Deamonz

[Mr. Martinez]

f*ckin ell brav

[Irishdave]

f*ckin ell brav

lol sorry bru, I just felt like writing a book...lol

[Seydou]

You are correct in that not all whites are bad fella, they definitely aren't. However, not wanting to get close to a single one? They are just as imperfect as everyone else and hold the same flaws that everyone else does. Basing a 21st century white person upon what whites did hundreds, thousands of years ago just smacks of a personality formed to bear grudges and hate what people did to somebody else and not himself. Yes, infant mortality in Africa is very low, mortality rates of adults is very low, AID's is rife in Africa, Civil war is a common occurrence and now Islam is moving around certain parts of the continent.

Why is Islaam in that list of bad things, when its been in Northern and Eastern Africa since 600 AD?

[Irishdave]

You are correct in that not all whites are bad fella, they definitely aren't. However, not wanting to get close to a single one? They are just as imperfect as everyone else and hold the same flaws that everyone else does. Basing a 21st century white person upon what whites did hundreds, thousands of years ago just smacks of a personality formed to bear grudges and hate what people did to somebody else and not himself. Yes, infant mortality in Africa is very low, mortality rates of adults is very low, AID's is rife in Africa, Civil war is a common occurrence and now Islam is moving around certain parts of the continent.

Why is Islaam in that list of bad things, when its been in Northern and Eastern Africa since 600 AD?

Sorry, that is part in parcel to my laziness to write properly. "Radical islam" was what I should have said fella, I apologise.

[MARVELL]

^^^^ I like how the earopeans have all the stats of the arab slave trade but are always sketchy when it comes to numbers of their own

the Transatlantic slavetrade was worse because of the brutality and the organisation which was systematic amongst the most powerful nations in the world at the time

and@ thun.. they do have a religion and its daemon worship. the christians, jews, and muslims that play to their tune are being mislead.

ur jewry cannot tell me otherwise as i know youve grown up confused.

Yet none of you opposing white opinions and slating whites have come up with statistics of your own that are fact and from neutral sources.

i dont need to really, cos its been done time and time before. u said ur new so shouldn't be askingthe estimates range from 10 (usually european sources) to 60millionsince entire tribes and cultures were affected all across africa (something that the Arab slave trade only affected north and parts of east Africa) its also based on the fact that only 1 in 10 slaves actually made it across the oceans alive and estimates of 3 in 10 survived more than 5 years.....and lol@ thinking anyone is gonna read what u wrote there....but being irish doesnt mean sh*t cos the same Irish who ran to the US after persecution...were the same racists to black people in the US.

[Irishdave]

^^^^ I like how the earopeans have all the stats of the arab slave trade but are always sketchy when it comes to numbers of their own

the Transatlantic slavetrade was worse because of the brutality and the organisation which was systematic amongst the most powerful nations in the world at the time

and@ thun.. they do have a religion and its daemon worship. the christians, jews, and muslims that play to their tune are being mislead.

ur jewry cannot tell me otherwise as i know youve grown up confused.

Yet none of you opposing white opinions and slating whites have come up with statistics of your own that are fact and from neutral sources.

i dont need to really, cos its been done time and time before. u said ur new so shouldn't be askingthe estimates range from 10 (usually european sources) to 60millionsince entire tribes and cultures were affected all across africa (something that the Arab slave trade only affected north and parts of east Africa) its also based on the fact that only 1 in 10 slaves actually made it across the oceans alive and estimates of 3 in 10 survived more than 5 years.....and lol@ thinking anyone is gonna read what u wrote there....but being irish doesnt mean sh*t cos the same Irish who ran to the US after persecution...were the same racists to black people in the US.

You kind of do need to. I don't see anywhere on these forums about people talking about these. Just because I am new doesn't mean I don't know a thing or two. If you have these sources or anything online then do point me towards them. I'd be more than happy to read them and help my viewpoint better.

