| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"ginger" |
| Date: |
19 Feb 2004 05:43:31 PM |
| Object: |
Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone but, I read somewhere that when
the first modern Europeans met Negroes in the 15th century there were
only 4 million altogether. And they existed only in West Africa.
Today there must be close to 500 million of their descendants in
locations inside and outside of Africa.
My point is that I don't mean to denigrate the suffering of
individuals who lived through slave times, but in evolutionary terms,
bumping into whitey was a good thing for the Negro Race, who, had
they not come into contact with the Europeans, would still be as rare
on this earth as Pygmies, or Hottentots.
I have never seen this aspect of slavery discussed anywhere before,
and I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this.
BTW Slavery had not been seen in Europe since Viking Times, It was the
Africans themselves that reintroduced Europeans to slavery.
Ginger
.
|
|
| User: "cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
19 Feb 2004 09:08:41 PM |
|
|
(ginger) wrote in message news:<494f132f.0402191543.705446d8@posting.google.com>...
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone but, I read somewhere that when
the first modern Europeans met Negroes in the 15th century there were
only 4 million altogether. And they existed only in West Africa.
<snip> Who did the counting ?>
BTW Slavery had not been seen in Europe since Viking Times, It was the
Africans themselves that reintroduced Europeans to slavery.
<snip>
Don't forget the barbary pirates collecting slaves from devon and places
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "krishan" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
19 Feb 2004 05:48:41 PM |
|
|
And what if you are nothing more than a black man that has whitened as a
result of servel generations living in a cold climate? We all come from
the the same roots.
krishan
ginger wrote:
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone but, I read somewhere that when
the first modern Europeans met Negroes in the 15th century there were
only 4 million altogether. And they existed only in West Africa.
Today there must be close to 500 million of their descendants in
locations inside and outside of Africa.
My point is that I don't mean to denigrate the suffering of
individuals who lived through slave times, but in evolutionary terms,
bumping into whitey was a good thing for the Negro Race, who, had
they not come into contact with the Europeans, would still be as rare
on this earth as Pygmies, or Hottentots.
I have never seen this aspect of slavery discussed anywhere before,
and I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this.
BTW Slavery had not been seen in Europe since Viking Times, It was the
Africans themselves that reintroduced Europeans to slavery.
Ginger
.
|
|
|
| User: "ginger" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
20 Feb 2004 03:04:29 AM |
|
|
krishan <krishan@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<40354B59.8060907@ntlworld.com>...
And what if you are nothing more than a black man that has whitened as a
result of servel generations living in a cold climate? We all come from
the the same roots.
krishan
Hey! Thanks for telling me. I've been wearing the wrong lipstick for
my complexion for years until you told me that.
Ginger
ginger wrote:
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone but, I read somewhere that when
the first modern Europeans met Negroes in the 15th century there were
only 4 million altogether. And they existed only in West Africa.
Today there must be close to 500 million of their descendants in
locations inside and outside of Africa.
My point is that I don't mean to denigrate the suffering of
individuals who lived through slave times, but in evolutionary terms,
bumping into whitey was a good thing for the Negro Race, who, had
they not come into contact with the Europeans, would still be as rare
on this earth as Pygmies, or Hottentots.
I have never seen this aspect of slavery discussed anywhere before,
and I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this.
BTW Slavery had not been seen in Europe since Viking Times, It was the
Africans themselves that reintroduced Europeans to slavery.
Ginger
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
19 Feb 2004 11:08:43 PM |
|
|
Any slavery, is a terrible thing.
ginger wrote:
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone but, I read somewhere that when
the first modern Europeans met Negroes in the 15th century there were
only 4 million altogether. And they existed only in West Africa.
Today there must be close to 500 million of their descendants in
locations inside and outside of Africa.
My point is that I don't mean to denigrate the suffering of
individuals who lived through slave times, but in evolutionary terms,
bumping into whitey was a good thing for the Negro Race, who, had
they not come into contact with the Europeans, would still be as rare
on this earth as Pygmies, or Hottentots.
I have never seen this aspect of slavery discussed anywhere before,
and I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this.
