Political Crossfire Forums

[Kalu]

Quote: I am quite aware of the legacy of colonialism. I have probably forgotten more about African history then you know.

I simply choose not to feel guilty over it.

So I guess we should forget about the holocaust too, right? Who cares about who was hurt by it, it's done now, eh? Also, I don't care if you know about more African history than me. Your inaction/lack of care makes that knowledge worthless.

Quote: Much like your forefathers butchered and displaced the Native American indians. Tell me, what have you done to atone for that sin? Have you apologised to the native people? Have you surrendered your stolen land to them? If not, why haven't you?

We're discussing British colonialism and Mr. Brown's statements about it. Thank you for keeping on subject and following our argument instead of butting in like an ass. Oh wait.... :roll:

Quote: It is the truth...it is hypocritical to condemn the very system that one willingly benefits from.

It's even worse not to question that system and try to improve it. Again, I must also repoint you to British colonialism and Mr. Brown's statements. Ignoring colonialism is much worse than "being hypocritical" and trying to repair the damage and accept what was done that was wrong.

Quote: Tell me Mr. Ohio who lives in a nation created on the blood of Native indians. Have you apologised to the native people? Have you surrendered your stolen land to them? If not, why haven't you?

I do not deny the Native American genocide and in fact I've often tried to teach people about it. It should be remembered so we do not commit the same mistakes over again since of course, we are humans and can reason.

What you're basically saying is to ignore everything since it's all bad. Yes, brilliant plan. :roll:

EDIT:

Quote: Have you surrendered your stolen land to them? If not, why haven't you?

Am I telling you, thunder, or any other British person to go to Africa, eat grass and work all day to help the people there? No. I'm simply pointing out the legacy of colonialism and that one should be more understanding due to the problems created by colonialism. And that we should accept the wrong and try to help if possible, the people hurt. You don't have to give up your life helping people, you just have to recognize what was done wrong, be understanding and sensitive to it and then try and take steps of action.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: We're discussing British colonialism and Mr. Brown's statements about it. Thank you for keeping on subject and following our argument instead of butting in like an ass. Oh wait....

Then why did you bring up the holocaust? That had nothing to with British colonialism! Maybe you should practice what you preach and stay on topic! :roll:

Quote: Ignoring colonialism is much worse than "being hypocritical" and trying to repair the damage and accept what was done that was wrong.

Show me what damage I have done and I will glady repair it.

Quote: I do not deny the Native American genocide and in fact I've often tried to teach people about it. It should be remembered so we do not commit the same mistakes over again since of course, we are humans and can reason.

Have you apologised for it?

Quote: What you're basically saying is to ignore everything since it's all bad. Yes, brilliant plan.

How was colonialism bad for me?

Quote: You don't have to give up your life helping people, you just have to recognize what was done wrong, be understanding and sensitive to it and then try and take steps of action.

You show me what damage I have caused and I will take steps to rectify it.

[Kalu]

Quote: Then why did you bring up the holocaust? That had nothing to with British colonialism! Maybe you should practice what you preach and stay on topic!

Here's the quote in context:

Quote: So I guess we should forget about the holocaust too, right? Who cares about who was hurt by it, it's done now, eh? Also, I don't care if you know about more African history than me. Your inaction/lack of care makes that knowledge worthless.


:roll:

You first went off topic by getting into a philosophical discussion with me instead of discussing Mr. Brown's comments and the legacy of colonialism.

Quote: Show me what damage I have done and I will glady repair it.
You didn't do anything personally. Reread my posts.

Quote: Have you apologised for it?

My mom is a Cuban immigrant and my father is a Sri Lankan immigrant. And I already explained to you what I do. We must never forget the past and instead of being insensitive we should be understanding.

Quote: How was colonialism bad for me?

...

Quote: Oh, so you're saying we should be quiet about everything and not recognize the damage done in the past since we're reaping the benefits of it? Huh? We shouldn't examine our mistakes and then perhaps help those hurt by the lasting effects of colonialism? Yeah, okay.

Quote: You show me what damage I have caused and I will take steps to rectify it.

You personally have not done anything wrong. But the legacy of colonialism still exists and so as an ethical human (I hope), you should recognize what was done wrong in the past and then perhaps help those hurt by it.

Anyways, for the last time:

This is not a philosophical discussion on when, how and why we should help people. It's about Mr. Brown, his comments and the colonial legacy. I'd like to return to the subject at hand (the one we were on before you butted in and went into philosophical discourse).

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: My mom is a Cuban immigrant and my father is a Sri Lankan immigrant. And I already explained to you what I do. We must never forget the past and instead of being insensitive we should be understanding.

Are you an American? Do you reap the benefits that America offers? If so, have you apologised to the native indians for building a life on their ancestral blood? If not, why not?

Quote: You didn't do anything personally. Reread my posts.

Then why should I have to repair damage that I did not do?

Quote: You first went off topic by getting into a philosophical discussion with me instead of discussing Mr. Brown's comments and the legacy of colonialism.

And how does this negate your going off-topic as well?

[Kalu]

Voice of Reason wrote: Quote: My mom is a Cuban immigrant and my father is a Sri Lankan immigrant. And I already explained to you what I do. We must never forget the past and instead of being insensitive we should be understanding.

Are you an American? Do you reap the benefits that America offers? If so, have you apologised to the native indians for building a life on their ancestral blood? If not, why not?

Quote: You didn't do anything personally. Reread my posts.

Then why should I have to repair damage that I did not do?

Reread my posts.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Reread my posts.

Are you an American? Do you reap the benefits that America offers? If so, have you apologised to the native indians for building a life on their ancestral blood? If not, why not?

[Kalu]

Voice of Reason wrote: Quote: Reread my posts.

Are you an American? Do you reap the benefits that America offers? If so, have you apologised to the native indians for building a life on their ancestral blood? If not, why not?

Quote: Am I telling you, thunder, or any other British person to go to Africa, eat grass and work all day to help the people there? No. I'm simply pointing out the legacy of colonialism and that one should be more understanding due to the problems created by colonialism. And that we should accept the wrong and try to help if possible, the people hurt. You don't have to give up your life helping people, you just have to recognize what was done wrong, be understanding and sensitive to it and then try and take steps of action.

Returning to the subject of Mr. Brown, his comments and the colonial legacy... :roll:

Quote: And how does this negate your going off-topic as well?

You're right. It was wrong of me to be goaded into going off topic with you. Returning to the subject at hand...

Quote: Then why should I have to repair damage that I did not do?

You don't have to repair anything. It's your decision as a human with the ability to reason and decide what is ethical and what is not. If you believe in Christianity or some other religion, then you're probably told to repair wrongs. If you don't believe in anything and don't care, then you don't have to do anything.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Returning to the subject of Mr. Brown, his comments and the colonial legacy...

In otherwords you have not apologised for colonial acts committed by your countrymen. Hmmmm....sounds like a familiar position? :roll:

Anyway, feel free to start...I welcome a good debate on the issue.

[Kalu]

Voice of Reason wrote: Quote: Returning to the subject of Mr. Brown, his comments and the colonial legacy...

