More embarrassment: [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/08/25/nigeria.child.witches/index.html?iref=NS1#fbid=-YyGNf9cI7u&wom=false[/url]
Printable View
More embarrassment: [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/08/25/nigeria.child.witches/index.html?iref=NS1#fbid=-YyGNf9cI7u&wom=false[/url]
[QUOTE=Clandestine782]More embarrassment: [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/08/25/nigeria.child.witches/index.html?iref=NS1#fbid=-YyGNf9cI7u&wom=false[/url][/QUOTE]
Horrific indeed. I weep for those poor, maltreated children.
But ... how does this story tie into [i]American[/i] politics?
[QUOTE=Clandestine782]I am not sure where you read this, but Orthodox Jews have LOTS of babies. Like, 10 per family. I just finished a book called "Real Jews" that was about the conflict between secular and Orthodox Jews. And one thing that they noted was that the Orthodox don't do anything except take welfare benefits, study Torah/ Talmud and have babies (a lot of them don't like to work or serve in the military). So, Israel will not have a problem because it doesn't haev enough Jews. It will have a problem because it doesn't have enough *productively employed* Jews.
I am not a racist. I'm just stating the facts. At no time that RSA was under the apartheid government did they have 25% of the population infected with HIV. You NEVER hear anyone else except black administrations/ black people denying the link between HIV and AIDS or saying that HIV was created by white people. Even in Africa there has been a CFA Franc (which is the same thing as the Euro-- a currency that is backed by the trade of several countres) for long time, and yet you almost can't *give* away CFA Francs in any money changing center (Hong Kong, for example). And that goes for any African currency (except the Rand) anywhere. If you go to HK (where you can buy and sell almost anything), you will find that one thing you *won't* move will be Zambian kwachas or Botswanian Pula or Nigerian Naira (etc).
I might also point out that China is in the oil producing countries in Africa drillng and setting up infrastructure, because it appears that the Africans have more oil than they do brainpower. How embarrassing is that?
Same thing with Haiti. Haiti and the Dominican Republic are both on Hispaniola, and the income in the latter is a multiple of the former. The only difference is that one side is significantly blacker than the other. Pretty strange.
The point was that people at point A can never imagine that something that happens by point B will happen. But a lot of things are possible IF they happen in many small steps instead of one extra.
That's not true. There are lot of stupid ideas that keep cropping up/ being resurrected by the intellegensia (see: "Intellectuals and Society" by Thomas Sowell for excellent examples of this). See the post by Gentleman Traveler. The intellegensia doesn't have to accept Sharia. They only have to be passive/ non-judgemental and the camel can get his nose into the tent. And the rest of his body will soon follow. Saudi Arabia is not a third world country. Not all of the oil states have flat out Sharia, but many of them have something that is very much like it. Not really, in the sense that countries can and do undergo very long and dramatic declines. Look at China in the Tang Dynasty compared to China during The Great Famine. How many people at that time could have thought that Chinese would be practicing cannibalism? What resources does Haiti even have to exploit? Not sure about that one. We'll never know the alternative situation. But if you compare black administered places to non-black administered ones, [i]just on the strength of that[/i], you'd start asking some very uncomfortable questions. Check the facts. Take any random sample of African countries compared to ANY OTHER countries on the planet in ANY OTHER dimension(s) and see what you find. Within the United States, compare Detroit/ DC/ St. Louis/ New Orleans/ River Rouge/ Highland Park/ East St. Louis to Bloomfield Hills or Ann Arbor and see what you find. (Hint: The first 7 have black administrations and the others don't. Guess what difference you'll fiind.) Detroit is an especially instructive example: It was a functioning city BEFORE black people took it over and collapsed AFTER they did. So, the city didn't move. Only the adminstrations did. Hmmmmm.[/QUOTE]
You have a clear lack of understanding of causality. Every example of disfunction that you blame on race, is actually a function of poverty or lack of an educated population. Detroit ceased to function when the jobs went away after the U.S. Auto industry moved all of it's manufacturing jobs away or eliminated them. Anyways, we're done discussing this, because your ideas are repugnant. Again, your fear of Sharia Law coming to the U.S. is irrational, because you ignore what it takes for it to happen. And your denials of your racism would be laughable if they weren't so damn nauseating.
