Chris Rock: "White people need to own the actions of their ancestors"

pragmatic1

He has a point.

Dublin Red Devil

For me Rock is the best comedian in the world. Best of all time is George Carlin RIP.

floggg

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hardly any need given the number of gotcha moments earlier in this thread where you made no such admissions.

Actually, it does. If you bother to educate yourself on sub-Saharan African History you'll find that it has largely remained the same. From that it is pretty safe to say that had there been no interaction from Europeans the chances of any substantial difference would have been negligible in the last five centuries.

Care to offer anything to support your assertion that sub-saharan africa "remained largely the same" - and over what period?

Without knowing too much on the history, I know that civilisations and kingdoms rose and fall throughout history in africa, from Mali, Ghana, East Africa, Zimbabwe and South Africa, and that there were exchanges between civilisations from north and west africa, and all along east africa and the indian ocean.

And I know that where Islam was introduced, literacy was also often introduced further facilitating the exchange of ideas. Abyssinia also had writing as well.

With each new kingdom and empire and each knew trade contact, ideas would have been exchanged leading to development. In such an environment, stagnation would be extremely unlikely.

I could concede that regions such as the Congo rainforest would likely stagnate in the same way that Amazonian culture did - but that its because the jungle conditions prohibited much trade or outside contact. Likely other extreme environments could also stagnate.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're 'sure' Indian traders did? Why don't you check some of your facts before you present them. Otherwise it's probably better to presume that nothing you state is to be trusted.

As for indian trade with africa - see from wiki article on zanzibar here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanzibar#Before_1698

The impact of these traders and immigrants on the Swahili culture is uncertain. During the Middle Ages, Zanzibar and other settlements on the Swahili Coast were advanced. The littoral contained a number of autonomous trade cities. These towns grew in wealth as the Bantu Swahili people served as intermediaries and facilitators to local, Arab, Persian, Indonesian, Malaysian, Indian, and Chinese merchants. This interaction contributed in part to the evolution of the Swahili culture, which developed its own written language. Although a Bantu language, Swahili as a consequence today includes some elements that were borrowed from other civilizations, particularly Arabic loanwords. With the wealth that they had acquired through trade, some of the Arab traders also became rulers of the coastal cities.[8]

The Corinthian wrote: »

How so? I ask because I'd like to make sure you didn't just pull that statement out of a hat.

See here for reasons why Africa's geography worked against it emerging as a major power: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#The_theory_outlined
What do you base this opinion on? Actual facts please.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The latter would be North America, so you're saying that North American much of the success of North America was built on exploitation of African resources and trade. Other than slave labour, what resources did North America plunder from Africa. What trade did it do with Africa?

What do you base this opinion on? Actual facts please.

that should have been the latter two. North America didn't plunder directly from Africa - it did participate in the triangle trade, exporting goods to both Africa and Europe, and using the profits to purchase slaves, invest in industry an repeat the cycle.

See here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade#New_England

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or you change nothing. You talk as if the butterfly effect is an established law of physics that can be equally be applied to sociology. It's not. As a theory it even states that the ultimate consequences of an action may amount to next to nothing.

It not really that hard to understand. Watch a time travel movie sometime.

Actions have consequences. Slavery and colonial trade generated wealth for the North American colonies. If they didn't have that wealth, could they have subsequently invested it in the raw materials and equipment needed to start industrialising on the scale they did?

If they didn't have a market for their goods, would industrialisation generate profits?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you specifically cited industry; which given that there was only an overlap of about 15 years between British rule and the industrial revolution is a bit laughable. Now you say it's commerce.

More amusing is your claim that Britain fostered American commerce, despite the fact that it did the opposite and in doing so helped bring about the American revolution.

So no, your assertion is rubbish, based on an ignorance of American history and confusion in even what you're discussing.

You've erred on the basis of making basic errors in timelines and seemingly inventing historical events based on a complete lack of knowledge.

The American industrial revolution happened as a result of the same reason it happened elsewhere - the means to automate production were invented. It's called the steam engine!

Seriously, if you don't even know such a basic historical fact, how seriously should I or anyone else take your arguments?

You seem to be misreading or ignoring what I said. Britain didn't foster industry - it allowed the north american colonists to foster it. In new England, industrial activity was taxed. In the carribean it was prohibited entirely.