I don't care if anyone reads it or not, if they do then they may pick up some valid points, if they don't then they are more than likely going to continue down the same path of ill-educated and biased viewpoint. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Never said being Irish means anything, I used it to make a point about whites abusing whites. The Irish that mostly moved across to America were terrorists in my opinion and don't adequately represent the views of the majority of the population in Ireland.

[Seydou]

Always wanted to ask.

What are the reasons the Irish were persecuted and abused?

Why were they treated inferior?

[Irishdave]

Always wanted to ask.

What are the reasons the Irish were persecuted and abused?

Why were they treated inferior?

It largely goes back to when the British gave what is called the Republic of Ireland back to the Irish people. At that point the IRA were classed more as a political organization and were non-violent. During the drawing up of the Irish constitution by Eamon de Valera the Republic refused to accept Northern Ireland and British occupancy as legitimate or acceptable.

Irish who would have moved to Britain would have been treated in a less harsh way than what blacks were treated by whites, but they were discriminated against through employment, housing allocation and in general, socially. This not only would have happened in the mainland, but in Northern Ireland protestants ruled I think from 1921/22 right through to 1972 if I remember correctly. It has been some time since I talked about this. It was termed as the "orange government" because the Protestant organization called the Orange order influenced government hugely. Largely because their members sat on councils and in Stormont and so on.

There was roughly a 50:50 split, give or take 5% either way in terms of Catholics and Protestants, yet more Protestants received housing allocations despite those houses being in Catholic areas. Gerry mandering was also a way that Protestants would manipulate the council borders so they had a Protestant majority on the board. Jobs in general were mostly given to Protestants because people wouldn't trust a Catholic. Catholic's would be seen as people who would stab you in the back the moment they got the opportunity.

That is just a rough outline of it fella.

It was largely based upon their religion rather than race or ethinicity.

[MARVELL]

another bit of useless evil with both sides claiming to be christians.

[Irishdave]

another bit of useless evil with both sides claiming to be christians.

I cannot agree more

[Skenghis Khan]

60 million? the average world population during the 300 or so years slaves were being taken across the atlantic comes out at around 700 million, are you saying that over 8% of the worlds population was wiped out by the transatlantic slave trade?

/

the irish were seen as a threat by protestant england. if you want to go way back to when it all began.

[Irishdave]

the irish were seen as a threat by protestant england.

No idea why lol we were pretty much a backward nation before the British invaded. Too busy with our potatoes and alcohol

[Seydou]

60 million? the average world population during the 300 or so years slaves were being taken across the atlantic comes out at around 700 million, are you saying that over 8% of the worlds population was wiped out by the transatlantic slave trade?

Are you saying that during 1500/1600s when the Atlantic slave trade was happening, the world population was less than a billion?

And now, its 6 billion?

or did I understand it wrong

[MARVELL]

skengis these are the projected percentages of exports of slaves from the key regions in just over 100yrs from 1711-1810 , however slaves were also taken from south africa, somalia, and north africa.

PROJECTED EXPORTS OF THAT PORTION OF THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH SLAVE TRADE HAVING IDENTIFIABLE REGION OF COAST ORIGIN IN AFRICA, 1711-1810.Senegambia (Senegal-Gambia)* 5.8%Sierra Leone 3.4%Windward Coast (Ivory Coast)* 12.1%Gold Coast (Ghana)* 14.4%Bight of Benin (Nigeria)* 14.5Bight of Biafra (Nigeria)* 25.1%Central and Southeast Africa (Cameroon- N.Angola)* 24.7% *

</p>

the bubonic plague wiped out 1/3 of Europe. the trans atlantic slave trade affected 1/3 of Africa and over half of west africa i dont see whats so hard to understand...actually i do. its bcos of the rubbish people in europe are raised to believe about the truth of slavery. so its not surprising its "hard to believe"

[Skenghis Khan]

yes @ seydou.

[MARVELL]

Some historians conclude that the total loss in persons removed, those who died on the arduous march to coastal slave marts and those killed in slave raids, exceeded the 65–75 million inhabitants remaining Africa at the trade's end.