[QUOTE=Member #2041]You have a clear lack of understanding of causality. Every example of disfunction that you blame on race, is actually a function of poverty or lack of an educated population. Detroit ceased to function when the jobs went away after the U.S. Auto industry moved all of it's manufacturing jobs away or eliminated them. Anyways, we're done discussing this, because your ideas are repugnant. Again, your fear of Sharia Law coming to the U.S. is irrational, because you ignore what it takes for it to happen. And your denials of your racism would be laughable if they weren't so damn nauseating.[/QUOTE]
Not quite. I happen to know a little more about this than you(I grew up in a town about 18 miles west of Detroit on the I-94).
What happened in Detroit was this:
1. There was a functioning city. (As far as I know, there has NEVER been an auto plant in Detroit--all the auto plants are in Woodhaven/ Wayne/ etc. I think just about every newspaper in the country uses the word "Detroit" interchangeably with "suburbs" and they are 150% wrong.)
2. It was under a white administration until about the beginning of the 1970s. At right around that time, a guy named Coleman came and took over. He was a loud mouthed MFIC/ HNIC (for white people who don't know what those mean, they translate to "motherfucker in charge" and "head nigger in charge.")
3. He single handedly ran that city into the ground.
4. He stayed there for every bit of 20 years doing just that.
5. A guy named Dennis Archer came in after Young stepped down and tried to save the city by building Casinos (which, incidentally is the same thing that they tried to do in East St. Louis, Illinois after another black administration came there and destroyed it).
6. The casinos weren't enough to save the city (the way way they weren't in East St. Louis, Illinois).
7. In comes Kwame Kilpatrick after Archer (who got convicted on some type of fraud). He stayed there for 2 terms, and there were problems with corruption from even the very first day (and those idiots elected him AGAIN).
8. Kilpatrick went to jail, got out and was given a COURTESY job by some friends in Texas (at $100,000/ annum or so) and he still didn't pay the money he owed the city of Detroit and went BACK to jail. (I really wonder what could have been the average IQ of some people in Detroit electing such a fool twice. Not only that, but if his IQ was higher than average enough to get him elected, and got sent to jail twice on the same charges, what does it say about the average intelligence of the residents of the city?)
9. Dave Bing took over the city, and they are trying to figure out just how to not get into receivership.
10. As of the time of this writing, you can buy a house in the city for less than the price of a used car.
(As an aside, I can say that I used to go there every single weekened to visit my grandmother. And the city was rough then, but it has gotten even WORSE in the years since she died and we stopped going. Even the parts of the city that functioned then don't function any more.)
I know that it is the position of many people to start sneering (like you just did) when confronted with some uncomfortable facts about certain things (such as: it seems like the fortunes of any city/ administrative region/ country dramatically decline when black people take it over), but: 1. The evidence is overwhelming; 2. Why do people get so uncomfortable when another person points out the facts? (Look what happened to James Watson when he pointed out the same thing. He was the winner of a Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA but was abruptly retired after he pointed out the obvious: [url]http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php[/url])
I am actually a black(ish) person (who does not vote) and I live in China (for the foreseeable future). I do *a lot* better in China, where I have no "political representation" (what you always hear black people in the States whining about). And the Chinese people don't like blacks (generally speaking), but I am able to find work here and make a good living. The fastest way for me to ruin that would be to go back to the States and live in Detroit (or any other place that black people have taken over and have destroyed/ are in the process of destroying). The second fastest way to ruin that would be to just bring black people to China and allow them to vote/ set up shop (like they have done in Guangzhou-- some very serious problems there).
