₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Proud.SAfrican]Yes Hypothetically speaking Nigeria is still developing thank you for saying that. We don't know where Nigeria will be tomorrow. You should start a thread on that.[/quote]I was being sarcastic with that statement

[quote author=Proud.SAfrican]I'm bolstering Craigs point its not about race its about the Gold. The natives would eventually realised the value of the Gold they had then would eventually have developed the country to what extent no body knows we could have ended up like every other African country or could have been a great nation like we are not. I cannot prove this and neither can you disprove it.[/quote]If we all have been speaking in Hypothethicals then all the arguements are really of no relevance at all, since hypothethically speaking Nigeria is still developing and to what extent it will, nobody knows??

Unless of course it seizes to be Nigeria

[quote author=Proud.SAfrican]Your stup1d. The need for gold by the natives was never there to begin with. Your black a.s.ses in Nigeria were sitting on oil for God knows how long did you guys mine it of cause not because you had no need for it. Same for the natives in South Africa why will you do with a metal that will not feed you.

The sad thing about humans is the drive for development has not always been a noble cause the biggest contributors to development has been war and greed and if you don't believe that read a book preferably one with lots of pictures so you can get the idea.[/quote]You are inadvertently bolstering my point exactly (my..... my...... who is the stupid one) HAHAHAHA. The reference to natives not doing much with the gold they so called "initially' discovered points to the fact that gold could not be the only "contributing" factor to development or in Criag B's world the "Causal-link" that explains it all for us.

THe drive for "wealth" i.e Land, ownership of resources, fostered by the insatiable desire to acquire more of it is one of the reasons those "settlers" landed on your shores "RE-DISCOVERED" that gold, built up their nation states ( as opposed to looting it on ships and sailing back to Europe) and eventually deciding to share it with you when they knew it was mathematically impossible to keep it to themselves since the blek population were growing at an exponential rate.

So again the ascertion remains without inserting Nigeria into the arguement, where would South Africa be without these settlers, at the same developmental stage as the rest of Africa.

Final full stop!

CraigB: Follow-on post:

Now - that a white person should tell you what I'm about to say is disgusting and makes me want to vomit at your self-hate and ignorance about your history as an African person. Understand that civilisations rise and fall. You need to read a book so that you will lose the inferiority complex.

The common thread that cuts across the civilisations below and present-day South Africa is gold. It is not race. Race is merely coincidental. Colonisation propaganda and your own failure as a black person has made you believe otherwise, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary. You only need to open a book and read before opening your mouth.

Cut the Crap CraigB.

Since you are an "avid" reader of African histroy per your "scramble for Africa" book reference there, Why don't u "enlighten" us Africans bout “settler populations” in Southern Africa, you know, the Transvaal, Orange free state, Anglo-Boer Wars, Pretorius and the rest of them, Oh yeah and don't forget to give us details of how who/how this "gold" built your cities.

CraigB: You are truly a self-hating idîot. You have not proved causation. You have proved correlation. Now let me help you along, seeing as you are starting to look even more pathetic.

The case that you are prosecuting is South Africa's development. That's the effect. Now you need to show us the cause by producing evidence . What have you pulled out? A question. You have rightly abandoned the question because it never would've advanced your case. So what have you pulled out now? The presence of whites. Now, that's a mere bare statement. It's not evidence.

Even worse and more importantly - it's not causation. The CAUSAL LINK is between South Africa's development (effect, which is the case that you are solving for) and the re-discovery of gold (event).

The presence of whites is only a correlation. There's no CAUSAL link between the presence of whites and the development in South Africa. It is gold that generated the money that built our roads. We didn't sell white skin on the market. We sold gold. And recently we have sold platinum, coal and a a whole lot of other minerals, which we lead the continent on (in totality).

I have had to wait for so long for you to confirm your self-hate. Because you hate your blackness, you see a racial causal link where there's none. I have always been patient and patience always pays off. Understand now why your case hasn't been advancing and why your stupîd question was ignored.

Now, to help you understand South Africa's and Southern Africa's relationship with gold and other minerals even before whites, see the following post.

^^^^^^^

********YAWN**********

Is this your slam dunk performance?

Pitiful

The problem with your CAUSATION is two- fold:

1.Deceptive mis-representation of Morpheus’s causal-link analysis as “correlation”. In reality where there is causation, there is likely to be correlation. For one to discern between the two it is necessary to establish a “causal relationship’ as opposed to a measure of closeness, where causal factors are examined. The causative variables were included in the previous analysis but were as usual ignored for the bogus implication that “white skin” was actually implied to be a causal factor.

2.The apparent assumption by CraigB’s that his established event "sufficiently" explains the OUTCOME i.e. explores all possible cascading events that are inter-linked to the outcome_[b](A CAUSAL CHAIN).[/b]

An illustration to expose this fallacy:

Event A_ I stepped into CraigB’s room

Event B_ I saw Craig B sucking his finger
.
Event C_ I proceeded to slap CraigB on the cheek for sucking his finger.