[Irishdave]

skengis these are the projected percentages of exports of slaves from the key regions in just over 100yrs from 1711-1810 , however slaves were also taken from south africa, somalia, and north africa.

PROJECTED EXPORTS OF THAT PORTION OF THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH SLAVE TRADE HAVING IDENTIFIABLE REGION OF COAST ORIGIN IN AFRICA, 1711-1810.Senegambia (Senegal-Gambia)* 5.8%Sierra Leone 3.4%Windward Coast (Ivory Coast)* 12.1%Gold Coast (Ghana)* 14.4%Bight of Benin (Nigeria)* 14.5Bight of Biafra (Nigeria)* 25.1%Central and Southeast Africa (Cameroon- N.Angola)* 24.7% *

</p>

the bubonic plague wiped out 1/3 of Europe. the trans atlantic slave trade affected 1/3 of Africa and over half of west africa i dont see whats so hard to understand...actually i do. its bcos of the rubbish people in europe are raised to believe about the truth of slavery. so its not surprising its "hard to believe"

Interesting

[Skenghis Khan]

source? names of these historians? a link at least?

[Irishdave]

source? names of these historians? a link at least?

That would be nice, if it isn't wikipedia... lol

Nah, but at least he is putting some figures across, the effort is there

[Raegus]

I have been reading this thread while waiting for my account to be activated and it certainly is a very interesting debate/topic. For me, people use words to try and antagonise another person or to hurt them, take the hurt out of the word and it becomes nothing. People can call white folks "deamonz" if they so chose to do so. There are several extremist groups within southern Africa who like to refer to white people as "pinks". I guess I am like Reginald D Hunter in that those kinds of words just make me laugh. Being Irish, we have had a lot of crap thrown our direction from many English people. Granted, it isn't the same kind of thing, but the point still remains valid. Words are just words and most of the time they end up being hollow or empty words because the person doesn't know what they are talking about in the first place.

I don't think anyone is using the word "daemonz" to try and offend white people. White people have been pretty pro-evil in their history; all the way down to the common man. "daemonz" seems to me a fairly tame word that sums up the image white people have in a semi-humorous fashion. Pinks, again, is not exactly an offensive term. You are pink, after all. We are called black; even those of us without black skin.

"Not all whites are bad i like some but i wouldn't get close to a single one . Aslong as my black brothers and sisters are dying everyday because of disease and malnutrition in africa , where in certain parts you would be considered to have a long life if you have lived till 50 because of you know who f*cked everything up and are STILL CONTINUING TO do it . That i can never forgive white people for nor will i ever . People always see africa as a 3rd world continent but never ask why

You are correct in that not all whites are bad fella, they definitely aren't. However, not wanting to get close to a single one? They are just as imperfect as everyone else and hold the same flaws that everyone else does. Basing a 21st century white person upon what whites did hundreds, thousands of years ago just smacks of a personality formed to bear grudges and hate what people did to somebody else and not himself. Yes, infant mortality in Africa is very low, mortality rates of adults is very low, AID's is rife in Africa, Civil war is a common occurrence and now Islam is moving around certain parts of the continent.

Funny, just a few months ago Petercrouch was an uncle tom. But anyway; the ignorance of common whites is astounding and they are extremely quick to wash 'their' (that is to say, white people as a group) hands of any wrongdoings either in the present or in the past that still affect the present ("they're just blaming whitey") so I'm not surprised there's a growing resentment of whites among blacks. Whites are not responsible for all the pain in Africa today but there's not a single problem in Africa that isn't in some way connected to white people (but according to whites all they did was rescue some blacks from Africa via slavery). A lot of white governments in Africa incurred massive amounts of debt whilst trying to quell the native rebels and in order to be recognised as independent countries once the natives had 'won' they had to agree to take on these debts. Then absurdly high-interest loans were given to countries that had experienced disasters like famine and drought (to this very day for every cent given to Africa in charity, 25 cents leaves Africa to first world countries). Then you have the puppet regimes who whites would keep in power in return for good good good deals on the natural resources. All this did was destabilize unstable countries further. It was not uncommon in various African countries to find both sides of a civil war funded by the same whites.

