Sunday, 15 May 2011

On-Going Debate

Readers may be interested in the ongoing debate which has been taking place in the Comments tread beneath the recent Colonial Inheritance posting.  You can view the exchanges by clicking here and scrolling down to the comments.

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

I believe this, modified from a previouse post to an earlier essay from Sarah, should finally trump all James Mathurin's arguments:

South Africa is the only country in the world
where affirmative action favours a Black majority
which has virtually complete political control.
The fact that this majority requires affirmative action
to protect them against a 9% white minority group is
testament to a complete failure of the Africans to
build their own wealth-making structures, and their
only solution now is to take it from others.
The only comparator was the Nazi restraint on the occupations of the Jews.

alanorei said...

Thank you, Sarah

I believe that the whole issue can be put in perpsective by means of your excellent Mandela articles, Part 1 and Part 2.

They have also been linked to today, as you are probably aware, on the site for British Resistance - Focus on British Patriots, Richard Edmonds BNP.

Scroll down to "Richard has been pilloried for questioning history and arrested for smashing a statue of the infamous South African terrorist Nelson Mandela."

The BR site will, course, also provide a whole new field for on-going comment on this subject.

alanorei said...

Meanwhile in Tower Hamlets...

More colonisation.

This is also instructive, along similar lines.

alanorei said...

The second link in my last post did not seem to work.

This is it again.

If for any reason it still does not work, then it is the article Standing Up for the Indigenous Victims of Racist Crimes on the main BNP site, http://bnp.org.uk/ i.e. here (using belt and braces approach).

misterfox said...

The only way to deal with it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MOQw2G6zUo&feature=related

Anonymous said...

James is interested in annoying you he constantly shifts his position and uses argument's to justify his side while deny whites the same ..why you bother with this idiot I don't know.I'm only hoping to meet him because. I think it's harder to be that slippery face to face. case in point he know's that 'Briton' is an ancient term for our race and he know's he doesn't qualify. He uses that along with 'our' to describe himself and his relationship with us hand in hand with his aggressively anti-white bullshit. Ban him he's fucking idiot. trying pin James down is like trying corner a dribbling lunatic in a round room. He'll always move, obfuscate, ignore , just plain lie.

For example when asked to find evidence of crime's committed by white against black's( keep in mind that we make up 8% of the worlds population) on scale of those documented here across the whole of an increasingly pc net he compared it to be asked to trying to find a unicorn or some similar non-sense ..HE IS AN IDIOT..ignore him
Rob

Laager said...

@ Rob

Thanks for the advice.
I have come to similar conclusions
However he is a useful idiot
He is providing me with a bonanza of prompts and cues to respond to and thus get the truth about South Africa out into cyberspace and thus inform a far wider audience.
He is merely a means to an end

Laager said...

If readers want to see African democracy in action take a look at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Yj5EnP-xU

Now where is the outcry from the liberal left?

Where is the condemnation by the United Nations that this is A Crime Against Humanity?

Not a peep from the liberals - way over the hill and running into the sunset as fast as their legs will carry them.

James Mathurin said...

Another post written in response to a comment thread from a post written in response to a comment thread I commented on! Does this mean I'm basically supporting your blog now? Is this a salaried postition?

"James is interested in annoying you"

Nah, I'm just interested in having a discussion. Sorry if it's annoying.

"he constantly shifts his position "

Again, no. Everything I've said on here is recorded for posterity. If I've had a factual error pointed out, I've acknowledged that, but I've kept pretty consistent with my positions.

"and uses argument's to justify his side while deny whites the same"

No. Again, feel free to point out any places where I've done that. Good luck.

"I'm only hoping to meet him because. I think it's harder to be that slippery face to face."

I've told you how to contact me. As I said, I did email you, but that address you set up didn't work.

"he know's that 'Briton' is an ancient term for our race and he know's he doesn't qualify."

Acctually I do. Sorry, it just is the case. I admit, I'm a new kind of Briton (the future of Britain, if you will), but I can still directly draw my line of descent back as far in Britain as many of you. Besides, 'Briton' also refers to 'British citizens', which includes many people more tenuously linked to this country than me.

"He uses that along with 'our' to describe himself and his relationship with us hand in hand with his aggressively anti-white bullshit."

I've never said anything 'aggressively anti-white'. Simple as that.

"He'll always move, obfuscate, ignore , just plain lie."

Or, more likely, I'll answer your question, and you simply don't like it. That seems to happen rather a lot on here.

"For example when asked to find evidence of crime's committed by white against black's( keep in mind that we make up 8% of the worlds population) on scale of those documented here across the whole of an increasingly pc net he compared it to be asked to trying to find a unicorn or some similar non-sense"

That wasn't what I was asked, and my answer was appropriate. Try going back and reading it again. I explain exactly why I think it's a meaningless question, and you are free to challenge my points, on here or in person.

I was banned at one point, but I guess Sarah must have missed me.

Anonymous said...

James I asked you to find crimes committed by white's ( the international socialists bogey man) on a similar scale and ferocity of those committed against us and documented here. ..you came up with nothing and then blamed your failure to find anything on the question rather than the fact that you couldn't. You should, if you had an ounce of decency, being enraged about what's happening to white children and adults because of their race but your not. I would be enraged if this was being done to to people full stop.Yes I'm still 'racist' however I don't excuse or attempt to cover up evil because one party is on the 'wrong' side.

You give more weight to evidence that support's your ideological position even if that excuses crimes that are more sickening than any you can find committed by whites. We are are evil doer's in your rigidly held political fantasy and no evidence will convince you otherwise.

You constantly shift , duck and dive. You are that lunatic in the round room. It's not adroit. You should be sickened by the rape , torture and murder of white's in the same way as you are by the fictions created by the left about white's doing to the eternal victims (pick one). When I posted under the name bill you stated that the agony, rape, torture, murder that white children went through would have happened to them anyway with or without the evil immigrant cunt's that put them through it being here( a whole you branch of historical determinism maybe?). The immigrants right to be in OUR country outweigh's the safety of OUR people in your twisted world view. Of course the Empire 'stole' the indigenous( only if your not white???) people's resources and land 'their' again only applies if 'they' aren't white
Rob

Anonymous said...

Jimmy I've sent you an email
Rob

Anonymous said...

Laager could you contact me robalbion@live.co.uk. We need to do more than just post and I'm up for doing it, but I'm struggling to find the help that I need.
Rob

Laager said...

I think the time has come to consign James to the scrap-heap where he belongs.

He has been presented with ample written and visual alternative evidence to inform and contradict his positions.
A rational person would view this information and review their thinking and attitudes.
Yet he continues playing his childish mind-games from the sanctuary of liberal Britain.
By his inane utterances it is clear to me that he has never set foot in Africa.

I will let someone who dedicated his entire life to the service of uplifting blacks in Africa whilst living with them in the Congo have the final word:

----------------------------------------

“I have given my life to try to alleviate the sufferings of Africa.
There is something that all White men who have lived here like I must learn and know:
that these individuals are a sub-race.
They have neither the intellectual, mental or emotional abilities to equate or share equally with White men in any functions of our civilisation.
I have given my life to try to bring unto them the advantages which our civilisation must offer,
but I have become well aware that we must retain this status:
White the superior, and they the inferior.
For whenever a White man seeks to live among them as equals, they will either destroy or devour him.
And they will destroy all of his work, and so for any existing relationship or for any benefit to his people, let White men, from anywhere in the world,
who would come to help Africa remember that he must continually retain this status:
you are the master, and they the inferior children that you would help or teach.
Never fraternize with them as equals.
Never accept them as your social equals or they will devour you.
They will destroy you.”

