Turn on thread page Beta

Black people regarded as subordinate and secondary to whites watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Britzan)
    rubbish...everybody is created equal
    So no-one is unique???
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silent p......?)
    So no-one is unique???
    I believe, as a Christian that everybody is created unique and equal, as the Bible says
    in Psalm 139:14

    I am fearfully and wonderfully made

    and

    Jeremiah 1:5
    New International Version (NIV)


    5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

    this is God's word for everybody. Many preachers preach that as a Christian you have to be the best 'me' that you can be..
    everybody has an individual calling and ministry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Britzan)
    YES. EGYPT IS A 'NEGROID' SOCIETY. ETHIOPIA IS A 'NEGROID' SOCIETY, THEY HAVE A WRITTEN LANGUAGE..

    there are many things that were invented by black people its justthat you are not educated on them...

    the latest is that a black teenager came up with the idea of putting the electronic thing on bus stands so that it tells you when the next bus is coming...do you even know any black people...??
    Yes Ephiopia is negroid, that's correct. But Egyptians aren't negroid and they never have been. Genetically they're not Arabs either.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wait a sec... is your argument genuinely that... you as a white person are superior to a black person because your ancestors *did* more.

    When one of you comes up with something like nuclear fission, you can say you're superior. Hell, come up with something like the electronic thing on bus stands and I'll say you're superior. Right now, you're just a kid trying to argue that your ancestors are better therefore you are.

    Some negroid societies didn't see the need for written languages. In my country, things were passed down through oral tradition, and every tribe had its own language. Currently, in Kenya, many people are multi-lingual. My uncle speaks his tribal language, Swahili, English and French. All fluently. That's hardly the vocabulary of an inferior being.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mata)
    Wait a sec... is your argument genuinely that... you as a white person are superior to a black person because your ancestors *did* more.

    When one of you comes up with something like nuclear fission, you can say you're superior. Hell, come up with something like the electronic thing on bus stands and I'll say you're superior. Right now, you're just a kid trying to argue that your ancestors are better therefore you are.

    Some negroid societies didn't see the need for written languages. In my country, things were passed down through oral tradition, and every tribe had its own language. Currently, in Kenya, many people are multi-lingual. My uncle speaks his tribal language, Swahili, English and French. All fluently. That's hardly the vocabulary of an inferior being.
    Mata, which poster are you referring to?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone who argues that no negroid societies invented anything, basically.

    Did you know that a black man invented the rollercoaster? *grin*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mata)
    Everyone who argues that no negroid societies invented anything, basically.

    Did you know that a black man invented the rollercoaster? *grin*
    Mata, which poster are you referring to?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I would think that would be obvious.

    Stop being a pedant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mata)
    I would think that would be obvious.

    Stop being a pedant.
    Mata, which poster are you referring to? I ask because you have yet to refer to him or her. So who is supposed to reply?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Fine.

    You, 'The Watcher'. I am referring to you. Although why I can't refer to everyone who would like to reply to me, I don't know.

    You do some constructive replying if you can.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Mata, where did I say that a white person are superior to a black person?

    Where did I mention nuclear fission?

    Where did I say negroid societies didn't see the need for written languages?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Britzan)
    I believe, as a Christian that everybody is created unique and equal, as the Bible says
    in Psalm 139:14

    I am fearfully and wonderfully made

    and

    Jeremiah 1:5
    New International Version (NIV)


    5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

    this is God's word for everybody. Many preachers preach that as a Christian you have to be the best 'me' that you can be..
    everybody has an individual calling and ministry.
    But there are people born who have natural advantages, like larger lungs and also people born with disadvantages/disabilities, surely this is not equal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Mata, please either substantiate your accusations or withdraw them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Could I point something out. As much as I admit that many crimes were committed and terrible things done in Africa during occupation, we did leave it in a better state than it was when we came. Africa had been mostly tribal before we came, look at the Zulu, even now they practice the traditional way of their tribe, which to the west is very backwards indeed.
    If we had left Africa, their development would have been practically non-existent as they would still practice their tribal traditions and since there would be enevitable tribal warfare, there would have been little stability.

    As for the state that africa is in now, to use an example of Niger, it is the main fault of the governement of Niger. Granted, the free market has caused a lot of problems in Niger and is something that needs addressing, but when the government refuses to requisition food from markets or stop exporting food to the surrounding countries, something is wrong.
    It seems that Africa likes to cry out to the west and make us feel guilty enough to send over some aid for them, although certainly in some countries that aid is not distributed properly and in some cases even kept by the ruling power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    FYI Mata, LC01 and others made those racist comments, not me (see the previous page).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juueru_chou)
    Africa had been mostly tribal before we came, look at the Zulu, even now they practice the traditional way of their tribe, which to the west is very backwards indeed.
    If we had left Africa, their development would have been practically non-existent as they would still practice their tribal traditions and since there would be enevitable tribal warfare, there would have been little stability.
    Yes, Africa *was* still tribal. That was the natural order of things, it was how Africa had naturally developed. The traditional way of the tribe is not always a bad thing (although I am against female circumcision). Tribal feudalism still carries on to this day... that's the way that Africa *is*. You may see it as backwards but in Africa its how things work.