BTW Slavery had not been seen in Europe since Viking Times, It was the
Africans themselves that reintroduced Europeans to slavery.
Ginger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Scorpio" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
20 Feb 2004 06:40:42 AM |
|
|
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:vDgZb.19368$4o.39564@attbi_s52...
Any slavery, is a terrible thing.
You better stop paying taxes then, cos that's wot
they replaced it with.
40% of the fruits of your work to government
whether u like it or not
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hognoxious" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
20 Feb 2004 02:02:24 AM |
|
|
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:vDgZb.19368$4o.39564@attbi_s52...
Any slavery, is a terrible thing.
Learn to punctuate, idiot.
Oh, and learn how to use a newsreader too.
ginger wrote:
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone but, I read somewhere that when
the first modern Europeans met Negroes in the 15th century there were
only 4 million altogether. And they existed only in West Africa.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "palmer.william" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
20 Feb 2004 03:09:34 PM |
|
|
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:vDgZb.19368$4o.39564@attbi_s52...
Any slavery, is a terrible thing.
Of course it is. As to the point about it not being
so bad, I am reminded of the old saying, "The
devil is never so black as he is painted." I take
that to mean that you can always find some good
in evil people--and evil systems too, no doubt.
That fact should do nothing to change the reality
that a person, action, or system was evil--
and it is hard to imagine that anyone would
seriously argue that slavery was not an evil.
The sad thing is, considering all large ethnic groups,
it has been Arabs who have clung on to slavery
as an institution longer than just about everyone
else on the planet. in fact, they use the Moslim
religion to try and justify this incredibly vicuous
and degrading institution in places like the Sudan.
And. by the way, that reminds of an important
fact (about a great, though much maligned
British person) which has not been brought
out enough. That is, certain Western liberals
who are often in bed with Third World rascals
and scalawags often sully the memory of
General Gordon by branding him a racist.
It is a vicious lie. Just stop and consider:
Why did Gordon lay down his life fighting
the Mahdi? Gordon did so because the
Mahdi (a man of some courage
and great cunning) was fighting in support
of the horrible institution of slavery. Now,
if Gordon was, as alleged, a racist, why
would he give a hoot one way or or another
about people of dark skin being enslaved?
He cared, of course, because he was not
a racist and because, as a Christian, he
considered slavery an evil worth fighting
against, even if it meant putting one's
life on the line.
I think people today of all races need to get
away from their knee-jerk, politically correct
habits of thought and begin looking at history
with an uncluded mind. The situation is
especially bad in Britain right now, as I
have noticed from what is posted by
British people in many newsgroups.
They are tearing down everything and
everybody in their past that any rabid,
foaming at the mouth, Third World
radical wants to throw stones at. So all
of a sudden the Mahdi, in his "nationalistic"
fight for slavery becomes the hero, and
General Gordon gets branded as the bad
guy. Sad.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
ginger wrote:
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone but, I read somewhere that when
the first modern Europeans met Negroes in the 15th century there were
only 4 million altogether. And they existed only in West Africa.
Today there must be close to 500 million of their descendants in
locations inside and outside of Africa.
My point is that I don't mean to denigrate the suffering of
individuals who lived through slave times, but in evolutionary terms,
bumping into whitey was a good thing for the Negro Race, who, had
they not come into contact with the Europeans, would still be as rare
on this earth as Pygmies, or Hottentots.
I have never seen this aspect of slavery discussed anywhere before,
and I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this.
BTW Slavery had not been seen in Europe since Viking Times, It was the
Africans themselves that reintroduced Europeans to slavery.
Ginger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mummud Amud" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
20 Feb 2004 09:53:15 PM |
|
|
"palmer.william" <palmer.william@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
The situation is
especially bad in Britain right now, as I
have noticed from what is posted by
British people in many newsgroups.
They are tearing down everything and
everybody in their past that any rabid,
foaming at the mouth, Third World
radical wants to throw stones at. So all
of a sudden the Mahdi, in his "nationalistic"
fight for slavery becomes the hero, and
General Gordon gets branded as the bad
guy. Sad.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
I agree. The situation reminds me of a story
by an American fiction writer some years ago.