Dr. Albert Schweitzer, 1952 Nobel Peace Prize.

----------------------------------------

Simply stated: when the white man leaves Africa, Africa will go back to the bush.

The Chinese are in the process of learning the above truths right now.

Anonymous said...

Looks as if you have a typical negro here who is intrested in disrupting your blog.
When it comes to negros, rational is of little importance.

James Mathurin said...

Thanks, I got your email, and just replied. The new address certainly surprised me - not a pseudonym I'd have expected from you, I'll have to ask you about that when we meet. ;-)

Celtic Warrior said...

I refer to the quotation supposedly from Dr. Albert Schweitzer and posted by Laager which begins;

"I have given my life to try to alleviate the sufferings of Africa.
There is something that all White men who have lived here like I must learn and know:
that these individuals are a sub-race."

Please refer to the following two links. I'm sure that if you have contrary evidence these sites would welcome hearing it.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=24708

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer#Misattributed

Celtic Warrior said...

James, you may be a British citizen, which is a bureaucratic and political classification and is a means by which alien people or people of alien descent are given the freedoms and rights to live and participate in all aspects of British life. I assume, due to your icon and the views you express on the interaction between Europeans and Africans that you are of African descent. If you are of African descent you are in no way a Briton.

We unfortunate Britons, who no longer can claim the uniqueness we had until a few short decades ago, require a name by which we can differentiate between ourselves and others who do not share our ancestry and our physical and cultural characteristics. Being an Irish citizen I am not British, which is a political description brought into being by the union of the English and Scottish crowns, but I am a Briton by virtue of my race and descent from the original inhabitants of the Isles.

So please James, allow us the right to adopt a name both ancient and descriptive and allow us todifferentiate between ourselves, the Britons, and others who may be British citizens but are not descended from the ancient Britons.

James Mathurin said...

Hey Celtic. I am British - politically, by birth, by upbringing, by culture and by descent. You and Dr Schweizer are entitled to your opinions, I just think you're wrong.

Hell, if the Royal Family count as Britons, we both certainly do.

Anonymous said...

Ok James - so whites who have immigrated to Canada are Canadians, the USA are Americans, Australia are Australians, New Zealand are New Zealanders and South Africa are Africans - right?

For the record the word Afrikaner means African in the Afrikaans language. You can study their language in the Department of African Languages at Stellenbosch University - which the ANC are now trying to turn from an Afrikaans language into an English language institution.

Most of these white settler families have been in their new world countries for at least 300 years.

How long has your family been in Britain?
"- politically, by birth, by upbringing, by culture and by descent."
I notice you do not include ethnicity in your list of credentials.

This is something the NHS wants to know whenever you fill in one of their forms.
During the apartheid era in South Africa when the same question was asked on government forms.
The world condemned them saying it was:
"A crime against humanity"

Celtic Warrior said...

James Mathurin said...
"Hey Celtic. I am British - politically, by birth..."

James had you read my posts carefully you will have seen that;

1. I did not deny your claim to be British, a political designation, however, I do not accept your claim to be a Briton, which is not a political designation but a racial one. To put it bluntly James, to be a Briton/Celt you have to be white, it would also help to have blue eyes and red hair.

2. I was pointing out that the quotation attributed to Dr. Albert Schweitzer was incorrect and gave two links to that fact. You should read them.

The Duke of Wellington, who when it was pointed out to him that as he was born in Dublin, he was an Irishman, responded "If I'd been born in a stable would that make me a horse?"

Johanna Lumley was born in the Indian state of Kashmir. She may have some political claim to Indian citizenship, but surely even you will not claim that she is an Indian.

President Obamah, it is said, has an Irish ancestor, but I've never heard him claim to be an Irish American but I have heard him claim to be an African American.

In other words, one's place of birth is purely an accident of geography and has no racial meaning.

Celtic Warrior said...

Anonymous said

"During the apartheid era in South Africa when the same question was asked on government forms.
The world condemned them saying it was:
"A crime against humanity"

One is still obliged to append their race, African, Coloured, Indian or white on SA Government forms, 17 years after the end of apartheid.

James Mathurin said...

"Ok James - so whites who have immigrated to Canada are Canadians, the USA are Americans, Australia are Australians, New Zealand are New Zealanders and South Africa are Africans - right?"

Once someone's been in a country long enough to get the accent, the customs, know the history, to have worked and been a productive member of society, and if they identify with that country, then yes, I would say they are 'of that country'. As for their children, I do not believe that is even a question.

"For the record the word Afrikaner means African in the Afrikaans language."

I definitely feel that White South Africans /Zimbabweans, etc are Africans.

"How long has your family been in Britain? "

At least a couple of Centuries, probably longer. Why do you ask?

""- politically, by birth, by upbringing, by culture and by descent."
I notice you do not include ethnicity in your list of credentials.
"

Whoops - simple ommission on my part, apologies for that.

"During the apartheid era in South Africa when the same question was asked on government forms.
The world condemned them saying it was: "A crime against humanity"
"

Well, yes, because answering it wrongly (ie. not 'White') would adversely affect the healthcare you received.

James Mathurin said...

"1. I did not deny your claim to be British, a political designation, however, I do not accept your claim to be a Briton, which is not a political designation but a racial one. To put it bluntly James, to be a Briton/Celt you have to be white, it would also help to have blue eyes and red hair. "

It is not just a racial designation. I did check that I was using the wrong definition, because I know that can happen. No. You are using one particular aspect of 'Briton', and it makes no real difference to me. I am descended from Britons, no matter what definition you use.

"In other words, one's place of birth is purely an accident of geography and has no racial meaning. "

Agreed, and you've picked up on a bit of rushed writing on my part there. I should qualify it as being less about where you're born, and more about where you're raised. It's true, if my children were born in, say, Spain, but raised here, they would be Britons.

That said, if a child were born here, to two British parents, and then, hypothetically, asopted by a Spanish family, and raised to adulthood in Spain, they would be a Spaniard.

Race, being a purely social construct, is a pretty elastic thing.

Anonymous said...

James, no The royal's are of Northern European descent , just like us. you are not a Briton and never will be because of the choice you mum an dad made..lets celebrate diversity. Also the 'new Britons' sounds a bit triumphal and I'm sure wouldn't be celebrating the end of the tribes/peoples that made up part's of the old French empire due to massive immigration of European's. To want to survive as a people isn't evil to celebrate the death of one is.

Rob

Celtic Warrior said...

James said.

"I definitely feel that White South Africans /Zimbabweans, etc are Africans."

My South African friends who would proudly broadcast that they are South African, would most strenuously object to being referred to as "African". And strange as it may seem to you, so would many of the Coloured (mixed race) people.

You really should come to South Africa James and see the reality for yourself, the arguments you use seem so naive and uninformed (understandably).

The ANC's claim to have abolished apartheid is not strictly true, what they have done is change the name to BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) or its later version B-BBEE (Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment). Which promotes the interests of the African instead of the Afrikaner.