In otherwords you have not apologised for colonial acts committed by your countrymen. Hmmmm....sounds like a familiar position? :roll:

Anyway, feel free to start...I welcome a good debate on the issue.

Reread my posts. :roll: This is not about "apologizing." Instead we must try and be understanding and perhaps, if we're ethical human beings, try and help those who suffered under colonialism. Do our best to be "good" humans. Or bad, if you don't care. You decide what actions you wish to take under those terms. *END* Philosophical discussion.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Reread my posts.

Here is one for you. The source is controversial but presents some interesting insight in to the issue. I cannot say that I agree with every claim made but quite a few of them are accurate.

Why Is Africa Poor?

By William Robertson Boggs

http://www.amren.com/921issue/921issue.html

Europeans introduced two New World staples that could be stored — cassava and corn — revolutionizing the African food supply. The sudden increase in population more than made up for losses to the European slave trade which, in any case, ended by the middle of the 19th century.

It was trade with Europeans that introduced modernity to iron-age Africa. Far from hobbling and holding the continent back, colonization laid the foundations for whatever evidence of economic progress can now be found in Africa. It was Europeans who built roads and rail lines, introduced piped water, schools and telecommunications, and built national administrations. Nothing suggests that Africans would have achieved any of this on their own.

There is no question but that life for Africans improved steadily under colonization. By the 1960s, when most of Africa became independent, the region exported food. Now, it devours more than $1 billion a year in Western food aid, and thousands still starve.

It is possible to argue that Africans might have been better off if they had been left entirely alone. This is to take a romantic view of the disease, tribal warfare, slavery, and ignorance that were widespread on the continent. Moreover, no African group that has glimpsed the possibilities of Western progress has opted to return to purely African primitivism. This suggests that Africans themselves would rather have the benefits of Western technology than do without them. Given that people naturally yearn for medical advance and material progress, colonization was an obvious and striking benefit to Africa.

The benefits are particularly clear in any comparison of those parts of Africa that were colonized with those that were not. Ethiopia remained independent except for a brief occupation by Italy during the 1930s. It is the poorest country on the continent, with an annual per capita gross national product (GNP) of $130. Eritrea, which was absorbed by Ethiopia after the Second World War, had been an Italian colony for 50 years. It is more advanced in every way. Though it has only three percent of Ethiopia's population, it has 30 percent of its industry. It recently won a decades-old war of independence against Ethiopia.

An equally stark contrast can be found in West Africa. Ivory Coast, heavily colonized by the French, is much better developed than neighboring Liberia, which was founded by freed American slaves in 1822. Liberians, apparently unaware of the political heresy they are uttering, freely attribute the miserable state of their country to its having gone without "the benefits of colonization."

The Decline Since Independence

What about Africa since independence? During the first few years, while some European procedures were still being followed, the standard of living in Africa continued to improve. It is in the last 20 years, during which Africans themselves have shaped their own nations, that conditions have deteriorated spectacularly. Virtually without exception, Africans have failed to build modern economies.

In the last dozen years, per capita GNP has fallen every year in Africa. By 1989, per capita food production in Africa was only three quarters what it had been in 1970. In 1985, an estimated 25 percent of African pre-school children suffered from acute protein deficiency. Only five years later, an estimated 40 percent did.

It is not as though Africa has been neglected by white countries. Since the 1960s, they have poured more than $300 billion in aid into the continent. Tanzania, a favorite target for Scandinavian largess, received $8.6 billion between 1970 and 1988 — more than four times its 1988 GNP. By that year, Tanzania's annual per capita GNP was a pitiful $160, lower than at independence in 1961.

Obviously, it is much easier for undeveloped nations to copy the tried and tested technology of nations that have gone before. They need not invent telephones or electric power generators. They need only install and maintain what Europeans have invented. Africans cannot or will not.

Quote: Instead we must try and be understanding and perhaps, if we're ethical human beings, try and help those who suffered under colonialism.

And you are more then welcome to empty your bank account and do just that...nobody is stopping you.

[Kalu]

Quote: Europeans introduced two New World staples that could be stored — cassava and corn — revolutionizing the African food supply. The sudden increase in population more than made up for losses to the European slave trade which, in any case, ended by the middle of the 19th century.


Quote: It is estimated that during the 4 1/2 centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Portugal was responsible for transporting over 4.5 million Africans (roughly 40% of the total). During the eighteenth century however, when the slave trade accounted for the transport of a staggering 6 million Africans, Britain was the worst transgressor - responsible for almost 2.5 million. (A fact often forgotten by those who regularly cite Britain's prime role in the abolition of the slave trade.)

http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm

Also, do introducing crops permit the Europeans to enslave so many people, thus creating a profound impact on African societies, instilling a system of exploitation on a massive scale and (obviously) fear? A human is not a statistic. Even though the cassava and maize may have been introduced, a human life is missing and cannot be "replaced" like a number.

Quote: It was trade with Europeans that introduced modernity to iron-age Africa. Far from hobbling and holding the continent back, colonization laid the foundations for whatever evidence of economic progress can now be found in Africa. It was Europeans who built roads and rail lines, introduced piped water, schools and telecommunications, and built national administrations. Nothing suggests that Africans would have achieved any of this on their own.

The "modernity" the Europeans introduced was mainly in the shape of guns, weapons, etc. I'll provide some parts of books to flesh this out into more detail with statistics tommorow.

And although the Europeans built up infrastructure, what was it used for? The exploitation of the land and peoples.

Quote: There is no question but that life for Africans improved steadily under colonization. By the 1960s, when most of Africa became independent, the region exported food. Now, it devours more than $1 billion a year in Western food aid, and thousands still starve.

Hm, I think this would argue against that:

EDIT: Forgot I can't copy from books.

Just an example of how life was improving under colonialism. :roll: I'll also post more.

Quote: It is possible to argue that Africans might have been better off if they had been left entirely alone. This is to take a romantic view of the disease, tribal warfare, slavery, and ignorance that were widespread on the continent. Moreover, no African group that has glimpsed the possibilities of Western progress has opted to return to purely African primitivism. This suggests that Africans themselves would rather have the benefits of Western technology than do without them. Given that people naturally yearn for medical advance and material progress, colonization was an obvious and striking benefit to Africa.

EDIT: ""

Again, I'll post more too tommorow.

Quote: An equally stark contrast can be found in West Africa. Ivory Coast, heavily colonized by the French, is much better developed than neighboring Liberia, which was founded by freed American slaves in 1822. Liberians, apparently unaware of the political heresy they are uttering, freely attribute the miserable state of their country to its having gone without "the benefits of colonization."

Actually, Liberia was an American pseudo-colony. Exploited without anything given back to the peoples. Example: Firestones use of rubber plantations. Also, slavery indoctrinated American freedmen going to Liberia and created within their psyche a "master-slave" relationship. Thus when they came to Liberia, they enslaved the "natives" because the "master-slave" relationship is all they'd ever known while being herded around like cattle in America.

