Where have America's Defenders Gone?

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. All The Whey Nutrition
    Big Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    709
    Rep Power
    454
    Level
    22
    Lv. Percent
    24.32%

    Where have America's Defenders Gone?


    Things are totally out of hand. The world view of America has become totally warped. We need more people standing up for us like Gordon Sinclair. This was over 30 years ago but the message it conveys still applies today. Perhaps even more so! Read this....you'll be glad you did!


    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gordon Sinclair is a Canadian broadcaster at Radio CFRB in Toronto. On June 5, 1973 he woke up to the news that the American dollar and economy was in trouble. This was the era of Vietnam and Watergate. He went to his broadcast job and sat down to compose a few words. Twenty minutes later the short two page speech was written which has now become a classic. Here it is.......................

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

    The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French, and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971, and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous, and possibly the least-appreciated, people in all the earth.

    As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Well who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did, that's who.

    They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges, and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan, and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

    When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. And I was there -- I saw that. When distant cities are hit by earthquake, it is the United States that hurries into help, Managua, Nicaragua, is one of the most recent examples.

    So far this spring, fifty-nine American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

    The Marshall Plan, the Truman Policy, all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. And now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, war-mongering Americans.

    Now, I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

    Come on now, you, let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or a women on the moon?

    You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times, and, safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They're right here on our streets in Toronto. Most of them, unless they're breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend up here.

    When the Americans get out of this bind -- as they will -- who could blame them if they said "the hell with the rest of the world." Let somebody else buy the Israel bonds. Let somebody else build or repair foreign dams, or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes." When the railways of France, and Germany, and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both of 'em are still broke.

    I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name to me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They'll come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they're entitled to thumb their noses at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians.

    And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

    This year's disasters -- with the year less than half-over -- has taken it all. And nobody, but nobody, has helped.

  2. Board Supporter
    doggzj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    951
    Rep Power
    596
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    44.14%

    exactly what I tell people all the time.

    no, I mean we help people way to much, let the rest of the world help themselves for a few years.
  3. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    I think we should butt out of every country's business.

    Next time when sh1t hits the fan in their countries, they can pray to their God and look to their wise and smart leaders for help.

    I think the UN should find some balls and get the **** out of New York. Move to Paris, for all I care. Kick us out of the UN, please!!! Reject our lopsided UN fees. Don't be so pathetic as to accept our corrupted US dollars!

    I think all the countries should demonstrate how they truly feel about the US AND summon up their courage to REJECT our foreign aid!! That's right! Grow a backbone and a pair of balls! Reject our money!

    And kick us out of Europe, so we don't have to spend over $150 billion a year popping up their economy.
    •   
       

  4. Senior Member
    Mrs. Gimpy!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,040
    Rep Power
    631
    Level
    25
    Lv. Percent
    66.57%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazzard
    I think we should butt out of every country's business.

    Next time when sh1t hits the fan in their countries, they can pray to their God and look to their wise and smart leaders for help.

    I think the UN should find some balls and get the **** out of New York. Move to Paris, for all I care. Kick us out of the UN, please!!! Reject our lopsided UN fees. Don't be so pathetic as to accept our corrupted US dollars!

    I think all the countries should demonstrate how they truly feel about the US AND summon up their courage to REJECT our foreign aid!! That's right! Grow a backbone and a pair of balls! Reject our money!

    And kick us out of Europe, so we don't have to spend over $150 billion a year popping up their economy.

    exactly....

    or america could stop giving money to people that hate us....


    oh but we are hmmm.... what is the phrase ... "better than that" aren't we.... jesus turned the other cheek and so shall we.....
  5. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    20.94%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. Gimpy!
    exactly....

    or america could stop giving money to people that hate us....


    oh but we are hmmm.... what is the phrase ... "better than that" aren't we.... jesus turned the other cheek and so shall we.....
    There is a strange perception that people who criticize the current US govrnment are not supportive of of the country and its freedoms.
    The United Statees of America has been wholly responcible for the ending of such practices as slavery, communism and has done much in the effort of limiting the effects of fascism and terrorism through out the world.
    ...but as "past results are not a guarentee of future performance", we as a people must remain "eternally vigilent" in protecting the rights of every human as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. This is "equality of rights" and you either believe that it is for "everyone" or you become vulnerable to biases that can eventually include you.

    Sometimes to prove a point you have to give money to a few ingrates..speaking of which I gave a "homelss guy" a dollar the other day,..didn't even thank me!
  6. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. Gimpy!
    exactly....

    or america could stop giving money to people that hate us....


    oh but we are hmmm.... what is the phrase ... "better than that" aren't we.... jesus turned the other cheek and so shall we.....
    Great minds think alike.
  7. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    There is a strange perception that people who criticize the current US govrnment are not supportive of of the country and its freedoms.....
    How do you figure that?



  8. Professional Member
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,232
    Rep Power
    2268
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    92.93%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Americans are commonly concerned with government budget deficits and imbalances. Oddly, many Americans are for the constant loaning of money to foreign countries for aid who have no intention or capabilities of returning the money even interest free. Seems a bit ironic.
  9. New Member
    glg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    66
    Posts
    453
    Rep Power
    330
    Level
    17
    Lv. Percent
    16.42%

    No country has ever survivied an isolationist policy. It is a global economy and global politics is the reality we are forced to live in.

    However...I believe the phrase charity begins at home should be the focus and the word 'charity' can be changed to justice, defense, health care, adoption of children, care for the less well off, job protection et. al.

    I think we do stick our noses in to many places/things and don't take care of our own enough.

    But in the end I think we are damned either way. the world will hate us because we jump in or because we didn't jump in.

    When you are big eveyone picks on you and assumes you are a bully regardless of your intentions.

    So let's get better/bigger/healthier and give them something to actually be jealous of!!
  10. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    There is a strange perception that people who criticize the current US govrnment are not supportive of of the country and its freedoms.
    In many ways they are not. Nor are their main opposition.

    The United Statees of America has been wholly responcible for the ending of such practices as slavery,
    Actually many countries had outlawed slavery before us, and we were one of the few where a massive destructive war was waged in part to do so. Most countries just outlawed slavery and paid off the owners for their remaining slaves, or some other such arrangement. The US was way behind the curve globally on this issue.

    communism and has done much in the effort of limiting the effects of fascism and terrorism through out the world.
    The stand against communism was a joint effort. The US couldn't contain communism alone, we needed a lot of allies. Whether or not our current efforts at ending or minimizing terrorism will be successfull is way up in the air. With estimates of the number of dead Iraqis and Afghanis rising and being in the tens of thousands, and sometimes being estimated much higher in the hundreds of thousands, there are arguably a lot more potential terrorists out there now than ever before. The death count from US backed UN sanctions was one of the main reasons given by OBL/AQ for the 9/11 attacks and the general war on the US. It's yet to be determined whether or not a similar death count from an outright US military action will be more or less of a motivator.

    we as a people must remain "eternally vigilent" in protecting the rights of every human as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
    The Declaration, aside from not being law but rhetoric, says nothing of the sort. It says that generally speaking people have the right to take up arms to defend themselves from the tyranny of their own government.

    Sometimes to prove a point you have to give money to a few ingrates..speaking of which I gave a "homelss guy" a dollar the other day,..didn't even thank me!
    By giving him money you're likely doing more to perpetuate his current state than to instigate any kind of change. Similarly with nations, the money we send usually ends up being used as an investment guarantee for US based corporations or ends up lining the pocket of the corrupt rulers, allowing them to prop up their governments more effectively. Little if any gets to the people within the country. Similarly food aid usually ends up going on the black market, under cutting local crop prices and causing more people to become starving refugees.