Whilst the basic aims of BEE are understandable, the consequences have been massive power failures, uncollected rubbish, potholed roads, train crashes with hundreds of people injured, sewerages spilling over into rivers and wetlands from which drinking water is drawn.

The whole infrastructure of South Africa, which was 1st world, is now becoming so dilapidated it is unlikely that it will ever be renovated, unless the BEE policies are changed to allow the lost experience to be rehired. But even that may not be possible, as much of the intelligent expertise has moved to the Anglosphere, where it is welcomed and appreciated.

Anonymous said...

James

You seem to know a lot about the South African health care system, and I quote:

"Well, yes, because answering it wrongly (ie. not 'White') would adversely affect the healthcare you received."

Could you give us some examples please

James Mathurin said...

Rob,

The Royals are of Northern European descent (and Greek too, right?), but this was a discussion about "Britons", not 'Europeans'. If the Royals, with their mixed, non-British / Celtic descent are 'Britons', Celtic Warrior and I are too.

"Also the 'new Britons' sounds a bit triumphal "

Yeah, it was a bit of a joke. It is true, though, that all over Europe, new types of natives are appearing, mixtures of indigenous and other descent.

I would ask - if I am not a Briton, what would you call me? If there is a better definition than 'Briton', mabe I can go with that.

"I'm sure wouldn't be celebrating the end of the tribes/peoples that made up part's of the old French empire due to massive immigration of European's."

If they're descended from the natives, and their changes are their choice, and not forced on them, I would be fine with it - though maybe not 'celebrating', any more than I would 'mourn' it. It would be neither good nor bad.

"To want to survive as a people isn't evil to celebrate the death of one is. "

True, although I wasn't celebrating any deaths of peoples, if I was celebrating anything, it was the next stage in the development and evolution of those peoples. But you are right, a people being killed off would be wrong.

James Mathurin said...

"My South African friends who would proudly broadcast that they are South African, would most strenuously object to being referred to as "African". And strange as it may seem to you, so would many of the Coloured (mixed race) people. "

Fair enough, it's not my place, or anyone else's, to tell them how to self-identify. I was just putting my view.

What you say about the ANC is certainly plausible. If they are trying to equalise the inequalities created by APartheid, that is one thing, but if they are simply reversing it to put themselves on top, that is going to lead to failure.

"The whole infrastructure of South Africa, which was 1st world"

In a minority of very particular places. Overall, I don't see how South Africa could have counted above Developing status, at best.

Re healthcare:

"Because of the smaller numbers of white patients and the fact that white doctors preferred to work in white hospitals, conditions in white hospitals were much better than those in often overcrowded black hospitals.[55]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid#Petty_apartheid

Health Sector Strategic Framework 1999–2004 – Background, Department of Health, 2004. Retrieved 8 November 2006.

http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/policy/framewrk/chap01.html

Celtic Warrior said...

Hi Anonymous,

Baragwaneth (now Chris Hani) Hospital, is the largest hospital in Africa (and reputedly in the world), and was set up in 1948, specifically to provide care for the African population of Soweto near Johannesburg.

Medunsa, the Medical University of Southern Africa, was founded in 1976 to address the problem of too few black doctors. It is the biggest such training facility in Southern Africa.

My my, but those Afrikaner nationalists really were heartless beasts.

Anonymous said...

@ CW

Thanks for the info which I am aware of.

I'm asking James to provide evidence to the contrary

He constantly simply repeats the anti apartheid "information" that he has been brainwashed with - i.e that blacks received inferior health care

Give us some facts and examples James to support your statement

James Mathurin said...

I already did, and have in the 'Colonial Inheritance' thread. I was waiting for your response.

Celtic Warrior said...

James responded to my comment;

"The whole infrastructure of South Africa, which was 1st world"

With;

"In a minority of very particular places. Overall, I don't see how South Africa could have counted above Developing status, at best".

Again James, you will not be able to appreciate South Africa’s 1st world economy and infrastructure, unless you come and see it for yourself.

It may not remain so for too much longer, if skilled and experienced people continue to leave. Most Africans tend to study arts subjects and not the sciences or engineering. Although admittance standards have been reduced and affirmative action ensures their place in the halls of higher learning, we are not producing enough black scientists, engineers or technologists to replace the white ones who leave, if South Africa is to retain any semblance of 1st world status.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"Race, being a purely social construct, is a pretty elastic thing".

It is a social construct mainly to those who are of indeterminate or mixed race.

Besides the obvious difference of skin colour, hair type and other physical features, another way to note racial difference is to compare strength and stamina. I don't believe that you would deny that people of African blood are the best athletes? I’m always amazed of the numbers of black people lining up for European teams to sprint against each other in the European games, which is invariably won by a black person/s.

One thing you are unlikely to suffer from James will be sunburn and associated skin cancer, from which I do in a mild way, due to having to expose my lily white skin to the harsh African sun. You are, however, at greater risk from bone disease because of reduced of vitamin D production. This is mainly due to the reduction of sunlight in northern Europe and the fact that your darker skin reduces the amount ultraviolet light reaching the lower layers of the dermis.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"I should qualify it as being less about where you're born, and more about where you're raised. It's true, if my children were born in, say, Spain, but raised here, they would be Britons".

Both my sons were born in UK, but have been brought up in Africa and went to school and university here. By your definition that makes them African, which they most visibly are not.

An interesting point James is, if my sons had been African as your definition suggests they are, then they would still be here in South Africa, but they are not due to the fact they are white skinned and were officially discriminated against in the job market because of it. So much for getting rid of the Apartheid regime. It's alive and well and thriving in the new South Africa.

You have ignored my comment on Johanna Lumley's place of birth being India but she most definetly is not an Indian.

James Mathurin said...

"It is a social construct mainly to those who are of indeterminate or mixed race."

Well, there is no significant difference between, say, the Spanish and Portugese races, the English and Welsh, the French and the Swiss races, other than social convention (language, tradition, etc.).

"Besides the obvious difference of skin colour, hair type and other physical features, another way to note racial difference is to compare strength and stamina. I don't believe that you would deny that people of African blood are the best athletes?"

In certain sports, yes. But it does not make black people somehow 'special', it is just a product of history and environment. There are probably Black racists who would say that White people, had they developed in the same environment and situations as Blacks, would still be inferior athletes, but that would be ridiculous.

"Most Africans tend to study arts subjects and not the sciences or engineering."

That's a bit of a problem here as well, hence Britain having to get more immigrant engineers / scientists, etc.

"Both my sons were born in UK, but have been brought up in Africa and went to school and university here. By your definition that makes them African, which they most visibly are not."

Fair enough, it still isn't my place to tell them how to see themselves. I guess what we're saying is that race and identity are far less fixed concepts than how people perceive them.

"So much for getting rid of the Apartheid regime. It's alive and well and thriving in the new South Africa."

That being the case, I already said that I suspect it is as destined to fail as the old Apartheid system. I am not at all susprised that your sons found that discriminatory policies made
them feel that they were not part of the country. Imagine the effect it had on people who were natives of that country.

