the pedantic fcuk thread

[Baron Morte]

So as i finished reading that african history book something struck me. I realized that, opposed to the marxist muble jumble most people hear, the europeans had very little effect on the lives of the black comunities there before around the 1850s, and even by them the europeans did have expectation towards actually making africa "work".
South africa and the boer republic in 1872 was a clear example. The brits thought that the political scene in south africa to be essentially possible, and let them rule by themselves. Then rampant civil war and provocation to british interests made britain take the political power out of the colony, invade it again and colonize all over one more time, by 1877.
This example was only shadowy reflection of the reality by then. As oposed to what many may think, the colonization of africa wasnt made by belligerant white man with powerfull machines raging over piles of black men. There is white blood spilled all over africa, and even the black people killed generally had been killed by locals.



So why does africa sucks so much? Why cant they get along and stablish a social and political structure that can endure and actually be feasible? The sad story is that the country that has been on the forefront of african evolution, south africa, its only in the leading point due to aparthaid. Not because the blacks were devoided of power, but because a rigid structure could be stablished and progress could set in.

Is this the fate of the continent?

[MrL_JaKiri]

What has this got to do with the title?

Because of the different culture, is the simple answer.

[Deepflow]

its because black people are lazy, silly.

[ChubbyChecker]

Indeed, most of Africa's problems can be attributed to Africans.

Although some countries are getting better. eg Nigeria. Hopefully this is not their fate but they will be able to progress at some point.

[JonnyBGood]

I think I speak for most people on this forum when I ask what in the name of sweet sunny Jesus are you taking about?

Following on from MrL (who'd have ever thought in a two post thread involving MrL his post would make the most sense heh), historically speaking African culture was not geared towards mass production or huge industrial complexes (nor did they have the sort of rigidly structured society enabling a rapid change in cultural aims). Also excessive military conflict, famines, droughts, exploitation of resources and heavy trade barriers between the West and the third world lead to a comparatively weak economy.

[Deepflow]

im sure if sunday had trolled like i did it would have worked

[Dante Hicks]

Almost none of your comments apply to "Africa" more generally but to Sub-Saharan Africa. The history of North Africa is quite a bit different.

If you're going to be talking bollocks, try to keep it specific plz.

I'll comment further later, have to go and try do the garden.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Almost none of your comments apply to "Africa" more generally but to Sub-Saharan Africa. The history of North Africa is quite a bit different.

I may not give muslim a lot of credit but think we can suppose he knows that and was just using the stereotypical "african" definition.

[queball]

Dante has a garden?!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Dante has a garden?!

More importantly this implies that dante has a ho'

[Marilyn Manson]

Rhodesia and South Africa were moral, political and economic shitholes under Ian Smith and Apartheid.

yeah great progress duder.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

So as i finished reading that african history book something struck me. I realized that, opposed to the marxist muble jumble most people hear, the europeans had very little effect on the lives of the black comunities there before around the 1850s, and even by them the europeans did have expectation towards actually making africa "work".
South africa and the boer republic in 1872 was a clear example. The brits thought that the political scene in south africa to be essentially possible, and let them rule by themselves. Then rampant civil war and provocation to british interests made britain take the political power out of the colony, invade it again and colonize all over one more time, by 1877.
This example was only shadowy reflection of the reality by then. As oposed to what many may think, the colonization of africa wasnt made by belligerant white man with powerfull machines raging over piles of black men. There is white blood spilled all over africa, and even the black people killed generally had been killed by locals.

Just so everyone is clear, very very little of what has been said above is true.

The two seminal dates for significant European interference in Africa, resulting in a complete shift in how the society, culture and economies of Africa worked are 1550 and 1562.

When whites killed whites, it was generally over who would control the blacks.

SELF rule of South Africa was NEVER a possibility for the British. There were discussions about who should be in control, British or Boers, and how that control was partitioned, for a long time, but that's all.

Even by 1850, there was no expectation of making africa work, only making Africa work for Europe.

The 1840 to 1880 period is generally referred to as the second colonial era in Africa. It is the period of intense division of the country, and certainly the first time there was a large scale attempt to occupy most of these states, but European trade, influence and gunboats had been mucking about with Africa for a long time before that.