And to the extent they were taxed, the taxes evidently weren't that high - see footnote 4 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#1764.E2.80.931766:_Taxes_imposed_and_withdrawn

The taxes didn't therefore harm the industry the colonist were conducting. the important point is though that they were allowed to engage in it whereas carribean colonies weren't. they therefore had an immense advantage on the carribean colonies, and had also had a market for the goods produced due to the inability of the carribean colonies to produce there own.

They could also sell to Britain and to Africa, generating profits, which they could invest in infrastructure.

Also, if the US industrial revolution was solely due to the invention of steam engine, why wasn't there industrial revolutions in Ireland, Africa, Latin America etc?

Surely they could have bought the plans for a steam engine?

Or could it be that capital, infrastructure, resources and know how were needed in the first place, in order to be able to build and develop factories, mills etc. an take advantage of the innovations and developments.

The US were in a position to take advantage when others weren't. they already had a number of indigenous industries in place before the industrial revolution occurred - see here for a very crude source, but note the iron, ship building etc.

http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us/tucker/strusky_m/webquests/VUS3_ColoniesDevelop/economic%20development%20map.pdf


Without this base of economic activity, they couldn't have then taken advantage of automation. So there is no error in my timeline - industrialisation took off after independence, but it couldn't have done so if they started from scratch in 1783.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Here's a few:

• Industrial revolution is recognized as covering the period of around 1760 to 1840. Almost entirely after America got her independence.
• The American revolution was a political upheaval in the British American colonies that took place between 1765 and 1783, with an armed revolt around 1774, resulting in independence.
• The principle cause for said revolution was cited as "taxation without representation", of which the most important taxes levied against colonial commerce were the Currency Act (1764), Sugar Act (1764), Quartering Act (1765), Townshend Acts (1767) and most notoriously the Tea Act (1773) which led to the Boston Tea Party. All evidence directly contrary to your assertion.
• Slavery (not indentured servitude) in Africa continued legally in African kingdoms before, during and after the western slave trade. Indeed, one of the last countries to outlaw slave ownership was Ethiopia - in 1936, after it was abolished by the invading European power.
• Between 1519 and 1867, only 6.5% of all African slaves transported to the Americas went to British North America. Putting in question the apparent importance of the US to this discussion in the first place.
• By the time of the American Civil War Slavery was gone in the northern (USA) states, having adopted industrialization. The south (CSA) remained dependent on agriculture and thus slavery. If discussing which approach brought greater success, the famous General Sherman noted "The North can make a steam-engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or a pair of shoes can you make. [The south] are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth--right at your doors. [They] are bound to fail." Given the result of the civil war, it seems clear that it was mechanization and not slavery to which the US owes it's success.

Would you like to offer some actual facts to support your position now?

None of that in any way contradicts or undermines my position. You have quoted some historical facts, but don't consider the wider picture relating to the period concerned or how outside factors may have influenced each of those developments.

As I said, the 100 years before the industrial revolution laid the groundwork for it to occur. the steam engine alone isn't enough - hence why many other countries couldn't industrialise.

The fact remains that without slavery and the triangle trade, the thirteen colonies and subsequently the USA would not be as successful as it is today. Take away the cheap disposable labour and the profits generated as part of the triangle trade, and you suddenly have a lot less profits for the colonists and US industry to invest in industrialisation. Industrialisation would likely still have occurred, but at a lesser rate.

If a cotton farmer suddenly has to pay his labour, he will produce less and make less profit than if he could use slaves. And that means he won't be able to build the mill (or at least build it as quickly or at the same size). Which means he can produce and export less cotton.

Now multiply that effect across a nation, and across multiple industries.

Whatever way you slice it, without slavery the US does not look the same as it does today.

Of course, the US economy and social structure was one which is very favourable to commerce and industry, so I'm sure they would do ok - particularly as they started as clean slate without the feudal system which held back so many other countries and colonies.

But if you take a huge chunk of cash out of the economy in its formative years, it would have to play catch up for a number of years before it could begin to industrialise they way it did.

Carlos Orange

floggg wrote: »

If a cotton farmer suddenly has to pay his labour, he will produce less and make less profit than if he could use slaves. And that means he won't be able to build the mill (or at least build it as quickly or at the same size). Which means he can produce and export less cotton.

