US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[The Mad Viking]

Last chance, Nicki.

Are you an ******* or a man?

I said

Look, I'm pretty certain by now I will never change anything you believe. I have yet to see you alter any opinion you have posited, or give any ground to anyone, ever, on 'Poly.

and you responded

Incorrect, just because you have not *seen* it does not mean it has not occured. Logical thought is just not your thing baby...

I repeat, both my statements are factually correct.

You are absolutely and irrevocably wrong when you said those statements were "incorrect."

Read the statements again, one at a time, carefully.

You will see that both statements are actually impossible for you to refute.

Can you admit you were wrong?

Reading comprehension is just not your thing, baby.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Last chance, Nicki.

Or what you will yet again not reply?, and slink of in a sulk?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Are you an ******* or a man?.

Not mutch of a choice, the latter is gender based, the former is a meanless. Can i have a better range of choice please, actually any modicum of choice would be nice.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
I said

Look, I'm pretty certain by now I will never change anything you believe. I have yet to see you alter any opinion you have posited, or give any ground to anyone, ever, on 'Poly.

and you responded

Incorrect, just because you have not *seen* it does not mean it has not occured. Logical thought is just not your thing baby...

I repeat, both my statements are factually correct.

So what if they are?, the conclusion you reached is incorrect. It is based on faulty logic, you state every post i have posted results in a certain viewpoint of agreement or disagreemnt, lets call that heads or tails for agree or disagree. You further say since every post of mine you have seen reults in one of those, leading you to conclude i do not modify by belief.

Your argument and logic runs that under observation a poster will always diasgree with me and hence will not modify his belief, and that future posts will bear this out because of past posts and their content.

so your the kind of person who watches a coin being tossed and see it turn up tails 9 times i a row to conclude that the odds are greater that it will do so again, everone else *knows* the ods are 50/50, so your logic is flawed.

Now we canb look at the content on the posts, if you made a valid argument you would modify my posistion, for instance, when i mention the US study of happiness of former slaves you could counter with the point that they were comparing their childhod memorys, based on the age group in the study, with old age, hapiness being relative to circamstance its aplausable argument to make that they compared happiness as a slave child to old age freedom in time of hardship and that reduces the value of my claim for thier perception. But your posts content does not contain valuable argument.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
You are absolutely and irrevocably wrong when you said those statements were "incorrect."

Your opinion, one not supported with anything more than your say so.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Read the statements again, one at a time, carefully.

You will see that both statements are actually impossible for you to refute.

Actually i think if you read my posts i have done so, and pointed out that your conclusion, based on faulty logic is equally incorrect. Go9sh i can do the impossible...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Were slaves useful? Of course.

Did people want to have slaves so they could be wealthy and powerful? Of course.

Did they "need" them? Not in my (perhaps) limited understanding of the word.

But surely the whole point about the Western system of slavery was that it was at heart an integral part of an economic system (I'll just refer myself to the trans-Atlantic trade, as its industrial scale and raison d'etre appears to surpass that of the older Arab-African trade)?

It was not done to 'punish' the combatants of another civilization, nor to punish defenders of a city (as the Mongols did with 'useful' inhabitants of cities that did not wisely surrender).

It was part of the evolving economic structures of Western Europe (interestingly enough the first European power to employ black African slaves on sugar plantations appears to have been the Venetian Republic on Cyprus).

The enslavement of black Africans-and the ostensible 'reasons' for enslaving them- altered from the end of the 17th Century onwards, along with developments in European and North American (and by extension South American transplants of European civilization) culture (an increase in tea and coffee and chocolate drinking, the growth in sugar consumption, a growing taste for rum and molasses, a fashion for black servants, improvements in technology such as the cotton gin, the fashion for new materials).

When a reluctance to enslave fellow 'white' Europeans grew (and it should be remembered that European countries had galley slaves too- criminals and victims of religious prejudice such as French Huguenots) then reasons had to be found to justify the enslavement of black Africans, so the circular reasonings I've cited earlier were created, and then elaborated with religious and pseudo-scientific supports.

A lot of people unsurprisingly, like being rich; and like getting something for nothing or relatively little.

Look, Arnold J. Toynbee said the following:

"When we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary races...which has not made a creative contribution to any of our twenty-one civilizations is the black race."

Well even Toynbee can make howlers, and as they go that's a peach.

It's strange, because I've read his book on the world's great cities, and he references ones that people would be perhaps surprised and pleased to discover, such as Safavid Isfahan.

Even so, we are all products of our times; it was perhaps either that he was genuinely unaware of research or discoveries into the history of black Africa, or that he 'chose' not to be aware, as it were.

I do find it difficult to understand how he could not see the contributions made by African artists, given the creative ferment inspired by the holdings of Western European museums and galleries at the beginning of the 20th Century.

I still am in awe of sculptures such as these, despite nearly thirty years of familiarity with them:

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Well even Toynbee can make howlers, and as they go that's a peach.