"You have ignored my comment on Johanna Lumley's place of birth being India but she most definetly is not an Indian. "

No, my answer about where you are raised, and the flexibility of race and identity were aimed at those observations. If it helps, I will explicitly say that you were efinitely right on that point.

Laager said...

@ CW & James

The debate on race being a social construct raises some interesting points

"sons were born in UK - brought up in Africa - your definition that makes them African, which they most visibly are not"

"does not make black people somehow 'special', it is just a product of history and environment"

Nick Griffin has tried to get these concepts across to the British people and is predictably shot down in flames by the pc lwls for being a "racist"

We can learn a lot from the animal kingdom
Muhammed Ali used the same metaphor in his interview with Parkinson

If we look at the plains of Africa we see various species of antelope grazing contentedly side by side. in their own groups. The Springbok, Thompson's Gazelle, Impala, Kudu are all antelope living and surviving in the same environment

Similarly the Zulu, Tswana, Shangaan, Masai are all Negroid African tribes organised into nations who choose to stick to their own kind

In the UK we have the white caucasian tribes of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish doing exactly the same thing. Like the animals in Africa they identify and occupy their own territories

Along comes the era of the voyages of discovery followed by colonialism and what do we get.? The white caucasians travelling across the the planet and creating new "nations/countries".

New boundaries are unilaterally drawn and names given to these territories. Thus the Pawnee, Sioux, Cherokee and Apache become "Americans" - a name derived from an Italian explorer who has absolutely nothing to do with them

The same applies to Australia, New Zealand and Africa. In Africa we see the emergence of Kenya, Uganda, Rhodesia, South Africa etc. In Rhodesia two tribes dominate - the Shona and the Matabele - who are now Zimbabweans



White settlers end up in South Africa and now call themselves South Africans - divided into two groups: the English and the Afrikaners - and they are very, very different from black African South Africans

So we are presented with two distinctly separate scenarios:
Ethnic heritage (race)
and
Nationality (a human social construct)

Ethnicity is our genetic inheritance over which we have zero control. The lottery of life determine whether we will be born an Arab in Egypt or a South American Indian in Brazil

Humans then start labeling territories and the people resident therein thus creating the anomalies of Linford Christie being an Englishman and FW de Klerk being an African (Afrikaner)

This melting pot is further confused by African slaves being transported to North America and becoming "westerners" - as you describe it James

They are clearly not western. Americans go to great lengths to identify their genetic and national origins by calling themselves Polish-American, Irish-American and Afro-American etc

Add to the mix inter-racial breeding and what do we get? President Barrack Obama who the western media refer to as America's first black president when he is clearly not. His mother was white and that makes him 50 % white and 50% black = mixed race (UK), mulatto (USA) and coloured (RSA)

Each of the different races have specific attributes as CW pointed out. Blacks are better athletes because of their genetic endowment, not because of history and environment. Whites are beter inventors because of their mastery of science

Where your "negroes are westerners" thesis falls flat James is by simply comparing the prison populations
of white and blacks in the USA. Pro-rata there are more blacks in prison than whites and their crimes are significantly more violent than those of whites

Accept it James
Race and nationality are two totally separate states

James Mathurin said...

Laager:

"We can learn a lot from the animal kingdom
Muhammed Ali used the same metaphor in his interview with Parkinson

If we look at the plains of Africa we see various species of antelope grazing contentedly side by side. in their own groups. The Springbok, Thompson's Gazelle, Impala, Kudu are all antelope living and surviving in the same environment
"

I need to point out the errors in this, as I have seen it being picked up on elsewhere. First off, Muhammed Ali was a flawed, but great man, and he said a number of good things. However, he also said a number of wrong things, and the fact that he's pretty much parroting the racist ideology of Elijah Muhammed and the Nation of Islam here probably goes some way to explaining why he's so wrong.

You very quickly point out the key word here: species. The most commonly-accepted definition of species is ""groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"."

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6600.long and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_of_defining_.22species.22_and_identifying_particular_species

By that definition, the different animals Ali and you describe are different species, while human beings, from any point on Earth, are the same.

Species may break into groups, especially the pack and social animals like us, and those with common ancestors to us. Those groups may move about, entering different habitats, and becoming more diverse, then meeting up with different groups, sometimes competing, sometimes mixing, sometimes splintering into brand new groups.

"Similarly the Zulu, Tswana, Shangaan, Masai are all Negroid African tribes organised into nations who choose to stick to their own kind"

So when they come into contact with other tribes, there is never any mixing?

"In the UK we have the white caucasian tribes of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish doing exactly the same thing. Like the animals in Africa they identify and occupy their own territories"

That is ridiculous, and factually incorrect. There are Englishmen living in Scotland, Welshmen living in England, Scotsmen living in Ireland, etc, etc.

I happily grant that people will want to associate with and form relationships with others they feel they have something in common with - beliefs, customs, attitudes, likes and dislikes. I also accept that, in the past at least, those qualities were associated with local ethnicity and culture - the things that define 'race'.

However, the more people mix with and learn about other ethnicities and cultures (races), the more they find significant and insignificant things in common, which become the foundation of new relationships, new ethnicities and new cultures, all built on a foundation of what has gone before.

James Mathurin said...

[continued]
"Along comes the era of the voyages of discovery followed by colonialism and what do we get.? The white caucasians travelling across the the planet and creating new "nations/countries"."

Well, they weren't so much creating as reshaping what was there already. It was great hubris to think that this 'reshaping' would only go in one direction - from Europe to the rest of the world - and that the European nations would remain unchanged.

"So we are presented with two distinctly separate scenarios:
Ethnic heritage (race)
and
Nationality (a human social construct)
"

How distinct are they though? These are both two qualities which shift all the time, often in concert with each other - wars and trade have shifted nationalities and borders, while making huge changes to the genetic and social heritage of all nations.

"Ethnicity is our genetic inheritance over which we have zero control. The lottery of life determine whether we will be born an Arab in Egypt or a South American Indian in Brazil"

That is one particular view of ethnicity, but there are few views of ethnicity that ignore the social aspects as you have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity#Conceptual_history_of_ethnicity

Using your example, you don't inherit 'arabness' or 'Europeanness' - you can inherit an Arab or European appearance, but every other aspect of it - attitudes, language, etc, are social constructs.

I inherited an appearance that is a mix of European and Afro-Carribbean, and Sarah inherited a European appearance, but every other aspect of ourselves was shaped by the society we grew up in - I am a product of Britain, as much as Sarah is.

"This melting pot is further confused by African slaves being transported to North America and becoming "westerners" - as you describe it James

They are clearly not western. Americans go to great lengths to identify their genetic and national origins by calling themselves Polish-American, Irish-American and Afro-American etc
"

True, but the vast majority that I have seen and talked to identify as Americans first, and as descendants of their ancestors second. You're more likely to see a large crowd of Americans chanting "USA, USA," than to split into separate chants of "Poland," "Ireland," "Hungary," "Africa," "Spain," etc.

If the new identity of 'American' is Western, then all Americans fall under that umbrella, IMHO.

"Add to the mix inter-racial breeding and what do we get? President Barrack Obama who the western media refer to as America's first black president when he is clearly not."

This is something I'm very familiar with, as a result of living in a predominantly Western, White culture - Any difference from that standard defines the eprson - even though I am half-white, I am very often simply viewed as 'Black'. As someone once said, "If a Black guy keeps getting stopped for driving an expensive car, a mixed-race guy isn't going to be stopped half as often."