Now multiply that effect across a nation, and across multiple industries.

I guess this explains why the souths economy dwarfed the norths and they crushed them in the civil war.

floggg wrote: »

Whatever way you slice it, without slavery the US does not look the same as it does today.

If you change stuff in the past then that might well result in changes in the present. I concur.

Capt'n Midnight

Irish history of slave ships is pretty sparse.

In 1786, a meeting was organised by a merchant called Waddell Cunningham just returned to Belfast from New York where he’d made his fortune in trade. The meeting was held in the Assembly rooms (the old Northern Bank building) on Donegall Street and it’s purpose was to attract other investors for a new trading company. Cunningham was confident that this proposed company would make fortunes for himself, the other investors and the city of Belfast as similar companies had made the cities of Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow rich.

One man, Thomas McCabe, a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Rosemary Street attended the meeting with the intention of disrupting it.

The meeting was well attended and half way through, McCabe stood up and condemned those present for what they were planning. He told them they were a disgrace and described in detail the human degradation involved because the purpose of the meeting was to form the Belfast Slave Ship Company. McCabe finished his address by saying:

“May God Wither the Hand of Any Man Who Signs This Agreement.”

The meeting broke up, the Belfast Slave Ship Company was never formed and in effect, Belfast turned it’s back on millions if not billions of pounds.

this suggests there may have been a ship or two

During a debate on abolition in the British House of Commons in 1831, O’Connell reminded his fellow MPs that Ireland ‘has its glory, that no slave ship was ever launched from any of its numerous ports’. But he was wrong. For example, two Dublin-based ships, the Sylva and the Sophia, were recorded slaving in the Gambia in May 1716. The Africans being transported to Jamaica on the Sophia revolted, killing all of the crew except the captain. In July 1718 a Limerick ship, the Prosperity, transported 96 slaves from Africa to Barbados. And in 1784 Limerick became the first Irish port to attempt to promote a slave-trade company.
The point should not be laboured; it is doubtful whether direct Irish involvement in the slave trade was ever very substantial.

floggg

psinno wrote: »

I guess this explains why the souths economy dwarfed the norths and they crushed them in the civil war.



If you change stuff in the past then that might well result in changes in the present. I concur.

It seems you are reading things that aren't there. I never once said or inferred that the southern economy was stronger than the North.

It was an illustrative example of how the economy might be affected if there was no slavery.

I could have equally gave the example of how a northern rum manufacturer would have been affected by not having the african market open to them.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

I see the problem with your theory there.

By all means go ahead and disprove it or you could just sit there on the sidelines all smug.

jank

floggg wrote: »

I never said the success of America was derived exclusively from slavery. I said America wouldn't be what it is today without slavery and the slave trade. It was one key element to its success - but not the only one.

Eh, you kinda did.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93612960#post93612960

While it does sound controversial, the fact is that white Americans owe their success and wealth to the Africans who left Africa and travelled across the globe....

But u-turn away.

floggg

jank wrote: »

Eh, you kinda did.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93612960#post93612960



But u-turn away.

That was a toungue in cheek response referencing the first primitive humans who left Africa and spread across the globe, not anything to do with Slavery.

I had a longer version but my phone crashed and thought in context my intent would have been clear.

Colinf1212

Just came back from a wee stroll in Belfast after working all night. Came across two fine young African gentlemen who made a massive scene fighting each other beside Lavery's over an East Belfast tramp that was loving the attention. Ahh the cultural enrichment. 'Twas glorious. The only reason they were fighting was because of the white man, make no mistake about it.

100s of people seen it and were videoing it and the PSNI strolled right by, what a strong, proud police force.

Nodin

Colinf1212 wrote: »

Just came back from a wee stroll in Belfast after working all night. Came across two fine young African gentlemen who made a massive scene fighting each other beside Lavery's over an East Belfast tramp that was loving the attention. Ahh the cultural enrichment. 'Twas glorious. The only reason they were fighting was because of the white man, make no mistake about it.

100s of people seen it and were videoing it and the PSNI strolled right by, what a strong, proud police force.

Yeah, there was no fighting on the streets of Belfast until they let the Africans in.

Colinf1212

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, there was no fighting on the streets of Belfast until they let the Africans in.

Never seen a scene like that in my near 6 years of living in Belfast and going out 3x a week at least as a student, and at least once a week now in my job.

