So you hate whites, jews, latinos, arabs, asians and obama. nice.
Sir, you and flaming idiot! I hate none of the above. I'v only provided proof that Africans the world over have subjected to worse treatment imaginable! I have showed you how Africans and have been marginalized by Whites, Latinos and Asian and treated LESS THAN HUMAN with visual recorded proof. Now, please you show me how I am hateful for bring these things to light?
In my post I was simply commenting on your choice of expert video wherein your expert doesn't even correctly place the great kingdoms of Africa in historical context. It's embarrassing to see this kind of schlock put out as reasoned argument. I hope 'Destruction' is not using that guy as a source. BTW Iceman Inheritance is written by a white man. Interesting don't you think.
I think Dr. Williams is Debunking the Eurocentic Historians that claim the first African Kingdoms post date Greece as you put it. In fact if you read his work[/b] he shows in his findings that many things found in southern europe were predated by Africans by hundreds and in some cases 1000's of years. Case in point is the African orgins of Democracy in which he has a chapter on. READ the BOOK then debate or step off!
So you hate whites, jews, latinos, arabs, asians and obama. nice.
Sir, you and flaming idiot! I hate none of the above. I'v only provided proof that Africans the world over have subjected to worse treatment imaginable! I have showed you how Africans and have been marginalized by Whites, Latinos and Asian and treated LESS THAN HUMAN with visual recorded proof. Now, please you show me how I am hateful for bring these things to light?
In my post I was simply commenting on your choice of expert video wherein your expert doesn't even correctly place the great kingdoms of Africa in historical context. It's embarrassing to see this kind of schlock put out as reasoned argument. I hope 'Destruction' is not using that guy as a source. BTW Iceman Inheritance is written by a white man. Interesting don't you think.
I think Dr. Williams is Debunking the Eurocentic Historians that claim the first African Kingdoms post date Greece as you put it. In fact if you read his work[/b] he shows in his findings that many things found in southern europe were predated by Africans by hundreds and in some cases 1000's of years. Case in point is the African orgins of Democracy in which he has a chapter on. READ the BOOK then debate or step off!
Uh, if you watch your own video you will see that he refers to 'democracy' in the great kingdoms of Africa and goes on to list only those that post-date Greece. His thesis that all prehistoric societies used 'democractic' means is laughable. I could go on and on. My point is that the proper response to a racist Eurocentric world view is not to invent a competing essentialist history. Listen closely and you will see that that is exactly what Dr. Williams is doing.
White folks and black folks have been beefing for 6000 years?
YES! Black Africans and Caucasians (semites are caucasians as well).
Thats really bad man..
1. I asked if white people and black people had really had conflict for 6000 years.... that shit didn't say anything about anything about that.
2. I know that Africa contained many many huge advances that pre-dated the europeans. Democracy, infrastructure, architecture, and many many more.
3. That guy blames Africans getting conquered on the fact that Africans are a race of brotherhood? So they were taken over simply because they were nice? Africans have been battling internally for a long time man. So to say that violence was some how a European concept is stupid.
I just think that Africa was under populated... still is to this day. Thats why they got colonized.
And Democracy isn't really inventible. It naturally occurs in hunting and gathering and horticultural societies. Large scale democracy or representative democracy might not be an African Concept but whoever has the oldest society has the oldest Democracy... fact. The fact that Africa is and has always been under populated means that lots of examples existed pre-colonialism. And a couple examples exist now.
If anything the Enlightenment and the advent of Capitolism via Adam Smith was the downfall of Africa.
In a way yes... but I dont want to say something overly simplistic for such a complex topic.
I think that Europe was overpopulated and needed resources.
I think that Europe developed the Caravel while Africans had nothing close to as fast ship wise. This gave Europe an immense strategic advantage.
I think that Europeans created monoculture plantations which allowed for maximized profits thus freeing calories for technology development.
The Banking and Merchant class allowed for limber funding.
Joint Stock Companies created entities that sought out profits overseas making colonization fundable. And stealing shit is a great business model in capitalism. The first colonies in Africa were not set by countries but by businesses.
Mercantilism developed through enlightenment thinking and capitalism made balanced trade a necessity. Which created the system where Africans were forced to sell raw goods to the colonizer and then buy back processed goods from them. Balanced trade is real nasty shit in colonialism.