Problem for this statement is, people do see Africa as a 3rd world continent and they do ask questions why and academics do write thesis and so on as to probable causes for this. In all honest the EDC's (economically developed countries) are to a degree responsible for the economical climate in many UEDC's (un economically developed countries (can't remember if that is the correct term)) During the de-colonisation phase countries were given independence and then left to their own devices with little knowledge of economics and basic infrastructural needs that a country needs in order to thrive and develop. In my opinion the EDC's had a responsibility then to ensure that independence was indeed transitional and not just cut throat like it was. Add to that the fact that African countries, alongside the likes of the West Indies and so on,were disadvantaged when it came to trade agreements for their natural resources. That kind of exploitation is one of the reasons why the EDC's are at the level they are economically, and thus, able to thrive and develop infrastructure through education, healthcare etc etc.

I don't disagree with this.

However, they cannot be solely responsible for many different scenarios within Africa as a continent. Famine has sparked civil wars, gang culture and divisions of countries. Somalia is a prime example of a country that has been destroyed by the war lords fighting over lands, food, water and money. American intervention on humanitarian grounds in Mogadishu is one of the most high profile events of an EDC response to the genocide caused by these warlords. Having said that, there is a cause for argument that the weapons used for example would have been from American based munitions factories in the first place. Take away any kind of supply and there will be no demand in that case. In Rwanda black people of Tootsie origin have been fighting against the Hutu population of the country. Arguably Belgium may have had some kind of influence long before that situation occurred in which a form of "ethnic cleansing" was done in the most barbaric nature but I cannot be sure on that. It isn't something I have looked into in great depth or detail. I could go into what happened in Zimbabwe (formerly known as Rhodesia) and South Africa but this post is going to be long enough as it is. My point being that I cannot for the life of me attribute all of Africa's problems solely to white people.

These countries have civil wars because they are highly unstable. No one group holds enough power to keep the other parties from trying to usurp them. The abundance of guns being provided to them from whites and Asians(oriental) certainly doesn't help the situation. The tutsi and hutu tribes were set against each other by white people over hundreds of years. The old divide and conquer method. This is an example of pain in Africa that is not caused by white people but is connected to white people. Ideally they would embrace each other as brothers and could easily do so but the psychological conditioning the white man put upon them is so severe and so powerful that they cannot break from it. The slave mentality comes to mind. South Africa and Zimbabwe have spread the wealth that was concentrated in a tiny part of the population (whites) amongst a larger group of blacks. This is not a bad thing as many whites would have you believe. More whites are in poverty in SA then ever before, true, but there are also tenfold more rich blacks than there were before. Poor blacks even have the opportunity to move up in the social classes; a luxury never before given to them.

Black people have not helped themselves and here is an example; "Swaziland's King Mswati III has bought 10 new BMW series 5 cars for his wives. Swaziland's media reports that it has cost him $820,000. The 36-year-old king frequently hits the headlines with stories about his lavish lifestyle." Now, if people cared about each other in the same country with the continent of Africa, why is this guy, a KING flaunting cash for his wifes when his "subjects" are struggling to put food on the table and many are just about scraping together $1 per day. This is what I don't understand and this hasn't been the one and only time he has done that. Royal Families rarely make their own money, they receive it from the treasury or some kind of state funds (correct me if I am wrong) On another occasion he spent equivalent to 2 years healthcare budget on a jet plane. Just think of the amount of money he could have spent on the healthcare system and made it easier for families to get hold of contraception, vaccines and medicines amongst other things. Those kinds of things are a privilege in Africa because of their expense and their accessibility. He could have helped to build roads so people could get to a hospital, even if it was 50km's away.

So when Qaddafi is helping his people and providing them with food and water and using oil money to build infrastructure and buildings the US Government is more than happy to help murder him but when there's somebody like this in power, NOW they want to keep their noses out of other peoples business? If he were spending this money on his people I don't doubt there would be a sudden surge in Islamic suicide bombers in the country and America would need to go in and occupy the country to protect it.

