Drude
10th April 2006 - 10:45 AM
well, to respond to you (although it is pointless considering I am talking to a person with intelligence of a brick wall):
Considering your entire world revolves around race and you have apparently got a tendency to bitch about it, allow me to refute you.
QUOTE
White men have been selling the myth that blacks sold blacks just to make it seem that blacks sold blacks but thats bull ***.
Although again irrelevant to this whole discussion, apparently you have a nag for off-topic discussion. Very well then if you wish; since this is a science forum allow me to use science to shatter your 'I am the victim' image. There is no doubt in my mind that the spanish and the Potugease were the ones who contributed to the slave trade and were de facto responsible for its globalization. On that I agrue not. However, on the roots of the trade and where it originated a simple and systemic approach can disprove your theory. The initial spanish settlers were unable to penetrate Africa (which might explain why there were no authoritative colonies there up until later 1800s), none contorlled from a mother nation in Europe at least. Do you know why? Malaria. Malaria or the plasmodium that causes it enters the circulation and attacks the red blood cells causing their eruption. Africans by trade or perhaps through generations of trial and error evolved the sickle cell anemiae trait which gave them a partial (enough to make life possible) resistivity to malaria.
You see recessive gene for sickle cell anemia is toelrable in form of a heteozygous mixutre and it would allow its host to live (though with shortage of breath granted) but also would give him superb resistance to malaria. The early spanish explorer and later Portugease could not venture into Africa to look for slaves so instead they created all these economic islands (called Capes -- gold cape , etc.). The movement inland was virtually impossible for the whites because they did not yet have a cure or a preventative method for malaria and they did not genes that africans have acquired after generations of stay. So how did they just manage to find all those slaves? Simple, by using the old african tribial life style.
Africa has always been regarded as a place of lawlessness and wilderness, but it was in fact quite hierarchical with tribes governed by aristocrats or the tribesmen, followed by the priests or medicine men, and commoners. Tribes in africa used to fight (used to and still do) over the most trivial of matters from land use, to marriage, to more complex politial affiars, and once one tribe won a battle against the opposing tribe, it would ENSLAVE its enemy's soldiers or ranking members and sometimes perform rituals on them by either eating them (cannibalism) or simply using them for labor. When the white man first got access to the African shores it came to realize that the slave trade had a potential but in order to get access to more slaves, it needed regional allies and it used to recruit special tribes to find them slaves from contending tribes. This was the norm for the time being, before of coruse the slavery issue because so large a catasrophe for these Africans that they abondoned it (although not entirely) but the white man who was no addicted to the supply for its plantation and labor was deeply addicted.
So in short, since you most probably wont be able to digest all of that, No your claim is wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| White men have been selling the myth that blacks sold blacks just to make it seem that blacks sold blacks but thats bull ***. |
Although again irrelevant to this whole discussion, apparently you have a nag for off-topic discussion. Very well then if you wish; since this is a science forum allow me to use science to shatter your 'I am the victim' image. There is no doubt in my mind that the spanish and the Potugease were the ones who contributed to the slave trade and were de facto responsible for its globalization. On that I agrue not. However, on the roots of the trade and where it originated a simple and systemic approach can disprove your theory. The initial spanish settlers were unable to penetrate Africa (which might explain why there were no authoritative colonies there up until later 1800s), none contorlled from a mother nation in Europe at least. Do you know why? Malaria. Malaria or the plasmodium that causes it enters the circulation and attacks the red blood cells causing their eruption. Africans by trade or perhaps through generations of trial and error evolved the sickle cell anemiae trait which gave them a partial (enough to make life possible) resistivity to malaria.
You see recessive gene for sickle cell anemia is toelrable in form of a heteozygous mixutre and it would allow its host to live (though with shortage of breath granted) but also would give him superb resistance to malaria. The early spanish explorer and later Portugease could not venture into Africa to look for slaves so instead they created all these economic islands (called Capes -- gold cape , etc.). The movement inland was virtually impossible for the whites because they did not yet have a cure or a preventative method for malaria and they did not genes that africans have acquired after generations of stay. So how did they just manage to find all those slaves? Simple, by using the old african tribial life style.
Africa has always been regarded as a place of lawlessness and wilderness, but it was in fact quite hierarchical with tribes governed by aristocrats or the tribesmen, followed by the priests or medicine men, and commoners. Tribes in africa used to fight (used to and still do) over the most trivial of matters from land use, to marriage, to more complex politial affiars, and once one tribe won a battle against the opposing tribe, it would ENSLAVE its enemy's soldiers or ranking members and sometimes perform rituals on them by either eating them (cannibalism) or simply using them for labor. When the white man first got access to the African shores it came to realize that the slave trade had a potential but in order to get access to more slaves, it needed regional allies and it used to recruit special tribes to find them slaves from contending tribes. This was the norm for the time being, before of coruse the slavery issue because so large a catasrophe for these Africans that they abondoned it (although not entirely) but the white man who was no addicted to the supply for its plantation and labor was deeply addicted.