    The best answer in almost all case of foreign policy is to stay out of it, whatever 'it' may be; war, famine, mass poverty or public improvement projects. The only consistent result of getting involved with other people's problems is the perpetuation of that problem (which is foreseeable since the country is now being paid handsomely based on its victim status - lose the status, lose the money) and to piss off a lot of people when we take sides in centuries old disputes that we know little to nothing about.
  11. All The Whey Nutrition
    Big Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    709
    Rep Power
    454
    Level
    22
    Lv. Percent
    24.32%

    What would Gordon Sinclair's speech read like if he had written it today?

    How many people bashing America and it's foriegn policy would get called out?

    Food for thought.
  12. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    There is a strange perception that people who criticize the current US govrnment are not supportive of of the country and its freedoms.
    The United Statees of America has been wholly responcible for the ending of such practices as slavery, communism and has done much in the effort of limiting the effects of fascism and terrorism through out the world.
    ...but as "past results are not a guarentee of future performance", we as a people must remain "eternally vigilent" in protecting the rights of every human as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. This is "equality of rights" and you either believe that it is for "everyone" or you become vulnerable to biases that can eventually include you.

    Sometimes to prove a point you have to give money to a few ingrates..speaking of which I gave a "homelss guy" a dollar the other day,..didn't even thank me!
    I think before one can responsibly place the United States in such a 'world saviour' light, one has to look at the historical and societal construction of the problems you mentioned.

    Slavery-The United States was the major perpetrator of slavery at the end of the Colonial push of the late nineteenth century. Admittedly the attitude of racial exploitation for capital gain had long been pursued before the Colonization of the US, and arose out of the need for cheap labour in African and Asian colonies, but arguably the United States carried it out on the largest scale. Undoubtedly the United States in its contemporary form was founded on centuries of black oppression

    Communism-Though I will wholeheartedly challenge anyone to show me how the Stalinist form of Socialism in any major way resembled the ideologies of Karl Marx, I do agree that it was a plague, of which the United States played a major part in extinguishing

    Terrorism-If one conceptualizes Terrorism in a classical definition of using violence to achieve a political agenda, then the United States is, and has been for the better part of a century, the major perpetrator of such acts. Before anyone gets defense one only needs to look at the amount of democratically elected leaders the United States has displaced in favour of Fascists who at the time opposed Communism, or who had stated economic interests with the United States. Off the top of my head I can name about 8. I do not, and would never condone the loss of innocent lives, but some of the attacks against the United States need to stop being percieved along strictly ethnic and religious lines and begin to be viewed in their true political context as reciprocal actions.

    I am not "anti-american" in anyway, I just find it alarming how some citizens of the Western World are ignorant as to the causes of our current socio-political climate. Not claiming you are Rhino, you are a pretty adept guy, just speaking in generalities
  13. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB



    By giving him money you're likely doing more to perpetuate his current state than to instigate any kind of change. Similarly with nations, the money we send usually ends up being used as an investment guarantee for US based corporations or ends up lining the pocket of the corrupt rulers, allowing them to prop up their governments more effectively. Little if any gets to the people within the country. Similarly food aid usually ends up going on the black market, under cutting local crop prices and causing more people to become starving refugees.

    The best answer in almost all case of foreign policy is to stay out of it, whatever 'it' may be; war, famine, mass poverty or public improvement projects. The only consistent result of getting involved with other people's problems is the perpetuation of that problem (which is foreseeable since the country is now being paid handsomely based on its victim status - lose the status, lose the money) and to piss off a lot of people when we take sides in centuries old disputes that we know little to nothing about.
    I think one of the major ignorances and misconceptions in so far as the economic situation of the Third World is the fact that no Western country has had to endure such an elongated oppression; therefore trying to prod the Third World countries into following the economic model of the West is not feasible. Simply put, they do not have themselves to exploit.

    During that period of marginalization known as Colonialism, 99% of any resemblance to functional, agricultural economies (subsistence or profit based) in the Third World were subordinated to single-cash crops geared toward short term export rather than long term development. Fast-forward to post-World War 2 when these former colonies were given political and 'economical independence'. In reality, they were pushed into a common culture of capitalism extremely behind the grade so to speak, their economies had been founded upon exploitation over any long term development, and were completely disorganized and too undeveloped to support their own infrastructures. So, they were forced to take foreign aid in order to trade in an economic structure they had no part in creating, and no choice but to partake in.

    It is simply not as easy as saying "we shouldn't get involved" in a situation which the West as a whole was solely responsible for creating. I agree that it is not as easy as throwing money at them, progressive social changes need to be made so the dependence on foreign aid cannot be fostered in future generations. However, I do not think now is the time to feel our involvement in the Third World's operations are necessary. One of the main reasons, IMO, the current situation of the Third World continues to be perpetuated is this ignorant attitude that we had nothing to do with its creation.
  14. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    20.94%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    I am not "anti-american" in anyway, I just find it alarming how some citizens of the Western World are ignorant as to the causes of our current socio-political climate. Not claiming you are Rhino, you are a pretty adept guy, just speaking in generalities
    Hey , I thought this was a thread for "defending" America?(haha)

    I was born in this country(USA) and I am glad. I would not want to live anywhere else(save my own tropical island paradise)
    Sometimes, I feel for people that are in the military or law enforcement, because the have to endure alot of America bashing.
    It must be frustrating because they most likley "joined" to further a belief in a certain "way of life", then they are told that they are fighting for the "great Satan or they are fascist Imperialists expanding a global empire. I just wanted to post(previously) a few of the things that our global expasion has established that are generally considered as "good deeds"

    The USA ended slavery after it no longer served any corporate agendas. The industrial age was beginging and slave labor was becoming more expensive(food shelter) than cotton gins.

    Communism(USSR) ended with a wimper. Cold war military expansion led to fiscal mismanagment of resources and supply chains breakdowns imploded the government. The people realized they could not count on the government to supply their needs. The military was unpaid and were sure to revolt as they grew hungry. So, down came the walls of communism. Unfortunately unless you are a prostitue or in a crime family life in the former USSR is not so much better now.
    Terrorism will never go away as it will always serve an agenda.
    The only thing that could possibly end terorism is a complete police state of global dominance by a single ruling class that has complete control of its society....I mean that could never happen, right?
  15. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    I think one of the major ignorances and misconceptions in so far as the economic situation of the Third World is the fact that no Western country has had to endure such an elongated oppression; therefore trying to prod the Third World countries into following the economic model of the West is not feasible. Simply put, they do not have themselves to exploit.

    During that period of marginalization known as Colonialism, 99% of any resemblance to functional, agricultural economies (subsistence or profit based) in the Third World were subordinated to single-cash crops geared toward short term export rather than long term development. Fast-forward to post-World War 2 when these former colonies were given political and 'economical independence'. In reality, they were pushed into a common culture of capitalism extremely behind the grade so to speak, their economies had been founded upon exploitation over any long term development, and were completely disorganized and too undeveloped to support their own infrastructures. So, they were forced to take foreign aid in order to trade in an economic structure they had no part in creating, and no choice but to partake in.
    Problem is there are societies who have been just as if not more worse off than some of these perpetual third world countries and they have done fine. Countries with no natural resources and/or marginal to low productivity who are marevelous success stories. The problem is not their unexpected and 'forced' confrontation with capitalism, but their own governments that insist on perpetuating nonsensical economic policies. Why the hell are countries still producing jute, for instance? Entire economies are based on it and no one wants it. But rather than let their economies develop the governments of these countries keep redistributing wealth and keep trying to centrally plan the economies of their respective nations around failed crops. Bangladesh is a perfect example. The problem isn't capitalism, it is the lack thereof.