Quote: What about Africa since independence? During the first few years, while some European procedures were still being followed, the standard of living in Africa continued to improve. It is in the last 20 years, during which Africans themselves have shaped their own nations, that conditions have deteriorated spectacularly. Virtually without exception, Africans have failed to build modern economies.

Again, invigorated ethnic hatreds produced by "divide and rule" policy by the colonial powers (ie. pitting the Gikuyu against the Maasai) thus creating civil war, the culture of exploitation introduced by colonialism, debts, the support of autocratic dictatorships by the European powers and America (Mobutu Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, etc.), no education or opportunities for advance under colonialism and thus the poverty induced by this providing fertile breeding grounds for violence, and so on can account for this. Another reason for continuing civil war:

Quote: Perhaps the most important legacy of colonialism is the division of Africa into more than 50 states whose boundaries were set without regard for where the people lived or how they organized their own political divisions. The present boundaries often divide single African ethnic communities among two or more nation-states.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=195882&ct=

No, Africans are not racially or mentally inferior to anyone else (as much as this article's author would like to believe).

Quote: In the last dozen years, per capita GNP has fallen every year in Africa. By 1989, per capita food production in Africa was only three quarters what it had been in 1970. In 1985, an estimated 25 percent of African pre-school children suffered from acute protein deficiency. Only five years later, an estimated 40 percent did.

See my previous explanation.

Quote: What about Africa since independence? During the first few years, while some European procedures were still being followed, the standard of living in Africa continued to improve. It is in the last 20 years, during which Africans themselves have shaped their own nations, that conditions have deteriorated spectacularly. Virtually without exception, Africans have failed to build modern economies.

See previous explanations for the impact of colonialism and it's continuing horrid legacy.

Quote: And you are more then welcome to empty your bank account and do just that.

I guess you forgot to read this (yet again):

Quote: Am I telling you, thunder, or any other British person to go to Africa, eat grass and work all day to help the people there? No. I'm simply pointing out the legacy of colonialism and that one should be more understanding due to the problems created by colonialism. And that we should accept the wrong and try to help if possible, the people hurt. You don't have to give up your life helping people, you just have to recognize what was done wrong, be understanding and sensitive to it and then try and take steps of action.

Anyways, that article was pretty much racist. I'll be posting more objective accounts on Africa tommorow.

Source for images: Reader, John, Africa: A Biography of the Continent. Vintage Books, New York, 1997.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Also, do introducing crops permit the Europeans to enslave so many people, thus creating a profound impact on African societies, instilling a system of exploitation on a massive scale?

Of course slavery was wrong. The Europeans should have done their own work.

Quote: And although the Europeans built up infrastructure, what was it used for? The exploitation of the land and peoples.

An infrastructure that South Africa and Kenya still uses today. They have not reverted back to the primitive states of pre-colonialism. Yes there was exploitation but there were benefits as well. South Africa and Kenya are two of the more technologically advance nations in Africa.

Quote: Hm, I think this would argue against that:

Where exactly does it argue against it?

Quote: Just an example of how life was improving under colonialism. I'll also post more.

How does your article disprove what Boggs claimed? He is correct...the African nations of Kenya and SA have kept the advancements brought by the Europeans. it would appear that SA, Kenya, Zimbabwe etc...prefer western technology and advancement over what they had before colonialism.

Quote: Actually, Liberia was an American pseudo-colony.

For a very short time. Liberia was established in 1822 and gained full lindependence in 1847.

Quote: Again, invigorated ethnic hatreds produced by "divide and rule" policy by the colonial powers (ie. pitting the Gikuyu against the Maasai) thus creating civil war,

Actually the Masai were a warrior race with history of raids against the Kikuyu, they did not need to be pitted against anybody.

I also reject this argument as intelligent people are capable of making their own choices and as you pointed out black Africans are just as intelligent as any other race.

Quote: the culture of exploitation introduced by colonialism, debts, the support of autocratic dictatorships by the European powers and America (Mobutu Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, etc.),

Exploitation was not introduced to Africa as exploitation already existed. If you knew anything about African history you would know this. Slavery and oppression were commonplace amongst many black African societies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml

These dictatorships you refer to are African leaders that choose to persecute their people. These leaders are ultimately responsible for their actions...lets not pass the buck to whitey. Britain did not force Mugabe of Zimbabwe to build palaces for himself when his nation has a 70% unemployment rate and a people facing a famine.

Quote: no education or opportunities for advance under colonialism and thus the poverty induced by this providing fertile breeding grounds for violence, and so on can account for this.

South Africa produced many black lawyers, doctors and scholars. In fact there were universities that catered to black populations (I.E. University of Fort Hare) Many of these scholars went on to rule in their Bantustans.

"In 1915, the United Church of Scotland established the University of Fort Hare, a college for the higher education of Black students. Fort Hare is one of the oldest universities in Africa, Fort Hare has provided tertiary education for many who later became leaders in African countries. Established as a missionary teaching college in 1916 by a group of eminent African scholars (Pixley Ka Seme, Enoch Mamba, John Sishuba, Thomas Mapikela, Joel Goronyana, John Tengo Jabavu), it grew into a prominent educational institution during and after the two world wars. Since then, Fort Hare has evolved into one of South Africa’s most historic and distinctive institutions of higher education."

http://www.interstudy.org/SouthAfrica/UniversityofFortHare/IntroFortHare.html


Quote: No, Africans are not racially or mentally inferior to anyone else (as much as this article's author would like to believe).

I think that you may be creating and attacking a strawman.

Quote: I guess you forgot to read this (yet again):

Oh I get it...you want people to help out until its your turn to do so. Funny how generous you are with other peoples money and effort.

Quote: Anyways, that article was pretty much racist. I'll be posting more objective accounts on Africa tommorow.

You mean that you will be cutting and pasting the works of private authors? Why don't you read the materials, formulate it into an argument and present it yourself? I am not inclined to read the long winded book pages you keep posting. The simple fact is some guy who gets a book published is no more credible then you are. So why not make your own arguments from your own research? If you must present a link to supplement an argument then do so. Sorry for sounding bossy but I would rather debate you then a book.

[Kalu]

Quote: An infrastructure that South Africa and Kenya still uses today. They have not reverted back to the primitive states of pre-colonialism. Yes there was exploitation but there were benefits as well. South Africa and Kenya are two of the more technologically advance nations in Africa.
Well, there's a benevolent side effect then of colonization. I would not, however, call pre-colonial Africa "primitive." The fact is even though these people were separated, they had their own distinct cultures (thus why there are an amazing number of African dialects, cultures, ethnic groups and so on). And also, I wouldn't call the kingdom of Ashanti "primitive" seeing as how there was a central government (heard of the Sika Dwa?), rule of law, government officials and so on. Ashanti was the size of Ghana today along with surrounding regions.

Quote: Where exactly does it argue against it?

It argued against that the life of Africans improved steadily under colonization. Here, let me sum it up for you:

As an example of the style of forced labor in British colonies, the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association (c. 1900) paid (African) miners "one pound per head for men on contracts of three months or less, and up to five pounds for men on a twelve-month contract, but these initial outlays were more than offset by the low wages which the centralized control of recruiting was able to impose on the workforce."