A clever sorcerer tells a demon he can have something
he wants if he can fit inside a certain circle. The demon
who can easily fit inside most circles he can envision, being
a supernatural being, agrees to the deal, but the sorcerer
paints the cicle on the stomach of the demon. Thus the demon
shrinks and shrinks and shrinks until he no longer exists. An
analogy can be made I think, with British culture as the demon
and "PC" as the sorcerer. What the British want is companionship
from other cultures, but what they get is a tummy-circle. Rubbish
your own culture until it no longer offends us, and then you will
be acceptable, they are told, and being young and stupid they do
just that. British culture is diminished by lies, and thus, so are
they, until they become contemptible in the sight of the foreigners
with whom they sort to ingratiate themselves and other Brits, if
not their peers. For example, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary
went through his "we are guilty" act, snivelling about how everything
wrong in the world is the fault of the British, only to later support
the USA in a typically British expedition to squash a foreign tyrant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "palmer.william" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
20 Feb 2004 11:40:04 PM |
|
|
"Mummud Amud" <orb@cts.com> wrote in message
news:53c1a354.0402201953.4fe825af@posting.google.com...
"palmer.william" <palmer.william@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
The situation is
especially bad in Britain right now, as I
have noticed from what is posted by
British people in many newsgroups.
They are tearing down everything and
everybody in their past that any rabid,
foaming at the mouth, Third World
radical wants to throw stones at. So all
of a sudden the Mahdi, in his "nationalistic"
fight for slavery becomes the hero, and
General Gordon gets branded as the bad
guy. Sad.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
I agree. The situation reminds me of a story
by an American fiction writer some years ago.
A clever sorcerer tells a demon he can have something
he wants if he can fit inside a certain circle. The demon
who can easily fit inside most circles he can envision, being
a supernatural being, agrees to the deal, but the sorcerer
paints the cicle on the stomach of the demon. Thus the demon
shrinks and shrinks and shrinks until he no longer exists. An
analogy can be made I think, with British culture as the demon
and "PC" as the sorcerer. What the British want is companionship
from other cultures, but what they get is a tummy-circle. Rubbish
your own culture until it no longer offends us, and then you will
be acceptable, they are told, and being young and stupid they do
just that. British culture is diminished by lies, and thus, so are
they, until they become contemptible in the sight of the foreigners
with whom they sort to ingratiate themselves and other Brits, if
not their peers. For example, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary
went through his "we are guilty" act, snivelling about how everything
wrong in the world is the fault of the British, only to later support
the USA in a typically British expedition to squash a foreign tyrant.
Clever--and strong--analogy. Thanks for sharing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mummud Amud" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
21 Feb 2004 07:10:41 AM |
|
|
"palmer.william" <palmer.william@sbcglobal.net> wrote
"Mummud Amud" <orb@cts.com> wrote in message
"palmer.william" <palmer.william@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
The situation is
especially bad in Britain right now, as I
have noticed from what is posted by
British people in many newsgroups.
They are tearing down everything and
everybody in their past that any rabid,
foaming at the mouth, Third World
radical wants to throw stones at. So all
of a sudden the Mahdi, in his "nationalistic"
fight for slavery becomes the hero, and
General Gordon gets branded as the bad
guy. Sad.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
I agree. The situation reminds me of a story
by an American fiction writer some years ago.
A clever sorcerer tells a demon he can have something
he wants if he can fit inside a certain circle. The demon
who can easily fit inside most circles he can envision, being
a supernatural being, agrees to the deal, but the sorcerer
paints the cicle on the stomach of the demon. Thus the demon
shrinks and shrinks and shrinks until he no longer exists. An
analogy can be made I think, with British culture as the demon
and "PC" as the sorcerer. What the British want is companionship
from other cultures, but what they get is a tummy-circle. Rubbish
your own culture until it no longer offends us, and then you will
be acceptable, they are told, and being young and stupid they do
just that. British culture is diminished by lies, and thus, so are
they, until they become contemptible in the sight of the foreigners
with whom they sort to ingratiate themselves and other Brits, if
not their peers. For example, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary
went through his "we are guilty" act, snivelling about how everything
wrong in the world is the fault of the British, only to later support
the USA in a typically British expedition to squash a foreign tyrant.