Outcome D_ CraigB’s cheek turned red.

Therefore:

A caused B
B caused C
C caused D

C is a proximate cause of D and A a ultimate or distal cause of D.

To put in simple terms

Event A_White settlers arrived the southern tip of Africa looking for land and resources to claim/exploit.

Event B_White settlers moved into the interior of the continent exploring…..sorry correction “exploiting free uninhabited land and resource”

Event C_White settlers RE-DISCOVERED GOLD ( still wondering why it was RE-discovered and why when it was ‘initially’ discovered by the natives didn’t translate into first world technology and infrastructure)

White settlers used this money with the exclusivity of TECHNOLOGICAL “know-how” to continue to develop and build infrastructure within their own settlement states
.
Outcome D_ Rapid Development in White only areas, slow development in Bantustans.

Consequence E_The post 1994 Government inherits this legacy.


Poor Mukiwa!, I am sorry to say, Your patience did not pay off this time. Your insistence on defending the indefensible can only lead me to believe that a CAUSAl Chain of events has predetermined this stubborness. This would include the internal tensions to fit into a continent you don't belong in, the white guilt of your forefathers exploitations and the audacity of White “priviledge”

Morpheus says: “Will the real Africans, please stand up!”

CraigB: I don't have to. I'm the defense.

I don't have the burden of proof. You do.

Ahh!, the pale face saffer

Your burden of proof is apparent in the the "causal-link" you ignore. Your causation.....relationship between an event and its effect.

I know, I know "avoidance" is one of your many methods of buying time to try to come up with some other rigamorole tactic.

[quote author=Proud.SAfrican]Thank you for your opinion but unlike Nigerian cities I see no slums in Botswana's cities so no you can't compare them Botswana's are just better. Care to update your source?[/quote]I can’t believe you are that Dyslexic.. You can argue the relative size of “slums” with Al4naija all day.

The question however remains, “Can you show us a sub-Saharan country without a white settler population with on par infrastructure as the pseudo African state known as South Africa”

“Botswana does not have slums” is not an answer nor does it satisfy the “on par with the pseudo African nation” portion of the question.

You see the “yes or no response” you are avoiding only leads us all to that grinding reality. Nigeria or no Nigeria....hahahaha!


The answer to the OP’s question would be a straight forward response that goes as such........ without the settlers, the Pseudo nation would be “ just like any other African country”

No amount of “sluming” around will change that.


Bantu education is not good o!

paniki: You can spin it however much you like it wont to the fact that the people in those countries live better lives than you peeps.

It’s obvious you can’t read properly thus you find yourself in a conundrum of sorts.

….. Again, remove the irrelevant point of the "Nigerian argument" and attempt to answer the question properly. “can you show me another sub-Saharan country without a white settler population with on par infrastructure as the pseudo African state”?

Angola i“not on par” with South Africa even after inserting the dubious Nigerian argument.

Namibia a replica, better yet an extension of South African history, was and continues to be a “settler” state with 90% of the land in ownership by the “settler” population. Does not satisfy the “without a settler population” parameter.

You see the true answer to this question reveals the reality of the OP’s question.

Let me end your misery for you

1. If you can’t point to one then just concede that The Pseudo African state Pre and post 1994 continues to be what it is because of White settlers. The causal-link analysis creates this relationship and thus the answer to the OP’s question where would the ” Pseudo African” state known as South Africa be without White people/settlers, I contend that the answer would very much like this “just another African state”. This point is further supported by the declaration of one Jacob Zuma who insinuates that not paying TOLLS, (a civilized obligation by a civilized country with infrastructure) is very much un-African.

This argument was done as soon as I got here.

ZDee: As I said before, even without white people will today be ahead of other SSA countries, maybe our infrastructure would be as advanced, but we'd still be better than other SSA countries. SA has many advantage over other SSA countries.
- mineral wealth (2nd on the continent)
- long coastline (2nd on the continent)
- anglophone country (better than francophone countries, for various reasons)
- no Islam (i think this is a positive for SSA, just look at Somalia & Nigeria, tltltltltl)
- our Geopolitical Location (Southern tip of Africa)
- outside tropical region (no malaria and other tropical deceases wich are a burden on economic development) check these articles http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2624/

http://nber.org//digest/jun01/w8119.html

[img]http://k12education.uams.edu/scvlab/maps/WorldMalariaFull.jpg[/img]

These are hypothetical at best with several assumptions, one being would the country still be the size it is with the same “unity” of purpose amongst ethnic groups, but then again we will never know will we, unless of course you pull a Zimbabwe or negotiate out the 5+ million “settlers” for an autonomous state to run separately for the next 50 years, do a side by side comparison and then we can get somewhere, but then again if I controlled 86% of so called historically “unoccupied “ land, why would I give that up.