₦airaland Forum

koonbey:
Very key question.

Saying the Germans were less racist is as absurd as absurd as saying the shekau is less of a bigot than Bin laden. Same difference.

WTH. Nazis didn't commit the Namibian genocide. The Nazis had black soldiers, did not enforce segregation like the US.

JUICYPINEAPPLE:
Taking advantage of a so called primitive people doesn't in any way define a civilized people but of Barbarians my dear friend. The very reason why such intellectual as Oscar Wilde had to call a spade a spade.

To Oscar Wilde America doesn't have CIVILIZATION. Hahaha...very interesting perspective.

No. I disagree. It is only barbaric by today's standard. Go read about wars and empires in human history. The native Americans would've done the same if they were in the place of Europeans.

fieryy:
Wrong! Jews weren't the only one discriminated against, but also blacks, the disabled etc.
Afro-Germans did not only lose their passports during the Nazi regime, but also were not allowed to marry the 'Aryans' according to the Nuremberg Laws
In fact the so called 'Rhineland Bastards' had been forced to sterilisation.

Besides Germany also has an history of having controlling colonies, especially in the African Great Lakes region. The Afrikanisches Viertel in Berlin is a proof to this. Up till this date a lot of streets are still named after countries and locations tied to the German colonial empire. It had only been only after World War I, the Belgians, British and French took control of Germany's colonies.

So no Germany had definitely not been 'less discriminatory '.

You don't understand my post. I never said the Nazis didn't discriminate against blacks. The discrimination, relative to US, was less. For instance, Jesse Owens reported good relations with the Germans during the Olympics, better than he received on return to the US.

olyrayy:
Bro, have you heard of the genocide the Germans committed in Namimbia?

You don't understand my post. I was looking at it from the perspective of Panafrcan who assumed the Allied powers, were the real racist, rather than Germany.

JUICYPINEAPPLE:
Could the native Americans also be lacking in civilization and that was the reason for their extermination by 'CIVILIZED' people?

Yes, troll. Native Americans would've stood a better chance of defending themselves if they had some civilization. They became an easy target because they still lived in relatively primitive state and so whites took advantage.

WORDWORLD:
There are far better ways you would have put your message across than such a title "BLACKS HAVE NO CIVILIZATION" only to come up with an explanation that doesn't in anyway support your assertion that Blacks don't have a civilization.

I have read what you had to write on your thread 'BLACKS DON'T HAVE A CIVILIZATION'. You have made some points but it at all doesn't support your choice of title BLACKS DON'T HAVE A CIVILIZATION, if we must work on EVIDENCE base.

Every race do have their own form of civilization adaptive to them.

You see, such line of thinking, that there is only one kind of 'CIVILIZATION' and which is as the one accepted by you is the reason why the world will never stop to bleed.

To say Blacks don't have a civilization is just sheer ignorance when civilization means different things to different people at different times. What we need is understanding and yes knowledge and proper application, hence Wisdom. Your choice of title does not show Wisdom at all.

So what does civilization mean for black people?

You never see the reverse. You never an Arab, Indian, Asian, or European come to black countries to do the least respected jobs in the community.

Panafrcan's tactics to win blacks by presenting whites as bad as possible is a poor ploy. It won't win over good-willed blacks. It's kind of like the white nationalist groups. He'll end up drawing angry and embittered black individuals who have nothing to offer than animosity towards whites. They'll hijack the movement with time and run it to the ground.

Alright. I'm done with this fellow. I know he really wanted to get my attention with his troll comments, and I hope I've entertained him enough.

The greatest lesson on slavery is that blacks need a civilization that can match with whites. If you read more on the subject, you find that African blacks soon became opposed to slave sales to the whites, but the deal with the devil was already sealed. The whites were the more advanced civilization, and with their guns, they wield the power in the business.