He goes on to state " OH pleassssssssssssseeeeeee . If someone is 95 percent of a problem . They are the problem . I don't give a flying cahooters about the measly 5 percent . The state of africa is white peoples fault"

Factually incorrect and I suspect that your "95%" is a figure plucked out of your head and again, further evidence that your grudge towards white people gets in the way of rational thinking.

Yes 95% was clearly a made up statistic but it's probably not far from the real figure. Whites are a shadowy bunch and even today we don't REALLY know the full extent of their evil in Africa. But even on the surface it's not too hard to see the negative influence whites have had on the continent (but then we're just blaming whitey).

"Name me one white country where the majority of the people are poor . Oh wait you couldn't and they all SOMEWAY were involved . It weren't just the elite. White people are known to support colonialism . Look how they go on about supporting invading libya and afghanistan and support these white troops"

Erm, Russia, Slovakia, Romania, Georgia...I really could go on about countries that have a significant gap between the poor and the rich whereby distribution of wealth is massively disproportionate. All white folk nations who aren't exactly having as good a time as you seem to think. It wasn't just the current EDC's who were all for expansionist and colonialism ideologies. Take a look at Turkey and the rather "small" empire, but an empire nonetheless that they wanted to have. They weren't white and they weren't Christian or Jewish either. Believe it or not, but going into Afghanistan and the decision to provide support to the insurgency in Libya through air strikes and weaponry are not based on colonial and expansionist ideology. The war in Afghanistan was a result of an age long feud between Islamic extremists (goes back past the holy crusades) who decided to attack the hegemonic state in the global community. Libya was mainly based upon human rights issues and humanitarian intervention, as well as guaranteeing that oil reserves and the terrorist camps set up in Libya are dealt with how the Western Civilisation wants.

Yes, countries that are not related to the marauding band of pirates known as Anglo Saxons did not benefit greatly from their plundering of other nations. What I think the brother meant is name me one Anglo Saxon country.

"Africa is f*cked up because of white people and they obviously have no interest in fixing it or restoring it back to what it was .

What do we do just accept it uncle tom ?

Do we just say ok your ancestors killed off our people but hey your not all bad even though my people are STILL SUFFERING

Yes there are plenty of nice whites but it doesn;t change the fact that the people that f*cked it up were white but hey some people dont like the truth "

America's intervention in Somalia, Western pressure upon the Apartheid government in South Africa through trade embargos and International isolation, the same was done with Zimbabwe under the Robert Mugabe regime (although judging from what you had said you probably have a shrine to a mass murderer of his own people, never mind intimidation and discrimination towards white farmers, yea, black people aren't all innocent either fella) Add to that the numerous efforts by Red Cross and other charities as well as non government organisations who are trying desperately to change the situation in Africa for everyone. However, if the EDC's were to take their military and move into Africa to remove war lords and so on and free the people from tyranny and dictatorships, the EDC's and whites would still be seen in a bad light because with people like petercrotch, they cannot win regardless of what they do.

Discrimination towards the poor, innocent white farmers? The ones who were like 7% of the population and controlled 95% of the countries wealth? f*ck them. They had hundreds of years to extend a hand of peace to the native blacks. They didn't ever do it. Hell, I (and most of us) was born while they still had racial segregation.

Uncle Tom is a term used by Americans for Americans by American troops and not used by white folk around the rest of the world. Americanisation isn't that strong. Adolf Hitler massacred the Jewish population (what he could of) in Germany with the aim of creating the perfect/ayrian race. The people of Germany have moved on and the Jewish people who had their families slaughtered have moved on, they remember, but they don't let it dictate how they live their lives. You call what you say the truth but you have not pointed to historical incidents or given examples that back up your extremely weak argument.

Hitler wasn't killing the Jews to purify his race; he was killing them because they owned too much (some say they were jut a scapegoat but even after Hitler started losing the war he was still pumping tons of money into killing Jews, that's dedication reserved for no scapegoat).