As far as the causality of poverty: The authors of "The Bell Curve" have made a very strong case that it's race that's linked with intelligence and that causes poverty-- and not just a coincidence that many of the worst off people happen to be black. And that argument has been demonstrated time and time again.
I want you to notice that all black countries with an income above the world median are Overseas Dependencies of the Crown (Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands). NOT ONE self governed black African country is in the top half of the GDP per capita. Jamaica is in the top half (and still technically has the Queen as head of state). Nearly all of the lowest 30 countries are African.
[QUOTE=Clandestine782]Not quite. I happen to know a little more about this than you(I grew up in a town about 18 miles west of Detroit on the I-94).
What happened in Detroit was this:
1. There was a functioning city. (As far as I know, there has NEVER been an auto plant in Detroit--all the auto plants are in Woodhaven/ Wayne/ etc. I think just about every newspaper in the country uses the word "Detroit" interchangeably with "suburbs" and they are 150% wrong.)
2. It was under a white administration until about the beginning of the 1970s. At right around that time, a guy named Coleman came and took over. He was a loud mouthed MFIC/ HNIC (for white people who don't know what those mean, they translate to "motherfucker in charge" and "head nigger in charge.")
3. He single handedly ran that city into the ground.
4. He stayed there for every bit of 20 years doing just that.
5. A guy named Dennis Archer came in after Young stepped down and tried to save the city by building Casinos (which, incidentally is the same thing that they tried to do in East St. Louis, Illinois after another black administration came there and destroyed it).
6. The casinos weren't enough to save the city (the way way they weren't in East St. Louis, Illinois).
7. In comes Kwame Kilpatrick after Archer (who got convicted on some type of fraud). He stayed there for 2 terms, and there were problems with corruption from even the very first day (and those idiots elected him AGAIN).
8. Kilpatrick went to jail, got out and was given a COURTESY job by some friends in Texas (at $100,000/ annum or so) and he still didn't pay the money he owed the city of Detroit and went BACK to jail. (I really wonder what could have been the average IQ of some people in Detroit electing such a fool twice. Not only that, but if his IQ was higher than average enough to get him elected, and got sent to jail twice on the same charges, what does it say about the average intelligence of the residents of the city?)
9. Dave Bing took over the city, and they are trying to figure out just how to not get into receivership.
10. As of the time of this writing, you can buy a house in the city for less than the price of a used car.
(As an aside, I can say that I used to go there every single weekened to visit my grandmother. And the city was rough then, but it has gotten even WORSE in the years since she died and we stopped going. Even the parts of the city that functioned then don't function any more.)
I know that it is the position of many people to start sneering (like you just did) when confronted with some uncomfortable facts about certain things (such as: it seems like the fortunes of any city/ administrative region/ country dramatically decline when black people take it over), but: 1. The evidence is overwhelming; 2. Why do people get so uncomfortable when another person points out the facts? (Look what happened to James Watson when he pointed out the same thing. He was the winner of a Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA but was abruptly retired after he pointed out the obvious: [url]http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php[/url])
I am actually a black(ish) person (who does not vote) and I live in China (for the foreseeable future). I do *a lot* better in China, where I have no "political representation" (what you always hear black people in the States whining about). And the Chinese people don't like blacks (generally speaking), but I am able to find work here and make a good living. The fastest way for me to ruin that would be to go back to the States and live in Detroit (or any other place that black people have taken over and have destroyed/ are in the process of destroying). The second fastest way to ruin that would be to just bring black people to China and allow them to vote/ set up shop (like they have done in Guangzhou-- some very serious problems there).
As far as the causality of poverty: The authors of "The Bell Curve" have made a very strong case that it's race that's linked with intelligence and that causes poverty-- and not just a coincidence that many of the worst off people happen to be black. And that argument has been demonstrated time and time again.