I suggest any of the following:

-Brooks, George E. "Peanuts and Colonialism: Consequences of the Commercialization of Peanuts in West Africa, 1830-70." Journal of African History
-Pedler, Frederick. The Lion and the Unicorn in Africa: A History of the Origin of The United Africa Company 1787-1931
-Brooke-Smith, Robin, ed. The Scramble for Africa.
-Crowder, Michael. West African Resistance: The Military Response to Colonial Occupation.
(Or anything by Michael Crowder, actually...)
-Lewis, Roy, and Foy, Yvonne. The British in Africa.
-Denoon, Donald. Southern Africa Since 1800

[-=Zyth=-]

I venture to add that what really shook things up were the pamphlets of WIlberforce and those lot.
The thing about slavery that most people forget, is that it was going for a yonk (perhaps 2) and the first slaves coming out of africa where sold by tribes who had captured them in local wars.
The agitation and eventual (mostly down to the power of the royal navy) abolishion of slavery, add the power dance of the great european powers into the mix and you got a 19th century africa that is 1 big war zone.
After 2nd world war the IMF ground the law abiding nation states of afria into dust and led the way for the power mad and genocidal to take power.

Crap but then capitalism without libralism is oppression.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Dante has a garden?!

Indeed.

We moved from our three bedroom flat (where myself, sbolly and T&F lived) to a four bedroom house last September. We have a garden which our tenancy says we must keep tidy, weeded, etc. We haven't touched it since September. The landlady is coming round tommorow to inspect the damage from an unrelated leak. She was "concerned" by the state of the garden. We made a last ditch attempt to make it look good. We failed.

And yes, a ho' was used.

On-topic, I was going to comment on the drivel Muslim has put, but Vermillion has done that now. Hurrah!

[Dace]

You spell it:

F

U

C

K

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Just so everyone is clear, very very little of what has been said above is true.

The two seminal dates for significant European interference in Africa, resulting in a complete shift in how the society, culture and economies of Africa worked are 1550 and 1562.

When whites killed whites, it was generally over who would control the blacks.

SELF rule of South Africa was NEVER a possibility for the British. There were discussions about who should be in control, British or Boers, and how that control was partitioned, for a long time, but that's all.

Even by 1850, there was no expectation of making africa work, only making Africa work for Europe.

The 1840 to 1880 period is generally referred to as the second colonial era in Africa. It is the period of intense division of the country, and certainly the first time there was a large scale attempt to occupy most of these states, but European trade, influence and gunboats had been mucking about with Africa for a long time before that.

I suggest any of the following:

-Brooks, George E. "Peanuts and Colonialism: Consequences of the Commercialization of Peanuts in West Africa, 1830-70." Journal of African History
-Pedler, Frederick. The Lion and the Unicorn in Africa: A History of the Origin of The United Africa Company 1787-1931
-Brooke-Smith, Robin, ed. The Scramble for Africa.
-Crowder, Michael. West African Resistance: The Military Response to Colonial Occupation.
(Or anything by Michael Crowder, actually...)
-Lewis, Roy, and Foy, Yvonne. The British in Africa.
-Denoon, Donald. Southern Africa Since 1800

you essentially miss the point that victorian britain was by and large a humanitarian laissez faire state. The victory on the napoleonic wars gave britain the stability and power to be transigent, not belligerant, and specially they did trust on science and that things could and would get better anyway.
Infact for the most part, the incursions of the heart of africa started due to missionary work, and even past the initial state of colonization, the missionaries had the upper hand in many issues, because they where well funded, knew the continent, and had the manpower to achieve what they wanted.

The goal was to make the colonies to pay off, moneywise, no doubt, and that meant that many colonies could trade wit whoever they wanted to, and therefore a certain administrative power emerged.

Its a big myth that the blacks where subservient. The white did used black nations, as the blacks used the whites. europe was never more powerfull than africa, in relation to its activities there, excepts on certain escalations of violence, like the zulu wars, which took place under the close aproval of xosa and bantu people.


Self rule was the word of the year in 1872. do your own little research.


And the break down in africa had little to do with a better exploration. It happend because germany and belgium were starting to realise that a disbalance of power was taking place in europe. After the laurene-alsatia issue (i cant spell that) germany brought that matter up to take attention away. Later on, on that incident on egypt, where suposedly france and uk where to invade it, france did not go, and left all the resposability to the brits. They invade egypt and held it illegally (1881, if im not mistaken) until declarating it a protectorate in 1914. This entrepéneur was funded by the germans, so uk would take their side in the alsatia lorraine situation.

So there you have it. They had to divide, not to conquer, but to settle things down, which where heating up in europe. they did not had intentions of controling africa by no means, essentially because they couldnt. They just sat there in the most confortable situation for them and the locals.