The mines' "employment regime" had a profound impact on African society: "Of the 1,700,000 male Africans aged between fifteen and fifty recorded in South Africa's 1936 census, for example, 393,000 (23 per cent) were working in the country's mines and allied industries. The majority were migrants, living away from home for months at a time, in all-male compounds, segregated from surrounding communities."

Source: John Reader, Africa: A Biography of the Continent.

Quote: For a very short time. Liberia was established in 1822 and gained full lindependence in 1847.

American involvement, however, did not end in 1847 as we can see by the government's support of Samuel Doe and the installation of radio towers and complexes near Monrovia used during the Cold War to relay coded messages (source: Howard French, A Continent for the Taking: The Tragedy and Hope of Africa).

Quote: Actually the Masai were a warrior race with history of raids against the Kikuyu, they did not need to be pitted against anybody.

Yes, but you forget these raids were only to steal cattle. Nothing much, and often simply ceremonial. With the instigation of divisionism by the British, however, these raids would turn into ethnic cleansing, a problem that's still occuring today. Also, what about the Xhosa being pitted against the Zulu? Same for the Igbo, Hausa and Yoruba? How about all the other ethnic groups pitted against each other?

Quote: Africa as exploitation already existed. If you knew anything about African history you would know this. Slavery and oppression were commonplace amongst many black African societies.

Let me bring up a quote I made awhile back:

Quote: Slavery existed, right, but it didn't exist as the system the British used. In kingdoms such as Ashanti, when wars were fought, sometimes prisoners were captured and became slaves. They eventually were incorporated into the family they were serving and even married the daughters of those families. Eventually, they became regular members of society. The British and other European colonial powers, however, used slavery for pure commercial gain and upset the carefully balanced system, capturing millions of people and transporting them in cramped ships, destroying the population. When brought to the Americas, they were then given subhuman status. The British finally realized this was a morally bankrupt system and tried ending the system, after it had already dealt irreparable damages to countless African societies.

And I'd also have you know slavery and oppression were commonplace in Europe. Does that mean it'd be right for Africans to come and colonize Europe? Again, referring to a previous quote made by me:

Quote: Would it have been alright if Africans came to Europe and enslaved the British and Europeans to prevent them from getting into wars (such as the 100 years war)? You forget that the British and Europeans killed many of their own during their own wars. Stop acting like Africa was full of "savages" who fought each other and needed to be enslaved to be saved, because that mentality is thoroughly screwed up. You can look over my previous posts if you need more evidence as to why that is so.

Quote: These dictatorships you refer to are African leaders that choose to persecute their people. These leaders are ultimately responsible for their actions...lets not pass the buck to whitey. Britain did not force Mugabe of Zimbabwe to build palaces for himself when his nation has a 70% unemployment rate and a people facing a famine.

Yes, but how did these leaders come to power? I'm sure you already knew that the reason why Mugabe came to power was because he was a leader of a rebel movement fighting in Rhodesia. Who was in Zimbabwe before Mugabe came? Yes, repressive, autocratic white government that stripped the indigenous populace of their land. Does it make it right that Mugabe oppresses his people? No. Can the legacy of colonialism, however, be seen? Yes.

Exploitation on a grand scale. Not to mention that even after colonialism ended, many dictators were supported by foreign powers in Africa, continuing the cycle of destabilization, war, famine, poverty, etc. I refer you to such examples as Mobutu Sese Seko, supported by the American government ($30.4 million in military aid given to him in one year alone by the U.S. in 1977 according to Peter Schraeder, United States Foreign Policy Towards Africa), Samuel Doe, Laurent Kabila, Yakubu Gowon, etc.

So while it's not all the West's fault, the fact remains that a large reason for autocratic dictatorships in Africa is due to divisionism, the culture of exploitation (resources, people, etc.) and other legacies handed down by colonialism.

Quote: South Africa produced many black lawyers, doctors and scholars. In fact there were universities that catered to black populations (I.E. University of Fort Hare) Many of these scholars went on to rule in their Bantustans.

"In 1915, the United Church of Scotland established the University of Fort Hare, a college for the higher education of Black students. Fort Hare is one of the oldest universities in Africa, Fort Hare has provided tertiary education for many who later became leaders in African countries. Established as a missionary teaching college in 1916 by a group of eminent African scholars (Pixley Ka Seme, Enoch Mamba, John Sishuba, Thomas Mapikela, Joel Goronyana, John Tengo Jabavu), it grew into a prominent educational institution during and after the two world wars. Since then, Fort Hare has evolved into one of South Africa’s most historic and distinctive institutions of higher education."

http://www.interstudy.org/SouthAfrica/UniversityofFortHare/IntroFortHare.html

"Dr. Kofi Busia, who was prime minister of Ghana from 1969 to 1972, wrote of the estrangement which he had experienced as a consequence of the colonial education system:

'At the end of my first year at secondary school...I went home to Wenchi for the Christmas vacation. I had not been home for four years, and on that visit, I became painfully aware of my isolation. I understood our community far less than the boys of my own age who had never been to school. Over the years, as I went through college and university, I felt increasingly that the education I received taught me more and more about Europe and less and less about my own society.'"

(Source: John Reader, Africa: A Biography of the Continent)

As you can see, the colonial education produced top scholars...who were very estranged from their respective cultures. Haven't you ever heard those ridiculous stories how in colonial schools, where young African children would get up to sing songs about their great ancestors "The Gauls with blue eyes"? Colonial education greatly estranged many children from their cultures, creating a huge gap between the "educated" and the "unskilled labourers."

Quote: I think that you may be creating and attacking a strawman.
Yes, after attacking the author for calling Africans "primitives," I'm really "attacking a strawman" when discussing the authors prejudices and racist attitudes. :roll:

Quote: Oh I get it...you want people to help out until its your turn to do so. Funny how generous you are with other peoples money and effort.

I'm actually working with refugees from Africa this May. Come again sir? Besides, I already said before, no one's forcing you to do anything. It's your decision as an ethical human being.

Quote: You mean that you will be cutting and pasting the works of private authors? Why don't you read the materials, formulate it into an argument and present it yourself? I am not inclined to read the long winded book pages you keep posting. The simple fact is some guy who gets a book published is no more credible then you are. So why not make your own arguments from your own research? If you must present a link to supplement an argument then do so.

I have read and forumlated an argument myself if you haven't noticed (especially during my argument with thunder). Oh wait, but you didn't notice all my previous points. :roll:

"Some guy" who gets a book published and receives raving reviews from The Economist, National Review, New York Times and so on for his biography of Africa that is supported by countless meticulously researched facts is alot more credible than that website you quoted.

And I have done my own research and am making my own arguments. Since you're obviously getting so pissy, I'll quote more often. :roll:

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Well, there's a benevolent side effect then of colonization. I would not, however, call pre-colonial Africa "primitive."

In technological comparison to the Europeans they were primitive.

Quote: It argued against that the life of Africans improved steadily under colonization. Here, let me sum it up for you:

Are you aware that many Africans migrated to South Africa to work in the mines because they could not find jobs in their own lands? Even your own source seems to concede this point?