Today, we still see that the power dynamic remain the same between whites and black. Black learnt nothing from the slave trade other than whites are bad. Blacks still don't have a civilization. And today, slavery continues in form of blacks moving to non-black countries to work as janitors, cleaners, security men, sales persons, hookers etc.

On this day August 20, 1619, Angolans, kidnapped by the Portuguese, arrive in the British colony of Virginia and are then bought by English colonists. The arrival of the enslaved Africans in the New World marks a beginning of two and a half centuries of slavery in North America.

PanAfrcan claims and claims and claims.

Majority of slaves were kidnapped by other blacks in Africa and bought by the Portugese. If at all the Portugese themselves partook in the kidnapping, it was done on permission of the tribal chiefs who were paid accordingly. This is what I explained briefly in my last post.

3. Reject racist instincts: we don't care about people's color here, light skin, yellow, brown, Black and all the bs.

It is colorist instinct, not racist instinct. And it exist in Nigeria too. When I was a kid we used to poke fun at our mates for having very dark and ebony skin. Also I've read women on Nairaland who admitted prejudice on men with light skin tone.

2. Willing to speak African languages :
We do not want what happened in Liberia with those who came back, and never spoke any African language, they settled in Monrovia, discriminated against natives and were overly involved in evil masonic practices.

But why? These people's ancestors were sold off to slavery by African blacks in the first place, why should they meet these conditions before returning? Why should they learn Yoruba or Igbo when they can just live fine with English? Why would anyone want to learn any other than the national language, languages that have no alphabet?

At first the consensus among scientists was that gender is a binary construct, male or female. But more scientific studies have uncovered that there are individuals with XY chromosomes don't have an uterus, but have breasts and appear like women.

So this dude is like the Muslims I debate in Islam section. Don't know anything about the multiplicity of gender, yet he opposes tooth and nail anything outside male/female & straight.

To All African-Americans Willing To Come Back To Africa

1. You must reject the LGBT agenda: We do not want any gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual ideology in our government system and our traditional life. There are only two genders: A man and a woman. And marriage is only between a naturally born man and and naturally born woman.

OK, when I get to this point I see clearly that Panafrcan is a lost cause. This fellow don't seem to understand anything he talks about. Whether it is on history, race or gender. And who can blame him, most Nigerians obviously live in similar state or distorted reality.

When I talk civilization, what I particularly mean is economic, scientific and technological advancement. This is what I mean by "Black don't have a civilization." And this is why blacks prefer to live among the whites than among the blacks, even though they're reportedly hunted and gunned down by the white police.

And the kind of civilization I'm talking isn't built upon war and slavery as they'll tell you. This is a great deception. Whites were able to build guns, ships, telescopes and compass before they set foot in Africa. Civilizations are built upon knowledge and applications.

Whites Don't Have A Civilization
They cheated throughout history. The only thing they cherish is their tactics consisting in waging a psychological warfare on other races, because they live in the permanent fear of being dominated. It is in their genes. That is why the end of racism will never depend on the goodwill of a whitey.

This is sheer ignorance. Every tribal community cheated throughout their history and resorted to unfair tactics against other communities to gain access to land, food, mates and wealth. If you think this was only a white thing, you probably didn't learn anything about Persians, Arabs, East Asian or black tribes in Africa.

Heard Winston Churchill was a racist. True?

If you ask a question as this on Nairaland, where most people don't teach and just write twitter length opinions and submit, it tells a lot about your calibre. Also, people who ask these kinds of questions in demand for a true/false answer obviously don't get how the world works.

There is no true or false response. It depend on the era you ask the question. People in Wilston Churchill time didn't think he was "racist", or if they did, it wasn't a huge deal to start with. I don't get black obsession with racism at times. Like, why do you even care if Wilston C was racist?

You can't use today's standard of racism to judge yesterday's figure of racism. By today's standard, even the abolitionists were racists. They wanted an end to slavery, but many of them didn't want the freed slaves around them either. They didn't necessarily have the best opinions about blacks. And they wanted them shipped to Africa or Haiti.