I want you to notice that all black countries with an income above the world median are Overseas Dependencies of the Crown (Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands). NOT ONE self governed black African country is in the top half of the GDP per capita. Jamaica is in the top half (and still technically has the Queen as head of state). Nearly all of the lowest 30 countries are African.[/QUOTE]
So you are trying to tell us that, simultaneously:
A) You are not a racist
B) Detroit was single-handedly run into the ground by someone you called "The Head Nigger in Charge"
So far, the only compelling evidence that you have provided in support of blacks being inferior is the statement that you are black-ish. You remind me of the Dave Chappelle satirical skit about the blind, black Klansman.
The fact is, EVERY black run economy that you point out was made into a basket case by White rulers, who exploited it before leaving a highly disadvantaged population without resources or education. And the fact is, it doesn't matter exactly where the Auto plants were located - they were the job base for URBAN Detroit, and the jobs left, and the educated population went with it. What happened in Detroit was no different than what happened in the various African nations you cited.
In any case, I'm sure that we can both agree that it was beneficial to all of us that you left the U.S. to go to China. Hopefully, you'll stay there. I'm outta here to take a shower - as I feel soiled just interacting with you and your repugnant combination of hate and stupidity. It won't happen again.
Well, I guess there is no more rebutting to do. Someone feels soiled, and I guess he's off to change his tampon. What more can I say?
(Coleman Young referred to HIMSELF as the MFIC/ HNIC. Not my saying it. Him. Oh, and the last post meant that Kilpatrick got convicted on fraud. Not Archer.)
You fail to understand that the cities were abandoned by white capital. Blacks were able to take control only because whites were leaving the cities. Blacks took control of municipalities that were in decline. The exceptions were Chicago and Los Angeles and New York.
White capital went on to extort states out of their tax base so that now California, New York, Arizona and Michigan are on the verge of bankruptcy.
If you are Black as stated in your post then you have serious self hate issues.
I'm not familiar with changing tampons, since, unlike Clandestine782, I don't wear them. Tampon changing technique is clearly another area (along with that of being an inferior black person) where Clandestine782's personal expertise is undeniable.
[QUOTE=DeepCover]You fail to understand that the cities were abandoned by white capital. Blacks were able to take control only because whites were leaving the cities. Blacks took control of municipalities that were in decline. The exceptions were Chicago and Los Angeles and New York.
White capital went on to extort states out of their tax base so that now California, New York, Arizona and Michigan are on the verge of bankruptcy.
If you are Black as stated in your post then you have serious self hate issues.[/QUOTE]
I have heard that line/ parable/ narrative 1,000 times ("white capital ran away from a city and that is why blacks were able to take it over"), and it's really cute-- but it doesn't explain the facts. There are cities that are right near Detroit (Redford, for example) and that is a functioning city. The only difference is that the administration in one is black and the other it is not. Why should capital have asymmetrically flown out of one city and not another? Why can you drive 2 miles away to Windsor and see a functioning city?
I'll go a bit further: You can also go to cities that are 14 and 18miles (respectively) from Detroit. Those cities would be Inkster and Romulus (respectively). Romulus is a functioning city. Inkster is the projects and not functioning. (My grandmother lives in Inskter, and you can hear gunfire EVERY SINGLE NIGHT continuously between the hours of about midnight and 2am.) But they are *right next door* to each other.
When I lived in East Alton, Illinois, it was the SAME IDENTICAL THING. I worked nights at a service station in Pontoon Beach when I was going through graduate school. East Alton was a city with a few black people in it. (Upon moving to the Alton/ East Alton area, I found out that in a lot of those small cities they didn't like to rent to black people. I thought that it was discrimination, but as I lived there longer, [i]I could more clearly see why[/i].)Every single night I got the privelege of watching the customers. They were about 1/2 black and 1/2 white. 100% of the petty theft was the black customers. 100% of the drive offs were them, too. And I had to live through six of watching those idiots pilfer things. And then they would buy exactly one blunt at a time (for 99 cents-- even though a pack of 5 cost $2.87) and go somewhere and cut the tobacco out of it and then come back in with their eyes read 2 or 3 hours later. Then you would see these women come in with food stamp cards (95% black) and litters of snot-nosed rainbow tribes of children.