"Oh and slavery hasn't stopped. Africa is still getting raped as we speak" This is a classic case of someone being incredibly naive. Before this he mentioned that slavery is the reason why Africa is the way it is. When you consider all of the facts, slavery may have had an affect, but not anywhere near the levels that war lords and civil wars destroy countries. Africa is raping itself and playing the blame game and blaming every problem in Africa on slavery and the white people is just people burying their heads in the sand and not facing up to the problems head on. "oh well it wasn't our fault, so there is nothing we can do"

I wouldn't say slavery is the reason Africa is the way it is, I would say it was the colonisation and land grab that made Africa the way it is. From when I can see more of my peoples treasures in British museums than I can in any African country you know we got raped by more than our own civil wars (created by whites anyway).

[Raegus]

I won't bother quoting any more, but I well make reference. Regarding support for the wars, without statistical information you are merely promoting hearsay and speculating upon what I assume is the none information that you have. You are insinuating here that white people are war mongerers, yet we have the likes of North Korea and Iran being aggressive towards other nations and using threats of nuclear technology to have people back down. They aren't white.

I think it's pointless to claim white people AREN'T war mongerers if I'm honest. Pointing at other groups and saying "they're doing it toooo" doesn't make you innocent buddy.

This comment was laughable "Di leader of di US is a poppet of di daemonz " because anyone who comes into office in an EDC has legislation that would take years and possibly decades to get changed and passed in the legal institutions required. If you think that that is someone being controlled by white people, then you need to educate yourself on governmental procedures and how difficult it is to amend or change a written and even unwritten constitution. I do note your sense of humour with the blacks on not supporting the war though fella

In relation to the planned capitol of the world is Jerusalem comment. Farcical to be quite frank as the Jewish religion isn't particularly influential and nor is it bigger than Islam and Christianity.

The Jewish religion I would say is very influential with their monopoly on Hollywood and many News stations. I don't believe they're really planning anything devious or are devious people but that is still fact.

With the slave trade I don't think it is fair to be pointing fingers, there was very few nations or races that were solely innocent during the whole affair. Blacks traded blacks, whites traded everyone, persians traded persions and everyone else and so on and so forth. We are getting into very sticky territory with that whole line of argument. Thankfully the civil rights movements changed that, albeit slowly and over a period of time but lets not forget that in Europe there were slave trades with whites amongst whites and discrimination in Northern Ireland of Catholics by Protestants. Ironic in a sense because Catholicism and Protestantism are virtually Christian faiths in the first place.

What whites NEVER remember is that slavery in Africa was wholly different from slavery in the West. Firstly you could work off your indebtment; you were not a slave for your whole life. Secondly you were not told you were meant to be a slave because of your race (severe psychological trauma still present in many black communities outside Africa). nowhere else in the world or in recorded history has slavery EVER been race based. That is a white invention and that is probably why people feel more sorely about the enslavement of blacks in the West than other forms of slavery. I know the English also had a number of Irish slaves but once freed these were quick to assimilate into white society; and even to become slave overseers in America.

"History is being rewritten as we speak . Never trust a european with your history for instance . When we are all dead and buried , lets say in 100 years time ,the history books will tell you we invaded afghanistan because we were at war with an extremist group called the taliban that blew up the world trade centres, when really the daemonz invaded afghanistan to steal there oil and possibly take their opium ." What a lot of absolute guff. State theory may be the dominant ideology amongst governments and their international policy but if you think for one second that the war with Islamic extremists isn't real then perhaps I should buy you a ticket to the part of Pakistan, perhaps to Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Libya etc so you can see for yourself. Why are you using the term "we"? There is more oil in Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait than there is in Afghanistan. Why do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait in the 90's? haha for their oil, are Iraqi's white? no there are not.

It's true. I still expect in a few hundred years for Australia to 'forget' that the native population wasn't white.

[local]

skengis these are the projected percentages of exports of slaves from the key regions in just over 100yrs from 1711-1810 , however slaves were also taken from south africa, somalia, and north africa.