The Germans, unlike the French, the Brits, English or Americans had relatively little contact or exposure to blacks. With so little blacks present in Germany at the time, it is likely the Germans weren't chanced to make enough observations of blacks necessary to deduct "racist" conclusion.

As I explained before, racism in cases, is often the outcome of poor behavioral observations in individuals of a racial group. Just like blacks in US have a poorer view of whites than blacks in Nigeria, whites in US may have a poorer view of blacks than whites in countries that have very few blacks.

This was the case of Germany and the Allied powers at the time.

That said, the problem with Panafrcan on this his phrase, "..... Western powers were the actual racists." Like the Germans were not racist. No, it's not that simple.

Historically every non-black racial demographic with prolonged exposure and encounter with black populations bore negative views of blacks. Among the Arabs for instance, Ibn Khaldum is a celebrated historian who claimed that of all human races, blacks were the lowliest and most animalistic in behavior.

It looks like those Western powers who attacked Germany were the actual racist

If you have been consuming exclusively mainstream historical medial, you must have been informed that the Germans were white supremacist and racists. And since the Allied powers were opposing them, it would sound like they were fighting racism and white supremacy.

Germans were less discriminatory against blacks at the time. And it was only after the war that even more false accusations like "White supremacy" and "Racism" were fabricated by the victors, the ones who wrote the history, to smear the losers. The nazis had nothing to do with white supremacy or anti-black racism, their beef were with Jews.

As I said, I was originally going to forget this fellow. But once I read his post history, I quickly understood this trolling is coming from a place of vehement opposition to my ideas.

His posts are filled with de-contextualized and distorted narratives to support his pan-African and anti-racist agenda, a contradiction of everything I expressed in my last posts; Blacks Don't Have A Civilization & Blacks Don't Have A Civilization 2.0

So, I decide I'm not going to respond to his trolling. But I can't let this degree of misinformation slide unchallenged. So, let 's see what this fellow thinks.

I have nothing against pan-Africanism, I believe it can be a useful step in developing a black civilization that will leave their mark in history, just as the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs have done and the Europeans and East Asians are currently doing.

I also have no issue with "anti-racists". If they feel something is racist, let them call it out. If they have a case, I'll stand with them.

Panafrican. I just want to address this fellow who since my last threads has been trolling me with replies such as;

OK now go pay your rent, your hospital bills and your light bills.

At first I ignored him. I thought it was a joke or something not intended to offend me, and a one time thing when he did it the first time. Then he did it again, so I decide to run a background check on him.

because Username is a drogue -addict and a fool

OgiPrincess:
Following...

Very insightful

I've been watching lots of PragerU videos on YouTube. I've also been listening to Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro etc.

I've come to realize that a lot of times we as humans (black people in the case now). React and act out of sentiments. Black people in the diaspora enjoy the narrative of haven been slaves and the reparations that comes with it.

Feelings don't count where facts are.

Well said.

Yeah, PragerU does seem like a voice of reason when you compare it with everything the media choke us with nowadays. I listen to Candace Owens sometimes too, Ben Shapiro has his blind spot but once a while he makes good speech.

tidalstorm:
Egyptians have been recorded as been among the first world civilizations. The were black.

Thanks for reading.

I've looked but can't find decisive evidence for the Black Egypt civilization. The records are not clear.

What about the former Benin, Oyo and Kano Empires. The might have been relatively small when compared but you cannot deny their structures.

Notice that nobody teaches these empires, if they're even grand enough to be called "empire". You can't compare their legacies and feats with the empires I've mentioned.

Plus, most of the African records have been destroyed since the where passed by mouth and the demise of an individual could mean a part of history has been lost. Meaning most of our breakthrough on science, medicine, social science and art could have been lost. Thereby sending us back.

Could we really have made scientific breakthroughs without a means of recording or storing knowledge? What became of any written language we might have had?