Industrialization allowed for by freed up calories allowed for the creation of rifles while the Africans simply had muskets. Rifles always win.
The Africans weren't better or worse... rather they just weren't on the trajectory to ever be colonizers in the world. A main reason why they didn't need to develop these more complex economic systems, that free up calories and develop technology, is because Africa was underpopulated and was rich in resources. Thus never necessitating the movement into Agriculture or Industrialization.
so yes...
they got colonized because they were underpopulated. And because of Adam Smith and other Enlightenment concepts that shaped how the Europeans saw the world.
But quite simply.... the fact that europe was overpopulated and needed resources doesn't allow for African colonization to happen... it took all those things I listed together to allow for europeans to sit around a map and cordon off the areas that they would take.
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has surpassed Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for superdelegates, according to CNN's latest count.
Obama on Monday picked up an endorsement from Tom Allen, a Maine representative and U.S. Senate candidate.
"Most of the primary voters across the nation have now spoken. It is time to bring a graceful end to the primary campaign.
"We now need to unify the Democratic Party and focus on electing Sen. Obama and a working majority in the United States Senate. That is how we can change the direction of the country," Allen said.
Allen said Obama and Clinton are both "supremely qualified to be president."
Obama released a statement praising Allen's record, saying, "I'm thrilled to be working alongside him in this critical election, and I look forward to working with him as president."
With Allen's endorsement, Obama now leads in the race for superdelegates, 274 to Clinton's 273.
At the beginning of the year, Clinton led the superdelegate race by more than 100.
Superdelegates are party leaders and officials who will vote for the candidate of their choice at the Democratic convention in August.
The focus of the Democratic race has largely turned to the superdelegates because they outnumber the remaining pledged delegates that are up for grabs.
Obama has a comfortable lead in overall delegates, 1,865 to Clinton's 1,697.
The Democrats next face off Tuesday in West Virginia, where Clinton is expected to win by big margins.
Her campaign is renewing the argument that if she leads in the popular vote, she should be the Democratic nominee.
"Hillary is within striking distance of winning the popular vote nationwide -- a key part of our plan to win the nomination," campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a letter to supporters Sunday.
"That means we need every last vote we can get in West Virginia on Tuesday and in the races to follow."
Her campaign is trying to turn out the vote in the remaining six contests, hoping the popular vote argument will persuade superdelegates to endorse her instead of Obama.
Clinton's campaign has argued that she would be more electable in a general election because she has done well in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of their delegates.
West Virginia is also a key swing state. Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, and George Bush carried it in 2000 and 2004.
West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, an uncommitted superdelegate, said the delegate numbers are in Obama's favor, but the popular vote is important to the people of his state.
"I think we see what happened in 2004, when Al Gore won the popular vote, and where the country has gone and the feelings toward government since then. I put a lot of stock in that," he said on CNN's "American Morning."
"If the people believe that it was over, they wouldn't be voting maybe in the way they might vote tomorrow or in the next few campaigns," he said.
Clinton is expected to trounce Obama in West Virginia, but Manchin said he thinks Obama would also be able to carry the state in the general election.
The senator from New York has a 43-percentage-point advantage over Obama, 66 percent to 23 percent, according to a survey from the American Research Group released Friday.
The poll was conducted after last Tuesday's contests and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Following Obama's double digit win in North Carolina and Clinton's narrow victory in Indiana, party leaders have suggested Clinton has reached the end of her campaign.
But Clinton has vowed to stay in the race until someone gets enough delegates to clinch the nomination.
Just 28 delegates are up for grab in West Virginia.
Still, Clinton is campaigning hard there, with stops scheduled Monday in Montgomery, Clear Fork, Logan and Fairmont.
Obama has an event scheduled in Charleston and is then expected to travel to Kentucky for a rally in Louisville.
1. I asked if white people and black people had really had conflict for 6000 years.... that shit didn't say anything about anything about that.
2. I know that Africa contained many many huge advances that pre-dated the europeans. Democracy, infrastructure, architecture, and many many more.
3. That guy blames Africans getting conquered on the fact that Africans are a race of brotherhood? So they were taken over simply because they were nice? Africans have been battling internally for a long time man. So to say that violence was some how a European concept is stupid.
I just think that Africa was under populated... still is to this day. Thats why they got colonized.