PROJECTED EXPORTS OF THAT PORTION OF THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH SLAVE TRADE HAVING IDENTIFIABLE REGION OF COAST ORIGIN IN AFRICA, 1711-1810.Senegambia (Senegal-Gambia)* 5.8%Sierra Leone 3.4%Windward Coast (Ivory Coast)* 12.1%Gold Coast (Ghana)* 14.4%Bight of Benin (Nigeria)* 14.5Bight of Biafra (Nigeria)* 25.1%Central and Southeast Africa (Cameroon- N.Angola)* 24.7% *

</p>

the bubonic plague wiped out 1/3 of Europe. the trans atlantic slave trade affected 1/3 of Africa and over half of west africa i dont see whats so hard to understand...actually i do. its bcos of the rubbish people in europe are raised to believe about the truth of slavery. so its not surprising its "hard to believe"

Interesting

maybe but its irrelevant

these are projected percentages of what areas in africa slaves were from, part of an african american attempt to trace ancestory

http://mulattodebate...cestors-2834302

marvell is an idiot clutching at straws, scramblin for information that don't even make sense

still manages to string enough guys along

petercrouch WAS bare different a few months back i remember him in the riot thread crying about how this will look to the white people

Raegus is faceoff

[MARVELL]

lol.. local ur such a d*ckhead.

i never got those figures from no african american attempt to look at where they were from

those are figures posted on non wiki sites about slavery, or you can read "how europe under developed Africa" its there in more detail

unlike you, not everything is gleaned from racist websites, or on the internet for that matter. Reading a book or two can help. ive never been to that forum before so obviously the same information was posted there,

[local]

lol.. local ur such a d*ckhead.

i never got those figures from no african american attempt to look at where they were from

those are figures posted on non wiki sites about slavery, or you can read "how europe under developed Africa" its there in more detail

unlike you, not everything is gleaned from racist websites, or on the internet for that matter. Reading a book or two can help. ive never been to that forum before so obviously the same information was posted there,

THE STATS CLEARLY DON'T MAKE SENSE KID

the info is all over the net, as I said, its part of an attempt for african americans to trace their heritage

the original data is derived from Transformations in Slavery by Paul E. Lovejoy Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-521-78430-1

tyour talkin about how the slave trade wiped out a third of africa, and to back your post up as always you post a random piece of irrelevant information and refuse to post your source

proper idiot

[Irishdave]

I don't think anyone is using the word "daemonz" to try and offend white people. White people have been pretty pro-evil in their history; all the way down to the common man. "daemonz" seems to me a fairly tame word that sums up the image white people have in a semi-humorous fashion. Pinks, again, is not exactly an offensive term. You are pink, after all. We are called black; even those of us without black skin.

Ah ok fella, perhaps I misinterpreted the reasoning behind using that term. From my perspective I guess I perceived those kinds of words to be used in such a manner, I won't make that mistake again, so thanks for clarifying the reasoning behind it.

Funny, just a few months ago Petercrouch was an uncle tom. But anyway; the ignorance of common whites is astounding and they are extremely quick to wash 'their' (that is to say, white people as a group) hands of any wrongdoings either in the present or in the past that still affect the present ("they're just blaming whitey") so I'm not surprised there's a growing resentment of whites among blacks. Whites are not responsible for all the pain in Africa today but there's not a single problem in Africa that isn't in some way connected to white people (but according to whites all they did was rescue some blacks from Africa via slavery). A lot of white governments in Africa incurred massive amounts of debt whilst trying to quell the native rebels and in order to be recognised as independent countries once the natives had 'won' they had to agree to take on these debts. Then absurdly high-interest loans were given to countries that had experienced disasters like famine and drought (to this very day for every cent given to Africa in charity, 25 cents leaves Africa to first world countries). Then you have the puppet regimes who whites would keep in power in return for good good good deals on the natural resources. All this did was destabilize unstable countries further. It was not uncommon in various African countries to find both sides of a civil war funded by the same whites.

I don't disagree with you entirely on any of this fella. Everything is inter-connected and everything will have a different affect. The South African economical climate can certainly be attributed to the Apartheid government, but in that respect I don't know much about a handful of countries in detail.