Quote: American involvement, however, did not end in 1847 as we can see by the government's support of Samuel Doe and the installation of radio towers and complexes near Monrovia used during the Cold War to relay coded messages

Alright...

Quote: Nothing much, and often simply ceremonial. With the instigation of divisionism by the British, however, these raids would turn into ethnic cleansing, a problem that's still occuring today.

I could care less whether it was ceremonial or not. They were violent warriors that committed criminal acts against their neighbours and invaded their territories.

Quote: Also, what about the Xhosa being pitted against the Zulu?

You are aware that the Zulus were violent colonists who wiped out several tribes and expanded their territories by force? The Xhosians were largely displaced by the Zulu push west. Can you come up with one REPUTABLE encyclopedic article that can back up your claims?

Quote: Let me bring up a quote I made awhile back:

You are aware that the Ashanti sold many of their slaves to the Europeans for weapons? You are also aware that the Ashanti enslaved people from different ethnic groups after invasions?

"Prior to European colonisation, the Ashanti Confederacy was a major state, particularly during the period from 1570 to 1900. One of the major sources of the kingdom's wealth and power was its participation in the African slave trade; the Ashanti would capture people of surrounding nations and sell them to European slavers. This trade ceased in the early to middle nineteenth century."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asante

AND

http://www.newtrier.k12.il.us/academics/faculty/pinsof/africaweb/EH/Ashanti_Animal_Poaching/slave_trade.htm

Quote: And I'd also have you know slavery and oppression were commonplace in Europe.

It was called "indentured servitude" and I am aware of it.

Quote: Yes, but how did these leaders come to power? I'm sure you already knew that the reason why Mugabe came to power was because he was a leader of a rebel movement fighting in Rhodesia. Who was in Zimbabwe before Mugabe came? Yes, repressive, autocratic white government that stripped the indigenous populace of their land. Does it make it right that Mugabe oppresses his people? No. Can the legacy of colonialism, however, be seen? Yes.

Rhodesia was prosperous thriving nation that was agriculturally rich and was the breadbaskey of Africa. Mugabe inherited a gold mine and had the good will of the world behind him.

What did he do? He sent the unemployment to 70%, he devalued his currency to where it became worthless, he is starving half of his population even though 27,000 miles of the country is arable land.

You want to blame colonialism? I blame gross incompetance for his failure as a leader.

Quote: Exploitation on a grand scale. Not to mention that even after colonialism ended, many dictators were supported by foreign powers in Africa, continuing the cycle of destabilization, war, famine, poverty, etc.

Again you are ignoring that the African dictators chose to do what they do.

Quote: So while it's not all the West's fault, the fact remains that a large reason for autocratic dictatorships in Africa is due to divisionism, the culture of exploitation (resources, people, etc.) and other legacies handed down by colonialism.

These divisions existed before whitey showed up. Trying to blame Europe for introducing something that was already there is nothing but scapegoating.

Quote: As you can see, the colonial education produced top scholars

Yet, earlier you stated:

"No education or opportunities for advance under colonialism"

It would be nice if you would get your story straight.

Quote: Yes, after attacking the author for calling Africans "primitives," I'm really "attacking a strawman" when discussing the authors prejudices and racist attitudes.

Forgive me that would be an "Ad Hominem."

Quote: I'm actually working with refugees from Africa this May. Come again sir?

Sure and I am Captain James T. Kirk of the Federation Starship Enterprise! :roll:

Quote: have read and forumlated an argument myself if you haven't noticed (especially during my argument with thunder). Oh wait, but you didn't notice all my previous points

I have not noticed such a thing in our exchanges. You seem to be regurgitating other peoples words?

Quote: "Some guy" who gets a book published and receives raving reviews from The Economist, National Review, New York Times and so on for his biography of Africa that is

Getting a good book review from some magazines does not mean the authors facts are all correct. I have to say that I have searched my encyclopedias and history textbooks and I have yet to find confirmation of this guys claims. The few things I have read from him I cannot find in a history book.

Quote: supported by countless meticulously researched facts is alot more credible than that website you quoted.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Anonymous Authority

Quote: And I have done my own research and am making my own arguments. Since you're obviously getting so pissy, I'll quote more often.

Small favours are appreciated.

[Kalu]

Quote: In technological comparison to the Europeans they were primitive.
Does that mean they should have been enslaved? No. So we now agree that colonialism was very wrong in that respect and new technological advances handed down by the Europeans were outweighed by the malignant effects of colonialism.

Quote: Are you aware that many Africans migrated to South Africa to work in the mines because they could not find jobs in their own lands? Even your own source seems to concede this point?

Does that mean they should have been exploited and subjected to racist policies? No.

Also, you forget one of the other reasons why they were migrants: their land was taken from them. How did they survive before the Europeans came if they supposedly were all unemployed?

Quote: Alright...

Okay.

Quote: I could care less whether it was ceremonial or not. They were violent warriors that committed criminal acts against their neighbours and invaded their territories.

So I guess then it was alright for the British and other European colonial powers to instigate these divisions and exploit them through "divide and rule" policy, since they were "already attacking their neighbors"?

Quote: You are aware that the Zulus were violent colonists who wiped out several tribes and expanded their territories by force? The Xhosians were largely displaced by the Zulu push west. Can you come up with one REPUTABLE encyclopedic article that can back up your claims?

That doesn't make up for the fact that the British then encouraged increased divisionism. Also, was it alright then for the British and other European colonial powers to take up the role of conqueror since "the Africans were already doing it"? The scale of British exploitation was also much larger than that of whatever a local African ethnic group might have done. I direct you to the Berlin conference of 1884-85.

Quote: You are aware that the Ashanti sold many of their slaves to the Europeans for weapons? You are also aware that the Ashanti enslaved people from different ethnic groups after invasions?

Many ethnic groups were coerced into selling slaves to the British and other European colonial powers for trinkets or sold them simply because they did not like another ethnic group. Does it make it alright then for the British and other European colonial powers to exploit that and transport over 10 million humans across the Atlantic? I'm pretty sure the Ashanti didn't capture 10 million humans from invasions, even if you tally up all the prisoners of war for one hundred years from Ashanti invasions.

Again:

Quote: Slavery existed, right, but it didn't exist as the system the British used. In kingdoms such as Ashanti, when wars were fought, sometimes prisoners were captured and became slaves. They eventually were incorporated into the family they were serving and even married the daughters of those families. Eventually, they became regular members of society. The British and other European colonial powers, however, used slavery for pure commercial gain and upset the carefully balanced system, capturing millions of people and transporting them in cramped ships, destroying the population. When brought to the Americas, they were then given subhuman status. The British finally realized this was a morally bankrupt system and tried ending the system, after it had already dealt irreparable damages to countless African societies.

Also:

"For Africans, enslavement [by Europeans] was a threat that compounded the uncertainties of existence- a fear at the back of the mind, dulled by familiarit perhaps, an ache that induced a lingering fatalism in society as it passed from generation to generation,"

(Source: John Reader, Africa: A Biography of the Continent).