Clever--and strong--analogy. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you, and thanks for submitting an article to soc.culture.british
that was worth reading.
http://www.victorianweb.org/sculpture/thornycroft/21.html
There is a statue of Gordon in London, and a dedicated stained glass
window in Manchester Cathedral. I seem to remember there is a statue
of Gordon in Manchester's Picadilly Gardens, too, but I can't find any
mention of it on the Internet. Perhaps D J Saltynuts will comment.
Manchester has a statue of Abraham Lincoln, which was a gift from the USA.
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/ic3/71.html
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/ic3/68.html
Regards,
Max
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ginger" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
21 Feb 2004 02:34:12 AM |
|
|
(Mummud Amud) wrote in message news:<53c1a354.0402201953.4fe825af@posting.google.com>...
You are all missing the point. Yes Slavery is and was a BAD thing.
No question of that.
But it is only a bad thing when looked at through the Lense of
the Laws and Morals of Mankind.
In Evolutionary terms, slavery brought a "small in numbers" race of
people; the West African Negro, onto the world stage, so that their
descendants now number 500,000, and live all over the western world.
In Evolutionary terms, slavery was the thing that made this possible.
Slavery was the price the negro race paid for this enormous
evolutionary success.
The other races of mankind that lived in Africa, that were of no use
to the slavers being too small (Pygmies and Hottentots)or too fierce
(Zulus) or just too far from the coastal ports.
Descendants of Pygmies and Hottentots in Tottenham, Brixton, South
Bronx, Alabama .................. Hmmm There's a thought.
Ginger
"palmer.william" <palmer.william@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
The situation is
especially bad in Britain right now, as I
have noticed from what is posted by
British people in many newsgroups.
They are tearing down everything and
everybody in their past that any rabid,
foaming at the mouth, Third World
radical wants to throw stones at. So all
of a sudden the Mahdi, in his "nationalistic"
fight for slavery becomes the hero, and
General Gordon gets branded as the bad
guy. Sad.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
I agree. The situation reminds me of a story
by an American fiction writer some years ago.
A clever sorcerer tells a demon he can have something
he wants if he can fit inside a certain circle. The demon
who can easily fit inside most circles he can envision, being
a supernatural being, agrees to the deal, but the sorcerer
paints the cicle on the stomach of the demon. Thus the demon
shrinks and shrinks and shrinks until he no longer exists. An
analogy can be made I think, with British culture as the demon
and "PC" as the sorcerer. What the British want is companionship
from other cultures, but what they get is a tummy-circle. Rubbish
your own culture until it no longer offends us, and then you will
be acceptable, they are told, and being young and stupid they do
just that. British culture is diminished by lies, and thus, so are
they, until they become contemptible in the sight of the foreigners
with whom they sort to ingratiate themselves and other Brits, if
not their peers. For example, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary
went through his "we are guilty" act, snivelling about how everything
wrong in the world is the fault of the British, only to later support
the USA in a typically British expedition to squash a foreign tyrant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mummud Amud" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
21 Feb 2004 01:06:03 PM |
|
|
(ginger) wrote
orb@cts.com (Mummud Amud) wrote in message
You are all missing the point. Yes Slavery is and was a BAD thing.
No question of that.
But it is only a bad thing when looked at through the Lense of
the Laws and Morals of Mankind.
Sure, "good" and "bad" are anthropogenic terms that have no meaning
for the Universe; however, look at the pictures coming back from
Mars: the most interesting thing by far in those pictures was made
by Man. What men and women think is far more vital than a dead rock
tumbling through space.
In Evolutionary terms, slavery brought a "small in numbers" race of
people; the West African Negro, onto the world stage, so that their
descendants now number 500,000, and live all over the western world.
In Evolutionary terms, slavery was the thing that made this possible.