These countries have civil wars because they are highly unstable. No one group holds enough power to keep the other parties from trying to usurp them. The abundance of guns being provided to them from whites and Asians(oriental) certainly doesn't help the situation. The tutsi and hutu tribes were set against each other by white people over hundreds of years. The old divide and conquer method. This is an example of pain in Africa that is not caused by white people but is connected to white people. Ideally they would embrace each other as brothers and could easily do so but the psychological conditioning the white man put upon them is so severe and so powerful that they cannot break from it. The slave mentality comes to mind. South Africa and Zimbabwe have spread the wealth that was concentrated in a tiny part of the population (whites) amongst a larger group of blacks. This is not a bad thing as many whites would have you believe. More whites are in poverty in SA then ever before, true, but there are also tenfold more rich blacks than there were before. Poor blacks even have the opportunity to move up in the social classes; a luxury never before given to them.

Largely in agreement with you there.

So when Qaddafi is helping his people and providing them with food and water and using oil money to build infrastructure and buildings the US Government is more than happy to help murder him but when there's somebody like this in power, NOW they want to keep their noses out of other peoples business? If he were spending this money on his people I don't doubt there would be a sudden surge in Islamic suicide bombers in the country and America would need to go in and occupy the country to protect it.

Lets not forget the enormous torment that women in Libya underwent and probably continue to experience. I admit, that many of them have been allegations that are unproven, but given he controlled the media to a large extent it is difficult to ascertain a balance viewpoint on that and whether those women are telling the truth. There are cases when it has been proven, although I had not seen the evidence on anything other than tv. Qaddafi was also training Muslim extremists as many of their training camps were in Libya, again, that evidence is based mainly on the information given through tv outlets and newspapers. The hypocrisy amongst America, lets face it, they are a terrorist state, isn't something I find particularly attractive. Humanitarian aid is used as a smokescreen in certain situations and in this situation I don't deny that they had wanted regime change there for a long time, they wanted regime change there before Hussain was wanted out. The very nature of Islamic extremists doesn't matter on what Gaddafi does or whether he gives their people food and so on, they will still want to continue the war with the rest. It is allegedly written in their religious texts about the infidel and cleansing and all that kind of thing. Although I have not seen such aggressive language in it myself (not studied is closely, just briefly)

Yes, countries that are not related to the marauding band of pirates known as Anglo Saxons did not benefit greatly from their plundering of other nations. What I think the brother meant is name me one Anglo Saxon country.

Not all whites are Anglo Saxon. If we are going to be specific then specific groups of white people would need to be criticised equally. I cannot name Anglo Saxon countries that are poor, because to my knowledge there aren't any.

Discrimination towards the poor, innocent white farmers? The ones who were like 7% of the population and controlled 95% of the countries wealth? f*ck them. They had hundreds of years to extend a hand of peace to the native blacks. They didn't ever do it. Hell, I (and most of us) was born while they still had racial segregation.

I know the white farmers were pretty well off, I was merely using it as an example of perceived discrimination. That both blacks and whites have treated each other so, but I accept that you reap what you so and for whites to then cry about being treated that why is a bit rich, given the way they treated blacks.

Hitler wasn't killing the Jews to purify his race; he was killing them because they owned too much (some say they were jut a scapegoat but even after Hitler started losing the war he was still pumping tons of money into killing Jews, that's dedication reserved for no scapegoat).

I would argue that it could very well be both. Hitler, whilst struggling as an artist was deeply disturbed that German's were not able to get jobs and public unrest in the working class was complaining about the Jews and their high salaries. Strange, given that Hitler was Austrian and not German.

I wouldn't say slavery is the reason Africa is the way it is, I would say it was the colonisation and land grab that made Africa the way it is. From when I can see more of my peoples treasures in British museums than I can in any African country you know we got raped by more than our own civil wars (created by whites anyway).

I would agree with colonisation and land grabbing having a huge affect. Meant to mention in the other post that American Pharmaceutical companies hold a large responsibility for the expense of medicines and so on in Africa.