    It is simply not as easy as saying "we shouldn't get involved" in a situation which the West as a whole was solely responsible for creating. I agree that it is not as easy as throwing money at them, progressive social changes need to be made so the dependence on foreign aid cannot be fostered in future generations.
    There is no possible way to do that while continuing to give foreign aid. Following your concept means it has to get discontinued at some point anyway, but how are you going to discontinue or phase it out? There is no way to do so, except on an arbitrary time table. So long as foreign aid is given on any other basis than a set time table, nations will become dependent on it and the only thing we're doing is putting off the inevitable crash and readjustment. We are in fact likely making it worse. You subsidize something and you get more of it, and there is no way to give money to people because of some problem they have and not subsidize that problem. If however you give them money and let them know in 5 years there will be no more handouts no matter what, they might get their **** together. Not likely, but they might. But such policies are nigh impossible in politics.

    However, I do not think now is the time to feel our involvement in the Third World's operations are necessary. One of the main reasons, IMO, the current situation of the Third World continues to be perpetuated is this ignorant attitude that we had nothing to do with its creation.
    We have indeed ****ed a lot of people. Foreign aid is just another form of ****ing them though.
  16. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Problem is there are societies who have been just as if not more worse off than some of these perpetual third world countries and they have done fine. Countries with no natural resources and/or marginal to low productivity who are marevelous success stories. The problem is not their unexpected and 'forced' confrontation with capitalism, but their own governments that insist on perpetuating nonsensical economic policies. Why the hell are countries still producing jute, for instance? Entire economies are based on it and no one wants it. But rather than let their economies develop the governments of these countries keep redistributing wealth and keep trying to centrally plan the economies of their respective nations around failed crops. Bangladesh is a perfect example. The problem isn't capitalism, it is the lack thereof.
    As it pertains to the very last sentence, in a sense I agree, and in a sense I disagree. At the base root it is in fact the globalization of Capitalism that engrained the racial exploitation that put the Third World in their contemporary position. Though, looking at it striclty contemporarily I would have to agree in so far as the complete underdevelopment of their economies is a cause as I had mentioned above.

    What is not being recognized here, IMO, is the fact that decolonialization only began in earnest after the Second World War, meaning these countries have only had economic autonomy for half-a-century, as opposed to being oppressed in some cases for over 4 centuries. Installation of corrupt domestic governments, lack of fertile land initially, complete decimation of fertile land because of the forced over graising I mentioned above, these are all realities in the Third World economic structure. Africa is not Wisconsin, simply put the amount of land available for agriculture is quite scarce, and as I said made even more scarce by forced over-graising because of strict borders. We just can't say 'hurry up and develop', they do not have the means. As you know, industrialization somehow passed over the Third World. I wonder if it had anything to do with the perpetuation of racial inequality for raw material extraction? Maybe...

    I will agree with you that the vast majority of these Third World countries are beyond mismanaged. I will also agree with you that mismanaged economical aid has done nothing but foster this environement, which we created, in contemporary society. However, I will disagree with you in so far as the major obstacle of foreign aid success is being a lack of a timetable. In my eyes, it is the kind of foreign aid which we are giving which is simply unacceptable, and causes nothing but the perpetuation of their current situation. The aid has to be in recognition of the paramaters through which they have to work, the land they have, the training they have, the social and cultural structure they live in. In the past, and even to an extent today, Foreign Aid is given on the premise that they will, or moreover, can emulate a Western agricultural model. Well, they cannot. So, as you stated most Foreign Aid is given in the former of Capital which is used to create subsidiaries for Trans and Multi-nationals. This I agree will do nothing, I also agree we need to stop at some point in order to create true economic autonomy. I however, feel the fundamental basis of aid has to change for a period in order to do so responsibly.
  17. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    As it pertains to the very last sentence, in a sense I agree, and in a sense I disagree. At the base root it is in fact the globalization of Capitalism that engrained the racial exploitation that put the Third World in their contemporary position.
    Since capitalism is basedon voluntary interactions I'm at a loss how exploitation fits there. Maybe you could explain.

    What is not being recognized here, IMO, is the fact that decolonialization only began in earnest after the Second World War, meaning these countries have only had economic autonomy for half-a-century, as opposed to being oppressed in some cases for over 4 centuries. Installation of corrupt domestic governments, lack of fertile land initially, complete decimation of fertile land because of the forced over graising I mentioned above, these are all realities in the Third World economic structure. Africa is not Wisconsin, simply put the amount of land available for agriculture is quite scarce, and as I said made even more scarce by forced over-graising because of strict borders.
    And? a lack of resources like arable land isn't an excuse for failure. Look at Taiwan. No natural resources and it's a massive success because the economy has been free for the most part. Africa is not Wisconsin for sure. In Wisconsin you can be reasonably sure if you own a successful business no government stooges will come and nationalize it. You can be reasonably sure your property will remain yours for some time. You won't have ***** tribes coming in to kill you.

    We just can't say 'hurry up and develop', they do not have the means. As you know, industrialization somehow passed over the Third World. I wonder if it had anything to do with the perpetuation of racial inequality for raw material extraction? Maybe...
    There are plenty of countries with no 'means' that are doing fine. It doesn't take that long to become a part of the world and to find a few things it's worthwhile for others to let you do for them (comparative advantage). If an economy isn't developing it's usually because the government is sitting on it and farting.

    The aid has to be in recognition of the paramaters through which they have to work, the land they have, the training they have, the social and cultural structure they live in.
    But that presumes some one, or some committee, knows what they are supposed to be doing and how they are supposed to develop. That's central planning, and it's a failure because no one knows. Uncertainty is at the root of the market.

    In the past, and even to an extent today, Foreign Aid is given on the premise that they will, or moreover, can emulate a Western agricultural model. Well, they cannot. So, as you stated most Foreign Aid is given in the former of Capital which is used to create subsidiaries for Trans and Multi-nationals. This I agree will do nothing, I also agree we need to stop at some point in order to create true economic autonomy. I however, feel the fundamental basis of aid has to change for a period in order to do so responsibly.
    Then what should we do? We send Peace Corps schmoes to these countries to show people who have been farming for a million years how to farm. In order to distribute aid we need to use their infrastructure and that means their government, which will pocket most of the money. And who the hell says these people should still be farming? For all we know there are budding typists, brick layers, makers of rubber dog ****, budding engineers, gifted architects and prize winning NASCAR drivers in these countries. Any attempt to direct their economies will simply keep destroying whatever potential these people have. If we truly wanted to help them we'd arm them so they could over throw their assinine governments. Or simply annex them and make them subject to our rules and let them develop as they see fit. But any 'aid' we give, in whatever form, will simply perpetuate their current situations.
  18. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Since capitalism is basedon voluntary interactions I'm at a loss how exploitation fits there. Maybe you could explain.
    Voluntary CDB? Hardly. None of these countries chose to be colonized, did they? Nor did they choose to have corrupt domestic leaders installed as a means for indirect control, until basically after World War II did they? And I would expect someone as socially adept as you to know the FUNDAMENTAL base for capitalism is the exploitation of one class over another, in whatever terms you wish to place exploitation in. Saying you don't understand how exploitation fits with capitalism, especially as it pertains to the Third World is like saying you don't understand how a penis can fit in a vagina, it is pretty elementary

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    And? a lack of resources like arable land isn't an excuse for failure. Look at Taiwan. No natural resources and it's a massive success because the economy has been free for the most part. Africa is not Wisconsin for sure. In Wisconsin you can be reasonably sure if you own a successful business no government stooges will come and nationalize it. You can be reasonably sure your property will remain yours for some time. You won't have ***** tribes coming in to kill you.
    Comparing Taiwan to colonized African states is comparing apples to oranges. Initially they had a relatively friendly relationship with their Dutch colonizers, and even the Japanese though repressive spent massive amounts of money on industrializing Taiwan during their occupation as opposed to just straight cash crop exportation. The agricultural economy was also highly developed as a result of Japanese occupation and a functional economic environment was created for independence. I do not see how you can liken the two situations.


