On Aug 28, 3:20Â am, "E.C Smith"
way.com> wrote:> "Odious"
cox.net.nospam> wrote
>>> Again you need to study up on colonial and imperialist methods of
>> population control.
>> Controlling education, and building in dependence are part of the process.
>> There were people here in the US that didn't want British control to end.
>> That's how colonialism and imperialism work.
>
>> Now with their resources plundered, these populations have to learn to be
>> nations all over again. Â Societies and cultures that took hundreds and
>> thousands of years to build are not going to be rebuilt overnight.
Hmm ...
Do you want me to go through the exercise of demolishing this
university students article as it relates to your biologically based
claim of white superiority? Here's a free clue: Whenever someone
starts off with the comment that the opposing side has strong
arguments that you won't deal with, you have a problem. In this case,
what you have is a poorly informed opinion piece.
"Recently, as part of an academic assignment at school [STUDENT], I
was engaged in an intellectual debate with a few colleagues. We were
seeking answers to the roots of Africa´s problems. It was an
interesting discussion for me. Shockingly, the majority of my
colleagues subscribed to the idea that the major cause of Africa´s
social-political and economic problems was the legacy left behind by
the colonial masters. As far as they were concerned, the colonialists
ruined Africa for good. [NOTE THE FOLLOWING] For the records, they had
some strong arguments to support their claims. I do not intend to go
into that."
Here's another weakness:
"The Europeans colonized Africa about 400 years ago. "
That is not accurate. There was a very small presence of Europeans on
the African coasts primarily to support the slave trade and there was
really nothing that could be called colonization until after the
colonizing countries met in Berlin, Germany to discuss the ground
rules for colonizing the continent in 1884. Imperialism is the better
description for Europe's relationship before then.
Then there is this totally invalid comparison:
"Colonialism cannot explain Third World poverty. Some of today's
richest countries are former colonies, such as the United States,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Some of today's poorest
countries were never colonies, such as Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Nepal
and Bhutan. The colonialism argument is simply a cover-up for African
dictators and people."
Nothing about the histories of the United States, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand and Hong Kong's colonization or development has any
relationship to Africa. After saying yes they were once colonies,
nothing else is applicable. You don't seem to know much about
American History or this would have been glaringly obvious. There is
also the equally invalid implication that because there are poor
nations that weren't colonies, colonization isn't the basis for a very
substantial part of Africa's problems.
I'm not going to take the time to deeply critique this deeply flawed
article, but there is a lot more. For instance, there are the
consequences of the United States and the former USSR using emerging
African states as proxies in a power struggle.
You keep throwing shit at the wall and it doesn't stick. It just
falls down and stinks. Where is the biological evidence for white
superiority? Having problems?
Vance