"Africans were purchased using shovelfuls of shiny, indestructible cowry shells, which the Europeans introduced as a unit of exchange and loaded into their ships as ballast in Indian Ocean ports of call such as the Maldives. Bit by bit, the tonnage in useless shells was replaced by enchained men, women and children as the slavers took on thier living cargo along a huge stretch of the African coast, from present-day Angola in the south to Mauritania in the northwest."

(Source: Howard French, A Continent for the Taking: The Tragedy and Hope of Africa).

You forget the scale of European exploitation and slavery in comparison to local wars between African kingdoms.

Quote: It was called "indentured servitude" and I am aware of it.

Just pointing it out since one of the reasons for colonization given by the European powers was to "civilize the savages." :roll: Also, I wouldn't call what was going in Russia what with serfdom, etc. "indentured servitude." It was essentially slavery.

Quote: Rhodesia was prosperous thriving nation that was agriculturally rich and was the breadbaskey of Africa. Mugabe inherited a gold mine and had the good will of the world behind him.

What did he do? He sent the unemployment to 70%, he devalued his currency to where it became worthless, he is starving half of his population even though 27,000 miles of the country is arable land.

You want to blame colonialism? I blame gross incompetance for his failure as a leader.

Rhodesia was prosperous while the Africans were suffering. They had their lands taken away from them and were forced to work for white masters who had taken their land. Same thing can be seen in Kenya.

Africans were forced into slavery on their own lands and there was severe racism. They would either would work on small, small plots of land in a sharecropping-style system or would be forced into other services (such as the forestry service where they'd again work for white masters). An eighty-year old man in Kenya would have to call someone who could be his grandson sahib (master) while his own grandchildren would not be afforded any education or if given one, an indoctrinating form of it.

(Source: Koigi wa Wamwere, I Refuse to Die).

Mugabe and other corrupt dictators are a large part of the problem in Africa today. But what contributed to that problem? Colonialism. I'm not blaming everything on colonialism, I'm pointing out why it was wrong and the horrid legacies it left behind.

Quote: Again you are ignoring that the African dictators chose to do what they do.

But again, I'm arguing with you about colonialism's impact. I know the African dictators (including the ones sponsored by the West) have been awful and continue to set Africa's people back, but I'm trying to convince you of colonialism's harsh legacies.

Quote: These divisions existed before whitey showed up. Trying to blame Europe for introducing something that was already there is nothing but scapegoating.

Of course divisions existed, and then they were invigorated by the Europeans. There are divisions all across the globe...the Czechs and the Slovaks, the Irish and English, etc. Does it make it right, however, if the Europeans exploit those divisions and increase them greatly through "divide and rule" policy? No.

Quote: Yet, earlier you stated:

"No education or opportunities for advance under colonialism"

It would be nice if you would get your story straight.

My story is straight. Opportunities for advancement only truly came after colonialism ended due to European racism preventing Africans from getting jobs in the upper echelon. Sure you could become a clerk, but even that was unlikely. Also, education under colonialism isn't what I'd consider true "education."

I refer you back to my examples of the indoctrinating-style of European colonial education that was provided to the few Africans who received it. Also, even after colonialism ended many of the educated were estranged from their cultures and societies. Many left their ruined countries and continue to do so today (otherwise known as the "brain drain"). So those overall who were receiving beneficial education under the colonial system were very, very few in number. Especially when compared to the overall populace.

Quote: Forgive me that would be an "Ad Hominem."

Not really, because I have evidence to support my statement:

Quote: no African group that has glimpsed the possibilities of Western progress has opted to return to purely African primitivism

They used that term, "African primitivism" one hundred years ago when racist attitudes overtly existed. I'm surprised the author of that article had the gall to say that.

Quote: Sure and I am Captain James T. Kirk of the Federation Starship Enterprise!

Do I care if you believe me? No. Do you have to be an ethical human? No. Do you what you wish, I'll just point out what is wrong and support it with evidence. :roll: And it's funny- even after I do tell the truth, you still want to remain blind. I am working with African refugees this May, from the 2nd until June 1st. I'll mainly be working with Liberians. So, I guess I proved you wrong and now you have to resort to an ad hominem attack insinuating that I have no integrity. :roll:

Quote: I have not noticed such a thing in our exchanges. You seem to be regurgitating other peoples words?

You obviously then cannot read. I can't help you with that, you'd have to take a course in literacy for that. I'm not going to bother requoting everything that I said, you can look back over my posts and see my points (especially when I argued with thunder). Thanks.

Quote: Getting a good book review from some magazines does not mean the authors facts are all correct. I have to say that I have searched my encyclopedias and history textbooks and I have yet to find confirmation of this guys claims. The few things I have read from him I cannot find in a history book.

I don't suppose you're the "be-all, end-all" source of knowledge on Africa? No? And even though it might not be in the encyclopedias, did you know *gasp* that the encyclopedias don't contain all the knowledge in the world, thus why there are privately authored books supported by extended research? :roll: Besides, I think I'll take The Economist, New York Times, etc. word over yours, thanks. :wink:

Quote: Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Anonymous Authority

Not quite. Your website quotes statistics and then gives outrageous explanations for them.

I hate having to keep repeating myself but I say this again: I'm not blaming "whitey" (or "darky") for everything, I'm simply highlighting the legacy of colonialism and what it has done to Africa due to Mr. Brown's original comments and the comments of others who seemed to have had a myopic and chauvinstic view of Africa and Britain's role in it.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Does that mean they should have been enslaved?

Did I not answer this already?

Quote: Also, you forget one of the other reasons why they were migrants: their land was taken from them. How did they survive before the Europeans came if they supposedly were all unemployed?

War, colonising, exploitation, stealing for their neighbours, slave trade....it was not simply a white thing.

Quote: So I guess then it was alright for the British and other European colonial powers to instigate these divisions and exploit them through "divide and rule" policy, since they were "already attacking their neighbors"?

I have little evidence that the British caused any such division outside of your book of course.

NOTE: Later in Devakas post, he admits that division existed in Africa before the Brits showed up.

Quote: Many ethnic groups were coerced into selling slaves to the British and other European colonial powers for trinkets or sold them simply because they did not like another ethnic group.

THIS IS RICH! The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and some of the African tribes were opposed to it...for example:

"We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself."

-King of Bonny, now the Nigerian Delta

You should also note the British Colonial Office described the Ashanti slave trade:

"It would be a mistake to frighten the King of Kumasi and the Ashantis generally on the question of slavery. We cannot sweep away their customs and institutions all at once. Domestic slavery should not be troubled at present."

Slavery was described as a custom and eventually it was Britain that forced the Ashanti to end the slave trade. How does one coerce people into practicing one of their own customs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml

Quote: For Africans, enslavement [by Europeans] was a threat that compounded the uncertainties of existence- a fear at the back of the mind, dulled by familiarit perhaps, an ache that induced a lingering fatalism in society as it passed from generation to generation,"

"Africans were purchased using shovelfuls of shiny, indestructible cowry shells, which the Europeans introduced as a unit of exchange and loaded into their ships as ballast in Indian Ocean ports of call such as the Maldives. Bit by bit, the tonnage in useless shells was replaced by enchained men, women and children as the slavers took on thier living cargo along a huge stretch of the African coast, from present-day Angola in the south to Mauritania in the northwest."