It's strange, because I've read his book on the world's great cities, and he references ones that people would be perhaps surprised and pleased to discover, such as Safavid Isfahan.

Even so, we are all products of our times; it was perhaps either that he was genuinely unaware of research or discoveries into the history of black Africa, or that he 'chose' not to be aware, as it were.

I do find it difficult to understand how he could not see the contributions made by African artists, given the creative ferment inspired by the holdings of Western European museums and galleries at the beginning of the 20th Century.

He prefaced that comment with his understand of climate and how geography influences the rise of civilization, much like Jarred has also done but arriving at different conclusions, he (Toynbee) concluded that " Since Africans and other "dark races" resided in an easier climates" and then goes on to provide the qoute used, he exresses his believe that Negros had not contributed to the rise of civilization as one would expect.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nickiow


Since Africans and other "dark races" resided in an easier climates" and then goes on to provide the qoute used, he exresses his believe that Negros had not contributed to the rise of civilization as one would expect.

Strange, given that easier climates didn't restrict South East Asian civilizations, but I can see what he may have been reaching for.

Still, it means effectively ignoring any sub-Saharan black civilization, such as Nok, Ife, Jenne-Jenno, any of the West African states, such as the Empire of Ghana, Mali, ancient Zimbabwe, Abyssinia, Nubia, Meroe, Monomutapa, the East African Swahili trading states, and so on.

And of course, the black African pharoahs such as Piankhy...


Perhaps he wasn't up on his Herodotus either (which seems hard to fathom...)


More (gratuitous) African art, just because I like it:

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Strange, given that easier climates didn't restrict South East Asian civilizations, but I can see what he may have been reaching for.

Still, it means effectively ignoring any sub-Saharan black civilization, such as Nok, Ife, Jenne-Jenno, any of the West African states, such as the Empire of Ghana, Mali, ancient Zimbabwe, Abyssinia, Nubia, Meroe, Monomutapa, the East African Swahili trading states, and so on.

And of course, the black African pharoahs such as Piankhy...


Perhaps he wasn't up on his Herodotus either (which seems hard to fathom...)


More (gratuitous) African art, just because I like it:

I *think* here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrocentrism is where Viking was coming from, but cant be sure.

Toynbee has been called a cutural racist, in his time that is probably incorrect, and in todays time probably correct, while its impossible to be certain, im fairly sure he was not racist, given his thoughts and other written works on jews/armenians etc.

Yes i agree that he chose to ignore much of intrest, the 21 later 26 civs he chose to examine were cherry picked, he was looking for *why* they fell, from internal decline rather than external reasons, and as we both suspect, we would have a hard time looking up what he did or did not know about African states.
For instance, i have no idea what he knew about some of them.

http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/hum211/timelines/htimeline3.htm

But he was very well read on primary sources, islam for instance he comments that racism based on colour simply did not exist in the 7-9 centurys.

[Az]

I am sorry to barge in on a discussion, but what on earth is a cultural racist?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
I am sorry to barge in on a discussion, but what on earth is a cultural racist?

One who hates you for your skin colour/ethnicity and because you can read....

[Dr Strangelove]

The influence of disease may have had something to do with the sub-saharan Africa's political instability and lack of technological progress prior to the modern age. Consider that while Europe and Asia have been subject to the ravages of epidemic diseases like bubonic plague and smallpox, most of Africa has historically suffered from the continual devastating effect of malaria and encephalitis. These diseases are endemic, they don't come and go, they're present continuously. Malaria in particular can sap a person's vitality for years and years without killing.

The geography of Africa also interferes with political expansion and stability. Large swaths of Africa used to be occupied by animals populations difficult for peoplle armed only with bows and spears to displace and/or subdue. The grasslands of Africa hosted huge numbers of elephants, hoofed beasts and large predators. Yes, I know that other cultures, i.e., the Indians, subdued biomes occupied by elephants and big cats, but those regions were forests. The number of large animals in those areas was probably much smaller, and the cutting of the forest reduced their numbers.

Most people don't realise that temperate climates are generally more hospitable to agrculture than tropical ones. The evaporation index in tropical Africa is generally 4 times more than in temperate Europe. That means that 10 or 20 inches of rain annually is all that is neccessary to maintain the water table in Europe, but in Africa even 40 inches of rain per annum may be insufficient to prevent cycles of drought. Also having a period of winter dormancy helps replenish nitrogen and other nutrients in temperate soils. Tropical soils don't get that relief and therefore are more easily depleted.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Az
I am sorry to barge in on a discussion, but what on earth is a cultural racist?

No problem.

What the qoute used by Toynbee is refering to was his use of comparaitve history, a fairly new concept when he used it and one found to have wide appeal and intrest. He was not a racist himself, nor was his intent to disparage or denigrate other cultures or civilizations, meerly use a method of study to prove his theorys of how and why civilizations fall, ie from internal conflicts, racism and nationlism being part of those conflicts a society was unable to control.

