|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
More liberal brainwashing
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| More liberal brainwashing
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| yamahafan1000 |
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
The vice principle told me.
Are you saying there is no racism in America?
PS: I do not post links to common knowledge. |
Well that is too bad. I know there is still racism, but it is not nearly as widespread as many believe. |
|
|
| yamahafan1000 |
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
mis
On the whole, Europe's colonization of Africa underdeveloped the country. Europeans had exploited the resources throughout the nation without making much progress in developing the colonies it controlled. Due to the slave trade and the virtual slavery in many of the European colonies in Africa, the number of inhabitants in Africa dropped significantly, leaving an insufficient number of natives to cultivate and develop the country, particularly after the African countries had gained their independence. For example, scholars estimate that due to the cruelties perpretrated in the Belgian Congo, Leopold II reduced the area's population by at least 50%. [13] Many Africans also did not have a sufficient education to rule a country, either, and the arbitrary bounderies of colonies set during "the Scramble" had originally been made regardless of indigenous ethnic diversity, preventing the formation of unified national spirit necessary to start a new country. |
So some questions to be answered. How many power lines were installed before colonization?
How many schools were built?
How many hospitals were built?
Why were they not educated?
Who educated the Europeans on how to run a country?
The fact they they did not have enoug people is a crock. The slave trade at the time it was common for africans to enslave other Africans the way they do now. Except they did not do large scale farming so the men were often just killed. The African slave owners were thrilled to have a way to sell off their excess slaves.
Take a look at the population of the colnized countries before conlonization and after. ALL African countries saw massive increases in population DURING colonization.
That being said it has obviously proven to be a disaster and the last part about not paying attention to ethnic boundaries are still a problem to this day. A refusal on the part of our government (and othes) to not recognize the complexities of ethnic strife will continue to be a major problem for us in the future. |
|
|
| yamahafan1000 |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Fuck Uganda or Nigeria neglecting their population. What about the Good Ole USA and New Orleans??? |
The point is that blacks are poor wherever they are not just the US, to look only at the US is to miss the big picture.
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Can you believe this fucking idiot actually makes a case that colonization was _Good_ for the subjugated countries. The irony is, he's trying to explain to us why Black people's IQ's are low... |
Slavery was stupid and colonization was stupid. I don't know how to make this point any clearer.
Did you read the article yet? |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by yamahafan1000
However since that time, after 50 years of bending over backwards to try to improve the outcomes for blacks we have little to show for it. The costs of the social programs (Affirmative Action, Welfare, Section 8 housing, Head Start etc.) have totalled in the Trillions (1993 Article in Forbes Magazin by Peter Brimlow puts the cost of Affirmative Action alone at 350 BILLION per year).
So if all is well lets do away with Affirmative action, Section 8 housing, Welfare, Food Stamps, Minority hiring quotas.
|
First you say the programs don't work then you say if they are working we should do away with them.
I am through arguing with a border line mental retard.
Yes I have worked with poor white kids. Guess what not everyone who is poor in America is a minority. I treat them the same as any other kid in my class. |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
Multi-national corporations are at the forefront of the most horrific environmental degradation and human rights abuses occurring in Africa today. A significant portion of the raw materials in America still come from Africa today. Of course, U.S. corporations would never be able to rape Africa without the funding of dictatorships and provision of military arms by the US government. American economist talk about the invisible hand of the market and Africans feel the impact of the invisible fist. Trade between the U.S. and Africa has always stood at direct contradiction with social services and human needs. From agriculture to industry, the impact of U.S. corporations has worsened since colonization, as trade agreements are signed by puppet leaders that are put in power to represent corporate interest. Sound familiar?
The African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), which has been referred to as the NAFTA (North-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) of Africa, was created to grant duty (tax) free imports to products shipped between the U.S. and Africa. Initially passed by former President Clinton in 2000 to extend "benefits" until 2007, AGOA has most recently been extended by President Bush until 2015. AGOA is the only U.S. trade agreement, multi-lateral or bi-lateral, requiring countries to meet an extensive list of unilateral conditions (conditionalities) before being granted the "benefits" of the agreement. These conditionalities include but are not limited to:
* removal of price controls and subsidies while the US continues to subsidize its products for hundreds of billions of dollars yearly,
* insistence on trade liberalization and elimination of barriers to US trade and investment,
* privatization of social services such as water, even in places that experience frequent droughts,
* reduction in government ownership of economic assets and protection of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) and
* refrain from activities that undermine US foreign policy objectives.