Slavery was the price the negro race paid for this enormous
evolutionary success.
Yes. You turned it on its head, and it changes their tragedy into a
fantastic success, biologically speaking.
Your idea parallels an idea of mine which I haven't dared mention yet,
which was that when an stronger culture overwhelms and rapes a weaker
culture, from a biological sense they are doing them a favour since
the aboriginal race survives in the women's genes, which are melded
with the hardiest genes of the attacker.
I was thinking of Tasmania, actually. A small island off the south
coast of Australia which was settled by Australiazn aboriginals while
the seas were frozen during the ice age so that they could walk to
the 'island'. They settled and the ice ages passed, cutting them off.
they began to devolve, losing technologies such as bone needles to
make clothes, so they walked around butt naked even though the weather
is inhospitable. They could not make a boat that would float for more
than half an hour so there was no interaction with the larger mainland
community. They were in decline.
Along came white people and the Tasmanians didn't stand a chance; they
were brutalised and murdered and fertilised. There are no pure-blood
Tasmanians left and this is convenient since the govt need not recompense
anyone or restore their lands if the Tasmanians are all dead. However,
since there precious few pure-blooded people's left anywhere to say
they are extinct is to hold them to a unique standard. There are people
alive in Tasmania who call themselves Tasmanians who are descended from
Truganini's people.
Obviously it was a terrible tragedy for their Paleolithic culture, and
morally reprehensible, however biologically, the survivors' gene pool was
freshened, connection with the mainland was restored. They have access
of our educational and medical institutions, including the internet.
Today they are a robust community, active and politically engaged, far
more auspicious than a stone-age people banging sticks together to
attract a dumb flightless bird which they then hit on the head with a
rock and eat raw.
The other races of mankind that lived in Africa, that were of no use
to the slavers being too small (Pygmies and Hottentots)or too fierce
(Zulus) or just too far from the coastal ports.
Where Hottentots small? I thought they got smashed by the Boers.
Talking of too fierce, my wife is home; must go and help unload the
groceries.
Descendants of Pygmies and Hottentots in Tottenham, Brixton, South
Bronx, Alabama .................. Hmmm There's a thought.
Ginger
"palmer.william" <palmer.william@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
The situation is
especially bad in Britain right now, as I
have noticed from what is posted by
British people in many newsgroups.
They are tearing down everything and
everybody in their past that any rabid,
foaming at the mouth, Third World
radical wants to throw stones at. So all
of a sudden the Mahdi, in his "nationalistic"
fight for slavery becomes the hero, and
General Gordon gets branded as the bad
guy. Sad.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
I agree. The situation reminds me of a story
by an American fiction writer some years ago.
A clever sorcerer tells a demon he can have something
he wants if he can fit inside a certain circle. The demon
who can easily fit inside most circles he can envision, being
a supernatural being, agrees to the deal, but the sorcerer
paints the cicle on the stomach of the demon. Thus the demon
shrinks and shrinks and shrinks until he no longer exists. An
analogy can be made I think, with British culture as the demon
and "PC" as the sorcerer. What the British want is companionship
from other cultures, but what they get is a tummy-circle. Rubbish
your own culture until it no longer offends us, and then you will
be acceptable, they are told, and being young and stupid they do
just that. British culture is diminished by lies, and thus, so are
they, until they become contemptible in the sight of the foreigners
with whom they sort to ingratiate themselves and other Brits, if
not their peers. For example, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary
went through his "we are guilty" act, snivelling about how everything
wrong in the world is the fault of the British, only to later support
the USA in a typically British expedition to squash a foreign tyrant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ginger" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
21 Feb 2004 06:08:40 PM |
|
|
(Mummud Amud) wrote in message news:<53c1a354.0402211106.68c9a54d@posting.google.com>...
ginger_smiff@hotmail.com (ginger) wrote
(Mummud Amud) wrote in message
You are all missing the point. Yes Slavery is and was a BAD thing.
No question of that.
But it is only a bad thing when looked at through the Lense of
the Laws and Morals of Mankind.