I agree, Obama is only as Black as I am, but for the majority of our society, that 'Blackness' defines him.

"Blacks are better athletes because of their genetic endowment, not because of history and environment"

That 'genetic endowment' is an explcit result of history and environment.

"Whites are beter inventors because of their mastery of science"

And that mastery is the result of history and environment. Unless you are arguing that there is a 'science gene' that is specific to caucasians.

James Mathurin said...

[cont again]
"Where your "negroes are westerners" thesis falls flat James is by simply comparing the prison populations of white and blacks in the USA"

I am very familiar with that, but I think it's safe to say that there are significantly different conlusions to be drawn from it, and I find them more likely than yours.

"Race and nationality are two totally separate states "

No, they are unfixed, fluctuating and inseparably related states, and I think I have shown why I see them as such.

Laager said...

@ James

I've said what I have to say.
Too many points to answer and I don't have the time or interest to go over old ground

Let me just summarise with these points:

"So when they come into contact with other tribes, there is never any mixing?"

In South Africa, prior to the arrival of the white man they were slaughtering each other wholesale.
Read up on the Mfecane
With white Government the warring tribes were kept apart and their population under the apartheid system grew from 3m in 1900 to 35m in 1990
The United nations called this "A crime against humanity"
Since majority rule in 1994 - i.e. we now have one big happy family of 9 tribes coming together and mixing - they now rule them selves.
They have exercised their new freedom and democratic right to kill 300,000 of each other.
The second highest murder rate in the world.
Effectively they have returned to the ways of Shaka Zulu c1825 in Natal.
Michael Portillo calls this the enriching benefits of multi-culti diversity
The United nations has nothing to say at all. Presumably they consider this as perfectly acceptable normal behaviour

First off, Muhammed Ali was a flawed, but great man, and he said a number of good things.

"By that definition, the different animals Ali and you describe are different species, while human beings, from any point on Earth, are the same."

The Buzzard and the Canary are different species?
They are both birds

The Impala and the Duiker are both antelope
The Vervet Monkey and the Baboon are both Apes
The Zulu and the Masai are both Negroid Africans
The Scots and the Welsh are both White Caucasians and have their own languages, territories and Governments.
The fact that some choose to live in each other's countries is an irrelevance to the race/ethnicity debate.

"while human beings, from any point on Earth, are the same."
Why don't you arrange for Winnie Mandela and Joanna Lumley to have a public debate on this issue.

...... continued P2

Laager said...

@ James M - June 5 - PART 2

3
“They are clearly not western. Americans go to great lengths to identify their genetic and national origins by calling themselves Polish-American, Irish-American and Afro-American etc"

True, but the vast majority that I have seen and talked to identify as Americans first, and as descendants of their ancestors second. You're more likely to see a large crowd of Americans chanting "USA, USA," than to split into separate chants of "Poland," "Ireland," "Hungary," "Africa," "Spain," etc.

And that is why you have the Miss Black America Pageant which white American beauties may not enter, but blacks may enter the Miss America Pageant. No racial barrier here. Similarly a white policeman in England is refused membership of the
Black Policeman's association

4
"I agree, Obama is only as Black as I am, but for the majority of our society, that 'Blackness' defines him."

Then it is time that the majority of our society be educated out of it's ignorance and realise that a new breed has been created that is neither black nor white, although their passports may identify their nationality as British, French, American etc.

5
"Unless you are arguing that there is a 'science gene' that is specific to caucasians."

Did you know that Jews have won more Nobel Prizes in all field of endeavour than any other race?
Yet they do not equal this with gold medals in the Olympics.

6
"Race and nationality are two totally seperate states"

I have proved this conclusively to you.

Your position is based on the situation in Europe where immigration and cross breeding have now blurred all the old original boundaries.

The new wave of immigrants who retain their traditional dress and religion from their countries of origin, and now insist that they have their own legal system is testimony to that fact.


Sorry James.
For me your thesis just does not cut it although I'm sure that in Liberal Loony Land they will swoon over it and award you an A Star

James Mathurin said...

You already mentioned the Mfecane, but are you suggesting that that kind of conflict is the only interaction African tribes ever had prior to colonialism, and that there were no peaceful interactions and / or interbreeding between tribes?

"They have exercised their new freedom and democratic right to kill 300,000 of each other.
The second highest murder rate in the world.
"

And there we have the subject of this thread - the legacy of colonialism. Also, while I generally care very little for what Portillo says, even I find it hard to believe he was referring to this when he made that comment.

"The Buzzard and the Canary are different species?
They are both birds
"

You clearly have no idea what "species" means. Birds are an animal kingdom, the same as amphibians, insects and mammals. Of course they are different species (buzzard actually refers to several different species and canaries are Serinus canaria), they are as similar as humans and voles. This is a case where you are categorically wrong, and I have already supplied you with a definition of "species" to correct you.

"The Impala and the Duiker are both antelope"

DIfferent species of antelope (Aepyceros melampus and Cephalophus maxwellii).

"The Vervet Monkey and the Baboon are both Apes"

Different species of ape (Chlorocebus pygerythrus and five species of the Papio genus).

"The Zulu and the Masai are both Negroid Africans"

But the same type of species - homo sapiens. Neither negroid nor African are classifications of species, or even sub-species.

"The Scots and the Welsh are both White Caucasians and have their own languages, territories and Governments."

Again, the same type of species - homo sapiens. Neither White nor Caucasian are classifications of species, or even sub-species. The languages, territories and governments are all more of those social constructs we were discussing.

You are clearly very versed in South African history, impressively so, and I have learned much on the subject from you, but this is clearly not your area of expertise, and you are categorically wrong on these points.

"Why don't you arrange for Winnie Mandela and Joanna Lumley to have a public debate on this issue."

a) Do you have their contact details, and b) Why not arrange for a discussion between actual biologists, anthropolgists and other experts? They will definitely agree with me, as I am basing my positions on their work and definitions.

James Mathurin said...

"And that is why you have the Miss Black America Pageant which white American beauties may not enter, but blacks may enter the Miss America Pageant. No racial barrier here."

I have already discussed the reasons for these and the BPA to exist. Would you like me to copy and paste my counterpoints which you failed to address the first time around?

"Then it is time that the majority of our society be educated out of it's ignorance and realise that a new breed has been created that is neither black nor white, although their passports may identify their nationality as British, French, American etc."

I would not say that the 'new breed' is not so much 'neither black nor white', so much as 'both black and white. This still has nothing to do with nationality or passports.

"Did you know that Jews have won more Nobel Prizes in all field of endeavour than any other race? "

Firstly, are you seriously arguing that this is down to genetics, rather than cultural factors? Secondly, are you aware that many people sympathising with your other points would hesitate to classify Jews as 'white'?

"I have proved this conclusively to you."

You really have not, and have failed to show why my counter-arguments, and defences of my positions are false. Feel free to keep trying, and perhaps you may succeed, but don't try to pretend that you have done so just by claiming that you have.

"Your position is based on the situation in Europe where immigration and cross breeding have now blurred all the old original boundaries."

There never were any 'original' boundaries to blur.