One of AGOA's main selling points was that it would help African countries develop its textile industry. Yet, under the AGOA bill as framed by the Clinton administration, yarn and fabric used to make textiles and apparels had to be made either in the U.S. or an eligible African country. As a consequence, African countries were forced to pay high prices for thread and yarn from US factories, have it shipped to Africa to be sewn, and then re-shipped to the US for sale. The Bush administration has made some improvements in this area, granting access to imported apparels made with U.S. fabric or yarn and any apparel wholly assembled in Africa. Even with all the hype, textiles and apparels account for less than 5% of total AGOA sales. Oil sales from just two west African countries--Nigeria and Gabon--accounted for over 90% of total AGOA sales in the first nine months of 2001. African Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) have organized campaigns in response to AGOA, calling the agreement colonial, anti-democratic, and economically disastrous for Africa. AGOA's main purpose is to give U.S. corporations access to slave labor and tax-free energy-related imports to US markets. Africans are worse off and less revenue is generated from US imports. AGOA should be renamed the American Growth Opportunity Act.
Another agreement that is similar and colonial in nature is the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). NEPAD is also centered on trade liberalization, privatization, and deregulation. Unlike AGOA which primarily focuses on trade between US and Africa, NEPAD is an economic "development" plan that opens African markets to the U.S. and to Africa's former colonial masters in Europe. Funded by the G8 countries (the seven largest economies and Russia), NEPAD's dictates naturally come from the G8. Agreements between the G8 countries and Africa have increased income inequality globally and within Africa to the highest levels in the world. South Africa, for example, recently surpassed Brazil as having the highest inequality of distribution of wealth of any country in the world.
Another characteristic that is similar about all of the trade agreements regardless of who's in the White House is the environmental degradation and injustices in Africa. In 1995, Ken Saro Wiwa, an environmentalist and human rights activist, was hung with 8 other leaders ("The Ogoni Nine") by the dictatorship of Sani Abacha for peaceful protest against Shell Oil in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. Gas flares—the burning of natural gas and waste into the atmosphere in the process of extracting crude oil—has produced a severe pollution crisis in the Niger Delta. Nigeria, with flaring rates of 75% (the highest in the world) while other oil producing nations flare at 3%, is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming and sea level rising. Environmental abuse and oil spills in Ogoni have resulted in:
* the destruction of trees, seasonal fishing, and farming
* flooding, acid rain, and contamination of water supplies
* an increase in prostitution traffic with high paid male oil workers
* respiratory illnesses
* hearing loss
* childbirth defects
* skin problems
* an increase in violence due to bribes to the military by oil companies to suppress dissent.
Even though $300 billion worth of oil has been pumped from the Niger delta in the last four decades, the Ogoni people are among the poorest on the continent. Once self-sufficient, the Ogoni now have to rely on multinational oil companies for their survival. Since the Nigerian government receives over 90% of its revenue from oil, gas flaring will likely continue until it becomes profitable for multinational oil corporations to mitigate flares. For all the trade agreements and environmental and human sacrifice, Africa's share of world trade is currently 1%—less than half what it was in 1980. Trade agreements from the West and Europe prevent the development of intra-African trade, which could create additional markets for African products. Africa's heavy dependence on exports of primary commodities and imports of finished goods expose the continent to environmental abuse, price volatilities, and huge trade deficits, resulting in increased debt obligations.
DEBT
Odious debts have plagued Africa since it gained "independence" from Europe. Most of Africa's debts are owed to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB), celebrating its 60th birthday this year since conception at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944. Africa will not be partaking in this celebration. In reality the conditions of the IMF and WB debts have existed long before 1944. In 1804, after Haiti had fought for and won independence from its French colonizers, it was soon burdened with debt of 90 million gold francs in 1825, supposedly representing lost revenues by France in the absence of colonization. Today, Africa's debt to the IMF and WB stands at over $300 billion. It is likely that this number represents lost revenues for Europe and America since the monies have not benefited Africa but resulted in increased poverty. $15 billion is transferred yearly from the poorest countries in Africa and the world to the richest countries in the form of interest payments. African countries have seen interest rates balloon to the upper 40% in hard economic times while the U.S. Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to 1% during recessions. African countries are unjustly required to develop economically under conditions opposite to those under which Europe and America developed.
In order to qualify for IMF and WB loans, African countries have to abide by structural adjustment programs (SAP's) which have five main characteristics:
* Reduction of government spending on health, education, and social programs
* Privatization and deregulation of state owned enterprises
* Devaluation of currency to increase earnings for exports
* Liberalization of imports to open markets to foreign goods and removal of restrictions on foreign investments
* Lowering of wages and elimination of mechanisms protecting labor.
These initiatives, intended to help African countries develop, instead undermined African economies and social programs, increasing poverty while opening up markets to multi-national corporations. SAP's are designed to transform economies from local-market producers to globalized models of production and export for hard currency used to pay interest on debt. The IMF and WB loans are set up to only make interest payments so that the ever-increasing principal is never paid off. Most of the loans have been paid off two, three, or four times over but the payments have gone to interest alone.