I see you are a marxist vermillion dude.

a short story of africa, thats the name of the book i read, its a penguin books edition and i cant recall the name of the writer.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

I see you are a marxist vermillion dude.

olo

[Vaio]

I am not sure which persona I prefer.
Muslim the sad loser, Muslim the crap 1337 haxxor or Baron Morte the talker of bollocks

Vaio

[Deepflow]

vaio has endless love within his soul

[Vaio]

I've had a crap footy related day. I'll be better next week after i've explained the European Working Directive to my manager.

Vaio

[Deepflow]

yeah but, you are a bastard generally too... no?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Vaio

I am not sure which persona I prefer.
Muslim the sad loser, Muslim the crap 1337 haxxor or Baron Morte the talker of bollocks

Vaio

sad loser obviously

[Vaio]

Yes, but on weekends I am Glenda

Vaio

[Deepflow]

its a weekend now glenda

[Vaio]

You can't afford me so don't even try boyo

Vaio

[Baron Morte]

hey these arent bollocks, these thoughts were the product of 12 mins of deep insightful reflektion

[Evergreen]

I blame the delayed discovery of Quinine.

[BesigedB]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I blame the delayed discovery of Quinine.

not that that's any use any more though

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Its a big myth that the blacks where subservient. The white did used black nations, as the blacks used the whites. europe was never more powerfull than africa, in relation to its activities there, excepts on certain escalations of violence, like the zulu wars, which took place under the close aproval of xosa and bantu people.

This is partially true but mainly irrelevent (much like the rest of your post). Obviously Africans were more powerful in Africa than Europeans "on average" (or something). I don't think many people thought that Africa was under the complete domination of Europe in a modern state sort of fashion. So I'm not sure what your'e arguing here. The only matter for real debate was whether the Europeans acted in a reasonably ethical fashion in all of their dealings, and whether their various interventions retarded general African development, i.e. was a positive or negative effect.

The general argument is that things like European settlement in Southern Africa, the transatlantic slave trade, the development of economic colonies, massacres in the Congo, redivision of Africa into "states" involving the blurring of ethnic borders, etc all added up to a negative effect. Now of course, you'll retort with the usual stuff about "ah, but blacks were involved in the slave trade too!!!" which is also completley irrelevent.

I see you are a marxist vermillion dude.

The first thing that should be taught in right wing idiot school is that not everyone who disagrees with you is a Marxist. Sometimes people just disagree with you. Fortunately I am a Marxist who disagree's with you so it's all good.

[LHC]

Muslim was much better when he talked about being a loser.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This is partially true but mainly irrelevent (much like the rest of your post). Obviously Africans were more powerful in Africa than Europeans "on average" (or something). I don't think many people thought that Africa was under the complete domination of Europe in a modern state sort of fashion. So I'm not sure what your'e arguing here.

People in this country are taught that in schools. Marxists teachers run amok in 3rd world countries.

The only matter for real debate was whether the Europeans acted in a reasonably ethical fashion in all of their dealings, and whether their various interventions retarded general African development, i.e. was a positive or negative effect.

For one the times of yore were a lot less forgiving than today. a lot less ethic too. Britain was a country of its time. From were i am standing, they did a good job and you cant really ask them to do better with the knowledge and the state of affairs back then. I am pretty sure it had a pernicious effect on africa general development, but these interventions were essentially caused by them. Its much like they accepting uneven trading conditions.
Do you believe that countries which most of the government is made up by locals with no education should be considered legally impaired, what would prevent them from making contracts? Or do you believe that any country is liable to contract freely?

The first thing that should be taught in right wing idiot school is that not everyone who disagrees with you is a Marxist. Sometimes people just disagree with you. Fortunately I am a Marxist who disagree's with you so it's all good.

I had a poor marxist education, thats why im center right now. I dont think that people that disagree with me are marxists. The book said that people who think that africa was defenselessly raped by the europeans are marxists. A simple situation of syllogism.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

People in this country are taught that in schools. Marxists teachers run amok in 3rd world countries.

I've never met a Marxist who claimed anything that you've said. Do you have any citations? Obviously there's a bunch of stupid people out there, and I was taught a lot of crap at school too by people with mainly liberal educations.

For one the times of yore were a lot less forgiving than today. a lot less ethic too. Britain was a country of its time. From were i am standing, they did a good job and you cant really ask them to do better with the knowledge and the state of affairs back then. I am pretty sure it had a pernicious effect on africa general development, but these interventions were essentially caused by them.

I've said elsewhere that I don't like this argument. I'm not trying to handle out moral condmenations. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if the English were a bunch of ****s then or not. The only people it does matter to are the "guilty of being white" crew but that line of thought is generally bankrupt anyway. The people who committed any atrocities are long dead and so this is not a criminal matter.