Everything you touched on is answer in the book. The problems with Blacks and Semites (Who are Caucasian just like Eurpoeans) Date back roughly 600 years.
Read the book, Then comment. ONE of the reason African is underpopulated is slavery. Arabs have practicing almost exclusively on Blacks for roughly 14 centuries (obviously much longer than the european). Usually the Mulatto children of semite Arabs not only hates Blacks with a passion but they became excellent hunters of Black Men, Women and Children and slave traders. All of this is in the Book. Black Africa's population should be at least 4 times what it is. READ IT!
Is there some book I can read that will clear this up?
I know; I love how this clown makes it a point to keep including that parenthetical, on some "oh-boy-I-hope-someone-challenges-me-on-THIS-little-tidbit-I'll-really-show-them!"
this guy is such a dumbass it's (almost) unbelievable.
I think that Europeans created monoculture plantations which allowed for maximized profits thus freeing calories for technology development.
I don't disagree with anyones point here (at least not loudly). But I think we can agree that monoculture first appeared in the fertile crescent (Iraq).
If Iraq is in Europe, Africa or Asia and whether the people who lived there then were African, Semitic, Caucasian or Asian I will leave to people who care.
Ethiopia seems to be missing from this debate, except perhaps Kusch means Ethiopia? As part of the Egyptian empire and the only African country not to be colonized it seems important to mention.
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has surpassed Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for superdelegates, according to CNN's latest count.
Obama on Monday picked up an endorsement from Tom Allen, a Maine representative and U.S. Senate candidate.
"Most of the primary voters across the nation have now spoken. It is time to bring a graceful end to the primary campaign.
"We now need to unify the Democratic Party and focus on electing Sen. Obama and a working majority in the United States Senate. That is how we can change the direction of the country," Allen said.
Allen said Obama and Clinton are both "supremely qualified to be president."
Obama released a statement praising Allen's record, saying, "I'm thrilled to be working alongside him in this critical election, and I look forward to working with him as president."
With Allen's endorsement, Obama now leads in the race for superdelegates, 274 to Clinton's 273.
At the beginning of the year, Clinton led the superdelegate race by more than 100.
Superdelegates are party leaders and officials who will vote for the candidate of their choice at the Democratic convention in August.
The focus of the Democratic race has largely turned to the superdelegates because they outnumber the remaining pledged delegates that are up for grabs.
Obama has a comfortable lead in overall delegates, 1,865 to Clinton's 1,697.
The Democrats next face off Tuesday in West Virginia, where Clinton is expected to win by big margins.
Her campaign is renewing the argument that if she leads in the popular vote, she should be the Democratic nominee.
"Hillary is within striking distance of winning the popular vote nationwide -- a key part of our plan to win the nomination," campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a letter to supporters Sunday.
"That means we need every last vote we can get in West Virginia on Tuesday and in the races to follow."
Her campaign is trying to turn out the vote in the remaining six contests, hoping the popular vote argument will persuade superdelegates to endorse her instead of Obama.
Clinton's campaign has argued that she would be more electable in a general election because she has done well in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of their delegates.
West Virginia is also a key swing state. Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, and George Bush carried it in 2000 and 2004.
West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, an uncommitted superdelegate, said the delegate numbers are in Obama's favor, but the popular vote is important to the people of his state.
"I think we see what happened in 2004, when Al Gore won the popular vote, and where the country has gone and the feelings toward government since then. I put a lot of stock in that," he said on CNN's "American Morning."
"If the people believe that it was over, they wouldn't be voting maybe in the way they might vote tomorrow or in the next few campaigns," he said.
Clinton is expected to trounce Obama in West Virginia, but Manchin said he thinks Obama would also be able to carry the state in the general election.
The senator from New York has a 43-percentage-point advantage over Obama, 66 percent to 23 percent, according to a survey from the American Research Group released Friday.
The poll was conducted after last Tuesday's contests and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Following Obama's double digit win in North Carolina and Clinton's narrow victory in Indiana, party leaders have suggested Clinton has reached the end of her campaign.
But Clinton has vowed to stay in the race until someone gets enough delegates to clinch the nomination.
Just 28 delegates are up for grab in West Virginia.
Still, Clinton is campaigning hard there, with stops scheduled Monday in Montgomery, Clear Fork, Logan and Fairmont.