Forgive me, but I do not recall denying that Europeans bought slaves...what is the point of regurgitating what other people have written?

Quote: You forget the scale of European exploitation and slavery in comparison to local wars between African kingdoms.

You forget who willingly sold their own people to the Europeans. It was the British who put an end to the slave trade, not the Africans. Many of them supported a continued slave trade and many of them practice slavery even in the modern age.

Quote: Africans were forced into slavery on their own lands and there was severe racism. They would either would work on small, small plots of land in a sharecropping-style system or would be forced into other services (such as the forestry service where they'd again work for white masters). An old, eighty-year old man in Kenya would have to call someone who could be his grandson sahib (master) while his own grandchildren would not be afforded any education or if given one, an indoctrinating form of it.

1) What does Kenya have to do with Rhodesia?
2) Do you have an academic text that can verify these claims?

Quote: But again, I'm arguing with you about colonialism's impact.

You mean European colonialism? You are not taking into account African colonialism.

Quote: Of course divisions existed

Thank you for finally conceding the obvious. It was ludicrous to claim that Europeans introduced division.

Quote: My story is straight.

No it is not! You said that there was no education for Africans but that colonial education produced top scholars! :shock:

Quote: Opportunities for advancement only truly came after colonialism ended due to European racism preventing Africans from getting jobs in the upper echelon. Sure you could become a clerk, but even that was unlikely. Also, education under colonialism isn't what I'd consider true "education."

What you consider to be whatever is irrelevant. The facts are as follows:

1) Europeans established the universities in South Africa.
2) Because of Europeans establishing these universities, blacks received a tertiary education.
3) Many of the black graduates went on to become lawyers, professors, doctors and high ranking officials in the Bantustans.

Funny how you neglect to mention this? You seem to be basing your entire position on the whole of colonial Africa on the testimony of a government official from Ghana about his experience and the words of the author of a private book.

Quote: Not really, because I have evidence to support my statement:

You have indeed presented evidence, whether it is credible is another story.

Quote: They used that term, "African primitivism" one hundred years ago when racist attitudes overtly existed. I'm surprised the author of that article had the gall to say that.

Compared to Europeans, the Africans were technologically primitive.

Quote: I don't suppose you're the "be-all, end-, all source of knowledge on Africa"? No? And even though it might not be in the encyclopedias, did you know *gasp* that the encyclopedias don't contain all the knowledge in the world, thus why there are privately authored books supported by extended research.

It is likely not in history textbooks or encyclopedias because it is not established proven history.

Quote: Not quite. Your website quotes statistics and then gives outrageous explanations for them.

I openly admit that I did not agree with every claim my article made. Unlike you I do not accept the words of private authors as gospel truth on their own merits unless I can confirm that it is indeed truth.

I simply presented the article as "insight" from someone on the other side of the story.

[Kalu]

Quote: Did I not answer this already?

Quote: You forget who willingly sold their own people to the Europeans. It was the British who put an end to the slave trade, not the Africans. Many of them supported a continued slave trade and many of them practice slavery even in the modern age.

Quote: THIS IS RICH! The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and some of the African tribes were opposed to it...for example:

"We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself."

-King of Bonny, now the Nigerian Delta

You should also note the British Colonial Office described the Ashanti slave trade:

"It would be a mistake to frighten the King of Kumasi and the Ashantis generally on the question of slavery. We cannot sweep away their customs and institutions all at once. Domestic slavery should not be troubled at present."

Slavery was described as a custom and eventually it was Britain that forced the Ashanti to end the slave trade. How does one coerce people into practicing one of their own customs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml

Yes the Ashanti used slavery in a limited form before the British arrived, yes they produced prisoners of war to give to the British, but the final question is this:

Does that mean the British should have traded slaves? Absolutely not. They only abolished slavery after 10 million people had been transported across the Atlantic, dealing irreparable damage to African societies.

Also, I'd like to remind you of the quasi-slavery the British introduced in Africa and other places after they'd "abolished the system."

Reread my quotes on slavery too. I also direct you to the example of King Affonso of the Kongo.

Quote: Forgive me, but I do not recall denying that Europeans bought slaves...what is the point of regurgitating what other people have written?
I'm not regurgitating, I'm providing evdience. Sorry you can't distinguish between that and "regurgitating."

Quote: War, colonising, exploitation, stealing for their neighbours, slave trade....it was not simply a white thing.

So you're saying that's how they made all their money? How about farming, metalcraft and all the other trades in Europe used to make money? Saying that these peoples were all "savages" and killed each other to make money before the British came is about as silly as saying that all the Europeans did was kill each other to become rich.

Quote: I have little evidence that the British caused any such division outside of your book of course.

NOTE: Later in Devakas post, he admits that division existed in Africa before the Brits showed up.

Little does Voice realize that I did not stray from my point of ethnic divisionism.

The British did practice "divide and rule" policy and exploited ethnic groups. Couple that with poverty and what do you get, invigorated ethnic hatreds.

Quote: 1) What does Kenya have to do with Rhodesia?
2) Do you have an academic text that can verify these claims?

1.) We're discussing colonialism, right? So I'm talking about the comparable situations of indigenous populations being stripped of their land in Kenya, Rhodesia, etc.

2.) Just look at the BBC frontpage. Why is Mugabe giving land to his cronies? Who had it before he did? Yes, the whites. And where did the whites get the land from? Oh let me guess, they traded fairly for it. :roll:

Quote: You mean European colonialism? You are not taking into account African colonialism.

Again, this is about Mr. Brown, his comments and British colonialism's legacy.

Quote: Thank you for finally conceding the obvious. It was ludicrous to claim that Europeans introduced division.

I never strayed from my original point (despite your misunderstanding). The Europeans invigorated ethnic hatreds producing most of the problems we see today.

Quote: No it is not! You said that there was no education for Africans but that colonial education produced top scholars!

Yes it is. Reread.

Quote: What you consider to be whatever is irrelevant. The facts are as follows:

1) Europeans established the universities in South Africa.
2) Because of Europeans establishing these universities, blacks received a tertiary education.
3) Many of the black graduates went on to become lawyers, professors, doctors and high ranking officials in the Bantustans.

Funny how you neglect to mention this? You seem to be basing your entire position on the whole of colonial Africa on the testimony of a government official from Ghana about his experience and the words of the author of a private book.

I'm not basing my argument on one account, you can look over the evidence if you feel it is so. The Europeans didn't "educate" they estranged those who did receive an education from their societies. Again, reread what I said:

Quote: Opportunities for advancement only truly came after colonialism ended due to European racism preventing Africans from getting jobs in the upper echelon. Sure you could become a clerk, but even that was unlikely. Also, education under colonialism isn't what I'd consider true "education."