    Modernisation was always going to come, but through colonisation it was forced, and violent. A governmental system that England had been developing towards for centuries was thrust upon countries like Kenya in the space of a few years, so that when the British left, Kenya was left with a government who had no idea how governments should be, and little to base themselves on.

    And I still don't see why Africa asking for aid is a bad thing. If Africa is dying, and you have extra food and medicine, isn't the natural thing to do, save lives? Not through guilt (guilt is the worst reason for helping) but through a normal desire for people not to die.

    (The_Watcher... I withdraw them against you. I feel that an argument with you would lead nowhere. Not against others, however. Say something solid; actually reveal what you believe... that's a decent way to discuss.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The_watcher: yes, I acknowledge that. I would be interested to hear your beliefs on the subject, however.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mata)
    The_watcher: yes, I acknowledge that. I would be interested to hear your beliefs on the subject, however.
    Well, in all honesty, though I dont believe whites are superior to blacks I do, nevertheless, believe that black civilisation has contributed almost nothing to mankind.

    However, there's nothing to stop that changing in the future. It is possible that in the distant future blacks might contribute more than whites.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Watcher)
    Well, in all honesty, though I dont believe whites are superior to blacks I do, nevertheless, believe that black civilisation has contributed almost nothing to mankind.

    However, there's nothing to stop that changing in the future. It is possible that in the distant future blacks might contribute more than whites.

    I do beleive that Black civilisation has contributed to makind, but one would be foolish to say that it has contributed as much as White civilisation has. It may not be politically correct to say so, but it is historically accurate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mata)
    Erm, I'm actually a she. But I'd rather be a guy, so you can just keep referring me to as 'he' if you'd like.
    the quote is 'one man's terrorist', but I don't mind what you want to be called.

    Sure, British people were forced into fighting. Because Britain was directly involved. Kenyans had no idea what the war involved, and while some tribes (Kikuyu and probably masai) glorified war, my tribe certainly didn't, yet were still forced to go.
    But I would imagine that fairly few Kenyans were actually called to the colours. The colonial authorities amy have regared them as unreliable due to some having no love of the British. And also, the Empire needed every man that it could get. Had we not installed conscription, the chances would be that we would all have lost to the Nazis and fallen under Nazi occupation. That wouldn't be very pleasant for Kenyans, since the Nazis regarded blacks as sub-human on par with the Jews.

    I don't glorify death for anyone, ever. The Mau Mau was what people considered necessary. There were a lot of peaceful protests (some of which were vaguely successful, many of which were reacted to with violence) before the mau-mau, which of course are ignored by the history books.
    I'm glad to hear it. But many of their actions weren't exactly neccessary like kidnapping and killing white farmers and black loyalists.

    You may regard them as terrorists (I don't, they wanted an end to the dictatorship of colonisation and for equality with their occupiers) but if someone was occupying your country by force and you didn't want them there, you might do a similar thing. All I'm asking is that you understand why they resorted to violence- because violence had been used against them and that was the way they felt they had to react.
    I regard them as terrorists because they deliberately targetted civilians who opposed their views. As far as I'm aware, while the colonial authorities may have locked up those who opposed them, they didn't meaningfully go and kill nationalist civilians. Some guards may have, but I think that they would be acting without the consent of the authorities.

    And actually, only about 100 Europeans and about 1,000 African loyalists were killed. So that's very restrained as far as coups go. They had no support from anyone else (there were only 20,000 of them officially) and had no sophisticated weapons. The British at the time admitted to killing 11,000 mau mau but contemporary evidence suggests that the amount was much higher. What else... hundreds of thousands of suspects were held without trial in prison camps where they had no medication, were half-starved and worked until they collapsed. Mau mau suspects were assaulted (whipped, burned, mutilated etc) and also sexually assaulted (castration and sodomy).
    This happened on both sides, and I'm glad to see that neither of us regard one side as heros or villians. Both sides did terrible things.

    The Mau Mau were mostly Kikuyu, and all 1.5 million of the Kikuyu were detained, whether they were mau mau or not. Many women were gang-raped by guards, and villages were sent to prison camps or made to live within barbed wire fences.

    There. And actually, very few people in Kenya talk about the mau mau. I'm not sure why. I'm just saying all this so you see that the mau mau wasn't a reign of blood and terror over the english, and how an attempt at independence was treated. I understand why the mau mau did the things they did, but I also understand that the British were always going to react harshly.
    I'm glad that you see both sides of the coin. All I am trying to do on this forum is to make people realise that the British Empire wasn't uniformly bad, they actually did a lot of good for the world. And thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.
 
 
 
Poll
The new Gillette ad. Is it:
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.