    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    There are plenty of countries with no 'means' that are doing fine. It doesn't take that long to become a part of the world and to find a few things it's worthwhile for others to let you do for them (comparative advantage). If an economy isn't developing it's usually because the government is sitting on it and farting.
    You are right. You should relate this message to the African-American citizens of your country, their official oppression ended around the same time and are STILL feeling its effects on large social scales. I think you are underestimating how long it takes to reverse centuries of oppression


    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Then what should we do? We send Peace Corps schmoes to these countries to show people who have been farming for a million years how to farm. In order to distribute aid we need to use their infrastructure and that means their government, which will pocket most of the money. And who the hell says these people should still be farming? For all we know there are budding typists, brick layers, makers of rubber dog ****, budding engineers, gifted architects and prize winning NASCAR drivers in these countries. Any attempt to direct their economies will simply keep destroying whatever potential these people have. If we truly wanted to help them we'd arm them so they could over throw their assinine governments. Or simply annex them and make them subject to our rules and let them develop as they see fit. But any 'aid' we give, in whatever form, will simply perpetuate their current situations.
    Well, although for the most part I completely and utterly disagree with most of the things you feel on this issue, the fact that they may not be neccessarily agricultural is a fair assertion. But, once again I will state that we cannot prod them into the accepted Western agricultural model, so teaching them how to farm as we would here is not plausible. Arm them? Seriously? So more genocide can occur because now the entirety of the continent is armed? I hope that was sarcastic. The concept of aid itself has to change and begin to manifest itself in grassroots social programs, fixing the root problems of things like overpopulation, AIDS epidemics, etc., not just treating the symptoms. I concur throwing money at them is not the answer, so a more adept method has to be created in order to work with these corrupt goverments as opposed to pacifying their genocidal requests. Part of the reason these governments are empowered is the kind of attitude which conventional aid has conveyed "here is some money, we don't give a **** what you do as long as you pay us back"
  19. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    Voluntary CDB? Hardly. None of these countries chose to be colonized, did they? Nor did they choose to have corrupt domestic leaders installed as a means for indirect control, until basically after World War II did they?
    The problem is rooted much deeper than colonization. Colonization was "attempted" by many countries in history, it just so happens that nobody was as successful as the western european countries. The Arabs had colonized Africa and had been exporting Africans for ages before the Europeans even showed up there.

    Do you even know WHY the Africans were chosen for slavery? It had nothing to do with "race" or intentional "oppression". The Irish were used as slaves alongside the africans for sugar plantations in the caribbean, however, they didn't live as long in the Africans in harsh tropical environments where sugar was produced! Africa is the most disease plagued continent on the world, and by virtue of that, the people of West African were the most disease resistant and perfect for the plantation owners.

    The "colonization" you speak of didn't last for very long and didn't happen until relatively late in the history of slavery, and it extended beyond third world countries into countries that, as CDB eloquently pointed out, are at a total lack for natural resources and have done quite well for themselves. Take Japan for example. In a little over a hundred years they went from very "unmodernized" to a world power and their natural resources were almost non-existant.

    For long periods of time before the "oppression" or "colonization" you speak of, the Africans were waring with each other, enslaving each other, and selling each other to traders who made a profit on them because of their disease-hardiness. They were not treating each other any different than the colonizers who came later treated them.

    You act as if this was an isolated problem, that it was primarily white europeans, and later primarily the Americans, who are responsible for this. This is LAUGHABLE! Somewhere in the realm of 3% of the slaves traded during the "slave trade" were sold to Americans. Since we're on the topic, this is a good (although amateur) read: The Origins of the Slave Trade
    Last edited by kwyckemynd00; 10-21-2006 at 04:53 PM.
  20. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    The problem is rooted much deeper than colonization. Colonization was "attempted" by many countries in history, it just so happens that nobody was as successful as the western european countries. The Arabs had colonized Africa and had been exporting Africans for ages before the Europeans even showed up there.
    So you are justifying what occurred because Western Europeans were simply the most successful? Please. And, can you point out where Kwyck, in any of my previous statements I had stated that Wester Europeans were the SOLE exploiters of the African continent? You cannot, because I didn't. I simply stated, truthfull that contemporary economic crisis on the African continent is by and large a result of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century colonialism.

    Do you even know WHY the Africans were chosen for slavery? It had nothing to do with "race" or intentional "oppression". The Irish were used as slaves alongside the africans for sugar plantations in the caribbean, however, they didn't live as long in the Africans in harsh tropical environments where sugar was produced! Africa is the most disease plagued continent on the world, and by virtue of that, the people of West African were the most disease resistant and perfect for the plantation owners.
    Once again, your history prowess (and arrogance) never ceases to amaze me bro. I was quite aware of that fact, but thanks for the refresher. So once again, I pose the question that somehow these facts justify what occurred in anyway??

    The "colonization" you speak of didn't last for very long and didn't happen until relatively late in the history of slavery, and it extended beyond third world countries into countries that, as CDB eloquently pointed out, are at a total lack for natural resources and have done quite well for themselves. Take Japan for example. In a little over a hundred years they went from very "unmodernized" to a world power and their natural resources were almost non-existant.
    No, you are right. Slavery has a very storied history, going back to Aristotle's notion of the natural slave. HOWEVER, it was never carried out on such an institutionalized and large extent as the Western European slavery and exploitation. Never was the technological and military advantage of the colonizer over the colonized state so prominent as it was in this instance. For you to imply anything other wise is ridiculous

    For long periods of time before the "oppression" or "colonization" you speak of, the Africans were waring with each other, enslaving each other, and selling each other to traders who made a profit on them because of their disease-hardiness. They were not treating each other any different than the colonizers who came later treated them.
    That is utterly wrong, and to use your phrase LAUGHABLE. As I said in the above comment never in history was slavery so institutionalized and systematic as it was in European colonialism

    You act as if this was an isolated problem, that it was primarily white europeans, and later primarily the Americans, who are responsible for this. This is LAUGHABLE! Somewhere in the realm of 5% of the slaves in the history of the world were sold to Americans. Since we're on the topic, this is a good (although amateur)
    Again, please don't put words in my mouth or attribute concepts to me I never claimed. Slavery is of course NOT an isolated problem, but since you just happened on the discourse I will fill you in. We are speaking about the CONTEMPORARY economic crisis of the African continent, which can largely be attributed to the economic underdevelopment that came as a result of late-nineteenth century colonialism. Obviously, you saw that I had implicated your country in this process and got your panties all knotted up.
  21. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Side note:

    I find it amusing how you put Colonialization in quotations as if I had made it up or was misusing the term.
  22. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    So you are justifying what occurred because Western Europeans were simply the most successful? Please. And, can you point out where Kwyck, in any of my previous statements I had stated that Wester Europeans were the SOLE exploiters of the African continent? You cannot, because I didn't. I simply stated, truthfull that contemporary economic crisis on the African continent is by and large a result of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century colonialism.
    Nothing was being justified in my response.

    Quite simply put, you can't hold the Americans and the West World of today responsible for a world-wide phenomenon where some people came out on top and others just didn't.

    The intent of the Western Europeans and Early American's wasn't "oppression" it was simply about trade, nothing more, nothing less. When the US showed up at Japan and asked Japan to trade with them, they were told NO! The US didn't try to colonize them, they simply said, trade with us and be free, or we'll war beat you up until you trade with us. Bullying? Yes...oppression? Hardly. Japan benifited economically, as do many, many, many countries who wouldn't trade with the westerners, originally out of prejudice, and were forced into trading. I'm not justifying their actions, and I know they were bullying other nations, I'm just highlighting the fact that the intent of the these people was not oppression, but trade.

    Once again, your history prowess (and arrogance) never ceases to amaze me bro. I was quite aware of that fact, but thanks for the refresher. So once again, I pose the question that somehow these facts justify what occurred in anyway??
    Sorry, I believe you that you were aware fo the fact, however, it just didn't appear that way when you bring up racism, and oppression when referencing slavery. It had nothing to do with that. It was about the Africans being the perfect fit for their operation, and nothing more. And, again, these slaves weren't stolen, they were purchased, so they were slaves regardless of their owner and would have still been slaves if the Europeans never existed.