Even though SAP's were instituted under the Reagan administration, it was not until the 1990's that, under the Clinton administration (with the help of the WTO and increased military funding) that the IMF and WB became most devastating to Africa. According to the Jubilee debt campaign, the 1990's saw escalating trade liberalization policies which resulted in record lost jobs and a destruction of livelihoods. In 1997, in response to the public outcry for debt relief to alleviate the devastating policies of the SAP's, the IMF and WB instituted the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). In its aim to reduce debt levels in Africa to sustainable measures, HIPC has been an utter failure, as countries are still required to follow SAP's to qualify for HIPC. Some countries have seen their debt level rise under HIPC. Since Uganda's HIPC "debt reduction," its debt has ballooned 279%, 80% of which was borrowed for IMF and WB SAP's. Although Uganda's finance minister, Gerald Ssendaula, warned that debt levels should be limited to $200 million/year to be sustainable, Uganda has another $1.2 billion of loans in the pipeline. Debt is one of the ways that Africa's former colonial masters keep a stronghold on the continent, even if it means forced lending for projects that don't exist. Iraq is receiving debt cancellation, supposedly because its debts were incurred under a dictatorship. Most of Africa's debts were incurred under dictatorships that were put in power by the same countries collecting interest on that debt. This vicious cycle has led to an economic destabilization that furthers political instability and warfare. |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
| The first and only democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba was murdered a few months after taking office—by the Belgian government with the support of the CIA and UN "peacekeepers"—for advocating economic independence from the U.S. and Europe. After Lumumba's assassination, the CIA installed the dictatorship of Mobutu Seko, who ruled for over 31 years, killing thousands and looting billions. Ronald Reagan referred to Mobutu as the best friend of the U.S. in Africa. Mobutu's brutal dictatorship was overthrown by Laurent Kabila in 1997. During ongoing civil wars, Kabila was assassinated in 2001 and succeeded by his son Joseph Kabila, the youngest President/dictator in the world, at 32 years of age. Instead of describing the Congo as a breeding ground for mindless tribal killings, the country would be more accurately described as caught in the middle of competition between the U.S. and Europe for strategic control of one of the richest areas of mineral and land wealth in the world. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
First you say the programs don't work then you say if they are working we should do away with them.
I am through arguing with a border line mental retard.
Yes I have worked with poor white kids. Guess what not everyone who is poor in America is a minority. I treat them the same as any other kid in my class. |
He's doing the same thing regarding colonization. First he says that colonization is good; they built roads, hospitals, power lines and got the diamonds out of the ground, then he says that this was bad and a disaster...
The jackoff has the nerve to post a piece from Jensen, an acknowledged controversial figure about hereditary IQ, then get all huffy when it's pointed out that the issue is in dispute and _we_ should provide evidence contrary to the nut job he came up with...
I'll disagree with _you_ on one point. He's no "border-line" retaaaard. He's a first class retaaaard. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Turbo_Nerd_Eric
The first and only democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba was murdered a few months after taking office—by the Belgian government with the support of the CIA and UN "peacekeepers"—for advocating economic independence from the U.S. and Europe. After Lumumba's assassination, the CIA installed the dictatorship of Mobutu Seko, who ruled for over 31 years, killing thousands and looting billions. Ronald Reagan referred to Mobutu as the best friend of the U.S. in Africa. Mobutu's brutal dictatorship was overthrown by Laurent Kabila in 1997. During ongoing civil wars, Kabila was assassinated in 2001 and succeeded by his son Joseph Kabila, the youngest President/dictator in the world, at 32 years of age. Instead of describing the Congo as a breeding ground for mindless tribal killings, the country would be more accurately described as caught in the middle of competition between the U.S. and Europe for strategic control of one of the richest areas of mineral and land wealth in the world. |
What the matter with Zimbabwe? Why can't they get their shit together?
http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Zimb.html
The land of Zimbabwe was settled by the British in 1890 and named Rhodesia after its founder, Cecil John Rhodes. Formation of this colony was seen as a continuation of the British Empire's plan to bring the whole of the "uncivilized worlds under British rule." Rhodes believed that the English had an inherent right to imperial rule because they were the "first race in the world and therefore the more of the world (they) inhabited, the better it would be for the human race" (Nyangoni 19). This ideology of innate British superiority served as justification for their discriminatory colonial policies. In the colony of Rhodesia the native Africans were ruled by an all-white government in which they were not allowed to participate. Only whites were granted the right to vote and elect the leaders governing their land. Laws were passed which prohibited the presence of Africans in many public places. Ordinances allowed for inequitable distribution the land that provided Zimbabwe's large population of farmers with sustenance. Under these ordinances, 6000 whites seized the best half of the land while the worst half was left to the 600,000 black peasant farmers (Chung 211). During the colonial rule that extended from 1890 to 1979, the white minority dominated and oppressed the native population and divested them of their land. |
|
|
|
|
|