It is not really an issue of self-hate as much as dealing with observable, extant facts. If I pointed out that West African blacks are good sprinters and that East African ones are good long distance runners is it self-love? If I go a bit further and point out that NONE of them are good swimmers, then does it go back into self-hate? Or could it be that there is really some empirical fact to be explained?
When I pointed out the fact that the Africans/ Haitians have been losers since they took over their own governments (and that the black countries that stayed as part of the Crown did a lot better), it's not self-hate. It's an objective fact. You can look it up on any set of OECD/ World Bank tables.
[QUOTE=Member #2041]I'm not familiar with changing tampons, since, unlike Clandestine782, I don't wear them. Tampon changing technique is clearly another area (along with that of being an inferior black person) where Clandestine782's personal expertise is undeniable.[/QUOTE]Didn't you say that you weren't talking to me any more (something about feeling "soiled"). Now you are going to have to read this post and then go and douche all over again. You will save yourself a lot of Massengil if you just put me on ignore. And in any case, you still didn't thoroughly answer any of the points that I made........
[QUOTE=Clandestine782]I want you to notice that all black countries with an income above the world median are Overseas Dependencies of the Crown (Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands). NOT ONE self governed black African country is in the top half of the GDP per capita. Jamaica is in the top half (and still technically has the Queen as head of state). Nearly all of the lowest 30 countries are African.[/QUOTE]I see you're not one to let the FACTS get in the way of your argument:
* Bahamas: Self-governing 1964, independence 1973
* Barbados: Independence 1966
* Jamaica: Independence 1962
And as for your assertion that a country other than the UK having the British Queen as Head of State means that country isn't an independent nation - that is complete and utter bollocks. Does that mean you consider that Canada, Australia and New Zealand aren't "really" independent nations as well? Because [i]they[/i] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm]share the same monarch as well[/url].
All that's left of your argument is racism.
Barbados: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados#International_rankings[/url]
It functions as a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, modelled on the British Westminster system, with Elizabeth II, Queen of Barbados, as head of state represented locally by the Governor-General, Clifford Husbands and the Prime Minister as the head of the government
Bahamas: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamas#Government_and_politics[/url]
The Bahamas is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state (represented by a Governor-General).
Jamaica: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica[/url]
It remains a Commonwealth realm with Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.
I was also wrong about Jamaica even being within the top half of rankings. Actual inspection shows that:
International rankings
Organization Survey Ranking
Institute for Economics and Peace [1] Global Peace Index[57] 102 out of 144
United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index 100 out of 182
Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 99 out of 180
World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 91 out of 133
So, we have 4 different axes and they fall in the bottom half on all of them.
With respect to all of the Carribean states: All of them have currencies that are anchored by/ pegged to the US Dollar (exception=Jamaica). I believe, in fact, that the British Virgin Islands uses the US dollar. [quote]Queen Elizabeth II appears on the banknotes and also on the obverse of the coins. She is the head of state of all the states and territories using the EC$, except for Dominica. Dominica is nevertheless a member of the Commonwealth of Nations which recognises Queen Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth.[/quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Caribbean_dollar
This means that the monetary policy of all those places is effectively set by the Federal Reserve. (A country has to choose one or the other. It can have EITHER a pegged currency OR set its own interest rates. It can't have both.) Jamaica sets its own interest rates and has a floating currency, but then look what happened to it compared to the other Carribbean countries.