    No, you are right. Slavery has a very storied history, going back to Aristotle's notion of the natural slave. HOWEVER, it was never carried out on such an institutionalized and large extent as the Western European slavery and exploitation. Never was the technological and military advantage of the colonizer over the colonized state so prominent as it was in this instance. For you to imply anything other wise is ridiculous
    It is obvious that the european countries were much more efficient in almost every way to other countries during that time era, so why would an efficient slave trade be suprising? And, in addition, just because the trade was efficient does not make it any more horrific.


    That is utterly wrong, and to use your phrase LAUGHABLE. As I said in the above comment never in history was slavery so institutionalized and systematic as it was in European colonialism
    Are you kidding? The slaves were purchased by Europeans from Africans. Tribal war created slaves, not europeans: The African American : A Journey from Slavery to Freedom


    Again, please don't put words in my mouth or attribute concepts to me I never claimed. Slavery is of course NOT an isolated problem, but since you just happened on the discourse I will fill you in. We are speaking about the CONTEMPORARY economic crisis of the African continent, which can largely be attributed to the economic underdevelopment that came as a result of late-nineteenth century colonialism.
    I'd be very interested to see a case presentation where you can argue for the fact that the underdevelopment in Africa is largely a result of colonialism.

    An economy was established by (predominantly) the Brithish. There was NO ECONOMY prior to their ar*****. The british have no power there now, and the Africans were left with an existing economy that was built by their colonizers. If anything, its honestly a great possibility that most semi-industrialized African countries would be living in conditions much more similar to those of the New Guinean tribes if the colonizers never arrived. Whether that is good or bad is definitely debatable, but the fact that their economic prosperity was stunted by the ar***** of the colonizers I cannot agree with. However, this is an area I'm not entirely familiar with, so maybe you can make a case for me and I'll see your point of view a bit better.

    Obviously, you saw that I had implicated your country in this process and got your panties all knotted up.
    You basically said that we're responsible for the despairity of third world countries, and I totally disagree.

    Oh, and just an update on a previous comment I made. I said it was 5% that went to America, I guess its closer to 3%. And this is just during a two hundred year period, not including the thousand prior years where slaves were being sold and exported to arab countries. Slavery in America
  23. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    Side note:

    I find it amusing how you put Colonialization in quotations as if I had made it up or was misusing the term.
    Okay, okay...I agree...that was a definite misuse quotations
  24. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    20.94%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    There is a difference between "free market" capitalism and "supply side" corporatism. Corporatism is the fascist cousin of capitalism.
    The word corporatism was used interchangably with fascism in the 1930's specific to Germany's rebound from economic hardships following WW I.

    If corporatism had a motto it would be "People selling People to People"

    If Africa was left to develop its own natural resources they could feed the world. Instead British exploitation and abandonment has left most of Africa underdeveloped and its people undereducated
    with most African states being run by warlords.
  25. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Nothing was being justified in my response.

    Quite simply put, you can't hold the Americans and the West World of today responsible for a world-wide phenomenon where some people came out on top and others just didn't.

    The intent of the Western Europeans and Early American's wasn't "oppression" it was simply about trade, nothing more, nothing less. When the US showed up at Japan and asked Japan to trade with them, they were told NO! The US didn't try to colonize them, they simply said, trade with us and be free, or we'll war beat you up until you trade with us. Bullying? Yes...oppression? Hardly. Japan benifited economically, as do many, many, many countries who wouldn't trade with the westerners, originally out of prejudice, and were forced into trading. I'm not justifying their actions, and I know they were bullying other nations, I'm just highlighting the fact that the intent of the these people was not oppression, but trade.
    True, outright racial oppression was not the intention in going to the African continent. Simply put, newly self-determined nations felt the need to express their Manifest Destiny and began exploring. The racial distinction did not began until the need for resources to support rapid industrialization became apparent. You are right, it was trade and more aptly put Capitalism which was the bases for slavery and colonialism. However, the bases for enslaving these people was based on the notion they were sub-human, this was its accepted justification

    And equating this to a "phenomenon where some people came out on top and others didn't" is ridiculous and makes it appear as if our contemporary socio-economic situation is a result of chance. To an extent, it was because western European cultures were given a horticultural advantage in terms of arable land which allowed them to develop faster, but in direct terms we are responsible for this situation.

    Sorry, I believe you that you were aware fo the fact, however, it just didn't appear that way when you bring up racism, and oppression when referencing slavery. It had nothing to do with that. It was about the Africans being the perfect fit for their operation, and nothing more. And, again, these slaves weren't stolen, they were purchased, so they were slaves regardless of their owner and would have still been slaves if the Europeans never existed.
    I realize, and acknowledged that, and you are totally right. However, the point that I am making is the systematic way in which the Europeans and Americans carried this out, no other point in history was it so engrained within an economic system.

    It is obvious that the european countries were much more efficient in almost every way to other countries during that time era, so why would an efficient slave trade be suprising? And, in addition, just because the trade was efficient does not make it any more horrific.
    Comparing which conditions of slavery were more deplorable seems like a fruitless endeavour and a moral territory I do not care to enter. All slavery is horrible.



    Are you kidding? The slaves were purchased by Europeans from Africans. Tribal war created slaves, not europeans: The African American : A Journey from Slavery to Freedom
    That is not what I was referring to. You were comparing the conditions equitable as it pertains to the scale of European and domestic African slavery. Local populations, not entire nations and cultures were enslaved with domestic slavery.

    I'd be very interested to see a case presentation where you can argue for the fact that the underdevelopment in Africa is largely a result of colonialism.
    Broadview Press: Culture of Prejudice

    Chapters 3, and 7-9. I am not sure if you will be able to view them anywhere, but if you want I can paraphrase.

    An economy was established by (predominantly) the Brithish. There was NO ECONOMY prior to their ar*****. The british have no power there now, and the Africans were left with an existing economy that was built by their colonizers. If anything, its honestly a great possibility that most semi-industrialized African countries would be living in conditions much more similar to those of the New Guinean tribes if the colonizers never arrived. Whether that is good or bad is definitely debatable, but the fact that their economic prosperity was stunted by the ar***** of the colonizers I cannot agree with. However, this is an area I'm not entirely familiar with, so maybe you can make a case for me and I'll see your point of view a bit better.
    You are presenting your case as Capitalism and economy being mutually inclusive, in fact they are not. Because material goods are not produced for the purpose of capital gain does not negate an economic system from being an economy. The 'economy' the British and other Colonial powers set up were hardly functional, and as I have stated were for the sole purpose of resource extraction to support industrialization. They were in all aspects set up to fail once economic autonomy was given to them.

    You basically said that we're responsible for the despairity of third world countries, and I totally disagree.
    I said the Western World as a whole partook in such activities. My country was founded upon the genoicide of indigenous populations, we are in no way less responsible for what occurs and what continued to occur. If my verbage made it seem as if I was singling you out, I wasn't.

    Oh, and just an update on a previous comment I made. I said it was 5% that went to America, I guess its closer to 3%. And this is just during a two hundred year period, not including the thousand prior years where slaves were being sold and exported to arab countries. Slavery in America
    Slavery in that domestic context is not the primary concern. Most workers were kept in plantations on the colonies themselves.
  26. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    There is a difference between "free market" capitalism and "supply side" corporatism. Corporatism is the fascist cousin of capitalism.
    The word corporatism was used interchangably with fascism in the 1930's specific to Germany's rebound from economic hardships following WW I.