Obama has an event scheduled in Charleston and is then expected to travel to Kentucky for a rally in Louisville.
I think that Europeans created monoculture plantations which allowed for maximized profits thus freeing calories for technology development.
I don't disagree with anyones point here (at least not loudly). But I think we can agree that monoculture first appeared in the fertile crescent (Iraq).
If Iraq is in Europe, Africa or Asia and whether the people who lived there then were African, Semitic, Caucasian or Asian I will leave to people who care.
Ethiopia seems to be missing from this debate, except perhaps Kusch means Ethiopia? As part of the Egyptian empire and the only African country not to be colonized it seems important to mention.
OK, all you all can continue.
Life Started in Africa. Cushites and Ethiopians are generally thought of as the same people.
I knew about the whole first person thing, thanks for schooling me on Cushites.
I just meant that MonoCulture farming existed in europe and didn't exist so much in Africa. Not that Europe had it first. I was just giving a list of what I thought led Europe to colonize Africa.
I just meant that MonoCulture farming existed in europe and didn't exist so much in Africa. Not that Europe had it first. I was just giving a list of what I thought led Europe to colonize Africa.
Isn't Iraq in Asia?
I think the drawing of continent boundary's is as arbitrary as a race.
I just meant that MonoCulture farming existed in europe and didn't exist so much in Africa. Not that Europe had it first. I was just giving a list of what I thought led Europe to colonize Africa.
Isn't Iraq in Asia?
I think the drawing of continent boundary's is as arbitrary as a race.
Why did you bring that up though? just so I can understand what your trying to say.
That Iraq had monoculture and still got invaded?
I guess I should clarify... by saying that I meant... IN the context when the Colonization initially occurred... those were the reasons why the occurred.
Comments
amazing!
Uh, if you watch your own video you will see that he refers to 'democracy' in the great kingdoms of Africa and goes on to list only those that post-date Greece. His thesis that all prehistoric societies used 'democractic' means is laughable. I could go on and on. My point is that the proper response to a racist Eurocentric world view is not to invent a competing essentialist history. Listen closely and you will see that that is exactly what Dr. Williams is doing.
Thats really bad man..
1. I asked if white people and black people had really had conflict for 6000 years.... that shit didn't say anything about anything about that.
2. I know that Africa contained many many huge advances that pre-dated the europeans. Democracy, infrastructure, architecture, and many many more.
3. That guy blames Africans getting conquered on the fact that Africans are a race of brotherhood? So they were taken over simply because they were nice? Africans have been battling internally for a long time man. So to say that violence was some how a European concept is stupid.
I just think that Africa was under populated... still is to this day. Thats why they got colonized.
If anything the Enlightenment and the advent of Capitolism via Adam Smith was the downfall of Africa.
U think that was the only reason? Really?
I think that Europe was overpopulated and needed resources.
I think that Europe developed the Caravel while Africans had nothing close to as fast ship wise. This gave Europe an immense strategic advantage.
I think that Europeans created monoculture plantations which allowed for maximized profits thus freeing calories for technology development.
The Banking and Merchant class allowed for limber funding.
Joint Stock Companies created entities that sought out profits overseas making colonization fundable. And stealing shit is a great business model in capitalism. The first colonies in Africa were not set by countries but by businesses.
Mercantilism developed through enlightenment thinking and capitalism made balanced trade a necessity. Which created the system where Africans were forced to sell raw goods to the colonizer and then buy back processed goods from them. Balanced trade is real nasty shit in colonialism.
Industrialization allowed for by freed up calories allowed for the creation of rifles while the Africans simply had muskets. Rifles always win.
The Africans weren't better or worse... rather they just weren't on the trajectory to ever be colonizers in the world. A main reason why they didn't need to develop these more complex economic systems, that free up calories and develop technology, is because Africa was underpopulated and was rich in resources. Thus never necessitating the movement into Agriculture or Industrialization.
so yes...
they got colonized because they were underpopulated. And because of Adam Smith and other Enlightenment concepts that shaped how the Europeans saw the world.
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has surpassed Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for superdelegates, according to CNN's latest count.
Obama on Monday picked up an endorsement from Tom Allen, a Maine representative and U.S. Senate candidate.
"Most of the primary voters across the nation have now spoken. It is time to bring a graceful end to the primary campaign.
