in what was Mesopotamia, yes, but it's not known precisely who invented the wheel. Obviously you're too ignorant to participate in this discussion.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Caligastia

The oldest wheel was found in what was Mesopotamia, yes, but it's not known precisely who invented the wheel. Obviously you're too ignorant to participate in this discussion.

You're just trolling now, aren't you?

So does anyone have anything to say about the original question still, or can we safely assume that's been wrapped up?

[Caligastia]

Was that the "when did you first realize race was an issue" question?

Or the n-word question?

[The Viceroy]

I don't see why the colour of my skin should implicate me or you of the crimes commited by somebody else of the same colour, either today or 100 years ago.

that people hold hate towards people because of colour, is just a simple sign of there imaturity ...

From an Indian perspective, colour of skin is a very interesting thing. Being fair, is being god like .. Parents will do almost anything to ensure there children are fair, and many of the older generations still maintain that white people are there betters ..

Thankfully the younger generations do not have such a issue, but the culture still dictates, fair is best.

What is interesting though, is the use of the word Gorah. To be Gorah .. is to be fair, and you would say Gore gal karle baal .. (White cheeks, black hair) to describe a beautiful woman .. yet, in the UK asians use the term Gorah in a derogatory fasion.. in the same manor as niger (which is 'black in latin').

Indians most certainly are race concious, especially towards africans .. if you think an S.Asian family would react badly to their daughter having a white boyfriend, i can promise you, if that boyfriend was black .. It would probably result in the girl being disowned...

For an indian parent, the issue is not one of culture, not one of cast or creed (although that can be an issue in villages), but simlpy one of imagining what colour the grand children will be, and what the neighbours would say. For outsiders that may seem quite alien, and quite wrong, but in such a close knit society, where your entire life can be governed by the colour of your skin, it is no surprise that parents wish there children to find a fair partner .. much like Victorian British parents insisted on marrying people of similar or better class.