    If corporatism had a motto it would be "People selling People to People"

    If Africa was left to develop its own natural resources they could feed the world. Instead British exploitation and abandonment has left most of Africa underdeveloped and its people undereducated
    with most African states being run by warlords
    .
    100% exactly Rhino, I completely agree.
  27. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    Voluntary CDB? Hardly. None of these countries chose to be colonized, did they?
    That's kind of my point. Colonization has nothing to do with capitalism... In fact it's the ideological opposite of capitalism. Colonization is an integral part of mercantilism though, which is a completely different economic system and often what people hold up as an example of 'capitalism' because they either have an agenda or simply lack education on the issue.

    Nor did they choose to have corrupt domestic leaders installed as a means for indirect control, until basically after World War II did they? And I would expect someone as socially adept as you to know the FUNDAMENTAL base for capitalism is the exploitation of one class over another, in whatever terms you wish to place exploitation in.
    No, it isn't. Capitalism is about property rights, voluntary association and little to no government intervention in the market. It is about private ownership of the means of production. Colonization means the violation of property rights, it is not capitalist. Colonization means the enforcement of association, it is not capitalist. Colonization means the militarization of the market, it is not capitalist. Colonization means the appropriation and nationalization of someone else's means of production, it is not capitalist.

    Saying you don't understand how exploitation fits with capitalism, especially as it pertains to the Third World is like saying you don't understand how a penis can fit in a vagina, it is pretty elementary
    It's elementary to socialists who like to shoot down strawmen.

    "Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

    "Mercantilism: The theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism, based on national policies of accumulating bullion, establishing colonies and a merchant marine, and developing industry and mining to attain a favorable balance of trade."

    The distinction is even in the common definitions in dictionary.com.

    Well, although for the most part I completely and utterly disagree with most of the things you feel on this issue, the fact that they may not be neccessarily agricultural is a fair assertion. But, once again I will state that we cannot prod them into the accepted Western agricultural model, so teaching them how to farm as we would here is not plausible. Arm them? Seriously? So more genocide can occur because now the entirety of the continent is armed?
    Generally speaking genocides are only committed against groups who cannot fight back. It is people who have been robbed of the means of self defense that are the most likely victims of genocide. There's a nice DVD called Innocents Betrayed which details the disarmament and subsequent genocides that have occurred throughout the 20th century. It's kind of hard to kill people en masse when they can effectively fight back. If you think an armed citzenry would not be effective against a modern army, I point to Iraq and how much trouble a few thousand arabs with AK 47s and often improvised explosives have been giving our troops.

    I hope that was sarcastic. The concept of aid itself has to change and begin to manifest itself in grassroots social programs, fixing the root problems of things like overpopulation, AIDS epidemics, etc.
    AIDS is a matter of not ****ing high risk people, plain and simple. That information is out and fairly available. Beyond telling that to someone there's not much else you can do. Areas which are considered "over populated" normally don't have population densities higher than those typically found on the US coast lines, sometimes even those found in the midwestern US. In fact our urban areas massively outstrip these supposedly overpopulated areas, yet somehow people seem to be doing mostly okay despite these high population densities. Worrying about over population is a nice clean PC way of being racist. I believe that people who have kids in these "over populated" areas want them as much as we want our kids, love them as much, etc. And were their governments not completely screwing their economies up, they'd be just as capable of feeding them.

    Part of the reason these governments are empowered is the kind of attitude which conventional aid has conveyed "here is some money, we don't give a **** what you do as long as you pay us back"
    Then how do you propose to solve the problem? How do we get aid to these people who need it without using their government's infrastructure? The reigning government's permission is a prerequisite for the delivery of aid of any kind, and they aren't going to agree to aid unless it benefits them. Therefore there is no way to deliver aid without subsidizing the very system which makes aid necessary.
  28. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    "Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
    True, the capitalist mode of production is characterized by the private ownershipship of assets and generalized commodity production. However, what the definition you chose has left out, and what I am sure you choose to ignore is that it also relies on the transformation of direct-producers to wage-labourers in the interests of realizing a profit. This profit depends on the active living-labour creating more value (with their labour as a commodity,and the capitalist appropriating this) then those who own the means of productions need to assign to them (social phenomenon form of this value is money). I.e., exploitation of living labour is the necessary base for Capitalism

    Now, Colonialism operated on this fundamental imperative of worker exploitation in order to realize a capital profit. You are choosing to express the forms of capitalism which best fit your imperative. The process which was applied to the African continent was solely Colonialism yes. However this process was applied in the interests of realizing advantage in a common culture of Capitalism within the European continent. So, I am afraid the two have a more intrinsic connection than you would choose to admit.

    And I would assert that my opinions have no more to do with a "lack of education" or an "agenda" than yours do. In fact, I take a bit of offense to that assertion.

    Generally speaking genocides are only committed against groups who cannot fight back. It is people who have been robbed of the means of self defense that are the most likely victims of genocide. There's a nice DVD called Innocents Betrayed which details the disarmament and subsequent genocides that have occurred throughout the 20th century. It's kind of hard to kill people en masse when they can effectively fight back. If you think an armed citzenry would not be effective against a modern army, I point to Iraq and how much trouble a few thousand arabs with AK 47s and often improvised explosives have been giving our troops.
    True, but you are missing the point that arming the masses would in doubt just perpetuate the cycle they are in now. Arm the oppressed, they rise up to crush the oppressors and in turn reciprocate the action..Good job. So like I said, we should arm the people in order to perpetuate genocide in future generations? I don't think so.


    AIDS is a matter of not ****ing high risk people, plain and simple. That information is out and fairly available. Beyond telling that to someone there's not much else you can do. Areas which are considered "over populated" normally don't have population densities higher than those typically found on the US coast lines, sometimes even those found in the midwestern US. In fact our urban areas massively outstrip these supposedly overpopulated areas, yet somehow people seem to be doing mostly okay despite these high population densities. Worrying about over population is a nice clean PC way of being racist. I believe that people who have kids in these "over populated" areas want them as much as we want our kids, love them as much, etc. And were their governments not completely screwing their economies up, they'd be just as capable of feeding them.
    The only reason why the density of the African continent is much less than that of the continental United States is the ridiculously high infant mortality rate. The point I was trying to make, and should have made more apparent is the fact that children are a necessary asset for survival in African countries and as a result birth rates are very high. I was asserting that as a root problem for massive birth rates and it came across wrong.

    And yeah, you're right CDB, I just spent a whole thread arguing about the institutionalization of racial oppression but I am a flaming Nazi...

    Then how do you propose to solve the problem? How do we get aid to these people who need it without using their government's infrastructure? The reigning government's permission is a prerequisite for the delivery of aid of any kind, and they aren't going to agree to aid unless it benefits them. Therefore there is no way to deliver aid without subsidizing the very system which makes aid necessary.
    For one, UN and US military intervention when it would actually serve a purpose. For that matter extend the powers of the United Nations, make an ACTUAL IMPACT as opposed to paying lipservice to intervention as we have done and taking your defeatist attitude.
  29. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    I appreciate the very well executed debate and legitimate arguments CDB and kwyck but the gym is calling my name...We shall continue this at a later date?
  30. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    If Africa was left to develop its own natural resources they could feed the world. Instead British exploitation and abandonment has left most of Africa underdeveloped and its people undereducated with most African states being run by Warlords.
    That's easy to say, but I don't see anything that indicates this to be true.