"We now need to unify the Democratic Party and focus on electing Sen. Obama and a working majority in the United States Senate. That is how we can change the direction of the country," Allen said.
Allen said Obama and Clinton are both "supremely qualified to be president."
Obama released a statement praising Allen's record, saying, "I'm thrilled to be working alongside him in this critical election, and I look forward to working with him as president."
With Allen's endorsement, Obama now leads in the race for superdelegates, 274 to Clinton's 273.
At the beginning of the year, Clinton led the superdelegate race by more than 100.
Superdelegates are party leaders and officials who will vote for the candidate of their choice at the Democratic convention in August.
The focus of the Democratic race has largely turned to the superdelegates because they outnumber the remaining pledged delegates that are up for grabs.
Obama has a comfortable lead in overall delegates, 1,865 to Clinton's 1,697.
The Democrats next face off Tuesday in West Virginia, where Clinton is expected to win by big margins.
Her campaign is renewing the argument that if she leads in the popular vote, she should be the Democratic nominee.
"Hillary is within striking distance of winning the popular vote nationwide -- a key part of our plan to win the nomination," campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a letter to supporters Sunday.
"That means we need every last vote we can get in West Virginia on Tuesday and in the races to follow."
Her campaign is trying to turn out the vote in the remaining six contests, hoping the popular vote argument will persuade superdelegates to endorse her instead of Obama.
Clinton's campaign has argued that she would be more electable in a general election because she has done well in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of their delegates.
West Virginia is also a key swing state. Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, and George Bush carried it in 2000 and 2004.
West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, an uncommitted superdelegate, said the delegate numbers are in Obama's favor, but the popular vote is important to the people of his state.
"I think we see what happened in 2004, when Al Gore won the popular vote, and where the country has gone and the feelings toward government since then. I put a lot of stock in that," he said on CNN's "American Morning."
"If the people believe that it was over, they wouldn't be voting maybe in the way they might vote tomorrow or in the next few campaigns," he said.
Clinton is expected to trounce Obama in West Virginia, but Manchin said he thinks Obama would also be able to carry the state in the general election.
The senator from New York has a 43-percentage-point advantage over Obama, 66 percent to 23 percent, according to a survey from the American Research Group released Friday.
The poll was conducted after last Tuesday's contests and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Following Obama's double digit win in North Carolina and Clinton's narrow victory in Indiana, party leaders have suggested Clinton has reached the end of her campaign.
But Clinton has vowed to stay in the race until someone gets enough delegates to clinch the nomination.
Just 28 delegates are up for grab in West Virginia.
Still, Clinton is campaigning hard there, with stops scheduled Monday in Montgomery, Clear Fork, Logan and Fairmont.
Obama has an event scheduled in Charleston and is then expected to travel to Kentucky for a rally in Louisville.
------
Classy!
fuck -- you still here?!?
Is there some book I can read that will clear this up?
I know; I love how this clown makes it a point to keep including that parenthetical, on some "oh-boy-I-hope-someone-challenges-me-on-THIS-little-tidbit-I'll-really-show-them!"
this guy is such a dumbass it's (almost) unbelievable.
If by "really show them" you mean he'd say "READ THE BOOK" 5 more times, then yes.
I don't disagree with anyones point here (at least not loudly). But I think we can agree that monoculture first appeared in the fertile crescent (Iraq).
If Iraq is in Europe, Africa or Asia and whether the people who lived there then were African, Semitic, Caucasian or Asian I will leave to people who care.
Ethiopia seems to be missing from this debate, except perhaps Kusch means Ethiopia? As part of the Egyptian empire and the only African country not to be colonized it seems important to mention.
OK, all you all can continue.
You see, the first mitochondria swimming around in the primordial oooze was the blackman!
B-b-b-b-but she's black!
I knew about the whole first person thing, thanks for schooling me on Cushites.
Isn't Iraq in Asia?
I think the drawing of continent boundary's is as arbitrary as a race.
they get people saying all kinds of outlandish shit.
and that osmosis jones pic had me losing it.
Why did you bring that up though? just so I can understand what your trying to say.
That Iraq had monoculture and still got invaded?
I guess I should clarify... by saying that I meant... IN the context when the Colonization initially occurred... those were the reasons why the occurred.
and other reasons as well