Not exactly sure what the point is, but like Metric says, most of the Caribbean countries are self-governing and independent and have been for decades. British influence (on current government or economic policy) there is minimal. Having the Queen as Head of State and on the banknote has NOTHING to do with being self-governing or not (as exampled by Canada & Australia). It merely reflects a shared historical head of state and (usually) membership in the Commonwealth. Exceptions are Cayman Islands, Turks & Caicos, BVI, Montserrat and Anguilla (crown colonies). You want some examples to support your earlier thesis, use Cayman Islands and Bermuda - still crown colonies and quite prosperous...
The other point, about Caribbean currencies being tied to the American dollar is true in most countries and is the most breath-taking intelligent thing any of them has ever done. Got the national government out of the business of monetary policy. Even in Jamaica, which has its own currency of sorts, the US dollar is king. I was there for a week and I never even saw a Jamaican dollar! Everything was paid in USD.
[QUOTE=Clandestine782]Barbados: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados#International_rankings[/url]
It functions as a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, modelled on the British Westminster system, with Elizabeth II, Queen of Barbados, as head of state represented locally by the Governor-General, Clifford Husbands and the Prime Minister as the head of the government
Bahamas: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamas#Government_and_politics[/url]
The Bahamas is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state (represented by a Governor-General).
Jamaica: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica[/url]
It remains a Commonwealth realm with Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.
I was also wrong about Jamaica even being within the top half of rankings. Actual inspection shows that:
International rankings
Organization Survey Ranking
Institute for Economics and Peace [1] Global Peace Index[57] 102 out of 144
United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index 100 out of 182
Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 99 out of 180
World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 91 out of 133
So, we have 4 different axes and they fall in the bottom half on all of them.
With respect to all of the Carribean states: All of them have currencies that are anchored by/ pegged to the US Dollar (exception=Jamaica). I believe, in fact, that the British Virgin Islands uses the US dollar. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Caribbean_dollar[/url]
This means that the monetary policy of all those places is effectively set by the Federal Reserve. (A country has to choose one or the other. It can have EITHER a pegged currency OR set its own interest rates. It can't have both.) Jamaica sets its own interest rates and has a floating currency, but then look what happened to it compared to the other Carribbean countries.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gentleman Travel]Not exactly sure what the point is, but like Metric says, most of the Caribbean countries are self-governing and independent and have been for decades. British influence (on current government or economic policy) there is minimal. Having the Queen as Head of State and on the banknote has NOTHING to do with being self-governing or not (as exampled by Canada & Australia). It merely reflects a shared historical head of state and (usually) membership in the Commonwealth. Exceptions are Cayman Islands, Turks & Caicos, BVI, Montserrat and Anguilla (crown colonies). You want some examples to support your earlier thesis, use Cayman Islands and Bermuda - still crown colonies and quite prosperous...
The other point, about Caribbean currencies being tied to the American dollar is true in most countries and is the most breath-taking intelligent thing any of them has ever done. Got the national government out of the business of monetary policy. Even in Jamaica, which has its own currency of sorts, the US dollar is king. I was there for a week and I never even saw a Jamaican dollar! Everything was paid in USD.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I am losing track of the point, too. So, I'll just leave it at that.
Or could it be that there is really some empirical fact to be explained? If you were interested in empirical evidence then I could point to American meddling in Haitian affairs going back to an embargo imposed by Thomas Jefferson, who didn't want them being a bad example for "Negro Slaves in America". I might mention how France demanded and received "reparations for loss of property". I might end my presentation by pointing out how many times America meddled in Haitian affairs by invasions and imposition of a parasitic elite. That would leave little space to show how major cities (not suburbs like Redford, Warren etc which recieved more funding) were systematically defunded and deindustrialized and I would even point out that this phenomenon even happened to cities without Black mayors. All that would be a waste because in the end facts are not what brought you to your conclusion.
It simply is lazy stupid thinking. An analysis of American and world economics is deeper than simply saying "The Blacks fukkked it up". That thinking is a throw back to "The weather is bad cause God is angry" or a person is sick because he or she is cursed. It is stupid when white guys like me say it but it sounds particularly ignorant coming from someone purporting to be Black.