Christina

There is a whole world of difference between immigration which is manageable and which allows for more integration, and mass immigration which threatens the majority status of the indigenous peoples. It is sheer madness to allow the latter, in fact it is ethnic suicide.

Smidgey

Well, sub saharan africa has given to the world more than you realise - have you ever heard of the university of Sankore? It was one of the centers of world learning for over 300 years and produced a great many ideas, advancements in science and in many other fields.

Also, Japan and the orient have not always been rosy - there have been times when these countries were backwards and in complete poverty compared to their european counterparts. Also, there are times when other races have been ahead of the white race, such as during the middle ages when China was the worlds most advanced society or during the ancient times in the cradel of civilization in the middle east and Egypt.

This is where I must disagree, since as I pointed out earlier, there is far more difference, genetically, within a race than between races.

Like The Roman

Yes, though it was founded by arab muslims, Timbuktu's a Saharan trading post influenced by many different peoples. The University of Sankore is not an example of black academia.

The first explorers in East Africa wrote that they were shocked by the nudity, cannibilism and poverty they encountered. Some claimed the black Africans had the nature of "wild animals...most of them go naked...the child does not know his father, and they eat people". These were the words of the first muslim arabs explorers back in the 700s. (taken from Race, Evolution, and Behaviour by J. Philippe Rushton)

In 1275 Marco Polo arrived in China from Italy He found that the Chinese had built roads, bridges, cities connected by canals, cencus takers, standardised weights and measures, and not only coins but paper money. The Chinese used printing about 800AD. By 1050 Chinese chemists had made gun powder, hand grenades, fire arrows, and rockets of oil and poison gas. (from the same book).

The Japanese were forced to accept democracy after WW2 and are now one of the most advanced and successful nations on the planet. Compare this with Zimbabwe, which was given independence in 1980 and was at that time 'the bread basket of Africa'.

I refer you to Phil Edward's comments about this:

The fact is a black person will never produce a child with green eyes, or blonde hair. We are a distinct race, surely we should be allowed our own homeland?

__________________
"Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial, 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful', and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see. "

Enoch Powell

Smidgey

But that is the point - race is not really as large a factor as trade and contact. As mentioned above, China and Japan were backwards after hundereds of years of isolationism. Ethiopia and medieval Mali were not backwards, because were did not isolate themselves from the world. Much of sub saharan Africa (including the later kingdoms and empires of Ethiopia) would remain secluded and separated from the rest of the world until the scramble for Africa. I believe culture and isolationism play a much larger role than race could ever play in the development of civilisations. There would have been a time in Europe of tribalism and choas, but Europe would eventually have strong contact with the Hellenistic world. Even Aristotle wrote that the life of Western Europeans was brutish and short compared the lives of those in the East. Bear in mind as well, that Africa did not have the same oppurtunity for animal domestication as their Northern counterparts did, which was extremely important in technical advancement. Without agriculture on a large enough scale - there is no city state.

I don't understand what your statement about Marco Polo is mean to mean. I completely agreed that China was exceptionally advanced. However, China has gone through periods of extreme isolationism, which resulted in their demise and supports my argument that isolationism and culture is more important to the growth of civilisation than race.

As for Zimbabwe - that was a result of bad leadership. Does this not cause you to also claim that the Russians and Chinese are also primitive peoples - since they had the opportunities and the resources to expand much more than they did, but instead they had Stalin and Mao which caused massive famines. Why is one case of bad leadership not the same as the other?

Firstly, on average, cats clearly weigh more than dogs .

Secondly, I agree, we are a distinct race. But that doesn't mean we should prevent mixing. You are combining a racial opinion with a political one, the two should never mix. Race is science, the idea of a homeland is politics. I, as a libertarian, do not believe it is up to government to decide what is a 'homeland'. If I wish to marry and have children with a black woman, then that is up to me - not the state. I find this idea of a homeland and a 'contractual' nation state to be rather absurd. I never signed that contract.

Robin

I read before on this blog about IQ of sub saharan blacks and others but I am dubious. At the same time these tests were carried out were there any done in Romania ?

Like The Roman

Conjecture.

This is all relative, when you say China was 'backwards', it hadn't regressed technologically, and though perhaps stagnated, it was still superior to the majority of African countries. Japan's lack of progress was more likely due to centuries of civil war.

Mali was influenced by the arabs (it's encompasses part of the Sahara desert, so is not really Sub-Saharan), also if you look at the proximity of Ethiopia to the arabian peninsula, it is fair to say that it will have been influenced by arabs and traders. So although that may to an extent substantiate your argument that trade and contact help advancement - a point I have never denied, it's obvious that technologies will be transmitted this way and be potentially mutually advantageous - it doesn't really provide any evidence that a black country has, through its own industriousness, developed beyond tribal hunters and gatherers.

I agree, it's certainly a major factor. Is the Aborigine's failure to develop an advanced civilization due to this or IQ, however? Possibly both - though I feel compelled to ask why it was Europeans who discovered Australia and not Aborigines discovering Europe or Asia?

Many African countries were left with half-decent infrastructure following the withdrawal of the Europeans, and a wealth of natural resources to exploit. Yet not one has managed to attain standards of living even approaching those of the West, save for Zimbabwe and South Africa. We all know what happened to the former, and the latter even under apartheid when the west placed trade embargos on them had a far superior standard of living to the rest of the continent.


As I have previously mentioned trade and culture are important, not being schooled in Chinese history I am unable to make an informed judgement on the strength of your argument.

Well, certainly there were famines during Stalin's governance, however the USSR did drastically modernise under his five year plans and became a military superpower...and just a decade or so later put a man in space. If Mugabe had done this, I would revise my judgement.