Sure, "good" and "bad" are anthropogenic terms that have no meaning
for the Universe; however, look at the pictures coming back from
Mars: the most interesting thing by far in those pictures was made
by Man. What men and women think is far more vital than a dead rock
tumbling through space.
In Evolutionary terms, slavery brought a "small in numbers" race of
people; the West African Negro, onto the world stage, so that their
descendants now number 500,000, and live all over the western world.
In Evolutionary terms, slavery was the thing that made this possible.
Slavery was the price the negro race paid for this enormous
evolutionary success.
Yes. You turned it on its head, and it changes their tragedy into a
fantastic success, biologically speaking.
Your idea parallels an idea of mine which I haven't dared mention yet,
which was that when an stronger culture overwhelms and rapes a weaker
culture, from a biological sense they are doing them a favour since
the aboriginal race survives in the women's genes, which are melded
with the hardiest genes of the attacker.
I was thinking of Tasmania, actually. A small island off the south
coast of Australia which was settled by Australiazn aboriginals while
the seas were frozen during the ice age so that they could walk to
the 'island'. They settled and the ice ages passed, cutting them off.
they began to devolve, losing technologies such as bone needles to
make clothes, so they walked around butt naked even though the weather
is inhospitable. They could not make a boat that would float for more
than half an hour so there was no interaction with the larger mainland
community. They were in decline.
Along came white people and the Tasmanians didn't stand a chance; they
were brutalised and murdered and fertilised. There are no pure-blood
Tasmanians left and this is convenient since the govt need not recompense
anyone or restore their lands if the Tasmanians are all dead. However,
since there precious few pure-blooded people's left anywhere to say
they are extinct is to hold them to a unique standard. There are people
alive in Tasmania who call themselves Tasmanians who are descended from
Truganini's people.
I have read of Truganini. She was the last of the race of Tasmania,
who from what I understand were not quite the same as the current
races of mankind. The thing that stands out from a book I read 15
years ago was that they only had 30 teeth. The modern races have 32
teeth.
Obviously it was a terrible tragedy for their Paleolithic culture, and
morally reprehensible, however biologically, the survivors' gene pool was
freshened, connection with the mainland was restored. They have access
of our educational and medical institutions, including the internet.
Today they are a robust community, active and politically engaged, far
more auspicious than a stone-age people banging sticks together to
attract a dumb flightless bird which they then hit on the head with a
rock and eat raw.
Survival of the fittest in action.
The other races of mankind that lived in Africa, that were of no use
to the slavers being too small (Pygmies and Hottentots)or too fierce
(Zulus) or just too far from the coastal ports.
Where Hottentots small? I thought they got smashed by the Boers.
I think Hottentots were the people that had fat deposits on their
extended buttocks to see them through lean times and survive famine.
Something like a camel's hump.
Talking of too fierce, my wife is home; must go and help unload the
groceries.
An Excellent and Interesting Post.
Ginger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mummud Amud" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
22 Feb 2004 07:37:51 PM |
|
|
(ginger) wrote
orb@cts.com (Mummud Amud) wrote in message
(ginger) wrote
In Evolutionary terms, slavery brought a "small in numbers" race of
people; the West African Negro, onto the world stage, so that their
descendants now number 500,000, and live all over the western world.
In Evolutionary terms, slavery was the thing that made this possible.
Slavery was the price the negro race paid for this enormous
evolutionary success.
Your idea parallels an idea of mine which I haven't dared mention yet,
which was that when an stronger culture overwhelms and rapes a weaker
culture, from a biological sense they are doing them a favour since
the aboriginal race survives in the women's genes, which are melded
with the hardiest genes of the attacker.
(snip)
I have read of Truganini. She was the last of the race of Tasmania,
who from what I understand were not quite the same as the current
races of mankind. The thing that stands out from a book I read 15
years ago was that they only had 30 teeth. The modern races have 32
teeth.
Hmm! That is differentiation. From what I've read about aboriginal
teeth
they are big like an African's teeth, but shaped in a way that is
labled
"proto-Caucasoid".