I refer you back to my examples of the indoctrinating-style of European colonial education that was provided to the few Africans who received it. Also, even after colonialism ended many of the educated were estranged from their cultures and societies. Many left their ruined countries and continue to do so today (otherwise known as the "brain drain"). So those overall who were receiving beneficial education under the colonial system were very, very few in number. Especially when compared to the overall populace.

Quote:
You have indeed presented evidence, whether it is credible is another story.
Your sources are no more credible than mine.

Quote: It is likely not in history textbooks or encyclopedias because it is not established proven history.

Alot of what you are quoting isn't from textbooks. BBC anyone?

Quote: Unlike you I do not accept the words of private authors as gospel truth on their own merits unless I can confirm that it is indeed truth.
Wrong yet again. I never took the words of authors as gospel truth, I used their evidence to support my argument. Sorry you can't understand that.

I could continue arguing day in and day out with you but I'm not going to waste my time anymore. The simple fact is you have many anglocentric and chauvinistic viewpoints and you simply do not want to admit that British colonialism did more bad than good and was a horrible insitution that subjugated peoples all over the world. You won't change your opinion if I provide the best argument ever. You can continue to blame the Africans and think colonialism was even semi-benevolent but the whole idea of enslaving peoples to "free" them (or provide them with minor education, infrastructure improvements) is inherently racist. Thanks.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Does that mean the British should have traded slaves?

I have answered this question and I agree with you. But we also have to blame the African Kings and leaders who sold their own people for filthy lucre.

We should also remember that the British ended the slave trade much to the resistance of many of the African traders.

Quote: So you're saying that's how they made all their money? How about farming, metalcraft and all the other trades in Europe used to make money?

I am saying that they used violent means to survive. Obtaining bartering gold from slave trading was a lucrative trade. Conquering the territories of their neighbours increased their resources.

I have no evidence of the existance of strong continent wide infrastructures of commerce or agriculture.

Quote: Little does Voice realize that I did not stray from my point of ethnic divisionism.

Yes you did! You accused the British of introducing division. Should I refer to the earlier post in question?

Quote: Just look at the BBC frontpage. Why is Mugabe giving land to his cronies? Who had it before he did? Yes, the whites. And where did the whites get the land from? Oh let me guess, they traded fairly for it.

Lets see Rhodesia settled by Cecil Rhodes and his expedition became the territory of Rhodesia in 1895. Settlers were offered their farmlands in 1934 after migration commenced in 1923. Many of the farmers are 60 and under. So logic would dictate that the modern day farmers were not colonisers as that officially happened in 1895-1934. At best they would have been babies or children at the time. If anything the whites Mugabe displaced inherited the land.

I have also included a piece by Ian Smith as a bonus, here is his insight:

INSIGHT: Were there no black people already farming in the areas now farmed today by white farmers?

IAN SMITH: When the white man first came, there was nobody on those lands where they settled because those fields weren’t so good. They are rated very poorly as Class I — that is, the heavy red soils. The black people told us — and I was on the select committee — they said, “We are not interested in those lands. The white farmers with their tractors and heavy implements can plow those lands, and they can have them. We want the soft alluviums.” And it so happens that the soft alluviums are the best soils of the country. So it is a complete misconception to say that the white man took the best lands. In fact, it is quite the reverse.

INSIGHT: What kind of farmland is in the tribal-trust areas?

IAN SMITH: Those soils are graded much higher as about Class III or IV. Class I is the heavy red soils, but to farm that you have to have tractors and implements. And there is a disadvantage also because, if a drought hits, the alluviums hold the water better. In a dry year, you get much better crops on the light soils than on the heavy soils. But the truth is, the black people chose the lands that they are on. And subsequently when they asked for more land, the select committee decided to give it to them. We gave them the land for which they asked.

SOURCE: Insight Magazine Interview.

Quote: I'm not basing my argument on one account, you can look over the evidence if you feel it is so.

You have yet to present any evidence beyond the testimony of a Ghanan government official and an author of a book that is not an academic text.

Quote: Your sources are no more credible than mine.

In some cases this is true and in these cases I make it a point to mention that the source is a person providing "insight." I do not present it as gospel truth.

Quote: Alot of what you are quoting isn't from textbooks. BBC anyone?

I agree but the claims of the BBC is supported by acadamia. The following facts are undisputed:

1) Britain ended the slave trade in 1807.
2) The Ashanti practiced slavery prior and stopped due to the 1807 ban.
3) Nigeria practiced slavery and did not like the ban.

Quote: Wrong yet again. I never took the words of authors as gospel truth, I used their evidence to support my argument. Sorry you can't understand that.

I have read your earlier posts and you do accept Readers statements as truth. Am I wrong?

Quote: could continue arguing day in and day out with you but I'm not going to waste my time anymore. The simple fact is you have many anglocentric and chauvinistic viewpoints .

Now you are just "poisoning the well."

Quote: and you simply do not want to admit that British colonialism did more bad than good and was a horrible insitution that subjugated peoples all over the world

I admit to it. They nearly starved the Irish out of existance and threw legions of Boer women and children into concentration camps. However, these societies rebounded and prospered rather then failing and blaming Britain.

Quote: You won't change your opinion if I provide the best argument ever.

I will not change my opinion if your claims are not based on established proven history.

Quote: You can continue to blame the Africans and think colonialism was even semi-benevolent but the whole idea of enslaving peoples to "free" them (or provide them with minor education, infrastructure improvements) is inherently racist. Thanks.

Creating and attacking strawmen are we? I have condemned slavery repeatedly. The only person who seems to have a problem with prejudice is you. You go out of your way to minimise the atrocities Africans have committed against their own neighbours just to make the British look that much worse.

However, I will concede one part...we are not getting anywhere with this debate and it would be best if we dropped it.

[AlvisM]

My opinion of the British empire was that it was both good and bad. It has done more for the modern world than any other single empire and I agree with Gordon Brown that we should stop apologising for our past. However for all the good things that the British should be proud of there are also numerous acts commited by the empire that are shameful.

Britain did not have the right to occupy colonies such as india and those in africa, but it was done for the same reason America (and Britain) have ocuppied Iraq, money. Britain invaded so many areas so it could trade with itself becoming richer and more powerful. Sadly this included in the early times of the empire slavery, Britain had at least tried to make amends for this attrocity by banning slavery throughout the whole of the empire.

[BobbyO]

Colonialism is not automatically bad: Without Phoenician colonialism, there would be no carthage-or St Augustine. Without Roman colonialism there would be no French language; and so on. There is good colonialism and bad colonialism.

But it is blatant nonsense to assume that some of peoples who were colonised would NOT have done the same to Europe, had they been technically able to do so.

Moreover, much of the defense of those whose lands were colonised in nonsense anyhow. What were the English doing in Zululand? Well, what were the Zulus doing there? They were from central Africa and had moved south conquering and colonising as they went (The Zulus themselves were driven out of their lands).

Amristar!!! the real crime at Amristar occurred not in 1922, but in 1985. Dyer only killed a few hundred. Over a thousand were killed in 1985 by the government of India, and the sacred temple was sacked by government troops (something the British would never have dared). But nobody cared. It was not an example of "colonialism."