When Dr M L King gave talks useing Toynbee works he was not saying the work was a racist attack from science on negros, but that others were useing it as such. Its those and science itself, MLK and Malcom X comment on, for instance if a study concludes negros bone density is heavier than caucasion and this co9ntributes to them being less efiecent swimmers, its not a racist study but simply facts, what negros objected to was not the fatcs, but how, and why they were collected and used, ie intent.

If Toynbee had deliberatly set out to make a point that negros civilization was inferior to others on a set of bench marks, then he would be a cultural racist. which you would gety the impresion from by reading Wiki, but he was not, and MLK and others did not claim he was, they did however make the point that racist attitude existed in the scientific methods of some, and that this also must change.

An example of cultural racism would be the Uk BNP use of Toynbee works on the inteliegence of negros compared to whites, comparative achievements of non white civilizations and so on to argue the superiority of the white race over others, and of course that white culture is superior.

Facts are always neading to be intpretatated, if the intent of that intpretatation is to denigrate, insult etc then its a racist intpretation, but if its to simply show that level of difference bewteen them, its a celibration of diversification of mankind, and not racist al all.

Does that help?.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The influence of disease may have had something to do with the sub-saharan Africa's political instability and lack of technological progress prior to the modern age. Consider that while Europe and Asia have been subject to the ravages of epidemic diseases like bubonic plague and smallpox, most of Africa has historically suffered from the continual devastating effect of malaria and encephalitis. These diseases are endemic, they don't come and go, they're present continuously. Malaria in particular can sap a person's vitality for years and years without killing.

The geography of Africa also interferes with political expansion and stability. Large swaths of Africa used to be occupied by animals populations difficult for peoplle armed only with bows and spears to displace and/or subdue. The grasslands of Africa hosted huge numbers of elephants, hoofed beasts and large predators. Yes, I know that other cultures, i.e., the Indians, subdued biomes occupied by elephants and big cats, but those regions were forests. The number of large animals in those areas was probably much smaller, and the cutting of the forest reduced their numbers.

Most people don't realise that temperate climates are generally more hospitable to agrculture than tropical ones. The evaporation index in tropical Africa is generally 4 times more than in temperate Europe. That means that 10 or 20 inches of rain annually is all that is neccessary to maintain the water table in Europe, but in Africa even 40 inches of rain per annum may be insufficient to prevent cycles of drought. Also having a period of winter dormancy helps replenish nitrogen and other nutrients in temperate soils. Tropical soils don't get that relief and therefore are more easily depleted.

In recent years Toynbee comparative approach has been replaced by other methods, it vwas soon attacked anyway by people such as h T Roper as being of limited value but a good read non the less, so as to avoid the appearance of white supremist science, Jared Diamond (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...809350-0796726 Guns germs and steel for instance avoids this while at the same time addressing what Toynbee was after, and more3 often than not concluding the same as Toynbee, but from adifferent raft of facts.

I mentioned earlier to you about grain/cotton from the India and Egypt compared to the US after Suez, since you mention weather effects i would recommend this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...809350-0796726) as it expalins the El ninio effect that Pres Grant commented on on his world tour which his iternary followed around the globe. It also has the data i mentioned about crop yields and export.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom



One who hates you for your skin colour/ethnicity and because you can read....

He would also not tell you he hated you, just point out *why* you were not his equal, while being surprised you could read.

[Sikander]

I'm not a racist, I'm a cultural bigot!

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Sikander
I'm not a racist, I'm a cultural bigot!

Always important to know what you are.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The influence of disease may have had something to do with the sub-saharan Africa's political instability and lack of technological progress prior to the modern age. Consider that while Europe and Asia have been subject to the ravages of epidemic diseases like bubonic plague and smallpox, most of Africa has historically suffered from the continual devastating effect of malaria and encephalitis. These diseases are endemic, they don't come and go, they're present continuously. Malaria in particular can sap a person's vitality for years and years without killing.

The geography of Africa also interferes with political expansion and stability. Large swaths of Africa used to be occupied by animals populations difficult for peoplle armed only with bows and spears to displace and/or subdue. The grasslands of Africa hosted huge numbers of elephants, hoofed beasts and large predators. Yes, I know that other cultures, i.e., the Indians, subdued biomes occupied by elephants and big cats, but those regions were forests. The number of large animals in those areas was probably much smaller, and the cutting of the forest reduced their numbers.

Most people don't realise that temperate climates are generally more hospitable to agrculture than tropical ones. The evaporation index in tropical Africa is generally 4 times more than in temperate Europe. That means that 10 or 20 inches of rain annually is all that is neccessary to maintain the water table in Europe, but in Africa even 40 inches of rain per annum may be insufficient to prevent cycles of drought. Also having a period of winter dormancy helps replenish nitrogen and other nutrients in temperate soils. Tropical soils don't get that relief and therefore are more easily depleted.

The book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond devotes a whole section to Africa. It's worth a read if anyone is interested.