So in short, since you most probably wont be able to digest all of that, No your claim is wrong.
Also Don't forget hitler had the same color as your self and he killed millions.
yes, he killed millions, so did Stalin, so did Ghengis khan (and he was asian) , and so did Rwandans, and so did Saddam and so is Bush...and your point being? There is no question here that racism transcends beyond all races and cultures. Or perhaps it is more a desire for domination and sheer power and not racism but sometimes they are indistinguishable. Interestingly enough, behind every action that is interpreted as racist or heinous there is often an ideal and noble cause (at least in the eyes of a few): Stalin moved the ethnic groups because he believed in the better good of Communism and the idea of communal good over personal good, Hitler killed million because he was trying to rescue his country from international neglect, a post war economic depression, and a century old sense of inferiority which was plauging his country, Ghengis khan attacked and conquered most of the known world for the glory of his tribe which to him was something very important. Saddam killed many shiiats and kurds because in his narrow minded view, persians, and jews were worst than flies (although this one I REALLY dont think anybody but an arab can make sense of), Bush is doing what he is doing because he thinks he is doing it for the average american to help the country and protect it (no matter how badly he sucks at it). So the point is that yes there are horrid individuals in history, and color has little to play with it, but I mentioned the Rwandan massacre above because somehow in the tone of your voice I deduced that you meant to say that all blacks are innocent and non biased ppl which is far far from truth.
QUOTE
Whites raped black women slaves here in US and thats why they are called mutha fuckers
agains you generalize. This country has almost as many whites in it as there are countries in the world where white ppl come from. Middleast, Europe, south america, and australia to say the least. Your mentality is the typical uneducated neighbourhood black mentality that groups everybody else as 'white.'
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Whites raped black women slaves here in US and thats why they are called mutha fuckers |
agains you generalize. This country has almost as many whites in it as there are countries in the world where white ppl come from. Middleast, Europe, south america, and australia to say the least. Your mentality is the typical uneducated neighbourhood black mentality that groups everybody else as 'white.'
So whos more violent Whites are the most violent people on earth
You are absolutely cluless to the world affairs. In south Africa, there was a short period of horror and hate crimes propogated by the blacks against specially defensless white farmers. These crimes were NOT FOR MONEY, but simply for the unfortuante fact that these men were whites in a land of blacks. What diffrence is there between a black who kills innocent tax paying whites (who by the way supported nelson M. in south africa) in such a brutal manner and any other racist? You do not have a clue as to what I am talking about? Well, take a look at these pictures. The pictures are so horrid that I am not going to post them here but if you visit this site you would understand what your innocent black brotehrs are capable of and the amount of hate and idiocy that they have hidden in them. 3,000 of my brothers and sisters were killed by blacks. I should be the most furious here not you Then you would come to realize that whites are as "EVIL" as blacks. You would then come to realize that the issue of race is not important when bigotry is the matter.
[warning: Not suitable for children or people with faint heart](gore and blood warning)
http://www.africancrisis.org/photos16.asp QUOTE
Whites do most crimes and they are let go more easily while blacks end up in jail
Again, another stigma. You cant generalize US to the rest of the world. Also, there are more blacks in the prisons because there are more infractions on their part. Law is blind, and it is proven since they have and continue to expell any cop who has the slightest connection with a racial matter. So your claim is nothing more than whining. You dont want many black ppl to end in jail? Teach them to construct their family values around education, and hard work, not crack and grand autho theft.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Whites do most crimes and they are let go more easily while blacks end up in jail |
Again, another stigma. You cant generalize US to the rest of the world. Also, there are more blacks in the prisons because there are more infractions on their part. Law is blind, and it is proven since they have and continue to expell any cop who has the slightest connection with a racial matter. So your claim is nothing more than whining. You dont want many black ppl to end in jail? Teach them to construct their family values around education, and hard work, not crack and grand autho theft.
Whites came to Africa and massacred entire villages. Whites still preach peace in this age while selling weapons behind peoples backs . The guns that were used in Rwanda even the machetes are not manufactured in Africa
I beg to differ. Although I do agree with some unfortunate acts of crime and genocide by whites in Africa (most of whom were the spanish, needless to say the lowest of Europeans in economic social teaching at the time), there is more to this. Again, you are just giving me a general image of something that COULD have happend but I have no way of knowing do I? You dont offer specific cases, and I am sure there WERE cases where this happend but as I made clear it is the humanity's tendency to be biased and one-sided and we all have that either with race, or with the choice of our car, our house, our wivies and etc. So far as these biases are personal and do not harm or directly displease others, they are in my view fine and do not contribute to one's evillness but his or her uniquness.
I wont bother with this any longer, so hope this answers your questoin.
good luck.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.