The other thing about Africa, is Mugabe's hardly something new, is he? I think you'll find Africa has a history of despotic leadership. You must concede there's got to be some reason why most white nations are advanced and virtually most black nations are impoverished - is it all the fault of the white man?

How did you work that out? OK, there are some small dogs about, but even an average sized Jack Russel would, I'd suspect, weigh more than the average cat. Once we start taking labradors, great danes, alsations, etc - unless you're being a smart Alec and including wild cats.

Erm, why not?

So as a libertarian, you agree with gun ownership? Sometimes, government interference may be justified.

__________________
"Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial, 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful', and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see. "

Enoch Powell

g hall

Given that the Aborigines discovered Australia several thousand years before the white man did that's rich.
Also the Aborigines where able to make themselves at home throughout Australia for several thousand years, but the settlers in the past 200 years cling mainly to the coast.

Advanced civilisation the ability to nuke each other and destroy the world , to murder your fellow human beings by the million then ok the white man is advanced

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Smidgey

That is true, but China didn't have the millions of years of isolation that Africa had - only about 500. Look what happened to China in 500 years and then you can imagine why Africa may be in the state it is in, although this does leave no excuse for the modern period - but you mentioned that in a later point, so I shall come to it.

But it does show what can happen through contact. You would never argue that Britain had developed through its own industriousness alone either, or America or any other Western nation. Sure, we have had some good ideas, but America would be nothing had it not been for Locke - we would not have our current system of liberties (which are sadly fading fast) had it not been for the French revolution influencing the rest of Europe to adopt more free and libertarian societies, over time. We would be behind had the ancient Greeks not created the right society for freedom of thought and discussion. The reasons we are where we are today is because of the works of other men and women in other nations. I admit - British people have made great strides in the sciences, the arts and philosophy, but these would never have existed had it not been for others placing the first hooks in that cliff for us to climb upon it. Without Aristotle, no Locke. Then look at sub-Saharan Africa, half a continent that missed out on all the discoveries of the peoples of Asia, Europe and the Arab world.

Well, the Polynesian peoples managed to discoverer the South Seas long before any Europeans ever did. The Aborigines of course lived in complete isolation from the world upon settling where they did.

Most of them were not left with a decent infrastructure though. Britain may have been kinder than other nations in Africa (particularly Belgium) but it was by no means a saint. Now, I am not blaming all of Africa's problems on Europeans - but it must be said that those before us were a cause of some of the problems today. Does that mean I should be punished for what people 100 years ago did? Absolutely not. We don't punish children for the crimes of their parents - so it is not up to the UK to sort Africa out for what people 100 years ago (and more) did. Libya has the highest GDP per capita, although that is not sub-saharan if you mean sub-saharan when you said Africa. Botswana is a good example of an Africa nation that hasn't gone down the route of the other two. I find Botswana to be an interesting example. A nation where white people make up less of the population than in either Zimbabwe or South Africa and which earns roughly 4,000 dollars more per year per capita than South Africa does (putting it above Argentina!).

This next point is also extremely important. Africa has a huge epidemic on hand that most of the rest of the world is completely free from - AIDS. So, after thousands, if not millions, of years of isolation from the rest of the world - upon Africa finally gaining contact with the West (or should I say, the West gaining contact with it) and having a few hundred years of occupation it finally may just be able to stand on its own two feet when the majority of the continent is hit with roughly a 30% rate of infection from AIDS. Mix this in with bad governance and poor leadership and you have the situation you have today. Imagine if 1 in 3 of the British population were infected with HIV/AIDS and then try to imagine what the economic and social impact of this would be.

Mugabe of course didn't have the same starting position that Stalin did, furthermore he didn't have the resources, population or wealth that Russia did. Even before Stalin's purges Russia had a much better starting position than Zimbabwe. I of course am not defending that vile man and opponent of liberty - Robert Mugabe, but am merely making a point.

Hitler was hardly someone new either. What about Leopold of Belgium or Isabella of Spain? The only difference is, these vile people had a better original position from which to carry out their nefarious deeds. Bear in mind, that Europeans have killed more than any other race, so if that is a sign of civilisation then I believe we have our work cut out. Of course, it could be argued that the only reason we have killed more is because we have had more people to kill as a result of farming and industry. Remember though, sub-Saharan Africa - although having limited farming - never had the chance for animal domestication that those in North Africa, Europe and Asia had. Domestication was extremely important for the advance of humankind.

I was being a smart Alec .

c.f. Germany 1933-1945.

I agree with the right to own guns, yes. Government involvement is sometimes necessary - but it should only ever be used to make liberty as optimal as possible, as Locke would argue.

For_England

Oh dear, I almost feel like crying from the poor reasoning you people exhibit. First, if things are as you say, then those 'whites' were just as much Australian as everyone else, since the non-indigenous in Britain are just as much 'British' - or so you would have us believe - as the rest of us. Secondly, that was the national homeland of the aborigines and they had the right and responsibility to resist this invasion of their country - wouldn't you agree? - and so does the indigenous population in Britain today.

Like The Roman

Ahhh...I missed this, and now I'm drunk. However:

Africa had contact with arabs back in 700 AD, approx. Millions of years? I don't think so, though even if that is true, the generation after they made contact they should have been able to adopt the new technologies they were introduced to...unless you're suggesting some sort of hereditary disadavantage, of course.



Certainly not.

We certainly have. Here are a list of Scottish inventions and innovations:

That's a list of European inventions from one of the smallest European countries. How many African inventions can you find? Despite the greater population, I'll wager you can't find as many of equal significance.


Missed out? They have interacted with Europeans and Asians for centuries.

__________________
"Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial, 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful', and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see. "

Enoch Powell