"The new wave of immigrants who retain their traditional dress and religion from their countries of origin, and now insist that they have their own legal system is testimony to that fact. "

Dress I am not that bothered by. As for legal systems, we are all held under the law of the land, and I for one would not support anyone trying to exist outside of it.

Laager said...

"They have exercised their new freedom and democratic right to kill 300,000 of each other.
The second highest murder rate in the world."

And there we have the subject of this thread - the legacy of colonialism.

=====

Your logic baffles me

The Mfecane took place BEFORE any white man had arrived in that part of Southern Africa. (i.e. NO Colonialism)

The 300,000 murders resulting from black on black violence in South Africa took place AFTER:
(1) 1990 - all apartheid legislation had been abolished
(2) 1992 - a white referendum returned a 72% YES vote in favour of universal franchise
(3) 1994 - black majority rule became a reality in South Africa

And let us not forget that about 40,000 whites have also perished in this violence.

In fact this orgy of violence got started immediately after apartheid was abolished.
About 12,000 dead in 4 years between 1990 & 1994
compared to
7,000 dead in 42 years between 1948 &1990
(REF: Vusi Tshabalalas article)

You see James your thesis collapses because there were two other major ethnic groups that were also affected by the apartheid legislation.
(1) The Indian community in Natal (Durban)
(2) The Coloured/Mulatto community in the Western Cape (Cape Town)

Neither of these two communities have resorted to any form of violence amongst themselves or against the white "oppressors"

The celebrated the abolition of the apartheid legislation and then got on with the business of life - getting educated, establishing businesses, becoming prosperous, creating a better future for their children.

It is the black community and the black community alone that have followed the path of violence.

Similarly, the Jews did not go on the rampage after the holocaust. Nor did the Suffragettes after they won the vote. Nor did the Boere after 27,000 of the children and women perished in the British concentration camps during the 2nd Anglo Boer War

Laager said...

"Your position is based on the situation in Europe where immigration and cross breeding have now blurred all the old original boundaries."

There never were any 'original' boundaries to blur.

================

So the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, British (4 nations) , Norwegians, Swedes, Danes Turks, Japanese and Chinese etc have always lived as one big integrated happy family on common land with no borders to defend?

Are you for real?

i suppose The Great Wall of China was built because there was nothing else to do on A Saturday afternoon - e.g. watching the tribes of Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal battle it on the village green.

Laager said...

"Firstly, are you seriously arguing that this is down to genetics,"

Yes

In the same way that the Japanese, Chinese and Indian alphabets and fonts/script are different.

Different genes manifest themselves differently in language, art, architecture, apparel, cuisine, technological invention, physical prowess etc.

Or maybe I am just imagining all the differences I see around me. They are just a mirage when in reality everything is exactly the same wherever one goes.

Or maybe I just need an eye test.

Laager said...

You clearly have no idea what "species" means.
Birds are an animal kingdom, the same as amphibians, insects and mammals.
Of course they are different species (buzzard actually refers to several different species and canaries are Serinus canaria), they are as similar as humans and voles.

Correct homo sapiens are a species within which there are different races
White caucasian
Black caucasian
Asiatics - Japanese , Chinese, Viatnamese
African Arabs - Egyptians, Libyans
African Negroids - Hutu, Tutsi
North American Indians - Navajo, Seminole
South American Indians - Aztecs, Mayans

Just like the Buzzard and the Sparrow
- to quote Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali

All totally different from one another in language, size, colour, plummage, habits and the nests they build.

James Mathurin said...

"The Mfecane took place BEFORE any white man had arrived in that part of Southern Africa"

Well, except for the Portugese, who are White, and had been in the area for quite a while, and whose introduction of maize was mentioned as a possible contributory factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mfecane#Causes

Besides, I was not referring to the Mfecane, and neither were you. You were talking specifically about the post-Apartheid period, and I do not appreciate the twisting of my comments.

"You see James your thesis collapses because there were two other major ethnic groups that were also affected by the apartheid legislation.
(1) The Indian community in Natal (Durban)
(2) The Coloured/Mulatto community in the Western Cape (Cape Town)

Neither of these two communities have resorted to any form of violence amongst themselves or against the white "oppressors"
"

And do you view that fact as being purely coincidental to the fact that, while being treated worse than Whites under Apartheid, they were treated better than Blacks? They were never even stripped of their citizenry, and were eventually given some voting rights back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#Coloured_classification

"It is the black community and the black community alone that have followed the path of violence.

Similarly, the Jews did not go on the rampage after the holocaust. Nor did the Suffragettes after they won the vote. Nor did the Boere after 27,000 of the children and women perished in the British concentration camps during the 2nd Anglo Boer War
"

To quote you, "Your logic baffles me". Without trying to construct some juvenile hierarchy of the relative 'wrongness' of the injustices perpetrated on the 4 groups, you surely must agree that they are dramatically different situations.

James Mathurin said...

"So the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, British (4 nations) , Norwegians, Swedes, Danes Turks, Japanese and Chinese etc have always lived as one big integrated happy family on common land with no borders to defend?"

I did not say there were no boundaries, just that there were no 'original' boundaries. Each boundary (nationality) you have listed there is made up of people who, depending on how far back you go, are not homogenous. Hell, Italy wasn't even a nation until the mid 19th Century- it's even younger than the USA.

The boundaries and the people who live within and without them are constantly shifting and changing, and have been ever since their creation.

Even coastlines change over time - to suggest that there was a 'Year zero' for nationalities is a myth.

""Firstly, are you seriously arguing that this is down to genetics,"

Yes
"

Well, then you are making a truly ridiculous suggestion. Have you any evidence of a 'good at sports gene', a 'science gene', or a 'civilised behaviour gene'?

"In the same way that the Japanese, Chinese and Indian alphabets and fonts/script are different."

You do realise that you're comparing genetics to another one of those historical / cultural changes that you seem to think are different to genetics?

"Or maybe I am just imagining all the differences I see around me. They are just a mirage when in reality everything is exactly the same wherever one goes."

You are not imagining the differences, but I am saying that there is no evidence of them being down to any inherent difference, rather than to the historical and social factors I have talked about.

James Mathurin said...

"Correct homo sapiens are a species within which there are different races"

Race does not mean what you think it means. It is a term that has practically no scientific meaning, and what differences it does denote are so insignificant that they cannot be meaningfully compared to the differences between sparrows and buzzards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29

"Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[7][8] Regardless of the extent to which race exists, the word "race" is problematic and may carry negative connotations.[9] Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[10][11][12] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[13] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[6][14]

In short, both you and Muhammed Ali are totally wrong on this point. Also, I am interested in knowing more about the 'plumage' and 'nests' of the various races you outlined.

"Or maybe I just need an eye test."

It may help. It certainly couldn't make these suggestions any worse.

Laager said...

@ James

Enough
You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink

Live your life with with your own perceptions

Take a a trip to Africa to put them to the test

Better still, spend a year or two working out there in any country of your choice, and then complete your visit with a trip to see South Africa - and what has become of it.

Before you go, pop across to -
http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

and read:

The Cruelty of the Noble Savage;
And you STILL ask us why we had Apartheid?

By Mike Smith
7th of June 2011

When you get back return to the blogs and entertain us with your (revised?) views

Have a nice day.