A. A. Abbie in "The Original Australians." Sydney, A. H. & A. W. Reed
(1969)
"It is quite logical, on our present knowledge at least, to class the
Aborigines as proto-Caucasoids" (p. 219).
http://www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publish_db/Bulletin/no11/no11000.html
"A close affinity between Aborigines and Caucasians is also proved by
the similarity in pattern of between-sex difference described in
Section 4.2
of the present paper."
You might enjoy Jared Diamond's work. He explains the course of human
development in terms of _geography_.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p2.html
Poor Jared, bound hand and foot by PC, cannot bring himself to admit
that just as geography shapes culture, it might shape biology. E.g.,
we lost our melanin when we migrated to northern regions with less
sun-
light, and white skin is less easily frostbitten than darker skin.
The sickle cell trait in a malarial region is another example of an
environment-induced genetic change. Inuit (Eskimos) have a much
stronger response to 'extremity cooling', e.g., the cycles of vaso-
constriction and dilation that occur in your hand when you put it in
a bucket of ice-water.
Race-politics has destroyed anthropology and archaeology.
Obviously it was a terrible tragedy for their Paleolithic culture, and
morally reprehensible, however biologically, the survivors' gene pool was
freshened, connection with the mainland was restored. They have access
of our educational and medical institutions, including the internet.
Today they are a robust community, active and politically engaged, far
more auspicious than a stone-age people banging sticks together to
attract a dumb flightless bird which they then hit on the head with a
rock and eat raw.
Survival of the fittest in action.
Incidentally, the Tasmanians make a regular appearance in s.c.b. due
to
the obsessive compulsive behaviour of two foreign-nationalist trolls.
One of these trolls is "Dr. Jai Maharaj", a Hindu Nationalist from
Hawaii,
who repeatedly posts the following.
"Australia
"British settlement began in 1788, with the landing
party of transported convicts. Australia remained a
penal colony. during the first half of the 19th
century,during which time the continent was explored
and separate colonies were established in the various
states. Aboriginal populations were displaced and
decimated' in some areas (e.g., Tasmania), they
were totally exterminated...."
- The Universal Almanac; Andrews and McMeel; ISBN: 0-8362-7977-8.
He has been posting this for many years, from as recently as
2 Feb 2004, 1996:
From: (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
Subject: Re: Listen to what Bill Gates said about Immigration
Date: 1996/01/26
Message-ID: <S0VCxQ9zBAQJ089yn@mantra.com>#1/1
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=S0VCxQ9zBAQJ089yn%40mantra.com&output=gplain
Maharaj uses the reference to denounce groups he does not like,
including Brits, Europeans, and Christians.
The second troll is a Croatian nationalist called Barry Marjanovich.
His most recent involuntary action on this subject is dated Sun, 13
Jul 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=80725c5e0ea861b26d5178aae8c6b791.51892%40mygate.mailgate.org&output=gplain
= The Zajednicar
= (1998-01-21)
=
= Regarding a Declaration by a British Colonel
= ____________________________________
=
= ARE THE BRITISH FEELING ASHAMED?
(snip)
his earliest ejaculation of this article was in 1998, soon after it
was written.
From: "Barry S. Marjanovich" <bsmarjan@calcna.ab.ca>
Subject: Are The British Feeling Ashamed?
Date: 1998/02/05
Message-ID: <6bcckb$asq@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
=The Zajednicar, January 21, 1998
=
=Regarding a Declaration by a British Colonel
=--------------------------------------------
=Are The British Feeling Ashamed?
You can correct Marjanovich and Maharaj until you are blue in the face
but they just keep keepin' on.
The other races of mankind that lived in Africa, that were of no use
to the slavers being too small (Pygmies and Hottentots)or too fierce
(Zulus) or just too far from the coastal ports.
Were Hottentots small? I thought they got smashed by the Boers.
I think Hottentots were the people that had fat deposits on their
extended buttocks to see them through lean times and survive famine.
Something like a camel's hump.
Oh! I never realised those big behinds were a food store. Of course.
I assumed the Hottentot men were simply perverts who preferred women
with big behinds (as I do actually :-)
Talking of too fierce, my wife is home; must go and help unload the
groceries.