    Just because a country has the natural resources to do something, doesn't mean that they'll be utilized in that way.
  31. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    True, the capitalist mode of production is characterized by the private ownershipship of assets and generalized commodity production. However, what the definition you chose has left out, and what I am sure you choose to ignore is that it also relies on the transformation of direct-producers to wage-labourers in the interests of realizing a profit. This profit depends on the active living-labour creating more value (with their labour as a commodity,and the capitalist appropriating this) then those who own the means of productions need to assign to them (social phenomenon form of this value is money). I.e., exploitation of living labour is the necessary base for Capitalism
    Incorrect. There is no exploitation as the association is voluntary. If there is any exploitation in the search for profit it is mutual because valuations prior to a trade are reversed; you don't buy a newspaper for a dollar unless you want it more than your dollar, and the seller doesn't sell unless they want the dollar more than the paper. If there's any exploitation it is mutual and more importantly beneficial to both parties. Profit also has nothing to do with money. Money is simply a common denominator, the most sellable commodity, that comes in which makes profit easier to calculate. This ease of calculation is to everyone's advantage. Tranforming a "direct-producer" to a "wage-labourer" is a natural by-product of the division of labor, which is once again to everyone's advantage.

    Strictly speaking the only thing a capitalist does in capitalism is advance resources to people so they can engage in productive work. By doing so he allows them to engage in a production process that would normally exhaust the worker's available resources. The end result is increased productivity and increased goods and services which once more benefits everyone. The association is voluntary, no one has appropriated anything. And incidentally no profit is earned from the capitalist function as there's a difference between the natural rate of return earned on a simple advance of resources, essentially a loan, and entrepreneurial profit which is based on uncertainty and assuming risk.

    Now, Colonialism operated on this fundamental imperative of worker exploitation in order to realize a capital profit. You are choosing to express the forms of capitalism which best fit your imperative.
    Incorrect. Capitalism is by definition based on enforcement of property rights, not violation of them. What you want to call capitalism is nothing of the sort. It is corporatism, industrial or neo mercantalism, etc. You can not say that a system which depends on secure property rights and voluntary association (capitalsim) is the same as one that depends of the violation of property rights and forced association (mercantilism). The two are mutually exclusive and one has nothing to do with the other.

    {QUOTE]The process which was applied to the African continent was solely Colonialism yes. However this process was applied in the interests of realizing advantage in a common culture of Capitalism within the European continent. So, I am afraid the two have a more intrinsic connection than you would choose to admit.[/QUOTE]

    Seems to me you don't want to admit, or simply can't see, the difference between two completely different economic systems.

    And I would assert that my opinions have no more to do with a "lack of education" or an "agenda" than yours do. In fact, I take a bit of offense to that assertion.
    In my experience it is true. I've been in many debates, formal and informal, online and in the real world. People often confuse capitalism with mercantilism, and in my experience they do so because they have either been poorly educated in the subject of economics or because they have an agenda which requires they cast capitalism in a bad light. The two are distinct economic systems. If capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production then a system which relies on government enforced associations and appropriations of property (mercantilism) does not fall under the broader definition of capitalism. If there is a broader economic label mercantilism falls under the assumption of state power over someone else's means of production makes it more appropriately labeled a more viscious form of socialism.

    True, but you are missing the point that arming the masses would in doubt just perpetuate the cycle they are in now. Arm the oppressed, they rise up to crush the oppressors and in turn reciprocate the action..Good job. So like I said, we should arm the people in order to perpetuate genocide in future generations? I don't think so.
    Seems to me you're assuming a pretty malevolent nature to the people in those areas of the world. I don't doubt some would love to kill their oppressors. In my opinion they have a right to. Tribal wars aside, in general genocides are perpetuated by governments, and governments cannot carry out a genocide upon an armed populace.

    The only reason why the density of the African continent is much less than that of the continental United States is the ridiculously high infant mortality rate. The point I was trying to make, and should have made more apparent is the fact that children are a necessary asset for survival in African countries and as a result birth rates are very high. I was asserting that as a root problem for massive birth rates and it came across wrong.
    And the point is? Once more how many people there are in a certain area seems to have little to do with anything. The amount of people, birthrate, color, religion or whatever of people in a given area are irrelevant. The political system they live under is relevant.

    And yeah, you're right CDB, I just spent a whole thread arguing about the institutionalization of racial oppression but I am a flaming Nazi...
    I don't know who you are or what your ideals are. In my experience most Americans when presented with an equal number of their fellow countrymen and the average, every day people that populate most of the rest of the world, tend to think there are way too many of the latter type.

    Why isn't New York City sufferring from the problems of over population when its population density is several times that of Bangladesh for example? The number of people in a given area is irrelevant. Plenty of European countries used to have much higher birth rates for similar reasons, that didn't stop their advance into the industrial revolution.

    For one, UN and US military intervention when it would actually serve a purpose.
    Like in Somalia? We handed out free food, undercut the local farmers and created more refugees. We made the problem worse.

    For that matter extend the powers of the United Nations, make an ACTUAL IMPACT as opposed to paying lipservice to intervention as we have done and taking your defeatist attitude.
    Well there is the little problem of sovereignty. Defeatist? UN or not I do not think we have the right, nor should we assume the role, of helping the world. The world needs to help itself. Put simply the competent don't need our help, the incompetent become a permanent burden if we offer them perpetual help. And all help in terms of foreign aid will end up being perpetual. We end up becoming Isabel Patterson's "Humanitarian with a Guillotine," or we let the foreign regime operate the guillotine. Either way we make things worse by perpetuating a system that needs to be allowed to collapse. Which it will eventually. I don't view prolonging the sufferring of people under a despotic regime to be a laudable goal. And that is the end result of such interventions.
  32. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    I appreciate the very well executed debate and legitimate arguments CDB and kwyck but the gym is calling my name...We shall continue this at a later date?
    I'm out myself, but to the clubs. Benefits of working out in the morning.
  33. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    True, outright racial oppression was not the intention in going to the African continent. Simply put, newly self-determined nations felt the need to express their Manifest Destiny and began exploring. The racial distinction did not began until the need for resources to support rapid industrialization became apparent. You are right, it was trade and more aptly put Capitalism which was the bases for slavery and colonialism. However, the bases for enslaving these people was based on the notion they were sub-human, this was its accepted justification
    True, I'm not going to disagree with any of that with the exception that capitalism didn't lead to slavery. Slavery was just another tool, already in practice, that was used at the time, similar to the wheel. They utilized all tools necessary.

    And equating this to a "phenomenon where some people came out on top and others didn't" is ridiculous and makes it appear as if our contemporary socio-economic situation is a result of chance. To an extent, it was because western European cultures were given a horticultural advantage in terms of arable land which allowed them to develop faster, but in direct terms we are responsible for this situation.
    There were not given a horticulture advantage, they made a horticulture advantage.

    All humans originiated in south africa about 200,000 years ago, and slowly migrated out of Africa for a number of reasons. Considering the ridiculously small population at that time, it was not an overcrowding issue.


    *note* the originating arrow is from south Africa. Homo Sapiens originated there 200,000 years ago.

    I realize, and acknowledged that, and you are totally right. However, the point that I am making is the systematic way in which the Europeans and Americans carried this out, no other point in history was it so engrained within an economic system.
    True, but the purpose for slavey is irrelevant.


    Comparing which conditions of slavery were more deplorable seems like a fruitless endeavour and a moral territory I do not care to enter. All slavery is horrible.
    Agreed.





    That is not what I was referring to. You were comparing the conditions equitable as it pertains to the scale of European and domestic African slavery. Local populations, not entire nations and cultures were enslaved with domestic slavery.
    I'm not aware of entire nations or cultures being enslaved by Europeans. Indigenous tribal memebers were sold to European slave traders, and areas with multiple indigenous tribal governments were colonized, but I'm not familiar with entire nations and cultures.


    Broadview Press: Culture of Prejudice

    Chapters 3, and 7-9. I am not sure if you will be able to view them anywhere, but if you want I can paraphrase.



    You are presenting your case as Capitalism and economy being mutually inclusive, in fact they are not. Because material goods are not produced for the purpose of capital gain does not negate an economic system from being an economy.
    Well, I guess we'd have to redefine economy. Maybe CDB can help me out here

    There were hordiculture/hunter based tribes, and I'm sure there was some trade involved somewhere, but I can't call those functional economies because they have similarities. Ducks and Hawk's have similarities but I can't call a duck a hawk and vice versa.