My time is too valuable to waste on this thread any longer

Celtic Warrior said...

James said in relation to race and nationality;

“How distinct are they though? These are both two qualities which shift all the time, often in concert with each other - wars and trade have shifted nationalities and borders, while making huge changes to the genetic and social heritage of all nations”.

And went on to say;

“And that mastery is the result of history and environment. Unless you are arguing that there is a 'science gene' that is specific to Caucasians”.

I’m not sure if it is a gene or some other genetic inheritance which has enabled the white races to create societies which are so superior to all others that people (races?) come from all over the world, to share what we have so brilliantly created and achieved. Our culture and the societies which it has enabled us to create, have no parallel in the rest of the world. So I ask, what is so wrong with our white culture that we need to adopt other alien cultures?

Our Anglo/Celtic culture alone, has given us great literature and prose from the likes of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton and Joyce, great scientists and inventors like Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Boyle and Watt, and great leaders like Wellington, Nelson and Churchill. Our culture also gave the world such modern wonders as the steam engine, railways, steam turbine, gas turbine (jet engine), jet aircraft, telephone, television, computers, penicillin, IVF and many many other benefits too numerous to mention.

It also added greatly to the concept of democracy and freedom of speech which is now under threat from the politically correct brigade. The list is endless and I defy James or anybody else to produce a similar list from any of the cultures that have and are being imposed upon the indigenous Britons.

Arab culture did once produce great science and literature but has not been so prolific since adopting its medieval religious/political system 1400 years ago.

African culture has produced nothing, that can be said to be of value. It never invented any form of writing, the wheel or domesticated even one animal whilst surrounded by the greatest variety of fauna in the world.

I suppose that we can grant India the dubious honour of having expanded our cuisine to include chicken tikka masala. I note that my spell-check rejects the words tikka and masala.

I cannot understand what gain can be expected from the cultures of immigrants that come from failed or failing societies and states; non democratic states; states led by dictatorships, brutal or benign; and states which discriminate against women, homosexuals and other unfortunates. Surely all of these societies are a result of the faulty culture of the society from which they are spawned. Do we really want to absorb such failed cultures into ours? Will these cultures not take us back to a medieval past we have thankfully left behind us a long time ago?

Laager said...

Ethnicity, race, nationality. history and environment, culture, multi-culturism, diversity, enrichment - the legacy of slavery, colonialism and apartheid.

Wow!

It is all getting too much for my head, but James has got it all sussed out.

I'm going to bed.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic, when you started with,

"I’m not sure if it is a gene or some other genetic inheritance..."

you probably should have left it there. There is no evidence of a genetic explanation in the cultural differences between different ethnicities.

"So I ask, what is so wrong with our white culture that we need to adopt other alien cultures?"

Well, for starters, you might find that allowing people from other cultures into a setting where they can benefit from the advantages we have allows the exceptional individuals within those groups to contribute to our culture. Exceptional individuals like Neil Degrasse Tyson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAD25s53wmE

"Our Anglo/Celtic culture alone, has given us great literature and prose from the likes of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton and Joyce, great scientists and inventors like Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Boyle and Watt, and great leaders like Wellington, Nelson and Churchill."

Well, on the scientific minds, you hit an interesting point. Once you look at the history of science, you see that, while great minds like those may jump us ahead decades or even centuries in our understanding of the world, most of our scientific advances have been incremental, and almost inevitable. One discovery advances our understanding slightly, and brings the next discovery closer.

A fantastic book for illustrating that is John Gribbin's Science: A History 1543-2001:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/20224/quod-erat-demonstrandum.thtml

I also noticed something about your list of exceptional individuals; not a lot of women on there. Did White women only gain the intelligence and ability to achieve in the last Century or so? Of course not, but social structures held them back from education, property ownership, professional positions, leadership positions, etc.

This is not evidence of some biological difference between men and women, but you are suggesting that your list demonstrates a real, biological difference between Whites and other races. What is the difference?

James Mathurin said...

Celtic:
"I cannot understand what gain can be expected from the cultures of immigrants that come from failed or failing societies and states;

...

Surely all of these societies are a result of the faulty culture of the society from which they are spawned. Do we really want to absorb such failed cultures into ours?
"

You cannot understand what is to be gained by helping the people who are trying to reject and escape those negative aspects of their societies? Even if they do not, by 'absorbing' them into our culture, might we not make their children who grow up here want a different, more British way of life than their parents? After all, most of the honour killings we hear about are immigrants' children who have looked outside of their own culture for partners and other life choices. This shows that those 'absorbed' cultures are being changed by proximity to us, and it's not as if they can kill off every child who wants to become more 'anglicised'.

"Will these cultures not take us back to a medieval past we have thankfully left behind us a long time ago? "

Short answer? No.

James Mathurin said...

Laager,

"Ethnicity, race, nationality. history and environment, culture, multi-culturism, diversity, enrichment - the legacy of slavery, colonialism and apartheid.

Wow!

It is all getting too much for my head, but James has got it all sussed out.
"

Not sussed out, but you don't get to the right answers without asking the right questions, and questioning the assumptions you have made along the way. I'm just trying to help you all out.

No thanks necessary.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"You cannot understand what is to be gained by helping the people who are trying to reject and escape those negative aspects of their societies? Even if they do not, by 'absorbing' them into our culture, might we not make their children who grow up here want a different, more British way of life than their parents? After all, most of the honour killings we hear about are immigrants' children who have looked outside of their own culture for partners and other life choices. This shows that those 'absorbed' cultures are being changed by proximity to us, and it's not as if they can kill off every child who wants to become more 'anglicised'."

They had that opportunity when their countries were under British rule but like everything else they do, they failed to grasp it.

Sounds like a formula for recolonisation. Don't you think. Get them out of overcrowed, wet, cold Britain and back to the underdeveloped open spaces of Africa.

Celtic Warrior said...

James said;

"You cannot understand what is to be gained by helping the people who are trying to reject and escape those negative aspects of their societies?"

James, I know exactly what is to be gained by helping such people. I grew up contributing to the "Black Babies" since I was a 3 year old little boy in poverty stricken Ireland in 1944, when, with my a#se hanging out my trousers and no shoes on my feet, we were made to believe that the black babies were so poor and deserving that we had to contribute scarce pennies out of our own meagre pocket money. I estimate I gave 30% of my pocket money on average.

It was only when I came to Central Africa in the 80s that I discovered where my contributions really went; it was not to the Black Babies but into the pockets of corrupt African leaders who lived the life of O'Reilly. It was only then did I realise how desperately poor we were in Ireland in the 40s and 50s. My God what a con. And is it any wonder why I, and those like me, detest the Africans and their apologists, who conned us out of the few pennies that we could ill afford.

Here’s a suggestion for you James if you are really serious and wish to assist your fellow Africans. We’ll start a charity in Guguletu. Let’s call it “The Black Babies Fund”. You can contribute 30% of your income (as I did) and you should have no problem obtaining the same from your other well off friends of the African Diaspora. When can we expect your first contribution? I wonder if putting their money where their mouths are, means anything to the African Diaspora.

Anonymous said...

Well, for starters, you might find that allowing people from other cultures into a setting where they can benefit from the advantages we have allows the exceptional individuals within those groups to contribute to our culture.