Having said all that, the argument that "Hey, everyone was doing it" is really shit. One place I've made a fundamental break with Marxism on is the notion of relativism. It's absolute proper when considering history of course to view it like that (which is why Marxist historians like Hobsbawm are generally palatable to me), but the idea that once upon a time coercion or slavery were ok because everyone thought it was is rubbish.

Do you believe that countries which most of the government is made up by locals with no education should be considered legally impaired, what would prevent them from making contracts? Or do you believe that any country is liable to contract freely?

I'm not sure the notion of countries with fundamentally immoral governments can have meaningful collective contracts. At the very least we need to have some kind of collective assent (social contract, lol) that the government can make contracts on our behalf.

Not that this is relevent, you can't make contracts to sell people into chattel slavery anyway. Similarly, some of the murderous tactics used cannot be assented too, irrespective of the nature of governments.

had a poor marxist education, thats why im center right now. I dont think that people that disagree with me are marxists. The book said that people who think that africa was defenselessly raped by the europeans are marxists. A simple situation of syllogism.

It's also crap argument.
(a) Few Marxist say that Africa was defenceless raped. That's patronising drivel aside from anything else. The more third worldy Marxists tend to over-emphasise the rebellion of African's against European rule (which I feel is mistaken, but nvm). Read CLR James 'The Haitian Revolution' for instance.
(b) Just because Marxists advance something does not mean that everyone else who argues the same point are also Marxists. Marxists support the notion of Darwinian natural selection for instance. Does this mean that everyone who supports this is a de facto card carrying Marxist?

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Not that this is relevent, you can't make contracts to sell people into chattel slavery anyway. Similarly, some of the murderous tactics used cannot be assented too, irrespective of the nature of governments.

Just out of interest, why not?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Just out of interest, why not?

You can't sell other people. Someone can sell themself into a sort of slavery, but they'd be free to break the contract when they wished so it wouldn't really be chattel slavery.

[JonnyBGood]

This thread is fantastic and should be saved for all time on top of GD with a bright sticker beside it.


The best bit was when muslim said the book he read was called a short story of africa

[Deciduous]

Why can't you sell people?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Why can't you sell people?

Well, you can in the practical sense if have coercive force at your disposal.

But basically it's fundamentally incompatible with the notion that human beings have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.*

* = If you'd like a more E-Prime type original sentence then "I believe that people don't have the right to sell other people". If you want to be dumb you can say "lol, what about footballers, right?" but obviously I'm referring to selling people against their will, as I said. Not selling a related contract.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, you can in the practical sense if have coercive force at your disposal.

But basically it's fundamentally incompatible with the notion that human beings have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's what I'm getting at, why do/should human beings have those 'rights'.

[Snurx]

Oh my ****ing god. This thread is like, totaly awesome!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Why can't you sell people?

Because dante's a penniless commie. I, on the other hand, have a shed full of ******s (apologies, African brethren) for sale.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

That's what I'm getting at, why do/should human beings have those 'rights'.

Well, I believe these things stem from our biological nature. I can't force you believe in my ethical system, I can merely try to demonstrate it's reasonable free from contradictions and the practical consequences are as ideal as possible. As Nodrog has said previously, these aren't commandments, merely moral judgements I choose to follow.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, I believe these things stem from our biological nature. I can't force you believe in my ethical system, I can merely try to demonstrate it's reasonable free from contradictions and the practical consequences are as ideal as possible. As Nodrog has said previously, these aren't commandments, merely moral judgements I choose to follow.

I was just curious because of the way you said "you cannot do this that or the other" as if human rights were some kind of universal constant. I get you now

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

I see you are a marxist vermillion dude.

a short story of africa, thats the name of the book i read, its a penguin books edition and i cant recall the name of the writer.

No, I'm a professional Historian.

I was going to counter the almost entirely irrelevant (and largely wrong) post you offered, until i realised that you were arguing based on your reading of a pengin books reader on African History.

Thus, what I asked my self, would be the point?

Read a few of the books I cited above, then perhaps we could have a meaningful chat on the topic.


I did like the bit about the relative power of Europeans in Africa, and the Zulu wars being 'supervised' by other Black states... That was cute.

And by the 'Alsace-Lorraine' situation I assume you mean the annexation (in the treaty of Frankfurt) these two contested French provinces by Prussia following the 1871 Franco-Prussian war. Prussia, soon called Germany, never sought 'approval' from anyone for this annexation, it was won by right of arms and was not under contest. (Except by the French, of course)

[Marilyn Manson]

Muslim is once again high on the meths and the crack coccaine, I see.