The Japanese, Chinese, Indians and Arab, if you notice are basically linked by either the same ideology, ethnicity, language and religion.
Come back to Africa with at least a thousand tribes, conflicting religions and different ideologies. If Africans where not so seperated and fought for a common goal. We would have been unitedly strong.

The Japanese and Chinese are kind of like cousin. Agreed. But that's about it. But they differ significantly from Arabs and India, both of whom also differ significantly from each other.

I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly

Link to part two of this thread, below.

Black Don't Have A Civilization 2.0 - https://www.nairaland.com/5916350/blacks-dont-civillization-2.0

But blacks are still not satisfied. So let them go their way.

Look at it from the bright side. If they secede, they can organize and govern themselves as they see fit. They can build more infrastructures like schools and industries to better cater for themselves. Racism, white supremacy and privilege would be history, and they may finally start to address their own shortcomings like crime rate, drug abuse, fatherless homes etc.

Secession.... I know the common argument like, "We're all one, let's not divide, let treat everyone the same". This is a naive view of life. It is based on the notion that if we can eliminate racism entirely and give everyone equal opportunity, then blacks will be content. But this is a pipe dream.

Racism is at an all time low in US history. It can't be eliminated over night. As for equal opportunity, it already exist. Affirmative action and diversity quotas in school and work places serve to even the opportunities between blacks and whites. Blacks are over-represented in American sports like basketball and football. Blacks are running political offices all over the nation.

Alright, I've come this far now, and I can't stop without recommendation to address racism, whether it is in the police department or every other institution. Many are recommending defunding or disbanding the police, that's not practical at all.

To write off the group that routinely risk their lives to save countless lives and properties just because they killed 0.0001% of blacks compared to the 0.01% of blacks that other blacks kill annually is dumb.

In the case of George Floyd he did not only happen to be black, he's dressed irresponsibly, he seemed to be drugged, and he also happened be an ex-convict of robbery who had served time in jail. The police would have no doubt regarded him a potentially violent suspect, even if he were complying with their orders. Too unfortunate the cops went extreme in use of force with George.

So, as it seem, you can't really address over policing of blacks in US without broaching subject of violent crime rates among blacks. Whenever the subject is raised, it is immediately brushed aside as outcome of blacks' higher poverty rate without considering how it impacts overpolicing and the resulting cases of police violence.

However, I don't think poverty explains it fully. Prevalence of fatherless homes, lack of role model, and hip hop culture do play roles in black crime rates.

Blacks make 13-15% and whites make about 60% of the US. There are roughly 4 times as many whites as there blacks. But it takes two times as many whites to commit the same number of violent crimes as blacks, and 4 times as many whites to commit the same number of homicide as blacks. If you have a black man in one corner, and a black in the other, the black is more likely to be a violent criminal than the white!

This mean, in a town that is 63% white and 37% black, in 2018 blacks committed nearly the same amount of non-homicide violent crimes as whites, despite being the minority. Imagine a police officer observing this trend. Wouldn't he be more likely to associate blacks with more violent criminality and thus employ more force against them than whites?

But my experience with the Southern and Central African women has led me to assume otherwise. It's not always as simple as sheer intolerance for certain skin color. It is could in part be the outcome of a generally poor experiences or behavioral observations in folks of that skin color.

It is the same for the US or UK, how do police approach suspects of certain demographic that commit the highest violent crimes per capita, despite constituting a minority of the population? The more the violent crimes often committed by criminals of a demographic, the more violent the police perceive the criminals. And thus the police are more likely to use force on such criminals.

Remember the story I opened this article with? Now, do this. As for the women who rejected me after learning my nationality, switch their ethnicity from black to white instead. Now assume I lived in the US at the time.

What would a black man in US, with tinder account without a profile picture, assume if all the white women he contacted online seem to be open to meeting him, but when they inquire of his nationality, they immediately ghost him once he reveals it. Oh well, he'll assume they've rejected him because they found he's Nigerian or black.