    The 'economy' the British and other Colonial powers set up were hardly functional, and as I have stated were for the sole purpose of resource extraction to support industrialization. They were in all aspects set up to fail once economic autonomy was given to them.
    I wouldn't say setup to fail, but they definitely weren't guided to success either. There was probably no thought given to it. However, if the colonists never arrived, its unlikely that they would have magically flourished from tribal governments and tribal kingdoms to economic powerhouses that could "feed the world".

    I said the Western World as a whole partook in such activities. My country was founded upon the genoicide of indigenous populations, we are in no way less responsible for what occurs and what continued to occur. If my verbage made it seem as if I was singling you out, I wasn't.[/QUOTE]I understand that, my point is that, although a weaker undeveloped people were exploited, they are not responsible for third world living conditions.
  34. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Okay, this is my official resignation from politics I've got tons of homework to do, and these forums don't help!!

    See ya'll in a few more months
  35. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Incorrect. There is no exploitation as the association is voluntary. If there is any exploitation in the search for profit it is mutual because valuations prior to a trade are reversed; you don't buy a newspaper for a dollar unless you want it more than your dollar, and the seller doesn't sell unless they want the dollar more than the paper. If there's any exploitation it is mutual and more importantly beneficial to both parties. Profit also has nothing to do with money. Money is simply a common denominator, the most sellable commodity, that comes in which makes profit easier to calculate. This ease of calculation is to everyone's advantage. Tranforming a "direct-producer" to a "wage-labourer" is a natural by-product of the division of labor, which is once again to everyone's advantage.
    Wrong. Your scope is extremely limited here and you are only analyzing the situation as it pertains to the North American commodity market. You are giving absolutely no mention, even in the very least, to the modes of production which produce your newspaper, or the computers we are typing on, or your shoelaces, etc., In fact, as I stated before, the continuation of the Capitalist mode of production requires the exploitation of living labour. As well, Money is not the most sellable commodity, living labour (which is also really the only commodity capable of creating new value) is the most sellable commodity. In order for this system to continue a Capitalist most appropriate the surplus value created by living labour. This is in stark contrast to the ultimate imperative of minimizing living labour for capital gain, it is by all means a self-defeating system.

    Strictly speaking the only thing a capitalist does in capitalism is advance resources to people so they can engage in productive work. By doing so he allows them to engage in a production process that would normally exhaust the worker's available resources. The end result is increased productivity and increased goods and services which once more benefits everyone. The association is voluntary, no one has appropriated anything. And incidentally no profit is earned from the capitalist function as there's a difference between the natural rate of return earned on a simple advance of resources, essentially a loan, and entrepreneurial profit which is based on uncertainty and assuming risk.
    Here is to your egalitarian view of Capitalism, I can only hope at some point you will join me in reality. This 'benefit for everybody' attitude you seem keen on relating is a purely formal lipservice to the all at once exploitave and egalitarian ideals of capitalism. Though Capitalists like yourself like to pay mention to equality in Capitalism, but its inherent imperatives contradict these values. Why else would production be higher today than at any other point in history yet the social standards of the VAST majority of the world are either stagnating or falling? Because of an economic construction based on the appropriation of surplus labour value, that contradicts itself with "labour-saving" technology and therefore lowers the overall social profit over time.



    In my experience it is true. I've been in many debates, formal and informal, online and in the real world. People often confuse capitalism with mercantilism, and in my experience they do so because they have either been poorly educated in the subject of economics or because they have an agenda which requires they cast capitalism in a bad light. The two are distinct economic systems. If capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production then a system which relies on government enforced associations and appropriations of property (mercantilism) does not fall under the broader definition of capitalism. If there is a broader economic label mercantilism falls under the assumption of state power over someone else's means of production makes it more appropriately labeled a more viscious form of socialism.
    Well, you are right bro. If you ever decide to come off your pedistol I welcome you to grace me with your enlightening knowledge.

    Seems to me you're assuming a pretty malevolent nature to the people in those areas of the world. I don't doubt some would love to kill their oppressors. In my opinion they have a right to. Tribal wars aside, in general genocides are perpetuated by governments, and governments cannot carry out a genocide upon an armed populace.
    And you are assuming an overly generous benevolence to them. Until the social conditions they live in are some how improved then the same cycle will undoubtedly perpetuate itself.



    I don't know who you are or what your ideals are. In my experience most Americans when presented with an equal number of their fellow countrymen and the average, every day people that populate most of the rest of the world, tend to think there are way too many of the latter type.
    Are you that arrogant/ignorant to assume that of me? I will let you continue in this thinking.

    Why isn't New York City sufferring from the problems of over population when its population density is several times that of Bangladesh for example? The number of people in a given area is irrelevant. Plenty of European countries used to have much higher birth rates for similar reasons, that didn't stop their advance into the industrial revolution.
    There are so many other factors to why Europe was the catalyst to the Industrial Revolution. I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

    Well there is the little problem of sovereignty. Defeatist? UN or not I do not think we have the right, nor should we assume the role, of helping the world. The world needs to help itself. Put simply the competent don't need our help, the incompetent become a permanent burden if we offer them perpetual help. And all help in terms of foreign aid will end up being perpetual. We end up becoming Isabel Patterson's "Humanitarian with a Guillotine," or we let the foreign regime operate the guillotine. Either way we make things worse by perpetuating a system that needs to be allowed to collapse. Which it will eventually. I don't view prolonging the sufferring of people under a despotic regime to be a laudable goal. And that is the end result of such interventions.
    Social Darwinism anybody? As I have come to be taught, such ideals as you aptly put them are "a PC way of being racist". I am sorry but I cannot ignore a situation in which we are a fundamental cause of because you label them to be 'incompetent'. Should you be the one to label who should suffer and who should not CDB? You obviously consider your opinion to be divine in the way you present it.
  36. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    On a last note I find it fascinating CDB how you on all levels ignore the operational basis for the Capitalist mode of production. Equality is a mere formality as it pertains to competition AMONG capitalists, and has absolutely nothing to do with the means in which our consumer goods are created.
  37. Snuggle Club™ mascot
    bpmartyr's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    4,443
    Rep Power
    27396
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    88.3%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Can't find the smiley of the guy chowin popcorn ...

    Oh, well.

    I am entertained!
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
  38. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    I am seriously out this time, I should have, and do have better things to do

    (I lied, I am just going to be watching Pride: The Real Deal)

    hehehehe

    Have fun fellas!
  39. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27064
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    41.01%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    And, I am not American..You said something about 'most Americans', I am not one.
  40. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.65%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    There are so many other factors to why Europe was the catalyst to the Industrial Revolution. I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel
    Okay, i said I was done, but I had to but-in here.

    I just can't see recommending Guns, Germs & Steel to anyone! The dude starts out his book by bashing "The Bell Curve" and any idea that genetic IQ differences amongs races exist, and then follows up shortly after with a statement claiming that the average Papua New Guinean tribal person is more intelligent than the average Western European (specifically European decendants). It was obvious that the Pulitzer was awarded to him by a bunch who were not composed of anthropologists/biologists/sociologists/historians

    On a side note, I love some of the reviews: Amazon.com: Reviews for Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies: Books: Jared M. Diamond
    Last edited by kwyckemynd00; 10-21-2006 at 07:50 PM.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Where have all the test boosters gone? :(
    By SurfDan5 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 03:55 PM
  2. Where has all the epistane gone?!
    By Amirz in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-03-2009, 04:13 PM
  3. Where Have All The Good Times Gone
    By David Dunn in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 10:51 AM
  4. Where has the Endorphin high gone?
    By BigTom in forum 35 and Older
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-15-2007, 09:09 AM
  5. Best prices on ALA and CLA? Where have you found them??
    By windwords7 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 05-23-2003, 09:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in