An Excellent and Interesting Post.
Thanks Ginger! And thanks for introducing a novel and original
viewpoint
to s.c.b. We used to have some regular ding-dong battles here, about
the
Bell Curve, the validity of IQ differences between the races, and so
on.
It was like the fierce Edinburgh debates that introduced Darwinism!
More
recently it is just foreign stuff.
I hope you will contribute more to s.c.b!
Ginger
Regards,
Max
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nusrat Rizvi" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
20 Feb 2004 03:46:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:09:34 GMT, "palmer.william"
<palmer.william@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It has to be one of Ole Abe Lincoln's most profound statement when he
declared that if slavery is not bad than nothing is bad.
This evil as you rightfully pointed out was made into an institution
by the most deranged of all men who has ever lived.
One would be wrong to think of the so called prophet only as a man of
blood and gore, it was he who brought respectability to this most
hideous of all trades which is no thanks to this pervert is still
practiced in most Muslim countries in one form or another.
"Bryan" <Bryan@news.net> wrote in message
news:vDgZb.19368$4o.39564@attbi_s52...
Any slavery, is a terrible thing.
Of course it is. As to the point about it not being
so bad, I am reminded of the old saying, "The
devil is never so black as he is painted." I take
that to mean that you can always find some good
in evil people--and evil systems too, no doubt.
That fact should do nothing to change the reality
that a person, action, or system was evil--
and it is hard to imagine that anyone would
seriously argue that slavery was not an evil.
The sad thing is, considering all large ethnic groups,
it has been Arabs who have clung on to slavery
as an institution longer than just about everyone
else on the planet. in fact, they use the Moslim
religion to try and justify this incredibly vicuous
and degrading institution in places like the Sudan.
And. by the way, that reminds of an important
fact (about a great, though much maligned
British person) which has not been brought
out enough. That is, certain Western liberals
who are often in bed with Third World rascals
and scalawags often sully the memory of
General Gordon by branding him a racist.
It is a vicious lie. Just stop and consider:
Why did Gordon lay down his life fighting
the Mahdi? Gordon did so because the
Mahdi (a man of some courage
and great cunning) was fighting in support
of the horrible institution of slavery. Now,
if Gordon was, as alleged, a racist, why
would he give a hoot one way or or another
about people of dark skin being enslaved?
He cared, of course, because he was not
a racist and because, as a Christian, he
considered slavery an evil worth fighting
against, even if it meant putting one's
life on the line.
I think people today of all races need to get
away from their knee-jerk, politically correct
habits of thought and begin looking at history
with an uncluded mind. The situation is
especially bad in Britain right now, as I
have noticed from what is posted by
British people in many newsgroups.
They are tearing down everything and
everybody in their past that any rabid,
foaming at the mouth, Third World
radical wants to throw stones at. So all
of a sudden the Mahdi, in his "nationalistic"
fight for slavery becomes the hero, and
General Gordon gets branded as the bad
guy. Sad.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
ginger wrote:
I don't mean to be insulting to anyone but, I read somewhere that when
the first modern Europeans met Negroes in the 15th century there were
only 4 million altogether. And they existed only in West Africa.
Today there must be close to 500 million of their descendants in
locations inside and outside of Africa.
My point is that I don't mean to denigrate the suffering of
individuals who lived through slave times, but in evolutionary terms,
bumping into whitey was a good thing for the Negro Race, who, had
they not come into contact with the Europeans, would still be as rare
on this earth as Pygmies, or Hottentots.
I have never seen this aspect of slavery discussed anywhere before,
and I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this.
BTW Slavery had not been seen in Europe since Viking Times, It was the
Africans themselves that reintroduced Europeans to slavery.
Ginger
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aramis Gunton" |
|
| Title: Re: Negro Slavery wasn't necessarily a bad thing |
21 Feb 2004 05:06:05 AM |
|
|
In message <vDgZb.19368$4o.39564@attbi_s52>, Bryan <Bryan@news.net>
writes
Any slavery, is a terrible thing.
Ditto haemorrhoids!!!
--
Aramis Gunton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