This has been done the other way round

White caucasians went to North America and then foolishly imported black slaves.
The inner city of Detroit today and their behaviour in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina is a testament to their contribution to the USA.
A handful of individuals have "made it" - mainly in the world of sport and entertainment.
However their success is entirely due to utilising the infrastructure created by the white man to bring them to prominence.
In their home countries in Africa it is still mud huts, murder, mayhem and genocide with precious little locally generated creativity or material progress.

In Southern Africa a fairly substantial white population introduced the benefits of western civilisation. Since the departure of the Portuguese and majority rule in Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe the continent is in the process of reverting to the bush.

Peculiarly liberals can't - or won't - see this and come up with pathetic excuses and reasons to justify this failure

They fail to recognise the obvious which rational people can clearly see.

Celtic Warrior said...

This posting should have been posted a few days ago but it went astray, so I apologise if it seems out of sequence.

Part 1

James said;
“There is no evidence of a genetic explanation in the cultural differences between different ethnicities.” And “but you are suggesting that your list demonstrates a real, biological difference between Whites and other races. What is the difference?”

I have commented extensively on the reasons why Europeans and Africans differ in the thread, Colonial Inheritance, which I refer you to. I will however expand as follows.

Can you explain why Europeans developed the successful societies we see today and why Africans have failed to create nothing more advanced than late Stone Age and early Iron Age societies?

Remember that when the ancient Britons arrived in Northwestern Europe after the retreat of the ice some 15000 years ago, there was nothing there and they came with nothing more than a few stone tools. The whole of Northern Europe had been swept clean by the retreating glaciers. It is important to take note of the fact that our ancestors had no international aid, overseas aid, or foreign aid programmes to assist them, there were no donor countries to whom they could go with their begging bowl, no World Food Programmes to help them out when their harvests failed and no World Health Organisation to protect them from devastating diseases. All of these Africa had and still has but is still unable to make a go of it.

They did what they did by themselves, because they had abilities that Africans most definitely do not have. Hence the success of the Europeans and the failure of the Africans to advance beyond late Stone Age and Early Iron Age societies.

I’m sure you won’t ask me to produce evidence of these differences. But if I was to do so, all I have to do is ask you to look around the room in which you are now sitting in and find something, anything, not first created in the mind of a European and then come to Africa and look at the societies that have not advanced much beyond the late Stone Age and early Iron Age. The problem here is the understandable disbelief expressed by Europeans who have never lived and worked in Africa, of the abject failure of Africans to maintain whatever modern facilities such as schools and hospitals etc. they inherited from the colonialists. Anything more advanced in Africa is due to European culture.

James went on to say;
“Well, for starters, you might find that allowing people from other cultures into a setting where they can benefit from the advantages we have allows the exceptional individuals within those groups to contribute to our culture. Exceptional individuals like Neil Degrasse Tyson:”

You saw fit to mention Neil Degrasse Tyson, how many more like him are there? I would just love to see a list. The real problem with Africa is that there too few exceptional Africans. I don’t believe that Africans benefit greatly by being exposed to European culture, considering that their exposure to European culture in Africa over the past 350 years has failed dismally. In the USA, where Africans have been for over 300 years, they have they been too successful if one considers the number of African Americans that appear in the lists of Noble Prize winners.

I’m told that Africans in the UK have gained much, if only because many of them appreciate the welfare state and the free health care system, which of course are great benefits compared to what they would have in Africa.

It has been proposed that a solution for Africa is to recolonise it with all those of African descent who will have gained from exposure to European culture. Trouble is there has been no great rush by the African Diaspora to return to Africa. Why don’t you start a trend James?

Celtic Warrior said...

Part 2

James went on to say;
“most of our scientific advances have been incremental, and almost inevitable. One discovery advances our understanding slightly, and brings the next discovery closer.”

Absolutely correct James. But in Africa, scientific advances were not incremental, scientific advances were non existent. They also never developed a method of writing, the wheel nor the lintel. They haven’t progressed much further since then.

James went on to say;
“I also noticed something about your list of exceptional individuals; not a lot of women on there. Did White women only gain the intelligence and ability to achieve in the last Century or so? Of course not, but social structures held them back from education, property ownership, professional positions, leadership positions, etc.”

If you knew anything about European culture you should have learned that traditionally Europeans expected the male to be the breadwinner and the female the homemaker. Therefore few women went on to major careers especially in the sciences and hence their absence from my brief lists.

Our history will explain how evolution brought about the split in labour between male and female. The earliest archaeological finds in Europe show our ancestors to have been hunter gatherers, who operated in small family groups. Because of the male’s physical strength and stamina it was a logical division for the hunting of animals for protein to be delegated to the strongest in the group. The females in the group stayed behind in the campsites to look after the children, which any sensible person will agree, that they are much more capable of than the male. The females also gathered wild fruits, roots, berries and nuts from the local habitat, which helped keep the group going when the men returned after a failed hunt. There were of course always exceptions.

This remained so until the 2nd World War brought European women out of the home to manufacture the weapons that the fighting men needed to win the war. After that, woman’s place in the world was never the same.

But let me give you some great woman; Boudicca, who led the ancient Britons against Roman tyranny; Queen Elizabeth 1st, probably England’s greatest monarch and who ruled England when it started its first colonies; Queen Victoria, who ruled the largest empire that the world had ever known; Florence Nightingale; Harriet Beecher Stowe; Jane Austen; and Emmeline Pankhurst.

Laager said...

1891 - First manned glider flights - Otto Lillienthal
1903 - First powered flight - Wright Brothers
1969 - First moon landing - USA/NASA
1969 - First flight - Anglo/French Concord - supersonic airliner
1976 - Concord enters commercial service - operates for 27 years
1981 - First Space Shuttle flight - USA
2010 - First Kenyan home built aircraft - after 2010 years of aviation evolution and history - unlikely to fly

See it on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWJajX4Di8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujU1DjaYfs4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPsjlwjU39U

10/10 to the man for trying to live his dream.
Watch his support crew in action as they load the aircraft and come up with a solution to fit it through a gate.
0/10 to the TV reporter for misleading her audience

Ask yourself?
Is Celtic Warrior imagining African capability or is he simply stating the facts

James Mathurin said...

Laager, I'm not sure if that question is actally aimed at me or not, as I cannot quite work out what point you are trying to make.

Laager said...

CORRECTION

2010 - First Kenyan home built aircraft - after 2010 years of aviation evolution and history - unlikely to fly

Should read

after 120 years of aviation evolution and history - unlikely to fly

Laager said...

@ JM

It's pretty clear James
I'll leave you to figure it out

Hint
take a look at the You Tube clips and then cross reference to the dates that I have provided

James Mathurin said...

OK Laager, you showed a bunch of dates in aviation history, and then showed video of a self-taught guy who built a plane in his back yard.

I think I get what you're trying to insinuate, and it would be a fair point if this was some government aviation programme, rather than a guy in his back yard.

Laager said...

James - you really need help

OK Laager, you showed a bunch of dates in aviation history,

Correct - from Europe to the USA

and then showed video of a self-taught guy who built a plane in his back yard.

Correct - in Kenya

I think I get what you're trying to insinuate, and it would be a fair point if this was some government aviation programme, rather than a guy in his back yard.

No

Try again and see if you can connect the dots