It was the white man's fault anyway. Slavery or colonization or something like that.

Nodin

Colinf1212 wrote: »

Never seen a scene like that in my near 6 years of living in Belfast and going out 3x a week at least as a student, and at least once a week now in my job. .

You not having seen it =/= It not having occurred.

Colinf1212 wrote: »

It was the white man's fault anyway. Slavery or colonization or something like that.

Why do you keep saying that?

Grand Moff Tarkin

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, there was no fighting on the streets of Belfast until they let the Africans in.

The fighting on the streets of Belfast are kept to a minimum now mate.

Colinf1212

Nodin wrote: »

You not having seen it =/= It not having occurred.



Why do you keep saying that?

Beautiful quote from the Belfastforum.co.uk. I was first year at Queens when people were complaining about the rural Catholics in the Holylands back in about 2008/2009.

but if you go up to the "holylands" district you will find a lot of roma/africans have moved into the area recently,and to be perfectly honest,it has become a crime laden dump,while it was accepted by the media to critisize the students who used to live there as they were mostly from rural nationalist backgrounds,not much is reported nowdays from that area(PC brigade,driven by the bias BBC) wont allow it,while there are still pockets of students living there,the numbers have decreased significantly over the recent past.

I keep saying it's the white man's fault because how could you say otherwise? I hope you're not insinuating it's not the white man's fault. Thought you were above racism.

Nodin

Colinf1212 wrote: »

Beautiful quote from the Belfastforum.co.uk. I was first year at Queens when people were complaining about the rural Catholics in the Holylands back in about 2008/2009..

O, an anecdote from another forum. That settles everything.

Colinf1212 wrote: »

I keep saying it's the white man's fault because how could you say otherwise? I hope you're not insinuating it's not the white man's fault. Thought you were above racism.

I think you keep saying it as some sort of sneer. Nobody has suggested that everything is the "white mans fault".

Colinf1212

Nodin wrote: »

O, an anecdote from another forum. That settles everything.

Did I say it settles everything? Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Nodin wrote: »

I think you keep saying it as some sort of sneer. Nobody has suggested that everything is the "white mans fault".

So you're saying it's not the white man's fault because of slavery, colonization, stealing diamonds and putting crack in the streets? Wow I never knew you were a racist.

Nodin

Colinf1212 wrote: »

Did I say it settles everything? Only a sith deals in absolutes.




So you're saying it's not the white man's fault because of slavery, colonization, stealing diamonds and putting crack in the streets? Wow I never knew you were a racist.

What did you mean by "the cultural enrichment"?

jank

Ah Nodin. Watching on the sidelines ready to jump in to save the day, all without adding anything to the discussion.


MOD: Take a couple of weeks off to learn how to read the charter.

The Corinthian

floggg wrote: »

Care to offer anything to support your assertion that sub-saharan africa "remained largely the same" - and over what period?

How about it's history, which you don't know much about? Wikipedia has a nice simple article, if that helps you?

With each new kingdom and empire and each knew trade contact, ideas would have been exchanged leading to development. In such an environment, stagnation would be extremely unlikely.

So how come that culturally and technologically it essentially did that and remained largely unchanged in thousands of years?

I could concede that regions such as the Congo rainforest would likely stagnate in the same way that Amazonian culture did - but that its because the jungle conditions prohibited much trade or outside contact. Likely other extreme environments could also stagnate.

Amazonian culture? What civilization do you speak of?

Actually per-Colombian cultures did quite well with several civilizations, that had started off quite late due to their migration from Asia, having developed , from scratch to a remarkable level given the various disadvantages and late start.

As for indian trade with africa - see from wiki article on zanzibar here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanzibar#Before_1698

And your point?

See here for reasons why Africa's geography worked against it emerging as a major power: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#The_theory_outlined

Have you read that article? You do understand that other than only being a theory, not fact, it also disagrees with your position on European interference being at the core of Africa's historical cultural stagnation.

It not really that hard to understand. Watch a time travel movie sometime.

Christ on a stick. Is this where we're at?

Look, I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post. You post things that contradict yourself, clearly because you can't read, or understand, what you're citing, you've changed your argument numerous times when caught out and you lack even a basic knowledge of history, let alone any other discipline.

Please stop. It's embarrassing.